Smart cars, not so smart ..

**Snuffy** · April 14th, 2009, 09:28

Saw this at lunch today ...

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.h...istId=playlist

(edit) it appears the link doesn't stay on the story intended ...

)

read it here ... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,515516,00.html

smoores · April 14th, 2009, 10:12

It seems to have a pinball effect.

***TARPSBird*** · April 14th, 2009, 10:18

Some folks are willing to take a fatalistic view on crash vulnerability (when your number's up...) in preference to the tiny cars' $$ savings on gas. I pass a Smart Car dealership on my way to work, and frankly they look like toys. I'd feel very vulnerable driving the Interstate rat race in one.

**Alain_F355** · April 14th, 2009, 10:23

Duh, they did not need to crash these cars to find that out. The Smart only has half the weight and a tiny crumple zone compared to the Mercedes.

Seems to me American carmakers are becoming nervous now that small cars become popular and they do not have them in their range. So some bad press is needed to protect their turf.

Bigger cars are not always safer. SUV tend to roll over easily and their stiff frame does not absorb crash energy very efficiently. Still most people buy them because they think the bigger car is always better of in a crash.

**kilo delta** · April 14th, 2009, 10:23

Hardly surprising really........I mean what were they expecting? Small car vs Big car in a collision ...result?...well you don't need to be Einstein. Maybe next time they could test out motorbikes vs 18 wheeler articulated trucks.

:faint:

**Odie** · April 14th, 2009, 10:25

My son and I happened to see one in a Border's parking lot and were just looking at it as it was the 1st time I had seen one up close.

A lady was walking by and said, "Guys, you're not gonna fit in it !"

We're both 6 foot tall and 250 lbs....

Gotta admit, it would be shoulder to shoulder with no in-between room at all ! I'll stick with my Chevy pickup.

**Helldiver** · April 14th, 2009, 10:32

Back in 1679, Sir Isaac Newton would have told you that when you drive a Crown Victoria into a Smartcar at 65 MPH, the Smartcar would vaporize. Even Einstein would have predicted it and he wasn't around when Crown Vics and Smartcars had been thought off.
The point that they're missing here is Smartcars will be used to go to the store, driving the kids to school or going to work. Unless your feeble minded you wouldn't drive one on a super highway all the way to Florida or even to the West Coast
So the chance that two such cars would ever meet at Mach 2 is highly improbable.

**DaveKDEN** · April 14th, 2009, 10:34

Seems smart cars aren't so smart after all, are they. Sad thing is how poorly they fair against even the small 'C' Class Mercedes. Granted, Mercedes are built tough, however, I doubt a smart car would fair any better against my small Subaru Outback Sport (Impreza platform).

**DaveKDEN** · April 14th, 2009, 10:38

Originally Posted by Alain_F355

Duh, they did not need to crash these cars to find that out. The Smart only has half the weight and a tiny crumple zone compared to the Mercedes.

Seems to me American carmakers are becoming nervous now that small cars become popular and they do not have them in their range. So some bad press is needed to protect their turf.

Bigger cars are not always safer. SUV tend to roll over easily and their stiff frame does not absorb crash energy very efficiently. Still most people buy them because they think the bigger car is always better of in a crash.

However, note the comparison was against the small 'C' Class, not against the mid-size 'E' or flagship 'S' class. Smart cars don't even fair well against other small cars. IMO, the only good thing about their size is they make good coffins after a crash. :faint:Maybe cars the size of the Smart car should be classified in a new category - the 'toy class'.

**stiz** · April 14th, 2009, 10:39

well the 5 stars earned in just about every crash test make my mind up .... my bigger car only just got a 3 start rateing .....

heres the test they talked about (think it is anyway, sounds the same)

[YOUTUBE]mz-s1sIoLhU[/YOUTUBE]

now heres a few more:

[YOUTUBE]Ssx4uQnDcV8[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]nnVNUvixWUQ[/YOUTUBE]

all in all i think its a pretty safe car to be in if you have a crash at below 40 ... which if your useing it as a city runaround is faster than you'd actually get anyway!! I wouldnt take it on a motorway but thats just pure common sense!

**Wiens** · April 14th, 2009, 12:02

Well, you'll never see me in one of those toy go-karts!!! :faint: I subscribe to the "bigger is better' factoid when purchasing my vehicles. :woot:

There's just not enough sheet metal between and the road/other cars/trucks/pavement/asphalt/ditch/median/telephone & electrical poles/concrete barrier and pedestrians to my liking. I wonder how they would fare in a pedestrian hit?

