@@TwinCam I suppose you will never really know what will or won`t be a popular subject, the drum brakes certainly were!.... For me it would hardly matter what you were chatting about (NOT Football!) But it`s the way you immerse yourself in the heart of the story and convey it to us all in a fluent, easy to understand way..
My friend, Alyson has a 1972 Stag. It's such a gorgeous thing to drive and that 3 litre V8 is so smooth and gutsy. The radiator is aftermarket but other than that, completely original
This was a delight, a fresh insightful presentation on a topic I've read about and watched videos on many times. I really enjoyed this and learnt a lot of new things (to be fair, I come away from all of your videos with something new and interesting). Thank you.
The X-19 is outstanding for learning to master high performance driving, but not easy. Perfection gives great rewards, but anything less will test the precision and quickness of your recovery skills. I production & solo raced one for years! Drive it right, and you can out brake most going into a corner and get on the gas real early coming out. Drive it wrong, and you come out of the corner backwards!
A good follow-on would be to discuss the Jaguar XJS convertible, from outsourced modification to factory model. It sort of follows the resurgence of factory convertibles overall.
Worth mentioning that the Mercedes Benz R107 series, responded both in design and safety by designing the front windshield surround to be strong enough to support a rollover. Great German design/engineering. Respectfully. should have been mentioned as it would have retained the classic convertible look of the Stag and many other European designs ( that we love)
Excellent video as usual. Another big British concession to stillborn US rollover regulations was the Jaguar XJ-S, which replaced the E-Type S3 that largely sold as a convertible in the US. Jaguar would come up with interesting engineering workarounds with the XJ-SC before launching a proper convertible version in 1988. I did want to mention that not all American cars were the same. American Motors (AMC) had been producing cars with unit construction since before WWII, added seat belts in 1950, twin-circuit braking and adjustable head restraints in 1962. AMC put together the US Auto industry’s first crash safety lab in the 1950s and engineered their cars with a level of passive and active safety features including improved structural rigidity and, yes, engineered crumple zones beginning in 1963. In addition, Studebaker was doing padded fiberglass instrument panels and offered disc brakes across the range beginning in 1961. But Studebaker died out in 1966 and AMC struggled with no greater than 5% market share until they sold out to Chrysler in 1987. Their cars, however, were converted to RHD for the UK, SA, and AUS/NZ markets. 😊 GM actually improved the Corvair’s rear swing axle suspension design in 1963 to abate the rollover issues seen with early models, 2 years prior to Ralph Nader’s book. But you’re absolutely spot-on that US safety regulations - often enacted without respect for design and engineering lead times - had an enormous impact on car design in Europe, especially at BL.
I always loved the X1/9, but for me, the TR7 was the best-looking car around. I know it's only a personal opinion, and I'm sure many will disagree That said, give me a P6 anytime.
I’ve got a 1971 Ford LTD convertible, it was the last (in ‘72 guise) full sized Ford convertible. Apart from the lack of roll over protection another issue was the lack of anywhere to fit lap/sash seatbelts, lap only. Out of a production run of slightly over one million ‘71 full size Fords only 5,500 convertibles where manufactured so demand was obviously low as well. Thanks for another great episode, bring on more of the unusual old British cars, would love to see one about MG ZA/ZB’s or their Riley cousins.
Great (his)story, Ed. I believe the 5 mph bumpers are mainly there because car insurers wanted them to save costs. At least that's what Adam Wade from the TH-cam channel Rare Classic Cars & Automotive History has said. I highly recommend that channel, by the way.
Another great video Ed. Although the rumour of banning convertibles proved a non event it did give us some brilliant 'T' top cars. The Stag was quite serendipitous in this respect as it needed the roll over design to stop the front of the car wrapping around the rear because of twisting and not just a US thing. The X19 was a lesson in design for a great looking sports car at a reasonable price. Now those uncertain days are long gone we can also appreciate some brilliant sports cars like the MX5 that was a ground up modern design when it was introduced without the legacy task of developing an existing car, something that BMC were stuck with at the time in some cases due to lack of cash for development for a volume selling high mark up car. As usual great research and presentation. Thanks for sharing.
