Determine if user Springee is violating Wikipedia:Neutrality, Wikipedia:No Original Research standards by 'blanking' a legitimate relevant point from a published cited source based on user:Springee's personal conflicting opinion.
Who are the involved parties?
Autostream, Springee
What's going on?
Autostream added a point under 'disadvantages' section from a cited Motor Trend article verbatim. Springee blanked this point immediately saying," This information is factually incorrect." The resulting edit conflict has gone back and forth 6 times.
Springee's response:
I am removing an article that contains know factual errors, contains speculation with out explanation, and contains opinion.
Autostream's response is:
This Corvette leaf spring article deals with springs on a car. And springs have a huge impact on handling and ride. Two aspects which are inherently subjective; they cannot be quantified with figures.
Motor Trend magazine is a hugely credible source on vehicle ride and handling dynamics. The only source to counter them in this Wikipedia article is an unprofessional, personal opinion.
According to the help pages here, Wikipedia should present all legitimate and professional aspects of a subject, including alternate points of view, to allow the reader to make his/her own judgements.
What would you like to change about that?
I would like the cited point to remain. I would also like user:Springee to be blocked from blanking as he appears to 'own' the article --Autostream (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to pose some general questions, to help establish where we agree and disagree. Please try to be concise, but still clear — for instance, try to address the point completely but only the point in question. Answering just "yes" or "no" is not really helpful, but neither is answering in the form of a 1000 word essay. --Haemo (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would your "ideal" version of this section look like? How would you deal with the material being discussed? If you can, illustrate with an "example" revision.
What is your position on the article being cited? Is it an opinion piece? Does it contain errors? Imagine trying to explain to a layman where the article's credibility would lie on a line between "accepted expert statement" (10) and "hearsay" (0)?
Do you believe there to be errors in the paper? If so, can you
cite
sources which would back up your belief?
Can you think of another source which could be used to provide a better treatment of the issue, perhaps in a different way? (For instance, could the article discuss the subject more generally using technical literature?)
Responses to first questions
Responses by Autostream
1.
I dont think the cited article needs explanation. Its short, pithy, and to the point. In the spirit of fairness, I wish only for it to be listed verbatim.
The design, construction, and theory of leafs' disadvantages are NOT in dispute. Only the end result of their dynamics. The sources information about aftermarket tuners swapping the leaf for coils is proof that they are attributing the poor ride/handling to the spring alone. Like I've said before, ride/handling CANNOT be quantified with numbers or formulas or stopwatches, its all about 'feel' which can only be subjective.
The poor ride/handling implication means it should go under the 'disadvantages' category as such:
- Ride and Handling; according to Motor Trend magazine (11/07)[1]: "[the Corvette C6's transverse leafs] make the rearend behave a bit like a rigid axle. Aftermarket tuners have scrapped them in C5s and C6s for coil-springs"
2. This contention as I see it, with Springee, is with only one issue: The sources credibility. And the source is talking only about the deficiency of the Corvette leaf spring and not the anti-roll bar or other suspension parts or geometry.
I wish to dismiss any counter-credibility claim regarding the authors mentioning 'carbon', as a typo because it is the leafs inherent actions, and not the material, that the author is talking about.
'behaving like a rigid axle' is only a simple metaphor for: when one wheel reacts to a bump, you feel it in both wheels since they are in effect, connected like a 'rigid axle' via the leaf spring. It doesnt mean it HAS a rigid axle, it just FEELS like its does sometimes when driving the car.
Springee's lengthy counter claim is that physics says this cannot be true. But Springee has not listed his credentials. He is neither a scientist, road test editor, nor a suspension engineer. Springee points to one source from a biased Corvette publications that notwithstanding, does even NOT counter the Motor Trend point - which is about driving feel only. Springee's opinion here seems to go against the Wiki:No Original Research standard
So we have a magazine that has been in business for 58 years and is best known for inventing the infamous 'Car of the Year Award'. And I think if this point is good enough for Motor Trend to report to its millions of subscribers, its good enough for Wikipedia.
3. * Only the above mentioned typo that is irrelavent to this discussion.
4 * The Motor Trend article is not about a road test of a SPECIFIC car in question and I think this is crucial. Such negative statements about ride/handling are noticable subdued during road tests articles because the manufacturers of the loaned vehicles sign their paychecks (through ads). Thus road test magazines usually only criticise in a small sidebar or in editorial pieces such as this one. This perhaps explains why there is little to no other sources to cite.
'THIRD OPINION' user: William Pietri is in agreement with me. (his comments in the discussion area of original article)
Important: Springee has recently (March 29,2008) added this Motor Trend point to the article but buried it the anti-roll bar section and didn't cite Motor Trend (except link at the bottom of the article)
Further, he surrounded it by counter claims with no citing whatsoever apart from a non professional 'scanned' page from a book hosted on a Corvette website. This also seems to be counter to the Wiki: Article Ownership standard. I argue this should be posted as per my number 1. above.--Autostream (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responses by Springee
I would leave the information out of the entry entirely. It does not provide a technical explanation and its speculative explanation is flawed. As a previous compromise move I have added additional text to the wiki article citing the claims made in the Motor Trend article.
The article is from at best a semi reliable technical source. The text is an opinion on a “wish list” for the next generation Corvette. I would assume the author has experience driving the Corvette as well as its competition and is competent to comment on vehicle handling. The author does not cite conversations with engineers or technical staff. The author does not establish any personal technical/engineering credentials. As a source on the “handling” of cars I would give the author a 6. As a source of technical information I would give the author a 2. Motor Trend writers are at least car people but not automotive engineers.
The article contains several errors. The spring material was cited as “Carbon Fiber”; a material renowned for its stiffness to weight ratio. The material is actually fiberglass and this error is not in dispute. I consider this error significant in this case because the MT article is being used as a technical source regarding the Corvette’s leaf spring.
The second error is less black and white but seems to be the core of the issue. The article claims (perhaps correctly) that the Corvette has a particular negative handling trait. The article then jumps to the conclusion that this trait is caused by the leaf spring as opposed to some other design issue. It also states that the reason the leaf spring is the cause is, "under some conditions they make the rearend behave a bit like a rigid axle". This is questionable because the rigid axle comparison is wrong and blaming the use of a leaf spring ignores other factors which could be the cause.
