Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Forum republicans: Step up and state your specific objections to Obama's recent executive order involving guns

+9
Hospital Bob
polecat
TEOTWAWKI
Markle
EmeraldGhost
Sal
gatorfan
2seaoat
boards of FL
13 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Go down  Message [Page 5 of 6]

Markle

Markle

Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Bob wrote:Does anyone here really believe that Obama's latest gun control proposals will reduce the gun crime in Chicago?


Holding all other factors that exhibit an influence on Chicago gun crime constant, yes.  

Your question is akin to asking "Does anyone really believe that implementing speed limits will reduce traffic fatalities?"


A better analogy would be the question "Did Prohibition reduce the consumption of alcohol?"

The answer is no because we are an alcohol culture.  Same as we're a gun culture.

And if an outright ban,  as Prohibition was,  did not do what was intended,  then how are these half-assed mickey mouse gun control measures going to do it either.

I have a RIGHT to own a gun. I do not have a right to drink alcohol. It is a privilege just as is driving.

2seaoat



I have a RIGHT to own a gun. I do not have a right to drink alcohol. It is a privilege just as is driving.



Wrong. I do have a right to drink alcohol if it is part of my religious practices and is a right protected by the bill of rights but which can be regulated even though my religious practices under the first amendment. Wrong, I have a right to drive a car on my property as protected under the bill of rights and the fifth and fourteenth amendments which also can be regulated even though my property rights under the fifth say that government cannot take property without due process......you see your right and all rights under the bill of rights are qualified rights and none are absolute which for two hundred years the law and the Supreme Court has made clear. The analogies are dead cinch correct.

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:Vehicle safety had the same old foggy naysayers.....I remember in my eighth grade speech class having to debate seatbelts..........Oh you will burn up in your car if you are strapped into the car.....you will drown if you go into a lake.....and later with air bags they will kill you(some did), but the societal goal of safety was not the simplistic talking points found on this thread, but a process of dialogue, technology, and good data.   We cannot have dialogue on this issue because of the gun lobby fights safety like GM fought Ralph Nader in his crusade against the corvair, we cannot have technology because some misguided constitutional principles oblivious to the tenets of recent clear supreme court cases assume that guns cannot be regulated as to safety, and finally most important government cannot even collect good data because Congress and the special interests which control the same will not allow studies by the CDC which could allow rational fact based discussions.

This is a start.  In less than twenty years gun deaths in America per capita will significantly be reduced because of this process.  But please.....do not wear your seat belt and deactivate your air bags.....cause they make no difference.

As you know, the Corvair was proven to be no more dangerous than other cars on the road at the time.

I believe I should be able to buy a new car with, or without, airbags and seat belts. If I am forced to buy a car with them, I should have the right to wear or not wear the seat belt just as I have the right to chose to wear or not wear a helmet when riding my motorcycle.

Markle

Markle

Bob wrote:I thought these gun control measures were supposed to help stop bad guys and nuts from getting guns immediately after they're enacted.  Not 20 years from now.

This is now starting to sound like John McCain and his 100 years in Iraq.  lol

Turns out that John McCain was correct. Just as we are still in Germany, Italy, South Korea, Japan and other countries keeping the peace.

2seaoat



As you know, the Corvair was proven to be no more dangerous than other cars on the road at the time.

I believe I should be able to buy a new car with, or without, airbags and seat belts. If I am forced to buy a car with them, I should have the right to wear or not wear the seat belt just as I have the right to chose to wear or not wear a helmet when riding my motorcycle.


In High school, one of my buddies always accused me of stealing his battery out of his corvair at the school parking lot. He was sure it was me. After he lost his second battery he fixed the lock on the damn car, because people would just hop in the car, pick up the back seat, and disconnect the battery, and take it. It got so bad, that he started taking his battery to his locker.......we played mean games on each others cars, like pulling distributor wires, shoe polish, shaving cream etc......but a neighbor could not negotiate a hill and curve and went through a guard rail with a corvette and suffered a serious accident which resulted in epilesy........but to get back to the my answer....

