"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.
The
> majority of the annual retooling was new body panel stamping dies.
Not in the case of the Corvair and the companion Pontiac lemon.
>
> 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.
>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.
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?
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.
>>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.
Charley Robinson
'69 B
|