| chu77 |
Well my mom is looking into buying maybe a smart car. Now I see them everywhere it seems to br the new "in". So I got some ?'s
1) Whats the price range??
2) Who owns one, and how would u rate it?? ( out of 10)
3) Whats the mpg on it again?? 34?
thx
-Henry |
|
|
| bigmack000 |
| imo smart cars are the ipods of the automobile world here. migth as well just go get a new golf or jetta. probly cost around the same, it will have more room, and will get as good milage. :dunno: i think smart cars are dumb cars here. |
|
|
| mitsubitchy |
| is the mpg 34? i expected it would be a lot higher like 50's? |
|
|
| rexxrally |
| I don't know about those Smart cars. They claim to have safety cages in them like race cars, but with the size of SUVs and pickups nowadays, I wouldn't want to collide with one, when I'm in a Smart car. That just wouldn't be Smart (pun intended) |
|
|
| ChromeDragon |
Smart car, more like not-so-smart car. That's right, I went there.
Actually they aren't a bad buy. I believe they start at $17k and optioned out run about $23k. Mileage is supposed to be in the 50+mpg range out of the little turbo diesel engine, but depending on how you drive you are capable of achieving even better. |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
If you want decent gas mileage, buy a Civic... at least you can throw a hockey bag or golf clubs in it.
I don't get them. At all. They're like the latest fad... And I don't care how safe they think they are... you get hit by a semi in that thing, you're goin' bouncing like a soccer ball. |
|
|
| 2000z |
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
And I don't care how safe they think they are... you get hit by a semi in that thing, you're goin' bouncing like a soccer ball.
Well fuck, we all better buy talons then, because they're obviously safer when you get hit by a semi. Newsflash, your fucked if you get hit by a semi no matter what you're driving and I would much rather be in a Smart than any other car in that price range.
The base coupe is $16,000 and an optioned out convertible is nearing 25.
The lowest real-world mileage I have heard of on a Smart forum is 45ish and the best is 78.
Check out www.mbcanada.com, lots of info there.
Theres a post with pictures of a Smart that got broadsided by an SUV on the highway and it has virtually no intrusion into the passenger compartment.
They are an awesome idea for commuting. My mom is buying one for her next car and I will be buying one in the next few years as well. They can be remapped for more power with little loss in efficiency as well if you are into that kind of thing. |
|
|
| chu77 |
let get one on the 1/4 and see what happens lol
anyways keep the infor coming, the smart car will be used for city driving.
I'll take a bigger car for highway use.
-Henry |
|
|
| red88.n/a.rx |
quote:
Originally posted by 2000z
Well fuck, we all better buy talons then, because they're obviously safer when you get hit by a semi. Newsflash, your fucked if you get hit by a semi no matter what you're driving and I would much rather be in a Smart than any other car in that price range.
The base coupe is $16,000 and an optioned out convertible is nearing 25.
The lowest real-world mileage I have heard of on a Smart forum is 45ish and the best is 78.
Check out www.mbcanada.com, lots of info there.
Theres a post with pictures of a Smart that got broadsided by an SUV on the highway and it has virtually no intrusion into the passenger compartment.
They are an awesome idea for commuting. My mom is buying one for her next car and I will be buying one in the next few years as well. They can be remapped for more power with little loss in efficiency as well if you are into that kind of thing.
Now what sense does that make taking a smart car and doing engine work to it... kind of defies the whole purpose wouldnt you think. |
|
|
| CryoSlash |
quote:
Originally posted by bigmack000
i think smart cars are dumb cars here.
thats an oxymoron man :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :thumbup: |
|
|
| mitsubitchy |
| Why not buy a echo hatch instead it probably costs less and still has pretty good gas milage. With that in mind you can fit a lot more shit in there and its not a 2 seater too!! With the money saved, do you expect to save that amount of gas money in like 5 years? probably not. I heard the smart engine isnt very good anyway, its not that refined. I would think a echo hatch would be better in the long run then the damn ugly smart car. I would think girls would think that thing is cute only. |
|
|
| n0c7 |
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
If you want decent gas mileage, buy a Civic... at least you can throw a hockey bag or golf clubs in it.
I don't get them. At all. They're like the latest fad... And I don't care how safe they think they are... you get hit by a semi in that thing, you're goin' bouncing like a soccer ball.
Get hit by a semi in anything and you're toast :thumbup: I test drove one. Suprisingly, it feels very roomy and high off the ground from the inside, then you turn around and realize there is no back seat. Size, mileage, price, all positives. Not bad for a car that only has ~40hp.
|
|
|
| Z32NUT |
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
If you want decent gas mileage, buy a Civic... at least you can throw a hockey bag or golf clubs in it.
I don't get them. At all. They're like the latest fad... And I don't care how safe they think they are... you get hit by a semi in that thing, you're goin' bouncing like a soccer ball.
These cars are built to be simple people movers. A couple of bags from the local market and that's it. If you feel an attachment complex to your sports equipment, buy a rusty pick up with a gun rack. But for those folks out there that simply need to go from A to B in an URBAN environment, these things are the cats ass.
When I lived in Cold Lake, I seriously looked at these things. But living now where I can ride a bicycle pretty much 52 weeks a year without wearing a snowmobile suit, it became a non issue. But boppin' back to work in Edmonton I think it'd be #1 on my list. |
|
|
| Z3r03rr0r |
| have to say I would take a TDI golf or jetta over it based soley on the fact I would have room for stuff, groceries stereo you know stuff |
|
|
| REFLUX |
Just as Z32NUT said, they're simple & basic people movers.
It's top speed is 140km/h; highway? I think not.
It's clear they're made for the sole purpose of urban driving.
There is another reason why it's so small, easy parking in....:eek: urban areas!
My mom considered a Smart car as well because:
1) She rarely ever has to drive people around.
2) She has poor parking skills.
3) They're safe.
4) They're cheap for what you get & the fuel consumption is low.
5) They're "cute."
My friend & his dad checked one out yesterday, said the cabin is quite roomy (these are 250lb+ guys).
My suggestion, go check it out for yourself.
Only thing to be aware of is to make sure you park it inside if you're not in the best of neighbourhoods.
There is something called "Smart Tipping" that kids & the irresponsible like to do. |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
quote:
Originally posted by 2000z
Well fuck, we all better buy talons then, because they're obviously safer when you get hit by a semi. Newsflash, your fucked if you get hit by a semi no matter what you're driving and I would much rather be in a Smart than any other car in that price range.
I never said I was much safer, but at least in the Talon I have room to aborb impacts, or, better, the ability to move, stop or turn quickly. Simply put, IMO, I'm safer in my car. |
|
|
| n0c7 |
quote:
Originally posted by REFLUX
It's top speed is 140km/h; highway? I think not.
The speedo goes up to 140km/h, I couldnt go faster than 130km/h on a windy day. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
| I saw one of these booting down the highway the other day, we where bopitting it doing 120, he was in front of me, seemed fine witht he cross winds from semi's., lot better than my old LADA 1500S, top speed with the peddal mashed on 91 octane was 110km/h when semi's came head on, once I got to the front of the trailer I had to aim for the rear wheels, then the wind would blow me straight. Other wise I'd get blown off the road, a couple times I was catching myself on the shoulder |
|
|
| Talontsi96 |
I would not believe all of the safety propaganda that goes around about these things. Simply put the thing weighs 1600 lbs an average car out there is double its mass. The occupant in the smart car will undergo double the G-forces in the impact as the occupant in the other (average 3200lb) vehicle in a head on collision between the two.
