nj wrote:
So using common four link software for high horsepower cars do we want antisquat above or below 100% ?
I would shoot for 100% antisquat (SAE), regardless of the value of horsepower per pound. With values over 100%, the rear of the car rises on launch; below, it squats.
Now, some have, over the years, considered either rise or squat as being desirable. Back in the fifties, they saw the car dropping down on the axle and thought, "Wow! That's really gotta be loading those tires." Then, somebody gave it some more thought and said, "Wait a minute! If you're pushing the rear of the car up, that means you're pushing the tires down into the strip surface." So, everybody wanted their car to rise (like those sixties Mopars).
Actually (and only for a few milliseconds), both camps are correct. Yes, when the rear squats, it's loading the rear tires and, yes, when the rear rises, it's loading the rear tires. But, in each case, it's only for a few milliseconds and then the loading reverses. In other words, each case produces an oscillatory loading of the rear tires.
Consider the case where the rear of the car rises on launch. As the rear of the car accelerates upward, the loading of the rear tires increases OVER that of weight transfer alone. But, as the rear of the car approaches its maximum upward travel, its DEcelerated, producing an UNloading of the rear tires.
So, with either squat or rise, you have the rear of the car bobbing up and down and producing an oscillatory loading of the rear tires. If there's a net gain with either, it would have to be very small and, in the meantime, the suspension geometry has been changed. This, coupled with the principle that oscillatory loading is generally avoided in friction applications (e.g., wheel hop during braking) brings me to the 100% recommendation.
http://www.racetec.cc/shope
Short of having a logger a good vid of the car on the starting line will tell youa ton of good info if you can read what it's telling you 
....
...