Kevin :d

**stiz** · April 14th, 2009, 12:21

Originally Posted by Wiens

I subscribe to the "bigger is better' factoid when purchasing my vehicles. :woot:

[YOUTUBE]g5SRyG6UR2A[/YOUTUBE]

or may i tempt sir with a nice big truck?

[YOUTUBE]D827IxEJVS4[/YOUTUBE]

hehe

**kilo delta** · April 14th, 2009, 12:33

Bigger ain't necessarily better. It's all in the crumple zones...and how effectively that they can deal with the kinetic energy of a collision.

**Wiens** · April 14th, 2009, 12:55

Originally Posted by stiz

[YOUTUBE]g5SRyG6UR2A[/YOUTUBE]

or may i tempt sir with a nice big truck?

[YOUTUBE]D827IxEJVS4[/YOUTUBE]

hehe

I prefer to run from that plastic Chinese steel ****!!

I prefer my steel in American, Japanese or German!! :amen:

Kevin :d

**Cratermaker** · April 14th, 2009, 12:58

My dad has a 55 Pontiac. It has lots of metal and mass. Do I feel safe in it? Not really. Crumple zone? What's that? It has a very interesting decorative chrome piece on the steering wheel concentric and inside the part you grab on to with your hands. That metal piece is wedge shaped, pointing at your head. Ah, those were the days.... I guess.

Large vehicles are not going to be main stream in the future whether we like it or not for a number of reasons.

**Lionheart** · April 14th, 2009, 13:18

I think they are neat little cars. If a person had a get-away cabin somewhere, like on an Island like Nantucket, or Cape Cod, etc, or needed a neat little 'hanger car' for a remote airport they went to all the time, that would be perfect. Much safer then a motorcycle or Golf cart. (and fast!) :d

Bill

***Ferry_vO*** · April 14th, 2009, 13:51

I think it would actually be a good idea if all cars were as unsafe as those Chinese vehicles!

Today's cars give a false sense of security with all their airbags, ABS, ESP, TC etc etc! As a result people feel nothing can harm them and take unnecessary risks while driving, or do not pay enough attention to the road anymore. Now if everybody would drive a vehicle that could kill you if you would hit another car at anything over 15 mph...

As for the Smart: The passenger compartment on these little cars is strong enough to survive a major impact with much larger vehicles. Everything else outside the passenger cabin is destroyed like it should to absorb as much energy as possible. Yes the car rolls away, but this also helps to get rid of the energy not absorbed on impact.

**cheezyflier** · April 14th, 2009, 14:04

bear in mind that the intention of the smart is not to tour the american hiway. it is a city car. here in toronto the smart is very smart. no one ever gets up to more than 30 mph, and most trips are pretty short in distance. better for people to be more attentive drivers than rely on
"after-the-fact" safety built into the vehicle. actually, if they scaled down all the cars, in 10-15 years there would be fewer vehicles with so much mass, reducing the differential in protection, and making it less of a benefit.

**Brian_Gladden** · April 14th, 2009, 16:50

As an EMT and Firefighter for nearly 20 years, I have to tell you...

Head on collisions while spectacular are very rare. Most are collisions in intersections. While one vehicle has a front end impact. the other gets hit in the side. (I've been on the receiving end of one of those myself) The other type of crash I saw quite a bit of was the single vehicle vs. a stationary object. I probably responded to over a thousand car accidents in my career and I can probably think of less than 50 that were pure head on's.

My crash as an example...

I was in a mid 80's Chevy Celebrity. As I went through a intersection I was struck in the drivers door by a Jeep Grand Cherokee (He ran the red light) While the Jeep was a full frame SUV, it wasn't a huge one. The door on my car was pushed in 18 inches (After about 10 inches it was hitting me) My car was pushed sideways through the intersection a measured 28 feet (sideways skid marks) My whole car was 'C' shaped. The jeep was able to drive away with only the front bumper cover ripped off. Also it never set off the Jeep's air bags.

I can tell you. If I had been in a smaller car, I wouldn't be writing this right now. I got out of it with 2 broken ribs, a bruised kidney and turned black and blue from my knee to my shoulder along the left side of my body. My glasses ended up on the floor in the back seat.