The fact that its got a safety cage is also not the answer. It has a safety cage and thats it. There is nothing around that safety cage to crush and absorb the impact, again increasing the g-forces experienced by the occupants. You actually want the occupant compartment to stay stiff but you need the body of the vehicle around the (safety cage) to crush incerasing the time of the collision and reducing the G-forces. You could have a car made out of I-beams (as an example) that would not crush at all, but the G-forces experienced in that car would be extremely high and not very good for the occupant.
I'd say if youre buyng it because of safety, look somewhare else. Also I figure for 17,000 to 23,000 you can buy a decent car that looks, feels and drives like a real car not a glorified Golf cart. |
|
|
| REFLUX |
TalonTSI96:
I can see where you're coming from, about the Smart not having any material to absorb the impact, but I'm just curious to know if there is any research to back up what you're saying.
It makes sense but scientific testing would carry more weight. |
|
|
| Talontsi96 |
Reflux...There is a lot of research out there but mainly its simple physics...
Lets look at this example...
Car #1 has 1 meter of crushing material Car #2 has 0.1 meters
speed is the same 50 km/h
hitting a wall and change in speed is 50 km/h for both...(assuming no significant rebound)...
Car #1:
delta V = 50 km/h (13.88 m/s)
Speed goes from 50 km/h to 0 in 1 meter distance.
Time of collision = 0.144 seconds calculated this way ((13.88+0) / 2 = 6.94 m/s, 1 meter distance / average speed of 6.94 m/s)
G forces = 13.88 m/s / .144 seconds = 96.388 m/s/s or 9.83G (1G=9.81 m/s/s)
Car #2
delta V = 50 km/h (13.88 m/s)
Speed goes from 50 km/h to 0 in 0.1 meter distance.
Time of collision = 0.0144 seconds calculated this way ((13.88+0) / 2 = 6.94 m/s, 0.1 meter distance / average speed of 6.94 m/s)
G forces = 13.88 m/s / .0144 seconds = 963.88 m/s/s or 98.3G (1G=9.81 m/s/s)
Vehicle #2 is undergoing 10 times the G-forces and so is the occupant who is within the vehicle.....Pretty simple math..Then again I'm in the motor vehicle reconstruction bussiness...so its pretty obvious to me... |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
^--- And that is why crumple zones where invented.. to control wher the car is gonna crumple.
A guy i know out east was rearended by a semi doing 50km/h.. there was nothing left of the trunk/rear wheel area, the back seats where pushed up a little, but the cabin was intacked.
Also quite a few, if not most fwd cars(dunno bout rwd) the engine is designed to break away and go under the car in the event of a major accident. Case in point(sorta) quite a few years ago my father was driving a 79 or 78 Ford LTD, t-boned a guy who ran a stop sign. Lets just say the engine ended up in the passenger seat. it literally went through the firewall.. and my dad lucked out that the force of the collision directed the engine towards the pass side, also lucky he was alone. When they towed it away the gas tank fell out. Hense the reason for the engines breaking away under the cars. |
|
|
| REFLUX |
haha I was wondering what was up w/ all the math :D
Well like I said, it makes sense and it wouldn't surprise me to hear of another car company producing a less-than-satisfactory car in terms of safety but maybe there is more in the Smart Car's design that just direct crumple zones?
Maybe it redirects the force around the passenger cabin?
Anyways I don't want to stray this thread off topic so I guess the bottom line is, buyer beware :) |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
What is funny about all the negative comments about the smart car is that they sound exactly the same as the comments the SUV, truck & big domestic owners have been making about imports for decades. The Smart Car is a lot safer than some of the older econoboxes I have driven.
It does what it has to do - deliver basic, economic transportation. They are backordered up the wazoo right now, and as gas prices rise they will just sell more. Look for some of the Asian mini cars creeping into the market. |
|
|
| Markgase2000 |
| Who wants to own a car unless you got a closed garage. Think a car that can be tipped by 5 year olds? :dunno: |
|
|
| Talontsi96 |
Cabin should stay intact yet there should be enough material to crush around the cabn to increase the time period of the collision...This extra time is what reduces the G-forces. No crumple area, G-forces skyrocket....The Smart has minimal cumple area around the cabin to provide enough energy absorbing (time increasing) material in order to significantly reduce the G-forces.
Crash tests showing the rigid cabin not giving and showing other vehicles crushing sure impresses the general public and makes for good sales. However, those crushing components of the other vehicles are actually a good thing in reducing the G-forces which is what most people do not realize.
The mass of 1600lbs would be ok itself if every other vehicle was that mass but they are not. All I can say is I'm in the bussiness of investigating collisions and I would not buy one or recommend one to any of my family at this time. For safety, I'd recommend a vehicle with a good crash rating, good cabin rigidity and good crumple zones to ride down the impact forces (time). Mass doesn't hurt either in a vehicle to vehicle impact, in a barrier impact mass doesnt really matter...since the barrier is bassically an infinite mass object, the mass of the vehicle hitting it is irrelevant.
|
|
|
| Talontsi96 |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
What is funny about all the negative comments about the smart car is that they sound exactly the same as the comments the SUV, truck & big domestic owners have been making about imports for decades. The Smart Car is a lot safer than some of the older econoboxes I have driven.
It does what it has to do - deliver basic, economic transportation. They are backordered up the wazoo right now, and as gas prices rise they will just sell more. Look for some of the Asian mini cars creeping into the market.
Actually the domestic crowd in the day was the crowd that believed stiffer was better and cars with full frames were better for safety. This was not the case as I stated. Cars with crumple zones yet rigid occupant compartments are of course safer. Overall mass wins with all other things being equal...Of course if you have a crappy designed car where the cabin doesnt stand up to the impact (and is the crumple zone) that really makes things bad....All in all everything I've said is sound..All the crumple zones do is increase the time of the actual collision decereasing the G-forces. There really is no magic there..simple physics as I stated......
Also remember we are not comparing the Smart to an older econobox, Sprint for instance that still weighed around 1600lbs, had no airbags and the cabin rigidity was not very impressive. We are comparing the $17,000 to $23,000 Smart to new vehicles in the same price range...
As far as people buying them, good for them they are good on gas and are probably pretty good around the city as one might expect. I just would not push the safety thing as much as the sales people push it...
All in all the Smart is probably as safe as they could make this type of vehicle. It has good rigidity to the cage, some minimal crumple zones and is equipped with airbags and other modern safety features...However it is not as safe as some people would make you believe...its 1600lbs and it does not have the crumple area of a conventional vehicle..
|
|
|
| SilverZ24 |
I had one from Feb to June of this year as a company vehicle. Fully loaded cabrio. Just over 25 grand with GST and purchased on a VISA. :cool:
They are very roomy in the passenger compartment and feel bigger than they are when you are driving because you sit up very high (about the same height as in a minivan). But storage room is at a premium. There is hardly any room in the back of the cabrio model and the hard top one isn't much better.
Top speed is only 135 and the car feels unstable even at 110 so taking it to Calgary wouldn't be fun IMO. I have been on the Whitemud at 90-100 on a windy day and it doesn't feel good.
