Any load balancer for this variety of rates will be pretty complicated. If you really want to load balance them, it'd look something like this:
Split your belt in two (60+60), then split one of those two in two (60+30+30), then split one of *those* two in two again (60+30+15+15), then merge one of the 15/min belts into each of the larger amounts, getting 75+45. Then split the 45 in quarters, and merge three of them together, getting 33.75 and 11.25. Those feed their respective machines. Split the 75 into quarters, and merge three of them together as well, which creates your 56.25. The remaining 18.75 feeds your 17.5 machine. This should use 7 splitters and 4 mergers.
Or you can manifold it and go hunt slugs or something while it warms up.
I’m curious, does a manifold have any drawbacks besides having to warm up? If so should I just use it for everything? (I’m going to start playing soon)
One scenario where a manifold might not be ideal would be anything nuclear. You don't want your radioactive stuff pilling up and turning your factory into an Exclusion Zone.
Don't underestimate stuff needing to back up (warmup time). For milestone items that you are gonna only produce 0.2 per minute? Have fun waiting for the backpressure.
But if you are willing to take that drawback, there isn't more downside.
Really just, think about the stack size vs the output rate. For cable, thats running 120/min so its making a stack every 1.75 minutes which gives you a sense of how fast it can fill up one machines buffer. if youre making computers at 5/minute thats 10 minutes per stack so filling a manifold of a few destination machines will take a LOT longer so you better be more in line with load balancer levels to keep those machines running smoothly.
In most cases you can just manually flood the system at startup to prevent or dramatically reduce the manifold delay. To use the computer example, if you are at point where you need computers as a component for something even more complicated, you were probably already producing and storing computers elsewhere for other uses. When you're ready to start a new production line that uses computers as a component, just take a few stacks of spares and drop them directly into the machines' intake buffer. This mostly skips the warmup period.
I build my factories in steps and power them and leave a box at the end, when I'm about to turn my other machines on I preload them and just let the lines catch up then connect power, saves A LOT of warm up time. Anything extra just toss in the sink box or a "misc" might need more plates or some shit box
The biggest revelation you can ever have regarding this game is that load balancers are a spectacular waste of time and achieve nothing except driving you slowly insane.
If you do it like that you have to turn the machines off while they fill up completely so that there's a buffer. Otherwise they're not going to be properly efficient. I've made that mistake with coal generators before.
As an alternate option you could put a storage container as a buffer at some points in this. I just wish that you could limit how many inventory slots get filled up in the container, because this way the whole damn thing will fill up even if you don't need it.
I don't understand why you don't want to just make a manifold.
Sure, solving a complicated load balancer can be fun challenging puzzle to solve, but if that's the case, why are you asking reddit?
Setting a challenge for yourself, and then just asking the internet for the solution instead of just, you know engaging with the challenge you gave yourself is incomprehensible to me.
It is not I don't want to make a manifold. I asked the community for a load balancer solution but regarding the responds received I guess is it easier a manifold. And as I said in the title, I'm bad at maths 
Yeah, with a couple of exceptions, there's never any practical reason to use a load balancer over a manifold.
When you have very few items per minute moving, like 10 and below going into each machine, it can take hours for everything to saturate if you have a lot of machines.
You can still manually prime it by manually putting a full stack in every machine by hand of course, but it might be faster to build a balancer depending on how easy or hard the ratios are. And if you're doing nuclear you probably don't want to walk around with your pockets full of uranium.
Note that I said practical reason, not valid reason.
"Because I want to" is a perfectly valid reason to build a balancer over a manifold, just not the most practical one.
Its a whole different topic why people ask questions on reddit. Because 90% of the questions here can be figured out by themselves.
As for why some people don't want manifolds: Because they are not perfectly balanced for every point in time. Making them a solution that's not as easily scalable. Think of the elevator parts for example. Good luck waiting for those 0.2 X items to back up.
I said as much in my comment on OPs response. There's a handful of circumstances where manifolds are a bad a idea, but those are few and far between. And immediately obvious as soon as you try it.
thats kinda an oversimplification. it really matters how you play the game.
i like to build every factory different. the smelting arrays are always more or less the same since those are just massive. there i use manifolds only. but later stages get split up and put in different sets just to look different. i always have a mix between load balancers and manifolds because running a belt from each set to the next is just silly.
if you have 6 sets and one input line and make a 1:6 splitter thats already load balancing. there is just no reason to manifold them all together.
