An engineer weighs in on Corvette leaf springs: Deep talk on a seemingly simple subject.

By Staff Writer
Dec 31, 2022 | Chevrolet, Corvette, Leaf Springs, Borg Motorsports | Posted in Shop Work , Suspension & Handling , Features | From the April 2019 issue | Never miss an article

Story by Lane Borg

A straightforward question came up as we worked on our Corvette Z06 project car: What are the rates for leaf springs–both OEM and some popular replacements?

So we asked Lane Borg, a mechanical engineer, Formula SAE instructor, Goodyear test driver and owner of Borg Motorsports, manufacturer of bespoke high-performance chassis bits for Corvettes. As it turns out, this question was waaaaay too difficult for our primitive lizard brains to tackle. His response required more than 1200 words.

Producing relevant data for Corvette transverse leaf springs can be immensely complicated because there are lots of variables and dynamic reactions affecting the action. There’s more going on than a simple energy absorption and release.

We’ve already mentioned the load transfer during roll that can occur with transverse leafs. But when it comes to the inside, unloaded part of the spring, we have to consider that it’s not producing a negative force of its own. It may be deflecting slightly due to tension, but it’s not pushing down the unloaded suspension since it’s mounted in such a way that it only gathers energy when compressed. Once it’s fully released, there’s no more force being applied at that corner besides gravity.

We also have to address possibly the most overlooked factor in transverse spring behavior: the material and stiffness of the mounting pads. These pads act essentially as another spring, and they compress and deflect enough to make significant dynamic changes in the way the spring behaves during deflection.

It’s my opinion that the mount stiffness is why people don’t like leaf springs. When you do a coil-over conversion, you have metal-to-metal contact from the A-arm through the coil spring to the chassis. Even with aftermarket leaf springs, you don’t. It would be like installing coil-overs with the stock rubber bushings on both ends of the coil assembly; of course it feels less direct. I think finding a way to eliminate the mount deflection would be a huge step forward for those of us who have to use leaf springs in our classes.

The easiest way to test transverse leaf spring rates is in ride, by compressing and releasing both sides of a front or rear axle at once. This eliminates complexity introduced by multiple bending moments, bushings, etc.

To do this we simply built a chart of movement versus load by slowly lowering the car onto scales and measuring wheel deflection versus load on the scales. Weight is just force of gravity, so you end up with a force versus a displacement: a spring rate. Making a table for each spring looks something like Diagram 1.

Diagram 1. Click to open in a new window.

We can then chart out the various brands of leaf springs we tested and come out with Diagram 2.

Diagram 2. Click to open in a new window.

There’s a couple of things to note on the data. The most important, to me anyway, is that the springs don’t provide a linear rate below 0.5 inch of initial displacement. This is very likely the mounting pads being loaded and the bushings being compressed.

The measured rates are all at the wheel, however. To get true spring rates, you need to run everything through the motion ratios to account for the mechanical forces being multiplied or lessened through the leverage and angles of the suspension arms.

Motion ratios for leaf springs work the same as they do for coils: A certain amount of wheel movement equates to a certain amount (usually less) of spring movement. But leaf springs are actually easier on motion ratios because the force they apply is 90 degrees to the A-arm, unlike a coil spring that is likely at some non-90-degree angle. The motion ratio for the leaf spring is simply the distance from the chassis mounts to the spring adjuster divided by the distance from the chassis mounts to the outboard ball joint. For the C5, this is 0.625 (10 inches divided by 16 inches) front and 0.611 (11 inches divided by 18 inches) rear.

One theory I’ve heard is that the leaf moves in an arc, so the motion ratio changes. While I understand where that idea is coming from, the change is significantly less on leaf springs than on coils. Due to the spring’s mounting arrangement to the chassis, it stays very parallel to the control arm during movement. This is unlike a coil setup, where the angle of the coil to the control arm is constantly changing. This behavior is one of the advantages of a transverse leaf spring setup. It’s also one of the reasons real race cars have pushrod suspensions: The pushrod (or pullrod) design can combat some of the kinematic issues of this angle change as the suspension articulates.

One thing to remember is that the leaf spring and damper motion ratios are different for a leaf spring setup because the spring and damper don’t connect at the same point. This can change what you need with your damper tuning. It’s simple math to figure out, but some people miss it. When they put the designed spring rate with the designed damping on the same axis and therefore motion ratio (as you do in a coil-over), the mismatched damping and spring rate issues go away and everything works better.

Back to the data. Running the wheel rates through the motion ratios gets you the data in Diagram 3.

Diagram 3. Click to open in a new window.

That all looks well and good, but I like to validate my results wherever possible. In this case, GM actually published all of this information in SAE paper 970098, which can be purchased individually or as part of “PT-118: The Chevrolet Corvette: New Vehicle Engineering and Technical History,” a collection of technical papers that discuss the Corvette’s engineering from the first model through the current one. You can download these via the Publications section of the SAE’s website.

