76 Replies to “Smart Car”

  2. Looks like it disintegrated on impact, which is exactly what it is supposed to do. The car is supposed to take the brunt of the crash and crumple.
    The mass of an automobile is only tangentially related to safety. While a small car hitting a far larger vehicle is at an obvious disadvantage, it is perfectly possible to build very small vehicles that are extremely safe. Why do you think so many Formula One drivers walk away from 200 km/h crashes into walls. Their vehicles weigh about the same as a Smart Car.

  3. You missed the point about the driver in the smart car being in critical life threatening condition andthe guy in the mini van had minor injuries. These are not f1 race cars. They claim they are built almost identically to a fighter jet cockpit. but there is a reason the f1 race cars cost over a million bucks, the fighters cost tens of millions of dollars and a smart car costs about 40k(a ripoff in my opinion). They are truly death traps.

  4. One question. Where is the Smart in that car?
    Crumpled is a bad descriptor here Steve. Disintegrated and destroyed is more accurate. But hey, if you like your Smart car, keep on rolling. Watch out for big mosquitos though.

  5. F1 racecars have cages around the driver. A smart car is just a little tin can with wheels on it powered by a lawnmower engine. This and all the other clown cars like it should be banned.

  6. Yes, Kate, a question. I still ride a motorcycle, do you? Being smaller than a Smart it can give you even more chance of not getting hit by larger vehicles, but even less protection if Plan A fails.

  7. Yes, the car is supposed to take the brunt of the impact and crumple. The major difference is that when the small-sized smart car crumples, the entire car has crumpled from front to back, including the occupant within, now crumpled in critical condition in the hospital.
    The van has crumpled as well, but only from the front to the dashboard. Hence the occupant remains uncrumpled, in fair condition in the hospital.
    Take a look at the pic showing the crumpled car from the side.
    I don’t think anyone can seriously look at those pictures and claim both vehicles are equally safe.
    F1 cars are safe because the cockpit of the car is a nearly indestructible survival cell unlike anything you will ever see in a commercial vehicle.

    The survival cell is surrounded by deformable crash-protection structures which absorb energy in an accident and features a roll-over hoop behind the driver’s head, made of metal or composite materials. The survival cell’s flanks are protected by a 6mm layer of carbon and Zylon, a material used to make bullet-proof vests, to prevent objects such as carbon fibre splinters entering the cockpit.

    All that being said, the smart car is still much safer than a motorcycle, and if I remember correctly, Kate lovers her motorcycles.

  8. I’m curious about that, Smart cars last I checked had a surprisingly decent accident rating ( as do Mini’s) , that may not translate into real-world accidents doesn’t entirely surprise me.
    I recently changed vehicles to something (a Minivan) about twice the mass of my previous ride, and where my derriere is about neck height to where I was previously. I have no doubt both vehicles are very highly rated, I also have no doubt which one I’d rather be in when the crap hits the fan.
    I have no doubt that the minivan rode up on that smart car and basically crushed parts of it that are not meant to have a 4000lb object smash into them. F=MA,
    There’s a difference between the real world and “accident tests”, and that is that order to be fair test have to occur in rigidly defined ways. Inthe real world cars act very differently, it’s not that the tests are bad, they are just limited.
    I’d ask the cops and insurance agents, and trauma surgeons, what they’d rather drive.
    I’ll bet “big and heavy” wins.

  9. Anything with an enclosure is safer than a motorcycle.
    If you think economy cars should be banned, why stop there? Ban motorbikes, ATVs, snowmobiles, and hand gliders.
    In fact, why not decree that all vehicles must be at least as solid as a tank (minus the gun)?

  10. F=ma in pictures! There’s no cheating the laws of physics. And the (gas-powered) Smart car doesn’t even get particularly good fuel mileage! It’s a fashion statement. Nothing more.