The rigid axle behavior claim is incorrect if we use the common definition of "independent suspension" and would apply to almost all cars with independent suspension if we assume "independent" means 100% no connection (ie no left to right side connecting springs).
The Geometric or common definition: In simple terms this implies that the movement of one wheel changes the angle of the other. See the pictures below.
In the first case you can see that when one wheel is displaced the other tilts. This does not happen in the second picture. It is clear in pictures of the Corvette suspension that the leaf and right sides are geometrically independent. This is also consistent with GM’s statement that the car uses double A-arm independent suspension. I do not believe this is in dispute.
The leaf spring connects the left and right sides together: This means a movement on one side affects the other via spring forces or via a spring connected between the two sides. This is actually true. However, this is not what is meant by independent suspension and is exactly what an anti-roll bar is meant to do.
An anti-roll bar is in essence a spring between the left and right sides of the car. When both wheels move together the bar is under no force. When only one side moves the anti-roll bar acts like a spring and tries to force the wheels back to the same height. In this respect the suspension on the Corvette is the same as other “Independent Suspensions”. Changing from a leaf spring to coil springs (what almost all cars use) would make no difference in this regard. This is mentioned in the Wiki on “Independent Suspension.”
Thus the description is factually incorrect in the case of geometric independence. While not technically incorrect in the case of spring forces it would apply to basically 100% of the cars we say have “independent suspension” thus is not in agreement with the common definition of the term.
The article does not state why the problem isn’t related to other components which could cause the described handling traits. The Car and Driver link below mentions the same undesirable trait as the MT article. It also says this trait was corrected in subsequent year Corvettes via a change to dampers, not springs. This indicates that the same handling trait can be affected or even caused by components other than the leaf spring. Thus an authoritative article would need to state why the cause is the spring concept and not for instance the shocks.
So we have two major factual errors and no explanation how the leaf spring causes the handling trait and no explanation why other parts are not to blame though we have another article suggestion that may be the case.
Regrettably I have not found a great deal of detailed technical literature on the web. Somewhere I do have an SAE paper talking about choice of the leaf springs on the C5 Corvette. The primary reason for its use was the packaging advantages it offered. It does not mention any of the negatives in question or even those listed in the Wiki. The link to a section of Michael Lamm’s book is the most definitive technical information I have found beyond web forum postings. It does explain how the system works but it does not go through the effort to deflect the criticisms in question here. The illustrations I created for the Wiki are based on the information from Lamm’s book. I believe they do a good job of providing visual evidence of “independence” I am describing. They are also consistent with the existing suspension articles on Wikipedia.
950 Words... sorry.
Specific Responses to Autostreams Posting
As my initial posting were prior to Autostream's I have added the following section as a response to Autostream's post.
1a. Short and pithy are not qualities of good technical sources. They are qualities of opinion pieces.
1b. The disadvantages are in dispute. The ride quality and handling of the car may or may not be bad (I have my own opinion on this subject but I will leave it out). The issue is are the concerns raised by Motor Trend actually CAUSED by the unique properties of the leaf spring or not. Mind you the only thing that make the leaf spring truly unique vs a coil spring is the anti-roll effect.
This link contains a web forum discussion with an aftermarket tuner who replaces the leaf springs
Coilovers make our job easier to R and D new things.
and
The car works very well for 85 percent of the owners. The car is fast, cheap, and puts down all the performance numbers. I may regret saying this but, Yes the factory leaf works very well for the street-light track. For all the requirements that GM has to meet, the leaf springs meet or exeed the goals and raise the bar for everyone else. Building a factory style car has many different PITA, that us aftermarket companies don't have.
Basically for an aftermarket tuner, it is easier to use commonly accessible coil springs rather than custom leaves. He also notes a dislike of the factory dampers.
1c. Again, it should be adequately demonstrated that the alleged poor ride quality is because of the type of spring, as opposed to say spring rate (universal to coils or leaves, damping, unsprung weight, the run flat tires (generally know for poor ride quality) etc).
2a. Why off handedly dismiss a fundamental descriptive error of the suspension system yet blame the same part? Autostream has never answered this point.
2b. "behaving like" implies properties similar to. However, the article doesn't explain this and based on existing Wikis this would be inconsistent with the suspension design used on the Corvette.
2c. The physical counter claim is supported by illustrations from wiki entries, both mine and others. The source by Lamm has not been shown to be biased nor factually incorrect. You are correct my sources don't counter the claims about FEEL however, they do show that the claim that the feel is the result of the specific use of a leaf spring is in question. They also suggest other areas of suspension design could be the cause.
2d. Among web forums the "Car of the Year" award is very questionable. Additionally, the writer of the Autoextremist.com wrote a lengthy piece talking about the marketing and sales tie ins that Motor Trend demands of a recipient.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/19991027/press002043.html (format error on page, article is at bottom).
3. If you disagree with my other points please explain why.
4. If Motor Trend is indeed paid by the manufacture as you claim they can no longer be considered unbiased in any of their views and loose all credibility as an independent source.
Springee, I feel you misunderstand what Wikipedia is and is not. Wikipedia is NOT a blog or journal for you to post your own research. If you have extensive knowledge of a subject, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, or online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge.
If you are going to edit, Wikipedia policy DEMANDS that conflicting perspectives exist and be presented equally. None of the views should be judged as "the truth", even the most popular one.
All sources have bias. Which is why we include ALL sourced POV's and let readers form their own opinions.--Autostream (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Autostream,
I do not believe you should be lecturing about what is OK on Wiki.
Given how aggressive you have been asking me for citations, why would you post all that original content without citation? I’m referring to the part you added under Cross Talk after line 51. Would that not count as original content? Well it wasn’t original content.
I also assume you are aware that Wiki specifically forbids plagiarism. Why didn’t you cite that you took the information, verbatim, from this posting. I might not have noticed except that I was involved in that discussion.
Quoted from the posting:
The post has listed almost all of the benefits of this system; lowered CG, weight saving, energy transfer similar to a sway bar, faster reaction than steel (leafs or coils) and super long life. There are probably others I can think of later…
The down side of transverse composite springs are few but notable; higher price, fewer choices (as costs to manufacture are very high compared to coils), not nearly as heat resistant as steel. Anything else?
