Post by Carl on Apr 15, 2023 16:48:58 GMT
Mikael,
The intrigues, entrances into and exits from this series or that, with this original design or that modification, combine to prove that in the science of design and politics of racing, the devil is in the details.
I had once been aware of Ford's decision and John Wyer's succession, but have forgotten my reaction. It still seems irrational to be victorious and then quit, but apparently there were two primary concerns: corporate revenge (Henry Ford's animosity for Enzo Ferrari compelled Ford's entry into prototype racing) and money. Once Henry had his childish revenge, he had no further interest in prototype racing and no reason to spend more money.
The importance of money in corporate America is near total. During Henry II's reign, Ford introduced a pretty decent subcompact with a single glaring defect, called the Pinto. The defect was that when a Pinto was rearended, the differential bolts could puncture the gas tank.
"Ford allegedly knew that there was a flaw in the tube leading to the gasoline-tank cap of pre-1976 Pintos. A rear-end collision would rip the tube away from the tank and gasoline would pour onto the road.
The gasoline tank itself would buckle after being jammed up against the differential housing, which contained four sharp, protruding bolts. A spark from a cigarette, ignition or scraping metal would do the rest.
It was alleged that, because assembly-line machinery already was tooled when engineers found the defect, top Ford officials decided to manufacture the car anyway - exploding gasoline tank and all - even though Ford owned the patent on a much safer gasoline tank. A mandated $2,000 limit on the car's costs left no money to protect the fuel system, not even a $1 piece of plastic that would have protected the gasoline tank from being punctured.
The low point for Ford came in 1979 when Indiana authorities charged the automaker with reckless homicide in a criminal trial. The case stemmed from a crash in 1978 in which three girls in a Pinto had burned to death after the vehicle was rammed from behind." -Autoweek
That Ford calculated it was cheaper to pay damages when people burned to death was never successfully disputed.
The intrigues, entrances into and exits from this series or that, with this original design or that modification, combine to prove that in the science of design and politics of racing, the devil is in the details.
I had once been aware of Ford's decision and John Wyer's succession, but have forgotten my reaction. It still seems irrational to be victorious and then quit, but apparently there were two primary concerns: corporate revenge (Henry Ford's animosity for Enzo Ferrari compelled Ford's entry into prototype racing) and money. Once Henry had his childish revenge, he had no further interest in prototype racing and no reason to spend more money.
The importance of money in corporate America is near total. During Henry II's reign, Ford introduced a pretty decent subcompact with a single glaring defect, called the Pinto. The defect was that when a Pinto was rearended, the differential bolts could puncture the gas tank.
-- The following quotation is from Autoweek --
"Ford allegedly knew that there was a flaw in the tube leading to the gasoline-tank cap of pre-1976 Pintos. A rear-end collision would rip the tube away from the tank and gasoline would pour onto the road.
The gasoline tank itself would buckle after being jammed up against the differential housing, which contained four sharp, protruding bolts. A spark from a cigarette, ignition or scraping metal would do the rest.
It was alleged that, because assembly-line machinery already was tooled when engineers found the defect, top Ford officials decided to manufacture the car anyway - exploding gasoline tank and all - even though Ford owned the patent on a much safer gasoline tank. A mandated $2,000 limit on the car's costs left no money to protect the fuel system, not even a $1 piece of plastic that would have protected the gasoline tank from being punctured.
The low point for Ford came in 1979 when Indiana authorities charged the automaker with reckless homicide in a criminal trial. The case stemmed from a crash in 1978 in which three girls in a Pinto had burned to death after the vehicle was rammed from behind." -Autoweek
That Ford calculated it was cheaper to pay damages when people burned to death was never successfully disputed.
