tinyurl.com/p4hzqe
Horrifying standards in car design in the 60's. I am sure we have come a long way since then. I have never seen a whole bench seat with passengers (dummies, of course) come out of the drivers door before.
Link made non-clickable because the link has content on the right hand side that some may find inappropriate and also may get some members into trouble if viewed from work computers. Rob (Moderator)
Edited by rtj70 on 18/05/2009 at 16:36
|
Interesting.
Did GM at the time realise that these cars were death traps, or were these things actually considered OK at the time? If the former, then it makes you wonder, doesn't it?
I wonder how a 60s Volvo would come out of such tests?
|
I seem to remember that the Tucker Torpedo was ridiculed in certain sections of the press (probably briefed by the major rivals at the time) for having factory-fitted seatbelts.
The argument ran: "if it's so safe, why does it need seatbelts?"
|
|
|
Hmm. General Motors 1968 Crash Tests, eh? That might explain why most of the cars were Plymouths, De-Sotos and Chryslers, some dating from 1957. Fins ain't what they used to be.
HJ
|
Fins ain't what they used to be.
Heh heh... and there's something engagingly balletic about a lot of those clips, although one or two look a bit dangerous.
When today's youngish folk tut tut and talk about death traps, it makes me wonder how western man has survived until now. Tchah!
|
|
Erm GM was very well known for this. The chevvy Corvair for example inspired a book called Unsafe at Any speed. GM actually went onto to try and proof that the writer of the book was gay and if he was found to be gay nobody would have trusted the book.
|
Ralph Nader was the author's name. I didn't know about the attempted smear but I did know that the Corvair people were very unhappy with him, to put it mildly.
Frightening pics, especially the last one where fire starts!
Edited by Optimist on 18/05/2009 at 16:17
|
|
|
Erm GM was very well known for this. The chevvy Corvair for example inspired a book called Unsafe at Any speed.
Although the Pontiac Tempest was worse handling than the Corvair and that had the engine in the front with swing axles. We're into the realms of internet rumour now, but wasn't the accident that sparked the whole thing actually due to a dangerously underinflated front tyre? It made the tyre almost roll off the front rim, the rim dug into the tarmac and pitched the car over, the whole accident happened at very low speed too.
We've come a long way in car safety, and even those smug people now who won't drive anything less than an NCAP 5* car will be laughed at in 20 years time: "I can't believe you used to drive one of those death traps!"
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm. General Motors 1968 Crash Tests eh? That might explain why most of the cars were Plymouths De-Sotos and Chryslers some dating from 1957.
It's normal for manufacturers to test competitors' products, including crash tests. Probably reassuring for GM management at the time to find that their products were no less crashworthy than anyone else's. The film quality is surprisingly good for 1968 though.
Actually I found the crash tests of the F150 and those chinese things more eye opening. After all, they are supposedly modern products.
|
|
Yep the F150 is evidence alone that the American law of having less tough crash worthyness laws for commerical vehicles needs to be stopped.
|
The Chevrolet Corvair was the most original American car design to emerge since the war. It had an air-cooled flat six at the back. Yippeee!
Er, not quite. Crossply tyres and US steering and suspension design caused US drivers more accustomed to ploughing understeer to lose the thing on the road with sometimes lethal results. GM tried to airbrush the risk out, causing Nader, a brilliant troublemaker, to write his book. No doubt class actions by the bereaved followed.
Instead of getting some Europeans in to sort out the thing's handling and make it safe, GM first tried to bluster their way through and then capitulated in a pusillanimous manner by withdrawing the car.
A similar thing, concerning the position of the fuel tank (vulnerable in the event of rear-enders), happened to Ford with the Pinto. I don't remember if Nader was involved in that one. But I have it in for him for killing the Corvair (with of course the help of the supersuits at GM). OH yes - wasn't there something about him standing for elective office in some marginal state, splitting the crucial Democrat vote in that state and having a role in getting George W Bush elected?
The man's a carphound.
|
|
The Pinto thing is quite sinister. Ford knew the risk of the fuel tank explosions from their own crash testing but worked out it would cost about 50 cents per car modify it. They decided that was too much and it would be cheaper to pay any law suits out. Ford got into serious trouble over that.
|
|
Ralph Nader - Unsafe at Any Speed. I have a recollection if him being interviewed by Alan Whiker - the shots of him driving his car wearing a crash helmet are particularly vivid. I reckon he posts here occasionally.
|
|
I hope he was also wearing a hi-viz vest.
|
|
Bizarrely he was promoting front mounted brake lights.
|
|
|
|
I think it must have been Ralph Nader, whilst recommending large side mirrors and full harness belts, said that the greatest safety contribution would be to reduce the maximum speed of vehicles by 30 mph.
What is the current trend? Even some of the smallest cars do over 100 and many eaisly double the maximum uk speed limit!
Dont try to tell me that drivers don't try it!
|
|
|
|
|
But I have it in for him for killing the Corvair
I agree with you, a very innovative product let down by savage cost cutting. Fortunately though, VW copied the styling when they facelifted the 411 and turned it into the 412.
Even if they sadly didn't get around to going the whole hog and installing a flat six, they almost made up for it by fitting semi-trailing arms in the 411/412 instead of the swing axles which led to many Corvairs going backwards through hedges.
|
why are you chaps so pro rear engined cars?
Beetles and early 911's were renowned for 'lairy' activity on the limit of handling
|
They're different from the common run. The engine noise is remote from the driver. They have good traction in very slippery conditions. But best of all, they want to oversteer!
What's to dislike for heaven's sake?
:o}
|
Lud,
I have a vivid memory of borrowing my father's Beetle when I had just passed my test at 17.
A sharp right hand corner on an 'A' road in Dartmoor... and seeing a particular field three times from the driver's window...then realising my mother's Fiesta and the driving instructor's Metro 'did things differently'.
|
Heh heh... I had at least two friends who had rolled their dads' Beetles.
But surely you got to grips with it and came to like it Wp? On the whole perhaps it was to be avoided in the swing-axle Beetle, but it could be great fun in other cars. The Porsche 356 made a virtue of it.
|
But surely you got to grips with it and came to like it Wp?
I had to Lud...my first car, a mk2 Cortina 1600 super, had a broken rear leaf spring (which wasn't obvious to start with) which made handling 'entertaining'... and there was me thinking they all handled like that!
|
|
why are you chaps so pro rear engined cars?
Some good arguments in favour of rear engined cars. With a well designed, low weight, flat engine such as the Porsche flat 6 or the VW flat 4 fitted to the 411/412 (no laughing back there!) there are advantages in low centre of gravity, traction and space usage.
Unfortunately there are lots of disadvantages as well, such as gear linkage, getting a heater to work and the unfortunate necessity for expensive rear suspension to make the vehicle easy to drive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fins ain't what they used to be.
I'm sure the Ferrari F1 team will agree with you.
|
|
At University in BC about 1972, I remember a fellow mech eng student had one of the rare turbocharged Corvairs, a 66 I think. It was pretty well junk by then but we knew it was special. Good in the snow. As I recall it took a lot of right pedal to get the turbo spinning. It didn't last long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
