Smart Car

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 27, 2007, 11:00 pm

I'm going to buy one of these green earth friendly cars when they become available 1st Qtr 2008

http://www.smartusa.com/

and then Americanize it:

Seriously though, I've seen one of these on the freeway on my way to work a few times. The driver must have gotten it overseas and brought it back to the states. It looks cool. Eye catching for sure. The cheapest version is 12K. (souped up convertible is 17K) If it goes fast enough and has good enough gas mileage, I'll consider it for a commuter!

Envirochicks will dig it too.

She likes it! I don't know where that suitcase is going though.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 27, 2007, 11:10 pm

They have been available in Canada for years.

She likes it! I don't know where that suitcase is going though.

More than enough room for it behind the seats.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 27, 2007, 11:19 pm

miir wrote:They have been available in Canada for years.

She likes it! I don't know where that suitcase is going though.
More than enough room for it behind the seats.

That's where my suitcase is!

I saw one of these with a bike rack so anything is possible.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » June 28, 2007, 1:01 am

I've seen a couple of those around. Not for me, personally! Glad to see more green-friendly vehicles on the road--I expect it to be huge here and in Bay Area. There is still a major problem though--the lackwits that will drive poorly in them. At least they won't make big dents whilst they are backing up while just engaging in conversation on phone... also may be easy to move much like a Ford Fiesta.

Moonwynd · Post by **Moonwynd** » June 28, 2007, 12:47 pm

The great thing about these is when that SUV runs into you the entire car just compacts around you so you can be buried right in the car - Coffin on wheels!

miir · Post by **miir** » June 28, 2007, 2:50 pm

Moonwynd wrote:The great thing about these is when that SUV runs into you the entire car just compacts around you so you can be buried right in the car - Coffin on wheels!

Like most ignorant Americans, you make idiotic assumptions that safety is somehow related to the size of the vehicle.

There's a fuckton of information available regarding the safety of these cars.
Look it up.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » June 28, 2007, 3:10 pm

SUVs suck.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 28, 2007, 3:15 pm

miir wrote:
Moonwynd wrote:The great thing about these is when that SUV runs into you the entire car just compacts around you so you can be buried right in the car - Coffin on wheels!
Like most ignorant Americans, you make idiotic assumptions that safety is somehow related to the size of the vehicle.

There's a fuckton of information available regarding the safety of these cars.
Look it up.

Don't be a fucking tool miir. You know what else a lot of us ignorant americans do that our canadian and euro superiors don't? Drive huge fucking pickup trucks, and oversized SUV's. I don't care what kind of safety features this little sack of shit has, if a pickup truck nails the thing it's going to end up being the size of a fucking lunch box - and you are most likely going to be dead.

This is assuming that morons will drive it on the freeway, (which they will) which shouldn't be allowed. Cars this size should be restricted to city streets/streets where the speed limit isn't above 35 or 40 mph.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » June 28, 2007, 4:43 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:I don't care what kind of safety features this little sack of shit has, if a pickup truck nails the thing it's going to end up being the size of a fucking lunch box - and you are most likely going to be dead.

Doubt it, the safety standards in most European countries are pretty tight. Better than the US in some respects, worse in others.

Many of the shitheaps you see running on US roads would be illegal there too.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » June 28, 2007, 5:36 pm

American car purchases have actually become more and more sensible over the last couple of years. The crossover suv market has been growing rapidly and the large suv market shrinking rather quickly as well. Gas mileage has definitely become a selling factor of late. Even in the family sedan sector, their new generation of cars have not grown in physical size while trying to push gas mileage up as much as possible. As far as the smart car goes, i think it makes far too many compromises to be a realistic purchase for anyone outside of a large city. And the costs to park a car in a large city would probably be larger per month than your car payments. The small car market has some really cool choices right now that make far more sense than a smart car. CR even panned the smart not too long ago. When it comes to safety, i wouldn't be all that worried, I mean it's probably impossible to even hit the thing it's so small. It's probably like trying to swat a fly with your hand for gods sake.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 28, 2007, 5:54 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:Don't be a fucking tool miir. You know what else a lot of us ignorant americans do that our canadian and euro superiors don't? Drive huge fucking pickup trucks, and oversized SUV's. I don't care what kind of safety features this little sack of shit has, if a pickup truck nails the thing it's going to end up being the size of a fucking lunch box - and you are most likely going to be dead.

