Talk:Corvette leaf spring/Archives/2009/December

Suggest a more applicable "Transverse Leaf Spring" title
This article was indeed written mainly by Springee, who scrupulously scrutinizes any addition of criticism before 'undo'ing' it. Just check the history. I have to Disagree with Alexdi's "There is no requirement that a disadvantage relate to the technical performance of a part."

A spring's job is Not public relations, it is indeed technical performance. Otherwise you could say a disadvantage is that it makes a poor flag pole if stuck in the ground. Equally irrelavent as 'stigma'.

There is a huge technical performance handling flaw in using a dual mount transverse leaf spring (TLS) in a sporty car. I added the MT article because it touched on it and magazines are of course, credible. I requested MT to elaborate on it for some definitive clarification.

Unfortunately, a different editor replied and in his articulation he mispoke or wasnt educated enough and made a technical mistake. This obviously stalled the Wiki revision and cast doubt on the MT article, unjust doubt as it is. So the valid and important contention got thrown out the window. Not that I care, i wouldn't spend my own money on a leaf sprung car. But it surely might be important to those who will.

I've read every comment and no non-corvette-fanboy here shows enough knowledge on the subject to have rational discussion about the TLS's inherent handling flaw vs a coil. It's certainly not Aledxi. His statement about the ZR1's road test reviews shows his gullibility by confusing causation with correlation. If there's someone else who wants to get to the bottom of the MT article, contact me at my page.--Autostream (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Autostream, How nice to see you again.
 * Adding citations (per your request) and removing unsupported information (again something you demand) is within the realm of what Wiki contributors should be doing. I see no reason to apologize for my work.
 * You may disagree with Alexdi's comment but given the number of people who complain about GM's use of the leaf spring on the Corvette and the number that assume it must have been done for cost reasons it seems that it is a disadvantage. Look at all the Honda fans that complained that Honda dumped double wishbone suspension in the front claiming that struts are inferior.  Never mind the brilliant results that Porsche and BMW have managed with "inferior" struts.  The flag pole comment was, as you said, irrelevant.
 * You have claimed this flaw over and over again yet you can't find any proof. Let's be honest, your objective has been to try to say negative things about the car.  It serves your objectives, misguided and juvenile they may be, to find a "technical" justification for your bias.  The problem is you can't because the only fundamental flaw of the system is cost.  Carroll Smith said it was the ideal system for a road car.  Are you smarter than the author of Engineer to Win?
 * The MT article was clearly flawed. Your question on the Motor Trend forum cleared that mater up.  The MT writers described what they thought was going on and it was clearly wrong (as shown by illustration and by descriptions provided by writers on the subject).  The fact that the MT writers were wrong made it clear that the article you wanted to include was not suitable.  Note that no one else has taken up your cause.
 * Funny how you throw out that fan boy term. You seem to ask everyone's opinion right up to the point they don't agree with you.  After that, they are a fan boy.  So if I understand you, you are complaining that the people who understand the system aren't critical of it.  So which is more likely, only fan boys understand the system or the people who understand the system happen to think it works but because they don't agree with you they get labeled as fan boys?  Logic suggest the latter.Springee (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Autostream,
 * Isn't it interesting that a little bit of searching and it turns out that Porsche is interested in the transverse leaf spring setup. They even have a patent on the subject.  Porsche's patents make claims that the spring, when used with two pivots as GM has done and as Porsche was investigating, also acts as a stabilizer/anti-roll bar.  I know you like to attack GM but are you also willing to say Porsche doesn't know what they were doing?  I hope you aren't that daft.Springee (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My 'fanboy' comment is extremely relevant regarding The Scientific Method. Wiki certainly upholds it to the highest degree - No matter how much someone wants their hypothesis to be true, they must reject what doesn't fit with the results of experiment or exercise. This is the reason, for example, 'double-blind' studies can be extremely important because people who are closely associated with the issue (springee) should not be involved in the exercise (debate). If someone thinks the Corvette's leaf spring is a 'feel-good' asset, than his skepticism must be questioned. As is the case with Alexdi. Not a single disadvantage listed at CLS is a performance disadvantage of a road car- or another way-the corvette leaf spring has Zero downside, according to current WIKI. I maintain a contention to that. I see having only one transverse leaf spring per axle as a performance, handling, and ride compromise (and severe in certain circumstances). I can easily articulate this especially using the charts and graphs above. But I won't waste my time until someone with an open mind and strict adherence to the Scientific Method will take not. Obviously not Springee, his closed-mindedness and lassie faire attitude toward TSM aside, he quickly follows my critical points with a 'collapse' of them. I.e., he hides it.