Range isn't great at about 500km a tank, but it only costs you about 13-15 bucks to fill the tank so it is obviously still cheap to drive. 60mpg is about what I got if I remember correctly, and all city driving and I usually found myself flooring it all the time because the thing is gutless.
Winter driving was actually quite good on it too. They come with stability control so they feel quite secure driving around in the snow. I even tried to do a dougnut in my cresent on ice and it is basically imposible. The car with just drive in a tight circle and the rear will never slide out. lol
Bottom line, it is a good city commuter. Cheap to drive, cheap to buy, very comfortable to sit in (I had heated leather seats), and it has a really good stock stereo. But if you need to carry alot of crap, and/or do frequent trips on the highway, you should look at something else unless you have another vehicle in the garage. :thumbup: |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
Lol.. maybe I should get a smart car for my daily.. and keep the fifth for highway.... 6-7ft of hood infront of me on the fifth.. and 4-5ft of trunk.
The only prob with the fifth is it's a first gen unibody and due to the engine size/layout the cabin is more likely to crumple than the hood as it has a proper frame to about the drivers ass.. then a frame again from the rear passangers's ass to the back.. but it does have the big shock absorber type bumpers that bounce back. |
|
|
| Transporter |
i am so glad talon tsi brought up the math equation on crush zones to reduce g-forces and i must aggree you are very right.... except for one minor little thing.
u fail to understand that a smart car has a larger area to absorb crash
a typical car has bumper in front of the tires
the smart the has crash box and the tires act as bumper
for someon in the accident reconstruction buisness you shoup understand the design principles in the car.
in design anthying with a human factor the margin of safety to be accounted for is much higher
don;t u think the engineers would have considered all aspect and those regulating bodies out there they have to passs and certify everything the redudunace in checks and after checks before u are allowed to build anything for use by a human
i belive i am far safer in a smart car than all those modified cars with people removing the foam and bumper supports to fit large intcoolers and modifing at the expense of safety.
All the race cars have a honeycomb crash aborb zone (typical f1 car nose) the same honeycomb built into the smart car front end
please do more research instead of bashing a car entirely based on size and not deisgn merit
and those that want little more pep out of smart car the modifiaction will increase the emissions and horsepower but the mileage doesn't drop by much some add on parts also increase mileage but all add parts increse emissions and one of the objective of teh smart car is to reduce emiision
hence this brings us to brabus which is a smart car built under another name casue it doesn't meet the emission requirement s of smart car
smart car are big in europe check out smartsrus.com for all the modifications u can do to the car
some other points people brought up regaring cargo space is also very true
smart car is typical made for certain lifetstyle and some one with family of four will only find it uselful on solo or couple trips
and teh smart car can take a hockey and golf bag in at the same time
it has large amount of space u just need to know how to use it |
|
|
| Talontsi96 |
quote:
Originally posted by Transporter
i am so glad talon tsi brought up the match equation on crush zones to reduce g-forces and i must aggree you are very right.... except for one minor little thing.
u fail to understand that a smart car has a larger area to absorb crash
a typical car has bumper in front of the tires
the smart the has crash box and the tires act as bumper
for someon in the accident reconstruction uisness you shoup understand teh design principles in the car.
Please do not lecture me on the field that I have been working in for the last 11 years by repeating the typical Smart safety material thats all over the internet and being advertised by the company. I have done the research to understand that the Smart car does utilize some crumple zones however, the crumple zone is very limited.
It appears that you still do not understand the concept of time in the collision. The more time the better. The way you can get time is by riding down the impact over a greater distance. Energy absorbing body, crush box, etc... is fine and dandy but the Smart goes from whatever speed to 0 in way shorter distance than the average car that utilizes the bumper, hood, wheels and engine bay length for the ride down (not just the bumper in front of the tires as you mentioned)...is this so difficult to comprehend.?. (this is of course discussing a barrier impact)
Also mass does play a huge role...if you have a colision with a 3200lb vehicle the g-forces experienced by the Smart driver are double of the 3200 lb vehicle driver. If both cars are designed with rigid enough cabins and typical safety restraints, which driver do you think will end up better off...?
For the record, I did not say the Smart Car is not safer than some other vehicles out there (a specially older vehicles with no airbags and weak occupant compartments and small mass). All i'm saying is that its not as safe as some people believe and are told. Reality check people....
I'm done talking about these safety issues, buy what you want and believe who you'd like. You want to believe the salesman who is attempting to sell you a $20,000 glorified , street legal golf cart over common sence, laws of physics and someone who actually investigates crashes..your choice....I normally get paid big bucks to analyze these things, yet I'm repeating myself on a car forum for free. That doesnt make much sence to me...So I'll stop there.....believe what and who you want...its your choice....I'm just providing some common sence advice to people who are interested.... |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
I wasn't disputing your point Talon, but just pointing out the different attitudes people have. If it is given that the Smart Car is as inherently dangerous as you claim, what circumstances merit the risk of driving one? Someone would have to weigh his options and decide if the efficiency was worth the risk.
To carry the safety concern a little farther, no one should ride a motorcycle because there is no protection at all. :dunno:
Frankly for me they wouldn't cut because it doesn't fit my needs but there are some people who it might fit. |
|
|
| DarrylBleau |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
I wasn't disputing your point Talon, but just pointing out the different attitudes people have. If it is given that the Smart Car is as inherently dangerous as you claim, what circumstances merit the risk of driving one? Someone would have to weigh his options and decide if the efficiency was worth the risk.
To carry the safety concern a little farther, no one should ride a motorcycle because there is no protection at all. :dunno:
Frankly for me they wouldn't cut because it doesn't fit my needs but there are some people who it might fit.
I was thinking of mentioning motorcycles when someone brought up safety councils... but what you say is absolutely true. No one involved in MVAs at all would in their right mind advocate motorcycle driving. Bikes are suicide machines... you want to talk crumple zones, on a bike, your body is the crumple zone. So just because a smart car is on the road and through 'safety' councils doesn't make it 'safe'. Though, forced to choose between a bike and a smart car, I think I'd be better off in the smart.
I think something else to consider is that it seems the Smarts are intended for urban travel, meaning crash speeds should be lower. But still, everything TSI said is true and makes perfect sense (Trust that guy, he knows what he's talking about) and I don't understand why someone would buy a Smart over say, a Prius et al. Except, of course, for the iPod-like 'It's Cool' factor.
Now, if you're looking to build a track car out of it well... it's light and co-kart like to start with... |
|
|
| SilverZ24 |
quote:
Originally posted by DarrylBleau
Now, if you're looking to build a track car out of it well... it's light and co-kart like to start with...
Only the center of gravity is really high on them. The handling wasn't good at all and I had the larger aluminum wheels too. :) |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
u fail to understand that a smart car has a larger area to absorb crash
I ask how? a smart is as long as my hood is wide. explain how it has a larger area to absorb the crash... Shoot you could park a smart on the hood of my car... |
|
|
| rexxrally |
quote:
Originally posted by Talontsi96
It appears that you still do not understand the concept of time in the collision. The more time the better. The way you can get time is by riding down the impact over a greater distance. Energy absorbing body, crush box, etc... is fine and dandy but the Smart goes from whatever speed to 0 in way shorter distance than the average car that utilizes the bumper, hood, wheels and engine bay length for the ride down (not just the bumper in front of the tires as you mentioned)...is this so difficult to comprehend.?. (this is of course discussing a barrier impact)
Exactly, bang on! When NASCAR first started out, drivers were getting killed because the safety factor was not there in the original cars (back then, they actually ran real cars, not the tube frame chassis of today).
