During several discussions regarding FB, chassis torsional rigidity numbers have come up, been talked about, questioned, bragged up, etc.
And it's been put forth that extreme ridgitity is definitely something to be sought -- for lots of reasons, predictable chassis tuning being near the top of the list.
Doubtlessly a stiff platform would be more predictable in terms of altering shocks, springs and roll bars, etc. But then guys like Lee Stohr have said that ultimate chassis stiffness ain't no holy grail at all... I believe Lee even said he only pursued high chassis stiffness numbers "when I was younger" -- I suppose meaning that he's advanced away from the pursuit based on things learned.
And Lee's cars go fast.
So. Just how all-important is chassis stiffness in a catagory like Formula B? Would an infinitely rigid CF monocoque win every time against a chassis that's yielding a bit (all else being equal)?
Somehow, that just seems too simple. For instance, imagine a chassis that was hugely stiff for the first degree of torsional twist, then went to hell after that (yielding like hell in the second degree of twist, etc). So the nature of the way a chassis flexes could be important too.
I'm curious about Lee Stohr's (rather lonely) position on this. Anyone have any thoughts in this area?
Thanks