Safety in the 50's

[Bainford]

Check out the angle-iron cage on this thing, not to mention the sketchy looking fuel tank at the rear.

But while you're checking that out, anyone have any thoughts on that odd looking engine? What the heck is it?

[The Junkman]

Lincoln V-12 Zephyr?

[Ace-Garageguy]

4 hours ago, Bainford said:

But while you're checking that out, anyone have any thoughts on that odd looking engine? What the heck is it?

Flat 12, Franklin O-805 aircraft engine. About 500HP supercharged; produced in very limited numbers for a canceled military drone program in the 1940s.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Franklin_O-805

https://www.motortrend.com/features/franlkin-0-805-air-cooled-flat-twelve-engine-just-listed/

Edited November 11, 2023 by Ace-Garageguy

[Bainford]

9 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Flat 12, Franklin O-805 aircraft engine. 

 

Cheers Bill. I suspected it had aircraft origins, but couldn't imagine what it might be. It's an interesting old lump.

 

Edited November 11, 2023 by Bainford

[Russell C]

Wasn't initially convinced about Bill's answer since the Franklin engines I found in an image search didn't have exhaust pipes, but then I figured out what the caps in the tops of those cylinders were. A little more searching finally turned up this Pinterest page of what sure looks like the same dragster. The tell-tale is the circle thing at the front with all the bolts in it.

[bobss396]

On sketchy roll cages... my brother was racing one night at Islip. He had a feud going with another driver and stuff him into the wall (turn 3... out of sight of the officials) and the car folds up like an accordion up front.

Evidently the front bracing was all done with .050" wall tubing to save weight. The car never came back.

[Ace-Garageguy]

On 11/12/2023 at 2:05 AM, Russell C said:

Wasn't initially convinced about Bill's answer since the Franklin engines I found in an image search didn't have exhaust pipes, but then I figured out what the caps in the tops of those cylinders were. A little more searching finally turned up this Pinterest page of what sure looks like the same dragster. The tell-tale is the circle thing at the front with all the bolts in it.

Skepticism is good, especially on the internet, but I rarely present information as "fact" without having thoroughly researched it myself, and being able to back it up...which is why I posted a link to a set of photos of the engine from various angles, clearly showing the supercharger housing, your "circle thing at the front with all the bolts in it".

Great additional shot of the dragster you found, too.   

EDIT: The induction system is the pipes just visible under the heads on your great side shot. The manifold runs under the engine from the supercharger, and splits into individual runners feeding each cylinder.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Ace-Garageguy

[Ace-Garageguy]

On 11/12/2023 at 7:52 AM, bobss396 said:

On sketchy roll cages... my brother was racing one night at Islip. He had a feud going with another driver and stuff him into the wall (turn 3... out of sight of the officials) and the car folds up like an accordion up front.

Evidently the front bracing was all done with .050" wall tubing to save weight. The car never came back.

By the time I was involved with racing, the sanctioning body I most interacted with (SCCA) had pretty stringent construction and inspection rules for rollover structures. But I HAVE seen a roll cage fail spectacularly when thinwall tube was used to "save weight", with only the area where the "testament hole" was drilled being of the required wall thickness.

What continues to amaze me, however, is that there's no shortage of ham-handed bubble-gum-welding "fabricators" still in the hot-rod biz. Some of the stuff that comes into our place, supposedly built by "experts", is beyond scary...and much of it we flatly turn away if the owner refuses to have us do mods to correct the garbage work.

Sadly, the uninitiated often think we're just trying to gouge them, believing that because they "paid good money" to have the work done initially, it was done right.

[bobss396]

I was lucky enough to start welding in HS when I was 17. Onto auto college, we had a mandatory good gas and arc welding course. With the stock cars, I had a racing partner, the best welder I have ever come across. He could do anything in steel. No gumball welds, no bolts added to fill gaps.