This was posted by a person in the industry who is familiar with the engineering of the springs. I would call that an expert opinion. He did not claim the spring would fundamentally harm ride and handling.
More questions for both parties
Okay, so I'm getting a lot of different things here. I think we're going to have to focus in a lot more on the editorial issue here, rather than the actual factual issues. I'd just like to remind us of an important point — please, let's keep the issue focused on content, and not other editors. So, with that said, I'm going to address question individually. Please, don't respond to each other directly — pretend you're giving evidence, or something.
Questions for Autostream
The argument has been made that we should set aside this article because it contains errors. Do you agree with the point that it contains error? Do you think this affects the point the piece is being cited for?
Have you examined the Lamm book referred to? If so, what are your thoughts?
Questions for Springee
You argue that Michael Lamm’s book deflects the criticism made in the MotorTrend article. Could you explain how, concisely?
You've discussed errors in the article. Do you think these affect the point the piece is being cited for?
Responses to second questions
Responses by Autostream
1. We can't be sure that the material is NOT made in part from carbon because we know for a fact that the Corvette leaf spring is indeed a 'composite' of fibers from GM's own press releases on the Cadillac XLR: "Like the Corvette, it uses transversely mounted composite leaf springs front and rear." (If you google this quote, you will find at least ten publications with this exact quote, signifying a press release.) So it may be a typo, ot it may indeed be a fact. But either way, the material is NOT in question here. Only the way the part functions.
2. The problem with the Lamm book here is:
A. It's outdated. It was written in 1983 about the 1984 Corvette. It's 14 years later and the current Corvette has been through two extensive redesigns. The Motor Trend article involves only the 2005+ Corvettes.
B. It only covers advantages of the 1984 Corvette leaf spring and doesnt make any reference to any downsides or cons, so it seems a bit biased.
C. It talks about objective theory of operation while the Motor Trend article is about actual subjective feel in the real world.
D. Nowhere does the Lamm book contradict the Motor Trend article. I see them as separate issues.
Responses by Springee
The Lamm book does not deflect criticism regarding ride and handling. Then again my point isn't that their opinion of the ride and handling is wrong, it is not relevant to the discussion. Lamm's article explains how the spring is connected to the independent suspension arms. It also explains how the spring provides an action similar to an anti-roll bar. I do not have an issue with the MT writer saying the car has handling issues. However, they specifically blame the spring because "it behaves like an rigid axle". The Lamm book states the car has independent suspension (ie not the same as a rigid axle). While the Lamm book was written about the C4 Corvette, the C5 and C6 Corvettes also have independent suspension. The MT author may be confused because, as Lamm states, the leaf spring does transfer LOADS (not geometric movements) from side to side. However, this is exactly what an anti-roll bar does. Thus for the MT article to accurately claim that the spring is bad BECAUSE it transfer loads from side to side, they would have to explain why that is bad on the 99.9% of the cars on the road with anti-roll bars.
The Lamm book also states that the spring is fiberglass vs carbon fiber. Please note that I have used the Lamm book as a reference with regards to how the system functions. I have not used it as a reference for how things like anti-roll bars function nor as a reference for properties which may lead to poor vehicle handling.
I just found one more bit of information and it is in direct conflict with the MT information. Design News is an engineering design magazine. It talks about Volvo using the transverse leaf spring setup in the 960 Wagon. From the entry, Designers at Swedish car maker Volvo turned to composite materials to reduce size and weight of the rear suspension of its 960 model without having to sacrifice the Volvo reputation for ride comfort. So now we have a non-engineering magazine, MT, saying the spring is a problem for ride and handling. We have a non-automotive but definitely engineering magazine with an equally short blurb saying Volvo chose the leaf spring concept because it will preserve their ride quality and handling. This backs my whole point, the MT article is not a credible source for the general claim that the leaf spring CAUSES poor ride and handling BECAUSE it is a leaf spring instead of a set of coils. As such, the disadvantage can not be credibly cited and should not be included.
Yes. The article is being used to support the claim that the Corvette's poor handling is specifically BECAUSE it uses this type of spring. However the article offers only a vague causal explanation. I have explained the two ways that causal explanation could be viewed and shown why one is factually wrong while the other, if true, would have to apply to basically all cars with independent suspension including cars which MT doesn't cite as having handling issues. Further more, the article does not explain why other features were not to blame. Since originally posting this I have added several links to the article which describe negative handling effects similar to what MT mentioned being caused by high unsprung weight as well as too stiff anti-roll bars. The Car and Driver article talking about changes to shocks correcting a problem for example.
I think it should also be added that the view of the particular MT author should not be considered universal. Many articles can be found which praise the handling of the Corvette. Also important to note is GM has put a number of different shocks and versions of the leaf spring on the Corvette. Criticism of say an 2006 Z06 may not apply to a 2008 lower line Corvette with the magnetorheological shocks. For the MT criticism to be true it must be categorically true and apply to all versions of the C5 and C6 Corvettes (ie all with the same leaf spring setup). If it does not, it would be logical to assume the flaw is not fundamental to the system but inherent in a particular combination of spring, shocks, and tires on the particular test car.
Some additional documentation: This is a disertation on compliant members in suspension design. It does not say that the use of leaf springs will result the handling characteristics described by the MT editor. I do not believe we should consider MT more authoritative on suspension design than some who is getting a doctorate in the subject. [2]
Here is a very reasent patent on a suspension design similar to the Corvette's. It specifically talks about the roll resisting traits that Autostream seems to question.[3] Here is another patent, this time by Ford[4]. It has the flexing center section that increases the roll rate of the vehicle. It turns out it was used on a version of the Escort. It doesn't say the leaf spring acts like a rigid axle at all. So now I have documents from Ford, I assume they can be considered experts, that contradict the amature engineers at MT. And yet another patent on the subject. This one is out of England[5]. Least I be accused of posting outdated information, here is a 2006 patent from Ford entitled, Wheel suspension for a motor vehicle with a transverse leaf spring[6]. Again these patents back the operational description given by Michael Lamm. They also do NOT support the rigid axle claims made my Motor Trend. I also believe they would be considered expert, peer reviewed opinions given they are from Ford and others (not GM) and are now a mater of public record. What more do you want?
