Corvair In Action Summary

Mass hysteria can cause all logical explanations to be dismissed in favour of the most impulsive decisions. When the group attack is lead by biased and uniformed leaders, the most horrid results can occur. The infamous Salem Witch Trials in colonial Massachusetts, are a prime example of confirmation bias and mob mentality. Any kind of supporting evidence to convict person of practicing witchcraft was ultimately doomed. Any voice that spoke against this claim was instantly denied and became a suspect of witchcraft. The scrutiny of the General Motors Corvair is rife with this kind of mob mentality. General Motors simply wished to design a car that was innovative. Possessing features such as a rear mounted engine and swing axle rear suspension,

but these impressive features which gave its initial fame, was the cause of its downfall.

Ralph Nader, is the leader to the downfall of the Corviar. In his book, “Unsafe at Any Speed”, Nader jabs at GM for producing and releasing a car that was “inherently unsafe.” Nader criticized GM for not obeying the wishes of top engineer Maurice Olley, who insisted that rear engine cars are a “poor bargain” and had poor handling (page 20). Amusingly, Nader had never gotten a driver’s licence nor has studied any form of engineering, making his points purely subjective (Ernst). Nader also never bothered to mention the many car companies that produced cars with similar features to the corviar such as Mercedes-Benz, Porsche and Volkswagen. The cars produced by these smaller companies had reportedly similar performance to the corviar (Davis). Perhaps Nader felt that bashing GM would create bigger headlines, or perhaps that Nader became so entrenched in his opinions that any information that did not support his stance was ignored.

GM solved the issue of “oversteer tendencies” by instantiating a tire pressure differential, a cost saving measure that proved effective. Nader identified that not all customers were aware of the importance of the tire pressures and dealerships were also not well informed or trained. Nader also rebuked that the tremendous difference of performance of Corvairs with EMPI kit is evidence that the Corviar was manufactured with little regard for safety. However after the accumulation of over a hundred lawsuits, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration began an extensive report of the Corviar, testing the car in many situations. They found that the Corvair performed similarly to any other car at the time, even with the tire pressures at non recommended states (Page 46). Therefore it can be concluded that the Corvair was produced and released in an ethically safe state.
“The Corvair in Action” was a promotional film released in 1960 which demonstrated the Corvair handling remarkably in all types of conditions.

It showed the Corvair making tight turns at varying speeds and maintaining a smooth body on bumpy surfaces. The video does fail to mention the utilization of different tire pressures which are the reason to its stability. However it does not lead the viewer to think that the Corviar is an indestructible car. The video shows scenes of the car flipping over at high speeds and the aftermath of multiple crashes to the car. Indeed the video does try to present this information in a positive way, suggesting that no other car would have been able to survive such a crash. The fact that GM was willing to show the car failing is a testament to their honest relationship with the consumer. Another promotional film released close to “The Corvair in Action” was “No Contest” by Ford. In the film Ford directly compared the Falcon Ford between the Chevrolet Corvair, it was considered to be a detailed and brutal comparison between the two competing cars. However, “No Contest” only pointed out minor convenience and style issues that the Corvair, never question the safety or integrity of the car. The only notable issue that Ford rose was the reliance of differential tire pressures for the

Corviar.

From 1960 to 1963 there was on average about 36,000 car crash fatalities, a significant decrease from the previous decade (Thomas). It is natural to wish to place blame on others for your woes, identical to a pupil blaming their teacher for the result of an unfortunate grade, and the new innovations of the Corviar seemed like a believable culprit of any type of accident that occurred when driving the car. There is no doubt that GM did not release the Corviar in the absolute best condition due to the fact that later models (or modified Corvairs with EMPIs) had severely better handling, but to call the Corvair unsafe compared to standard at the time, would be factually false. The results of the NHTF repot prove that the Corvair was just as safe as similar cars, “The handling and stability performance of the 1960-1963 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover and it is at least. as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic” (page 16).

Nader is correct that In a sound capitalistic economy corporations attempt to win over the public’s dollars by making products that are effective, affordable and desirable. In which companies must balance these factors when creating such products, and still come out of the process profitable, to pay workers and please shareholders. But Nader fails to realize is that General Motors is not in the business to produce cars that kill their customers, they are solely a company that exists to fight over the public’s dollars by manufacturing products that the consumer will hopefully enjoy. GM’s only mistake was producing a car that was to ambitions for their patrons which resulted in their scrutiny and blame and perhaps not stressing the importance of the tire pressures to ensure safe handling.