[Brudda]

Safety has changed for the better. I was watching a car factory video in the 60’s and no one was wearing spray masks. Just shooting paint with no protection. Lung cancer? What’s that? But on the flip side I think we have too much safety information on cars that it can be distracting. Like big screens for information in cars. My friend bought a new Volvo and just to get the heater to work you have all of these apps to get thru. Keeps your eyes on the screen , not the road. He already had several close calls because of technology. And all of the sensors on cars? I’m in the body shop industry and how come with all of the sensors and safety, I have more work than I can handle. Lack of common sense? I don’t know. Mike Rowe says safety 3rd. I believe him. We need people that take chances, fighterjocks , race car drivers , etc , I’ll stop here as i can keep this up forever. Just my humble opinion. 

[Bainford]

24 minutes ago, Brudda said:

And all of the sensors on cars? I’m in the body shop industry and how come with all of the sensors and safety, I have more work than I can handle.

I think it has much to do with all of the driving-nanny, hand-holding features fitted to cars these days. They breed stupid drivers. This summer I was in a very busy mall parking lot, lots of traffic and pedestrians about. I saw a girl of about 16 or 17 hop into her car, fire it up, look down at the back-up camera screen, and back out into that mess with not a single shoulder-check or even the slightest look around to see what's around her. Total faith in the camera.

All of the 'safety' features on cars today are creating a very unsafe driving environment. No one has to maintain a safe driving distance, no one has to try to stay within their lane, etc. They place their total faith in the ever-so-fallible technology. Of course, these are not safety features, they are features being beta tested by automakers in preparation for automated driving. Safe driving has nothing to do with it. They are easily passed off as safety features so people will shell out for them. In the current nanny-state, [the suggestion of] safety sells to the well-heeled and uninitiated buyers. Cars are being built today that require no thinking on the part of the driver, and from what I've seen of the modern generations, if there is an option that requires no thinking, they will take it. Especially when the modern un-thinking do-gooder society is told they are making the world a safer place. It helps them to sleep better at night.

[Brudda]

3 hours ago, Bainford said:

I think it has much to do with all of the driving-nanny, hand-holding features fitted to cars these days. They breed stupid drivers. This summer I was in a very busy mall parking lot, lots of traffic and pedestrians about. I saw a girl of about 16 or 17 hop into her car, fire it up, look down at the back-up camera screen, and back out into that mess with not a single shoulder-check or even the slightest look around to see what's around her. Total faith in the camera.

All of the 'safety' features on cars today are creating a very unsafe driving environment. No one has to maintain a safe driving distance, no one has to try to stay within their lane, etc. They place their total faith in the ever-so-fallible technology. Of course, these are not safety features, they are features being beta tested by automakers in preparation for automated driving. Safe driving has nothing to do with it. They are easily passed off as safety features so people will shell out for them. In the current nanny-state, [the suggestion of] safety sells to the well-heeled and uninitiated buyers. Cars are being built today that require no thinking on the part of the driver, and from what I've seen of the modern generations, if there is an option that requires no thinking, they will take it. Especially when the modern un-thinking do-gooder society is told they are making the world a safer place. It helps them to sleep better at night.

Sooooo true!!!! I miss the old days where you had to think. 

[bobss396]

I still think that the best car I ever had was a '65 Falcon. 27 mpg, 3 speed on the column, manual choke, no radio or even carpet. Just a rubber mat. It did have seat belts.

[T-Ray]

On 11/4/2023 at 7:02 AM, WillyBilly said:

As much as I love old car styles, the reliability, performance and safety of newer vehicles is hard to overlook. This video should put things in perspective.

 

I really hate this video. Not that I doubt the vast improvements in safety and engineering that have happened over time, believe me I don't. The thing that I dislike about it is that it is not a fair representative for cars of the 50s. The X-frame cars were questioned at the time for being questionably safe.  I think the results of the experiment would have been more useful if they crashed, let's say a '59 Ford into an '09 Taurus as those two would be better representatives of their times as opposed to picking the outlier and acting like it represents the majority. 

Also, a comment on one of Curbside Classic's posts regarding the X-frame cars says (if this guy is telling the truth) that the '59 used in the test was structurally sound. This doesn't change much as all the test really proved was that the X-frames were a terrible design. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

On 11/22/2023 at 2:56 PM, Brudda said:

... I miss the old days where you had to think. 

OMG!!!   OMG!!!   That is SO offensive to those who can't think, those who don't want to think, those who think they think, those who only think what they're told to think, and those who have nothing to think with.   OMG!!!    

