[Z06] Stock transverse leaf spring properties
11-26-2008, 04:48 PM
#82
Former Vendor
11-26-2008, 04:52 PM
#83
Former Vendor
Randy, the reason is simple. Chevy has built somewhere in the realm of 150,000 C6's already - and the suspension has proven extremely reliable. One or two reported failures of the stock components is not statistically relevant.
On the other hand, companies like DRM and LG are trying to convince customers that they need a completely different spring arrangement, and a very small number have been sold. When we read of a failure, it makes us take pause before investing in a system that is not of the same design as the car was intended to have.
I'm not saying the coilovers are not reliable - I don't have enough information to know. I'm answering the question you posed though.
On the other hand, companies like DRM and LG are trying to convince customers that they need a completely different spring arrangement, and a very small number have been sold. When we read of a failure, it makes us take pause before investing in a system that is not of the same design as the car was intended to have.
I'm not saying the coilovers are not reliable - I don't have enough information to know. I'm answering the question you posed though.
Thanks for this answer. But when should it become a talked about subject, because over the past 5 years working the phones I have about 100 different spring failures and yet no-one even blinks a eye.
Coilovers will be debated until the end of time.
Randy
11-26-2008, 05:16 PM
#84
Former Vendor
Well I can't post a picture or data from our current tests of the Corvette chassis and the affects of coilovers. Back doors deals are pretty much no picture agreements. But this one sits above Doug's desk. This was back in 1991 or 92, things have got a lot better with time
I hope I don't get too much crap for posting this. Location unknown
I hope I don't get too much crap for posting this. Location unknown
11-26-2008, 09:43 PM
#85
Yup. I know some race engineers have engineered bump stops into their race cars but for a road car it's generally there just to keep things from crashing under a big load/shock.
11-26-2008, 10:28 PM
#86
Former Vendor
Randy
11-26-2008, 11:04 PM
#87
Team Owner
I have a lot of respect for DRM as I'm very familiar with Doug's long history. But as much as people like to bash GM, you still have to respect that they have some pretty smart people too.
Again, I'm not trying to be critical, and nothing I've said is critical. But I do believe people on the forum should be armed with all possible issues before moving forward.
11-26-2008, 11:27 PM
#88
Former Vendor
It's talked about because people reading the forum have a right to debate the all the ramifications of doing mods. Coilovers should be debated because as I said in my previous post, they are a total design departure from what came on the car.
I have a lot of respect for DRM as I'm very familiar with Doug's long history. But as much as people like to bash GM, you still have to respect that they have some pretty smart people too.
Again, I'm not trying to be critical, and nothing I've said is critical. But I do believe people on the forum should be armed with all possible issues before moving forward.
I have a lot of respect for DRM as I'm very familiar with Doug's long history. But as much as people like to bash GM, you still have to respect that they have some pretty smart people too.
Again, I'm not trying to be critical, and nothing I've said is critical. But I do believe people on the forum should be armed with all possible issues before moving forward.
Well it's movie time in my living room, Happy turkey day!!!
Randy
11-27-2008, 08:27 AM
#89
Team Owner
Very well said. I have a ton of respect to even the other side of everything I think strong about. I'm alittle worried now days about this debate turning bad in the future. I spoke to someone with 1100 pound spring on a stock chassis.
Well it's movie time in my living room, Happy turkey day!!!
Randy
Well it's movie time in my living room, Happy turkey day!!!
Randy
11-27-2008, 08:40 AM
#90
Safety Car
Man, I am so glad you said this. I have been saying it for years, but it seems every time someone mounts an aftermarket shock it's always 'it's so much stiffer my car handles so much better'.
While I understand the shock valving and how they come to this conclusion, it seems most just don't wanna hear it.
While I've never driven on a road course, I've always modified my suspensions first and have a fairly good understanding of the hows and whys, if not the technical formulas, like some here in this thread, but I can follow along and understand it.
This is my first vette having been bred on Camaros and then moving to A and G bodies, so learning the ropes has come with hard work and experience.
The conversation about 'cross talk' is a good one and something I came across years ago with my Camaro. I believe it was in a Hot Rod article, early 80's(?), that they had Dick Guldstrand and Herb Adams apply their thinking to the F body.
Guldstrands theory was more spring, less bar. He felt it was set up as an independant front end and should stay that way.
Herb Adams theory was softer springs and a bigger bar. He felt he could control the wheel better that way and give a better ride.
After testing on a road course out in Ca. the results were nearly the same. They both achieved what they wanted, both were fast and it was anyones race.
So they used two different suspensions to achieve the same end, however, it was decided in the end that Dicks suspension was almost too stiff for street duty, almost to the kidney buster realm.
So I can see where the cross talk would be factored in to give as much handling as possible within the package, keep a compliant suspension, use minimal bar diameter to further isolate the wheel to wheel impact.
I think what some people miss when going up in sway bar rates is that while the spring wheel rate doesn't change, it does effect the bump rate, if I'm saying that right., ie. hitting a bump with a stiffer bar will effect the car more than hitting the same bump with a lighter bar, all things equal.
This is great stuff you guys are discussing. I'm gonna miss it when the thread ends.
Lets do shocks next, then sway bars. OH, spindle height Vs camber curve .... man I could go on
11-27-2008, 09:04 AM
#91
Team Owner
Man, I am so glad you said this. I have been saying it for years, but it seems every time someone mounts an aftermarket shock it's always 'it's so much stiffer my car handles so much better'.
While I understand the shock valving and how they come to this conclusion, it seems most just don't wanna hear it.
