<VV> Autoweek Wording

[Smitty]

> I'd also be willing to bet that the Chevy engineers knew about the short
> comings of the EM rear suspension design before the book was written (go
> ahead and argue how a swing axel is really better than a fully independant
> suspension).
> Ned
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Smitty Says:  Ned I am surprised at that statement.  It almost seems as 
though you want to stir some pot that has been already thoroughly stirred 
over the years.  Nobody but a newbie that is infatuated with the easy 
handling and comfortable ride of an Early would try to defend swing axles 
against independant suspension.  The answer is yes, they did know but it was 
accepted as adaquate in light of the many other cars using it.  Personal 
responsibility for auto control had not been invented.  So what if SW got 
people in trouble in extreme situations.  There were hundreds of thousands 
of Corvairs commuting and going for groceries that never had a problem. 
Read up on the Pinto fire problem if you think that corporate thinking 
didn't exist.  Then too the Corvette IRS had not shown the way for the 65 
Corvair IRS.  Do you really think the Vair would have had a multi link rear 
suspension if the Vett hadn't done it first?  It was just a matter of 
something that was due, available, and needed at that point in the car's 
history.  Yes it is superior just as many other developments in cars are. 
Things change.  You aren't going to find many people that claim Model As are 
superior to Corvairs.  All you guys that think Swing Axle is better than 
Multi Link (both of you) please post me and we can talk about it.  There is 
no argument.