Having read Nader´s book, he was mostly right. All builders knew about the safety issues of their cars but chose not to improve it. The follow on book by his Centre for Automotive Safety on the VW Beetle was even more scathing but proves VW knew (not surprisingly as it was designed in the 1930s) the Beetle was a death trap. You may like of dislike him, but we all should thank his efforts led to the general public become aware of automobile safety and the creation of such agencies as the NTSB and the development of automobile safety standards. Of course, the Corvair wasn’t statistically unsafer that other contemporary designs but still the US Air Force was already losing more personnel stateside in traffic accidents than in Korea in the early 1950s
Excellent video as always. I have a Fiat X1/9 and it was one of the 2 safiest cars in their time (with the Volvo 240) according to US announced regulations (not completely released as the US models were not able to accomplish ;-). But... I have also a BMW E30 Cabrio, and I saw a beautiful one in blue near the Stag... would you test it? (pleeeeease... ;-) Thanks from Spain and keep your quality, it's very impressive!
Forgot to say, Corvair changed to a fully independent rear suspension in 1965. It was like night and day, also keep a 50-pound bag of sand in the front trunk.....
My grandpa had a Renault Dauphine, also sold for some time in the US and popularly know as “hacedor de viudas” (widowmaker) in Spain. He always carried a sandbag in the frunk…..
Indeed. GM didn't stick with that suspension for the second-generation car, and I believe the final year of the first-gen also received the new suspension?
The Rover P6 was an amazingly innovative vehicle. In an era without airbags, ABS, or advanced electronics, it was one of the first truly modern European cars.
Triumph got it so right with the Stag - Michelotti was such a talented car designer. Much as I love the TR7, Harris Mann was always stymied by BL’s top brass - the TR7 should have been made available as a soft top from day one, alongside the coupe. The US could have had a T-bar top, Europe a full convertible. I will always maintain that Sir Michael Edwardes got it completely wrong by cancelling the Triumph brand.
I don't mind the rubber bumpers on the MGs , probably because i was the right age to just accept them. Lowering the suspension isn't a big problem either
“Small--on safety: The designed-in dangers of the Volkswagen” by Nader´s Center for Auto Safety covers the impact of bad latches on the Beetle, and the fact thse could be made far more secure at a ridiculously low price
The bad latches were replaced with more secure ones by the 1967 model year. That was 5 years before Ralph's book came out. Same goes for the swing axle rear suspension, replaced for the 69 model year.
@@e-curb Volkswagen made continuous improvements to the Beetle throughout its production, and as you say, the door latches were redesigned for safety, as were the door handles. They kept the swing axle suspension to the end though, except n the 1302, 1303 and automatics. But they did improve it, for example by fitting an anti-roll bar, so later Beetles handle much better than early ones. (My 1966 Beetle, on which the previous owner had raised the suspension to give it more ground clearance for a trip through Africa, handled best when it had a heavy load on board.) Type 2 Bay Window vans all got the double-jointed suspension, as did Type 3 VWs from (I think) 1967, and they handled well.
@@Summers-lad " They kept the swing axle suspension to the end though, except n the 1302, 1303 and automatics." This is not completely true. In the US market, all Beetles had IRS from 69 onwards.
Interesting comments on the safety , or lack of in the Mini. I can speak at 1st hand experience on Mini safety. On 24/12/1979 my tuned Mini hit the back end of a dumper truck lorry , when it pulled out in front or on a dual carriageway, the impact speed was estimated at 55 mph . It hit the back axle of the truck 5 inches , and peeled back the roof gutter seam like a tin of baked beans . Such was the impact , by bracing myself to the rally style steering wheel , the wheel had 2 “ V s” in where I gripped on the wheel . I suffered a broken femur , the roof line impaled my head plus other scars, injuries. My 2 friends suffered various injuries too , luckily we all recovered. Seat belts were not compulsory by law until 1983. It was deducted afterwards if I had been wearing a seat belt , I wouldn’t be here today, because I may not have ducked my head/ body on impact so much, however, if my friend in the front seat had not been wearing his , he would have been more seriously injured or worse. Interesting to note , despite the small distance from the front of bonnet to the windscreen, the thickness of metal in the 1963 Mini saved our lives , I would hate to think the outcome in a modern car with its wafer thin so called collapsable structures, even though the passenger cell is supposedly stronger.