                                             

Edited November 30, 2023 by Ace-Garageguy

[bobss396]

23 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

OMG!!!   OMG!!!   That is SO offensive to those who can't think, those who don't want to think, those who think they think, those who only think what they're told to think, and those who have nothing to think with.   OMG!!!    

                                             

Old car glove-box booklets told how to set the valve lash... on today's cars, they warn not to drink the battery water...

[Brudda]

I remember a ford stylist in 1970 got into trouble for saying “maybe you should not run into things”. A person was commenting on the front bumper on the 1970 mustang that the bumper was too small. It was a big deal then, I guess. As a result was the starting of big 5 mph bumpers. …….That really work great. 🤣

[Brudda]

Just now, Brudda said:

I remember a ford stylist in 1970 got into trouble for saying “maybe you should not run into things”. A person was commenting on the front bumper on the 1970 mustang that the bumper was too small. It was a big deal then, I guess. As a result was the starting of big 5 mph bumpers. …….That really work great. 🤣

That really worked out great. 

[espo]

2 hours ago, Brudda said:

That really worked out great. 

The same can be said for many of the electronic nannies in our new cars of today. So many electronic controls and sensors to compensate for the bad drivers. 

[ZTony8]

To think I used to ride in the back of my Dad's '49 Buick sitting on the rear seat armrest. That was my "special seat" as I could see out the windshield in the gap between my parents up front.

Then a few years later we would take trips to my uncle's cottage and I would ride, along with our large dog, unrestrained in the cargo area of our '57 Buick station wagon.

[Brudda]

On 11/24/2023 at 5:57 AM, bobss396 said:

I still think that the best car I ever had was a '65 Falcon. 27 mpg, 3 speed on the column, manual choke, no radio or even carpet. Just a rubber mat. It did have seat belts.

Yes! I grew up driving a 1963 4 door falcon with a 170 6 and 3 on the tree. I wish I still had that car. Was a minimalist car but I really liked it. And you could work on it. Did not require a degree in computer s. Man, I really miss that car. 

[Brudda]

Just now, Brudda said:

Yes! I grew up driving a 1963 4 door falcon with a 170 6 and 3 on the tree. I wish I still had that car. Was a minimalist car but I really liked it. And you could work on it. Did not require a degree in computer s. Man, I really miss that car. 

Plus I bought that car for $150

[CaddyDaddy]

Just to add on a couple of comments to what everyone has already said:

1) I had a 1:1 1963 Bel Air with a 502. Wanna have some fun? Try putting in a full cage in an X-frame car!

2) Just bought a 2023 Challenger Scatpack  Widebody. First car I ever had with a video screen in the dash. Tell ya what......I can’t live without that back-up cam!!! Chalk it up to my arthritic neck or the wide C pillars and high tail, but that thing is key. I wouldn’t give ya a plug nickel for the blind spot avoidance lights, however.

3) First Car I ever had with anti-lock brakes was an 1991 Lincoln Mark. Was driving on the rain slicked PA Turnpike and tapped the brakes. Had no idea what to expect. That pedal started pulsating and shuddering, I pulled over on the shoulder and did a safety walk around!

4) Before I got my C6, I thought that the Heads Up display was the biggest gimmick in the world. Fell in love with it real quick! Wish I could find that option on more cars today. 

5) I’m not a “Big Brother” type at all! Matter of fact, folks that know me say I swing Libertarian. Having said that, I wouldn’t complain too loudly if future cars came with an “alcohol level lockout breathalyzer ignition switch”. Let’s just say I’ve seen too much stupidity and carnage. Might also be because I’m in NJ, the most densely populated state with the most crazies on the road.

 

 

[wrenchr]

50's Safety car from the minds of an insurance company. Henry Ford museum.

 https://www.thehenryford.org/artifact/139983/

 

[NOBLNG]

4 hours ago, wrenchr said:

50's Safety car from the minds of an insurance company. Henry Ford museum.

 https://www.thehenryford.org/artifact/139983/

 

1) That thing is so ugly, other cars get out of the way when they see it coming.

2) That thing is so ugly, other cars are scared to hit it.

3) That thing is so ugly….