This is assuming that morons will drive it on the freeway, (which they will) which shouldn't be allowed. Cars this size should be restricted to city streets/streets where the speed limit isn't above 35 or 40 mph.

I'm extremely interested in viewing the empirical data you're basing your arguments on. I'm sure it will be an excellent read and end the blatant falsehoods put forth by these arrogant foreigners.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 28, 2007, 6:37 pm

noel wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:Don't be a fucking tool miir. You know what else a lot of us ignorant americans do that our canadian and euro superiors don't? Drive huge fucking pickup trucks, and oversized SUV's. I don't care what kind of safety features this little sack of shit has, if a pickup truck nails the thing it's going to end up being the size of a fucking lunch box - and you are most likely going to be dead.

This is assuming that morons will drive it on the freeway, (which they will) which shouldn't be allowed. Cars this size should be restricted to city streets/streets where the speed limit isn't above 35 or 40 mph.
I'm extremely interested in viewing the empirical data you're basing your arguments on. I'm sure it will be an excellent read and end the blatant falsehoods put forth by these arrogant foreigners.

Dude it's common sense. Can you seriously tell me that if a 2 ton pick-up truck (not uncommon around here, even in urban areas before someone says something stupid) hit that car from front, back or the side going 50 or 60 mph that it would be ok? They would be about as ok as if the same truck hit someone on a fucking motorcycle. I'm not even going to argue the point any further because It's absurd you would say otherwise.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 28, 2007, 6:45 pm

What are you talking about? I haven't even made an argument. I support you man. We need to show these Canadians who's boss. Just post the data you found on the shortcomings of the SmartCar's safety so we can smack them down together!

noel · Post by **noel** » June 28, 2007, 6:57 pm

You know... DATA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/smart-car1.htm

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2007 ... art_c.html

smartusa.com wrote: 10. Is the smart vehicle safe?
The safety management system for the smart fortwo is comprehensive and sophisticated.

The highlight of the safety management system is the tridion safety cell. The safety cell is made from three layers of steel that are reinforced at strategic points. The cell is designed to keep occupants protected. The reinforced steel and the design of the car allow for the absorption of impact and redistribution of crash energy. Because of the size of the vehicle, most crashes will also involve one of the wheel bases which also absorbs energy.

Both doors are also reinforced with steel bars.

The smart fortwo, which will be for sale in the United States in 2008, will come standard with four airbags (two front and two side for head and thorax protection). Other safety features such as esp® (electronic stability program) and ABS brakes are also standard.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 28, 2007, 7:16 pm

1- You have proven nothing.

2- In that crash test at 70mph - the person in that car would have been in damn rough shape or dead.

3- The crash test was with the car hitting a stationary object. Did I not ask how this car is going to fare against being hit by a huge suv or pickup truck (that are what, 10 times it's size and weight?) at highway speeds?? I know you are fully aware that hitting another object moving at the same speed or a higher speed then your own has a far greater impact then hitting something stationary.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 28, 2007, 7:37 pm

Size has no correlation to the safety of an automobile.
F1 cars are the safest cars on earth and they are quite small and light.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » June 28, 2007, 8:12 pm

Smart cars are a local company, you have been able to buy them here in Santa Rosa for a few years now. They are fun and kinda zippy for what they are, we have them buzzing all over town.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » June 28, 2007, 9:01 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:Dude it's common sense. Can you seriously tell me that if a 2 ton pick-up truck (not uncommon around here, even in urban areas before someone says something stupid) hit that car from front, back or the side going 50 or 60 mph that it would be ok? They would be about as ok as if the same truck hit someone on a fucking motorcycle. I'm not even going to argue the point any further because It's absurd you would say otherwise.

Lots of people think that, and it's wrong. Most cars are far safer than any vehicle classed as trucks\SUV, the safety standards are different for one thing, plus cars are far less likely to roll, are required to have rollover protection, and on and on...

noel · Post by **noel** » June 28, 2007, 9:14 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:1- You have proven nothing.

2- In that crash test at 70mph - the person in that car would have been in damn rough shape or dead.

