7 ms·

So was the 1960 Corvair dangerous? I notice the engineers all say performs comparable to other cars, but not weather that was a good or bad thing. Four other d

So was the 1960 Corvair dangerous? I notice the engineers all say performs comparable to other cars, but not weather that was a good or bad thing. Four other dangerous models doesn't make one of the dangerous models less dangerous.

loeg 5y ago
More or less all 1960 cars are objectively dangerous compared with modern automobiles.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  Yes, and I would thank Ralph Nader for pushing the industry in the right direction. Arguably though, the pendulum may have swung too far to the point that cars sold in the U.S. are boxed in by the crash-test requirements. I have seen where, for example, small, efficient commuter vehicles are only viable in the U.S. if they are 3-wheeled since, curiously, they are considered "motorcycles" then and are therefore exempt from many safety requirements. Is there no category for 4-wheeled vehicles sort of like "buyer beware, this is a dangerous vehicle but you are welcome to purchase and register it with that understanding"?
  - larrik 5y ago
    We have Smart cars, so it can't be that onerous.
    - Hamuko 5y ago
      FWIW, the 2014 smart fortwo and smart forfour got 4/5 stars in Euro NCAP. It actually gets a better score than the 2017 Ford Mustang, where the safety rating for adult occupants is rated higher in the smart. https://youtu.be/iXUBU0eieLc https://youtu.be/iXUBU0eieLc doesn't look all that bad.
    - throaway46546 5y ago
      My friend had a Smart car and I was surprised to learn that it got about the same fuel efficiency as my 4 door Ford Focus. With a full cars I was getting over double the fuel efficiency per person and we were much more comfortable in my car. What's the point?
      - Hamuko 5y ago
        The smart fortwo is so small that you can feasibly "parallel" park the car by driving directly into it. And if you live in a densily packed city, the ability to squeeze your car into tiny spaces can be great. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Smart_parking.JPG https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Smart_pa...
        throaway46546 5y ago
        Still you think it would get better gas mileage than a Sedan.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >Is there no category for 4-wheeled vehicles sort of like "buyer beware, this is a dangerous vehicle but you are welcome to purchase and register it with that understanding"? Not for use on public roads because "people are stupid and need to be saved from themselves" or something along those lines.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      The occupants of a vehicle are also not necessarily the person who voluntarily purchased it.
  - throwaway946513 5y ago
    Not to forget the U.S. mentality that 'Bigger vehicle is better, and therefore safer'.
    - DnDGrognard 5y ago
      That's pretty common in other countries - there's loads of Chelsea tractors (SUVS and 4wd) used on the school run in the UK for the height and perceived safety.
  - sparsely 5y ago
    The biggest issue IMO is that the safety standards more or less only seem to account for the driver/passengers. The EU equivalent has a pedestrian safety rating, that would be a good start.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    The category for 4-wheeled vehicles with reduced safety requirements is the "kit car". IOW, you have to put it together yourself for it to qualify.
    - JKCalhoun 5y ago
      Interesting.
dylan604 5y ago
Dangerous? meh. They were fun as hell. I learned to drive in a 1964 Corvair 2-door convertable. My dad bought it brand new, drove it for a year, then put it in storage where it sat until I turned 15. The stories my dad would tell me about the things they would do tinkering with them were pretty out there. He wound up putting cement bags in the trunk to keep the front end down when he would hit certain speeds. Got pulled over racing a GTO, and winning, but the cop gave no tickets. He was just interested in seeing what was done to the Corvair that it was out running a GTO. Oh the 60s!
technothrasher 5y ago
I've never driven a Corvair, but I've owned a 1965 Triumph Spitfire that has a very similar transverse leaf spring swing axle rear suspension setup. Most of the time its fine, but when pushing the car, the setup definitely could cause snap oversteer that, if you're not expecting it, could be dangerous. But its not like other suspension setups can't do the same thing, and the addition of a camber compensator makes the issue pretty much go away.
khudgins 5y ago
I own and drive a 1960 Corvair. Most Corvair fans will tell you it's not any more dangerous than any other 1960 car if you set it up right. (I'll elaborate later) The manual tells you specific tire pressures to run: 22psi in front, 32psi in back. That differential tire pressure is critical to compensate for the swingaxles and rear weight. The problem was that this spec is different from other cars people were used to, and like today, no one read the manual. Especially mechanics. So you'd take it to a shop for something, they'd notice your front tires were a little low, and "fill" them up with air for you. And you didn't know. I think there's some willful misinformation on both sides of this argument. There's a lawsuit between Chevrolet and National Highway Traffic Safety Admin that resolved in 1972 (3 years after the last Corvair was made) that settled saying that the 1963 Corvair (the one being tested) wasn't any worse than other small cars at the time. Early Corvairs, however, have more and more safety features added in over the years. There's an early 1960 (mine) and a later 1960 model, and there were significant suspension changes between 1961, '62, '63, and '64. After that, the Corvair had a full redesign and was honestly a different car (still rear-engined, air cooled, unibody, but a different model). Each model year for early Corvairs the car was refined and made much better, so that '64s are really nice, pretty damn safe cars for the era. I suspect the '60 definitely has some rollover issues if you drive it hard. "Spirited driving" was the term they used back in the day. I don't - I baby mine and keep it slow and easy. I'm not great with driving a manual yet anyway.

loeg 5y ago

More or less all 1960 cars are objectively dangerous compared with modern automobiles.

