This is a new one for me. And it’s so bizarre, I’m still struggling to figure out; like, what the point is supposed to be. Let me know if you do.
Kinda normalizes the famous Liberty Mutual Safety Car, which was twenty years in the future.
Wasn’t that called the “Liberty Bibity”?
I laughed at that commercial too.
I wrote for a brochure. I also asked for the name of a dealer near to me. How does engine mounted air conditioning get to the cabin area? I am still arguing with my wife over exterior and interior color choices. I am a little apprehensive because of the last car that I bought (see attachment). Yours in mirth (and my girth), Tom
Your last car was a very shrewd purchase – it’s worth a huge amount of money today.
Agreed. And in case you were wondering where the XK-E got its design inspiration from, look no further.
“We believe it is possible to combine beauty with safety” – just not yet…
I think Motor Trend nailed it: “Hard to believe” indeed.
I particularly liked “One Man’s Effort.”
“Eh, it’s a thing” . . . . . . . . . . . Car and Driver
This explains everything:
Wow, thanks for this!
OMG its still around fascinating but now I know why its familiar Mechanix illustrated our school library had a huge collection of those and I read every one on offer.
In the closed captioning, it said the inventor was “absessed” with safety.
That kinda fits.
Daring new car – to not laugh at it
May be the answer – to a question no one asked
Futuristic – yet never going to work
Sure U.S.A. sensation – no other country would claim it
Amazing – that the idea even was made
Hard to believe – that a sane person was involved
Startling – to small children, the elderly, the infirm. Please keep them out of harm’s way.
Safety split – it wanted nothing to do with this monstrosity.
Revolutionary – it will just end up going around in circles
One man’s effort – but that could have been used on something practical and useful.
I am still working through the safety concept that seems designed to eliminate all control if the central joint fails, whether by impact or wear.
Methinks one is not meant to think too hard on this one.
Does it fold for easy parking?
At first, I thought Paul had missed an April 1 deadline…
I’d have wondered if this could be a well-imagined photoshop job until seeing the WCVB/Boston piece. Fascinating…
Was the designer assuming AMC wouldn’t put up a hassle with repurposing old Step-Down Hudsons at scale? I guess since the designer would have bought them used…WELL used by the 60s…
I’ve driven articulated construction vehicles where the articulation provides the steering, as we see in this car.
They are inherently unstable at anything faster than a jogging pace because there’s no self centering effect built into the steering. In fact the opposite occurs. They want to turn, and any slight cornering amplifies the forces to turn. Steering effort is used to prevent the vehicle from over steering and losing control.
In this car, I think driving in a straight line would be unstable, and that applying power or applying brakes in a corner would produce wild variations in steering forces and stability, making safe driving highly unlikely.
We have a centre pivot JCB front end loader with a bucket or grab for loading waste it works fine, steers very well, and perfectly safe for road use it travels to our yard from the factory to refuel and get waterblasted clean just fine.
You have to wonder what Walter C Jerome was smoking back then.
I’ve seen this oddity in person. It is odd. Go to Bellinghamautosales.com and click on the link for Sir Vival for much more info and photos. Mr Moore has a lot of nifty toys.
I have seen this before. But I did NOT know it was less than a hour away from me. Next time I an in Bellingham i must check this out. (on an empty stomach).
Actually this concept was revisited, in the late 1960s:
“You have never seen its like before.” No argument there!
Where is the Zamboni option?
I’ve read about this before, rather recently if I recall, but it must have not been in CC. It’s even weirder than the safety car built by the Connecticut priest in the 50s, the Aurora (which I believe was featured here once).
It seems like early ideas of safety were focused on making the structure stronger, just to stay together in a collision. Cars from the 1920’s and 30’s tended to come apart in severe collisions. Later cars stayed together better but the secondary impact of the occupant with the interior of the vehicle wasn’t considered for a long time. Cars like the Tucker boasted of a pop out windshield, so that the occupants could be “thrown clear” of the vehicle in the case of a collision. As odd as it sounds today, many driver’s would echo that refrain and refused to wear seat belts. In early times cars would often catch on fire after a collision and the occupants didn’t want to be trapped inside.
Mercedes was a pioneer in developing crush zones that could absorb and dissipate the energy of a collision, protecting the occupants. Thankfully most manufacturers have developed more effective structural collision survival developments and improved belts and finally air bag systems have made things even better. My Jaguar XJS has a system that would (hopefully) allow the engine and transmission to be driven underneath the passenger compartment in the event of a severe frontal.collision. Cars are now safer than ever, now if the driver’s would just put down their damn phones and pay attention!
Waste of a perfectly good Hudson.
Perfectly safe when parked I have no doubt, moving in any direction at any speed not so much.
Words fail me.
But here’s some I sort of remember from comic books…
Those will do for now.
“I know words/I have the best words”®
Splorch, gwank and pflipt also apply
Long live Mad Magazine, which ceased publication – of all but recycled content from the past – last year.
Reminds me of a car from a similar era. God bless this priest, he actually put together something pretty awesome.
I’m so very, very glad that this wasn’t the future! It reminds me of the KIIllinger FWD motorcycle, which was also an answer to a question no one but the designer was asking
Yes, it was also built and was supposedly a success. I can’t imagine the dynamics of a 600cc two stroke and all that weight up front. I think the motor was inside the wheel! Holy rotational torque, Batman!
Patent application filed 1 June 1959, awarded 1961—I have no childhood memory of this one at all. Fun to know it survives in Bellingham!
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Copyright 2011 - 2021 Curbside Classics. All Rights Reserved.