You can go onto private property and enjoy all of those things you like, but when you go onto public highways you have to follow traffic laws. You do not need a compelling state interest to make a traffic regulation, just a rational basis and the courts have upheld the same....so go to it in your back yard, but if you are in a corvair, you will need to learn to turn on corners with a heavy rear end and not the best traction.

Guest


Guest

Markle wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:The dealer doesn't have to be told anything. It can just be denied.

What are you talking about?

I think she's talking about what boards was with "flag". A person could find out when denied the right to purchase a gun that the councilor that they saw for depression or ptsd has deemed them by opinion to be unfit for that inalienable right... no due process... no hearing... no recourse. The obama eo mentions "relief"... whatever that may be in an enormous bureaucracy... probably a form and filing fee. He basically opened the door to whatever. A person that takes meds for conditions or is on disability might be excluded... a person wrongfully accused of domestic threat or violence... perhaps even a bad temper or an outburst... maybe even a bad divorce is a disqualifier. Stay tuned boys and girls... Govt almighty will send us the commandments on a need to know basis.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Markle wrote:
Bob wrote:I thought these gun control measures were supposed to help stop bad guys and nuts from getting guns immediately after they're enacted.  Not 20 years from now.

This is now starting to sound like John McCain and his 100 years in Iraq.  lol

Turns out that John McCain was correct.  Just as we are still in Germany, Italy, South Korea, Japan and other countries keeping the peace.

Okay that's it.  I now support the gun control 100%.  And I will vote for the most gun control candidate.
But not because I believe in any of that gun control shit.  Only because I'll be there to vote for Hillary to cancel your vote for the republican.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:
Markle wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:The dealer doesn't have to be told anything. It can just be denied.

What are you talking about?

I think she's talking about what boards was with "flag". A person could find out when denied the right to purchase a gun that the councilor that they saw for depression or ptsd has deemed them by opinion to be unfit for that inalienable right... no due process... no hearing... no recourse. The obama eo mentions "relief"... whatever that may be in an enormous bureaucracy... probably a form and filing fee. He basically opened the door to whatever. A person that takes meds for conditions or is on disability might be excluded... a person wrongfully accused of domestic threat or violence... perhaps even a bad temper or an outburst... maybe even a bad divorce is a disqualifier. Stay tuned boys and girls... Govt almighty will send us the commandments on a need to know basis.


Any diagnosis that would prohibit a gun purchase would come down from an MD who directly observed the individual wanting to purchase the gun - should they not be of the mental capacity and should they have been previously diagnosed.  Are you suggesting that we should inject politics into the process of diagnosing mental illness?  Hahahahahaha.

Sorry, Pkrbum, I'm not that liberal.

Forum republicans:  Step up and state your specific objections to Obama's recent executive order involving guns - Page 5 Giphy


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

I'm saying we should inject the judicial system... radical I know.

That antiquated due process craziness...

The right to an impartial hearing... to see the evidence... to confront your accuser... to call witnesses... etc.

Don't worry though... I'm pretty sure your generation will get rid of all that bs. Congratulations comrades... enjoy.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Forum republicans:  Step up and state your specific objections to Obama's recent executive order involving guns - Page 5 Giphy


_________________
I approve this message.

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:Specifically how will anything mandated by semi-retired President Obama reduce gun crime in Chicago.


Additional manpower going after felony gunshops and the subsequent straw private sales.......This is a start, and I would like to see the task force concept applied to Chicago with the new assets attacking with the FBI, Justice, and ATF cutting the hearts out of these folks:

http://www.streetgangs.com/cities/chicago#sthash.BuwimA80.dpbs

What is a "felony gunshop"?

Someone's trunk on the South Side of Chicago?

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:As you know, the Corvair was proven to be no more dangerous than other cars on the road at the time.

