1396 I found the video introducing the “New Corvair” very enjoyable. What I found annoying was the totally ignorant review by Wedgehead. Mr. Wedgehead ( a name I find very appropriate), rambles on about truth in advertising. Too bad he doesn’t apply the truth to his poor attempt at a review. I find it unlikely that a college educated Automotive engineer (are you kidding!!?!?) in his and I quote “LAST THIRTIES” (is that a new way to give your age? That means I’m in my first forties.) would not be able to coherently compose a few paragraphs without the great number of spelling and grammatical errors we learn about in elementary school. At least ten spelling error but why dwell on it, Mr. Wedgehead obviously can’t spell. Lets get down to cases and try to figure out what MR Wedgehead is talking about . Now Wedgie the so called engineer rambles on about how the design of the independent rear suspension of the first generation Corvairs was a result of faulty engineering. Wedgie the so called engineer should know, isn’t that right?? Hey Wedgie, how about the two other cars of the era with the same type swingaxle design. You happen to recall the names of those two automobiles, with the “deathtrap” style swingaxle rear suspensions. Oh yeah, I remember, the Volkswagen beetle and that awful handling Porsche. I can’t understand why GM would want to used the same type of rear suspension as that terrible handling awful Porsche. Your description of the rear suspension was also in error Wedgie my boy. For an engineer you sure need to bone up. The rear suspension consists of a Swingaxle. Two control arms, upper and lower are what you would find on the front suspension, are we getting our directions mixed up Wedgie? You seem to be spouting the same old tired rhetoric that was disproved many years ago. In 1972, the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration found that the 1960-63 handled at least as good as other contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic. I quote “The handling and stability performance of the 1960-1963 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover”. So Wedgie the so called engineer, I guess the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has confirmed that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Now that we have shown that your engineering expertise is totally suspect, lets examine your claim that the video is deceptive. Speaking of deceptive, the death of Ernie Kovacs was tragic, but you failed to mention that he was drunk and wrapped his car around a pole. The car did not roll, which is the deadly handling problem you claimed the Corvair had in your review. The police believed that a combination of Mr. Kovacs unsafe drunk driving, rain slick road and possibly handling a lit cigar contributed to the accident. The safety of the vehicle was never listed as a factor. Now who is being deceptive? Now lets see what your other evidence is. OOPS, after reading your review again, I find that you don’t have any evidence from the video. Your evidence consist entirely in your imagination! You say that because they don’t show the rear wheel during the Road-Bump test, it must be a conspiracy! GM is hiding something. If we follow your twisted reasoning it must be because the rear is defective. Get REAL Wedgie, I’m sure the rear wheel went up and down just like the front ones. They have shocks and coils springs in the back too, or didn’t you know. Then you even top the first delusion with the totally bonehead statement that they video doesn’t show the complete Figure-8 test because the Driver almost loses control. So Wedgie, where did you get that piece of information? They didn’t show the whole Figure-8 Test, so how would you know what happens after they cut away? Where you there in 1959 when this was filmed? I doubt it. Just another one of your delusions. That goes for the other imaginary claims you make about the Slalom test and test dummies in the roll over test. Wedgie claims that there are no test dummies in the car are false too. Just like his other claims. You can clearly see the Test Dummies in the car when it rolls over and nothing is ejected. The only Dummy around here is Wedgie. Don’t let self styled experts ruin your enjoyment of this really cool vintage car video. The Corvair was a revolutionary car in its day, and many of the innovation it introduced are found in the vehicles we drive today. Sure, cars built in 1960 aren’t as safe as cars built today. Just don’t pay attention to misinformation from these so called experts. Reviewers like Mr. Wedgehead who obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about and uses items not shown in the video as his proof.. So as Wedgie so aptly concluded in his review, “sit back and enjoy” and hopefully he will try to put a little more “TRUTH” in his next review. Great video! but poor review by Wedgehead corsa 2003-02-22 01:59:21 2003-02-22 01:59:21 5 1397 I found the video introducing the “New Corvair” very enjoyable. What I found annoying was the totally ignorant review by Wedgehead. Mr.Wedgehead ( a name I find very appropriate), rambles on about truth in advertising. Too bad he doesn’t apply the truth to his poor attempt at a review. I find it unlikely that a college educated Automotive engineer (are you kidding!!?!?) in his and I quote “LAST THIRTIES” (is that a new way to give your age? That means I’m in my first forties.) would not be able to coherently compose a few paragraphs without the great number of spelling and grammatical errors we learn about in elementary school. At least ten spelling error but why dwell on it, Mr. Wedgehead obviously can’t spell. Lets get down to cases and try to figure out what MR Wedgehead is talking about . Now Wedgie the so called engineer rambles on about how the design of the independent rear suspension of the first generation Corvairs was a result of faulty engineering. Wedgie the so called engineer should know, isn’t that right?? Hey Wedgie, how about the two other cars of the era with the same type swingaxle design. You happen to recall the names of those two automobiles, with the “deathtrap” style swingaxle rear suspensions. Oh yeah, I remember, the Volkswagen beetle and that awful handling Porsche. I can’t understand why GM would want to used the same type of rear suspension as that terrible handling awful Porsche. Your description of the rear suspension was also in error Wedgie my boy. For an engineer you sure need to bone up. The rear suspension consists of a Swingaxle. Two control arms, upper and lower are what you would find on the front suspension, are we getting our directions mixed up Wedgie? You seem to be spouting the same old tired rhetoric that was disproved many years ago. In 1972, the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration found that the 1960-63 handled at least as good as other contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic. I quote “The handling and stability performance of the 1960-1963 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover”. So Wedgie the so called engineer, I guess the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has confirmed that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Now that we have shown that your engineering expertise is totally suspect, lets examine your claim that the video is deceptive. Speaking of deceptive, the death of Ernie Kovacs was tragic, but you failed to mention that he was drunk and wrapped his car around a pole. The car did not roll, which is the deadly handling problem you claimed the Corvair had in your review. The police believed that a combination of Mr. Kovacs unsafe drunk driving, rain slick road and possibly handling a lit cigar contributed to the accident. The safety of the vehicle was never listed as a factor. Now who is being deceptive? Now lets see what your other evidence is. OOPS, after reading your review again, I find that you don’t have any evidence from the video. Your evidence consist entirely in your imagination! You say that because they don’t show the rear wheel during the Road-Bump test, it must be a conspiracy! GM is hiding something. If we follow your twisted reasoning it must be because the rear is defective. Get REAL Wedgie, I’m sure the rear wheel went up and down just like the front ones. They have shocks and coils springs in the back too, or didn’t you know. Then you even top the first delusion with the totally bonehead statement that they video doesn’t show the complete Figure-8 test because the Driver almost loses control. So Wedgie, where did you get that piece of information? They didn’t show the whole Figure-8 Test, so how would you know what happens after they cut away? Where you there in 1959 when this was filmed? I doubt it. Just another one of your delusions. That goes for the other imaginary claims you make about the Slalom test and test dummies in the roll over test. Wedgie claims that there are no test dummies in the car are false too. Just like his other claims. You can clearly see the Test Dummies in the car when it rolls over and nothing is ejected. The only Dummy around here is Wedgie. Don’t let self styled experts ruin your enjoyment of this really cool vintage