2014 C7 Chevrolet Corvette

[RogerR]

Originally Posted by OrbitalEllipses

You have to be kidding.

From a technology point of view it wasn't. I didn't mean from a styling or marketing point of view. The C1's chassis was conventional for the time. The engines, except for the fuel injected model which was very advanced for the time, were basically shared with other GM cars. The fiberglass body was innovative. But it wasn't until the C2 that GM really tried to show of engineering know how rather than just making a domestic interpretation of the small European sports cars of the time.

[RogerR]

Originally Posted by vtmike

I wonder how much is by design and what is unintended side effect. From what I could gather from various Vette forums with what appeared to be knowledgeable people commenting is the leaf used in the Vette is neither predictably progressive or regressive in its change in spring rate with deflection but does some weird things. I can't imagine that's by design but is maybe a side effect of the center of the spring between the 2 mounts flexing changing geometry as the suspension travels. But maybe it is. I would love to see a graph of deflection vs force for the Corvette.

First, remember that you are dealing with a number of different springs and models. One might be more progressive than another. I've seen no evidence that suggests that the spring's tolerances are worse than standard coils. I've never seen anyone claim it was a regressive spring. I'm not sure how many people on the forum have measured the spring. Modeling it correctly is likely not that easy. The ZF link I included earlier talked about modeling the springs performance. Remember that unlike steal, the leaf is not a homogenous material.

I would agree that predictability would not be something done by design. I also haven't seen any evidence of what you are describing and I have been around the Corvette forums a few times. A graph of deflection vs wheel height would be nice but I'm not sure where you would get one and, it would have to be tested with the other wheel at a number of known heights.

I also would like to see a graph of deflection of one side vs anti roll force on the opposite side for the leaf spring and compare that to the effect from a roll bar.
I would bet the shape of those graphs are quite different. Someone more knowledgeable correct me if I'm wrong.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

I think you would be wrong. You have shown no evidence to suggest otherwise. Since you are an engineer you might have access to FEA software. Even though you couldn't make an exactly correct model, one which illustrates the idea shouldn't be hard. Perhaps you could model this and show us if you are correct. In the mean time people like race engineering legend Carroll Smith seem to feel the design works well. You can also try to get some of the peer reviewed SAE papers on the subject.

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by RogerR

From a technology point of view it wasn't. I didn't mean from a styling or marketing point of view. The C1's chassis was conventional for the time. The engines, except for the fuel injected model which was very advanced for the time, were basically shared with other GM cars. The fiberglass body was innovative. But it wasn't until the C2 that GM really tried to show of engineering know how rather than just making a domestic interpretation of the small European sports cars of the time.

First V8 since god knows when, that's pretty revolutionary.

[vtmike]

Originally Posted by RogerR

First, remember that you are dealing with a number of different springs and models. One might be more progressive than another. I've seen no evidence that suggests that the spring's tolerances are worse than standard coils. I've never seen anyone claim it was a regressive spring. I'm not sure how many people on the forum have measured the spring. Modeling it correctly is likely not that easy. The ZF link I included earlier talked about modeling the springs performance. Remember that unlike steal, the leaf is not a homogenous material.

I would agree that predictability would not be something done by design. I also haven't seen any evidence of what you are describing and I have been around the Corvette forums a few times. A graph of deflection vs wheel height would be nice but I'm not sure where you would get one and, it would have to be tested with the other wheel at a number of known heights.

I also would like to see a graph of deflection of one side vs anti roll force on the opposite side for the leaf spring and compare that to the effect from a roll bar.
I would bet the shape of those graphs are quite different. Someone more knowledgeable correct me if I'm wrong.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

I think you would be wrong. You have shown no evidence to suggest otherwise. Since you are an engineer you might have access to FEA software. Even though you couldn't make an exactly correct model, one which illustrates the idea shouldn't be hard. Perhaps you could model this and show us if you are correct. In the mean time people like race engineering legend Carroll Smith seem to feel the design works well. You can also try to get some of the peer reviewed SAE papers on the subject.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately my office doesn't do structural design or have structural software.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by OrbitalEllipses

First V8 since god knows when, that's pretty revolutionary.