--Autostream (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised this discussion continues. Autostream, you suggested a handling flaw intrinsic to leaf spring suspensions. GM corrected the Z06's skittishness in the ZR1 without changing the basic suspension layout. This suggests to me that the leaf spring wasn't the problem. What other interpretation would you propose?
 * I also think it would be difficult to revise the article to be generic. The Corvette-specific sentences require their associated pictures to make sense, so if that content was moved to a followup section, those pictures may have to duplicated. I wonder if the later pictures are relevant to other vehicles; which of them have used the Corvette's combination of independent A-arms and widely-space mounts? Alexdi (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Autostream, you have tried to claim that Scientific Method stuff in the past. It rings hollow after some of your very opinionated posts. I think you said the Viper's interior was worse than a kit car. How is that "scientific"? The simple fact of the matter is at your behest I have added a large number of references, illustrations and even FEA models to this article. You seem to be the only one who thinks I and the other authors have done a substandard job. Not a single disadvantage is listed as performance related because there is no evidence that the leaf spring results in a performance disadvantage. Many cars that use coil springs handle badly so should we use that as evidence that coil springs are bad for performance? The Corvette may handle badly in your opinion but you would need to show causality between handling and the springs. Causality is part of the scientific method. Conversely, right now we have a quote from an acknowledged suspension and vehicle dynamics expert, Carroll Smith, stating that he thinks this type of suspension is an excellent idea. I've also added proof that Porsche has been looking at using these springs on their cars. However, so long as Porsche uses struts I don't see this spring design being ideal for them. Most strut designs, Porsche included, use off center springs to partially counteract the binding loads caused by using the damper as a suspension member. Autostream, based on the technical knowledge you have shown I will say out right, no you can't show that the single transverse spring is a performance problem. You certainly can't do it with the charts and what not above. You claim you don't want to take your time to do so. Well then why did you both returning to this article after so long? Why not propose your counter arguments here? Others can review them and tell me if I'm right or wrong. Of course you won't because, boasting or not, you can't.Springee (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to Wiki, I strive to maintain to most strictest adherence to the truth that science allows. There is a consensus, just in this section alone, including Daniel J. Leivick,192.198.151.129, and myself who feel this Wiki is, in a word, inadequate.

It doesnt seem to occur to a certain editor that perhaps Porsche patented a cheaper suspension to sell to its competitors for both profit and competitive advantage. Or, maybe they think the Corvette is so highly sophisticated and want to copy some tech. Both are equally likely or none at all because there is no evidence either way. They patented it, but they never used it. Thats all we know for sure, so it has less business being in the 'CLS' wiki than Motor Trend magazine saying, "[the C6's transverse leafs] make the rearend behave a bit like a rigid axle. Aftermarket tuners have scrapped them...for coil-springs..." Yet Springee forbid it.

Alexdi wrote, "GM corrected the Z06's skittishness in the ZR1 without changing the basic suspension layout". Maybe. Or perhaps GM put the road testers in a 5 star hotel while testing the ZR1 vs a 4 star for the ZO6. Both have equal possibilities of being true And false since there is no evidence via TSM for either.
 * A metaphysical view, that. You're essentially arguing that the whole of automotive journalism is invalid. I agree. In fact, I propose that the MT editor you've quoted in the past must have been put in bad hotel, and that his opinion is therefore irredeemably biased. There's no evidence to say otherwise. Or wouldn't you agree?
 * More seriously, you've alleging serious problems with the Corvette's suspension. It's your burden to provide a valid technical explanation for them, or a reputable source that can do the same. Springee doesn't have to do anything because it isn't his burden. If you don't like his graphics, create your own more accurate versions.
 * I urge both of you to move toward suggesting formats for a generic revision of this article. I agree that it's odd to devote a page to the Corvette's particular twist on TLS. The question is how to keep the Corvette information coherent without causing a lot of unnecessarily duplication. Alexdi (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Arguing to closed-minded individuals that hitting a bump with an outside tire mid-corner in a TLS'd car exibits distinctly different and malevolent handling characteristicts than the same car with coils using TSM is an arduous task. I won't be paid, it's unrewarding, and thus a complete waste of my time.

I only propose that we move this to a "Transverse Leaf Spring" article with separate old and modern categories. All the level headed people Here have already agreed. It would at least give the article more respect.

