I've gotta tell you I am very impressed with the new Vette. It's a beautiful car. I may even consider it in a couple years when I'm in the market for a new car. I love my e90, but I'm willing to consider a vette as a replacement... we'll see.

__________________
Whenever I text "Barack," my phone suggests the word "Capable." I guess my my phone IS pretty smart.

Seriously. It still uses leaf-springs. . The rest of the world gave that up back when the Romans came about.

...Yo, M; don't judge too quickly and with a half glance at the
term "leaf spring". Some reading below... And, the C5 and obviously,
C6, use expensive hybrid aluminum castings for the 4 wheel wishbones,
knuckles and other parts. No arm wrestle, but unless you have really driven one,
over time and on different roads, you have no idea what ~$50Gs gets you in a very
high performance sports car. Vettes are everyone's cup of joe, but they are remarkable
sports cars, espc. for the dough, imo.

Leaf springs on the Corvette

The C6 Corvette's rear suspension.


The Corvette suspension has unequal length double wishbones, or A-arms, for all four wheels, and half-shafts in place of a solid rear axle. This allows independent articulation of each wheel on an axis dictated by the geometry of the suspension arms. The springs, whether leaves or coils, only provide resistance; they do not affect the direction of suspension motion.
Traditionally, a coil spring is mounted between the chassis and each lower A-arm. The coil compresses in proportion to the spring rate when the A-arm rises, and it is this resistance against compression that suspends the car.
GM has equipped the Corvette with two one-piece fiberglass composite leaf springs in place of coils. They run transversely across the width of the car, mounted in two places equidistant from the centerline. Each end is bolted to the bottom of an A-arm such that when the A-arm rises, the leaf pulls it down, again in proportion to a known spring rate. In this way, four coils are replaced with two leaf springs.
Because both coils and leafs in these configurations act only as simple springs and are not required to stabilize the wheels, their function is almost identical.

Advantages of transverse leaf springs

• Less unsprung weight. Coil springs contribute to unsprung weight; the less there is, the more quickly the wheel can respond at a given spring rate.
• Less weight. The C4 Corvette's composite front leaf weighed 1/3 as much as the pair of conventional coil springs it would replace.
• Weight is positioned lower. Coil springs and the associated chassis hard mounts raise the center of gravity of the car.
• Superior wear characteristics. The Corvette's composite leaf springs last longer than coils, though in a car as light as the Corvette, the difference is not especially significant. No composite Corvette leaf has ever been replaced due to fatigue failure, though steel leafs from 1963 to 1980 have been.
• As used on the Corvette, ride height can be adjusted by changing the length of the end links connecting the leaf to the suspension arms. This allows small changes in ride height with minimal effects on the spring rate.
• Also as used on the Corvette, the leaf spring acts as an anti-roll bar, allowing for smaller and lighter bars than if the car were equipped with coil springs.

Disadvantages of transverse leaf springs

• Packaging can be problematic; the leaf must span from one side of the car to the other. This can limit applications where the drivetrain, or another part, is in the way.
• Materials expense. Steel coils are commodity items; a single composite leaf spring costs more than two of them.
• Design complexity. Composite monoleafs allow for considerable variety in shape, thickness, and materials. They are inherently more expensive to design, particularly in performance applications.
• Cost of modification. Due to the specialized design and packaging, changing spring rates would require a custom unit. Coil springs in various sizes and rates are available very inexpensively.
• Susceptibility to damage. Engine fluids and exhaust modifications like cat-back removal might weaken or destroy composite springs over time. The spring is more susceptible to heat related damage than conventional steel springs.
• Perception. Like pushrod engines, the leaf spring has a stigma that overshadows its advantages.