Follow up to Autostream reply
I understand that you requested we not reply to the comments of others. However, my comments were viewable by Autostream thus enabling tailoring responses with my text in mind. As such I have included these replies.
I included a link to a posting by an engineer who makes fiber glass springs for the Corvette. That person said they are fiberglass. The Lamm book said they were fiberglass. How many references do we need? Sure fiber glass likely contains carbon atoms but that does not make it carbon-fiber. Carbon fiber is a very different material. Why is this an issue? Well if the author is going to be wrong about this how can we trust he is right about how the spring functions? Also, "composite" is a term which covers many material types. Composite materials are any material that is not uniform in its make up. Wood is a composite. Fiberglass is a composite of glass fibers and bonding resin.
In what way is Lamms book out of date? Cite an example? The theory of operation has not changed. You admit that the text talks objectively about the operation of the spring. You accuse the text of not covering the drawbacks but what if the drawback you are trying to prove (ie Corvette style transverse leaf spring MUST equal poor ride/handling) isn’t true? The composite spring engineer I quoted didn’t seem to think so. As you correctly point out the MT article talks about ride and handling. While I can find sources that disagree with their point, even if they are right about how the car drives, to be a credible source they need to explain why the leaf spring is the cause. The explanation given is wrong as I’ve outlined at were it true it would have to apply to ALL versions of the Corvette which have used this spring setup, not just say the 2006 Z06. If it doesn’t apply to all versions then it’s a logically inconsistent statement.
Proposal
How about if you include the cited MT opinion, but also include information about similar issues with the Volvo, to balance the description. For instance, something like:
Ride and Handling: according to an opinion in Motor Trend magazine, the Corvette C6's transverse leafs "make the rearend behave a bit like a rigid axle. Aftermarket tuners have scrapped them in C5s and C6s for coil-springs". However, similar arrangements used by Volvo "to reduce size and weight of the rear suspension [without sacrificing] ride comfort."(cite)
Thought? --Haemo (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the desire to include the information in a section regarding oposing views. I would not include it in the "Disadvantages" section as the claim clearly has not been shown to be true and a body of evidence exists to indicate that it isn't true. Simply, the claim is too flippant and factually incorrect to include as a point of reference. If we were talking about something subjective such as "the Corvette handles badly" or even somewhat objective such as "the rear jumps laterally when cornering over broken pavement" I would agree that we should include references that both praise and admonish the handling of the car.
This case is different. First, I believe we have established that the MT claim that the suspension behaves like a rigid axle is categorically wrong. I have shown several patents include ones from Ford which do not agree with this description of events. Thus for the simple fact that the information is wrong it should not be included.
Also, in this case we are talking about proof of a causal relationship. Even if we ignore that MT was wrong about the spring material AND how it functions, for the MT claim to be true it must be categorically true. All cars with this arrangement (including all versions of the Corvette) must display the same trait. Additionally it must be shown that no other aspect of the suspension design was the cause of the issue. After Autostream attacked every point I made in the Wiki with a request for citations, I added a number of them. I have two difference sources which refer to other aspects of the suspension design which could cause the exact issue mentioned by MT; to stiff an anti-roll bar and high unsprung weight. Neither are inherent properties of the leaf spring suspension.
The aftermarket tuner claim is in no way conclusive. Some tuners do not remove them. Other remove them because, if they want different spring rates, it’s easier to do that with commonly available, low cost coils vs expensive, custom made leaves. I included a link to a conversation with an aftermarket turner who said, he replaces them because it makes his job easier. He does not consider the factory suspension to be better or worse just because it uses leaves instead of coils.
If someone were to add the Volvo link, honestly I would be just as critical of it. While it at least from an engineering based journal, it is very brief and does not provide proof that Volvo found the leaf spring cars to ride as well as those with coils. Both sources are very weak though I believe the MT source to be the weaker of the two.
Ultimately the link simply confuses the issue. It does not add to the basic “here is how it works” premise of the wiki. It definitely should not be listed as a “disadvantage” until proven to be such.
Well, I understand the sentiment, but you have to understand that Wikipedia also provides notable and cited opinions about subjective matters — and this is arguably a subjective opinion attributed to an objective physical cause. --Haemo (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with the subjective part. The problem is the attribution has been shown to be very questionable and the justification for the attribution, ie the claimed physical cause has been shown to be 100% wrong. As I said, although I believe it takes away from the entry, I would be willing to include it so long as it were separate from the clearly stated disadvantages and so long as a proper explanation of why it would be wrong is included. I have added this to the article already. As you said before, we do not want to simply argue to moderation.--Springee (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haemo, In the spirit of fairness and neutrality, I agree with your proposal 100% as a fair compromise. This is assuming that this point goes under "Disadvantages" AND as the first point since its controversy makes it the most important.
If this heading is not agreeable to the other party, I would also accept other headings as follows: "Deficiencies" or "Shortcomings" since the MT article titled '...corvette/improvements.html' implies pervasively that the modern Corvette leaf spring is indeed a disadvantage to the Corvette, in Motor Trends opinion - the obvious point being that a "rigid axle" 'feel' is NOT a desirable trait in any sports car (which also makes irrelavent any reference to the Volvo family sedans). Also any different heading should go no further down the article than right-under "Disadvantages".
This is really the only point now since the other party added the reference to the article,due to a 'Third Opinion', but did it in a way as to dilute and discredit its significant importance to the article.--Autostream (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not in the sprit of fairness in any way shape or form. You demands are a back door way to get the same incorrect point included depite the clear flaws that you have not answered and completely inapropriate as the point is completely disputed. It certainly does not deserve to be the first point. This is a back door way to add the original edit that I removed because it was not based on facts. Titles such as "Deficiencies" or "Shortcomings" are again a back door way to create exactly the same incorrect point as putting it under "Disadvantages". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs)
(Some material removed by mediator)
The Volvo issue is irrelavent here. A professional road tester would have to publish his opinion that it's leaf springs do NOT 'behave' like a rigid axle for it to even be considered in the same paragraph as the MT quote. And even then, one is a sports car and the other is a family sedan; completely different tuning, not a single suspension part number is shared; apples and oranges.