Then I will only contend the last finite analyzation of a TLS car in mid left corner above. It is inadequate because its not showing the proper motion IN the car. Add an example including the anti-roll bars affect next to it. Then below the equivalent of a coil spring with And without anti-roll bar for comparison. Its essential as this is THE fundamental assumption of the whole article - TLS behavior is the SAME as CS. Thank you.--Autostream (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * When it comes to Wiki you only seem to maintain this strictest adherence when it's convenient. You didn't maintain it when you said the Viper interior was worse than a kit car.  You didn't maintain it when you plagiarized an entry for the Porsche SUV article.  Please don't play holier than thou now.
 * I have never said I'm against a move to a new topic title dealing with this subject in broader terms. However, the new topic title should avoid older vehicles such as the 1940's vintage Fords which used transverse leaf springs with rigid axles.  I think this topic should have remained part of the Corvette article where I had originally placed it.  It wasn't my idea to make it a separate article but I don't feel the need to move it.
 * No, it didn't occur to me that Porsche might have patented a cheaper suspension design for two reasons. First, although Porsche does a lot of job shop type engineering, they would be very late to the composite, transverse leaf spring party.  A number of earlier patents already exist on the subject so whatever Porsche's contribution would be, it would have to be narrow in scope thus not well suited to sell as intellectual property.  Second, the big stopping block to wider usage of the composite leaf springs is their cost.  They cost more than a set of coils so the notion that the Porsche design would save money seems unlikely.
 * The MT reference was removed because it was shown to be incorrect. As we have mentioned many times, it wasn't a good technical reference because it didn't show causality.  It also was later demonstratably shown that the editor's understanding of the suspension was wrong.  I think you are the only one who doesn't agree with that point.  I didn't forbid inclusion of the article but under Wiki rules, rules that you love to quote when it serves your purposes, we can't call it a reliable source.
 * Your ZR1 response is inconsistent. On one hand you want to quote a magazine article as truth yet when Alexdi tries to quote one you dismiss it as GM potentially bribing the editors.  Which is it?
 * Insulting those who disagree with you doesn't show you to be open minded.
 * Your mid corner bump assessment is somewhat correct but applies equally to cars with coil springs. If you hit a bump with either wheel, the compression of one wheel will effectively lower the total spring rate seen by the other wheel.  The total spring rate is a combination of the ride spring and the anti-roll bar/spring.  So compression of the outside wheel will reduce the momentary total spring rate of the inside wheel because the anti-roll springs reduce the total spring rate as seen by the inside wheel.  Of course the wheel doesn't move right away because the dampers prevent quick wheel movement.  Really good dampers, such as those used on the ZR1 can handle this issue better than passive dampers such as those used on the Z06.  Of course this would all be true if we were using coil springs.  You claim there are differences yet every time I ask you to prove it, you say you don't have the time.  Yet you do have the time to complain about this article.
 * The picture of the deflected spring only illustrates how pushing up on one side doesn't make the other side go down (the claim MT was making). It does that quite effectively.  Your request for more is an attempt to later set up a claim that sufficient evidence was never provided.  Perhaps at some point I can indulge you.  Of course if I do then you will claim original research.  Kind of a catch 22.
 * Rather than complaining why not propose a series of edits or new information for the article. Post them in the talk section and let people review them?Springee (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Alexdi,
 * Personally I think most or all of this article could be reintegrated into the Corvette article which is where it originated. Alternatively it could be incorporated into a suspension article.  The question is how.  A return to the Corvette article would be fine with me though this article was originally spun off from the Corvette article perhaps because it was rather technical.
 * One option would be a subsection of an article on "leaf spring suspension" . That article could talk about the various types including the standard Hotchkiss setup, various transverse setups, setups which use the leaf as a suspension arm and finally setups where the leaf is used only as a spring.  Even then we now have more subgroups as we consider single fixed mount vs the widely spaced flexible mounts.  This "leaf spring suspension" article would also have another issue.  In general suspensions are referred to via their linkage design, not the type of spring used.  We don't say a Camry has coil spring suspension.  We say it has McPherson struts.  We say a BMW's rear suspension is a semi-trailing arm or a multi-link setup.  Thus it would be inconsistent to refer to the rear suspension of a Volvo 960 as a leaf spring suspension when in fact it's a multi-link that happens to use a leaf rather than coil spring.
 * Another option would be to change the subject to specifically describe suspensions which use the widely spaced dual pivot leaf spring. The Corvette is the best known user of this setup but as the article states, other cars and trucks have also used the design.  This would leave the article largely in tack.  I think there is enough information to remain as a standalone entry.
 * We could also setup an article on leaf springs used with independent suspensions. I don't really care for this idea too much.  It does have the benefit that it gets people to think about the fact that a spring is a spring so you can replace a coil spring with a torsion or leaf spring and still have basically the same suspension system.  On the other hand it would have lots of overlap with other suspension articles.  The kinematics of a strut suspension with leaf spring or a SLA double wishbone is basically the same, you've only changed the spring type.


