Smart Car - Test Drive Report

[72doug2,2S]

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.

[}{arlequin]

Originally posted by kach22i
Really?

As the driver of two manual shift cars I was lifting off the gas for the shifts during most of the drive (old habit). It was not until the last part of the run where I tried "power shifting" and it sucked at it.

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'

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by Dottore
They have one of the best protected passenger cells of any car on the market. They over-engineered this like crazy - anticipating the safety concerns.

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.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by m21sniper
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 (if they are moving at the same rate).

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.

[grudk]

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.

[oldE]

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

[Dottore]

Originally posted by m21sniper
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 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.

[john70t]

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.

[fingpilot]

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.

[azasadny]

George,
Very cool! Thanks for posting this!

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by kach22i

Gotta ask the right questions.

...if you want to mislead your reader

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

[john70t]

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.

[K9Torro]

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

[kach22i]

Originally posted by }{arlequin
i noticed it was reluctant to shift if you didn't get off the gas, no matter what driving style...

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

[Porsche_monkey]

Originally posted by kach22i
70 mph is normal?

Not in Michigan, I don't care what the posted speed limit is.

What's it like on the highway?

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.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally posted by kach22i
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.

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.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by onewhippedpuppy
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.

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.

[Moneyguy1]

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?

[onewhippedpuppy]

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.

[notfarnow]

Originally posted by m21sniper
Doesn't matter. Less mass= higher fatality rate.

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.