3- The crash test was with the car hitting a stationary object. Did I not ask how this car is going to fare against being hit by a huge suv or pickup truck (that are what, 10 times it's size and weight?) at highway speeds?? I know you are fully aware that hitting another object moving at the same speed or a higher speed then your own has a far greater impact then hitting something stationary.

1 - Or have I? It would appear that I have proven your argument for you.

2 - You're 100% right... and wasn't it nice of me to assist you in proving your statement.

3 - I know what your argument was, I READ IT.

I have yet to argue against you in this thread. What I did instead is encouraged you to provide proof of your statements which *OMGOSH* was readily available on the web. Instead of just spouting opinions based on feeling, I encourage you to take the 5 minutes to find at least one article that supports your arguments.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 28, 2007, 10:04 pm

I'd have no issue driving around in one of these Smart Cars as long as it doesn't feel severely underpowered.

I'd like to see a safety feature for these little cars where external airbags deploy right before an impact, allowing them to bounce along the ground similar to how the Mars Observers landed, until the vehicle settled in a safe place!

Fash · Post by **Fash** » June 28, 2007, 10:35 pm

The video noel posted showed a random already-in-production compact car faring even better than the smart car at 70mph and they clearly stated the drivers would be dead in either car.

On the way home today I saw people on the side of the road, a car had rammed into a pickup truck. The pickup trucks rear bumper was slightly lowered and bowed a little, the car's front half was crumpled.

Say what you will, but you'd never get me in a small car like that. Shitty gas mileage is well worth it for me even if I just FEEL safer. (btw, I am.)

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 28, 2007, 11:31 pm

I drive a big SUV. I do not feel safer than in a small, nimble car. I can't avoid shit in it (and yes I have spent enough time racing cars to know how to handle one), can't break for shit and can't accelerate to avoid shit. Oh yeah, and if I DO try to avoid anything I will roll.

Fucking piece of shit big SUV.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 28, 2007, 11:35 pm

I'd like to add that all comments disparaging other cultures was pure sarcasm in an effort to get Funkmasterr to actually research something and then present his opinion instead of just presenting whatever popped into his head.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 29, 2007, 12:04 am

noel wrote:What are you talking about? I haven't even made an argument. I support you man. We need to show these Canadians who's boss. Just post the data you found on the shortcomings of the SmartCar's safety so we can smack them down together!

Sarcasm aside, I misunderstood you. The reason for that was I didn't see this post until right now somehow..

In my own Dr. Cos-ish way that was an apology, btw.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » June 29, 2007, 7:51 am

On the way home today I saw people on the side of the road, a car had rammed into a pickup truck. The pickup trucks rear bumper was slightly lowered and bowed a little, the car's front half was crumpled.

The odds of the people in the pickup being injured in that scenario was far greater than those in the small car. If the opposite had happened the people in the pickup probably would have needed an ambulance.

The energy of the impact was absorbed by the car, they crumple on purpose. If your larger car is anywhere near new and has a real frame look at it between the front bumper and the front suspension attachment point. There's going to be a section of the frame made to either collapse, drop down, or something in an accident to prevent the passengers from being affected by the full force of the impact. It will do the same thing as that small car did, it just won't look quite as dramatic.

Think of it this way, if you were to drop a cinder block on your right foot, then put a bunch of bubble wrap on your left and do the same thing. In test two the bubble wrap will pop and it won't break your foot even though the same force is being absorbed.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » June 29, 2007, 10:46 am

I shall offer my own opinion on this matter for what its worth. Keep in mind I'm being entirely too lazy to perform any scientific research which may take less than 5 minutes to support.

Smaller cars, by virtue of being smaller have an increased potential to experience a side impact or an impact that could affect the cabin of the vehicle.
Larger vehicles, by virtue of being larger have increased potential to distribute the variance of impacts at different points within the vehicle.
(Some differences may apply for vehicles with abnormally huge cabin areas. Fully occupied Vans come to mind as do fully occupied SUVs with 3rd row seating.)

Trucks and SUVs do in fact roll easier, however... a large number of these occurrences are resultant of cornering and are not directly related to force of impact with another vehicle thus skewing the results when we are referring to crash statistics.

Vehicle Mass and impact zones have a huge affect on whether or no the other party will be injured.
When the Smart car hits the SUV from the side, what will happen. The front bumper which is likely reinforced will go under the cabin area of the large SUV or truck. Depending on speed the mass of the car may or may not cause the SUV/Truck to flip, but a large amount of the impact is absorbed by the increased mass and lateral movement is minimized. It may also compact the floor up the vehicle upward crushing the drivers foot, also a bit unlikely.