My personal opinion of the Corvette is shared on blogs, internet forums, and my own literature. When it comes to Wikipedia, we must adhere to its rules: Verified published quotes go in. Original Research (personal opinion) stay out.
As for the rest, this is not the place to argue. We tried to reach a consensus in the discussion part last month, but could not. The MT point is a verified source and that is all that matters in Wikipedia. This is not your personal blog. The inclusion of this published source and its milieu, are now in the hands of a mediator.--Autostream (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this page IS the place to have this conversation.
The Volvo point is valid because you, via a single quote, are saying ALL cars with this style leaf spring must have handling problems. If not this is not a general problem with the leaf spring as used on the Corvette. It may be a problem with some Corvettes but if the problem does affect the Volvo, it doesn’t affect all cars that use this type of suspension. It’s simple logic, if A causes B and Volvo has A then it must have B. If not A can’t universally cause B.
The MT post has been proven wrong unless you can show why all the information I posted is wrong. According to Wiki rules it has to be considered a poor source of information as it was not fact checked and has know errors.
You deserve credit for admitting who you are and admitting your bias. However, as you said, this is not a place for opinions which means you should remove those you have posted from other articles such as the Viper wiki. That and you should remove the copyright violating cut and pastes you have added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs)
3rd set of questions
Okay, so far we've agreed that this material should be included in the article in some respect, and probably qualified with some of the other material that has been brought to light during this discussion. Before we continue, I'd just like to ask everyone to continue being
sign your posts
to keep things readable.
With that said, I've got a
bold suggestion — a lot of this discussion focuses around the "advantages/disadvantages" organization of the article, as it currently stands. However, this is a completely artificial distinction — this article has a lot of problems, and this is one of them. Ideally, an article should discuss these things together, not in separate lists. Perhaps you guys could draft a section like "Performance and handling consideration", where these advantages and disadvantages could be more intelligently discussed and given some context for the general reader. Can one, or both of you guy propose a revision of a section like that, and implement the tentative common ground in a way you think will be mutually acceptable? (Reply below, if you would like) --Haemo (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I do not see an issue with changing the format of the article. However, I do think we need to consider if the MT posting is even credible to the point of inclusion. Remember the objective is not to say how the Corvette handles. That information is appropriate for the Corvette entry. The idea is simply to show how the suspension operates. I will not go as far as saying we have agreed that the material should be in the article. I believe it should not be included given the highly flawed nature of that particular point of MT article. According to Wikipedia's Verifiability guide it must be considered as a Questionable Source. As such it can be discussed in context of a misconception or possibly false/ overly broad conclusions. It can not be used as evidence of fact. However, if it is to be included then it should be in context with all of the flaws in the conclusion drawn by the author.
Changing the advantages and disadvantages section to a discussion of design considerations would be OK. However, I would not feel comfortable with Autostream as the author. He has a clear bias, little to no understand the mechanics of the system, and a history of copy pasting from published articles without citations or quotations. I would actually propose that a request be made to [user:Alexi]. I have faith in his ability to work on this document based on his previous efforts. Autostream decided to ask him about the MT article when I originally removed it. --Springee (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All,
After a complete review of the Wikipedia guidelines on sources the MT article is a Questionable Source and should be removed from the article.
For the MT article to be used as a reference supporting a point or in quotation to support a point it must be, per Wiki rules, a Reliable Source. If it is a reliable source inclusion is valid even if other reliable sources contradict the points being made. So IF the MT article is considered a reliable source it can be used as evidence that the Corvette has handling problems specifically BECAUSE it uses a leaf spring and NOT because of other design/tuning characteristics which have been shown via cited sources in the article to also cause the handling issues described by MT.
However, if the MT article is considered a Questionable Source it “should only be used in articles about themselves [its self].” That means it can not be used to support claims in articles which are not about MT articles. I think we can clearly say this Wiki is not about MT articles. The wiki guidelines state that questionable sources are “those with a poor reputation for fact-checking.”
So is it a Questionable Source? The article contains two factual errors. Autostream has acknowledged them in the article’s discussion section as:
The material claim.
The mechanical function of the spring. As stated by Autostream, the “’rigid connection’ part of the paragraph.”
We both agree that the MT article incorrectly identified the spring material, ie fact checking error.
The description of mechanical function of the spring, a “rigid connection” has also been shown to be incorrect. The Lamm article does not support that claim, the patents on transverse leaf springs show non-rigid connections. The photos in this link [1] show the front spring has a rubber pad that pushes down on a flat area of the front, lower A-arm thus not a rigid connection. The rear uses a tension link with rubber bushings at either end. Again, this is not a rigid connection to the A-arms. It is clear that the geometric motion of the suspension defined by the A-arms and not by the springs (which would actually create an over constrained kinematic structure).
Based on the two factual errors above the article MUST be considered a Questionable Source and per Wiki rules can not be used in support of other claims. This means it can not be used to support a claim that Corvettes have handling and ride issues BECAUSE they use a leaf spring.
Given the Wiki source guidelines and the specifics of the MT article it should be removed as a reference. If the poor ride and handling point is to remain a new reference must be cited.--Springee (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is actually incorrect. To quote
reliable sources make errors — that does not make them questionable. Furthermore, in all of the proposed solution so far we attribute the claim to the source — thus, we merely say "they believe this", and we do not attribute it as a fact. If you guys are both comfortable, you can go ahead and contact user:Alexi to draft a revision — with that solution, I think we can consider this mediation closed. --Haemo (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
This article has shown poor fact checking. Are there errors in dispute? That doesn't mean all Motor Trend article citations should be considered questionable, just this one in context of this topic. The Wall Street Journal is a reputable newspaper. They have on occasion published bad reports. While those bad reports should not cause us to cast all WS Journal articles into doubt, would we want to reference a section of an article that has been shown to be incorrect? Does that not make the particular article questionable?--Springee (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the article being rewritten without the 'advantages' & 'disadvantages' section as per your suggestion. But I do have a problem with user:Alexi, as he has had this to say about our conflict, "Motor Trend is a generalist magazine; it's not appropriate to use a vague quote from them to support a specific technical explanation of crosstalk." He also references 'crosstalk', a term and/or behavior that Springee previously said was erroneous (and Springee also blanked the section, 'crosstalk', that I created last month).
