We sometimes forget when we are out in out classics that there is a world of bad drivers and even though we try hard to avoid them, sometimes we can't.
Yesterday, a fellow Corvair owner had someone turn left in front of him while he was doing about 50mph. He had a '65 Coupe which predates collapsible steering wheels. Luckily he just suffered some bruising and a broken nose. He's more upset about the car than his own injuries.
Be safe out there folks.
That sucks. Hope his insurance company treats him well.
Looks like it held up well. Take that Nader!
Didn't even break the windshield!
Holy crumple zone! That sucks, I'm glad the steering column didn't move any more than it did. 
That's a hell of a hit, he is one lucky dude. Glad he walked away from that.
I'll bet he's glad the engine was in the trunk. I've been thinking about collapsible steering columns recently as I've been driving the 66 Caddy.
I guess the gas tank isn't up front on these? I don't want to say "lucky" but I will say "fortunate". Thankfully he's ok!
I'm glad to hear he walked away... and will have a look at my Dart's steering column. Not sure if it is collapsible or not!
The idea that old cars are safer because they are big, heavy steel beasts has been proven untrue yet again. Crumple zones, collapsable steering columns, anti-intrusion beams, airbags...the list of improvements is long. And a lot of it is thanks to old Ralph...
pinchvalve wrote: The idea that old cars are safer because they are big, heavy steel beasts has been proven untrue yet again. Crumple zones, collapsable steering columns, anti-intrusion beams, airbags...the list of improvements is long. And a lot of it is thanks to old Ralph...
I have to agree.
I really like Corvairs though.
Also super glad he walked away.
By reading the title and the last few comments I assumed there was a death involved. He walked away. He is berkeleying invincible and all your blathering to the contrary is invalid.
Wow - that sucks! 
Glad to hear he's more or less OK.
I often forget about these little safety "issues" in older cars. Still safer than a motorcycle!
Glad to hear hes alright.
A friend of mine was rear-ended yesterday on his way back from the alignment shop in his NA Miata that he just spent 18 months overhauling with a VVT motor, xidas, and a ton of other goodies. Car is likely totaled. He was looking forward to autocrossing it for the first time post-upgrades this weekend.
Stupid drivers abound.
I wonder if there is a business that makes collapsible shafts for older cars as a retrofit.
Glad he's ok!
Keith Tanner wrote: I'll bet he's glad the engine was in the trunk. I've been thinking about collapsible steering columns recently as I've been driving the 66 Caddy.
Help me understand the logic for this one? I always thought an issue with rear engined cars was when you slam into something, you have all that mass behind you which keeps you plowing into the wall/car whatever. Wouldn't it have been better to have all that steel in there to absorb some of the crash? Or is the logic that by having the engine in the back the steering column didnt hit the engine and smash up the dudes face? Or maybe the engine is in the back , the guy survived and at least he can salvage a good engine from the wreck?
In reply to Keith Tanner:
When I built the E30 of Doom it used a home-made steel steering shaft. I looked at it after the fact, considered the cars speed and intended use... and re-did the whole thing with a swivel and a rag joint above the rack to keep it from being the end of me. I'm not sure of the odds of that being a real factor in racing deaths but it's worth the consideration, anyway.
In reply to Enyar:
I'd say it depends on the design. Old Volvos from the 60's and 70's were designed so that in a frontal impact, the engine would go under the passenger compartment. Most other cars of that era were not. That is one reason why old 122's and 1800's are often recommended as modern classic daily drivers - the safety engineering was far ahead of the times.
Collaspible columns are available, but mainly as hot rod assemblies. Sometimes it takes work if an OE-look is desired. Plus, they're mainly designed to fit into big-3 cars and it gets trickier if your car is a bit more obscure.
Enyar wrote: Help me understand the logic for this one? I always thought an issue with rear engined cars was when you slam into something, you have all that mass behind you which keeps you plowing into the wall/car whatever.
Not having the engine up front means that (1) the engine can't be pushed into the passenger compartment, and (2) the solid iron block doesn't restrict the ability of the front of the car to fold up and absorb energy. Engine blocks may be good at supporting weight (although not all the blocks from that era are...) but not at absorbing energy. There is a big difference.
Not sure if that was intentional or not, but the crumple zone on that car saved his bacon. Did not even dislodge the Hula Gurl from the dash!
Yeah, looks like the car did its job pretty well. I wouldn't expect to survive a similar impact in my Mini. There just isn't a crumple zone. I keep the lack of safety in mind when I drive it, but don't dwell on it too much or I wouldn't drive it at all. I just had it out this morning for some errands in fact.
MadScientistMatt wrote:Enyar wrote: Help me understand the logic for this one? I always thought an issue with rear engined cars was when you slam into something, you have all that mass behind you which keeps you plowing into the wall/car whatever.Not having the engine up front means that (1) the engine can't be pushed into the passenger compartment, and (2) the solid iron block doesn't restrict the ability of the front of the car to fold up and absorb energy. Engine blocks may be good at supporting weight (although not all the blocks from that era are...) but not at absorbing energy. There is a big difference.
Exactly. Engines don't crumple so they don't absorb anything. They become part of the problem.
maseratiguy wrote: I guess the gas tank isn't up front on these?
I'm pretty sure that it is.
Keith Tanner wrote:MadScientistMatt wrote:Exactly. Engines don't crumple so they don't absorb anything. They become part of the problem.Enyar wrote: Help me understand the logic for this one? I always thought an issue with rear engined cars was when you slam into something, you have all that mass behind you which keeps you plowing into the wall/car whatever.Not having the engine up front means that (1) the engine can't be pushed into the passenger compartment, and (2) the solid iron block doesn't restrict the ability of the front of the car to fold up and absorb energy. Engine blocks may be good at supporting weight (although not all the blocks from that era are...) but not at absorbing energy. There is a big difference.
I see! Didn't really think of it this way. Maybe I want a Midlana over Locost after all!
Glad he was able to walk away. Scary steering wheel intrusion tho.
You'll need to log in to post.