Now taking the other view. The SUV impacts the side of the Smartcar. The reinforced bumper impacts somewhere between mid door and side windshield. Said 4000+lb vehicle is stopped completely by the steel reinforced door? Or warps the frame of the car bending the side of the car into the driver or passenger (depending on side) before inertia rockets the vehicle in the direction the SUV/Truck was originally travelling. Said vehicle may or may not roll depending on the surface type(s) it encounters while moving (away) from said SUV/Truck. Hopefully there wasn't another solid object near the opposing side of the vehicle.
Should there be, the Driver of the truck may also experience whiplash and potentially broken rib bones due to lack of crumple zones to absorb the crash. On the other hand, the smart car may act as a good enough crumple zone for the driver of the truck.

Edited due to heinous spelling errors

Somali · Post by **Somali** » June 29, 2007, 10:52 am

On a completely unrelated note...
I wonder how big of a supercharger/turbo kit you can throw on that little thing. And it it front or rear wheel drive? It could be entertaining in rear wheel with a decent enough engine mod. The rear wheels look far enough back that you could pop wheelies.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 29, 2007, 11:05 am

Aab, it's obvious a lot of people on the forum don't really understand the concepts of crumple zones and inertia, ergo they have no idea how crash test results are achieved. Their opinions on the relative safety of an automobile seem to be based solely on the size and weight of the vehicle.

In other threads about cars, trucks and motorcycles nobody ever seems to bring up safety issues.

The Mitsubishi Lancer: In a passenger side impact collision, it rates an abysmaTWO STARS.
The GMC Envoy: In a driver's side frontal collision, it rates three stars. It also has one of the worst rollover ratings.

The video noel posted showed a random already-in-production compact car faring even better than the smart car at 70mph and they clearly stated the drivers would be dead in either car.

There was nothing scientific about that test.
The second car hit the wall at a different angle and at a lower speed.
Top Gear is a great show but it's not exactly a good place to get accurate information about automobile safety. How can they claim with any believability that the passengers in the car would be dead when there was very little intrusion into the passenger shell/cage.

The pickup trucks rear bumper was slightly lowered and bowed a little, the car's front half was crumpled.

The front half of the car crumpling is technology doing it's job. Crash tests gauge the safety of the passengers within the car. If crumple zones do what they are supposed to do, there will be no intrusion into the passenger cabin.

The truck's chassis/frame would have absorbed the impact of the crash and there was likely some serious structural damage making the truck unsafe to drive.

Daimler did head on collision tests between an E class and the Smart.
They make both cars so they obviously have no bias in their crash test reporting.
The E class actually fared worse in those crash tests than the Smart.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 29, 2007, 11:12 am

Smaller cars, by virtue of being smaller have an increased potential to experience a side impact or an impact that could affect the cabin of the vehicle.

No.
In a side impact collision, a small car with is shorter wheelbase is far more likely to have one or both of the axles absorb the impact.

Larger vehicles, by virtue of being larger have increased potential to distribute the variance of impacts at different points within the vehicle.

This would be true if you completely ignore inertia.

Trucks and SUVs do in fact roll easier, however... a large number of these occurrences are resultant of cornering and are not directly related to force of impact with another vehicle thus skewing the results when we are referring to crash statistics.

And that is why rollover ratings are completely independent of crash test ratings.

The rest of your post only further illustrates your ignorance of physics and the engineering involved in automobile safety.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 29, 2007, 11:21 am

Anyway...

It's pointless trying to argue this with you guys.
Crash test ratings are achieved in controlled conditions, using telemetry and other data to determine the relative safety of vehicles in the most common accident scenarios.

These people don't sit on message forums posting hypothetical accident situations and how they think a car that they don't like will perform in those situations.

Forgive me if I give actual scientific crash tests results more credence than the opinions of a handful of idiots on the internet.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 29, 2007, 11:49 am

That's ok miir, until I see a recorded crash test of that car being hit on the driver door by a 2 ton pickup truck (at highway speed, and the driver needs to live) i'm going to assume I am right. I have seen a ton of car accidents involving large pickup trucks and small cars, and the person in the pickup truck has been the one to get out and walk it off every time. Tell me a million and one ways why i'm wrong, but I know what I have seen.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » June 29, 2007, 12:00 pm

miir wrote:How can they claim with any believability that the passengers in the car would be dead when there was very little intrusion into the passenger shell/cage.