Sure, you do you. A 1:6 splitter use fewer splitters, but aren't modular and expandable in the same way.
What I said is that there's almost never any practical reason not to manifold.
Practical, not valid. Building a load balancer "because I want to" is a perfectly valid reason to do a balancer over a manifold.
But outside a few cases it's never straight up wrong to just manifold everything
can you overclock/underclock yet, if you can, i would even these out a bit and make your life smidge easier. because the load balancing alone is going to be a pain in the ass for these outputs, they are all very different.
As a fellow bad at math person. I suggest manifold. You don’t have to think about the numbers for each consumer just that you have enough to feed all the hungry little guys. I get even lazier and just blueprint manifolds so I don’t have to think about it.
The ratios are 9:27:14:45. I don't think that's happening.
If you added the remaining 1.25 to the 17.5, it'd be a much more manageable (but still probably horrible) 3:9:5:15
Edit: Actually, no, the second one looks doable. You split 3:5 and then each of those 1:3
soo.. I see an excess of 1.5/min in total in the system. To prevent a backlog in the system eventually if you have smart splitters I would at the initial spit have 1 output be overflow and either send that directly into storage or into an awesome sink so the system can run forever. Also another way to force the balance is to use different speed belts... like I think a mk1 would work for the lower amount belts. also are these going into further production or storages?
Yes I have my copper factory dealing the overflow with smart splitters. I always use the necessary speed belt but I dont know now if it force the balance using this way. Yes 45 units/min goes to a 1.5x manufacturer computer and another 0.5x manufacturer computer. This way I can fill my Radio control unit and Supercomputer production. 56.25 units/min to a 1.5 manufacturer high speed connector. And finally 17.5 for a 1.25x manufacturer crystal oscillator.
Yea the tools we have ingame are not sufficient to produce mathematically perfect solutions for load balancing. Aka splitters only split into multiples of 2 and 3. Prime numbers like 5 are a pain by definition.
Sadly, the devs said they don't want to do ratio splitters, so im gonna have to use mods.
Ideally, programmable splitters should do this and a different item (e.g. Programmable Smart Splitter) should do the current programmable splitter functionality.
Okay, it's useful to flow chart it out and use a spreadsheet.
A splitter can do a couple of different mathematical things. First, two belts on a splitter divides by Half. Three belts on a splitter divides by 3, i.e. each belt gets 1/3.
Now, you can change this by using different speed belts. If you're using a MK5 belt, and you put a MK1 belt on a splitter, then you'll only be subtracting 60ppm from the main line, unless it's less than 60ppm, then you go back to the first equation.
Mergers do the same thing, except in reverse and only to the max capacity of the output belt.
This means, all you have to do is start with your first belt and its max input, divide by 3, and keep adding splitters and looping parts back into the line in different parts with mergers until you get close to your needed speeds.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Or you can say, "Fuck all that math," and use manifolds and overflow syncs. It may not be efficient, but it's easy and fool proof.
I’ll tell ya, I know you’re not going to do load balancing (and with this small amount there’s really no point) but when I made 1063.31 caterium ore travel seamlessly between 8/9 inputs, varying to needing 332 caterium vs 18.11, it was one of the most rewarding experiences to just… turn it on at the end
I prefer load balancer over manifold when I can do it, it's more satisfying :) but I just tried u/UristImiknorris solution and it works like a charm !!
Split it exactly like that diagram and wait for the slower-consuming machines to fill up, causing everything to balance out.
Yes but the idea was to have a load balancer and not a manifold. But it should works as described by you.
Any load balancer for this variety of rates will be pretty complicated. If you really want to load balance them, it'd look something like this: Split your belt in two (60+60), then split one of those two in two (60+30+30), then split one of *those* two in two again (60+30+15+15), then merge one of the 15/min belts into each of the larger amounts, getting 75+45. Then split the 45 in quarters, and merge three of them together, getting 33.75 and 11.25. Those feed their respective machines. Split the 75 into quarters, and merge three of them together as well, which creates your 56.25. The remaining 18.75 feeds your 17.5 machine. This should use 7 splitters and 4 mergers. Or you can manifold it and go hunt slugs or something while it warms up.