Perhaps somebody who knows nothing about Corvettes or suspensions could be rewrite it with a neutral POV?
Also, I disagree the article definitely has an error as I have explained in the 2nd set of questions--Autostream (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You asked Alexi’s advice on the topic. You acknowledged that he understood the material. Now you are upset that he wouldn’t agree that MT is a good source? Why did you feel he was smart, “I've noticed you are quite knowlegdable[sic] on this subject.” Yet when he returned an answer you didn’t like he became biased? The crosstalk section you “created” was plagiarized from a web forum (or can you deny this?). You searched for Corvette leaf spring and grabbed some info from the first thread you found. That, copy-paste and is against Wiki rules. It also would have been considered original content (where were your citation requests?) as you had no supporting links.
You keep claiming that GM said composite thus it could be carbon fiber. Yes, carbon fiber is a composite. So it wood. Do you think the spring is made from wood? The Flexlite springs are fiberglass based. They always have been. US Patent #5425829 filled by GM talks about glass fibers, not carbon fibers, “hybrid composite leaf spring comprises winding various proportions of glass and polyethylene terephthalate or nylon fibers together into a homogeneous mass in an epoxy matrix”. If you say they are carbon fiber, you find the proof. I already have Lamm article (a reliable source) on my side. Oh, I also have the manufacture saying glass... [2][3]
You are now claiming that I haven’t proven the connection between the leaf spring isn’t rigid. You are claiming suspension bushings are rigid. Really, if this is something you don’t understand you should stop making car videos. Quote:"They allow a small amount of motion, which could not be accommodated by a rigid joint."[4] I posted this page before and I will post it again. You can see the front leaf spring pushes down on the A arm with a rubber pad. The two parts are not bolted together. The rear is connected via a link with rubber (rubber is flexible just in case you didn’t know that) bushings at either end. The third to last and second to last photos in this how to section show the rubber bushing that pushes down on the front control arms. No solid connection.
The pictures of the rear show the “bolt” acting as a link. The spring is not clamped to the A-arm. If the pictures are not clear you do not have enough knowledge to judge what is and is not a NPOV nor what is original research.
To the moderator: It is my feeling that Autostream has not been moving forward in good faith. This editor is now asking questions that are so trivial that they would be considered background knowledge. He has stated that rubber suspension bushing are rigid. 99% of the cars on the road today use flexible rubber suspension bushings as the suspension pivot points. Further more, this editor has his own line of automotive videos:
His video style seems to be like his editing; biased and largely filled with plagiarism. This editor has twice copy paste plagiarized the work of others and presented it as his own. He added biased POV to the Viper Wiki entry. He has signed up on several Corvette forums simply to insult forum members. I feel he is dragging out this whole process simply to waste our time. I would ask that he be banned from editing the article and preferably from the site.
Look, if you guys are intent on making this personal, mediation isn't going to help you. The issue here is not what you can "prove" to us — we're not experts, and we're not supposed to be arguing that
reliable sources are wrong based on our research. Focus on what the sources say, and don't try to infer or stretch them — I suggest one of you approach Alexi to discuss writing a revision. I'm not going to, since I think you guys need to be the ones to move forward. --Haemo (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
As I said, I think Alexi would be a great resource. When it comes to moderation it's clear that I will not convince Autostream that the MT article is flawed. He isn't willing to acknowledge even basic facts such as the spring material (I have a link from the manufacture saying it isn't carbon-fiber) nor realizing that rubber suspension bushings can flex. However I would like to know if I have created enough doubt in you, a third party to this mess, so that you would agree the particular article at least contains errors. Again, if a Wall Street Journal article is proven wrong is that particular article still "Reliable" just because it came from a reliable paper?
I also have yet another alternative. [user:Daniel J. Leivick] has suggested changing the page from Corvette specific to a general page about transverse leaf springs used in automotive applications. The page would likely primarily focus on recent applications similar to those of the Corvette. This would reduce the Corvette focus of the page. It would also allow discussion of the designs in a more general sense. I believe Autostream also questioned the article's need to be stand alone and I originally added it to the Corvette wiki.Springee (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making this personal. I have only focused on the cited quote regarding Wiki's rules. I have make a request to [user:Daniel J. Leivick] on the original discussion page as follows:
"Daniel, that sounds reasonable to me. (folding CLF's into Corvette article and retitling article to Tranverse Leaf Spring and only mentioning makes and models that use the TLF.) I am assuming you would prefer the newly titled article 'Transverse Leaf Spring' to make mention of the makes and models ONLY using TLF's? And then the specifics to go into the Corvette article, in this example?
If this is the case, I ask that you draft the two revisions if you would like, and if Springee agrees. This issue is currently reaching conclusion under Mediation Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-03-27_Corvette_leaf_spring and the moderator has concluded thus far that when discussing we've agreed the 'Performance and Handling consideration" on the modern Corvette, this cited quote must should be added: "Ride and Handling: according to an opinion in Motor Trend magazine, the Corvette C6's transverse leafs "make the rearend behave a bit like a rigid axle. Aftermarket tuners have scrapped them in C5s and C6s for coil-springs". - Above quotes are the mediator HAERMO's actual context verbatim.
This represents the Mediators proposed solution to our mediation. Of which I will agree to his compromise in all respects."--Autostream (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In context of a stand alone article, it would be inappropriate to infer handling characteristics of all cars using transverse composite leaf springs based on one particular model. Unless the characteristic is shared with all models using the spring it should not be included.
If the current Corvette post is retained then the according to Wiki rules the MT quote can remain so long as the potential issues with a questionable source are included. An inclusion must mention, in statement form only, the factual errors made by the author (material proven incorrect by the manufacture, rigid axle claim proven incorrect by Lamm, illustrations and citations). This means the article would state the author incorrectly cited the spring material and that the rigid axle inference is inconsistent with the mechanical operation of the system. This is the appropriate thing to do with a questionable source.
