[Z06] Stock transverse leaf spring properties
02-04-2008, 06:16 PM
#21
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM has a boat load of engineers and equipment to monitor everything. They can win a race by 6" so they look for the last 1". People go from a soft stock suspension and crummy and worn stock shocks to a stiffer coil-overs and think it was all the coil-over that increased the performance. My car has been faster than any cars I have seen over the rough or smooth portions of the track from low to high speeds.
Are coil-overs bad no. Can you swap spring rates cheaper yes. If you change the rates to much you need to change valving. How many here have the knowledge and equipment to analyize their shocks and springs?
Are coil-overs bad no. Can you swap spring rates cheaper yes. If you change the rates to much you need to change valving. How many here have the knowledge and equipment to analyize their shocks and springs?
A well sorted out car and good driver with leaf springs will run circles around an average car or driver with coilovers.
02-04-2008, 06:40 PM
#22
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most people use the coilovers for their ease of adjustabilities, wide range of available spring rates, and to reduce the skittish handling.
02-04-2008, 06:44 PM
#23
Team Owner
I have never felt slighted on track with my suspension. Down a liitle HP on the straight but the infield is mine where I gain it back. I would like to play with a better shock like a Penske double or triple adjustables.
I called DRM years ago and was going to buy coil-overs. Tim was working there at the time and he told me do leafs. No idea why but I did. He was gone the next week so it may have been spite. VBP set me up with a good deal and let me try a few leafs as long as they went back as new condition. They work very well and make the car easy to drive as would a good set of stiff coil-overs. No dive and very liitle roll. When you roll and lift on one side you lose you aero. Watch the Rolex cars no roll and they are about 1.5" off the ground. Does it make a good street car for most probably not.
02-04-2008, 06:45 PM
#24
Melting Slicks
As I never swore the crosstalk didn't exist that is irrelevant to my point. However, there is no reason to believe that the system is compromised by using the leaf spring to cover part of the job that would normally be handled by the anti-roll bar.
Consider it this way. When designing the suspension GM settled on a set of rates they wanted to achieve in both compression and roll. The wheels don’t care what combination of springs achieve those rates. If the roll rate is low enough, we will not need to add an anti-roll bar to increase the roll rate. Even without an anti-roll bar the Corvette, like virtually all cars still has some measure of roll rate in the rear end. It takes more force to compress the wheel 0.1” from static than it does to extend it 0.1” That is why the car doesn’t teeter-totter when you disconnect the roll bar.
It is also important to point out that there is some ratio of roll stiffness to bump stiffness. That is if you say increase the spring rate by 10%, the car will become say 5% stiffer in roll. In the case of the coil springs (ie no S bend cross over) I THINK (based on very veuge recollection from something I read a while back) the ratio is something like 1:0.7. That is increasing the stiffness in compression by 10% increases roll by something like 7%. This is not including the anti-roll bar. In the case of the leaf spring it was something like 1:1.4. That is for a 10% increase in bump we get a 14% increase in roll.
The purpose of an anti-roll bar is simply to increase the rate in roll beyond what we get from the springs without increasing the rate in bump.
Because the leaf spring ties the left and right side together more effectively the roll bar simply has less work to do.
Let’s say we have two Corvettes, one with coils, one with leaves. Next, let’s assume we want the same bump and roll rates. Let’s assume they have the same rates in bump already. That is it takes the same force to push the back end of the chassis down 0.1”. Well the wheel rate in bump is the same for both so the suspension sees no difference between the leaf and coils with respect to both wheels being compressed at the same time.
However, we also care about roll rate. This is where we get into some ratio type stuff and that whole S bend bit. In both the leaf and coil spring cases the suspension didn’t meet the roll rate target without adding an anti-roll bar. So in both cases we add the anti-roll bar. However, because the leaf spring does act in part as an anti-roll bar, the leaf equipped Vette is closer to the target roll rate than the coil model before we start adding the anti-roll bar. The leaf equipped car thus will use a smaller anti-roll bar to hit the target value.
Now a lot of people talk about how good the car handles when changing to coil overs. Are they wrong? Well probably not. But consider, was it the leaf that was the problem?
In changing to coil overs they have done several things. First, they have changed the dampers. That’s a big one. Odds are good that an expensive aftermarket damper can be better than the cost constrained factory parts.