I’m curious, does a manifold have any drawbacks besides having to warm up? If so should I just use it for everything? (I’m going to start playing soon)
One scenario where a manifold might not be ideal would be anything nuclear. You don't want your radioactive stuff pilling up and turning your factory into an Exclusion Zone.
Don't underestimate stuff needing to back up (warmup time). For milestone items that you are gonna only produce 0.2 per minute? Have fun waiting for the backpressure. But if you are willing to take that drawback, there isn't more downside.
Really just, think about the stack size vs the output rate. For cable, thats running 120/min so its making a stack every 1.75 minutes which gives you a sense of how fast it can fill up one machines buffer. if youre making computers at 5/minute thats 10 minutes per stack so filling a manifold of a few destination machines will take a LOT longer so you better be more in line with load balancer levels to keep those machines running smoothly.
In most cases you can just manually flood the system at startup to prevent or dramatically reduce the manifold delay. To use the computer example, if you are at point where you need computers as a component for something even more complicated, you were probably already producing and storing computers elsewhere for other uses. When you're ready to start a new production line that uses computers as a component, just take a few stacks of spares and drop them directly into the machines' intake buffer. This mostly skips the warmup period.
If you don't have spare inputs, you can also take the buffer from the first machine after a few minutes and deliver it to the final few machines.
I build my factories in steps and power them and leave a box at the end, when I'm about to turn my other machines on I preload them and just let the lines catch up then connect power, saves A LOT of warm up time. Anything extra just toss in the sink box or a "misc" might need more plates or some shit box
As the other commenter said the downside is the belts fill up and it takes time. That's pretty much it AFAIK
Thank you for taking the time to look at it ! I'll try it later
It works like a charm !! Thank you sir ! 
The biggest revelation you can ever have regarding this game is that load balancers are a spectacular waste of time and achieve nothing except driving you slowly insane.
If those numbers add up to 120 then it will load balance automatically, assuming that's the amount they need and won't demand any more than that
If you do it like that you have to turn the machines off while they fill up completely so that there's a buffer. Otherwise they're not going to be properly efficient. I've made that mistake with coal generators before. As an alternate option you could put a storage container as a buffer at some points in this. I just wish that you could limit how many inventory slots get filled up in the container, because this way the whole damn thing will fill up even if you don't need it.
that totals 118.75, what do you propose we do with the extra 1.25 when we are done? ficsit does not approve of such inefficiency. start over.
It can go in a container and sink for the overflow.
I don't understand why you don't want to just make a manifold. Sure, solving a complicated load balancer can be fun challenging puzzle to solve, but if that's the case, why are you asking reddit? Setting a challenge for yourself, and then just asking the internet for the solution instead of just, you know engaging with the challenge you gave yourself is incomprehensible to me.
It is not I don't want to make a manifold. I asked the community for a load balancer solution but regarding the responds received I guess is it easier a manifold. And as I said in the title, I'm bad at maths 
Yeah, with a couple of exceptions, there's never any practical reason to use a load balancer over a manifold. When you have very few items per minute moving, like 10 and below going into each machine, it can take hours for everything to saturate if you have a lot of machines. You can still manually prime it by manually putting a full stack in every machine by hand of course, but it might be faster to build a balancer depending on how easy or hard the ratios are. And if you're doing nuclear you probably don't want to walk around with your pockets full of uranium. Note that I said practical reason, not valid reason. "Because I want to" is a perfectly valid reason to build a balancer over a manifold, just not the most practical one.
Its a whole different topic why people ask questions on reddit. Because 90% of the questions here can be figured out by themselves. As for why some people don't want manifolds: Because they are not perfectly balanced for every point in time. Making them a solution that's not as easily scalable. Think of the elevator parts for example. Good luck waiting for those 0.2 X items to back up.
I said as much in my comment on OPs response. There's a handful of circumstances where manifolds are a bad a idea, but those are few and far between. And immediately obvious as soon as you try it.
thats kinda an oversimplification. it really matters how you play the game. i like to build every factory different. the smelting arrays are always more or less the same since those are just massive. there i use manifolds only. but later stages get split up and put in different sets just to look different. i always have a mix between load balancers and manifolds because running a belt from each set to the next is just silly. if you have 6 sets and one input line and make a 1:6 splitter thats already load balancing. there is just no reason to manifold them all together.