The leaf spring as an anti-roll bar

The extent to which a leaf spring acts as an anti-roll bar is determined by the way it is mounted.
A single, loose center mount would cause the spring to pivot about the center axis, and push one wheel down as the other was compressed upward. This is exactly opposite an anti-roll bar, and has not been used on any generation of the Corvette.
A single, perfectly tight center mount that held a small center section of the spring flat against the frame would isolate one side of the spring from the other. No roll or anti-roll effect would appear. The rear spring of the C2, C3, and C4 has this type of mount, which effectively divides the spring in two. It becomes a quarter-elliptic spring.
Since the C4, the Corvette has had widely-spaced double mounts on the front. The rear spring has had double mounts since the C5. The spring is allowed to pivot about these two points. When the suspension compresses and the end of the leaf is pulled up, the center of the leaf spring between the two mounts moves down. This in turn reduces the spring force on the wheel on the opposite side of the car. In this way, the leaf acts like an anti-roll bar.
When both sides of the suspension compress, the center length between mounts forms a U, with each wheel contributing. When one wheel moves up while the other moves down, the leaf is forced to make an “S” shaped bend. One wheel resists of the motion of the other, again like an anti-roll bar. The C4 engineers had hoped that the resulting anti-roll rate would be sufficient to eliminate the need for conventional anti-roll bars. It was not, but those required were smaller and lighter.
The C2 and C3 Corvettes from 1963 until 1983 also used a transverse leaf spring with two mounts, but it was constructed of multiple steel leafs with plastic anti-friction liners, and the mounts were closer together. These two traits prevented it from acting as an anti-roll bar, and caused it to be heavier and less reliable than the modern one-piece unit.
It is true that in the Corvette C4 and subsequent generations, the motion of one wheel deliberately impacts the motion, or more accurately the instantaneous spring rate, of the other wheel. However, this is common to all “independent” suspensions that use anti-roll mechanisms.

__________________
Ol'UncleMotor
From the Home Base of Pro Bono Punditry
and 50 Cent Opins...

Our Mtn Scenes, Car Pics, and Road Trip Pics on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/4527537...7627297418250/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/4527537...7627332480833/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/45275375@N00/

My X Page

I know it works. I'm not a fan of less-than-up-to-date technology on drivetrains/suspension/brakes though.

__________________
2014 Mazda 3 GT: Ø Consumption: (click for details)

How is that high tech, transverse, composite leaf spring "less-than-up-to-date technology ..." and how does
that impact why you don't like it?

Are you dismissing the car because it has that? Do you think coils at each corner would make it handle "better"
or be more high tech/modern? Have you ever hammered one around a steep downhill, diminishing radius corner?
Ever driven one at all? No arm wrestle, but a pretty immature comment/disregard on your part, imo.
I'm surprised...

__________________
Ol'UncleMotor
From the Home Base of Pro Bono Punditry
and 50 Cent Opins...

Our Mtn Scenes, Car Pics, and Road Trip Pics on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/4527537...7627297418250/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/4527537...7627332480833/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/45275375@N00/

My X Page

"less-than-up-to-date technology" is technology that is no longer viable. Just because it is old does not make it "less than up to date." The vehicles we use to travel in space were designed in the 70s.

__________________
Whenever I text "Barack," my phone suggests the word "Capable." I guess my my phone IS pretty smart.

That is true. And the computers on board the shuttles have 486 processors. When questioned, NASA staff usually replies, "It works!"

__________________

Great info on the transverse leaf springs mD. I've always been curious but too lazy to look it up.

__________________
Wake up every day that would be a start.

I've never been a fan of American muscle cars. I remember years ago getting a short ride in a 'vette. I hated the interior and I'm sure the rumbly exhaust note appeals to many, but it doesn't appeal to me (strictly personal taste). Now I have sat in the current 'vette many times at auto shows and whatnot, and the interior has improved. However at that price point, if I wanted a track car, I'd buy a Mitsu Evo. If I wanted a great performing all-rounder, the BMW M3 is a no brainer. That leaves little room for the 'vette, which is no doubt a great vehicle.

I'll give pony cars one more chance in a month when we go to Florida. I've reserved a Mustang from Hertz, and although it's more than likely we'll get the oversized V6, I'll see how the solid rear axle on that works. (Yet another "dated" suspension system)