JKCalhoun 5y ago
Yes, and I would thank Ralph Nader for pushing the industry in the right direction. Arguably though, the pendulum may have swung too far to the point that cars sold in the U.S. are boxed in by the crash-test requirements. I have seen where, for example, small, efficient commuter vehicles are only viable in the U.S. if they are 3-wheeled since, curiously, they are considered "motorcycles" then and are therefore exempt from many safety requirements. Is there no category for 4-wheeled vehicles sort of like "buyer beware, this is a dangerous vehicle but you are welcome to purchase and register it with that understanding"?
- larrik 5y ago
  We have Smart cars, so it can't be that onerous.
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    FWIW, the 2014 smart fortwo and smart forfour got 4/5 stars in Euro NCAP. It actually gets a better score than the 2017 Ford Mustang, where the safety rating for adult occupants is rated higher in the smart. https://youtu.be/iXUBU0eieLc https://youtu.be/iXUBU0eieLc doesn't look all that bad.
  - throaway46546 5y ago
    My friend had a Smart car and I was surprised to learn that it got about the same fuel efficiency as my 4 door Ford Focus. With a full cars I was getting over double the fuel efficiency per person and we were much more comfortable in my car. What's the point?
    - Hamuko 5y ago
      The smart fortwo is so small that you can feasibly "parallel" park the car by driving directly into it. And if you live in a densily packed city, the ability to squeeze your car into tiny spaces can be great. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Smart_parking.JPG https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Smart_pa...
      - throaway46546 5y ago
        Still you think it would get better gas mileage than a Sedan.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >Is there no category for 4-wheeled vehicles sort of like "buyer beware, this is a dangerous vehicle but you are welcome to purchase and register it with that understanding"? Not for use on public roads because "people are stupid and need to be saved from themselves" or something along those lines.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    The occupants of a vehicle are also not necessarily the person who voluntarily purchased it.
- throwaway946513 5y ago
  Not to forget the U.S. mentality that 'Bigger vehicle is better, and therefore safer'.
  - DnDGrognard 5y ago
    That's pretty common in other countries - there's loads of Chelsea tractors (SUVS and 4wd) used on the school run in the UK for the height and perceived safety.
- sparsely 5y ago
  The biggest issue IMO is that the safety standards more or less only seem to account for the driver/passengers. The EU equivalent has a pedestrian safety rating, that would be a good start.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  The category for 4-wheeled vehicles with reduced safety requirements is the "kit car". IOW, you have to put it together yourself for it to qualify.
  - JKCalhoun 5y ago
    Interesting.

dylan604 5y ago

Dangerous? meh. They were fun as hell. I learned to drive in a 1964 Corvair 2-door convertable. My dad bought it brand new, drove it for a year, then put it in storage where it sat until I turned 15. The stories my dad would tell me about the things they would do tinkering with them were pretty out there. He wound up putting cement bags in the trunk to keep the front end down when he would hit certain speeds. Got pulled over racing a GTO, and winning, but the cop gave no tickets. He was just interested in seeing what was done to the Corvair that it was out running a GTO. Oh the 60s!

technothrasher 5y ago

I've never driven a Corvair, but I've owned a 1965 Triumph Spitfire that has a very similar transverse leaf spring swing axle rear suspension setup. Most of the time its fine, but when pushing the car, the setup definitely could cause snap oversteer that, if you're not expecting it, could be dangerous. But its not like other suspension setups can't do the same thing, and the addition of a camber compensator makes the issue pretty much go away.

khudgins 5y ago

I own and drive a 1960 Corvair. Most Corvair fans will tell you it's not any more dangerous than any other 1960 car if you set it up right. (I'll elaborate later) The manual tells you specific tire pressures to run: 22psi in front, 32psi in back. That differential tire pressure is critical to compensate for the swingaxles and rear weight. The problem was that this spec is different from other cars people were used to, and like today, no one read the manual. Especially mechanics. So you'd take it to a shop for something, they'd notice your front tires were a little low, and "fill" them up with air for you. And you didn't know. I think there's some willful misinformation on both sides of this argument. There's a lawsuit between Chevrolet and National Highway Traffic Safety Admin that resolved in 1972 (3 years after the last Corvair was made) that settled saying that the 1963 Corvair (the one being tested) wasn't any worse than other small cars at the time. Early Corvairs, however, have more and more safety features added in over the years. There's an early 1960 (mine) and a later 1960 model, and there were significant suspension changes between 1961, '62, '63, and '64. After that, the Corvair had a full redesign and was honestly a different car (still rear-engined, air cooled, unibody, but a different model). Each model year for early Corvairs the car was refined and made much better, so that '64s are really nice, pretty damn safe cars for the era. I suspect the '60 definitely has some rollover issues if you drive it hard. "Spirited driving" was the term they used back in the day. I don't - I baby mine and keep it slow and easy. I'm not great with driving a manual yet anyway.