According to this paper, the Z51 (FE3) suspension has 1.20 hertz front ride rate and 1.45 hertz rear ride rate (without driver or luggage/load). On my C5, my measurements worked out to 1.18 hertz front and 1.42 hertz rear. That’s about a 2 percent error, which I’m very happy with, especially considering most scales are only good to 1 percent of their reading. (I did use calibrated scales for this testing.)

My big takeaway from this table is that the current crop of leaf springs doesn’t provide the necessary rate these cars want for competition, at least in ride. This is why I need to get my chassis rig built. I currently know how far off the leaf spring cars are in terms of ride rate, but I don’t have the test data to support how off leaf springs are from coils in roll.

As you can see in the table below, even with the stiffest leaf springs available, you’re still only in the range of 500 lbs./in. coil springs in ride. Most people I know run somewhere between 700 and 1200 lbs./in. rates depending on tires and aero. Overall, though, most successful cars I’ve looked at are competing on something in the 800/900 to 1100/900 front-to-rear range.

That basically means leaf spring cars are inherently half as stiff as coil cars (again, at least in ride). Combine that significantly lower rate with the less direct feel of the non-rigid mounts on both ends of the springs, and you have the story of why people like leaf springs less than coils. Plus, buying a bunch of leaf springs for tuning is insanely expensive compared to coil springs.

The other piece of info that table shows is how differently VBP and the GM supplier rate their springs. VBP may seem to be the stiffer spring by its quoted number, but when you actually measure it in ride, it’s less stiff than the more track-oriented Hyperco spring. That brings up another reason people don’t like leaf springs: tuning confusion. If you want to make a change to your car, switching from Brand X to Brand Y may not produce the desired result due to differences in how manufacturers rate their springs.

Like what you're reading? We rely on your financial support. For as little as $3, you can support Grassroots Motorsports by becoming a Patron today. 

Become a Patron!

Join Free Join our community to easily find more Chevrolet, Corvette, Leaf Springs and Borg Motorsports articles.
View comments on the GRM forums
Coupefan Reader
5/22/20 2:48 p.m.

I'm still freaked out over their design choice. I know they work, like the old vacuum tubes we see in some audio gear, but still, I'm freaked out by the use. 

David S. Wallens
David S. Wallens Editorial Director
5/22/20 3:57 p.m.

In reply to Coupefan :

You know, maybe the vacuum tube analogy is a good one. (Says the guy sitting beside two tube amps.)

Appleseed MegaDork
5/23/20 10:44 p.m.

I wonder if you could go old school and stack leafs to change the rates?

Cooter UberDork
5/24/20 9:04 a.m.

In reply to Appleseed :

You could conceivably make multileaf packs, but then you end up with all of the downsides of a multileaf pack.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
5/24/20 9:36 a.m.
Coupefan said:

I'm still freaked out over their design choice. I know they work, like the old vacuum tubes we see in some audio gear, but still, I'm freaked out by the use. 

There are a lot of dynamic as well as packaging benefits to their use.

wspohn Dork
5/24/20 11:30 a.m.

Hey - as I type this I am sitting in front of a tube power amp fed by a tube preamp. Nothing wrong with tubes (or valves as the British call them), and certain military gear has long used tubes because they are much less problematic in an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) from a nuclear explosion.  The fact that Russian planes used tubes extensively for that purpose accounts for the continued popularity of Russian made (usually Sovtec) tubes in hi-fi.

(I also have a couple of systems that use 120 lb Class A mono solid state amps, so I go both ways). The irony is that my tube power amp puts out 70 W while my Class A amps put out 45 W (but they do it right down to 1 ohm).


BTW - very interesting spring article - thanks.

randyracer New Reader
11/4/21 12:55 p.m.

This is verrrrry interesting to me, but so far only talks about the spring rate in ride.  Whatb happens in roll as the weight transfers into and thru the corner is what I'm most fascinated by, and this article is only a teaser of that.  Argh!  I'll be panting for the next one.  I have never been a fan of the C7 chassis, and I suspect these variable wheel rates under load may be the reason why the car feels unpredictable to me.  I am also curious about the choice of the transverse leaf in the first place, given its foibles.


A GM engineer I met while testing press cars for a magazine told me (as I recall...) that in roll, the unloaded side of the transverse leaf is still affecting the loaded side, and that the wheel rate varies with travel.  It is not linear.  I believe I feel this when driving the C7 hard.


Thank you GRM staff and Lane Borg, great stuff and cant wait for the spring rates in roll story!


8/26/22 3:16 p.m.

i would think like on a live axle you would get energy transfer from one wheel to the other when a wheel hits a bump, being the spring is directly connected to each other. there would also be a fair amount of deflection on the mounts to the chassis because they are not directly acting on the chassis but are cantilevered away from the wheel area, so the forces loaded into the chassis is far higher than a coil sprung car. 

often wondered if composite springs are any different to leaf springs, being you can tailor fiber orientation compared to steel leafs. 