The point of a crumple zone is that it crumples. It's why the Cybertruck is looking a sketchy proposition, because when one crashes it doesn't crumple. Instead, your body takes the whole force rather than it spreading around you.
@@TwinCam contemporary crash tests of the Volvo 240 in the US showed it was also too rigid (for the test standards of the time) and a lot of kinetic energy was transferred to the test dummy, which also hit the steering wheel with the forehead with enough energy to cause cerebral trauma
@glmm2001 Indeed, and on the other hand, weirdly, the Volkswagen T3 performed rather well as they’d designed the front end to crumple, in spite of the forward-control design.
The fitment of seatbelts is a curious piece of UK legislation - front seatbelt *mountings* were required from 1965 but it wasn’t until 1968 that fitment of 3 point belts was made mandatory, however it was made retroactive so all cars made from 1965 had to have them fitted. Presumably because it was recognised how important seat belts were in reducing road deaths. I can’t think of any other safety laws that were backdated in this way.
Not the UK, but in Germany, trafficators were banned on new cars in 1960, and earlier cars with trafficators had to be updated with flashing indicators on all 4 corners.
Another factor you may not have considered in the decline in sales of convertibles; Late 60s into the 70s was when the interstate highway system was nearing completion. Those old convertibles were pretty terrible at high speeds
That's absolutely a contributing factor, as was the widescale adoption of air conditioning. However, the timing is too convenient to put it down to any one thing!
@@e-curb ridiculous. 55 is still pretty fast in those old convertibles; and maybe you've never been on an American highway; people widely ignored the speed limit
Since you have branched out a bit in the scope of topics you use I have had to reclassify Twin Cam as a "Car Show" along with Top Gear, 5th Gear and Grand Tour.
Really great vlog, very interesting indeed and really well presented. Still for me tho. An original TR7 in white with steel wheels. Well, to me it's gorgeous. I'm in my 50's now and can remember the launch. They made you gasp. They seemed so,so modern. They were made badly tho It really did look safe, compared to the MG
Classics get a bad name for safety but people tend to forget about pedestrian safety. Even today, INEOS has yet to submit the Grenadier for Euro NCAP and any pedestrian or cyclist would have a much better chance being hit by an MGB.
Indeed. I'd rather be hit by a Lotus Esprit than a Grenadier, though equivalently sized modern cars are much softer at the front than their older counterparts. It's most noticeable in bonnet lines receding up the front end, all in order to have a squishier plastic bumper.
My grandfather retrieved Unsafe at any Speed from the tip! I read it immediately (after wiping it clean). The Rover 2000 is mentioned for its safety and the Triumph 2000 for its indicator repeaters have n the B pillar. The chapter The Stylists mentions the chrome and other useless items affecting visibility. My 2021 Toyota RAV4 has a shiny Toyota emblem on the steering wheel airbag. It blinds me when the sun is overhead and will probably kill me if the airbag is triggered. Is that progress, I ask you?
America does have a history of letting industries police themselves until things get so bad, the government has to step in, and in a short period of time implement changes those industries have years to work out on their own. If American auto makers paid any attention to emissions, fuel economy, and safety, the government wouldn’t have made such sweeping changes when they finally did act. And, since car companies were caught ‘with their pants down’ when they should have been pulled up long ago, it left the door wide open for Japanese manufacturers to get a bigger foothold in the market with much more refined cars that met modern standards.
@TwinCam yes I do. With good reason. Government is largely tyranny and violates our rights daily. It causes most of the problems in society while being incompetent in its legitimate role. Sadly. the more governmental encroachment, the stronger the Stockholm Syndrome among the citizens.
I am surprised that no mention was made of 'protectionism' The US was struggling to develop good, smaller cars, and the 'Big three' were loosing sales to imports. Ever changing safety and emission standards made life miserable for companies wanting to export their products to the U.S. and many pulled out of that market all together. Which was great for domestic manufacturers as many changes were easier to implement on larger cars than light compacts.
@@TwinCam Only because the U.S. manufacturers seemed to be incapable of building a good small car. The Japanese could, and they could also develope new models quickly and keep up with the ever changing U.S. mandates.
