jamesinc;120921 wrote@Spac can you explain why I'm wrong. I know moving the wheel outward will increase torque applied to the bearings, and I'm pretty sure widening track will increase torque applied to the springs for forces transmitted up from the road (bumps, rollers, surface changes, etc), and if the rear axle remains flatter with a wider track around corners, then it follows that more load is being taken up by the suspension springs than if the rear unsprung mass rolled more.
Still, I need to have a good think about that last point, but if you already know why it's wrong you should say so here.
1. The effective spring rate doesn't really change with changes to wheel track. Over a bump that is equal on both sides, there is absolutely no difference, same as when the body moves relative to the road (body roll during cornering, driving through a shallow dip, etc).
When only one wheel hits a bump, there is a difference, but it's less than you would think, because there is an equal spring on the other end of the live axle. Think of it like one of those playground see-saws that have two truck springs rather than a pivot.
2. Bush binding is largely the same, regardless of wheel track (see above). The one wheel bump scenario is the possible exception again, but again it is less than you would imagine and it makes the problem less, not worse.
3. With no other changes, widening the track on one end will make that end more likely to slide in corners.
This effect is a big part of why the 140's natural over steering tendencies turned into understeer on a 240 (with its wider front track).
4. Wheel bearing life will be altered by an insignificant amount. Less positive offset increases the load while driving straight ahead, but reduces it during cornering. Given that 240s are so over built, the amount of change will not make a significant difference to bearing life.