I believe I should be able to buy a new car with, or without, airbags and seat belts. If I am forced to buy a car with them, I should have the right to wear or not wear the seat belt just as I have the right to chose to wear or not wear a helmet when riding my motorcycle.


In High school, one of my buddies always accused me of stealing his battery out of his corvair at the school parking lot.  He was sure it was me.  After he lost his second battery he fixed the lock on the damn car, because people would just hop in the car, pick up the back seat, and disconnect the battery, and take it.  It got so bad, that he started taking his battery to his locker.......we played mean games on each others cars, like pulling distributor wires, shoe polish, shaving cream etc......but a neighbor could not negotiate a hill and curve and went through a guard rail with a corvette and suffered a serious accident which resulted in epilesy........but to get back to the my answer....

You can go onto private property and enjoy all of those things you like, but when you go onto public highways you have to follow traffic laws.  You do not need a compelling state interest to make a traffic regulation, just a rational basis and the courts have upheld the same....so go to it in your back yard, but if you are in a corvair, you will need to learn to turn on corners with a heavy rear end and not the best traction.

Not in the least bit interested in your constructed antidotes.

GM's major mistake was in going after Ralph Nader personally. I owned a convertible Corvair and never had a problem. So what?

Ralph Nader flat out lied about the Corvair just as Rachel Carson flat out lied about DDT.

I gave you a definite solution for reducing auto accidents to near zero. Just because something works, does not make it a solution.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Ernie Kovaks was killed in a catapult wreck in a corvair...I had a 62 corvair and it was indeed dangerous... all that kept the rear wheels from snapping the car airborne in a side slide was a little metal block that easily sheared..... Nader was right....

Markle

Markle

Corvair Facts and Myths

FACT: Corvairs were produced for 10 model years (1960 - 1969).

MYTH: Corvair handling is inherently dangerous. This allegation pertains to the 1960 -1963 rear suspension design which consists of a single jointed swing axle. Under high cornering forces, the rear camber changes significantly and in extreme cases, the outside wheel can tuck under resulting in loss of control. Of course, all cars lose control in extreme conditions so the controversy was more how the Corvair got to that point compared to "conventional" cars. In 1972, the Department of Transportation, published the results of a comparison of the Corvair to other cars in its class including the Ford Falcon, Plymouth Valiant, Volkswagen, and Renault and concluded "...that the handling and stability of the 1960-1963 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover.....". Most of the bad press about the nasty handling characteristics of the early Corvair was highly exaggerated, although GM did eventually add a front anti sway bar and a transverse leaf spring to address the camber issue. In 1965, the rear suspension was totally redesigned with a fully articulated suspension that eliminated the severe camber changes. Ironically, the late model cars are considered some of the best handling cars made in their day.

http://clubs.hemmings.com/nvce/FactsMyths.html

Vikingwoman



PkrBum wrote:
Markle wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:The dealer doesn't have to be told anything. It can just be denied.

What are you talking about?

I think she's talking about what boards was with "flag". A person could find out when denied the right to purchase a gun that the councilor that they saw for depression or ptsd has deemed them by opinion to be unfit for that inalienable right... no due process... no hearing... no recourse. The obama eo mentions "relief"... whatever that may be in an enormous bureaucracy... probably a form and filing fee. He basically opened the door to whatever. A person that takes meds for conditions or is on disability might be excluded... a person wrongfully accused of domestic threat or violence... perhaps even a bad temper or an outburst... maybe even a bad divorce is a disqualifier. Stay tuned boys and girls... Govt almighty will send us the commandments on a need to know basis.

No, that's not what I was referring to. I meant the dealer who sent in the background check doesn't have to know what grounds it was denied under so HIPPA laws wouldn't be violated.

Markle

Markle

Vikingwoman wrote:
PkrBum wrote:
Markle wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:The dealer doesn't have to be told anything. It can just be denied.

What are you talking about?