Finally, I would prose that Alexi is asked to write the section. Autostream has acknowledged Alexi as knowledgeable in the topic and if the article is not specific to the Corvette then the concerns regarding the factual content of the MT article should not be an issue. It would be inappropriate to have the article written by someone who does not understand the operating principles of the suspension system. Springee (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Autostream’s misstatement - since revised
Autostream wrote
and the moderator has concluded thus far that when discussing the 'Performance and Handling consideration" on the modern Corvette, this cited quote must be added: "Ride and Handling: according to an opinion in Motor Trend magazine, the Corvette C6's transverse leafs "make the rearend behave a bit like a rigid axle. Aftermarket tuners have scrapped them in C5s and C6s for coil-springs". - Above quotes are the mediator HAERMO's actual context verbatim.’’’
What Haermo actually wrote on the moderation discussion page:
===Proposal===
How about if you include the cited MT opinion, but also include information about similar issues with the Volvo, to balance the description. For instance, something like:
Ride and Handling: according to an opinion in Motor Trend magazine, the Corvette C6's transverse leafs "make the rearend behave a bit like a rigid axle. Aftermarket tuners have scrapped them in C5s and C6s for coil-springs". However, similar arrangements used by Volvo "to reduce size and weight of the rear suspension [without sacrificing] ride comfort."(cite)
Haermo offered the suggestion. Haermo did not state this would be the moderated outcome.
Springee (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: since posting the above, Autostream has revised his statements to remove the imperative. Springee (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not a moderator, I'm a mediator. I'm here to help you guys work together to reach an outcome. Currently, the suggestion the table is to let a third party, such as Alexi or Daniel J. Leivick write a revision which they believe in fair and neutral. I'm not sure what your thoughts on this are, though? --Haemo (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt mis-state anything. I started this moderation to get the legitimate Motor Trend quote inserted. I quoted verbatim. If you want to compare the Corvette leaf spring to the Volvo leaf spring, I dont think it helps the article, but I have no objection to that. This is the fifth time you've personally attacked me. I am waiting for Daniel's thought on the rewrite. --Autostream (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said the “the moderator has concluded thus far that… this cited quote must be added:” No such statements were made.Springee (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the 3 words as to state it correctly.--Autostream (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate where I have agreed that the quote can be included in any context other than that of a Questionable Source. I have NOT agreed that it should be included in a handling section specifically because the source has been shown to have factual errors. I have only agreed to include the link in context of a Questionable Source and I added it to the article as such. I would prefer the link be left out entirely as the conclusion it draws is not consistent with the mechanical function of the suspension. That is, the handling they describe could be caused by any number of factors and the article did NOT show how it would inherently caused by using a leaf spring. Given the technical, descriptive errors with regards to the suspension it is illogical to assume the cause and effect conclusion is correct without additional information which the article does not provide.
However, under Wiki guidelines the link can be included thus it was added in the context of a questionable link. So long as the source has demonstrated errors that specifically relate to the leaf spring it has to be considered questionable. This was the same conclusion Alexi came to when you asked his opinion. You have acknowledged that he is familiar with the information. I am also familiar with it. I would suggest that you find the opinion of a technical expert who will back the cause-effect relationship which MT has suggested exists. Without that we can only look at the limited technical information MT did include. The limited information contains demonstrated errors thus the article is questionable. Springee (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional concerns regarding quotations
In reading through the article again it does seem to me that Autostream has a bad habit of cherry picking his quotes and presenting them in misleading context. I would note the number of times he has said I agreed to something or his misattribution of a quote by Haemo. Here is another example.
Autostream wants to include the following quote from the article:
make the rearend behave a bit like a rigid axle. Aftermarket tuners have scrapped them in C5s and C6s for coil-springs
While that is in fact verbatim, it was taken somewhat out of context. The full quote is below.
While the C6's carbon-fiber transverse leaf springs are light and packaged well, under some conditions they make the rearend behave a bit like a rigid axle. Aftermarket tuners have scrapped them in C5s and C6s for coil-spring conversions, so it'd be easy to do in a production C7. The C6 has aluminum control arms front and rear, but reductions in unsprung weight would help further.
Note that MT’s actual text states that the problem only exists “under some conditions”. They certainly don’t say the car handles badly as Autostream wants the quote to imply or for that mater has stated in hopes that it would be included in the Wiki. It is also hardly a definitive statement by MT. Additionally they note that reducing unsprung weight would be good (presumably to address the behavior issue they noted) and is consistent with a citation I included at Autostream's demanding.
Their term, "behave a bit like" is actually quite vague as a description. The simple fact that it occurs only under “some conditions” would make it to vague as to draw a general point from the statement. Are we talking about conditions of the road, of the suspension package on the car (which shocks, springs tires etc), of the weather? Do they mean all Corvettes or just those with certain suspension packages. The quoted text doesn't say "performance" or "handling" anywhere. I might assume they meant handling but Autostream has shown that all details, no mater how trivial MUST be cited. As the MT paragraph does not mention Handling or Performance we have to assume some non-neutral point of view if we include it in a handling-performance section.
Yes, these are small details (in addition to the fundamental problems with the MT statements). However, Autostream has demanded I provide proof for even the smallest detail of suspension operation, such as the operation of rubber bushings, thus he must be willing to provide the same.Springee (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
State of the Mediation
All,
Given the amount of back and forth discussion I’ve added this section. The intent is simply for each side to give a brief, “as we see it” statement. This can be referenced to avoid confusion/ miswording of the other party’s position. This isn’t meant to be a discussion area. This should be updated as needed.
‘’’As Springee sees it’’’
Mediation is still open
Both parties have agreed to have the article moved to a general topic on automotive applications of transverse leaf springs. Topic may or may not cover historical examples
Usage of the MT article is in contention. Wiki guidelines allow its inclusion as a source. Disagreement as to if the source qualifies as Reliable or Questionable.
Springee views the source as Questionable and inappropriate for support of a cause and effect statement.
‘’’As Autostream sees it’’’
[this section is for Autostream’s statement of position]
who is writing this? you are supposed leave your signature.
