Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-27 Corvette leaf spring/Archives

As my editing is the subject of this complaint I would ask any reviewers to pay particular attention too the following two sections of the article's discussion page: Additional point under "Disadvantages" based on an article in Motor Trend Magazine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Corvette_leaf_spring#Additional_point_under_.22Disadvantages.22_based_on_an_article_in_Motor_Trend_Magazine

and Query from Autostream, and a response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Corvette_leaf_spring#Query_from_Autostream.2C_and_a_response


 * I'll accept this case as a mediator if you guys want. I've previously mediated cases, and don't have any opinions regarding Corvettes. --Haemo (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Haemo: Please be my guest --Autostream (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless anyone objects, I think we can move forward. --Haemo (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would ask one thing. As this is a technical discussion, what is your background with regards to other technical topics. Often what seems obvious on the surface (such as the Earth is flat) isn't true when we get into the details. I would like to make sure a good understanding of the details and critical review of the cited source isn't lost. Based on the third opinion that Autostream requested I have edited the review to include his reference.--Springee (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not much of a technical expert to be quite frank &mdash; however, I'm not sure that should be much of an issue, since ideally we should be dealing with reliable sources for discussions of technical matters. If I'm unacceptable on that basis, I totally understand.  --Haemo (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

First, I absolutely do not object to hearing your point of view. If nothing else, I *think* my arguments are sufficient but others may not agree. That either means I’m wrong or that simply means I’m not doing a good job on the communications front. Either way it means I need to do more thinking!

As for being a technical expert, the reason why I mention this is in part because while I do think Motor Trend magazine is a semi-reputable source for automotive reviews (the quality of their publication is debated on many web forums), they have not proven them selves to be a reputable source of technical content. They are after all a magazine written and edited by driving enthusiast. That is not the same thing as say Automotive Engineering International, a magazine published by the Society of Automotive Engineers or Racecar Engineering, a magazine about exactly what its title would suggest. While I may or may not agree with the opinion content of a Motor Trend review I do believe that some merit must be given to their perceptions because, like Autosteam emphasizes, they do drive many different cars and thus should be versed in what is state of the art.

However, unless their editors show some type of technical qualifications I don’t think we should extend them the privilege of being an expert in automotive engineering any more than I would assume them to be experts in automotive law. I hope this at least makes it clear why I say we should not assume them to be automotive *engineering* experts.

The specific article in question is an opinion piece, not an engineering review in conjunction with an acknowledged automotive engineer. The article makes a claim about vehicle dynamics that very well may be true. The article then passes judgment on the cause of that characteristic. This is where my issue starts.
 * The author specifically cites the design of the car’s suspension spring as the cause of the issue. However:
 * 1. The author misidentifies the material of the spring.  Given that this article is being used by Autostream and the author to condemn the design of the spring it would seem important to have all the facts in line.
 * 2. The author makes a claim about how the suspension operates.  The claim is in conflict with information provided in another link.  The other link was written by an author in a book about the Corvette.  The author had access to the engineers who design the system in question.  The author also provides a better description of the system as well as providing one that is logically consistent with the illustrative models I have added to the wiki article.  Note, while the illustrations are original content, the theory they describe is directly from the linked article.  So we have a claim that fault lies with the part of the Corvette suspension that makes it unique from other cars rather than any number of other factors that could be the cause and are not unique to the design of the Corvette (shocks, tires etc).
 * 3. The author does not provide an explanation path between what he sees as the problem and what he sees as the cause.  I can always claim a cause and effect but it doesn’t mean much in academic terms if I can not provide a path to explain how A leads to B.  Furthermore the author doesn’t say why he feels that other factors which would be universal to cars that use conventional coil springs are not to blame.  Many cars that use conventional coil springs instead of a Corvette style leaf spring have handling problems.  Clearly other factors can play into handling.  As such for the source to have any real meaning the author must explain why the handling issues aren’t caused by factors which are common to other cars (tires, shocks, etc).

Please note that in general the wiki entry doesn’t pass judgment on the design of the Corvette. It simply explains how something that seems very different on the surface is actually very similar when you look at the mechanics of its operation.

Anyway, I am sorry this entry is a bit wordy. I would ask, do you feel you understand my point of view? If you understand my concerns, even if you don't share them, I would say you likely are well enough versed to weigh in. Thanks!--Springee (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand the concerns here, since I've encountered similar problems before. I'm going to reserve judgment on whether or not I share them until we can reach a better understanding of the arguments made. --Haemo (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT any sort of scientific journal. So technical knowledge of the mediator is not important as long as the information is properly cited. This has been my only point. I think Haemo, a self-admitted, unbiased user with no previous knowledge of the subject matter, is best suited. If Haemo isnt approved by the other party, do we have a mediation on mediator selection as well? This would seem a little absurd. Wikipedia is a knowledge database supported either by, facts and truths where objectivity is required, or by professional people(s) opinions who are experts in their field where subjectivity is required. In which case here, it is that latter: the subjective feel of springs in a car.--Autostream (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, sometimes it's best to have someone with some knowledge of the subject area &mdash; at the very least to prevent "mediation" simply being an argument to moderation carried out indefinitely. --Haemo (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Autostream,

I didn't say Haemo is unqualified. I do think that even if a third party disagrees with my points that their judgment is valid if they understand the logic of my arguments and disagree. What I wish to avoid is a case where someone simply doesn't understand the material thus goes with a gut reaction.

I also agree with your second point. “by professional people(s) opinions  who are experts in their field where subjectivity is required.”  Now we have the key question, is the Motor Trend writer qualified to make the claims he made? Well the first person you asked said that he did not think the Motor Trend link should be considered a valid technical point. Quote:


 * While I'm not an expert on suspension design, I fear your opponent may be right. Motor Trend is a generalist magazine; it's not appropriate to use a vague quote from them to support a specific technical explanation of crosstalk. I've seen nothing about harmonics in any exploration of the Corvette's leaf springs. That topic was brought up initially in reference to the C3, but I could find no support, so I removed it. Coil springs are substituted primarily to allow greater customization of spring rate, and to separate spring rate and anti-roll rate, not for inherent problems with leafs. See here:
 * http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c4/gcrouse/Suspension/fiberglass_spring.gif


 * http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=1918713
 * Both are the most definitive accounts of the Corvette's suspension action that I've seen.
 * Alexdi (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Both sources cast serious doubt on Motor Trend. That reference and the corresponding technical point should be removed in absence of specific support. Alexdi (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We agree that the opinions of experts carry weight. However the writer in question was mistaken about the material used to make the spring. Would you trust a restaurant critic would raved about his stake when actually served lamb? The expert in question incorrectly described the operation of the spring. His description is not consistent with the description of the suspension given by Michael Lamm who actually discussed the design with the GM engineers who developed it. It is also not consistent with descriptions of independent suspension (ie they are geometrically independent but not force independent thanks to the wide spread use of anti-roll bars). Finally, a proper technical explanation would explain why other factors that COULD be the cause are in fact not the cause. The Motor Trend article is completely lacking in that regard.

I do think that these points should be addressed before we assume the Motor Trend writer meets the standards of an expert opinion.

I also agree that it is best not to simply argue to moderation. --Springee (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait, wait, before we get started can we agree on whether or not I'm mediating this? --Haemo (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that wiki formatting would accept a smiley but pretend I entered one. As I said before if you feel that you understand the points I have made on this page I would feel comfortable with you mediating the discussion.--Springee (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)