I think she's talking about what boards was with "flag". A person could find out when denied the right to purchase a gun that the councilor that they saw for depression or ptsd has deemed them by opinion to be unfit for that inalienable right... no due process... no hearing... no recourse. The obama eo mentions "relief"... whatever that may be in an enormous bureaucracy... probably a form and filing fee. He basically opened the door to whatever. A person that takes meds for conditions or is on disability might be excluded... a person wrongfully accused of domestic threat or violence... perhaps even a bad temper or an outburst... maybe even a bad divorce is a disqualifier. Stay tuned boys and girls... Govt almighty will send us the commandments on a need to know basis.

No, that's not what I was referring to. I meant the dealer who sent in the background check doesn't have to know what grounds it was denied under so HIPPA laws wouldn't be violated.

Not relevant with the dealer. Many more persons will now avoid getting the help they need for fear of being put on a "no gun purchase" list. Thus, semi-retired President Obama again does more damage than good. So very typical of Progressives isn't it?

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:
2seaoat wrote:As you know, the Corvair was proven to be no more dangerous than other cars on the road at the time.

I believe I should be able to buy a new car with, or without, airbags and seat belts. If I am forced to buy a car with them, I should have the right to wear or not wear the seat belt just as I have the right to chose to wear or not wear a helmet when riding my motorcycle.


In High school, one of my buddies always accused me of stealing his battery out of his corvair at the school parking lot.  He was sure it was me.  After he lost his second battery he fixed the lock on the damn car, because people would just hop in the car, pick up the back seat, and disconnect the battery, and take it.  It got so bad, that he started taking his battery to his locker.......we played mean games on each others cars, like pulling distributor wires, shoe polish, shaving cream etc......but a neighbor could not negotiate a hill and curve and went through a guard rail with a corvette and suffered a serious accident which resulted in epilesy........but to get back to the my answer....

You can go onto private property and enjoy all of those things you like, but when you go onto public highways you have to follow traffic laws.  You do not need a compelling state interest to make a traffic regulation, just a rational basis and the courts have upheld the same....so go to it in your back yard, but if you are in a corvair, you will need to learn to turn on corners with a heavy rear end and not the best traction.

Not in the least bit interested in your constructed antidotes.

GM's major mistake was in going after Ralph Nader personally.  I owned a convertible Corvair and never had a problem.  So what?

Ralph Nader flat out lied about the Corvair just as Rachel Carson flat out lied about DDT.

I gave you a definite solution for reducing auto accidents to near zero.  Just because something works,  does not make it a solution.

More bullshit from the King of bullshit. The Corvair did the Bossa Nova in any kind of crosswind. It was a handling nightmare for most drivers. Some, like you, refused to admit they had made a very poor choice in buying the badly designed machine. Your insecurity is showing again. DDT was another nightmare ... particularly for kids growing up near farmlands that used the pesticide. It did a trip on the immune system. Promoted allergies that were quite damaging. I know. I was one of them. Can you say Urticaria? But why am I telling you all this? You're the asshole who laughs at peoples misfortunes!

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:
2seaoat wrote:As you know, the Corvair was proven to be no more dangerous than other cars on the road at the time.

I believe I should be able to buy a new car with, or without, airbags and seat belts. If I am forced to buy a car with them, I should have the right to wear or not wear the seat belt just as I have the right to chose to wear or not wear a helmet when riding my motorcycle.


In High school, one of my buddies always accused me of stealing his battery out of his corvair at the school parking lot.  He was sure it was me.  After he lost his second battery he fixed the lock on the damn car, because people would just hop in the car, pick up the back seat, and disconnect the battery, and take it.  It got so bad, that he started taking his battery to his locker.......we played mean games on each others cars, like pulling distributor wires, shoe polish, shaving cream etc......but a neighbor could not negotiate a hill and curve and went through a guard rail with a corvette and suffered a serious accident which resulted in epilesy........but to get back to the my answer....

You can go onto private property and enjoy all of those things you like, but when you go onto public highways you have to follow traffic laws.  You do not need a compelling state interest to make a traffic regulation, just a rational basis and the courts have upheld the same....so go to it in your back yard, but if you are in a corvair, you will need to learn to turn on corners with a heavy rear end and not the best traction.