In changing to coils you also are likely to have changed the spring rate. Certainly we can see that a change in spring rate will change the way the car feels. It will also likely change the roll rate. While the coil over kits often come with new anti-roll bars, do we know if in the end the new roll and bump rates are the same as before? If not how can we say the changes are comparable? In going to a coil over kit we have changed three critical suspension parameters, damping, rate in compression, rate in roll. How can we isolate which was the item which made the difference?
As for the racing question. I’ve seen this question before. It is a sensible question to ask and I would say two things in response. First, what is a good idea in racing is often not a good idea in road cars. Note that F1 cars are using torsion springs and flexure suspension joints rather than rod end/spherical bearings or bushings such as road cars use.
More to the point racecars are very much comprised of off the shelf parts. The racing shocks are standard parts that are configured for the C6R. Same is true for the springs. It would be quite expensive to make up sets of leafs for all the different rates the racing team might want. It is more practical and expedient to use what are essentially off the shelf items in a race car. There is nothing inherently wrong with the leaf spring for a race car but what do you do if you want 5% stiffer springs? Hypercoil can send you a new matched set in short order. Can the suppliers of composite leaf springs do that? Can they do it as quickly and cost effectively as the coil venders? Also, one of the stated advantages of the leaf is lower weight. Well if the C6R is able to get under the weight limit, then there is somewhat less incentive to try to save weight on the springs then have to add it back as ballast.
Finally, part of the reason GM chose the leaf was for packaging reasons. They felt that a set of coil overs would have forced higher shock towers which would have hurt trunk space and engine space. The book “All Corvettes are Red” stats this explicitly. We know you can get a set of coils into the stock damper location. We have all seen pictures that prove it. But we don’t know if GM would be able to source a set of reasonably priced, long lived, meet all the other spec, coil overs and put them in the same spot. It is likely GM felt they couldn’t. However, the C6R is a race car. The shocks don’t have to last 40,000+ miles. They don’t have to meet production cost targets. They don’t have to deal with a lot of the same restrictions. Heck, they probably move the upper shock mounts. What I’m ultimately getting at (in a long winded way) is the requirements, opportunities and constraints are different for the C6R vs the road car. What works for one should not be assumed to be acceptable for the other. The C6R doesn’t have locks or a stereo either. Would we choose to forgo those features on the road car?
Consider it this way. When designing the suspension GM settled on a set of rates they wanted to achieve in both compression and roll. The wheels don’t care what combination of springs achieve those rates. If the roll rate is low enough, we will not need to add an anti-roll bar to increase the roll rate. Even without an anti-roll bar the Corvette, like virtually all cars still has some measure of roll rate in the rear end. It takes more force to compress the wheel 0.1” from static than it does to extend it 0.1” That is why the car doesn’t teeter-totter when you disconnect the roll bar.
It is also important to point out that there is some ratio of roll stiffness to bump stiffness. That is if you say increase the spring rate by 10%, the car will become say 5% stiffer in roll. In the case of the coil springs (ie no S bend cross over) I THINK (based on very veuge recollection from something I read a while back) the ratio is something like 1:0.7. That is increasing the stiffness in compression by 10% increases roll by something like 7%. This is not including the anti-roll bar. In the case of the leaf spring it was something like 1:1.4. That is for a 10% increase in bump we get a 14% increase in roll.
The purpose of an anti-roll bar is simply to increase the rate in roll beyond what we get from the springs without increasing the rate in bump.
Because the leaf spring ties the left and right side together more effectively the roll bar simply has less work to do.
Let’s say we have two Corvettes, one with coils, one with leaves. Next, let’s assume we want the same bump and roll rates. Let’s assume they have the same rates in bump already. That is it takes the same force to push the back end of the chassis down 0.1”. Well the wheel rate in bump is the same for both so the suspension sees no difference between the leaf and coils with respect to both wheels being compressed at the same time.
However, we also care about roll rate. This is where we get into some ratio type stuff and that whole S bend bit. In both the leaf and coil spring cases the suspension didn’t meet the roll rate target without adding an anti-roll bar. So in both cases we add the anti-roll bar. However, because the leaf spring does act in part as an anti-roll bar, the leaf equipped Vette is closer to the target roll rate than the coil model before we start adding the anti-roll bar. The leaf equipped car thus will use a smaller anti-roll bar to hit the target value.
Now a lot of people talk about how good the car handles when changing to coil overs. Are they wrong? Well probably not. But consider, was it the leaf that was the problem?
