Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 10:45:10 -0500
Reply-To: Jim Felder <jim.felder@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Jim Felder <jim.felder@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Tubes in tires.
In-Reply-To: <20110821100644.GM9D0.1439989.imail@eastrmwml42>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Dave, it was not that ford "accuarately calculated" the likelihood of the
problem as Tom said, but they calculated the cost of paying families for
deaths of pinto drivers versus the cost of the recall and decided to just
let them die because it would be cheaper. We know this from Ford's internal
memos that were used as evidence in this well-documented case. Apparently
the engineers protested but the accountants won.
The idea is that if this kind of money gets pulled away from shareholders,
they will pressure the company into behaving ethically. Car companies
compete with each other sharply on price of their goods, so I doubt that
much or any of this kind of penalty gets passed to the consumer.
What does all this have to do with Vanagons? Not much other than to be able
to say that we still enjoy these cars because they were presided over mostly
by the engineering staff and not the accountants. Imaging a car company
today deciding "hey, we could spend a bunch of money today making a car
design ready for four wheel drive sometime in the next decade!"
Jim
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Dave Mcneely <mcneely4@cox.net> wrote:
> Tom, I'm not sure what your point is. The Pinto was subject to gas tank
> rupturing in a rear end collision. One did not have to be smoking for the
> burst tank to result in flames. The same was true of the much later model
> Ford Crown Victoria (Mercury Grand Marquis, Lincoln Town Car), but accidents
> involving stopped police cruisers got most of the attention. Just because
> something makes the news multiple times does not mean that it is a "pseudo
> problem." It might be for real. If Ford knew about a potentially deadly
> flaw, and yet continued to market the vehicle bearing it, then that was an
> unconscionable behavior on Ford's part. Corporations take immoral positions
> about as often as individuals do. The consequences are just much greater in
> the case of corporations.
>
> Not just the Pinto, but other vehicles with the gas tank that far back,
> including some other hatch back models had the same problem. That is one
> reason that body style became modified considerably in most brands. mcneely
>
> ---- Tom Hargrave <thargrav@HIWAAY.NET> wrote:
> > Running tubes in tubeless tires causes sidewalls to run hotter. And
> although
> > it was a less than 0.1% problem, enough accidents have happened because
> of
> > the practice to force the tire shops to stop putting tubes in tubeless
> > tires.
> >
> > You only need one horrible accident involving one SUV full of Mom & Kids
> > that's linked to a real or imaginary flaw to cause the National Media to
> go
> > into a feeding frenzy. The end result will be some corporation will be
> hurt
> > and then all of us will pay more for whatever that entire industry
> delivers
> > because everyone in that industry has to pass along their increased
> > insurance cost to us. So, who wins at the end? The defense and the
> > prosecution lawyers win because they all got paid.
> >
> > Remember the Ford Pinto issue? If you were in a Pinto AND you were in the
> > front seat smoking AND you were hit from behind AT THE RIGHT SPEED, the
> > passenger compartment would get sprayed with gas and you and your family
> > MIGHT turn into crispy critters. Ford knew about the problem but
> calculated
> > accurately that it was a less than 0.1% problem. But the media picked it
> up
> > anyway and at the end of their feeding frenzy Ford was screwed. Or more
> > correctly, Ford's future customers were screwed since the cost of loosing
> > was ultimately passed on to the consumer, just as all corporate lawsuits
> > are.
> >
> > The irony of the Pinto issue was that at the same time the Toyota Corolla
> > was killing drivers by impaling them on the steering column. But the
> Toyotas
> > weren't bursting into balls of fire and they did not grab media
> attention!
> >
> > Thanks, Tom Hargrave
> > www.stir-plate.com
> > www.towercooler.com
> > www.kegkits.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > craig cowan
> > Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 9:14 PM
> > To: vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com
> > Subject: Tubes in tires.
> >
> > I have a BFG that was damaged at the bead upon removal from the previous
> set
> > of wheels. It is still a great tire with tons of tread. It just leaks air
> > now. I'm thinking throw a tube in it, and since it will be used as a
> spare
> > anyway..... it should hold air well then and serve it's purpose right?
> >
> > Are there any flaws in this statement? Are there problems with tubes?
> > Is there a reason why 4 tire shops told me today that they can't legally
> put
> > a tube in a tubeless tire, but all suggest that I do that?
> >
> > -Craig
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1520/3847 - Release Date: 08/20/11
>
> --
> David McNeely
>
| 