So, to protect the drivers, they started building safety cages bigger, thicker, stronger and with more bars. They got to the point where the cars had no crush zone left in them. Drivers started getting killed again, even though the passenger compartment remained intact.
It was that the cage was no longer absorbing any of the impact, and it was transmitted straight into the driver's body.
Imagine if you replaced the shocks and springs in your car with solid steel bars. You can imagine how rough the car would ride, and how you would rattle all the fillings out of your teeth. Well, the crush zone of an automobile is designed to do the same thing as your suspension (although only one time!)
The Smart car just doesn't have as much of a crush zone as any other car.
Whoever mentioned motorcycles is right, too. If motorcycles were invented today but we somehow had the magical ability of the knowledge of how little protection a rider has in a collision with a car, there is no way on earth they would have been made legal.
Same thing goes for cigarettes. If we'd have known how bad they were, they never would have been legalized. It's really difficult to try and stuff it all back in Pandora's Box and close the lid, once it's out. |
|
|
| SilverZ24 |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverNeonRacer
I ask how? a smart is as long as my hood is wide.
Your hood is over 8 feet wide??? :p |
|
|
| qualthar |
quote:
Originally posted by REFLUX
Just as Z32NUT said, they're simple & basic people movers.
It's top speed is 140km/h; highway? I think not.
I was on the highway (to Mexico) and a Smart car passed me. I was doing about 150. They can definitely move if you want them to, it would just probably take a little while to reach those speeds. Not to mention that you probably wouldn't get the best fuel economy doing that :p |
|
|
| Pro Drag |
quote:
Originally posted by red88.n/a.rx
Now what sense does that make taking a smart car and doing engine work to it... kind of defies the whole purpose wouldnt you think.
No more so than a Civic. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverZ24
Your hood is over 8 feet wide??? :p
I saw one parked at CT on Ft Road and I pulled up to as if to t-bone it.. and the wheels would fit on my hood, sideways fine, the bumpers might hang over... but you get the idea.
Total length of a smart is 8.2ft, wheel base is 5.944ft.
I'll go measure my car after work and see... |
|
|
| Pro Drag |
quote:
Originally posted by REFLUX
My suggestion, go check it out for yourself.
Only thing to be aware of is to make sure you park it inside if you're not in the best of neighbourhoods.
There is something called "Smart Tipping" that kids & the irresponsible like to do.
That reminds me of turning buddies firefly sideways in his parking stall at school. Only took 4 of us to spin it. :asshole: |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by Pro Drag
That reminds me of turning buddies firefly sideways in his parking stall at school. Only took 4 of us to spin it. :asshole:
We used to do that with the pontiac scooters/chevette's.. the small ones of course.. |
|
|
| red88.n/a.rx |
quote:
Originally posted by Pro Drag
No more so than a Civic.
I suppose you have a point there but even the civic is more practical that a smart car.... performance wise that is. |
|
|
| SilverZ24 |
quote:
Originally posted by REFLUX
It's top speed is 140km/h; highway? I think not.
quote:
Originally posted by qualthar
I was on the highway (to Mexico) and a Smart car passed me. I was doing about 150. They can definitely move if you want them to, it would just probably take a little while to reach those speeds. Not to mention that you probably wouldn't get the best fuel economy doing that :p
The ones here anyway are limited to 135km/h like I said in my first post. Trust me, they don't go faster. |
|
|
| rexxrally |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverZ24
The ones here anyway are limited to 135km/h like I said in my first post. Trust me, they don't go faster.
I don't think I'd want to even go THAT fast, standing up in a phone booth......... :D |
|
|
| SilverZ24 |
| I only got it up to 130 once and like I said, they don't feel overly stable at that speed. I did like driving it around town though. And it was great with the top down and the heated seats on. :D |
|
|
| kiew118 |
I went and test drove one last week
It did surprise me how the car performance.
My personal opinion is.
I would def buy the car if u looking for this
1)Something good on gas
2)Something to drive around the city
3)When u only want to drive ya gf no one else, that 's right not ya mom
The only bad I could think of...
I wish they have the 4dr version like the europe
I just have to wait to see what they come out.
Ray:blue: |
|
|
| Honda_Finatic |
| personally, i think it would be stupid compromise fuel efficiency over safety. Like that roll over cage is going to save your ass when you get t-boned by a SUV on a left hand turn. Theres lots of other fuel efficient vehicles out there to choose from. |
|
|
| n0c7 |
quote:
Originally posted by Honda_Finatic
personally, i think it would be stupid compromise fuel efficiency over safety. Like that roll over cage is going to save your ass when you get t-boned by a SUV on a left hand turn. Theres lots of other fuel efficient vehicles out there to choose from.
Yes, like our very spaceous 2g cockpit! I love how I can stretch out my legs. |
|
|
| Insomniac |
I can't believe i missed the argument about vehicle safety! Don't trust TalonTsi96. He works for my competitor. All of his information is misleading/vague/conjectured...just like his reports and testimony!
Just kidding. He is right, and those arguing with him are...wrong.
:D |
|
|
| Fergizzo |
quote:
Originally posted by rexxrally
I don't know about those Smart cars. They claim to have safety cages in them like race cars, but with the size of SUVs and pickups nowadays, I wouldn't want to collide with one, when I'm in a Smart car. That just wouldn't be Smart (pun intended)
hahahaha word!
was gonna make a comment like that but ya did it for me:thumbup: |
|
|
| bmwboyz |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h (s)
19.8
eish thats all i can say |
|
|
| Transporter |
talon tsi i am not lecturing you or anyother person on this board or on this topic
and my mistake i thought u said smart were not safe
and i was trying to show u the smart are safe or to put it mildly as safe as it needed to be to pass certification and be manufactured
in the end each person is responsible for their own life no matter what they chose for transportation
i am just disappointed in people opinion just casue it is small it won't be safe type attitude
you are as safe in that car as in any other car in IT's CLASS
|
|
|
| rexxrally |
quote:
Originally posted by Transporter
you are as safe in that car as in any other car in IT's CLASS
Actually, I think you would be more accurate to say that you are as NOT safe in that car as you are NOT safe in any other car in IT's CLASS. Smart car or any other micro(scopic) car, I wouldn't want to be in any of them in a collision with a Durango |
|
|
| Talontsi96 |
quote:
Originally posted by Transporter
in the end each person is responsible for their own life no matter what they chose for transportation
you are as safe in that car as in any other car in IT's CLASS
Unfortunately I see way too often where one person's life is taken by another IRRESPONSIBLE driver. I don't think I can agree with that first statement.
You are right..Smart may be safe for its own CLASS, however now days its in a class of its own....I don't see too many other 1600lb vehicles out there on the street now days... |
|
|
| Talontsi96 |
quote:
Originally posted by Insomniac
I can't believe i missed the argument about vehicle safety! Don't trust TalonTsi96. He works for my competitor. All of his information is misleading/vague/conjectured...just like his reports and testimony!
Just kidding. He is right, and those arguing with him are...wrong.
:D
Nice of you to jump on the Safety bandwagon...Chris...