In changing to coil overs they have done several things. First, they have changed the dampers. That’s a big one. Odds are good that an expensive aftermarket damper can be better than the cost constrained factory parts.
In changing to coils you also are likely to have changed the spring rate. Certainly we can see that a change in spring rate will change the way the car feels. It will also likely change the roll rate. While the coil over kits often come with new anti-roll bars, do we know if in the end the new roll and bump rates are the same as before? If not how can we say the changes are comparable? In going to a coil over kit we have changed three critical suspension parameters, damping, rate in compression, rate in roll. How can we isolate which was the item which made the difference?
As for the racing question. I’ve seen this question before. It is a sensible question to ask and I would say two things in response. First, what is a good idea in racing is often not a good idea in road cars. Note that F1 cars are using torsion springs and flexure suspension joints rather than rod end/spherical bearings or bushings such as road cars use.
More to the point racecars are very much comprised of off the shelf parts. The racing shocks are standard parts that are configured for the C6R. Same is true for the springs. It would be quite expensive to make up sets of leafs for all the different rates the racing team might want. It is more practical and expedient to use what are essentially off the shelf items in a race car. There is nothing inherently wrong with the leaf spring for a race car but what do you do if you want 5% stiffer springs? Hypercoil can send you a new matched set in short order. Can the suppliers of composite leaf springs do that? Can they do it as quickly and cost effectively as the coil venders? Also, one of the stated advantages of the leaf is lower weight. Well if the C6R is able to get under the weight limit, then there is somewhat less incentive to try to save weight on the springs then have to add it back as ballast.
Finally, part of the reason GM chose the leaf was for packaging reasons. They felt that a set of coil overs would have forced higher shock towers which would have hurt trunk space and engine space. The book “All Corvettes are Red” stats this explicitly. We know you can get a set of coils into the stock damper location. We have all seen pictures that prove it. But we don’t know if GM would be able to source a set of reasonably priced, long lived, meet all the other spec, coil overs and put them in the same spot. It is likely GM felt they couldn’t. However, the C6R is a race car. The shocks don’t have to last 40,000+ miles. They don’t have to meet production cost targets. They don’t have to deal with a lot of the same restrictions. Heck, they probably move the upper shock mounts. What I’m ultimately getting at (in a long winded way) is the requirements, opportunities and constraints are different for the C6R vs the road car. What works for one should not be assumed to be acceptable for the other. The C6R doesn’t have locks or a stereo either. Would we choose to forgo those features on the road car?
02-04-2008, 06:46 PM
#25
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new ZR1 will have the transverse leaf springs. Financially it wouldn't make sense to not use it.
02-04-2008, 06:51 PM
#26
Team Owner
02-04-2008, 06:52 PM
#27
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've only heard bad things about the crosstalk from racers pushing the car at 10/10ths. I do believe it exist but only pros pushing the car at 10/10ths can notice it. The Corvette has been a world class handling car since 1984 and has only got better. Every sports car in the world has suspension modifications available so people can tune them to their taste and needs. 
World class handling? Yes, no doubt. Could it be made better? Probably.
02-04-2008, 09:03 PM
#28
Burning Brakes
Yes, they (Pfadt with Pfatty's) made a very significant improvement in my cars handing over bumpy turns.
Was it the change in the shock valving?
Maybe...but I've never seen anyone change out their shocks and come here and say that the classic corvette sideways hop disapeared afterwords.
Was it the change in the spring rates?
Maybe...but I've never seen anyone change out their springs and come here and say that the classic corvette sideways hop disapeared afterwords.
Last edited by dagon138; 02-04-2008 at 09:06 PM.
02-04-2008, 09:05 PM
#29
Team Owner
shocks keep the tire on the road so a good shock will take out the side skids. OEM shocks degrade so fast in 10,000 they are seriously compromised.
02-05-2008, 12:46 AM
#30
[QUOTE=petefias;1563949615]The only ratio I heard before is the spring rate vs. wheel rate. I assume you simply add the effect of crosstalk into your equation.[quote]
Check out the 4th paragraph after the picture of the spring.
http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c4/gcr...ass_spring.gif
BTW, that section was from Micheal Lamm's book on the '84 Corvette (I got it from Wiki)
But which part was the one that fixed the problem? Was it the springs, the change in spring rate, the change in roll rate or the change to a different damper? I certainly would expect a good aftermarket damper would have advantages over the factory dampers. That advantage is likely even greater when comparing a NEW damper to a used/worn factory part. Many of the first year reviews of the C6 Z06 said it was skittish at the limits. The problem was corrected the next year. GM changed the shocks, not the springs.
