Say Charley,
If you decide on jumping into a discussion would you at least read what has
ensued
before you happened on the scene. Many of your remarks are completely out of
context
and any reply would necessitate a repetition of discussions you should have read
before touching your keyboard. Please!
Charley & Peggy Robinson wrote:
> "James H. Nazarian, Ph.D." wrote:
> >
> > Wrong on all counts George,
> >
> > The auto industry at that time was using 40 year old designs and technology:
> > ladder frame, front engine, rear drive, separate body / chassis, etc.
>
> The Corvair was a unit body vehicle.
This is exactly my point Charlie.
> The majority of the annual retooling was new body panel stamping dies.
>
> Not in the case of the Corvair and the companion Pontiac lemon.
This is exactly my point Charlie.
> > If you look at the films of Corvair roll over tests with an open mind, you
>will
> > see that nearly any car would flip under those same conditions.
>
> Don't think my B would flip over. After all it's rear suspension won't
>"tuck
> under.
Hint Charlie "LOOK", second hint Charlie "OPEN MIND"
> >Nader's team was
> > very unprofessional and unscientific.
>
> That's a matter of opinion. Reviews of the book that I just looked up
> are evenly split.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
> I know very little about the Corvair rear
> > suspension, or that of the Triumph Spitfire. My MGA has reinforced rubber
>straps
> > to limit the downward travel of the rear axle. If this motion was a problem
>on
> > swing axle cars, I wonder why designers did not employ motion limiting
>straps on
> > those cars. They are cheap and effective.
>
> Look, if you don't know much about the swing axle Corvair suspension,
> why venture an opinion? How can you know straps would work?
Please read the paragraph above, Your comment and question are non sequitor.
> By the '64 model year Chevy added a flat steel "spring" that ran from
> the bottom of the left swing arm to the bottom of the right one and was
> fastened to the underside of the differential housing. It was there
> mainly to limit suspension travel and add roll stiffness. They also
> changed the rear geometry from positive camber to negative. This all
> cost money. They'd never have done it if Nader hadn't exposed the poor
> handling problem to the public.
Sounds like an anti-sway / anti-roll bar like most other cars were adopting. Is
that
so damning of the Corvair? My MGA didn't have one but the MGB did. When did that
happen Charlie?
> >>Nader's myth ranks right up there with > other great scams......
>
> If Nader had been scamming GM they'd have broken hin and CU in court.
> Thet they weren't able to speaks loads for the veracity of the book.
That they DIDN'T speak is the basis for the theory that GM and the industry
wanted to
kill the Corvair. There have been other automotive assassinations for curious
reasons.
The Fiero is another.
Jim
|