Here's an example of protectionism hidden as a safety requirement. It was rumoured that the US was going to mandate a minimum distance from the driver to the front windscreen. The only car that would have been affected would be the VW Beetle. In 1971-72, VW worked on a redesign to move the windscreen forward at the bottom by almost a foot, and in 1973 they called it the 1303, or Super Beetle in the USA. Like the rumoured ban on convertibles, the windscreen distance requirement never made it into law. But the car made it into production.
Corvair models were perfected in 5 years. It was mostly by customers paying attention to proper tire pressures. Even after 60 years, the 911 is still working on the model. The Pinto did have a few deaths but no more than other cars of the time. I still see that Ford on American roads in 2024. Any car or driver can be unsafe at any speed. Volvo helped with standard seat belts. US manufacturers had them by 1964.
It was mainly based on 'fear'....fear of the ingenuity and more advanced technology that European cars (including convertibles/cabriolets) offered; and therefore posed to American car manufacturers. They were afraid that European car makers would swamp the US market, and turn Americans away from buying American cars....in favour of buying European ones. That's why this law was nearly implemented. It was fear. That was the (perceived) reality of the situation at the time. Totally misplaced of course; but thats the nature of America and Americans - to exaggerate a threat, and perceive it as being bigger than it actually is.
US regulation seemed to be strange and "over the top" for me🤷🏻♂️ First do nothing about car safety/emission control/etc; but then one had to comply with ultra - stringent laws.
The safety or lack of in any car is purely down to one thing only, the driver. Governments should concentrate on improving driving skills and standards.Touch screens and cupholders(drinking and eating whilst driving) don't help as distract drivers.
Sadly you seem to not know or remember unassisted, single-master-cylinder drum brakes, or bias ply tires, or swing axle suspension, steel dashboards, lack of seat belts, roofs which couldn't protect in rollovers, pre- ABS brakes; the list goes on and on. Some wrecks are unavoidable. Cars which aren't built to protect and prevent accidents are built with negligence.
@@jamesengland7461 The point I was making was with proper driver training RTC's would not be occurring so all the so called safety features would not be required. A friend lost the sight in one eye when the airbag went off after a pothole set it off, it broke his glasses and a piece punctured an eye. Now has a false one and unable to drive. I have owned many 20's and 30's cars, never felt that they were unsafe even with rod or cable brakes, non syncro gearboxes were a pain in London traffic and swapping from one with a center accelerator and right brake pedal to the current layout and vice versa did take some thought.
Well researched and well presented: perfect infotainment.
Properly researched and brilliantly presented... excellent work as always Ed...
Thanks Peter :)
If I'm honest, I thought this topic would have been a little more popular than it's proving!
@@TwinCam I suppose you will never really know what will or won`t be a popular subject, the drum brakes certainly were!.... For me it would hardly matter what you were chatting about (NOT Football!) But it`s the way you immerse yourself in the heart of the story and convey it to us all in a fluent, easy to understand way..
@@TwinCam It only popped up on my feed today! And I have an X19 and Targa 4s!
My friend, Alyson has a 1972 Stag. It's such a gorgeous thing to drive and that 3 litre V8 is so smooth and gutsy. The radiator is aftermarket but other than that, completely original
I was immediately brought to think about the last version of the E type and how those 5mph bumpers ruined its looks.
Great video as always Ed🙂
Thanks mate :)
meanwhile, in Australia, we had the most stringent safety laws on new cars, possibly cos everyone was driving around drunk in 5.8L V8's :)
This was a delight, a fresh insightful presentation on a topic I've read about and watched videos on many times. I really enjoyed this and learnt a lot of new things (to be fair, I come away from all of your videos with something new and interesting). Thank you.
The X-19 is outstanding for learning to master high performance driving, but not easy. Perfection gives great rewards, but anything less will test the precision and quickness of your recovery skills. I production & solo raced one for years! Drive it right, and you can out brake most going into a corner and get on the gas real early coming out. Drive it wrong, and you come out of the corner backwards!
A good follow-on would be to discuss the Jaguar XJS convertible, from outsourced modification to factory model. It sort of follows the resurgence of factory convertibles overall.