I'm just totally tired of people walking up to me and telling me how some salesman or newspaper article told them that the SMART is one of the safest vehicles on the road today....I just shake my head....this safety propaganda has alot of blind believers out there. |
|
|
| 2000z |
quote:
Originally posted by Honda_Finatic
personally, i think it would be stupid compromise fuel efficiency over safety. Like that roll over cage is going to save your ass when you get t-boned by a SUV on a left hand turn. Theres lots of other fuel efficient vehicles out there to choose from.
Actually, if I'm reading correctly, that type of collision would be where the Smart excels. The side has no less area to impact than any other vehicle in that type of collision so there is no concern about increased g force loads on the occupants and due to the safety cage design it would not have much intrusion into the passenger compartment.
I would still rather drive a Smart and have a bigger seat belt bruise than drive my cavalier and have the steering wheel/door crush me to death. The loads may be higher but they weren't bad enough for the crash testers to declare it unsafe. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
I knwo a guy who was driving a big boat of a car.. like mine... was t-boned pretty nasty on the highway. the whole pass side was caved in.. the pass seat was pretty much gone, but his GF, who was there.. ended up in his lap pretty much, yes injuried, but alive. he was told the only reason why he was a live was because he was driving a large car.
I would like to know how TalonTSI rates vehicle type from safest to not.
by types I mean, 2x4 pickups, 4x4 pickups(I seperate them due to suspension heights), big SUVs, smal SUVs, larger cars(old ones like mine), newer large cars, mid size cars like the srt4/camery, then compact like the new swift and chev/pontiac versions/ and sub compacts like the mini and the smart. |
|
|
| Insomniac |
quote:
Originally posted by 2000z
Actually, if I'm reading correctly, that type of collision would be where the Smart excels. The side has no less area to impact than any other vehicle in that type of collision so there is no concern about increased g force loads on the occupants and due to the safety cage design it would not have much intrusion into the passenger compartment.
I would still rather drive a Smart and have a bigger seat belt bruise than drive my cavalier and have the steering wheel/door crush me to death. The loads may be higher but they weren't bad enough for the crash testers to declare it unsafe.
True the Smart has similar distance between the side of the vehicle and the passengers, when compared to other vehicles, but the thing you are forgetting is that it weighs about 1/2 to a 1/3 of what other cars weigh.
When a big thing hits a little thing, the big thing barely "feels" it, and the little thing "feels" it a lot.
As Talontsi96 said, when you are driving a SMART, you are basically a midget playing football with grown men. You may be a tough son of a bitch (like most midgets probably are), but when you get hit, you are going to be sent flying.
If you guys want actual math to prove it, just let me know, I can do the math for you (highschool physics - conservation of momentum/energy). |
|
|
| Insomniac |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverNeonRacer
I knwo a guy who was driving a big boat of a car.. like mine... was t-boned pretty nasty on the highway. the whole pass side was caved in.. the pass seat was pretty much gone, but his GF, who was there.. ended up in his lap pretty much, yes injuried, but alive. he was told the only reason why he was a live was because he was driving a large car.
Unfortunately, I can't really comment on this. To say your friend was driving a "big boat" and that he was t-boned "pretty nasty" isn't really specific. I don't know if the person who told him "the was told the only reason why he was a live was because he was driving a large car" was a qualified expert such as me or Talontsi96 (wink wink). Was this the opinion of an accident reconstructionist, a street cop, fireman, tow truck driver, or the milkman? Unless it was the first, I wounldn't put much trust into that comment.
What I can say is that in side impact test data I have looked at:
-Big is better than small
-New is better than old
-side air bags are worth their weight in gold |
|
|
| Insomniac |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverNeonRacer
I would like to know how TalonTSI rates vehicle type from safest to not.
by types I mean, 2x4 pickups, 4x4 pickups(I seperate them due to suspension heights), big SUVs, smal SUVs, larger cars(old ones like mine), newer large cars, mid size cars like the srt4/camery, then compact like the new swift and chev/pontiac versions/ and sub compacts like the mini and the smart.
Lucky you, you get my opinion, even though you didn't ask. When I think of safety, I think of several things:
- mass
- crash-worthiness (frontal, rear-end, t-bone, rollover)
- accident avoidance (agility, braking capability, stabilty control)
If an accident is imminent, I'd pick a vehicle with a lot of mass and crash-worthiness. Mass is very favorable when hitting other vehicles, but is of no help when hitting immovable objects like walls, posts, etc. Because of the large mass of the bigger vehicles like trucks, they typically do well on the streets in real world collisions. That said, there are many trucks with terrible crash-worthiness (look up the last gen F-150). What the big trucks suck at is accident avoidance (to heavy, shitty suspensions, high center of gravity), so it's sort of a wash.
In terms of crashworthiness, check this site:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx
So what is the safest car, overall? I haven't found any good data on this, but for one chart. They maker basically researched how many driver deaths there were per million cars sold of a particular model. They added up driver deaths in the actual car, and driver deaths in the car that it hit (you see that the trucks end up killing more of the other drivers than the small cars did). They ordered the vehicles from least to most total deaths. If you want to know which car is the safest to be in, I'd suggest the vehicle with the least deaths experienced in that car. The list is not comprehensive, nor does it account for demographics, but it looks like this... First number is driver deaths in the actual vehicle, second is deaths in the other vehicle, the last number the two numbers added together. |
|
|
| Insomniac |
Toyota Avalon
large 40 20 60
Chrysler Town & Country
minivan 31 36 67
Toyota Camry
mid-size 41 29 70
Volkswagen Jetta
subcompact 47 23 70
Ford Windstar
minivan 37 35 72
Nissan Maxima
mid-size 53 26 79
Honda Accord
mid-size 54 27 82
Chevrolet Venture
minivan 51 34 85
Buick Century
mid-size 70 23 93
Subaru Legacy/Outback
compact 74 24 98
Mazda 626
compact 70 29 99
Chevrolet Malibu
mid-size 71 34 105
Chevrolet Suburban
S.U.V. 46 59 105
Jeep Grand Cherokee
S.U.V. 61 44 106
Honda Civic
subcompact 84 25 109
Toyota Corolla
subcompact 81 29 110
Ford Expedition
S.U.V. 55 57 112
GMC Jimmy
S.U.V. 76 39 114
Ford Taurus
mid-size 78 39 117
Nissan Altima
compact 72 49 121
Mercury Marquis
large 80 43 123
Nissan Sentra
subcompact 95 34 129
Toyota 4Runner
S.U.V. 94 43 137
Chevrolet Tahoe
S.U.V. 68 74 141
Dodge Stratus
mid-size 103 40 143
Lincoln Town Car
large 100 47 147
Ford Explorer
S.U.V. 88 60 148
Pontiac Grand Am
compact 118 39 157
Toyota Tacoma
pickup 111 59 171
Chevrolet Cavalier
subcompact 146 41 186
Dodge Neon
subcompact 161 39 199
Pontiac Sunfire
subcompact 158 44 202
Ford F-Series
pickup 110 128 238 |
|
|
| REFLUX |
| Shiet I'm gonna get me a Jetta TDi :D |
|
|
| bigmack000 |
| thing is that list doens't account for there are more sun fires on the road then there are jettas so to say . |
|
|
| Talontsi96 |
quote:
Originally posted by 2000z
Actually, if I'm reading correctly, that type of collision would be where the Smart excels. The side has no less area to impact than any other vehicle in that type of collision so there is no concern about increased g force loads on the occupants and due to the safety cage design it would not have much intrusion into the passenger compartment.
