Therefore, the use of HSRP is only at some distance related to load balancing. In fact, load balancing is the next step and it can be implemented differently by the vendor on each routerplatform.
In situations where both links are available you will need a routing protocol to specify available paths and their respective loads. Some kind of variance will be needed also because the alternative path has an extra hop (from router1 to router2 via the LAN) and hence also a different metric. This was in fact why I advised you to look at the switch as the def gw because from it's perspective both paths are equal in cost.
Bottomline is that HSRP in itself was not intended to do load balancing, a routing protocol is needed in addition to it.
Still I am not sure, what your requirements are to rule out a dynamic routing protocol like OSPF, which could be used in conjunction with HSRP. Thus I do not know, if HSRP or GLBP described below will give you the desired results.
If you do not want to use a dynamic routing protocol, you can get sort of load balancing with HSRP by using two HSRP groups per LAN segment. One HSRP group uses f.e. 10.1.1.1 as virtual IP and the other group uses f.e. 10.1.1.254 and have half of the hosts on 10.1.1.0/24 with 10.1.1.1 as default gateway, the other half has 10.1.1.254.
You might want to have a look at Gateway Load Balancing Protocol (GLBP), which offers HSRP functionality plus loadbalancing with a single default gateway IP.
Details about GLBP can be found at "Configuring GLBP"
We are pleased to announce availability of Beta software for 16.6.3. 16.6.3 will be the second rebuild on the 16.6 release train targeted towards Catalyst 9500/9400/9300/3850/3650 switching platforms. We are looking for early feedback from custome...