Worth mentioning that the Mercedes Benz R107 series, responded both in design and safety by designing the front windshield surround to be strong enough to support a rollover. Great German design/engineering. Respectfully. should have been mentioned as it would have retained the classic convertible look of the Stag and many other European designs ( that we love)
Once again, great content and well presented. Bravo!
Thanks Pete :)
Excellent video as usual. Another big British concession to stillborn US rollover regulations was the Jaguar XJ-S, which replaced the E-Type S3 that largely sold as a convertible in the US. Jaguar would come up with interesting engineering workarounds with the XJ-SC before launching a proper convertible version in 1988.
I did want to mention that not all American cars were the same. American Motors (AMC) had been producing cars with unit construction since before WWII, added seat belts in 1950, twin-circuit braking and adjustable head restraints in 1962. AMC put together the US Auto industry’s first crash safety lab in the 1950s and engineered their cars with a level of passive and active safety features including improved structural rigidity and, yes, engineered crumple zones beginning in 1963.
In addition, Studebaker was doing padded fiberglass instrument panels and offered disc brakes across the range beginning in 1961.
But Studebaker died out in 1966 and AMC struggled with no greater than 5% market share until they sold out to Chrysler in 1987. Their cars, however, were converted to RHD for the UK, SA, and AUS/NZ markets. 😊
GM actually improved the Corvair’s rear swing axle suspension design in 1963 to abate the rollover issues seen with early models, 2 years prior to Ralph Nader’s book.
But you’re absolutely spot-on that US safety regulations - often enacted without respect for design and engineering lead times - had an enormous impact on car design in Europe, especially at BL.
The Fiat x19 in my opinion was the most successful design of them all
I certainly think so. They're perfection!
I always loved the X1/9, but for me, the TR7 was the best-looking car around. I know it's only a personal opinion, and I'm sure many will disagree
That said, give me a P6 anytime.
@@colrhodes377i always liked the hardtop over the convertible...and the v8 was a big plus
@georgegard.aka.currymonste1498 I had a go in a V8. Absolutely 💯% awesome 👌
I’ve always wanted an X1/9; I think of it as the poor man’s Stratos.
I’ve got a 1971 Ford LTD convertible, it was the last (in ‘72 guise) full sized Ford convertible. Apart from the lack of roll over protection another issue was the lack of anywhere to fit lap/sash seatbelts, lap only. Out of a production run of slightly over one million ‘71 full size Fords only 5,500 convertibles where manufactured so demand was obviously low as well. Thanks for another great episode, bring on more of the unusual old British cars, would love to see one about MG ZA/ZB’s or their Riley cousins.
Great (his)story, Ed. I believe the 5 mph bumpers are mainly there because car insurers wanted them to save costs. At least that's what Adam Wade from the TH-cam channel Rare Classic Cars & Automotive History has said. I highly recommend that channel, by the way.
That's his name? I've been watching him for like a year and didn't know his name lol.
Another great video Ed. Although the rumour of banning convertibles proved a non event it did give us some brilliant 'T' top cars. The Stag was quite serendipitous in this respect as it needed the roll over design to stop the front of the car wrapping around the rear because of twisting and not just a US thing. The X19 was a lesson in design for a great looking sports car at a reasonable price. Now those uncertain days are long gone we can also appreciate some brilliant sports cars like the MX5 that was a ground up modern design when it was introduced without the legacy task of developing an existing car, something that BMC were stuck with at the time in some cases due to lack of cash for development for a volume selling high mark up car. As usual great research and presentation. Thanks for sharing.
The newish mx5 RF hardtop convertible comes close.
Again a very well done piece of content. Enjoyed the complete video.
Thanks mate :)
Having read Nader´s book, he was mostly right. All builders knew about the safety issues of their cars but chose not to improve it. The follow on book by his Centre for Automotive Safety on the VW Beetle was even more scathing but proves VW knew (not surprisingly as it was designed in the 1930s) the Beetle was a death trap. You may like of dislike him, but we all should thank his efforts led to the general public become aware of automobile safety and the creation of such agencies as the NTSB and the development of automobile safety standards. Of course, the Corvair wasn’t statistically unsafer that other contemporary designs but still the US Air Force was already losing more personnel stateside in traffic accidents than in Korea in the early 1950s
Absolutely. While the effects were potentially negative in the short term, his work laid the foundations for modern safety standards.
