<VV> [FC] Corvair Research (humor - no Corvair)

[Mark Corbin]

Oh, no! PC comes to engineering. Is nothing safe? (G)

"Non-conformity" is now being interpreted as being flawed? Minorities, by
definition, are non-conformists. And since we are all a minority, in one
way or another, then maybe the whole human race needs to be recalled as
flawed. LOL 

I'm taking this to VVtalk, 'cause I can just forsee the political storm
THIS is going to cause....

Please delete the VV list in the address, if you are going to get political.

-Mark



> [Original Message]
> Subject: Re: <VV> [FC]   Corvair Research
>
> There is a whole  field of engineering study now dedicated to "human 
> factors". 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. In the world of medical equipment design, this 
> factor has recently been given HUGE weight by the FDA when approving new 
> devices.
>
> One of the first places we saw this theory applied in the automotive 
> world was the Audi "unintended acceleration" issue... while the Audi, 
> like the Corvair, was found to be of a safe and effective design, the 
> pedal placement differed significantly from the average American car. 
> (It did not differ significantly from say BMW or Mercedes, but Audi was 
> the victim of its own success... the 5000 enjoyed a MUCH greater direct 
> crossover of owners directly from American marques like Buick..So the 
> average Audi owner was more likely to have that as their first European 
> car (particularly with an automatic gearbox) than any of the other 
> marques). This was seen as an "engineering flaw" for Audi when "human 
> factors" were considered. The gas pedal interlock was a fix for the 
> "human factor", not for the car.
>
> You can readily see a parallel to the Audi story with the Corvair. 
> First, the average owner was coming directly from an American car 
> (unlike say Mercedes or Porsche) where terminal oversteer was the 
> primary handling characteristic rather than the incessant understeer of 
> American car. It was also the first American car with such a 
> differential between front and rear tire pressures... a difference not 
> intuitive to the average person (or the average filling station or
garage).
>
> So from those perspectives the Corvair indeed was of "flawed" design.... 
> 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...
>
> Of course the lower insurance losses for the Corvair of the period 
> versus its peers could also be shown as proof that the overall design of 
> the Corvair was superior enough to more than overcome what could be seen 
> as human factor design flaws....
>
> Bill
>
> BBRT wrote:
>
> >Isn't it sad we all understand and accept the comments ....  Don't tell
he 
> >truth if it impacts one's grades.... Since it is an "engineering" class
it 
> >is NOT supposed to be political/politically correct/accepted by non-and 
> >anti-automotive media and population.. It is SUPPOSED  to be based on 
> >research and facts, not (biased or opinion) information, but facts.
> >
> >Chuck S
> >
> >