I would still rather drive a Smart and have a bigger seat belt bruise than drive my cavalier and have the steering wheel/door crush me to death. The loads may be higher but they weren't bad enough for the crash testers to declare it unsafe.
You forgot about one MAJOR thing...Mass...The smart and its occupant undergo huge delta-V (change in speed) and g-forces when compared to the vehicle thats double/tripple its mass....I see Chris covered this pretty well allready...
In any event side impacts on the door of any vehicle are probably one of the worse case scenarios in any vehicle. Smart included...A vehicle can only be so tough and resiliant in the thinnest portion (smallest distance) from impact to occupant.....In side impacts you can get killed crippled quite easily in almost any vehicle...
As far as G- forces are concerned Its not just a bigger bruise from a seatbet as you refer. For instance undergoing a 50 km/h delta-v means seat belts are in their effective operating range (up to about 60 km/h delta-V) and you're most likely alive and quite possibly walking away, undergoing a 100 km/h delta-v seat belts are past their most effective range, your body is experiencing fatal to most G-forces and youre most likely DEAD.... quite a difference wouldn't you agree? |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by Insomniac
Unfortunately, I can't really comment on this. To say your friend was driving a "big boat" and that he was t-boned "pretty nasty" isn't really specific. I don't know if the person who told him "the was told the only reason why he was a live was because he was driving a large car" was a qualified expert such as me or Talontsi96 (wink wink). Was this the opinion of an accident reconstructionist, a street cop, fireman, tow truck driver, or the milkman? Unless it was the first, I wounldn't put much trust into that comment.
What I can say is that in side impact test data I have looked at:
-Big is better than small
-New is better than old
-side air bags are worth their weight in gold
I wasn't told, This is what the guy in the drivers seat told me, it was an old full side car, very similar to my fifth. Suposidly t-boned at 140km, they where doing 100 as well. And I think he said it was the Doc who told them they where lucky. |
|
|
| Talontsi96 |
As far as safest vehicles out there. Well I'd say SEMI's are pretty safe from what I've seen....Sorry but I had to mention that.....SUV's and trucks are pretty good mass wise and as long as they stay upright are probably some of the safest people movers out there. However, quite often the Tucks/SUV's do not stay upright due to their high centers of gravity. This causes a secondary rollover type situation or single vehicle rollover accidents...Not to safe from that standpoint...I't tough to pin point a singe safest vehicle out there, there are many different things to consider, but as Chris mentioned mass and crashworthiness is most important...
For more on the mass argument in highway head on collisions with semis...the car typically undergoes a change in velocity of almost 200 km/h while the semi driver undergoes a delta v of 2 to 5 km/h. Do you think that the semi driver even really needs a seat belt? As long as he doesnt roll he's fine. The other guy is dead no matter what he has for safety equipment in his car...Mass really counts boys and girls... In the Smart..mass is very little...So if a salesman tells you that this is one of the safest vehicles on the road today feel free to laugh straight in his face and call him either an idiot or a lier... |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by Talontsi96
As far as G- forces are concerned Its not just a bigger bruise from a seatbet as you refer. For instance undergoing a 50 km/h delta-v means seat belts are in their effective operating range (up to about 60 km/h delta-V) and you're most likely alive and quite possibly walking away, undergoing a 100 km/h delta-v seat belts are past their most effective range, your body is experiencing fatal to most G-forces and youre most likely DEAD.... quite a difference wouldn't you agree?
Ya I remember this from like Physics 30...
I'm not the car crumpling and killing you, it's your internal organs bouncing around inside of you. Sure you skeleton and skin may stop in .01m just fine, but your heart, lungs, brain have a little more room to move to they crash into the side of you body still doing darn near the original speed.
Or thats what I remember anyhow.
I like my big car... lotsa front and rear real estate to crumple before I do. I'm not horrible on swerving, no where near as good as my neon though. And stopping.... well in a panic stop you might as well be trying to stop a frieght train. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by Talontsi96
As far as safest vehicles out there. Well I'd say SEMI's are pretty safe from what I've seen....Sorry but I had to mention that.....SUV's and trucks are pretty good mass wise and as long as they stay upright are probably some of the safest people movers out there. However, quite often the Tucks/SUV's do not stay upright due to their high centers of gravity. This causes a secondary rollover type situation or single vehicle rollover accidents...Not to safe from that standpoint...I't tough to pin point a singe safest vehicle out there, there are many different things to consider, but as Chris mentioned mass and crashworthiness is most important...
For more on the mass argument in highway head on collisions with semis...the car typically undergoes a change in velocity of almost 200 km/h while the semi driver undergoes a delta v of 2 to 5 km/h. Do you think that the semi driver even really needs a seat belt? As long as he doesnt roll he's fine. The other guy is dead no matter what he has for safety equipment in his car...Mass really counts boys and girls... In the Smart..mass is very little...So if a salesman tells you that this is one of the safest vehicles on the road today feel free to laugh straight in his face and call him either an idiot or a lier...
I was looking for a type, taking in all factors, mass, accident avoidance, etc, etc it seems a smaller suv or midsized car might be best.
Uphere on highway 2 quite a few years a go, a minivan got creamed by a semi. Dippy in the van owned a resturant up here, drove to the city to get supplies(food/pop/etc) so he was quiet loaded with wieght, probably overloaded for his van. Anyhow I he tried to pass another car, turns out there was a semi coming head on with bull bars. I don't know the actual impact speed, but the van driver managed to turn just enough that the front pass corner of the semi hit right behind the front pass door of the vam and pretty much sheared it down to the rear drivers wheel, almost clean off. Every pop can exploded on impact. Quite a sticky situation.
Anyhow, the van driver survived, he did spend time in hospital, the extent of his injuriues, I dunno. The Semi driver might have go a bump on his head, the front of his truck did end up in the ditch, not sure if it cause how he tried to avoid otr he locked up and slid into the ditch. there was quite a bit of damage to the front of the semi, all cosmetic, the hood, headlights, etc.
Now the reason why I called the van driver Dipopy is cause well he tried to pass with a full loaded van with on coming traffic, and he had no insurance. Needless to say the resturant closed down cause he needed to sellto pay to fix the semi. |
|
|
| Talontsi96 |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverNeonRacer
I wasn't told, This is what the guy in the drivers seat told me, it was an old full side car, very similar to my fifth. Suposidly t-boned at 140km, they where doing 100 as well. And I think he said it was the Doc who told them they where lucky.
It seems like these numbers are likely somewhat exagerated unless the car doing 140 km/h was a rusted through fire fly.
Although I respect greately MD's oppinions on medical and health issues, I'd not give too much weight to their oppinions when it comes to accident recosntruction, vehicle dynamics and occupant kinematcs. |
|
|
| Talontsi96 |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverNeonRacer
Ya I remember this from like Physics 30...
I'm not the car crumpling and killing you, it's your internal organs bouncing around inside of you. Sure you skeleton and skin may stop in .01m just fine, but your heart, lungs, brain have a little more room to move to they crash into the side of you body still doing darn near the original speed.
Or thats what I remember anyhow..
Quite correct..In an automobile collision there are three impacts that occur....
impact one...car hits object...
impact two...occupant hits interior of vehicle (seatbelt/airbag/dash..etc.)
impact three....internal organs hit outer wall of body...(brain hits skull..lungs,heart hit ribs...etc....