  11. I suspect that the more armor you have to absorb the energy of the impact, the safer the vehicle. Additionally, it is always safer to keep the occupant from being ejected, so the more enclosed, the better.
    So I agree, big and heavy wins as long as the big and heavy is designed to both absorb the impact of collisions and to prevent occupant ejection.
    Good point about the F=ma. It’s almost like an arms race, as bigger cars hit the roads, with more humvees and SUvs, that makes everyone else less safe. A road with only smart cars on it is just as safe or safer as a road with all types of vehicles.
    In other words, it’s not just the car you’re in that determines your safety, it’s the size of the car that is hitting you as well.

  12. Crash tests are also done at speeds of around 30-40 MPH. If this was on a highway the combined impact speed could have been as high as 120 MPH. Even if it was a low speed street the combined impact speed could have been as high as 60 MPH if there was no time to brake.
    In either case, what passes at 40 MPH might fail spectacularly at the higher speed.

  13. I agree with the boys. Yeah, the smart car isn’t the best place to be in a car crash.
    By the same token, being in a country run by safety Nazis, nannies and busy bodies is no improvement. Goddammit – I SHOULD be able to ride my motorcycle on a deserted back road without my helmet on. I SHOULD be able to drink two beers, get behind the wheel and drive home without some damned bed wetting fink getting her panties in a twist. People that are all for railing against these behaviours will go quiet as church mice when the 4 ft. woman, who can’t see over the dashboard, can’t speak English because she’s from Banglidesh – gets behind the wheel.
    This is not my petard and I won’t be hoisted on it.

  15. scf syas “So I agree, big and heavy wins as long as the big and heavy is designed to both absorb the impact of collisions and to prevent occupant ejection.”
    That’s why I drive a nearly thirty-year-old long-body Mercedes diesel and I love to park alongside SMART cars (which might fit in my trunk).

  16. Wait a second, I was always under the impression that these “cars” were not meant for highways where the speed limit exceeded 80 KMs an hour. Or am I missing something?

  17. I was going 120 on the Trans-Canada near Salmon Arm and one of those silly things was trying to crawl up my tailpipe!
    You guys beaking off about motorcycles are missing an important point. Motorcycle riders KNOW that their unarmored butts are out in the open! A “Smart” (sic) car on the other hand is enclosed and thus provides the driver with what is clearly a false sense of security.

  18. Steve Macdonald said: “The car is supposed to take the brunt of the crash and crumple.”
    No, the body work is supposed to crumple and the passenger area is supposed to maintain its integrity and protect the passengers. Which profoundly did not happen here.
    Note that the dashboard area of the Smartcar has filled the foot well and pushed up and over the seats.
    Note that the windshield frame has pushed back to within a foot of the upper seat.
    Note that the car overall is about half its normal length, and has skewed pretty far to the driver’s side.
    This is what engineers call a complete structural failure. Which happens when Germans design teeny little cars for credulous European idiots to drive around Paris in and put all the weight in the back of the car. It might have done better in a rear-ender, but only if it was the first car in line. It being a convertible didn’t help either.
    Compare with the damage to the minivan. From the front view picture, I don’t think the windshield was broken.
    Minivans are crap, structurally. Yet the minivan survived just fine. If the Smart Car had hit the F-250 I posted the picture of above, I’m pretty sure the truck would have just driven over it and had almost no damage.
    That’s why I drive an F-250 and not a Smart Car.
    Word to the wise, the “Fix It Again Tony” FeeeeeelIt 500 makes the Smart Car look like a tank. I’m surprised I haven’t seen one spontaneously disintegrate yet. Couple more years of Ontario road salt and I’m sure there’ll be Fiat 500’s breaking in half all over the place. Not one of those micro-cars like the Yaris, the Feelit, the Fit, the Dumb Car, the Cobalt are safe at collision speeds above 25 miles per hour. I see them on the highway and I cringe.
    You can’t compare a micro car to a motorcycle. Motorcycles are a completely different conversation. Motorcycles are supposed to be unsafe, that’s the whole point of them.

  19. The SMART car driver should be thankful he wasn’t smacked by a Tesla S ( 4600 pounds ).

  20. put a mower deck on a smart car and the thing may be useful. They do not achieve their intended goal, and as some one about mentioned, most owners are making a statement (a stupid one at that), as to bikes, if you can’t drive one, stay of the suckers. They are much more maneuverable and agile than cars, so you can get out of the way easier.

