Transverse composite monoleaf springs, Why?
#1
Transverse composite monoleaf springs, Why?
Can someone explain why GM decided to design the C5/C6 Corvettes with transverse composite springs? Why didn't they use coils or coilovers? Is there some unsprung weight advantage or something to that effect? Just would like to know the pros and cons.
#4
Le Mans Master
Hi morepower -
This has been discussed here before (hasn't everything? )
If you think about it , the transverse leaf design coupled with the IRS is an elegant way to suspend the car with few parts and light weight.
Few parts means simplicity - and of course ease of assembly and less expense.
The C3's had stacked metal leafs - they were relatively heavy and lacked the true progressive spring rates of the composite mono-leaf.
I am no suspension expert by any means, but I can appreciate the simple, effectiveness of this design.
This is what Corvette's are all about, right? Simple, light, affordable high performance.
One might well ask the same kind of question about pushrod-actuated two-valve engine architechture. I think a similar answer would be the result.
At the highest end of the performance spectrum (and when Chevy gets real serious about the performance as opposed to the cost), you will find the cars have coil-overs (the C5R for instance...).
best regards -
mqqn
This has been discussed here before (hasn't everything? )
If you think about it , the transverse leaf design coupled with the IRS is an elegant way to suspend the car with few parts and light weight.
Few parts means simplicity - and of course ease of assembly and less expense.
The C3's had stacked metal leafs - they were relatively heavy and lacked the true progressive spring rates of the composite mono-leaf.
I am no suspension expert by any means, but I can appreciate the simple, effectiveness of this design.
This is what Corvette's are all about, right? Simple, light, affordable high performance.
One might well ask the same kind of question about pushrod-actuated two-valve engine architechture. I think a similar answer would be the result.
At the highest end of the performance spectrum (and when Chevy gets real serious about the performance as opposed to the cost), you will find the cars have coil-overs (the C5R for instance...).
best regards -
mqqn
#6
Race Director
Member Since: Jul 2005
Location: The Beautiful Greater Bay Area California
Posts: 11,308
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by mqqn
Hi morepower -
This has been discussed here before (hasn't everything? )
If you think about it , the transverse leaf design coupled with the IRS is an elegant way to suspend the car with few parts and light weight.
Few parts means simplicity - and of course ease of assembly and less expense.
The C3's had stacked metal leafs - they were relatively heavy and lacked the true progressive spring rates of the composite mono-leaf.
I am no suspension expert by any means, but I can appreciate the simple, effectiveness of this design.
This is what Corvette's are all about, right? Simple, light, affordable high performance.
One might well ask the same kind of question about pushrod-actuated two-valve engine architechture. I think a similar answer would be the result.
At the highest end of the performance spectrum (and when Chevy gets real serious about the performance as opposed to the cost), you will find the cars have coil-overs (the C5R for instance...).
best regards -
mqqn
This has been discussed here before (hasn't everything? )
If you think about it , the transverse leaf design coupled with the IRS is an elegant way to suspend the car with few parts and light weight.
Few parts means simplicity - and of course ease of assembly and less expense.
The C3's had stacked metal leafs - they were relatively heavy and lacked the true progressive spring rates of the composite mono-leaf.
I am no suspension expert by any means, but I can appreciate the simple, effectiveness of this design.
This is what Corvette's are all about, right? Simple, light, affordable high performance.
One might well ask the same kind of question about pushrod-actuated two-valve engine architechture. I think a similar answer would be the result.
At the highest end of the performance spectrum (and when Chevy gets real serious about the performance as opposed to the cost), you will find the cars have coil-overs (the C5R for instance...).
best regards -
mqqn
Well stated!
#7
Instructor
Member Since: Mar 2005
Location: Jacksonville FL
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comparison
Well, It does seem to work OK, But I've always thought it was odd too. My other car has the same layout, transverse leaf spring on front & rear (steel) but no IRS....It is a 1928 Ford Model A...So GM didn't come up with anything new!....Oh Well, It's wierd, and unsophisticated, but apparently works OK.
#8
It may have also been done for packaging concerns. The vet is quite crowded up front and when the change was made in '84 that really helped with space. It also may have allowed a lower hood line because the intake was now lower also. And besides, if it was good enough for Henry's Model T it should be good enough for GM.
#9
Get Some!
Originally Posted by 28tudor
Well, It does seem to work OK, But I've always thought it was odd too. My other car has the same layout, transverse leaf spring on front & rear (steel) but no IRS....It is a 1928 Ford Model A...So GM didn't come up with anything new!....Oh Well, It's wierd, and unsophisticated, but apparently works OK.
#10
Safety Car
Member Since: Nov 2003
Location: San Diego, CA "leaf" "tee" "e"
Posts: 4,979
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
The designers wanted to get the bottom shock mount as far outboard as possible, and at the time, they couldn't use the same mount with coilovers.
Struts were not used because they would've required a taller hoodline.
Struts were not used because they would've required a taller hoodline.