I am in no way trying to defend GM, or any other corp. for their
policies. I just wanted to state that from my personal experience
of driving two of them, that I think they were a good car.

I occasionally street raced ( bad thing to do ) my 63 around traffic
circles at 2 in the morning and never had a problem with the rear end
jacking up. I mentioned the Spitfire because that incident stands out
in my memory for the fact that it was sold as a sports car ( with a
sports
car suspension ? ) while the Corvair was sold as a sporty sedan.

If you look at traffic accident statistics, you will conclude that the
overwhelming majority of them are caused by driver error. I do believe
that
people should go to skid-school etc. and learn how to drive properly.

Poor design and corporate greed notwithstanding, I believe that users
of a product are responsible for finding out what that product is and
how to use it safely. SUV's are a prime example. Every winter, the body
shops
in our area get a disproportionate number of SUV's for collision repair.

The drivers seem to think that because 4 wheel drive gives them better
acceleration on slippery roads, it will also give them greater stopping
power.

Too many people are ducking their personal responsibility ( like GM, in
the
Corvair case ) and only want to blame others when things go wrong.
A million dollars for spilling hot coffee on yourself while driving ?
Don't
drink and drive! If I spill something on myself I figure it was my own
doing.

As far as the playground issue is concerned, It does not involve wood
preservatives, but the design of steel and plastic equipment so that no
child
could ever get hurt no matter what they do. Many of the kids that were
interviewed as to why they stopped going to the new playground said
that the new equipment was boring and did not offer them any challenges.





w_tom wrote:

The suspension patent stated what could happen when the
suspension was 'tested'. That is not a driver failure to do
what all other cars must do without failure. Corvair
suspension failure that even the engineer's patent predicted
if...

One could claim that all drivers should know not to corner
hard; therefore it is the driver's fault for doing what is not
a problem on any other car. But if the Corvair fails and
kills people when doing what all other cars do normally, AND
when the engineer says in advance this was a problem; then
instead we blame the victim? Where does did logic come from?

If Corvair required special driver's training, then why did
GM not provide that training standard with every Corvair?

That was the mentality back then. Hundreds were killed when
the Beverly Hills Supper Club caught fire outside of
Cincinnati. The KY Governor's report also blamed the victims
for their own death. Just as silly.

The Corvair was not an 18 wheeler that requires special
handling. But then even an 18 wheeler does not put a known
defective design in its suspension - only because a cost
controller is trying to save $2. People killed only because
the stabilizer bar costs an excessive $2! Should all drivers
receive special training in case one might drive a Corvair -
so that GM can save $2 on a stabilizer bar? The reason that
Corvair suspension would fail - as the patent said it would -
is because cost controllers feared to spend money on a
stabilizer bar that the patent said was necessary.

BTW, you have it all wrong. Once the rear wheel buckled
under, nothing using a gas pedal was going to save the vehicle
from overturning. That failure was noted in the patent.
Corvair killed because top management more feared the cost of
a stabilizer bar than making the car drive like every other
car.

It is a fear of spending money and a fear of listening to
those who come from where the work gets done that causes
regulations. How many more astronauts will we need murder
before that same top management problem is fixed - either by
holding top management responsible (which we never do) or by
making more regulations?

At what point did taking toxic arsenic out of playground
wood make it boring? Why did it finally require regulation to
do what common sense says was danagerous? Did those
playground manufacturers fear kids would be bored by wood
without arsenic?

Cosmopolite wrote:
I disagree. The operation of any device has everything to do with
the operator. The average American driver was used to the handling
characteristics of front heavy vehicles which understeer. When a
front heavy, understeering vehicle exceeds it's cornering
capability, the front wheels loose traction and the vehicle goes
straight instead of cornering. ( like trying to turn on ice ) The
solution to this is to take your foot OFF the gas pedal.
When a rear heavy vehicle exceeds it's cornering capability, the
swing around. ( like burning a doughnut ) The solution to this is
to give it MORE gas. This straightens the vehicle out. ( within
limits, of course ) If you take your foot OFF the gas under
these conditions, the vehicle will spin around, out of control.
The early ( 1960-1964 ) swing axle Corvair received the stabilizer
bar in 1964. The later ( 1965-1969 ) Corvair had a totally
different suspension system, similar to the Corvette and Jaguar.
This suspension did not produce camber changes ( wheel jack-up )
like the early model.

While I agree that there have to be safety regulations ( products
and behavior ), this has to be done very carefully. We are
currently having a problem with safe playground design. The new
playground equipment is a lot safer than the old, but the
children find it very boring.

If a society demands ever safer and secure lifestyles, one day it
will find itself imprisioned. Life is and has always been risky.
Only living organisms get hurt, dead ones do not.