Just in general lief springs are not linear at all plus they have inherit friction between the leaves of the springs (steel leafs springs) .They are very inefficient as far as energy stored /lb 

the non linear spring rate isn't really bad as long as you have that engineered into the system. 


freetors Reader
8/26/22 3:39 p.m.

For all those commenting on a roll or single sided bump scenario transferring forces to the other side: have you forgotten about sway bars? Because they do the exact same thing.

Opti Dork
8/26/22 7:00 p.m.

As stated before I was always tought the transverse leaf also acts like a sway bar. Isn't conventional knowledge that you could run less spring rate and more bar? Could that be why the coil guys are having to run so much more rate, because they lose roll stiffness moving to a coil?

I think he's onto something with the mounting, when you take a leaf out and see how mangled and beat up the mounts and pads are its obvious those thing deflect a bunch.

MadScientistMatt UltimaDork
8/26/22 8:23 p.m.
Coupefan said:

I'm still freaked out over their design choice. I know they work, like the old vacuum tubes we see in some audio gear, but still, I'm freaked out by the use. 

It's a matter of the right tool for the job. Microwave ovens still use vacuum tubes, with a few very rare exceptions. Solid state amps still aren't as effective at that particular combination of frequency and power. Actually, the Corvette's use of lead springs is a bit more ideosyncratic than the microwave.

Leaf springs on a live axle are even more complicated when it comes to calculations, even if you have fewer moving parts. Many of these have different spring rates on the front and back of the leaf and different rates side to side. Which is one reason the leaf spring love axle has fallen out of favor - not that they are too simple, but that getting good results with so few parts is too complicated.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
8/26/22 8:31 p.m.

By my estimation, the transverse leaf springs do not act like a stabilizer bar, but the opposite effect, pushing one side up pushes the other side down a small amount, like a Z bar but not as extreme.

rustomatic Reader
8/28/22 12:06 p.m.

Why does everyone seem to think that monoleafs on Corvettes are only mounted at one single point in the middle?  Are these the same people who think that cutting coil springs raises your car?

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
8/28/22 2:11 p.m.

In reply to rustomatic :

Of course they are supported across the middle and not laid out like a walking spring.  Even so, I am fairly sure that, even supported across a couple feet in the middle, pushing one side up would still affect the other side.

It would be a neat experiment to test, at least.

clshore Reader
1/2/23 9:56 a.m.

A thoughtful analysis, but all done from a Corvette-centric point of view.
Another high volume production series featured rear transverse multi-leaf springs:
Triumph 'small chassis' cars: Herald, Vitesse, Spitfire, GT6.
There were 3 rear suspension variants, each with their own design influences on spring rates.
Early Herald, Spitfires and some Vitesse and GT6 use a swing axle arrangement where the spring is rigidly clamped to the diff. A pivoting Vertical Link between the swing axle bearing hub and the spring tip, along with the swing axle, the UJ pivot center, and the edge of the rigid diff spring mount formed a parallelogram that served to keep the VL nearly vertical as the suspension articulated through it's range of movement, while transferring wheel loads to the spring.

Later models of Vitesse and GT6 featured an SLA geometry where the spring serves as the longer upper lateral link, with a reversed wishbone shorter lower lateral link with single training arms.
This variant is called 'rotoflex' due to the use of a large rubber donut coupling in the drive axle, instead of the CV axles that are so commonly used today.

Later models of Spitfire and GT6 swing axle cars employed the so-called 'swing spring' variant, in order to mitigate the 'jacking' behavior of swing axles. The lower most spring leaf is still rigidly attached to the diff, but the upper leaves feature a rounded 'bump' in the center that is supported by a cage structure that permits them to rock or 'swing' when the left & right wheels are at different levels, such as in a turn. Thus, only the lowermost leaf contributes any roll stiffness while all the spring leaves support the full rear weight load. This behavior is the opposite of an Anti-Sway Bar, but same as a Z-bar, or blade style Camber Compensator, to prevent 'jacking'.

Although the article dismisses effect of length changes in a Corvette deflected leaf spring, ie measured distance between the center and the leaf tip, for the Triumphs, particularly the 'rotoflex' cars, it is important.
Ever wonder why leaf springs are sometimes called 'quarter-elliptic' or 'semi-elliptic'?
It's because as they deflect under load, the tip end traces a path in the shape of an ellipse segment, not a circle. 
So the effective length of the upper link of a 'rotoflex' suspension changes  as it deflects under load. This has an important impact on the rear camber, and due to the geometry, affects the spring rate as measured at the tire contact patch.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/2/23 4:17 p.m.

I thought quarter elliptical, semi elliptical springs were named because a quarter elliptical spring is a quarter of an ellipse (has only one "end"), a semi elliptical is only half of an ellipse (the kind commonly used on cars)

Old buggies used full elliptical springs - one big loop.

Our Preferred Partners