car video. The Corvair was a revolutionary car in its day, and many of the innovation it introduced are found in the vehicles we drive today. Sure, cars built in 1960 aren’t as safe as cars built today. Just don’t pay attention to misinformation from these so called experts. Reviewers like Mr. Wedgehead who obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about and uses items not shown in the video as his proof.. So as Wedgie so aptly concluded in his review, “sit back and enjoy” and hopefully he will try to put a little more “TRUTH” in his next review. Great video! but poor review by Wedgehead corsa 2003-02-22 02:05:29 2003-02-22 02:05:29 5 1438 The two reviews I see, one by "corsa," the other by "Wedgehead," both bring up valid points. For me, the controversy isn't settled. Interestingly, I have a book by John Z. Delorean (with J. Patrick Wright) called "On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors." (AVON books,copyright 1979 by J. Patrick Wright). Here are some excerpts that both sides may find interesting which deal with the Corvair.(from pages 65-68): These problems with the Corvair were well documented inside GM's Engineering Staff long before the Corvair ever was offered for sale. Frank Winchell, now vice-president of Engineering, but then an engineer at Chevy, flipped over one of the first prototypes on the GM test track in Milford, Michigan. Others followed. The questionable safety of the car caused a massive internal fight among GM's engineers over whether the car should be built with another form of suspension. One side of the argument was Chevrolet's then General Manager, Ed Cole, an engineer and product innovater. He and some of his engineering colleagues were enthralled with the idea of building the first modern, rear-engine, American car. And I am convinced they felt the safety risks of the swing-axle suspension were minimal. On the other side was a wide assortment of top-flight engineers, including D. Polhemus, engineer in charge of Chassis Development on GM's Engineering Staff, and others. These men collectively and individually made vigorous attempts inside GM to keep the Corvair, as designed, out of production or to change the suspension system to make the car safer. One top corporate engineer told me that he showed his test results to Cole but by then, he said, "Cole's mind was made up." Albert Roller, who worked for me in Pontiac's Advanced Engineering section, tested the car and pleaded with me not to use it at Pontiac. Roller had been an engineer with Mercedes-Benz before joining GM, and he said that Mercedes had tested similarly designed rear-engine, swing-axle cars and had found them far too unsafe to build. At the very least, then, within General Motors in the late 1950s, serious questions were raised about the Corvair's safety. At the very most, there was a mountain of documented evidence that the car should not be built as it was then designed. . . . The results were disastrous. . . Young Corvair owners, therefore, were trying to bend their car around curves at high speeds and were killing themselves in alrming numbers. . . . The son of Cal Verner, general manager of the Cadillac Division, was killed in a Corvair . . .The son of Cy Osborne, an executive vice-president in the 1960s, was critically injured in a Corvair and suffered irreparable brain damage. Bunkie Knudsen's niece was brutally injured in a Corvair. And the son of an Indianapolis Cherolet dealer was also killed in a Corvair . . . When Knudsen took over the reins of Cherolet in 1961, he insisted that he was given corporate authorization to install a stablizing bar in the rear to counteract the natural tendencies of the Corvair to flip off the road. The cost of the change would be about $15 a car. But his request was refused by The Fourteenth Floor as "too expensive." Bunkie was livid. As I understnad it, he went to the Executive Committee and told the top officers of the corporation that, if they didn't reappraise his request and give him permission to make the Corvair safe, he was going to resign from General Motors. This threat and the fear of the bad publicity that surely would result from Knudsen's resignation forced management's hand. They relented. Bunkie put a stabilizing bar on the Corvair in the 1964 models. The next year a completlely new and safer independent suspenion designed by Frank Winchell [the "diagonal pivot swing axle" by the way] was put on the Corvair. And it became on the of safest cars on the road. . . . There wasn't a man in top GM management who had anything to do with the Corvair who would purposely