<VV> Medical waivers - making Corvair safer

[Mark Corbin]

Actually, the Corvair was tested in a (at the time, more modern) frontal
crash test. It proved to have a safety rating equivalent to a full-size
Pontiac Parisianne (same car as the Chevy Caprice).

The answer actually has more to do with the physics involved in a crash,
for two reasons. First, there is no engine block in the front, which is
important because what you want is crushability. The car should absorb the
G-forces, not the passengers, and an engine block doesn't absorb energy
very well. It merely passes the energy on to the passengers as a high
G-force hit. Without this obstruction, the front end is able to crush and
absorb the energy of the crash. Which is also exactly why they invented the
energy absorbing (crushable) steering column.

But here is where it become interesting. The second reason is that with the
engine in the rear, the car is (in the words of the research scientist
reporting it) able to "grind its nose into the barrier, thus absorbing
energy at a controlled rate." And a controlled rate is the ideal in a
crash. THAT is why the crash rating for a Corvair is equal to a REAL
full-size (at the time) car.

Personally, I've had two accidents with Corvairs, one which rolled the car
(humongous ditch was the cause of the rollover) and the other where I
T-boned a Ford wagon at a closing speed of probably 50mph. Walked away from
both, and had I had a shoulder belt in the latter, wouldn't have even had
the knot on my chin from hitting the steering wheel. That latter crash was
so powerful that it not only put stress kinks in the roof and rear quarter
panel, but drove the drive train forward and bent the motor mounts! So I
can personally vouch for the safety of a Corvair, having (untentionally)
crash tested them in both a frontal collision and a rollover.

-Mark


> [Original Message]
> From: Charles Lee <Chaz at ProperProper.com>
> Subject: Re: <VV> Medical waivers - making Corvair safer
>
> Consider it the 'admission fee' for doing whatever it is - smoking or
> driving a classic car or not wearing your helmet or seat belt.
>
> If you enjoy riding your mountain bike or motorcycle without a helmet
enough
> to pay more, it your choice.
>
> Sometimes driving a classic car can be an advantage if it doesn't suffer
> from structural rust, and a Corvair is actually made of real metal and
> should stand up pretty well ?
>
> We've seen a few Corvair accidents and I wonder if anyone looked to see
how
> they stood up against the modern cars involved.
>
> It's probably too soon to look at Eddie Corson's 1962 Corvair, but is
there
> anything we can learn from that tragedy ?  I don't believe he hit another
> car but what can we do to prevent the accident, or minimize injury.
>
> Isn't that how Ralph into Corvairs in the first place ?  He picked the
> Corvair as a vulnerable target simply because GM handled it badly, but did
> make cars safer, too bad it was at the expense of the Corvair (yes, that's
> not why GM stopped production - another story)
>
> The fines levied go to the local community, and don't go to covering the
> cost of their potential medical expenses, which are still 'socialized' ?
>
> Charlie
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mark Corbin" <airvair at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: <VV> Medical waivers - No Corvair
>
> So the sad truth is that for every person who refuses to accept
> responsibility for his own contributory neglegence of not wearing a helmet
> or seat belt, we (the clients) all end up having to share the added burden
> of those unnecessary expenses in the form of higher premiums.
>