While I've never driven on a road course, I've always modified my suspensions first and have a fairly good understanding of the hows and whys, if not the technical formulas, like some here in this thread, but I can follow along and understand it.
This is my first vette having been bred on Camaros and then moving to A and G bodies, so learning the ropes has come with hard work and experience.
The conversation about 'cross talk' is a good one and something I came across years ago with my Camaro. I believe it was in a Hot Rod article, early 80's(?), that they had Dick Guldstrand and Herb Adams apply their thinking to the F body.
Guldstrands theory was more spring, less bar. He felt it was set up as an independant front end and should stay that way.
Herb Adams theory was softer springs and a bigger bar. He felt he could control the wheel better that way and give a better ride.
After testing on a road course out in Ca. the results were nearly the same. They both achieved what they wanted, both were fast and it was anyones race.
So they used two different suspensions to achieve the same end, however, it was decided in the end that Dicks suspension was almost too stiff for street duty, almost to the kidney buster realm.
So I can see where the cross talk would be factored in to give as much handling as possible within the package, keep a compliant suspension, use minimal bar diameter to further isolate the wheel to wheel impact.
I think what some people miss when going up in sway bar rates is that while the spring wheel rate doesn't change, it does effect the bump rate, if I'm saying that right., ie. hitting a bump with a stiffer bar will effect the car more than hitting the same bump with a lighter bar, all things equal.
This is great stuff you guys are discussing. I'm gonna miss it when the thread ends.
Lets do shocks next, then sway bars. OH, spindle height Vs camber curve .... man I could go on
While I understand the shock valving and how they come to this conclusion, it seems most just don't wanna hear it.
While I've never driven on a road course, I've always modified my suspensions first and have a fairly good understanding of the hows and whys, if not the technical formulas, like some here in this thread, but I can follow along and understand it.
This is my first vette having been bred on Camaros and then moving to A and G bodies, so learning the ropes has come with hard work and experience.
The conversation about 'cross talk' is a good one and something I came across years ago with my Camaro. I believe it was in a Hot Rod article, early 80's(?), that they had Dick Guldstrand and Herb Adams apply their thinking to the F body.
Guldstrands theory was more spring, less bar. He felt it was set up as an independant front end and should stay that way.
Herb Adams theory was softer springs and a bigger bar. He felt he could control the wheel better that way and give a better ride.
After testing on a road course out in Ca. the results were nearly the same. They both achieved what they wanted, both were fast and it was anyones race.
So they used two different suspensions to achieve the same end, however, it was decided in the end that Dicks suspension was almost too stiff for street duty, almost to the kidney buster realm.
So I can see where the cross talk would be factored in to give as much handling as possible within the package, keep a compliant suspension, use minimal bar diameter to further isolate the wheel to wheel impact.
I think what some people miss when going up in sway bar rates is that while the spring wheel rate doesn't change, it does effect the bump rate, if I'm saying that right., ie. hitting a bump with a stiffer bar will effect the car more than hitting the same bump with a lighter bar, all things equal.
This is great stuff you guys are discussing. I'm gonna miss it when the thread ends.
Lets do shocks next, then sway bars. OH, spindle height Vs camber curve .... man I could go on
11-28-2008, 10:19 PM
#92
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Sep 2006
Location: San Mateo CA
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my main concern, which i raised many moons ago but was never answered by any of the folks that have this other shock design, is whether or not it is a good idea to move the failure point from the shock tower to some other component. surely the tire against the inner fender well isn't going to be the ultimate limiter of suspension travel?
11-30-2008, 12:33 PM
#93
Former Vendor
my main concern, which i raised many moons ago but was never answered by any of the folks that have this other shock design, is whether or not it is a good idea to move the failure point from the shock tower to some other component. surely the tire against the inner fender well isn't going to be the ultimate limiter of suspension travel?
Randy
11-30-2008, 01:49 PM
#96
Drifting
Thread Starter
11-30-2008, 02:28 PM
#99
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Sep 2006
Location: San Mateo CA
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The chassis bottoms out first if both wheels are to move way up in the suspension travel. If one wheel would go slam up, hitting a crub has been the most common, the wheel is going to hit the inner fender. But these are rare, crash damage mostly. The spring rates at this point are pretty stiff and it takes a big something to get to this point.
Randy
Randy
01-02-2009, 12:55 AM
#100
The only problem with this picture is.
The one side has a ton of bump travel, which the car will never see because the stock shocks are bottomed out by then.
The other problem, the other side, to show this myth of a swaybar affect doesn't work either. GM has always used no attachment point for the way up. The pads on the front only act under bump and the rear has bolts. This theory would be ok if they attached the upper part of the spring.
Randy
The one side has a ton of bump travel, which the car will never see because the stock shocks are bottomed out by then.
The other problem, the other side, to show this myth of a swaybar affect doesn't work either. GM has always used no attachment point for the way up. The pads on the front only act under bump and the rear has bolts. This theory would be ok if they attached the upper part of the spring.
Randy
We planned to use a massive front bar to achieve the roll stiffness we were after.
We found, however, that by spreading the body attachment of the front suspension fiberglass spring into two separate attachments 18 inches apart, we could achieve a major portion of the roll stiffness contribution of the front roll bar for free. We still used a massive front bar, but it would have been even bigger and heavier if it had not been supplemented by the leaf spring.
We found, however, that by spreading the body attachment of the front suspension fiberglass spring into two separate attachments 18 inches apart, we could achieve a major portion of the roll stiffness contribution of the front roll bar for free. We still used a massive front bar, but it would have been even bigger and heavier if it had not been supplemented by the leaf spring.