I believe at least one of the guys who used to sell coil over conversion kits has since changed to selling a kit that used helper springs on the dampers but retains the original leaf spring.
Finally, I would ask, for all who think the leaf spring "crosstalk" is an issue, what should we do to address the crosstalk due to the anti-roll bar?
Check out the 4th paragraph after the picture of the spring.
http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c4/gcr...ass_spring.gif
BTW, that section was from Micheal Lamm's book on the '84 Corvette (I got it from Wiki)
Bingo!
Most people use the coilovers for their ease of adjustabilities, wide range of available spring rates, and to reduce the skittish handling.
Most people use the coilovers for their ease of adjustabilities, wide range of available spring rates, and to reduce the skittish handling.
I believe at least one of the guys who used to sell coil over conversion kits has since changed to selling a kit that used helper springs on the dampers but retains the original leaf spring.
Finally, I would ask, for all who think the leaf spring "crosstalk" is an issue, what should we do to address the crosstalk due to the anti-roll bar?
Last edited by wishihad1-2; 02-05-2008 at 12:52 AM.
02-05-2008, 12:25 PM
#31
Former Vendor
The anti-roll bar does not change the spring rate on the car. Racing in the rain would be a great example of racing without swaybars. I don't know how much time I can give this subject again. It's getting kinda old explaining to the same people how and why. If someone can please tell me how the left side of the spring can move the center, and the right side can move the center, but somehow they don't have anything to do with each other. Didn't Newton figure this out a long time ago???
The c4 rear is one of the better examples of "good leaf" spring designs.
The best handling leaf spring car we have had was when we smashed the leaf agaist the cross member. Call Boris Said and ask him.
Randy
PS DRM the inventor of crosstalk
The c4 rear is one of the better examples of "good leaf" spring designs.
The best handling leaf spring car we have had was when we smashed the leaf agaist the cross member. Call Boris Said and ask him.
Randy
PS DRM the inventor of crosstalk
02-05-2008, 12:27 PM
#32
Former Vendor
I have never felt slighted on track with my suspension. Down a liitle HP on the straight but the infield is mine where I gain it back. I would like to play with a better shock like a Penske double or triple adjustables.
I called DRM years ago and was going to buy coil-overs. Tim was working there at the time and he told me do leafs. No idea why but I did. He was gone the next week so it may have been spite. VBP set me up with a good deal and let me try a few leafs as long as they went back as new condition. They work very well and make the car easy to drive as would a good set of stiff coil-overs. No dive and very liitle roll. When you roll and lift on one side you lose you aero. Watch the Rolex cars no roll and they are about 1.5" off the ground. Does it make a good street car for most probably not.
I called DRM years ago and was going to buy coil-overs. Tim was working there at the time and he told me do leafs. No idea why but I did. He was gone the next week so it may have been spite. VBP set me up with a good deal and let me try a few leafs as long as they went back as new condition. They work very well and make the car easy to drive as would a good set of stiff coil-overs. No dive and very liitle roll. When you roll and lift on one side you lose you aero. Watch the Rolex cars no roll and they are about 1.5" off the ground. Does it make a good street car for most probably not.
I will kill Tim for his laziness. I was back in the engine room at the time of this. I personally out sell the three old sales guys. Why? Because I work hard, not because I sell crap that doesn't work.
Tim is working on Fords now
Randy
02-05-2008, 12:34 PM
#33
Team Owner
02-05-2008, 12:39 PM
#34
Former Vendor
The 3 dollar a gallon gas, he drove 3 hours a day to get out here. He had some fun in the Mustang in the snow. They are junk, but fun to slide around.
I talked to Tim and Peter last night. A blast from the past, everyone is doing good and healthy!!! I also talked to Angie a couple nights ago, she is a full time MOMMY, with three kids in 5 years.
Randy
I talked to Tim and Peter last night. A blast from the past, everyone is doing good and healthy!!! I also talked to Angie a couple nights ago, she is a full time MOMMY, with three kids in 5 years.