I thought the first Vette had a straight 6?

[RogerR]

Originally Posted by OrbitalEllipses

First V8 since god knows when, that's pretty revolutionary.

The Corvette's first V8, the now legendary small block was developed for Chevy cars such as the '55 Chevy. It wasn't developed for the slow selling and on it's death bed C1. Even in 1955 quite a few V8s were on the domestic market. And, as was mentioned the first two years of the Corvette were powered by an I6. Even the '57 fuel injection V8 wasn't developed for the Corvette so much as the Chevy sedan and coupe.

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by RogerR

The Corvette's first V8, the now legendary small block was developed for Chevy cars such as the '55 Chevy. It wasn't developed for the slow selling and on it's death bed C1. Even in 1955 quite a few V8s were on the domestic market.

Shitty engine, no doubt. But the formula my man, the formula!

Originally Posted by Dimman

I thought the first Vette had a straight 6?

1955 was the first small block V8. SBC all the way, baby!

[RogerR]

Originally Posted by OrbitalEllipses

Shitty engine, no doubt. But the formula my man, the formula!


1955 was the first small block V8. SBC all the way, baby!

So again what part of the C1 was revolutionary in design? Not the engine, not the chassis, not the suspension. Honestly not even the styling and were it not for the Ford Thunderbird the Corvette might have died in it's first generation. The C2 was the first model to really push engineering.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by RogerR

So again what part of the C1 was revolutionary in design? Not the engine, not the chassis, not the suspension. Honestly not even the styling and were it not for the Ford Thunderbird the Corvette might have died in it's first generation. The C2 was the first model to really push engineering.

C1 was supposed to be an American Triumph or something, wasn't it?

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by Dimman

C1 was supposed to be an American Triumph or something, wasn't it?

Again, I say the formula was revolutionary. The C2 was no doubt a better car, but without the C1 it wouldn't be. I'm quite partial to early C3 chassis cars myself.

[RogerR]

Originally Posted by OrbitalEllipses

Again, I say the formula was revolutionary. The C2 was no doubt a better car, but without the C1 it wouldn't be. I'm quite partial to early C3 chassis cars myself.

I think we agreed already that as a market segment the car was revolutionary for the domestic car companies (though it was the T-bird, not the slow selling Corvette that made the case).
However, the C1 didn't have much in the way of new technology. Only the body shell could have been considered cutting edge and unique to the Corvette.

[RogerR]

Originally Posted by vtmike

Unfortunately my office doesn't do structural design or have structural software.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

I did a quick google search just to see if someone had an example of the sort of plot we were talking about. No such luck but I did find this

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by RogerR

....However, the C1 didn't have much in the way of new technology. Only the body shell could have been considered cutting edge and unique to the Corvette.

Obviously it depends on the facet of the car being discussed. Fiberglass in production was a relatively new idea, especially for GM. Certainly aspects of most Corvette generations can be considered revolutionary, but the cars as a whole, maybe not.

With any luck the driving dynamics of the C7 are revolutionary, or at least a strong evolution of the '12+ C6 GS, which was a dramatic improvement over the early C6's in terms of NVH, steering feel, and at-limit communication.

We can all agree the C7's seats needed to be a revolution. Hopefully they work as well as they look.

[RogerR]

The C6 seats were often malined but really the problem wasn't that they were bad so much as GM didn't offer a good sport seat. The C6 seats were very good if your intent was say to drive coast to coast. Having put some hours in the C6 I can say comfort wasn't a problem. However, lateral support was. I think you would find the base Cayman or 911 seats were about the same as the Corvette's in terms of support for track driving. However, Porsche was more than willing to upgrade the seats for what they considered a fair price. The C7's sport seats will hopefully address this point. The rest of the interior certainly helps fix the C6's plain Jane interior.