<VV> Corvair Research

[P.H. Raker]

Hello, Bill,
     Bravo!! Very well said!!!  Having worked for several years as a
forensic engineer, what you wrote rings particularly true with me.  The
"human factors" issue can be a very large one.
     You wrote:
> A product may be safe and effective but if it differs in human
> interaction that other similar products (or the "intuitive" way of
> operating it would cause the product to malfunction), it is
> considered to be of flawed design. 
You are absolutely correct.  Even if "intuitive" use causes a result
that's different than "expected", the whole product can be labeled as
defective.  A "failure" or "malfunction" isn't necessary for a product
to be considered flawed.
     Your analogy of the Audi's "unintended acceleration" is a good
one. 
> The gas pedal interlock was a fix for the "human factor", not
> for the car.
Very true.  It's too bad that there couldn't have been such a simple
"fix" for the popular perception of the Corvair.

> It might be interesting to apply these modern engineering evaluation 
> standards to the Corvair design rather than trying to make the 
> conventional case that the design itself was flawed from a "pure" 
> engineering perspective... might help the grade with a 
> politically-correct professor as well...
I think that would be the best approach to the question of a perceived
"engineering disaster" in the Corvair.
     I for one would be interested to read what the son ends up
writing.  
     You're probably completely correct that the real problem with
Corvairs (if there really was any problem) was one of "human factors" -
not one of "engineering".  Thanks again for a well writen analysis of
the situation.
     Phil Raker
     '65 Corsa Cpe - 140/4
     '63 Greenbrier - 110/4






      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