Donald Pittenger writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Designing safety into automobiles wasn't solely the result of federal government mandates influenced by Ralph Nader's crusade against the Chevrolet Corvair in the 1960s.

One example was the Tucker of 1948. I don't remember what all the supposed safety features were, but it did have a little padding on the panel below the windshield and a large-ish open space directly below it on the front passenger side where, it was said, the passenger could hurl himself prior to an impact.

For the 1956 model year, Ford Motor Company offered a safety package that included lap seat-belts, padded dashboard and a steering wheel with a recessed hub that would be less likely to impale the drive during a frontal collision.

In 1957 my jaw dropped when I opened my copy of Motor Trend and saw photos of a safety car designed by Fr. Alfred Juliano. It was strange, looking like parts of it were going in different directions. For a fairly detailed write-up, click here.

To me, the oddest feature was the windshield which bulges outward sort of like a sausage balloon. The above photo doesn't show it as clearly as a side view might, but if you look carefully you ought to be able to get a sense of its shape. The probable reason for the strange windshield had to do with frontal collisions. If the people in the front seat have lap belts (lap/shoulder belts such as we are familiar with are not apparent in the photo), their entire bodies won't be flung forward by inertia. Instead, the trunk, arms and head will pivot forward from the hip and the head might well strike a conventional windshield. A drastically convex windshield, on the other hand, is too far to be hit; the driver's chest will be halted by the steering wheel and the passengers head might strike the padded dash. Well, that's the theory as I surmise it. The linked article draws a similar conclusion using different reasoning.

The car never entered production, yet somehow avoided the scrap heap and is now in a museum in England.

I won't categorically claim it's the ugliest car ever built, but it's surely a contender.

Later,

Donald

Wow. Beats the Edsel all to heck. Did you do a piece yet on the absolutely beautiful cars from earlier days? I have some nominations, a few American, and some European, but only one current model, British, the new Morgan Aero 8 touring coupe. Sexy and classy at the same time.

Posted by: Sam_S on October 18, 2008 8:36 AM

No argument here.

Posted by: Charlton Griffin on October 18, 2008 9:12 AM

Wow, that thing qualifies as a major curiosity, to put it mildly. I like your description: "looking like parts of it were going in different directions." That's nothing if not apt.

Hmm, the effect of safety concerns over the decades on car design ... That's a great topic for someone.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on October 18, 2008 10:24 AM

And the front end is for scooping up and cradling pedestrians?

Posted by: Chas Clifton on October 19, 2008 10:28 AM

Wow, that really is an ugly car. I usually like cars of that vintage.

Posted by: claire on October 19, 2008 5:34 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?