Excellent video as always. I have a Fiat X1/9 and it was one of the 2 safiest cars in their time (with the Volvo 240) according to US announced regulations (not completely released as the US models were not able to accomplish ;-).
But... I have also a BMW E30 Cabrio, and I saw a beautiful one in blue near the Stag... would you test it? (pleeeeease... ;-)
Thanks from Spain and keep your quality, it's very impressive!
Absolutely. They went to town on the X1/9's body engineering, and it shows in just how solid the car feels, even if the metal itself is rather thin.
Even with the dustbin material bumpers, the X1/9 still looks amazing.
Those early cars were wonderfully sleek. I believe the law changed again in 1980 and they were forced to make them larger?
Forgot to say, Corvair changed to a fully independent rear suspension in 1965. It was like night and day, also keep a 50-pound bag of sand in the front trunk.....
My grandpa had a Renault Dauphine, also sold for some time in the US and popularly know as “hacedor de viudas” (widowmaker) in Spain. He always carried a sandbag in the frunk…..
Indeed. GM didn't stick with that suspension for the second-generation car, and I believe the final year of the first-gen also received the new suspension?
The 64 had a "Camber Compensator" added, it was a band-aid on a open wound. lol lol @@TwinCam
The Rover P6 was an amazingly innovative vehicle. In an era without airbags, ABS, or advanced electronics, it was one of the first truly modern European cars.
I'd love to drive one someday soon. Phenomenally cool things, with or without a V8.
Triumph got it so right with the Stag - Michelotti was such a talented car designer. Much as I love the TR7, Harris Mann was always stymied by BL’s top brass - the TR7 should have been made available as a soft top from day one, alongside the coupe. The US could have had a T-bar top, Europe a full convertible. I will always maintain that Sir Michael Edwardes got it completely wrong by cancelling the Triumph brand.
I don't mind the rubber bumpers on the MGs , probably because i was the right age to just accept them. Lowering the suspension isn't a big problem either
Absolutely the best compromise was the Fiat X1/9. A beautiful car.
“Small--on safety: The designed-in dangers of the Volkswagen” by Nader´s Center for Auto Safety covers the impact of bad latches on the Beetle, and the fact thse could be made far more secure at a ridiculously low price
The bad latches were replaced with more secure ones by the 1967 model year. That was 5 years before Ralph's book came out. Same goes for the swing axle rear suspension, replaced for the 69 model year.
@@e-curb Volkswagen made continuous improvements to the Beetle throughout its production, and as you say, the door latches were redesigned for safety, as were the door handles. They kept the swing axle suspension to the end though, except n the 1302, 1303 and automatics. But they did improve it, for example by fitting an anti-roll bar, so later Beetles handle much better than early ones. (My 1966 Beetle, on which the previous owner had raised the suspension to give it more ground clearance for a trip through Africa, handled best when it had a heavy load on board.) Type 2 Bay Window vans all got the double-jointed suspension, as did Type 3 VWs from (I think) 1967, and they handled well.
@@Summers-lad " They kept the swing axle suspension to the end though, except n the 1302, 1303 and automatics." This is not completely true. In the US market, all Beetles had IRS from 69 onwards.
Brilliant report.
Thanks Kevin :)
Interesting comments on the safety , or lack of in the Mini. I can speak at 1st hand experience on Mini safety. On 24/12/1979 my tuned Mini hit the back end of a dumper truck lorry , when it pulled out in front or on a dual carriageway, the impact speed was estimated at 55 mph . It hit the back axle of the truck 5 inches , and peeled back the roof gutter seam like a tin of baked beans . Such was the impact , by bracing myself to the rally style steering wheel , the wheel had 2 “ V s” in where I gripped on the wheel . I suffered a broken femur , the roof line impaled my head plus other scars, injuries. My 2 friends suffered various injuries too , luckily we all recovered. Seat belts were not compulsory by law until 1983. It was deducted afterwards if I had been wearing a seat belt , I wouldn’t be here today, because I may not have ducked my head/ body on impact so much, however, if my friend in the front seat had not been wearing his , he would have been more seriously injured or worse. Interesting to note , despite the small distance from the front of bonnet to the windscreen, the thickness of metal in the 1963 Mini saved our lives , I would hate to think the outcome in a modern car with its wafer thin so called collapsable structures, even though the passenger cell is supposedly stronger.