build a car that he knew would hurt or kill people. But, as part of a management team pushing for increased sales and profits, each gave his individual approval in a group of decisions which produced the car in the face of the serious doubts that were raised about its safety, and then later sought to squelch information which might prove the car's deficiencies. . . . In April of 1971, 19 boxes of microfilmed Corvair owner complaints, which had been ordered destroyed by upper managment, turned up in the possession of two suburban Detroit junk dealers. When The Fourteenth Floor found this out, it went into panic and we at Chevrolet were ordered to buy the microfilm back and have it destroyed.[End of excerpts] One of the things that "corsa" mentioned is the fact that Porsche -- certainly one of the most prestigous autos on the road -- used the same rear-engine, swing axle design for ages. But isn't it also true that while these Porsches that used this method were known for the their agility -- that 1)at the same time their handling characteristics have been described as "tricky" by professional drivers because of this design and 2) that only truly experienced drivers are able to exploit the positive characteristics of the rear-engine, simple swing-axle? (These tricky characteristics would tend to be more present in the older rear-engine Porsches, for continued development has constantly improved this design.) Likewise, Porsche is obviously more committed into thorough testing and R&D than GM is (and was!) before releasing a product line. Hence their extreme cost comparatively. Historically, GM has had many more recalls dealing with safety problems than Porsche, as you might expect. For me, back in my youth, I tended to listen more to Brock Yates and the like. While I still respect those on that side of the argument, I think they should not be the only ones to listen to in this apparently endless controversy. (Nor the NHTSA, for that matter, since often gov't entities are no more immune from corporate influence -- or for that matter, simple mistakes -- than anyone else -- as I am sure Brock Yates would agree with!). John De Lorean on the Corvair 50dinbot 2003-02-26 11:38:12 2003-02-26 11:25:16 1 604 Me thinks thou doth protest too much... twice, as a matter of fact! Hey "Corsa" Wedgehead 2003-02-27 13:58:09 2002-12-12 00:00:00 5 1901 Man, all the wonders you can do in your 1960's Corvair! Take it into streams! go uphill of startling degrees! pack you groceries in the hood! This is a merry piece of advertising. I have no idea of what made this car controversial. iIt looks totally fine to me according to this advert. Okay, I'm sold! Spuzz 2003-04-11 01:13:16 2003-04-11 01:13:16 4 6334 People don't want an expensive, well engineered car as much as they want a cute and inexpensive one. This film depicts the 60 Corvair as a fun, safe and tough little car. I drove one for years and it was just that. Too bad the rear stabilizer bar did appear until 64. Ralph never would've had a case. So it was a $15 error that killed the Marque. I currently own a wedge, argueably the perfect fusion of engineering, performance and economy. (Powered by a 163 cubic inch flat six just like the later Corvairs). But, that marque?? also failed even in less time-6 years. As the son of a DM for Chevrolet Sales Division, I've seen lots of Chevy promos. This one is one of the best. If the wedge-makers had ever come up with a promo as good as this, no doubt they'd still be in production. This film is a tribute to America's most innovative car and fun to watch. Claymo Entertaining car and film claymo 2003-09-21 19:59:41 2003-09-21 19:59:41 5 7911 I like this promotional film if for nothing else than the wide gap between the Corvair as Chevrolet image and the Corvair as the object that made Ralph Nader famous. The color is great but the sound is terrible - sounds like a bad exciter lamp in the film to video transfer. The images prelude the mindless "tough car" SUV commercials today - how often do you drive up a cliff, down a river bed, or through the weeds?. In some respects, the rear engine design was too far ahead of it's time. Power, traction and ruggedness Steve Nordby 2003-12-07 17:08:40 2003-12-07 17:08:40 4 9751 I simply love the Corvair film. As a Marketing Manager for GM it is great to see the unique way we marketed our vehicles in the past. Keep sending us the great stuff! Buttles Corvair! Ahead of its time Buttles 2004-02-22 14:36:02 2004-02-22 14:36:02 5 10435 Whether the car was controversial or not, can't we agree that this is both a beautiful piece of film, and