Impact three is what typically ends up killing the person...therfore high G-forces are the real killer of people, even if the vehicles don't look all that bad... |
|
|
| Talontsi96 |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverNeonRacer
I don't know the actual impact speed, but the van driver managed to turn just enough that the front pass corner of the semi hit right behind the front pass door of the vam and pretty much sheared it down to the rear drivers wheel, almost clean off. Every pop can exploded on impact. Quite a sticky situation.
Anyhow, the van driver survived, he did spend time in hospital, the extent of his injuriues, I dunno. The Semi driver might have go a bump on his head, the front of his truck did end up in the ditch, not sure if it cause how he tried to avoid otr he locked up and slid into the ditch. there was quite a bit of damage to the front of the semi, all cosmetic, the hood, headlights, etc..
It appears that from the accident you mentioned the van just got clipped and the vehicles did not reach a common velocity...This is why the van driver likely survived (did not undergo a high enough Delta-V in the collision). Semis typically end up in the ditch quite often due to their steering components being damaged in the collision.....In the majority of Semi accidents I see the one or both of the front wheels pushed back and the front suspension/steering severely damaged.... |
|
|
| RS13 |
The smart car was designed to be an extremely safe car.
It was tested in 100's of types of collision against big SUV's and trucks. It showed that the driver of the smart car was more likely to walk awya from the crash than the truck driver.
here is a link
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/040908.htm
I am still looking for the video with it crashing into a mercedes SUV. The Suv is torn to pieces and the driver stands a 50% chance of no injuries were as the smart car looks intack and the driver has a 95% chance of no injuries. The bumper of the SUV strikes the Smart car around windshield level too. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
I'm trying to remember.. I dunno if the semi dragged the van with it at all. I saw the scene right after it happened, the van driver was already in the Ambulance, and then I heard from his kid what happened.
If you take the human factor out it was kinda funny to look at the scene after, spring rolls and rice and everything every where. |
|
|
| Talontsi96 |
quote:
Originally posted by RS13
The smart car was designed to be an extremely safe car.
It was tested in 100's of types of collision against big SUV's and trucks. It showed that the driver of the smart car was more likely to walk awya from the crash than the truck driver.
here is a link
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/040908.htm
I am still looking for the video with it crashing into a mercedes SUV. The Suv is torn to pieces and the driver stands a 50% chance of no injuries were as the smart car looks intack and the driver has a 95% chance of no injuries. The bumper of the SUV strikes the Smart car around windshield level too.
Not another one...OMG....I'm done explaining basic physics to people who keep showing me the same stuff on the internet...Does this article explain the effects of delta-V and G-forces in small vehilces? All it says is the cabin stays intact and therfore the occupants stay saffer....There is way more to occupant safety than just cabin rigidity... Why did I even start the safety discussion? Please look for more of the company's propaganda out there or regurgitated info by some journalist. The smart is as safe as they could make it I'm sure, its probably the safest in its class and possibly safer than some older vehicles with no airbags and crappy cabin ridgidity but its not as safe as these people would like you to believe.
I also found it interesting that in all crash test I have seen I either see the Smart car hitting a similar mass older car or a bigger Mercedes car but the video stops shortly after impact (at about maximum engagement) and concentrates in showing the crush profiles of the vehicles (trying to impress the lay person). I want to see the video with the larger mercedes till the vehicles come to rest. Let it show how after impact the big car keeps going in the same direction it was going and the smart gets punted backwards. Then I would like them to explain how the Smart and its occupant underwent double the velocity change and double the G-forces than the big Mercedes Benz and its occupants. Let them put accelerometers on the occupants in both vehicles and quote the acceleration data experienced by both...That I'd really like to see....
Also you can see that in the 50 km/h tests these cars crush to about their maximum allowed (1 to 1.5 foot or so) crush zone. People drive these things on the highway right? Did you know that the energy increases as a square of the velocity. That means as the velocity doubles the energy quadrouples....Now imagine quadrouple the energy when the crush zone (energy absorbtion) is completely eaten up at 50 km/h. For city driving the Smart is quite OK. Not the safest thing there is but probably fairly acceptable for a modern small car..on the highway? With its mass and crumple zones? MAN o MAN....What can I say..?
Chris, please take over this safety discussion from an accident reconstructionist perspective. I'm really tired of continuing this futile attempt to explain things to these people.... |
|
|
| Insomniac |
ha ha... maybe Talontsi96 and I should quit our jobs as proffessional collision investigators and let guys like Transporter and RS13 do it for us. Have fun guys!
I'd explain it to them, but really i don't care.
If anybody else has any questions about vehicle safety, feel free to shoot away. |
|
|
| RS13 |
quote:
Originally posted by Insomniac
ha ha... maybe Talontsi96 and I should quit our jobs as proffessional collision investigators and let guys like Transporter and RS13 do it for us. Have fun guys!
I'd explain it to them, but really i don't care.
If anybody else has any questions about vehicle safety, feel free to shoot away.
I'm not saying at speed on the highway they would be perfectly safe. I agree that as the speeds get higher they would not survive.
For that they were designed to do (down town city driving were speed do not exceed 50 km/h they are perfect eg London, BIG European cities)
Think of a whole new set of body panels for less than 2000, that clip on. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by Talontsi96
Not another one...OMG....I'm done explaining basic physics to people who keep showing me the same stuff on the internet...Does this article explain the effects of delta-V and G-forces in small vehilces? All it says is the cabin stays intact and therfore the occupants stay saffer....There is way more to occupant safety than just cabin rigidity... Why did I even start the safety discussion? Please look for more of the company's propaganda out there or regurgitated info by some journalist. The smart is as safe as they could make it I'm sure, its probably the safest in its class and possibly safer than some older vehicles with no airbags and crappy cabin ridgidity but its not as safe as these people would like you to believe.
I also found it interesting that in all crash test I have seen I either see the Smart car hitting a similar mass older car or a bigger Mercedes car but the video stops shortly after impact (at about maximum engagement) and concentrates in showing the crush profiles of the vehicles (trying to impress the lay person). I want to see the video with the larger mercedes till the vehicles come to rest. Let it show how after impact the big car keeps going in the same direction it was going and the smart gets punted backwards. Then I would like them to explain how the Smart and its occupant underwent double the velocity change and double the G-forces than the big Mercedes Benz and its occupants. Let them put accelerometers on the occupants in both vehicles and quote the acceleration data experienced by both...That I'd really like to see....
Also you can see that in the 50 km/h tests these cars crush to about their maximum allowed (1 to 1.5 foot or so) crush zone. People drive these things on the highway right? Did you know that the energy increases as a square of the velocity. That means as the velocity doubles the energy quadrouples....Now imagine quadrouple the energy when the crush zone (energy absorbtion) is completely eaten up at 50 km/h. For city driving the Smart is quite OK. Not the safest thing there is but probably fairly acceptable for a modern small car..on the highway? With its mass and crumple zones? MAN o MAN....What can I say..?
Chris, please take over this safety discussion from an accident reconstructionist perspective. I'm really tired of continuing this futile attempt to explain things to these people....
