<VV> Corvair Article in Print

Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:23:22 -0600

Below is the confirmation of the response I sent.  If anyone cares to make 
corrections/additions/clarifications, feel free.

I did not have at hand the info on the Congressional Record - so was not 
able to specifically that.

Later, JR

To: J. R. Read

This is to confirm that your feedback has been received.

Feedback for: Sentinel & Enterprise - My Response to Readers Response
The following is a comment or question for the editors or webmaster:

I did not see the article to which Mr. Grady made such a scourching
response, however his response needs some clarification.

The '60 - '64 Corvairs handled diferently than anything Americans were used
to at the time and if Mr. Martel's made an assessment that problems were
driver related, that would be essentially correct.  This is especially true
if the driver did not pay attention to the factory recommended 10psi
difference in tire pressure front to rear.

Again, Mr. Martel would be correct in an assesment that SUVs are somewhat
"top heavy" - especially when compared to a Corvair.  I've autocrossed
Corvairs many times and put them into intentional sideways slides "a drift"
without ever rolling a single one.  Some folks even autocross the Corvair
vans - Greenbriers - which are (of course) more top heavy than the cars.
They are also from the '60 - '64 period and I've not yet seen one roll.
Proper tire pressure, again, is important in these timed (one car at a
time) events.

I believe that Mr Grady needs to check his facts because it is incorrect
that Corvairs had the highest number of rollovers in the period.  Sidewalls
contacting the road?  Again, were the tire pressures correct?  If not, you
are going to blame the manufacturer?  I'd blame the owner/driver.

Ernie Kovacs was drunk and hit a tree.  You are going to blame the Corvair
for that?  Talk about an unfair and biased opinion!

I don't know about the children of GM execs, but anecdotal evidence needs
verification.  I really wonder where that information even comes from?

Yes, GM was called before congress.  Mr. Grady fails to mention the result
of those hearings - that Corvair was given a clean bill of health and was
found to be no more "unsafe" than any car of the era.  I have to agree that
it was not a smart move on the part of GM to attempt to smear Ralph.  That
ended up funding his future.  Had that not happened, it is possible that
you would never have heard from him again.

The stuff about Edsel Ford and Porsche has no real relavance to the
Corvair.  If Mr. Grady is trying to say that Mr. Martel sometimes makes
mistakes, he ought to review his own writtings which seem frought with
error and inuendo.

Thank you for your time and space.

Later, JR

Thanks again for your feedback.

Sincerely
Sentinel & Enterprise

Your Browser & OS Info: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
AT&T CSM7.0; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; yplus 4.1.00b)

Attachments (if any) are scanned with anti-virus software.

Later, JR
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Western Canada CORSA" <westerncanadacorsa@shaw.ca>
To: "Virtualvairs" <virtualvairs@corvair.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 11:14 PM
Subject: RE: <VV> Corvair Article in Print

> This article raises a couple of issues regarding the EM 'vairs and Unsafe 
> At
> Any Speed that I'd like to see debated/refuted/confirmed by the 
> knowledgable
> folks here on <VV> (Mr. Helt are you here?)
>
>
> http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/Stories/0,1413,106~4988~2540713,00.html
>
>
> <snip>
> Gerry Martel, in the Automotive section, ascribes problems with the 
> Corvairs
> from 1960 through 1964 as problems with the drivers, not with the car.
>
> In his defense of the Corvair, Mr. Martel cites the fact that today's 
> SUV's
> are top-heavy and tend to tip when cornered too fast.
>
> I'm sure with his "engineering" background, he can excuse a vehicle which 
> had
> the highest number of roll over accidents of any automobile built from 
> 1960
> through 1964 although it also had the lowest center of gravity (it was 
> anti
> top-heavy) of any sedan built in that period.
> <end 1st snip>
>
> So, did the '60-64 'vairs have the highest number of rollover accidents of 
> any
> vehicle built during this period?  Where does this come from, or is this 
> guy
> talking out of his butt?
>
> <snip>
> The original swing axle could tilt so far in a corner that the sidewalls, 
> not
> the thread, provided the only rear contact with the road.
> <end 2nd snip>
>
> true, not true?
>
> <snip>
> Without the Corvair, we would still have Ernie Kovacs. We would also have 
> the
> brother of a fellow soldier of mine who was killed in 1964 in a rollover 
> with
> a Corvair.
> <end 3rd snip>
>
> Great annecdotal evidence (=meaningless) but were their other contributing
> factors in Ernie Kovacs fatal accident (read: alcohol/drugs?)
>
> <snip>
> Mr. Martel probably discovered in his "research" for that article the fact
> that 11 children of GM executives were killed in that automobile.
> <end 4th snip>
>
> I've never come across this information before either, while still only
> annecdotal, is it true?  Or just more butt talk?
>
> Regards,
> Joel
> _______________________________________________
> This message was sent by the VirtualVairs mailing list, all copyrights are 
> the property
> of the writer, please attribute properly. For help, 
> mailto:vv-help@corvair.org
> This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America, 
> http://www.corvair.org/
> Post messages to: VirtualVairs@corvair.org
> List info: http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualvairs
> _______________________________________________ 