It's not very scientific, but probably a decent call regardless. From what I've heard and read a hard crash at anything over about about 50 can frequently be fatal due to internal injuries. Your heart in particular is a big problem, it's quite heavy and not designed for that sort of force being applied.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » June 29, 2007, 12:08 pm

I could in fact be ignorant of current crash test procedures. The last time I looked into them they used large FLAT solid objects during crash tests in a majority of instances. I large flat object creates very different force of impact to to a wider distribution of force than say a bumper, particularly one with brush guards. They also used to perform the tests assuming a standard bumper height when conducting side impacts, so large flat object lifted X inches off the ground. This unfortunately is inconsistent with many "real life" vehicles. If they have started using actual vehicles or something that more accurately reflects actual vehicles crashes then goodie for them and perhaps I'm wrong. In the past this wasn't done due to relatively lax testing standards and a desire to minimize costs and test "well enough to get by."

miir · Post by **miir** » June 29, 2007, 12:59 pm

Tell me a million and one ways why i'm wrong, but I know what I have seen.

Like a little kid sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

Believe what you want, but there is a ton of evidence available that supports the opposite. If you choose to ignore that evidence, that's your prerogative.

until I see a recorded crash test of that car being hit on the driver door by a 2 ton pickup truck (at highway speed, and the driver needs to live) i'm going to assume I am right.

Side impact crash tests are simulated using a ram type apparatus traveling at roughly 40 mph.
It's not reasonable to expect any automobile to pass a side impact crash test with an object traveling at 60-75 mph.

Rollovers and low speed accidents are much more frequent than high speed (50mph+) crashes.
The majority of automobile accident fatalities involve a single car.

Funk, why don't you provide some links to a Smart (or some other subcompact) being involved in a fatal collision. See if you can find one where speeds were in excess of 60mph.

I'm not claiming that a Smart is the safest car on the road... I'm just trying to help expose the myth that larger vehicles are safer.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » June 29, 2007, 1:15 pm

miir wrote:Top Gear is a great show but it's not exactly a good place to get accurate information about automobile safety. How can they claim with any believability that the passengers in the car would be dead when there was very little intrusion into the passenger shell/cage.

That wasn't Top Gear. And they also said although the interior was relatively intact that the organs in the human body wouldn't have been able to cope with that much impact and that's what would have killed the occupants. Now how true or not that is I don't know!

Funk reminds me of Frankenstein from Saturday Night Live. Large vehicles good. Small vehicles BAADDD!

Tarzan: Line between fantasy and reality blurry for Funkmasterr

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 29, 2007, 1:50 pm

miir wrote:
Tell me a million and one ways why i'm wrong, but I know what I have seen.
Like a little kid sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

Believe what you want, but there is a ton of evidence available that supports the opposite. If you choose to ignore that evidence, that's your prerogative.

until I see a recorded crash test of that car being hit on the driver door by a 2 ton pickup truck (at highway speed, and the driver needs to live) i'm going to assume I am right.
Side impact crash tests are simulated using a ram type apparatus traveling at roughly 40 mph.
It's not reasonable to expect any automobile to pass a side impact crash test with an object traveling at 60-75 mph.

Rollovers and low speed accidents are much more frequent than high speed (50mph+) crashes.
The majority of automobile accident fatalities involve a single car.

Funk, why don't you provide some links to a Smart (or some other subcompact) being involved in a fatal collision. See if you can find one where speeds were in excess of 60mph.

I'm not claiming that a Smart is the safest car on the road... I'm just trying to help expose the myth that larger vehicles are safer.

I was hit by a large car (buick or something) that was travelling at about 55mph in my Audi. He hit he right on my driver side door, mia was in the passenger seat. He pushed me about 25 feet uphill sideways, and it took 5 people to get my car door open so I could get out.