Not in the least bit interested in your constructed antidotes.

GM's major mistake was in going after Ralph Nader personally.  I owned a convertible Corvair and never had a problem.  So what?

Ralph Nader flat out lied about the Corvair just as Rachel Carson flat out lied about DDT.

I gave you a definite solution for reducing auto accidents to near zero.  Just because something works,  does not make it a solution.

More bullshit from the King of bullshit.  The Corvair did the Bossa Nova in any kind of crosswind.  It was a handling nightmare for most drivers.  Some, like you, refused to admit they had made a very poor choice in buying the badly designed machine.  Your insecurity is showing again.  DDT was another nightmare ... particularly for kids growing up near farmlands that used the pesticide.  It did a trip on the immune system.  Promoted allergies that were quite damaging.  I know.  I was one of them.  Can you say Urticaria?  But why am I telling you all this?  You're the asshole who laughs at peoples misfortunes!

What fun, I am residing rent free in your mind on any topic whatsoever. I am starting to wonder though, about your mental faculties. You are now at the point of denying easily proven facts. Why?

FACT: Corvairs were produced for 10 model years (1960 - 1969).

MYTH: Corvair handling is inherently dangerous. This allegation pertains to the 1960 -1963 rear suspension design which consists of a single jointed swing axle. Under high cornering forces, the rear camber changes significantly and in extreme cases, the outside wheel can tuck under resulting in loss of control. Of course, all cars lose control in extreme conditions so the controversy was more how the Corvair got to that point compared to "conventional" cars. In 1972, the Department of Transportation, published the results of a comparison of the Corvair to other cars in its class including the Ford Falcon, Plymouth Valiant, Volkswagen, and Renault and concluded "...that the handling and stability of the 1960-1963 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover.....". Most of the bad press about the nasty handling characteristics of the early Corvair was highly exaggerated, although GM did eventually add a front anti sway bar and a transverse leaf spring to address the camber issue. In 1965, the rear suspension was totally redesigned with a fully articulated suspension that eliminated the severe camber changes. Ironically, the late model cars are considered some of the best handling cars made in their day.

http://clubs.hemmings.com/nvce/FactsMyths.html

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

The corvair was the only car that I ever slid backwards across railroad tracks trying to stop on icy snow for a fast approaching train....it did it backwards because the front was very light and the rear engine just naturally made it spin around...corvairs sucked but it was cheap. A few less seconds and I wouldn't have been here typing...incidentally...if the rear tire had caught on the track it would have sheared the rear axle and catapulted me into rolling uncontrollably...I fixed it with sandbags in the front trunk..

Forum republicans:  Step up and state your specific objections to Obama's recent executive order involving guns - Page 5 ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F236x%2Ff3%2Fd0%2F40%2Ff3d0405bdfbbe67e3c04aeb6b594cb2c
looked like this

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:
More bullshit from the King of bullshit.  The Corvair did the Bossa Nova in any kind of crosswind.  It was a handling nightmare for most drivers.  Some, like you, refused to admit they had made a very poor choice in buying the badly designed machine.  Your insecurity is showing again.  DDT was another nightmare ... particularly for kids growing up near farmlands that used the pesticide.  It did a trip on the immune system.  Promoted allergies that were quite damaging.  I know.  I was one of them.  Can you say Urticaria?  But why am I telling you all this?  You're the asshole who laughs at peoples misfortunes!

Being that Ralph Nader is also a Socialist it is obvious why you would blindly follow his lead. Also, you can use it to attack me personally and call me names which I am above doing to you.

As you know, DDT is edible by humans with no ill effects. The banning of it has caused the death of millions of people which you seemingly find funny.

DDT, as you SHOULD know did nothing to a human's immune system and, in fact, has been eaten daily by volunteers for many years without harm.

