Topic: 66 - Raised Triangles on Drivers Side Fender

[FXguy]

I am curious where the notion of these triangles having something to do with crumple zones came from?  I see a brief mention of this being associated with a "Federal regulation" elsewhere but nothing specific.

-Scott

[J_Speegle]

I am curious where the notion of these triangles having something to do with crumple zones came from?  I see a brief mention of this being associated with a "Federal regulation" elsewhere but nothing specific.

-Scott

Scott why do you believe its not?  Currently don't have the time to search and dig up the wording. Do you have another explanation for their purpose and why
Ford spent money and effort to incorporate the change?

The triangles were explained to me by those working for Ford at the time and following years and also in my day job for 30 years. The federal wording is likely not specific to exactly what each company did to comply with the requirements though internal company documents would. Would likely have been published in 64 and or 65 in preparation. Another effort was for 68 production 

[shelbymann1970]

Jeff your date codes would imply that Ford took the fender line die that formed the triangles(flange/restrike die) out of production to incorporate the changes  and that time line back then might not be out of the ordinary. Ford could have had more that 1 set of fender dies at one facility but I would suspect that they didn't and had more than 1 place stamping fenders back in 66. Those 2 "1 16 3" dates make no sense unless someone monkeyed with the fenders or they were from another facility that changed later but if that was the case you would see dates from the end of Dec to middle of January I would think. When I was in a stamping facility for years at GM we would do a run ahead of parts to take the dies out of service for changes. generally the changes would not take 2 weeks to do but I cannot tell you how long it would take to do a form/restrike change a die in 1965-6 as opposed to 40 years later. Gary

[jwc66k]

- your date codes would imply that Ford took the fender line die that formed the triangles(flange/restrike die) out of production to incorporate the changes  and that time line back then might not be out of the ordinary. Ford could have had more that 1 set of fender dies at one facility but I would suspect that they didn't and had more than 1 place stamping fenders back in 66. Those 2 "1 16 3" dates make no sense unless someone monkeyed with the fenders or they were from another facility that changed later but if that was the case you would see dates from the end of Dec to middle of January I would think. When I was in a stamping facility for years at GM we would do a run ahead of parts to take the dies out of service for changes. generally the changes would not take 2 weeks to do but I cannot tell you how long it would take to do a form/restrike change a die in 1965-6 as opposed to 40 years later. Gary

1. Ford had more than one set of dies.
2. In most cases of design changes, dies sets were not reworked, they were new.
3. There were more than one stamping plants.
4. A large die set took about 4 to 8 hours to change and run a series of tests.
5. At the end of a production year, most dies were scrapped, a few were used for service production (some wound up in Canada, then Asia).
I base this on a hi-tech company i worked for in Silicon Valley in 1990 (Production Control Manager) that got a 30 ton press from the parent company based in New Jersey that as one time stamped parts for Ford's Metuchen plant. Their operation, as explained to us by the "Easterners", used a 100 ton press to make fenders and bumpers. To stamp something as complicated as a fender from a flat to final shape could take as many as a dozen steps, each step requiring an upper and a lower die. The 30 ton press used 5 steps to stamp a bracket for a car radio antenna.
Jim

[J_Speegle]

Jeff your date codes would imply that Ford took the fender line die that formed the triangles(flange/restrike die) out of production to incorporate the changes  and that time line back then might not be out of the ordinary. Ford could have had more that 1 set of fender dies at one facility but I would suspect that they didn't and had more than 1 place stamping fenders back in 66. Those 2 "1 16 3" dates make no sense unless someone monkeyed with the fenders or they were from another facility that changed later but if that was the case you would see dates from the end of Dec to middle of January I would think. When I was in a stamping facility for years at GM we would do a run ahead of parts to take the dies out of service for changes. generally the changes would not take 2 weeks to do but I cannot tell you how long it would take to do a form/restrike change a die in 1965-6 as opposed to 40 years later. Gary

Thanks Gary for the thoughts


Not sure that this is what the data suggest but one could interpret this way. Don't believe they were stamped at multiple plants - data from 65 and 67 does not support this.

Now, there were likely a number of dies used to keep up with demand in 65 but not sure, given the number of cars built if they stamped fenders and parts of fenders daily during the 66-production period.

