The things that you have read are pretty far removed from the actual set of circumstances involve in vehicle directional control. Looks great (impresive) on paper to the self congratulatory crowd, but not acceptable to those who are familiar with simulation writing and usage, and measurement results from full vehicle tests, AND the comparison of the two methodologies.
Whether your vehicle has two or four or 18 wheels, it is subject to lateral forces induced by a steered axle or some other external force. If this force is not applied at the CG, there are other forces and moments induced. The sum of the axle forces induces a sideslip acceleration while the difference induces a yaw acceleration. The resultant of sideslipping and yawing produces the net measurable lateral acceleration. Since a vehicle speed is required for any of this to happen, the ratio of yaw component to sideslip component changes as you go faster. Those familiar with the vehicle dynamics can assure you that the longitudinal components of tire induced forces (from all wheels: inside, outside, middle, top bottom or trailered are relatively small and do not count for very much until the limit of control is approached. Even the sine component of the steered tire is relatively small simply because the steer angles are so little (lt 5 ~ 6 degrees).
Then there are the self-aligning moments. Because the tires react to slip angle inducements, restoring moments are induced on each corner of the vehicle (not just the steered axle), and these affect the transient and steady state performance (trajectory) of your vehicle. I won't mention the effects these force and moments have on net axle slip angles, but they can NOT be overlooked.
If your vehicle has a finite width and a cg higher than the road plane, load transfer occurs causing the inside and outside tires to produce different sets of forces and moments. In most cases, the inside and outside tires are mounted on the same axle and have symmetric attachements, so its safe to assume they also run at the same slip angle. A few critical thinkers will add or subtract the static alignments as slip modifiers, but its almost always no BFD to the vehicle. At the limit, the tires no longer listen to steer or slip change commands, only to camber or vertical load changes. The notion that all wheels on an axle run at completely different slip angles is nearly absurd.
This is all very easy to simulate on a computer with a program such as Matlab. On the FSAE Tire forum, I have posted a simple but educational vehicle model with tire test data lookup, load transfer and a step steer input command. A large population of tires for this series was measured at Calspan/TIRF and is available to purchase. Adding the longitudinal tire forces due to slip and camber would be no big deal. It will create a speed change deceleration which you will need to acknowledge with a tractive force addition (I.E. powertrain) if you want to run constant speed tests (step, constant steer, constant radius, etc). The power loss vectors are not all that large compared to the bigger picture.
So there you have it. VD 101.
Anyway, I'm very familiar with both simulation writing and full-vehicle instrumented tests, so it seems that our professional experiences have led us to very different conclusions. 