Just a general kind of rule of the thumb.
With a track 100 feet across the infield, 25 foot wide track, it would call for 1 1/8 stagger. Bigger or smaller track, in increments of 10 feet across the infield, about 1/8 difference in stagger. Less width, very slight change in stagger. Using a rear tread width of 39 inches outside to outside, if it measures 3 inches, bigger or smaller, the stagger change is very small. Still, about .03 +/- 3.0". I've drawn 6 tracks, each 10 feet wider than the other across the infield to prove this out.
Yes
Since we love hearing our own voice talk about this, and it has been covered before, let's talk about the fundamental flaw in the thinking, and the math in deriving your numbers.
We can calculate radius', but we are dealing with a parabolic arc, with either decreasing radii, or increasing radii.
Our calculations also assume both tires on the staggered axle produce exactly the same amount of traction throughout the entire lap. It does not take much imagination to see this is not possible.
Sprint chassis use weight transfer and mechanical weight jacking to remove traction from the inside tire on an unstaggered solid axle to allow the chassis to negotiate a turn. Tuning this setup involves varying the weight removed to make best use of the traction available. The compromise is that in the center of the corner, we have available less than the maximum lateral traction. We need to do this because we need to be able to turn in both directions.
Lto, oval chassis do not have this limitation. We are only turning left.
To make the best use of the our tires, we need to use all available lateral traction. If we do this well, we need less traction for forward drive (down the straights) Our compromise is to lose some traction on the straights in order to have max traction in the corner.
From sprint racing, we already know that somewhere in the lap, one tire on a solid axle must slip. We also already know that the least loaded tire will do that slipping.
From sprint racing, we already know that changing the vertical center of gravity changes the amount of weight transfer. (Sitting the driver up vs laying the driver down changes the amount of weight transfer.) We also know we can vary weight transfer by changing static weight distribution.
Lto chassis also use the same methods.
We start with the seat as low as possible to limit transfer from the vcg. We start with more left side weight to avoid overloading the right rear tire at the highest g loads experienced in the middle of the corner. We vary the loads experienced by the rear tires by adjusting the cross weight in order to also avoid overloading the right rear tire at the highest g loads.
Lto chassis also use mechanical weight jacking to control timing of the loading of the right rear tire. It just may not match conventional sprint wisdom to get the timing right.
All these things are necessary to make use of the 'correct' stagger. Varying the right rear tire load changes where the stagger matches the radius of the corner, parabola, or arc. Throughout the corner sequence, the g load is always changing, therefore the tire loads are always changing. So stagger can only truly match the corner in part of the arc.
However, in the case of a parabola, if we can time the traction balance correctly, we can make best use of the traction both tires are producing, both lateral and forward.
Banking produces it's own problems. The effect is mainly to do with the direction the g loads effect weight transfer. Varying banking, or transitions change balance of traction across the rear.
Changing stagger can be a tool to get the traction balance across the rear to better match the parabola that is the corner.
It has to work with tire loads to achieve the correct balance.