  21. The biggest problem with smart cars is the size of the car itself. Crumple zones need space to work their magic, as they crumple and absorb the energy of the colliding vehicles. The entire smart car is so small, there is no space for the energy to absorbed. And when the car goes from 80 km/hr to zero, the amount of deceleration the body goes through is much higher when the distance is reduced from about a meter of crumple to a half meter of crumple zone or less. Look at an F1 car, the crumple zone from the nose to the driver’s feet is almost as long as the entire smart car.
    Engineering and design can only do so much, it cannot violate the laws of physics.
    FYI I drive a full size 4WD pick-up, because I want to be able to get there, and to survive if something goes wrong.

  22. scf said: “In other words, it’s not just the car you’re in that determines your safety, it’s the size of the car that is hitting you as well.”
    Broadly speaking, assuming commercially available vehicles, this is true. Again, that’s why I drive the F-250, its the biggest barge you can get without all the heavy truck licensing BS. Once you go over 1 ton they really ream you, and duallies get crap mileage.
    I had a patient once that survived two 50mph+ rear-enders in two different 1970’s Cadillacs in the same year with nothing more than a stiff neck. Sitting at a stoplight in Phoenix, guy ran into her at full speed with some kind of small econobox. Few months later, same again. Daddy bought her a -third- big freakin’ 70’s Cadillac.
    Race cars are like motorcycles. They are a different conversation. A Class 1/2 1600 Baja car isn’t much heavier than a Smarty car, it can jump ten vertical feet, do an end-for-end roll over and take a bullseye from a Trophy Truck without injury to the driver. But its not what you want to be going down to the grocery store in to buy chips.

  23. Yeah well, I generally reside about 100 miles from the GTA….not a great place to visit…livin’ thar’s completely outa the question.
    Back before turning 65 separated me from my “A” license I would say thar’s only two ways I’ll drive in the GTA….on my bike or a rig…..with one ya can dodge and with the other they do.
    Edward Teach has a point about that “clearly a false sense of security”…..which fer some reason evaporates when the bike they just cut off is now on their six……just keep following….nothing else (cell phones)…..in their panic to evade (fueled by projection/prejudice perhaps) they will screw up and dash their security blanket into a tree or something…..
    then ya just casually ride away….

  24. Smart car with either a dumb driver or which met a dumb driver – not that a motorcycle would fair any better.
    Is the van rotting out from all the sprayed battery acid?

  25. Looking at that wreck I can’t tell if I’m looking at the side, front, or rear of the car. Nor can I tell what model of car it used to be!

  26. We should go back to first principles here. The Smart car was driving properly. The driver of the van was 77, had a medical episode and crossed lanes.
    The logical side of this argument is to ban old people from driving, not banning smart cars. It’s pretty clear that elderly drivers are the dangerous thing in this conversation.

  28. In Alberta where 3/4 trucks are the norm, you would be a speed bump that someone might not even notice they hit. No crumple zone will help you in this province.

  29. So, the smart car occupants are still alive… After hitting a minivan. How well would you fair on your motorcycle Kate? Where’s your point. Should we ban motorbikes? I don’t anticipate a response.

  30. From the article: “The driver of the compact car, Joseph Laroue, 32, of Colora, remained in critical condition …
    Well, that’s one way of putting it: the compact car. I guess so after it’s been hit head-on by a van.

  31. Your typical Volkswagen Diesel will match or exceed the smart car’s fuel economy and you get a back seat, trunk, and a safe vehicle. If safety takes a back seat to fuel economy then you want an old Citroën. AX Diesel – 80 mpg. And they even have a pocket in the doors that will hold a bottle of Wine for when you get thirsty.

  32. In Australia, a lot of the vehicles had “roo bars” — those protective grilles on the front of vehicles that protected the front end from damage arising from hitting kangaroos and wallabies on the roads.
    Maybe when we install them on vehicles here we can call them “smart bars”.