Catch up Wordslinger. All you're doing lately is being an increasingly effective foil for me. For which I sincerely thank you.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

I had a 62 corvair monza...as you can see there was little to keep the axles planted...till they were modified...

Forum republicans:  Step up and state your specific objections to Obama's recent executive order involving guns - Page 5 Earlyaxle

http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658498_1657833,00.html

Markle

Markle

TEOTWAWKI wrote:The corvair was the only car that I ever slid backwards across railroad tracks trying to stop on icy snow for a fast approaching train....it did it backwards because the front was very light and the rear engine just naturally made it spin around...corvairs sucked but it was cheap. A few less seconds and I wouldn't have been here typing...incidentally...if the rear tire had caught on the track it would have sheared the rear axle and catapulted me into rolling uncontrollably...I fixed it with sandbags in the front trunk..

Forum republicans:  Step up and state your specific objections to Obama's recent executive order involving guns - Page 5 ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F236x%2Ff3%2Fd0%2F40%2Ff3d0405bdfbbe67e3c04aeb6b594cb2c
looked like  this

Had the rear tire of any other model car of similar weight caught on the track, it too would have flipped as well. That has been shown in testing. The Corvair was no more dangerous or safer than any other similar car at the time.

Putting sand bags in the front trunk may have made you THINK you had improved something but all it did was negatively alter the engineering of the suspension system and lowered your gas mileage.

Markle

Markle

GOVERNMENT TESTS PROVE THE CORVAIR DOES NOT
HAVE A HANDLING OR STABILITY PROBLEM

By Bob Helt

Nader's Charges

In his 1965 book, Unsafe at any Speed, and several preliminary articles in the national magazine, The Nation, Ralph Nader charged that the 1960-63 Corvairs had a defective rear suspension that made them prone to roll-over and dangerous to drive. He claimed that they were prone to roll-over and loss of control. Although his facts were meager, his charges were hard-hitting and were picked up by all news covering organizations. Although only the first chapter of his book was devoted to the Corvair, that is the thing most remembered about his book, and most associated with Nader. As a result of his charges and subsequent U.S. Senate hearings there was a growing national concern about automobile safety, with the Corvair the center of attention.



Thorough Testing

Due to Nader’s wild charges about the Corvair and the national concerns for automobile safety, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was authorized to run a series of comparative tests during the Spring and Summer of 1971 to demonstrate the handling of the 1963 Corvair against four contemporary competitive automobiles. Involved in the tests were The Ford Falcon, Plymouth Valiant, Volkswagen Beetle, Renault Dauphine, the 1963 Corvair, and a 1967 Corvair for reference.

The test program was quite comprehensive and detailed. It was divided into four parts:

a comprehensive search and review of all related General Motors/Chevrolet internal letters, memos, tests, reports, etc. regarding the Corvair’s handling

a similar search and review of all related public technical literature

a review of all national accident data compiled by insurance companies and traffic authorities for the six cars selected for these tests

a series of actual driving and handling tests designed to evaluate the handling and stability under extreme maneuvering conditions; and to push the test vehicles to their limits



The Corvair Is Exonerated

At the conclusion of these tests, the NHTSA released its 134 page report. It exonerated the Corvair from Nader’s charges, and said things such as: "The 1960-63 Corvair compares favorably with contemporary vehicles used in the tests," and, "The handling and stability performance of the 1960-63 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." The complete report, PB 211-015, can be obtained from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS)*.



An Independent Panel Agrees

Because the NHTSA wanted to be as sure as possible of their approach, tests and conclusions, they then contracted with a three man advisory panel of independent professional engineers to review the scope and competency of the NHTSA tests. This review panel then issued their own 24 page report (PB 211-014, also available from the NTIS*).

In their report, the Panel drew even stronger conclusions in support of the Corvair than the NHTSA. They said, "It is the opinion of the panel that the Corvair quantitatively meets or exceeds the standards set by contemporary cars in stability tests, cornering tests, and rollover tests," and, "for this reason the panel concluded that the 1960-63 Corvair does not have a safety defect, and is not more unstable or more likely to roll over than contemporary cars."