Randy
02-05-2008, 03:18 PM
#35
Former Vendor
"Crosstalk" Does it happen in a Corvette leaf spring. Well we did many more test over 15 years ago. This is a simple way of testing the theory.
I mounted a 99 vette spring into a C6 Z06 crandle.
I hit one side of the leaf spring with the mallet. Todd, was holding the other side of the spring. He felt a small vibration on the other side. Vibration is a great way of seeing if something is transfering to the other side. I would say my hammer blow is like hitting a small rock on the track or street.
The other simple test I did was standing on one side of the leaf spring as Todd stood on the crandle. I only had one foot on it and was pushing down pretty hard. What happened?
I was only able to push down the spring about 3/4 of a inch. We saw the center of the spring more, flatting out (arch). Also saw the spring on the other side of the two bushings move a small amount. Just by me putting some pressure on it. Now put a 3000 pound car on it and the movement will increase, right?
How a leaf spring works. As the arc changes the spring rate also changes.
Call it what ever you need to. We used "crosstalk" for marketing. A leaf spring is a different type of spring then a coil. The rate changes during suspension travel on both systems, but only one transfers and changes depending on the other side.
Swaybars can be a different thread all together. But they do change the behavior of the car, they do tie the control arms together. Why is this different then the leaf spring? Because it doesn't change the spring rate on the oppisite side.
Randy
02-05-2008, 05:24 PM
#36
BTW, your last statement is technically incorrect IF we consider all factors that affect the “effective spring rate”. Perhaps effective wheel rate would be better. With a coil equipped car with no anti-roll bar the left and right wheel rates are not tied together. If we consider the chassis locked down and compress the left suspension, the force required to displace the right suspension doesn’t change.
However, the moment we and an anti-roll bar the two are tied together. Compress the left wheel and the anti-roll bar pulls up on the right side. Now the force required to compress the right side say 1/2" has been reduced because the anti-roll bar is in essences, doing some of the pushing. So the right wheel rate is related to the position of the left wheel. The more we compress the left wheel, the easier it is to compress the right.
In the case of the leaf spring we see the same thing. When the left wheel is pushed up, left end of the leaf moves the center of the leaf down. That in turn lowers the effective spring rate of the right side. In engineering terms, the right side wheel rate is a function of the position of the left side wheel. That happens to be the same thing we see with the anti-roll bar.
In the end we want the position of the left wheel to have an affect on the right side spring rate. Why do we care if the job is split between the springs and anti-roll bar vs just being handled by the anti-roll bar.
02-05-2008, 05:27 PM
#37
Team Owner
being rubber mounted the vibration has to go through.
Just remembered it was not Tim it was Peter.
How much longer for C6Z shocks not that I have one.
Just remembered it was not Tim it was Peter.
How much longer for C6Z shocks not that I have one.
Last edited by John Shiels; 02-05-2008 at 05:30 PM.
02-05-2008, 05:40 PM
#38
The rubber mounts are meant to let the motions through. "Vibrations" allows for quite a number of frequencies. Now, what makes the "vibrations" transferred via the leaf spring better or worse than those transmitted by a steel combined torsion/beam spring (aka the anti-roll bar)?
02-05-2008, 05:55 PM
#39
Former Vendor
I said "crosstalk" does occur. Lamm's book also says it occurs. It also is something GM clearly did deliberately. Additionally, "crosstalk" occures with anti-roll bars. The question is why is it good for anti-roll bars to "crosstalk" but bad for the spring system to do the same thing?
BTW, your last statement is technically incorrect IF we consider all factors that affect the “effective spring rate”. Perhaps effective wheel rate would be better. With a coil equipped car with no anti-roll bar the left and right wheel rates are not tied together. If we consider the chassis locked down and compress the left suspension, the force required to displace the right suspension doesn’t change.
However, the moment we and an anti-roll bar the two are tied together. Compress the left wheel and the anti-roll bar pulls up on the right side. Now the force required to compress the right side say 1/2" has been reduced because the anti-roll bar is in essences, doing some of the pushing. So the right wheel rate is related to the position of the left wheel. The more we compress the left wheel, the easier it is to compress the right.
In the case of the leaf spring we see the same thing. When the left wheel is pushed up, left end of the leaf moves the center of the leaf down. That in turn lowers the effective spring rate of the right side. In engineering terms, the right side wheel rate is a function of the position of the left side wheel. That happens to be the same thing we see with the anti-roll bar.
