Hi Doug... I agree that part of the "bad" rep of the Exner-era cars simply
was a result of the deplorable Chrysler Corp. build quality that became a
significant factor in 1957, and, of course, the design people cannot be
responsible. There was no inner fender lining above the headlight sheet
metal, for example, and here in the Rust Belt, they showed the rust bug
very, very early.
As another person has pointed out, though, GM (and Ford) did go with fins
that were anything but vertical ('59 Chevy, '60 Ford, for example). And,
maybe this style of fin was more aerodynamically correct at 3 digit speeds
(witness Johnny Beauchamp's Daytona 500 victory in a '59 Chevy; at least it
did not seem to hurt).
I've got to believe, though, that there was no practical difference between,
say, a '59 Cadillac fin (the epitomy of fin verticality)
and, say, that of a '57 Plymouth, which showed significant cant. This would
be in terms of stability, crosswind penetration, etc, at speeds not
exceeding 70 or so; in other words, the speeds where the public typically
would be operating their vehicles. In either case, the center of pressure
moves further behind the center of gravity, which is a Good Thing, as Martha
S. would say. The driving public would not know the difference between fin
layouts, I think.
Living here in the Detroit area, I got to know the late Dave Holls, who is
correctly credited (blamed?) for the '59 Cad fins. And, agreeing with you, I
am almost certain it was not blessed by any wind tunnel testing.
But it probably did not matter.
Fin, vs. no fin at all, at "high" speeds? That's a different story. Tom
McCahill, writing in Mechanix Illustrated, claimed that he could tell the
difference between the '60 Plymouth finned (almost vertical, by the way, so
Virg wasn't consistent) model, and a '61, which had the fins plucked. (That
'60 Plymouth is one ugly devil, isn't it, and that is a perfect reason to
own one...).
But "Unc" always was given to exaggeration...
Currell ('53 Imperial, and not a fin to be seen...)
>From: Crown58imp@xxxxxxx
>Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: IML: The Forward Look- more than just fins
>Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 15:44:21 EST
>
>The Exner-era cars have a bad reputation, but it wasn't Virgil's designs
>that
>caused this it was the corporate big wigs at Chryslers. Virgil Exner was a
>meticulous designer. Today people mostly remember the decadent fins of the
>late fifties and equate them to Exner. The fin was only one of many design
>elements incorporated into these cars. All fins are not created equal,
>however. Exner actually tested models of his designs on a wind tunnel to
>get
>the most efficient aerodynamics. This is how he came to the conclusion that
>the canted fin was best. Unlike Exner, GM's designers tacked on inefficient
>straight up style fins on their cars. The casnted fin proved itself in wind
>tunnel test to have the best aerodynamics and ability to cheat the effect
>of
>cross winds. This is why Mopars have canted fins rather than straight up
>fins. The design that we know as "Forward Look" was originally slated for
>the
>1960 model year. As I mentioned before the big wigs wanted to push the
>production of these designs three years forward for 1957. While they did
>steal GM's crown, the rush of these cars into production meant poor quality
>control. This is the true reason why these cars rusted prematurely. The fin
>era ended as abrubtly as it started. While today nouveau folks think that
>winged cars are laughable. In the late 50's they pointed the way to a
>future
>that wouldn't arrive.
>
> Doug
> 58 Crown coupe (Exner designed)
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network