pretty convincing advertising? Not to mention a gorgeous car...it even looks the same from the back as from the front! I want one NOW! Great fim, great car trafalgar 2004-03-14 20:12:10 2004-03-14 20:12:10 5 12965 Outstanding ad. This was one heck of a car. Putting a car though an obstacle course was a rather novel idea for the era. Notice, as the car runs the course marked "handling" in a huge banner, it does, in fact, get the tail out of whack and lose it at the end. This event is glossed over by the announcer and we move on. Chevy's ad here beat the Ford ad of the same era all to pieces. NICE car! Electrolux 2004-05-10 20:51:01 2004-05-10 20:49:59 5 a wonderful ad for the corvair, it certainly sold me! a rather nice looking car, it's sad how the corvair failed in the market place. seeing this ad makes me want one.wonderful ad for a mis-understood car.one of my favourite ads, better when seen on a tv screen instead of a computer monitor. wonderful 5 bread 2006-08-17 04:43:45 2006-08-17 04:43:45 there's just something about 50 year old celluoid check out our mashup: http://www.archive.org/details/LikeZero awesome vintage footage rrhobbs 2007-06-23 18:17:45 2007-06-23 18:17:45 5 Believe it or not, Very few people died because of this car. Same with the Pinto. I'm not lying; Sure, they were flawed, But not quite as dangerous as some would have you believe. Plus, It's quite a nice looking car! Underrated Car Robin_1990 2008-04-22 10:03:50 2008-04-22 10:03:50 5 I had a friend who owned a '63 Corvair Spyder with either a supercharger or turbocharger (factory installed) It was a kick to drive; sounded like a VW bug on steroids. There was a big problem with front traction in snow and ice. Most people who owned a Corvair put sacks of sand in the front "trunk" to balance the weight displacement some. Great film; excellent example of 60s automobile marketing. Thanks for sharing it! Different Kind of Car Shoes for Industry 2009-03-18 03:54:36 2009-03-18 03:54:36 5 The car and it's slick Madison Avenue type commercials proved that you could sell crap to anyone. How symbolic of corporate greed that finally GM is getting its "Just Desserts" The point still remains. They put a car on the road that couldn't make it around a slight curve in the road when it rained--for profit. You got a problem with someone messing up your pretty "Homage" to the Corvair site. Too f"in bad Capitalist Greed Junk Gluon 2009-05-11 16:24:13 2009-03-18 15:49:48 1 The Model For Ralph Nader's "Novel"...."Unsafe At Any Speed......Nader Is Still Playing P.T.Barnum.... Turbo This Turkey.... doowopbob 2009-04-02 12:58:38 2009-04-02 12:58:38 1 This car was the basis for the book "Unsafe at any speed". However, very few people actually died in convair accidents. Too bad unfunny negative people are ruining this section. It's a car commercial!! Lighten up people!! It's not like it's footage of the Holocaust. There's no real need to get so damn offended. The Ironic Thing Is... Seto-Kaiba_Is_Stupid 2009-04-02 14:03:02 2009-04-02 14:03:02 4 Corvairs were very cool looking cars, especially in models that came after this commercial was made. My uncle had a Corvair. He survived when his flipped going around a curve. He never walked the same again, but he survived. I had a Pinto. Great little car. I was hit head-on one time, on the left side another, and then later the right side. Never in the rear. Thank goodness. This is a nice little short film. I don't remember any six minute commercials running back then. Cool Little Cars Rmathis00 2009-05-12 20:58:17 2009-05-12 20:58:17 4 As a teenager, I never cared for the look of the Corvair. However, this commercial certainly achieves in making this car seem appealing. Unfortunately, the 1960 model had some serious problems that made it unsafe. 1960 commercial makes the Corvair appealing ERD. 2009-05-13 21:31:40 2009-05-13 21:31:40 4 When I was in my teens (35-40 years ago) two of my cousins had one of these very safe automobiles. We were between 14 and 16 years old when their dad got them the car(that's how we learned to drive....get an old unwanted car and drive off road for a few years before we turned 16). You can imagine what abuse the Corvair received. They lived on a 200 acre farm and the car was used in the fields for years, from going down creeks to jumping hills to hauling hay in the back seat(the top was cut off with a torch). This was a fine car in any era. Nader was a bed wetter that needs his diaper changed, or stuffed in his pie hole. LOL !!!! Exactly like the ad states radioman714 2009-06-01 23:03:39 2009-06-01 23:03:39 5 20 4.15