3 ms·
>...by not doing a offset test or picking literally anything but a GM X-frame car (notoriously bad at overlap crashed, even by 1950s standards) So you are mad
by 41b696ef1113 4y ago
>...by not doing a offset test or picking literally anything but a GM X-frame car (notoriously bad at overlap crashed, even by 1950s standards)
So you are mad that they used a street legal car of the day to show that things have improved?
A fun historical fact I just discovered, "Ford offered seat belts as an option in 1955. These were not popular, with only 2% of Ford buyers choosing to pay for seatbelts in 1956" [0]. Which reads to me that many 1959 drivers would have been unlikely to have or use a seatbelt.
[0] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt
- userbinator 4y agoI think the point is that an X-frame is extremely weak, so they showed one of the worst cars in 1959 to be in a crash with; many other cars of the time had full perimeter frames: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-an-x-ray-look-at-gms-x-frame-1957-1970/ https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automot...
- encoderer 4y agoIt’s a useful piece of context but it’s not really like the x-frame was niche and cherry-picked for this example. They sold a lot of these things (the platform, not just bel-airs)