 * Finally, we could just leave it as is. The down side to this is the information applies to more than just the Corvette.  Most of the article is universal to any car or truck which uses the TLS with wide pivoting mounts so the title is more specific than the material covered.  But the Corvette is the best known user of the technology.  Also, this is an article which primarily focuses on a subsystem of the Corvette.  In this regard it would be similar to say an article on the LT5 or Northstar engine.  It does add considerable insight on the subject.  As a car person it's clear that many people don't understand the technology and mistakenly assume that it is related either in design or in function to the traditional Hotchkiss setup.  A google search for this article turns up many posts, articles, etc where people used this information to explain the Corvette's "Leaf Spring" suspension to others.  As such the article is doing exactly what one would want a Wiki article to do, it is answering a question people are asking.
 * So if we want to move the article how should we do it so that people who are asking, "How do the Corvette's leaf springs work" can get an answer while at the same time keeping the information logically categorized within the range of subjects that relate to both the Corvette and automobile suspension.Springee (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What if the article was simply renamed "Corvette suspension"? I think it's the focus on the transverse leaf that's throwing us off. Really, the point of interest is the entire Corvette suspension implementation, leaf springs, mounts, and suspension arms inclusive. A "transverse leaf spring" article would have to contain such a motley collection of vehicles that, as you suggest, it would seem an odd common factor to emphasize. Alexdi (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Automotive journalism is not bound by science in any way nor objectivity is most ways. But Encyclopedia's are by both. Only when journalists use TSM, as the MT article attempted (while Alexis commment did not), should it be considered for Wiki.
 * When the article's information is admittedly incorrect and dirrectly conflicts with other sources (Lamm, descriptions in patents from various car makers) then the information must be considered subject and can not be included as a reliable source. Springee (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This current title doesnt work. Its like 'brookyln suspension bridge', instead, its two separate easy to digest pages. Since there are almost a dozen cars with TLS', why not call it 'Transverse Leaf Springs', plain and simple? move the suspension parts at the top back to the corvette page. If, for example, the Model T used a hotchkiss AND a TLS, add a differentiating blurb. Just keep brief, The Corvette's suspension is noted elsewhere- its redundant. IF you spend 3 paragraphs on the Vette and one sentence on the Model T or Volvo you'll violate NPOV.
 * You of course are free to create a TLS page. Once it exists we can discuss a merging of appropriate information.Springee (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Then we can dump the silly advantage/disadvantage. Coil Spring article is huge and doesnt devote time to why they are better than torsions. Nor do suspension bridges say why they are superior to cantilevers. Others have agreed it makes it look like a feel-good page for corvette drivers. So no more 'stigmas'. A design cannot feel disgrace. It should be written as if you were an alien Whats the specfic dynamic difference between the springs on a Volvo and a Corvette? Not much.
 * Why remove it? It provides a summary of information on the topic.  Perhaps it should be moved towards the top of the article thus leaving the detailed information for those who want to read more.  A pro/con sections are an acceptable part of an article.  The feel good comment is your own POV.  If the information is correct why should it mater if Corvette owners like what it says?Springee (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

--Tranvers Leaf Springs-- Model T: made of whatever attached to hotchkiss design Corvette: made of polyethylene terephalate fibers organized in a pattern duplicated amongst a resin matrix. attached to a fully indepedant double wishbones Volvo: So forth: I think its a mistake to use brochure words because they're unverifiable.What problems does anyone have with this idea?
 * You are opposed to using "brochure words"? Please provide an example and explain why you are opposed to those but OK with edits such as []? Springee (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

--Autostream (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with Autostream's current proposal. First, this article was a spin off from the Corvette entry. It specifically addressed the pros and cons of the Corvette's setup in large part because many people have wondered why the Corvette uses such a setup. An article covering any usage of a transverse leaf spring would be too broad. It would also allow too much information to be lost. For instance, some cars did use TLS to save money (Ford Model T). Others used them for other advantages despite their extra cost (Corvette, Volvo). It would confuse the issue to claim that manufactures use a Corvette style TLS despite the fact that it cost more yet to then claim it costs less.

I am not OK with removing the advantages and disadvantages section. It is a good summary of the concept as compared to other designs. The rest of the article basically offers supporting information regarding the technical design of the springs. Much of that information is needed because people do not normally understand how the system works. Given that MT's technical editors were wrong about the operation of the system it is clear that the extra illustrations are important. The coil spring article is not specific to a suspension class. This article is.

If the article becomes more generic I feel that it should focus on modern implementations of TLS suspension with specific mention to the Corvette because the Corvette is the most notable user of the design. It is reasonable to dedicate more information to a notable application of a given technology. That would not, as Autostream claims, violate NPOV. Perhaps a better option would be to change this to an article on the Corvette's suspension designs. This can include information about the linkages of the suspension over the years. It can also include information about the spring design.

Incidentally, Autostream, why are you worried about NPOV? You were happy to violate it in the past. Why the change in heart?Springee (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)