That said. I tend to buy mid sized cars for that very reason. If I had been in a Caviler or Escort, I'd have been dead or at the minimum, severely injured. Being a Firefighter and EMT at the time, I got cut out of my car by my own fire department and rode as a patient in the same Ambulance I worked in... Not my best day ever.

While I admit, newer cars have better safety than one's made in the 1980's, I'll still go for the slightly larger if I can.

Matter of fact, I just put money down on a used 94 Crown Vic. In an engagement of the car kind, unless it's an Escalade, I'll probably come out on top.

Brian

PS: I should really scan in my collection of car accident pictures... I was the department photographer as well.

smoores · April 14th, 2009, 20:10

so are your knees the crumple zone?

tigisfat · April 14th, 2009, 20:48

This is BS. There is nothing wrong with small cars, and SUVs are NOT, read NOT super likely to roll over. The scare tactics video released that rolled SUVs was exactly that SCARE TACTICs. All the major auto manufacturers successfully sued those clowns. In one video, you can here them going "c'mon..c'mon..YEAH!!" as a group when they are trying to roll an SUV. Many SUVs are considered luxury vehicles, and such they feature sporty handling. I'll pit a 2001 Dodge Durango R/T through a roadcourse with any mustang GT up until 1999. They are probably less likely to roll over. Your CG, speaking vertically, has less to do with rolling than weight transfer does.

I have a pickup truck that will outhandle and out accelerate 99% of streetgoing cars.

Is anyone reminded of the song Red Barchetta by Rush? Don't assume that small cars are dangerous, and don't assume your size will protect you. Also, don't assume size equals dangerous handling. Anyone that wants to can meet me for a race with my truck.

**Cratermaker** · April 15th, 2009, 01:14

Originally Posted by tigisfat

The scare tactics video released that rolled SUVs was exactly that SCARE TACTICs. All the major auto manufacturers successfully sued those clowns. In one video, you can here them going "c'mon..c'mon..YEAH!!" as a group when they are trying to roll an SUV.

GM, Ford, Chrysler, Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Toyota, Nissan.... all sued who successfully over what video?

***wombat666*** · April 15th, 2009, 04:03

Originally Posted by tigisfat

This is BS. There is nothing wrong with small cars, and SUVs are NOT, read NOT super likely to roll over.
I have a pickup truck that will outhandle and out accelerate 99% of streetgoing cars. Also, don't assume size equals dangerous handling. Anyone that wants to can meet me for a race with my truck.

The object of the exercise is to avoid getting into an accident, period.
Most of the 'Smart Car' style of vehicles are used for city and commuter work, as intended.

If an SUV is driven badly enough they fall over.
And the roads are cluttered with really bad SUV drivers.

And if you wanna race ......... you're on buddy!
Point to point.
The RS has just had the engine fitted after the monumental re-build and is ready to rumble!!!

**cheezyflier** · April 15th, 2009, 05:12

Originally Posted by wombat666

And if you wanna race ......... you're on buddy!
Point to point.
The RS has just had the engine fitted after the monumental re-build and is ready to rumble!!!

...sigh...
it must be nice to be packin the big guns...

tigisfat · April 15th, 2009, 10:27

Originally Posted by wombat666

The object of the exercise is to avoid getting into an accident, period.
Most of the 'Smart Car' style of vehicles are used for city and commuter work, as intended.

If an SUV is driven badly enough they fall over.
And the roads are cluttered with really bad SUV drivers.

And if you wanna race ......... you're on buddy!
Point to point.
The RS has just had the engine fitted after the monumental re-build and is ready to rumble!!!

(gong sounds)

Ooooh; I see your samurai sword is tempered and your technique is strong. If only you didn't live in Australia. The Ford fan in me wants an FPV, since SVT is dissolved. Here are my two SVTs:

1995 SVT Cobra
CHP pro street 331, all forged. NOVI 2000 supercharger, good for 900hp. Right now it's on a street tune at 500rwhp on 7lbs of boost. The alternate street tune will make 700rwhp on 14lbs of boost. The suspension is all for cornering, not drag; It's got a full steeda kit.

2004 SVT Lightning
Mostly stock, good for 500 horsepower and deep 12sec quarter miles. blasts A/C and tunes while cruising softly down the road at 140mph. Like I said before, it'll outcorner any car within reason. (Hell no it won't outcorner a Ferrari Enzo)

That GT-40 lookin' thing is a replica, right? What kinda hp do your cars put ou?