F
Peter Cole wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's not that the Corvair was a brilliant piece of
> > design. (It had some good features, many bad ones.) But the handling
> > problems had been more than corrected by the time Nader started
> > whining, and Nader's publicity stunt had the unintended consequence of
> > stifling almost all innovation from Detroit.
>
> Big claim.
>
> > (Not the last time that Nader's delusions of grandeur screwed things
> > up, of course. I think the guy is a disaster.)
> >
> > Re innovation: At the time Honda was producing the Civic (transverse
> > engine, able to meet pollution standards without a catalytic converter,
> > decent performance, excellent economy, excellent reliability, very
> > roomy for its size) Detroit was producing ... what? The Chevette?
>
> I worked for a company that made precision measurement (computerized)
> equipment for car engine manufacture in those days. Nobody gave a damn
> about emissions, economy or reliability.
?? I don't understand that statement. Clearly _someone_ did, because
the cars that offered those attributes suddenly took larger and larger
shares of the market. I know I cared, and I certainly wasn't alone.
> Detroit was caught flat-footed
> by the first oil-shocks in the mid-70's. Honda didn't take off as a
> brand until the 80's. There were plenty of econo-boxes around in the
> late 70's (Subaru, Datsun, VW, etc.)
> The US guys had no experience with
> 4-cylinder, small displacement engines, never mind FWD. Catch-up took a
> long time (actually they never did, the oil shocks abated, so they
> didn't have to).
Honda began taking off in the mid 1970s. I bought one in '78, partly
because I had several friends who had them and had excellent
experiences with them. I'm thinking the first got his in about 1974.
> It strikes me as a *really* big reach to lay all that on Nader and his
> one little book in 1965
He wasn't the sole cause of it all, but I believe the Corvair debacle
convinced GM to never again try anything so original.
> > Gee, thanks, Ralph. And I hope your "airbag" idea doesn't take my
> > kid's head off in the name of "safety."
>
> Nader invented airbags?
Nader was one of the major influences in pushing airbags. It was his
thesis that they were absolutely necessary, since it was obvious (to
him) that the public could never be convinced to wear seat belts.
"Nader's Raiders" campaigned endlessly to make airbags law. (Well,
actually, "passive restraints.")
Of course, he was wrong about Americans never using seatbelts, too.
Unfortunately, I think one of the reasons some people wear seat belts
is because we now know the explosive "safety device" in the dash can
just about decapitate you if you don't wear the seatbelt! (If you
don't believe me, read the warnings in your car's owner's manual.
> Keep your kid in the back, they'll be fine.
That doesn't strike you as ironic? - that we've equipped all our cars
with a "safety device" that's so dangerous, we must keep kids five feet
away? (BTW, it's also a "safety device" that first-response rescuers
fear. They don't want it going off when they try to drag someone from
a burning car, etc.)
Personally, I think the situation is ludicrous. As is Nader.
- Frank Krygowski
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's not that the Corvair was a brilliant piece of
> > design. (It had some good features, many bad ones.) But the handling
> > problems had been more than corrected by the time Nader started
> > whining, and Nader's publicity stunt had the unintended consequence of
> > stifling almost all innovation from Detroit.
>
> Big claim.
>
> > (Not the last time that Nader's delusions of grandeur screwed things
> > up, of course. I think the guy is a disaster.)
> >
> > Re innovation: At the time Honda was producing the Civic (transverse
> > engine, able to meet pollution standards without a catalytic converter,
> > decent performance, excellent economy, excellent reliability, very
> > roomy for its size) Detroit was producing ... what? The Chevette?
>
> I worked for a company that made precision measurement (computerized)
> equipment for car engine manufacture in those days. Nobody gave a damn
> about emissions, economy or reliability.
?? I don't understand that statement. Clearly _someone_ did, because
the cars that offered those attributes suddenly took larger and larger
shares of the market. I know I cared, and I certainly wasn't alone.
> Detroit was caught flat-footed
> by the first oil-shocks in the mid-70's. Honda didn't take off as a
> brand until the 80's. There were plenty of econo-boxes around in the
> late 70's (Subaru, Datsun, VW, etc.)
> The US guys had no experience with
> 4-cylinder, small displacement engines, never mind FWD. Catch-up took a
> long time (actually they never did, the oil shocks abated, so they
> didn't have to).
Honda began taking off in the mid 1970s. I bought one in '78, partly
because I had several friends who had them and had excellent
experiences with them. I'm thinking the first got his in about 1974.
> It strikes me as a *really* big reach to lay all that on Nader and his
> one little book in 1965
He wasn't the sole cause of it all, but I believe the Corvair debacle
convinced GM to never again try anything so original.
> > Gee, thanks, Ralph. And I hope your "airbag" idea doesn't take my
> > kid's head off in the name of "safety."
>
> Nader invented airbags?
Nader was one of the major influences in pushing airbags. It was his
thesis that they were absolutely necessary, since it was obvious (to
him) that the public could never be convinced to wear seat belts.
"Nader's Raiders" campaigned endlessly to make airbags law. (Well,
actually, "passive restraints.")
Of course, he was wrong about Americans never using seatbelts, too.
Unfortunately, I think one of the reasons some people wear seat belts
is because we now know the explosive "safety device" in the dash can
just about decapitate you if you don't wear the seatbelt! (If you
don't believe me, read the warnings in your car's owner's manual.
> Keep your kid in the back, they'll be fine.
That doesn't strike you as ironic? - that we've equipped all our cars
with a "safety device" that's so dangerous, we must keep kids five feet
away? (BTW, it's also a "safety device" that first-response rescuers
fear. They don't want it going off when they try to drag someone from
a burning car, etc.)
Personally, I think the situation is ludicrous. As is Nader.
- Frank Krygowski
I know "me too" responses are considered bad form. But when I