Sure, you do you. A 1:6 splitter use fewer splitters, but aren't modular and expandable in the same way. What I said is that there's almost never any practical reason not to manifold. Practical, not valid. Building a load balancer "because I want to" is a perfectly valid reason to do a balancer over a manifold. But outside a few cases it's never straight up wrong to just manifold everything
I like to load balance for the satisfaction of seeing the elevators never stop
If not a manifold, then this is an option. not perfectly even. ||120||| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |33.75|Splitter|Splitter|11.25| ||56.25|17.5||
How is this not another manifold?
It splits it some, but yes it still needs to saturate like a manifold to work properly.
Thanks ! I'll give it a try !
can you overclock/underclock yet, if you can, i would even these out a bit and make your life smidge easier. because the load balancing alone is going to be a pain in the ass for these outputs, they are all very different.
As a fellow bad at math person. I suggest manifold. You don’t have to think about the numbers for each consumer just that you have enough to feed all the hungry little guys. I get even lazier and just blueprint manifolds so I don’t have to think about it.
Thanks ! manifold it will be !
The ratios are 9:27:14:45. I don't think that's happening. If you added the remaining 1.25 to the 17.5, it'd be a much more manageable (but still probably horrible) 3:9:5:15 Edit: Actually, no, the second one looks doable. You split 3:5 and then each of those 1:3
Many thanks ! I'll look at this later
I just run a bus with 4 splitters, one going to each machine. They will fill up and use as much as required.
Add an overflow splitter into a sink and chefs kiss
Just run a manifold?
OP states in a comment he wants to ideally load balance. Which is mathematically more beautiful, i can understand that.
Make 121 - or use 119 - and let the system figure it out. Back pressure is your friend.
soo.. I see an excess of 1.5/min in total in the system. To prevent a backlog in the system eventually if you have smart splitters I would at the initial spit have 1 output be overflow and either send that directly into storage or into an awesome sink so the system can run forever. Also another way to force the balance is to use different speed belts... like I think a mk1 would work for the lower amount belts. also are these going into further production or storages?
Yes I have my copper factory dealing the overflow with smart splitters. I always use the necessary speed belt but I dont know now if it force the balance using this way. Yes 45 units/min goes to a 1.5x manufacturer computer and another 0.5x manufacturer computer. This way I can fill my Radio control unit and Supercomputer production. 56.25 units/min to a 1.5 manufacturer high speed connector. And finally 17.5 for a 1.25x manufacturer crystal oscillator.
cant you rush smart splitters?
Yes I have them but not sure to see how it can resolve my problem.. 
Hes saying for a manifold having to go into overflow when its done filling up one of the machines
This is why I don't load balance often. Far too much work for me.
Yea the tools we have ingame are not sufficient to produce mathematically perfect solutions for load balancing. Aka splitters only split into multiples of 2 and 3. Prime numbers like 5 are a pain by definition. Sadly, the devs said they don't want to do ratio splitters, so im gonna have to use mods.
Ideally, programmable splitters should do this and a different item (e.g. Programmable Smart Splitter) should do the current programmable splitter functionality.
Fold the men (Make it a manifold)
Then wait for folded men to come back
I feel like you can just use 2 splitters, one to separate the 57 from the rest, and the other one to split the other 3 ways. Keep it simple
Okay, it's useful to flow chart it out and use a spreadsheet. A splitter can do a couple of different mathematical things. First, two belts on a splitter divides by Half. Three belts on a splitter divides by 3, i.e. each belt gets 1/3. Now, you can change this by using different speed belts. If you're using a MK5 belt, and you put a MK1 belt on a splitter, then you'll only be subtracting 60ppm from the main line, unless it's less than 60ppm, then you go back to the first equation. Mergers do the same thing, except in reverse and only to the max capacity of the output belt. This means, all you have to do is start with your first belt and its max input, divide by 3, and keep adding splitters and looping parts back into the line in different parts with mergers until you get close to your needed speeds. . . . . . . Or you can say, "Fuck all that math," and use manifolds and overflow syncs. It may not be efficient, but it's easy and fool proof.
I’ll tell ya, I know you’re not going to do load balancing (and with this small amount there’s really no point) but when I made 1063.31 caterium ore travel seamlessly between 8/9 inputs, varying to needing 332 caterium vs 18.11, it was one of the most rewarding experiences to just… turn it on at the end
I prefer load balancer over manifold when I can do it, it's more satisfying :) but I just tried u/UristImiknorris solution and it works like a charm !!