The point of a crumple zone is that it crumples. It's why the Cybertruck is looking a sketchy proposition, because when one crashes it doesn't crumple. Instead, your body takes the whole force rather than it spreading around you.
@@TwinCam contemporary crash tests of the Volvo 240 in the US showed it was also too rigid (for the test standards of the time) and a lot of kinetic energy was transferred to the test dummy, which also hit the steering wheel with the forehead with enough energy to cause cerebral trauma
@glmm2001 Indeed, and on the other hand, weirdly, the Volkswagen T3 performed rather well as they’d designed the front end to crumple, in spite of the forward-control design.
@@TwinCam that’s what they tell you
What?
Great video.... I love Targas, I have an X19 and a 911 (991.1) Targa 4s... both in red with black roofs!
The fitment of seatbelts is a curious piece of UK legislation - front seatbelt *mountings* were required from 1965 but it wasn’t until 1968 that fitment of 3 point belts was made mandatory, however it was made retroactive so all cars made from 1965 had to have them fitted. Presumably because it was recognised how important seat belts were in reducing road deaths.
I can’t think of any other safety laws that were backdated in this way.
Absolutely. It's a very strange quirk of the regulations.
Not the UK, but in Germany, trafficators were banned on new cars in 1960, and earlier cars with trafficators had to be updated with flashing indicators on all 4 corners.
Your best yet
Thanks Dan :)
Another factor you may not have considered in the decline in sales of convertibles; Late 60s into the 70s was when the interstate highway system was nearing completion. Those old convertibles were pretty terrible at high speeds
That's absolutely a contributing factor, as was the widescale adoption of air conditioning. However, the timing is too convenient to put it down to any one thing!
In 1973 the US mandated a nationwide 55 mph speed limit, so the speed isn't a factor.
@@e-curb ridiculous. 55 is still pretty fast in those old convertibles; and maybe you've never been on an American highway; people widely ignored the speed limit
Since you have branched out a bit in the scope of topics you use I have had to reclassify Twin Cam as a "Car Show" along with Top Gear, 5th Gear and Grand Tour.
Excellent video Phil
Really great vlog, very interesting indeed and really well presented. Still for me tho. An original TR7 in white with steel wheels. Well, to me it's gorgeous. I'm in my 50's now and can remember the launch. They made you gasp. They seemed so,so modern. They were made badly tho It really did look safe, compared to the MG
Classics get a bad name for safety but people tend to forget about pedestrian safety. Even today, INEOS has yet to submit the Grenadier for Euro NCAP and any pedestrian or cyclist would have a much better chance being hit by an MGB.
Indeed. I'd rather be hit by a Lotus Esprit than a Grenadier, though equivalently sized modern cars are much softer at the front than their older counterparts. It's most noticeable in bonnet lines receding up the front end, all in order to have a squishier plastic bumper.
My grandfather retrieved Unsafe at any Speed from the tip! I read it immediately (after wiping it clean).
The Rover 2000 is mentioned for its safety and the Triumph 2000 for its indicator repeaters have n the B pillar.
The chapter The Stylists mentions the chrome and other useless items affecting visibility. My 2021 Toyota RAV4 has a shiny Toyota emblem on the steering wheel airbag. It blinds me when the sun is overhead and will probably kill me if the airbag is triggered. Is that progress, I ask you?
America does have a history of letting industries police themselves until things get so bad, the government has to step in, and in a short period of time implement changes those industries have years to work out on their own. If American auto makers paid any attention to emissions, fuel economy, and safety, the government wouldn’t have made such sweeping changes when they finally did act. And, since car companies were caught ‘with their pants down’ when they should have been pulled up long ago, it left the door wide open for Japanese manufacturers to get a bigger foothold in the market with much more refined cars that met modern standards.
