Smart Car - Test Drive Report

[Porsche_monkey]

It is partly an issue of energy absorption. The energy proportional to mv². So velocity is a bit more relevant than mass, but regardless, the energy has to go somewhere, and crumple zones and distance (i.e. the front 1/3 of your car) help to absorb the energy.

The alternative is a tennis ball, which will bounce off the impact, and transfer a tremendous G-force to your body. A Smart car simply can't absorb the energy as well as a sedan could.

[Porsche_monkey]

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

Then you should be between 60 and 65 years old, because contrary to what you might have read in a thread about certain ethnic groups on this forum these drivers have the fewest accidents per mile driven.

Your argument would imply that a motorcycle is safest of all with a short stopping distance, lots of power (when required), and excellent mobility. (Other drivers being taken out of the equation.) And I am not sure I would agree with that.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by 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?

Yep, you are on to it, and PBH seems to be closing the information gap.

Dusty brains have we.

[notfarnow]

Originally posted by PBH


Your argument would imply that a motorcycle is safest of all with a short stopping distance, lots of power (when required), and excellent mobility. (Other drivers being taken out of the equation.) And I am not sure I would agree with that.

It's the "other driver's being taken out of the equation" part that throws it off. You can't take them out of the equation, unfortunately.

Either way... Smart cars are probably not the best vehicle to chose for a front-end collision. But that's not what they are really designed for. They are meant to be a small city & commuting vehicle, not a 70mph highway vehicle.

Makes sense to me.... but a Yaris makes more sense, IMO.

It will be intersting to see what smart cars go for when they are ~7-10 years old. Could be a cheap, fun 2nd or third car.

[m21sniper]

Glad to see that everyone but dottore has come to grips with the fact that a smaller, less massive object is at a disadvantage in a collision.

More massive objects impart more momentum into the struck object than lighter objects do. Larger, more massive vehicles have much larger 'crumple zones', and can therefore decelerate over time more effectively in a collision. (thereby reducing peak G forces of deceleration felt by the passengers. G forces will kill you all by themselves.)
Crumple zones are all about deceleration.

Dottore, you may have noticed- or not, perhaps- but small cars have itsy little crumple zones when compared to bigger ones.

What's more, the 'smart car' also appears to be extremely prone to roll-over on a side impact collision. It is very narrow abeam, and has an apparently high CG relative to it's height.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by m21sniper
Glad to see that everyone but dottore has come to grips with the fact that a smaller, less massive object is at a disadvantage in a collision.

Every statement or comment by Dottore has been accurate, it's unfair to take a jab at him.

A larger car/SUV is more likely to kill (some other car/occupant which is smaller), that it its self does not make it safer - just makes it more dangerous to have on the road.

I found a good article which deals with everything we have been saying, and even has more detail. Check out the link below if you are interested in auto safety.

http://physics.ius.edu/~kyle/P310/articles/trafficrisk.html

The most common weight disparity in a U.S. two-car crash is for one car to be 20 percent heavier than the other. In that case, the driver of the lighter car is twice as likely to die as the driver of the heavier car.

[}{arlequin]

yawn.

this thread was much better when it focused on impressions of people's test drives as well as some technical info such as pricing, options etc

[Porsche_monkey]

Yes, getting crushed to death should be a fringe benefit not the sole reason for purchase.

[}{arlequin]

i got news. this isn't a new car. it's been around for almost a decade now, i think... updated? sure, but nothing major.

i'm sure there are lots of euro statistics on "getting crushed to death" that potential shoppers could look up. no need to turn this into an online pissing contest of who remembers their fiziks better

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=260

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2007/01/more_on_smart_c.html

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070711/BUSINESS/707110312/1003

[Jim Richards]

small and smug:

http://www.egmcartech.com/2007/07/06/future-hybrid-and-electric-powertrains-for-smart-confirmed/

[kach22i]

Originally posted by }{arlequin
yawn.

this thread was much better when it focused on impressions of people's test drives as well as some technical info such as pricing, options etc

The bias against a light weight rear engined RWD car is alive and well sad to say.

For the record, one must assume a smaller light weight car is just as prone to what 90% (or above) all accidents are: SINGLE CAR EVENTS!

In a single car event (running off the road) a vehicle which is going to produce less force because of it's mass than a larger vehicle going the same speed is the one I'd rather be in, that is if it's designed for such conditions.

http://www.carnuts.us/viewtopic.php?t=1408&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[Dottore]

Originally posted by m21sniper
Glad to see that everyone but dottore has come to grips with the fact that a smaller, less massive object is at a disadvantage in a collision.

Of course a smaller object is at a disadvantage. But that was never the issue - if you bother to go back and read the relevant posts.

The passive safety engineered into the Smart is in fact very good - one of the top rated of all European cars. Google 'Smart Crash Tests' if you want to inform yourself about this.

Would I rather be in a Smart or a Mack truck? Stupid question really.

Should we all drive large stupidly engineered cars in order to be safer?

Should Smart be applauded for designing a small over-engineered car that stresses economy and safety?

You decide.

[m21sniper]

There was already a smart car crash video posted in this thread.

Conclusion of the video: "The driver in both cars would be dead.." in a 70mph impact with a wall.

It's the G's you see- the little cars do not offer as much deceleration over time due to much smaller crumple zones, so the eventual impact force transferred to you- the egg inside- is much greater.

There was just an article posted here the other day that blames something like 46,000 deaths on CAFE due to the regulations causing cars to get smaller on average.

You are safer in a 76 caddy in a collision than you are in a smart car. Especially on roads dominated by Light trucks, suvs, 18 wheelers, and all kinds of other delivery and construction vehicles.

I don't have kids, but if i did, i'd never put them in a little death wish mobile like this one.

[}{arlequin]

i agree w/ most of what's mentioned above except for the part of a '76 caddy'. yes, there is more mass and metal acreage, but back then crumple zones weren't really engineered (taken into account) so even though you're in a large vehicle, it's just a large brick.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts
The equation says that mass factors out, and is inconsequential (in a vacuum).

We are not going to start talking about Galileo and the leaning tower of Piza experiments are we?

[Porsche_monkey]

Originally posted by }{arlequin


no need to turn this into an online pissing contest of who remembers their fiziks better

If that was in response to my comment I apologize for the slight. It was meant as sarcasm.

[Porsche_monkey]

Two things: First off, I consider the smart car like a motorcycle, if everyone else drove one I would also. But with trucks and large cars on the road I will not drive a motorcycle. Same for the smart car.

Second, I have a very graphic set of photos of mini-car vs. truck, I have only looked at them once, and I wish I had never seen them. Here is the least disturbing one. Those of you looking for gruesome death and dismemberment photos can PM me. But I would advise against it.

Now, back to driving impressions....

[kach22i]

The turning radius on the Smart Car is awesome.

Pictues of any car verses large truck:


VW:



[IMG]vhttp://www.johncglennon.com/images/papers/10/truck.jpg[/IMG]

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by }{arlequin
i agree w/ most of what's mentioned above except for the part of a '76 caddy'. yes, there is more mass and metal acreage, but back then crumple zones weren't really engineered (taken into account) so even though you're in a large vehicle, it's just a large brick.

I got nailed by a mack truck doing about 30mph in my 76 caddy once- it's why i mentioned it by name. I suffered not a scratch. In fact, though it was mortally wounded, i drove the car away.

Had i been in a smart car, i'd be dead. Or in orbit, dead.

[kach22i]

The last word................................