CLIFF NOTES:
Ok, so they cabin stays intact.. they'll look prettier for the open coffin funeral. |
|
|
| Talontsi96 |
quote:
Originally posted by RS13
For that they were designed to do (down town city driving were speed do not exceed 50 km/h they are perfect eg London, BIG European cities)
For once I must totally agree with you...for the cities they were designed for they ARE perfectly safe. Keep in mind that they were designed in Europe mainly for the European market and they just came to north america recently. Did you see the size of the cars that dominate the european market? Yes, europe is flooded with small light weight cars. For that market I'm sure the smart is absolutely perfect.
However, for the north american market where every big macho guy drives a big 4X4 and soccer moms drive SUV's, I'd say its not as safe. The smart has some pretty cool safety features, airbags, etc...but still its not really all that safe with the size of the vehicles in north america. In New York where traffic is so conjested that you'd never exceed 50 km/h or so I'd say it would work quite well. Here, travelling on Whitemud to work every day, doing any highway driving with the size of the traffic thats around, I would not feel all that safe.
If youre going to buy one to go back and forth to the grocery store in your neigborhood (even though I'm not sure where you're going to put too much grocerries) , I'd say go for it, its a minimal risk.
However, I see these things on Highway 2 doing 120 plus, just thinking about it hitting something makes the hair on my neck stand up...I'm thinking are these people aware of what will happen if they get into a collision? Then I see the various articles and sales people spouting off how this is one of the safest vehicles on the road and I go...Hmmm those people actually believed this and now they are sure they are one of the safest on the road....
Thats why I and Chris (insomniac) decided to shed some light on the reality of collisions, so that people can make some more educated decisions when buying one instead of just blindly believing the advertizing / sales body. |
|
|
| RS13 |
quote:
Originally posted by Talontsi96
For once I must totally agree with you...for the cities they were designed for they ARE perfectly safe. Keep in mind that they were designed in Europe mainly for the European market and they just came to north america recently. Did you see the size of the cars that dominate the european market? Yes, europe is flooded with small light weight cars. For that market I'm sure the smart is absolutely perfect.
However, for the north american market where every big macho guy drives a big 4X4 and soccer moms drive SUV's, I'd say its not as safe. The smart has some pretty cool safety features, airbags, etc...but still its not really all that safe with the size of the vehicles in north america. In New York where traffic is so conjested that you'd never exceed 50 km/h or so I'd say it would work quite well. Here, travelling on Whitemud to work every day, doing any highway driving with the size of the traffic thats around, I would not feel all that safe.
If youre going to buy one to go back and forth to the grocery store in your neigborhood (even though I'm not sure where you're going to put too much grocerries) , I'd say go for it, its a minimal risk.
However, I see these things on Highway 2 doing 120 plus, just thinking about it hitting something makes the hair on my neck stand up...I'm thinking are these people aware of what will happen if they get into a collision? Then I see the various articles and sales people spouting off how this is one of the safest vehicles on the road and I go...Hmmm those people actually believed this and now they are sure they are one of the safest on the road....
Thats why I and Chris (insomniac) decided to shed some light on the reality of collisions, so that people can make some more educated decisions when buying one instead of just blindly believing the advertizing / sales body.
I agree with you on this. At 120 they are toast but at 50 km/h they are perfectly safe. Also i do not know why they brought them to north america as they are only useful in big urban settings. Here in edmonton they do not have the same appeal they do in a place like london were parking is at a premium. |
|
|
| Tomado |
quote:
Originally posted by RS13
I agree with you on this. At 120 they are toast but at 50 km/h they are perfectly safe. Also i do not know why they brought them to north america as they are only useful in big urban settings. Here in edmonton they do not have the same appeal they do in a place like london were parking is at a premium.
Isn't every vehicle toast at 120km/h? |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
quote:
Originally posted by Tomado
Isn't every vehicle toast at 120km/h?
Nope... I have no qualms about hitting anyone short of a semi in the 14 ton trucks I drive at work. :)
God help the Smart car that gets in the way of my International 4600 armoured truck.
"Was that a deer!?" :dunno: |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
Nope... I have no qualms about hitting anyone short of a semi in the 14 ton trucks I drive at work. :)
God help the Smart car that gets in the way of my International 4600 armoured truck.
"Was that a deer!?" :dunno:
Lol I know quite a few semi drivers with bull gaurds... when they see deer, they just hit the wipers.
My Aunt was in a head on in a ford explorer, both vehicles doing about 100.. the other ppl where hurt pretty back, her and 2 of her kids had minor scratches... they got air lifted to U of A just incase. |
|
|
| Talontsi96 |
quote:
Originally posted by RS13
At 120 they are toast but at 50 km/h they are perfectly safe.
At 50 hitting a stopped car...probably pretty acceptable...50 km/h hitting a semi doing 50 km/h head on...I'd say...NOT SO MUCH.....Saying its perfectly safe at 50 km/h is pretty foolish since that doesn't really mean anything...Hitting an oncoming semi (doing 50 km/h) at 50 km/h would be pretty much equivalent of hitting a wall at 100 km/h....All of a sudden at 50 km/h being perfectly safe is out the window...
With a mass of 1600lbs....the oncoming vehicle's speed and weight will make all the difference on the survivability of the smaller vehicle's occupants. |
|
|
| DarrylBleau |
Thanks to the resident crash experts for explaining all this. I wondered sometimes why I could crash my dinky cars into each other and they survived just fine but real cars smashed into pieces. I always thought to myself, couldn't they just scale up how dinky cars are and make real size cars that don't break? And now.. I see why they don't. It makes perfect sense really.
So it seems that the 'smart' car is a bit of a scaled-up dinky car...
I think I'm going to drive my gas guzzling oversized truck when the snow first hits and drivers are all over the road. Maybe I can punt a 'smart' car :P |
|
|
| DarrylBleau |
quote:
Originally posted by Talontsi96
In any event side impacts on the door of any vehicle are probably one of the worse case scenarios in any vehicle. Smart included...A vehicle can only be so tough and resiliant in the thinnest portion (smallest distance) from impact to occupant.....In side impacts you can get killed crippled quite easily in almost any vehicle...
Yeah I understand now why you were surprised that I walked away from the skyline. There wasn't a whole lot of 'crumple' on the side of the car but there was still some. (For the uninitiated: http://www.nacdsm.org/gallery/v/Darryl_1/skylineRIP/) If that had been a smart car I might not have fared so well, seems. |
|
|
| Insomniac |
| I've investigate crashes with similar damage to the Skyline where the occupant had leg injuries like a broken anke. |
|
|
| Talontsi96 |
In your particular accident Darryl, I often see people impacting the door with their torso and impacting the side window with their head often causing serious injuries along with the broken ankle lower leg extremities that Chris mentioned. I recently had one accident where it was an older lady that was involved in an accident slightly higher in severity than yours and she sustained fatal injuries.
Now comparing this type of collision, what would happen if you were driving a smart. On the upside if you had side airbags, you would have had better chances in mitigating injuries (as Chris mentioned before side airbags are pretty nice). This means that you would have not necessarily been worse off in a Smart in this type of (urban) collision. You would have experienced a higher delta-V (velocity change) but you would have had side airbags to cushion your impact a bit. In your case you lucked out somehow and didn't impact anyhing hard enough to injure you. If you had no side airbags in a smart you'd definitely be hitting things harder than in your heavier Skyline, but the smart does have side airbags so that needs to be considered.
This field is quite interesting since each acccident is different and needs to be investigated on an individual basis. There are so many variables including age and health of the occupants in these things that need to be considered.
Therfore statements like "i | | | |