Nader is Proven Wrong

Wow, go back and read that again. No safety or handling defects in the Corvair! But does anybody know this? The news media all but ignored these conclusions. They apparently thought that Nader’s charges were of greater news value than the fact that his charges were all proven wrong. Even today, of those who know of Nader’s charges against the Corvair, few if any know that his charges were false and were proven wrong. No, the fact that the Corvair was exonerated of all of Nader’s charges was hardly publicized. It received little or no attention from the media.

It is ironic that these false charges concerning the Corvair’s handling and stability are all anyone remembers, and are the only story ever told in the Press, even though they have been fully refuted by actual tests. Nader, of course, built his career on these false charges.

*National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161

http://www.corvaircorsa.com/handling01.html

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Markle wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:The corvair was the only car that I ever slid backwards across railroad tracks trying to stop on icy snow for a fast approaching train....it did it backwards because the front was very light and the rear engine just naturally made it spin around...corvairs sucked but it was cheap. A few less seconds and I wouldn't have been here typing...incidentally...if the rear tire had caught on the track it would have sheared the rear axle and catapulted me into rolling uncontrollably...I fixed it with sandbags in the front trunk..

Forum republicans:  Step up and state your specific objections to Obama's recent executive order involving guns - Page 5 ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F236x%2Ff3%2Fd0%2F40%2Ff3d0405bdfbbe67e3c04aeb6b594cb2c
looked like  this

Had the rear tire of any other model car of similar weight caught on the track, it too would have flipped as well.  That has been shown in testing.  The Corvair was no more dangerous or safer than any other similar car at the time.

Putting sand bags in the front trunk may have made you THINK you had improved something but all it did was negatively alter the engineering of the suspension system and lowered your gas mileage.

I won't call you names but it DID fix the imbalance and the tendency to spin around...also the front tires would actually bite into the snow and allow me to turn it in rather than slide by the driveway...I owned one and it sucked, go get you one if they are so damned good....you are as much of a know it all as Word....

Markle

Markle

TEOTWAWKI wrote:
Markle wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:The corvair was the only car that I ever slid backwards across railroad tracks trying to stop on icy snow for a fast approaching train....it did it backwards because the front was very light and the rear engine just naturally made it spin around...corvairs sucked but it was cheap. A few less seconds and I wouldn't have been here typing...incidentally...if the rear tire had caught on the track it would have sheared the rear axle and catapulted me into rolling uncontrollably...I fixed it with sandbags in the front trunk..

Forum republicans:  Step up and state your specific objections to Obama's recent executive order involving guns - Page 5 ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F236x%2Ff3%2Fd0%2F40%2Ff3d0405bdfbbe67e3c04aeb6b594cb2c
looked like  this

Had the rear tire of any other model car of similar weight caught on the track, it too would have flipped as well.  That has been shown in testing.  The Corvair was no more dangerous or safer than any other similar car at the time.

Putting sand bags in the front trunk may have made you THINK you had improved something but all it did was negatively alter the engineering of the suspension system and lowered your gas mileage.

I won't call you names but it DID fix the imbalance and the tendency to spin around...also the front tires would actually bite into the snow and allow me to turn it in rather than slide by the driveway...I owned one and it sucked, go get you one if they are so damned good....you are as much of a know it all as Word....

Of course, your cure was perfect and solved all its non-existent problems. I'm not a "know it all". I simply do research. Goes back so far that I once used a card catalog. Do you know what they are?

I posted facts and government Highway Transportation Studies and you post your cute little possible anecdote. You see the difference?

By the way, I did own a convertible Corvair and loved the car. I only sold it because I had the chance to buy an '49, XK-120 Jaguar. It had a wood frame and aluminum body. At the time it was the fastest car in production and won many races. The first one of that year was sold to Clark Gable. I had no idea how rare a car it was at the time. I paid $600.00 for it in 1964.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 5 of 6]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum