Too bad we have all these laws that require expensive adaptions to the us market. I see one company in St. Louis that can get you into a Smart car for $26,000. That's insane.

Re: Re: Re: Smart Car - Test Drive Report
 

i only brought it up b/c in the original post you mentioned staying on the gas... w/o lifting. in my 2 brief days of driving one around (a brabus model :) ) i noticed it was reluctant to shift if you didn't get off the gas, no matter what driving style... it just won't do the 'video game/formula one' thang...

jim,
that's funny. btw, matt says 'thanks for the recommendation'

Doesn't matter. Less mass= higher fatality rate.

The laws of physics make no exceptions for trendy little shiit-boxes. If you get hit in this at a high rate of speed, you are at far, far greater risk than if you were in a car with just 500lbs more mass.

Fact.

I'm not sure what your degree is in or what college you went to, but I'll offer what I know and maybe we can figure this out.

A Mac truck weighing 10,000 lbs and a VW Beetle weighing 2,000 lbs crash head on.

Q1: Which vehicle experiences more force?

A1: They experience an equal amount of force.

F = MA?

Yes of course, that's Newton's second law.............the more mass, the more accelleration the more force there is........................right!

From the above, a lighter (less mass) vehicle will exert less force on a concrete wall than a heavier vehicle.

Now that the high school physics is out of the way, can we talk crush zones and rate of energy absorbed?

Gotta ask the right questions.;)

If they actually price them at 14K, that would be reasonable. But I've heard the number will be closer to 20K, and would expect a premium for the first few months before the novelty wears off. They can be had now on E-bay for mid-twenties.

Agree that at the higher price, there are better choices, like the Yaris. Fiat 500 may be here in 2009/10, and that looks very nice. Let's hope we get the 'Abarth' version. I would definitely consider that as a daily driver here in LA.

I think the Smart will be a hard sell here -- more of a 'toy' for urban, eco-conscious, latte-sipping types than a functional vehicle. Now, if gas doubles in price... who can say.

A 'hotted-up' version would be amusing.

A neighbor of mine was looking hard at one. They have a Subie wagon for trips, but he wanted a vehicle for the 6 mile commute.
Problem #1, the entry-level price cars were 'not available' at that dealer (Halifax), so you were automatically in for another couple of thousand $.
Problem #2, The salesperson was a pr!ck.
My neighbor 'took a "Fit" (Honda Fit, that is) ;)

Les

I guess you don't watch a lot of Formula 1. The passive safety engineered into the drivers cell, and the cells ability to absorb energy is critical.

Most household residences have more than 1 car, and drive less than 10 miles to work-with most of that being in the 25-50mph range.

Apples to apples folks. 1978 Volvo saftey=No. Hyabusa acelleration=No. Honda insight mileage=No.

Have driven one extensively in Europe. Will carry two people and one bag. Plus a purse if she will put it on her lap. Maybe a couple of drink cans as well. Not much more.

On the open motorway, you can safely leave the pedal on the floor. Will do 120KpH. Radio is spectacular, A/C is even better. Sips fuel. Handles more than adequately. Engine by Mercedes.

I suspect it will not reach here without protest from Detroit.

George,
Very cool! Thanks for posting this!

...if you want to mislead your reader:D

A bug on your windshield at 80-mph shares equal force at impact, your windshield is dirty...the bug is liquified. The Smart is a bug on the windshield of a Duelly:D

Should the usage of duellys by their owners be limited to only need-on-demand permit then?
Mabye buyers of those rolling walls should have to qualify through higher driving requirements- such as 10 years driving experience and bonded.

Hmmm, mabye I'll have to get a class C and use the Kenworth TO more "assertively" towards those little six wheelers driving around me. Change that thought, it's murder plain and simple.

I have driven the Smart roadster in Europe, I thought it was kinda neat for an around the city/town little car. There is even a sport version by Brabus made.

Todd http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1184902180.jpg

Re: Re: Re: Re: Smart Car - Test Drive Report
 

I agree, but it is something one could quickly learn to deal with.:)

If you mean 70 mph is too slow, then you live in an area with a lot less traffic congestion than Toronto. Yes, it's slow for off-peak driving, but at rush hour 30 mph is good here.

He says it is fine at 70 mph, you 'get used to it'. I guess that means the relative size, and the perception of travelling fast inside a pop can.

He also says 70 mph is about the top end, and he wouldn't want to go faster, even if he could.

I believe he uses 4 litres per 100 kilometers, which you all know would be 70 miles per gallon (imperial) or 55 mpg American.

Compre this to a diesel Jetta which uses about 6 litres/100 km, or 50% more fuel.

Not a force question. If neither vehicle is accelerating, force will actually be zero (until the rapid deceleration at impact):). At least using Newton's law.

It's actually a dynamics question, momentum and impact. Momentum is 1/2*m*v^2, i.e. momentum is dependent on mass and velocity. Needless to say, not a good deal for the Smart car. You can calculate the impact energy imparted upon both vehicles, but I'll be damned if I can remember how. Plus, I'm too damned lazy to go look it up.:D

The part I remember is that both sides of the equation must be equal, which is how you find the parts you don't know.;)

I also am a bit lazy. In a collision, the more massive vehicle would have more momentum and the less massive vehicle would not only come to a stop, but would reverse direction since the more massive vehicle would still be moving...Does this make a difference in the equation?

Yeah, that's how it works. Both sides are equal, conservation of linear momentum. Seems like you have to do it in two parts, V1 -> 0, then 0 ->V2. V2 being the velocity (+/-) after the collision. You would also have to know the energy absorbed by each vehicle to make an accurate calculation. For an elastic collision you would have a V2, but this would be inelastic (as in, cars don't bounce off of each other). In this case, seems like you would assume V2=0 for both

1/2*m*(V2-V1)+dE=1/2*m*(V2-V1)+dE

Something like that. With both cars having the same initial and final velocity, the smaller massed car would experience a large change in energy that would either have to be absorbed by the structure or give the car additional momentum.

This is all too rusty, it's been a few years.

Fatality rates are not just about what happens in a collision, but also about how LIKELY you are to have one.

1) Two vehicles, 2500# & 5000# are driving side by side, when they round a trun to find a tractor trailer jacknifed in front of them.

Which one stops in time?

2) Two vehicles lose traction on a slick road, and slide towards the ditch.

Which one goes into the ditch at a higher rate of speed?

For safety, I'd take a small car over an SUV any day...especially in the winter.