Absolutely right. It's amazing such a proportion of the US genuinely believes in libertarianism!
Um, the US had the first emissions standards.
@TwinCam yes I do. With good reason. Government is largely tyranny and violates our rights daily. It causes most of the problems in society while being incompetent in its legitimate role. Sadly. the more governmental encroachment, the stronger the Stockholm Syndrome among the citizens.
I am surprised that no mention was made of 'protectionism' The US was struggling to develop good, smaller cars, and the 'Big three' were loosing sales to imports. Ever changing safety and emission standards made life miserable for companies wanting to export their products to the U.S. and many pulled out of that market all together. Which was great for domestic manufacturers as many changes were easier to implement on larger cars than light compacts.
The problem with that is that if protectionism was the driving force, then it failed miserably.
@@TwinCam Only because the U.S. manufacturers seemed to be incapable of building a good small car.
The Japanese could, and they could also develope new models quickly and keep up with the ever changing U.S. mandates.
Here's an example of protectionism hidden as a safety requirement. It was rumoured that the US was going to mandate a minimum distance from the driver to the front windscreen. The only car that would have been affected would be the VW Beetle. In 1971-72, VW worked on a redesign to move the windscreen forward at the bottom by almost a foot, and in 1973 they called it the 1303, or Super Beetle in the USA. Like the rumoured ban on convertibles, the windscreen distance requirement never made it into law. But the car made it into production.
"If you weren't a very good driver. " LOL. (I used to own a MGB, BTW. Not that my Mom liked it, mind.)
Where did you film this?
Corvair models were perfected in 5 years. It was mostly by customers paying attention to proper tire pressures. Even after 60 years, the 911 is still working on the model. The Pinto did have a few deaths but no more than other cars of the time. I still see that Ford on American roads in 2024. Any car or driver can be unsafe at any speed. Volvo helped with standard seat belts. US manufacturers had them by 1964.
I believe that was because they redesigned the rear suspension, replacing the swing arms, rather than fine tuning.
It was mainly based on 'fear'....fear of the ingenuity and more advanced technology that European cars (including convertibles/cabriolets) offered; and therefore posed to American car manufacturers.
They were afraid that European car makers would swamp the US market, and turn Americans away from buying American cars....in favour of buying European ones. That's why this law was nearly implemented. It was fear.
That was the (perceived) reality of the situation at the time. Totally misplaced of course; but thats the nature of America and Americans - to exaggerate a threat, and perceive it as being bigger than it actually is.
I have lived here all my life, along one, and never heard this story. I must have missed it.u
It killed the TR6, and gave birth to the lovely TR7.
US regulation seemed to be strange and "over the top" for me🤷🏻♂️ First do nothing about car safety/emission control/etc; but then one had to comply with ultra - stringent laws.
Standard panic response, I would say…..
US had the first emissions laws, 11 years ahead of the UK; most notably the phaseout of leaded petrol.
@@jamesengland7461 of course US had to do something with those huge cars driven by "BiG BeEfY V8". Ever tried to buy midsize/small cars?
The safety or lack of in any car is purely down to one thing only, the driver. Governments should concentrate on improving driving skills and standards.Touch screens and cupholders(drinking and eating whilst driving) don't help as distract drivers.
While driver ability and education is primary, I don't think that thought process is comforting to those killed by incidents that weren't their fault.
Sadly you seem to not know or remember unassisted, single-master-cylinder drum brakes, or bias ply tires, or swing axle suspension, steel dashboards, lack of seat belts, roofs which couldn't protect in rollovers, pre- ABS brakes; the list goes on and on. Some wrecks are unavoidable. Cars which aren't built to protect and prevent accidents are built with negligence.
@@jamesengland7461 The point I was making was with proper driver training RTC's would not be occurring so all the so called safety features would not be required. A friend lost the sight in one eye when the airbag went off after a pothole set it off, it broke his glasses and a piece punctured an eye. Now has a false one and unable to drive.
I have owned many 20's and 30's cars, never felt that they were unsafe even with rod or cable brakes, non syncro gearboxes were a pain in London traffic and swapping from one with a center accelerator and right brake pedal to the current layout and vice versa did take some thought.