[I have set this up so we can be clear on where we each stand on the issue for others reading this text. Not sure what happened to the signature - please feel free to delete this text --Springee (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC) ][reply]
I am waiting for the Mediator's suggestion of having an unbiased user do a rewrite. [user:Daniel J. Leivick] has agreed to a revision based on this mediated discussion. --Autostream (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed the point. The idea is to state your understanding of the mediation. We both agreed to the moving of the topic but I suspect you still want the MT entry as a ride and handling point. Thus I am asking you to state what you think the is current level of agreement or disagreement. Springee (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read, it appears that all parties and the Mediator and the Third Opinion all agree that the quote meets guidelines for insertion. Its a matter of inserting it in a way where its appropriate and unbiased. So I await [user:Daniel J. Leivick]'s revision, and we can take it from there.--Autostream (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So that means we do still have a fundamental disagreement. I would ask how you got the idea that I believe it meets the guidelines for insertion as a "reliable source." To claim I have agreed to anything other than insertion as a ‘’Questionable Source in the Corvette specific article’’ or to even state that I agree without including that bit of information would again qualify as misrepresenting the statements of others. Even to that extent I have said I agree only reluctantly.
In context of a GENERAL transverse leaf spring article I do NOT agree, and have never agreed that the quote meets the guidelines for insertion. First, if the topic is to be general, rather than about a specific car I would say the quote isn't appropriate because we can't show that it applies to all cars which use the leaf springs. Second, the quote does not meet the standards of of a reliable source. I do not see that our mediator has agreed that the quote is reliable. It has been discussed but not concluded. As a questionable source it can not be included as evidence to support a point. It can only be included in say a discussion of misconceptions about the system. If you say that I agree to its insertion in the new article you would be misstating my point of view.
Outside Opinions
Autostream,
I saw and replied to your posting on the Motor Trend forums. I’m glad to see you are actually looking into the validity of what I have been saying. It’s also good to see that most of the forum members their seem to agree with me. Springee (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I repudiate all of Springees comments regarding myself and/or my intentions.
I'm actually looking into the validity of what I have been saying to help put this issue to rest.
--Autostream (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus on your question among the forum members is
MT is not a great source for automotive technical information
My descriptions are correct and any problems are not inherent to the leaf spring but to overall execution.
Your history of posting on negative and inflammatory remarks on Corvette related subjects makes your intention clear.
Springee (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your thread [5] and the thread the forum members linked to [6]. Have not supported either that MT is a credible source for the claim they made, nor that the information is right. If you disagree, please indicate why and provide the quotes to back it. Otherwise, we have factual errors AND opinions of auto enthusiasts showing that the claim can only be considered as a Questionable Source. With that in mind I would propose that we not include questionable sources in the article or create a separate section regarding misconceptions and include the information in that section. That would also be an appropriate place to address the notion that the suspension is "semi-independent". Springee (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree and reject everything Springee has said. But this is not the venue to discuss these matters. This category does not belong in this mediation page. It should be moved to the Corvette Leaf Spring talk page.--Autostream (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think this is the right place to discuss it. We are trying to establish the validity of the article as a reliable source. The members of that forum agree with my technical assessment as well as agree that MT is not a reliable source of TECHNICAL automotive information. If you wish to dismiss my claims perhaps you can find quotes from the linked threads (including your own thread) that refute what I say. Heck, you can reject me when I say the Earth is round but that doesn't make it flat. Try offering PROOF. You demanded proof of even the smallest technical detail from me, why don't you provide some of your own? Springee (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Autostream,
You have yet to follow up on the opinions you sought on the web forum. The consensus of the people on the forum seems to undermine the notion that MT is a credible source:
Personally, Springee's post was the most technical knowledge I've ever seen displayed on this forum and he makes a good (and logical) argument. I think the Motor Trend article is wrong and the leaf spring does not cause the live axle behavior or at least the cause is a lot more complicated than just that piece.
I think it is harder and harder to justify keeping the article as anything but a questionable source. Unless you are interested in having a section covering misconceptions. If you would still like to add a section critical to the car’s handling the Corvette vehicle entry would be the appropriate place and that editor's opinion would be appropriate as a Reliable Source for an auto reviewer's opinion. Springee (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A move to close this mediation
I would like to propose closing this mediation. We have agreed that the article can be changed to cover transverse leaf springs in general rather than just on the Corvette. I think we can close this topic now.Springee (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motor Trend says what they meant
Autostream’s thread on the MT forum has paid off. The MT editor, Frank Markus, who wrote the article has clarified some points.
From the above link to the MT forums:
They are composite springs, and yes they may be fiberglass reinforced instead of carbon-fiber reinforced. Some people use Composite and Carbon Fiber a bit too interchangeably and I should probably have changed that. Lots of other people just call them plastic which is certainly generic enough to avoid mile-long Wiki argument strings.
As for the handling reference, the point is that when an impact drives one end of the transverse leaf spring up, the other end is at least to some extent driven down, and vice versa. It is this side-to-side linking of forces that is in some ways akin to a live or solid axle, whereas in independent suspensions without a transverse leaf spring there is less force transmitted from an impact on one side of the suspension on the other.
The editor has retracted his statement about spring material.
The second statement from the author describes a seesaw type effect. Now we clearly know the author was NOT describing springs rigidly fixed at their ends as Autostream had tried to claim. The author saw the spring as a centrally mounted seesaw. This point was discussed and agreeably dismissed early in the life of the wiki entry. In short, this effect does not happen with the wide Corvette spring mounts. The C2-C4 rear springs did suffer from what the author describes to some limited degree. The C5-C6 absolutely do not.
Here is a link to a simple finite element model of a leaf spring and its two pivot mounts. It is clear that when one side is raised, the center of spring goes down and the opposite side of the spring goes up.
This clearly shows the author was mistaken in this case. Can we now close this discussion? Springee (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Frank Markus did NOT write the Motor Trend article of interest. --24.46.144.102 (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My bad Autostream, perhaps he wasn't the writer. However, the MT admin gave his response. I would assume you agree that his response would represent that of MT. It certainly would seem he was at least the person who contributed the particular morsel of information in the article to which you have clung. Any comments on the technical validity of what I have shown above? Springee (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, can we now close this discussion. Motor Trend has stated what they meant. It is clear that what they meant is wrong both in the description of the material and in the function of the spring. This means at best they can only be a questionable source because their facts have been shown to be wrong. I would like to remove the mediation tags from the article discussion. Springee (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