In the end we want the position of the left wheel to have an affect on the right side spring rate. Why do we care if the job is split between the springs and anti-roll bar vs just being handled by the anti-roll bar.
BTW, your last statement is technically incorrect IF we consider all factors that affect the “effective spring rate”. Perhaps effective wheel rate would be better. With a coil equipped car with no anti-roll bar the left and right wheel rates are not tied together. If we consider the chassis locked down and compress the left suspension, the force required to displace the right suspension doesn’t change.
However, the moment we and an anti-roll bar the two are tied together. Compress the left wheel and the anti-roll bar pulls up on the right side. Now the force required to compress the right side say 1/2" has been reduced because the anti-roll bar is in essences, doing some of the pushing. So the right wheel rate is related to the position of the left wheel. The more we compress the left wheel, the easier it is to compress the right.
In the case of the leaf spring we see the same thing. When the left wheel is pushed up, left end of the leaf moves the center of the leaf down. That in turn lowers the effective spring rate of the right side. In engineering terms, the right side wheel rate is a function of the position of the left side wheel. That happens to be the same thing we see with the anti-roll bar.
In the end we want the position of the left wheel to have an affect on the right side spring rate. Why do we care if the job is split between the springs and anti-roll bar vs just being handled by the anti-roll bar.
I know what you are saying loud and clear. The wheel rate is affected by the swaybar no question about that. Please note there is a difference when the car is in a turn and when the car is hitting a bump square on both sides.
Shock is to control the tire
spring is to hold the car up off the ground
swaybar is to control body roll
The stock car is very good and I don't really care what is under it for suspension, because it works good. But you put that to the limits and the problems start popping up. Then to fix the problems with the stock suspension, there is no reason for anything other then coilovers and different swaybars. You can change the amount of sway control by buying new swaybars, or spring rates by buying different springs.
Easy ways of wrecking a good handling car
too much swaybar
lower too much
too stiff of spring rates
not enough shock control
big huge front tires
Thanks for being a Crosstalk supporter!!!
Randy
PS good driver, leaf car > bad driver, with coilovers
02-05-2008, 06:16 PM
#40
Randy,
As we both agree that leaf does"crosstalk", do you consider that a good thing or a bad thing. When you sell a suspension upgrade kit do you pull the leaf because you feel there is something inherently wrong with how it works, or is it simply because you have found it easier to get the job done with the coils, dampers and anti-roll bars you have at your disposal?
I ask because I've seen many people disparage the design GM has chosen. I personally think it's clever and see nothing inherently wrong with it. I’ve seen a number of people who claim that this or that handling trait of the Corvette is due to the use of the leaf springs vs coils. They say this instead of saying that this or that handling trait is due to the combination of damping, wheel and roll rates chosen by GM.
However, I can see that the upgrade options are somewhat limited. I suspect that as a tuner there are more spring rates (and suppliers) available to you if you go coil vs leaf. Of course I could be wrong so I would be interested to know your take on the subject. Why did you guys choose coil overs vs a new set of dampers and a new leaf spring?
Given the factory shocks, and factory chosen spring and roll rates, do you think the car would have been better, worse, or effectively the same had the factory gone with coils (assuming they could fit) vs the leaf spring?
As we both agree that leaf does"crosstalk", do you consider that a good thing or a bad thing. When you sell a suspension upgrade kit do you pull the leaf because you feel there is something inherently wrong with how it works, or is it simply because you have found it easier to get the job done with the coils, dampers and anti-roll bars you have at your disposal?
I ask because I've seen many people disparage the design GM has chosen. I personally think it's clever and see nothing inherently wrong with it. I’ve seen a number of people who claim that this or that handling trait of the Corvette is due to the use of the leaf springs vs coils. They say this instead of saying that this or that handling trait is due to the combination of damping, wheel and roll rates chosen by GM.
However, I can see that the upgrade options are somewhat limited. I suspect that as a tuner there are more spring rates (and suppliers) available to you if you go coil vs leaf. Of course I could be wrong so I would be interested to know your take on the subject. Why did you guys choose coil overs vs a new set of dampers and a new leaf spring?
Given the factory shocks, and factory chosen spring and roll rates, do you think the car would have been better, worse, or effectively the same had the factory gone with coils (assuming they could fit) vs the leaf spring?
Last edited by wishihad1-2; 02-05-2008 at 06:19 PM.