editor Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 What happens when you crash a 1959 car into a 2009 car? The 2009 car wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 I saw this on Rachel Maddow. Interesting what 50 years of mandatory, socialist, communist GOVERNMENT safety standards/edicts can do. Now if only we could get some of those same edicts in place to protect my 1959 401K - which went through the equivalent to what you just saw in that video - the world would be a better place. The government must end the malfeasance and fraud that is pervasive throughout our financial system; subjecting the wrong-doers to the rattan cane, or worse. But what has the current administration and Congress done so far? Nothing. No seat belts needed! Speaking of old cars, check out this 1964 Ford Thunderbird: That's America. Going over the cliff! Looks like we lost a hubcap on the way down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Older cars are so primitive. Some of the safety features missing from them at the time are so glaring that it makes one wonder why in the universe where they not included in the first pace. ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Older cars are so primitive. Some of the safety features missing from them at the time are so glaring that it makes one wonder why in the universe where they not included in the first pace. ugh.From what I read, it was mostly because of the "unneeded" costs that were associated with the added equipment. "Tucker" was the first car that was far ahead of it's time when it came to safety. If he was successful, the others would have been forced to keep up and the history of the car would have been a bit different.Pity he was run out of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 From what I read, it was mostly because of the "unneeded" costs that were associated with the added equipment. "Tucker" was the first car that was far ahead of it's time when it came to safety. If he was successful, the others would have been forced to keep up and the history of the car would have been a bit different.Pity he was run out of business.Yes I know. Ugh. I am not very familiar with the story behind tucker other than the big 3 conspired to drive him out of business. Didnt they pay the judge to rule in their favor or something similar? So they like to play dirty eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFlinch Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Had the government not stepped in after the big three destroyed Tucker, then we'd probably still be driving primitive deathtraps. According to the Tucker movie, the big three opposition to safety features were related less to costs and more to the fear that safety features would lower consumer confidence in their product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Yes I know. Ugh. I am not very familiar with the story behind tucker other than the big 3 conspired to drive him out of business. Didnt they pay the judge to rule in their favor or something similar? So they like to play dirty eh?Here's a brief 1988 biography of Preston Tucker...http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20099965,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Older cars are so primitive. Some of the safety features missing from them at the time are so glaring that it makes one wonder why in the universe where they not included in the first pace. ugh.Because there were NO cellphones and everyone learned how to drive by age 13 or 14. They weren't distracted by 3000 watt stereos so they could hear what was going on around them nor were they texting their boyfriend/girlfriend either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Because there were NO cellphones and everyone learned how to drive by age 13 or 14. They weren't distracted by 3000 watt stereos so they could hear what was going on around them nor were they texting their boyfriend/girlfriend either.Yes I know. But they still had accidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLWM8609 Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Because there were NO cellphones and everyone learned how to drive by age 13 or 14. They weren't distracted by 3000 watt stereos so they could hear what was going on around them nor were they texting their boyfriend/girlfriend either.Nice try, but no cigar. Many of our modern safety features were being implemented in the 50s through the 80s long before cell phones were a danger. Crumple zones, safety cages (both of which were used on the 1959 S-class), collapsible steering columns, and seat belt pre-tensioners were among many of the things implemented at Daimler-Benz that were later used by other automakers. Over at Volvo, they were putting three point seatbelts in cars in 1959. While Volvo and Mercedes-Benz were developing safe cars in 1959, America's cars from 1959 were beautiful from a styling standpoint, but dangerous safety wise. Just do a search on Mercedes-Benz engineer "Béla Barényi" or Volvo's "Nils Bohlin" and see what comes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 The Tucker had seat belts didn't it? That would have been new at the time. But on the other hand a really peculiar "safety" feature of the Tucker was the "safety cellar". This was an open area under the dashboard, and the idea was that in the event of an oncoming collision you would throw yourself into it for safety. Of course, collision injuries arise from being thrown about the cabin, but they must not have realized it at the time.You can see a Tucker brochure and the safety chamber here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 It's too bad the Tucker didn't live... but then again what does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFlinch Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 It's too bad the Tucker didn't live... but then again what does?Are Chrysler's and GM's current woes carmic retribution for what they did to Tucker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 What a waste of a perfectly good 59 Bellaire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan the Man Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 What a waste of a perfectly good 59 Bellaire.Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Hrm... Im not so sure about that... it's not THAT perfectly good when it performs this poorly in crash tests. Ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Hrm... Im not so sure about that... it's not THAT perfectly good when it performs this poorly in crash tests. Ugh.That car was flawless. Perfect paint, chrome, glass, everything. It made it 50 years on this Earth. And they just destroyed it... Crying shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFlinch Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 That car was flawless. Perfect paint, chrome, glass, everything. It made it 50 years on this Earth. And they just destroyed it... Crying shame.It's nothing a little Bondo and some elbow grease can't fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 That car was flawless. Perfect paint, chrome, glass, everything. It made it 50 years on this Earth. And they just destroyed it... Crying shame.I agree. It may not have been safe, but it looked a hellva lot better than the new car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 ^ I agree, it looked beautiful. But I'm not sure I'd want to take it on the road after seeing the video. It kind of made me rethink the value of classic cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plumber2 Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Did anybody notice who sponsored the test? American National Insurance Company, headquartered right here in Galveston. I'm proud that they used American made vehicles in this test. Can you just imagine a 1959 Toyota Toyped smashing into a Camry? That would have been so boring.And as for Daimler Benz and Volvo being so safety oriented, Ford offered seat belts in their vehicles as early as 1955. The dealers would not order them that way. They objected, saying that they could not sell a car that appeared unsafe.And by the way JL, Mercedes Benz vehicles were being peddled by Studebaker dealers back in 1959. They did not even have their own dealer network in the US back then.And Tucker only assembled 47 cars. He was broke before the Big Three ever got involved with their anti trust suitAnd yeah, that was a beautiful '59 Bel Air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Hrm... Im not so sure about that... it's not THAT perfectly good when it performs this poorly in crash tests. Ugh.What's "Hrm" mean? Geez man, Did it ever occur to you that technology has gotten a little better over the last 50 years? How old are you anyway?"UGH"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFlinch Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 What's "Hrm" mean? Geez man, Did it ever occur to you that technology has gotten a little better over the last 50 years? How old are you anyway?"UGH"...Hrm means Her Regal Majesty. It's a formal way of addressing people. It's a sign of respect... er... or something.Take a chill pill, dude. That video was enlightening to all the gearheads out there in the world (of which I'd include myself). I'd long thought the solid construction of an old car automatically made them stronger than newer cars, so it was kinda cool to see the reality. And, why bring age into this? When I was sixteen, I knew more about a 64 1/2 Mustang than people who'd been raised around them, and that was thirty years after they'd come out.BTW, while I LOL and LMFAO for a bit, IMHO you should explain what UGH means... FTW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 That car was flawless. Perfect paint, chrome, glass, everything. It made it 50 years on this Earth. And they just destroyed it... Crying shame.Bah... it was a pile of junk then, and it's a pile of junk now.I agree. It may not have been safe, but it looked a hellva lot better than the new car.If you think so. Looks can be deceiving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 What's "Hrm" mean? Geez man, Did it ever occur to you that technology has gotten a little better over the last 50 years? How old are you anyway?"UGH"...Hrm means for you to chill out. Yes it did occur to me that technology has progressed. I welcome it. What does my age have to do with anything? Are you drunk again? You're not making any sense. Ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.