My car was smashed up pretty good, but mia was fine - and I was in ok shape. I had to do the whole ambulance thing, and I ended up having some lasting back issues from it. I was told by the ambulance drivers that I would have most definitely died if it were not for the curtain air bag in my car. That was in a car 3 or 4 times the size of the smart car, and I guess the bottom line for me is, after that crash in my car that has like 750 air bags in it, and is compact as it is, I won't ever drive anything smaller.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » June 29, 2007, 1:56 pm

Advanced Compatibility Engineering is the marketing name given to an automobile body structure design from Honda. It claims to distribute collision energy evenly and redirect it away from the passenger compartment, while at the same time, minimizing damage to other impacted vehicles. This is accomplished by using numerous grades of steel (typically four) which crumple in key areas and remain rigid in others.

This is Honda's version, we see creased roofs and intact dashboards at this point, that much energy is being dispersed. Every car company has something along these lines (albeit not quite as good) in the new smaller cars. You are safer in a 06 Civic than you would be in a 02 Ford Explorer.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 29, 2007, 1:59 pm

If I was trying to prove the point of a large SUV not being as safe, I wouldn't use an explorer.. More like an expedition or navigator. (being as they are 2-3 times the size of the explorer.. hence large)

miir · Post by **miir** » June 29, 2007, 2:49 pm

That was in a car 3 or 4 times the size of the smart car

So you're trying to tell me your Audi is 31 feet long, 18 feet tall, 18 feet wide and weighs SIX THOUSAND pounds?

after that crash in my car that has like 750 air bags in it

4 or an optional 6.

I guess when your arguments are so pitiful you have to resort to gross exaggeration.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 29, 2007, 2:52 pm

Aslanna wrote: That wasn't Top Gear.

I'm sorry, you're right.
That was a clip from 5th Gear.

cid · Post by **cid** » June 29, 2007, 2:57 pm

miir wrote:
That was in a car 3 or 4 times the size of the smart car
So you're trying to tell me your Audi is 31 feet long, 18 feet tall, 18 feet wide and weighs SIX THOUSAND pounds?

No, that is your ego!

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 29, 2007, 3:19 pm

miir wrote:
That was in a car 3 or 4 times the size of the smart car
So you're trying to tell me your Audi is 31 feet long, 18 feet tall, 18 feet wide and weighs SIX THOUSAND pounds?

after that crash in my car that has like 750 air bags in it
4 or an optional 6.

I guess when your arguments are so pitiful you have to resort to gross exaggeration.

You annoy me sometimes.

I don't know what the dimensions on that car are, but I am willing to bet you are exaggerating as well. The smart car was just big enough for the seat basically, so it can't be very long. I would say that my car is at least twice the size, which is still a considerable difference, and still doesn't make your point valid.

Edit: Shortened

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » June 29, 2007, 4:15 pm

http://www.zapworld.com/

I kinda want one

noel · Post by **noel** » June 29, 2007, 5:56 pm

I'm not a structural engineer, but I do understand inertia, crumple zones, etc. and to some extent their impact (pun intended ^ ^) in an accident.

I'm in the process of being extremely nice to Funkmasterr, hence the tone of my posts, but I'm getting sick and tired of seeing certain individuals (Funk) fly off the handle without at least taking 5 minutes to add some logical substance to an emotional argument. He 'feels' the SUV is safer so therefore it must be.

I personally like the Smartcar and would have no problem at all driving it. I don't live in fear of shit I can't control anyway.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 29, 2007, 6:15 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:I don't know what the dimensions on that car are, but I am willing to bet you are exaggerating as well.

It's been painfully obvious throughout this discussion that you really have no clue whatsoever about the Smart or automobile safety standards in general.

As for exaggerating, I took the dimensions and curb weight of the Smart and multiplied them by 3.5 and rounded up. 3.5 was right in the middle of your moronic exaggeration of 3 to 4 times the size.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 29, 2007, 6:17 pm

So say it's two times the size, that's still a huge difference imo. You are taking this entirely too seriously.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 29, 2007, 6:19 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:So say it's two times the size, that's still a huge difference imo. You are taking this entirely too seriously.

Just trying to destroy your credibility... not that you need any help.

We could say that your Audi is almost twice as long and about 75% heavier. That would be fairly accurate.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 29, 2007, 6:31 pm

The real irony of this discussion is how some of you guys pick and choose what vehicles you rip apart for being unsafe.

You didn't rag on the Mitsu Lancer for having some of the poorest crash test scores.
You didn't rag on the numerous motorcycle and scooter discussions.
You didn't rag on the Honda Fit.

It's sadly representative of the ignorant attitudes so many north americans have towards small and sensible cars.

The Smart is an ideal urban commuter.
They are more environmentally friendly than 99% of the cars on the road. They get better gas mileage than virtually everything but a compact hybrid. For a good number of people, a Smart is the perfect second car.

You'd think with the price of gas and the movement toward being environmentally concious that more people would be more receptive to such a great little car.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 29, 2007, 6:44 pm

miir wrote:The real irony of this discussion is how some of you guys pick and choose what vehicles you rip apart for being unsafe.

You didn't rag on the Mitsu Lancer for having some of the poorest crash test scores.
You didn't rag on the numerous motorcycle and scooter discussions.
You didn't rag on the Honda Fit.

It's sadly representative of the ignorant attitudes so many north americans have towards small and sensible cars.

The Smart is an ideal urban commuter.
They are more environmentally friendly than 99% of the cars on the road. They get better gas mileage than virtually everything but a compact hybrid. For a good number of people, a Smart is the perfect second car.

You'd think with the price of gas and the movement toward being environmentally concious that more people would be more receptive to such a great little car.

I didn't rag on the lancer because I must have missed the thread about it.

I didn't rag on motorcycles, no. That is a moronic comparison for you to make anyhow, generally the safety of motorcycles is more in the person driving it then the motorcycle itself. I say that because if you are a safe, alert driver you can avoid a ton of shit that no car could. That being said I also realize that they have no safety in a collision at all, but that is the risk everyone riding a motorcycle takes, cars are not the same way.

If you actually read what I have written - I said that I'm sure these would be a great car for an urban environment at speeds probably not over 30mph, but above that I have a totally different opinion.

And I don't give a fuck about environmentally friendly, call me whatever the hell you want. I want a mid sized car that is as fast and luxurious and comfortable as possible for what I can afford.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » June 29, 2007, 6:46 pm

Note:
They are placing bumpers on the side impact tests now, though they still seem to be testing at a preset height for the bumpers.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/side_test_info.html

I would also point out that I do not, nor likely will ever own a truck or SUV and could agree that as a general rule that cars are safer than said "large vehicles for a wide variance of reasons"
I would still agree with Funk though in that if said "large vehicle" sideswiped the SMART car, it would likely be toast. Whereas the SMART car sideswiping the SUV probably would not cause nearly as many issues. Rear impact would be even more noticeable in terms of vehicle damage due to differences in bumper heights. This additional damage may result in damage to cabins passengers or may not depending on how much open road is ahead of the car being rear ended.

Additional note:
Just because they didn't rag on the other things for being unsafe doesn't mean they didn't think it. It may have meant they didn't see a point. The fact that the only thing they could come up with against this car is that if it got run over by an SUV is a testament to the fact that the car isn't that bad. Now. Anyone who rides a motorcycle in an urban area AND says the SMART car is unsafe has some issues. I'll give you that one.
People didn't rag on the lancer because they were thinking of the Evo and all the sexy speed that comes out of it. And we all know speed kills. I can't defend the non-evo lancer.
People didn't rag on scooters because.. well, why bother. If your driving a scooter you get enough shit about it on a daily basis without having to discuss the fact that you are riding a coffin on wheels
People didn't rag on motorcyclists for one of two reasons: Don't fuck with the Hell's Angels crowd, or see the lancer comment. Personally, I think 2 wheelers are great on gas and suck in crahses. Living in Fl for a while with all the blue hairs there is no way in hell I'd ride a bike.
People did rag on the honda fit because... well maybe they missed the conversation, cause that car is ugly as shit. It is however marginally larger than the Smart car, not that that matters because it ugly as shit...(The gas mileage is less that some of the less abusively ugly options on the road as well so don't defend it from that angle)

If I had to commute god knows how far on a daily basis and park in a congested city, I'd give serious thought to the SMART car. As it stands I drive on average 5 miles a day... tops... The cost justification for my to purchase a new car, that has no ability for me to drop a baby seat in is absolutely nil. I'd rather have a vehicle that I can drive to work with reasonable gas mileage and still be able to cart the kid around on the weekends if the wife has taken her car elsewhere.