That would be an example of not using your head. In my humble opinion, those that disparage other people's input without adding anything aren't helping.
I don't normally include the actual math b/c that's your job as an engineer, not mine, I chime in just to help point someone in the right direction. The CG is located 3.142 units to the right and 1.425 forward of the geometric center. Again, he already has the load would like the CG. The supension forces would come into play if you had the total weight and CG and wanted to find the load at the tires. Suspension et al is irrelevant to the problem b/c he measured each wheel independently. OK, it seems a large number of people forgot what SOMARP was looking for: the CG. RE: Weight Distribution on Four Wheels zekeman (Mechanical) 11 Mar 05 18:01 But the same thing happens if it is located off-center you just don't have enough information to figure the wheel reactions. This is a simplified version because it just so happens that the CG is at the geometrical center. Furthermore, you can take any combination of these two that totals the same weights and get additional load cases that do the same thing: So given the weight and the CG, you don't have a clue which load case this might be. They sum to the same moments about the front axle, rear axle, right wheel line, or left wheel line. You could have right front tire 500 lbs, left rear tire 500 lbs, and other two at zero. "Suppose the thing weighs 1,000 lbs, with center of gravity exactly at the center. Y'all go back to my first response and reconsider what it means: RE: Weight Distribution on Four Wheels IRstuff (Aerospace) 10 Mar 05 13:49 If your vehicle was a rectangular lump of rock supported on four rigid points, then the cg location and mass you listed above should result in the following weight distribution:
If the vehicle is "tiptoeing" on the scales, then maybe that makes sense. Note that the measured weights you indicated above show that the RF+LR wheels are carrying 65% of the vehicle weight. You can find (LF+RF) and (LR+RR) and (LF+LR) and (RF+RR) from the cg location and mass, but finding LF by itself requires more information or an assumption of some kind. While you should still be able to find the cg location in x and y based on the weight measured at each wheel, you won't necessarily be able to determine the weight at each wheel by working in the opposite direction. Part of the problem would seem to be that the weight supported at each wheel will depend on suspension deflection at that wheel.