<VV> Unsafe At Any Speed

[Charles Lee at Prop Per]

Nadir (sic) simply used the Corvair because it was different, and knew that, 
if you tell the car-buying public that something is bad because it is 
different, they swallow the bait completely, and they did.

Nadir tries it wish VW and they did not capitulate, nor did VW send hookers 
to compromise good ol' Ralphie, VW hit him head-on (pun intended ?) and 
Ralph backed down.

GM tried the hooker gambit and lost big-time, and looked like they had 
something to hide, which they most assuredly did not, at least when it came 
to the Corvair !

My 1965 Corvair Corsa convert saved my life when in 1968 I rear-ended a 1958 
T-bird at 60 MPH on the driver's side front end.

Had I been driving my then new 1968 Camaro, I may not have been so fortunate 
?  I'd like to see a Camaro in a similar crash (not really "like," but just 
to compare.)


The Corvair's biggest safety feature, its welded front end, did not fall 
apart on impact and crushed like a big metal air bag !

http://www.ProperProPer.com/Corvairs/Tbird.htm

Anyway, I've loved them ever since ! I have never driven such an enjoyable 
car !

What killed the Corvair was that it cost so much (90 cents per dollar 
compared to 75 cents ?) to make, and Nadir actually caused the Corvair to 
live longer, since GM didn't want to "admit guilt" by discontinuing the 
object of Nadir's derision.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <NicolCS at aol.com>
To: <virtualvairs at corvair.org>; <Corvair at fnader.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 11:30 AM
Subject: <VV> Unsafe At Any Speed


> Bill Said: <snip>
> "Okay, I'll present the other side of the coin. Yes, cars were not as
> safe as they needed to be. BUT it was the market and not Government
> deciding what was important. Exactly what Constitutional right did the
> Government have to step in and dictate safety standards? If the public
> wanted safer cars, they could have demanded them via the market."
> and .....
> "Overnight (Jan 1, 1968) two entire classes of cars were completed wiped
> out in the US. Small lightweight economy cars and low slung sports cars,
> both of which are arguably better for the environment and the consumer
> than the underpowered land yachts which resulted.  Further, the
> specifications (DOT and EPA) changed so quickly (once the Govt had power
> it used it) that American carmakers could barely survive while the
> imports could more readily design to the new standards vice improving
> existing product (as had been the standard industry practice)."
> <unsnip>
>
> What right did the govt have?  Auto safety was pretty grim in then; 
> Nader's
> book was a turning point. The public got up in arms and our elected
> representatives drafted and passed the Auto Safety Act of '66 which also 
> created the
> NHTSA.  Govt by the people - a perfect example.
>
> Exactly what part of 1-1-68 eliminated low slung sports cars?  The British
> stuff failed in the market, not 'cus of govt regs.  They failed in the 
> market
> due to cars like the 240Z and 914.  Both low slung sports cars that 
> happened to
> also run on rainy days... for years (and they didn't leak rainwater)
>
> Regs didn't change quickly - automakers simply fought them instead of 
> jumpin'
> on the bandwagon. They lost.  I don't recall any measure that we (I was an
> automotive development engineer) didn't have adequate lead time to match. 
> (The
> '73 bumper regs, way B4 my time- those started out pretty grimly though)
>
> Why the sour grapes?
> craig
> _______________________________________________
> 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 at corvair.org
> This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America, 
> http://www.corvair.org/
> Post messages to: VirtualVairs at corvair.org
> Change your options: 
> http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/options/virtualvairs
> _______________________________________________
>