There is always the possibility that the wrong date ingot was placed in the die prior to the end of the year showing the Jan dates since the dates are accompanied by the earlier feature.  It would be odd and questionable to make noncomplying fenders after a Federally required change in design. I've got examples of incorrect dates being stamped on other parts of panels that make up the unibodies during some years in my records 

[amishtechnology]

I am curious where the notion of these triangles having something to do with crumple zones came from?  I see a brief mention of this being associated with a "Federal regulation" elsewhere but nothing specific.

-Scott

This is an interesting question. I’ve always been told the triangles were federally required crumple zones as well, but note the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of was passed September 9, 1966 and the new regulations were issued in 1967 — too late to account for the tweak to the Mustang fender. My cursory searches for earlier regulations that would have required this change was fruitless.

Separately, I have a hard time imagining such a small revision to the fender would make any difference in how the Mustang would absorb or displace the energy from a front-end collision or help keep the driver safe(r). Nothing else changed in that regard.

Perhaps it was for “show” to reinforce the illusion of a crumple zone? This was done on the heels of Ralph Naders book, which was first published in 1965. Maybe the crumple zone idea is simply lore.

Do we know if these triangles appeared on the front fenders of any other Ford or Mercury vehicles at the same time, such as the Falcon or Fairlane, or is it unique to the Mustang?

[J_Speegle]

....Separately, I have a hard time imagining such a small revision to the fender would make any difference in how the Mustang would absorb or displace the energy from a front-end collision or help keep the driver safe(r). Nothing else changed in that regard. .......

I can testify that yes it changed how a fender might crush and in some cases become a spear of types that could go through the windshield towards the driver and instead in many situations create a somewhat reliable or predictable result due to the features.

Similar design features were also included in the design of the inner fender panels also if you want to look at those.

Do we know if these triangles appeared on the front fenders of any other Ford or Mercury vehicles at the same time, such as the Falcon or Fairlane, or is it unique to the Mustang?

Looking randomly through some of my pictures of other years and models I can report mixed results. Its possible that with other designs of fenders and front ends the engineers addressed the concern differently for different models and years. If you notice there are two reliefs in the forward drivers side inner fender panel during 65-66 but an additional one placed behind the shock tower and the V shapes disappeared from the fender designed starting in 1967 Mustangs. Design change suggests to me that the engineers address a requirement initially with the fender change and then later addressed it differently with the model change. For additional views you can go to Ebay and look at multiple years and models

Just some of the cars I pulled up quickly

Raised V's

66 Fairlanes Some not all similar to Mustangs
70-71 Ranchero & Torino
72 Ranchero & Torino though the crumple feature is vertical due top fender design


No Visible Raised V's on Fender

66 Fairlanes Some not all similar to Mustangs
67 Fairlane
68-69  Ranchero & Torino though there may be reliefs of a different design
67-70 Mustangs
71-73 Mustang and Cougar  though I believe like Torinos listed above there is a different style relief. Will have to double check when I go out the garage and open a hood

Wondering out-loud - Do you have another explanation for the V's?

[amishtechnology]

Wondering out-loud - Do you have another explanation for the V's?

Nope. Just thinking through the matter. It’s not clear to me that there was a specific federal law requiring this; perhaps there was. But the marketplace was certainly interested in safety features at that time, so I’m not sure a federal law was the only possible motive regardless.

And I appreciate the thoughtful discussion as always!

Shane

[jwc66k]

The raised triangles could be a stress relieve point in a multi-step stamping process. Just a thought. One of the companies I worked for had a 30 ton multi-step press in the machine shop. (Yes, the floor did shake, and I'm glad it was not a 100 ton.)
Jim

[sgl66]

The raised triangles could be a stress relieve point in a multi-step stamping process. Just a thought.

If that were the case , we would expect to see them in the passenger side also

[J_Speegle]

If that were the case , we would expect to see them in the passenger side also

+1. By the time it was introduced into production they had built a million (so 2 million counting both sides) cars without the detail

The other fact that suggests it was an outside requirement is the first of the year change which is common for Federal and state laws and requirements rather than a date at some other point in the year.

[bryancobb]

I am curious where the notion of these triangles having something to do with crumple zones came from?  I see a brief mention of this being associated with a "Federal regulation" elsewhere but nothing specific.

-Scott

Scott, many engineering details that relate to safety are not the result of government action.  Many times their origin was the company's employee suggestion program or safety initiative program, or many other sources.  Cleaver people's ideas that are "common-sensical" can and do find their way into final designs.  Most everyone can quickly see "by inspection" (as engineers say) that the triangles fold first in a crash, like a flimsy hacksaw blade.