  33. Heh. I drive a 5,000 lb. SUV.
    I’m no fan of Smart Cars, however it’s true that cars are designed to absorb damage (i.e., collapse and crumple), and that a well-designed small car hitting a solid object can be safer than, say, a 25 year-old pickup truck which is indeed a death trap compared to almost anything on the road short of a motorcycle.

  34. Jon…using your logic….the driver of said “smart” car also has a pretty serious medical condition,(besides the obvious).S/he should be banned from driving for be a leftard trying to feel smug.
    Did u even read the article,Tim? And any biker would be still motoring down the road,after swerving a wee bit to miss the van.

  35. Geesh, you actually expect a reply? a motorcycle is no comparison to a “smart” car. On a motorcycle you know it is more dangerous to drive than the family minivan but nobody tells you the danger of a collision in a four wheeled shoebox. Hint: You need a special license for a motorcycle.

  36. Fascists, Environmentalists, Lefties, Progressives and Commies drive these little weanie vehicles. When they die, that is fewer voters for The Shiny Pony, NDP, Liberals and Democrats in the US.
    All lefties in North America should be forced to drive these. End of problem.

  37. So why is it called a “Smart Car”?
    Note that Daimler didn’t call it a “Mercedes” for good reason.
    Now that was pretty smart of them!
    (You’ll also notice they didn’t call it a “Safe Car”.)

  38. BS. Small cars are dangerous. NHTSA says so, they don’t fare well in 1/4 head on crashes and this document shows that the lighter the car the more likely a fatality. Do some searches on this site, small cars are safer than cars 20 years ago, but look at a 1968 Camaro next to a 2014, the new one is huge in comparison. This is all to meet collision requirements. New small cars today are as big as mid size cars 15 years ago, just look at them side by side on the street. Look at the new “Mini”, it dwarfs the original – it’s as big as most mid size sedans. Just look. I don’t know how many times I look at cars that you might perceive as a small car but then see it beside an older version of what would be a mid size car and the new car is much larger.
    http://www.nhtsa.gov/search?q=small+cars&x=0&y=0

  39. All this criticism of smart cars evades the reason so many buy it – the maudlin emotion of ignorant lefties who feel that driving one shows they ” care “. I think that trumps any con argument on the smart car for them as the only thinking so many enviros ( or any other followers of popular lefty causes) engage in is groupthink.

  41. Don’t be stupid. Like much of the discussion in this thread, it misses the point. The reason why most people drive smart cars has nothing to do with being a subservient lefty. It has to do with the sheer lack of space, both driving and parking, in large cities. Never been in a large parking garage, have you? Never seen the number of spaces only big enough for small cars? Both width and overhead?
    The smart car serves a very different purpose from the F150 or a minivan. It’s intended for commuters in large urban cities in which most of you don’t live. It’s NOT intended for long distance highway driving. By the same token, you have to be a complete idiot to try maneuvring an F150 in downtown Toronto during rush hour.
    And for the folks making silly claims about motorbikes, as someone noted above, those things are supposed to be dangerous. For those who make claims about maneuverability, fine, I’m bored now. Go look up the relative mortality statistics and stop wasting my time.
    And for the amateur physicists out there sounding off about F=ma, fine, geniuses. By your logic, please explain how the body damages a bullet on impact and not the other way around. When you can come back and talk to me about reflective forces, then we can talk.

  42. I’ll be responding to the various criticisms in this thread as soon as I can locate the word “ban” in my post.

  43. By the way, I’ve “maneuvered” an ’86 Dodge Ram 150 in downtown Manhattan traffic during rush hour. It did stop and go with the best of them.

  44. cgh – What about 18 wheelers? Do they avoid downtown Toronto during rush hour?

  45. The Smart is an intra-city car designed for the cities of Europe where the streets were often made just wide enough so that two ox-carts could pass each other. It was never intended to go head-to-head with North American market full-size vehicles at highway speeds. A mini-van would be considered a huge vehicle in Europe, only commercial trucks would be bigger.
    It’s a question of padding or prevention. If you drive a huge invulnerable vehicle, that is padding, you can be hit without being hurt. If you drive a smaller vehicle or a motorcycle you have no such padding so you have to prevent the accident, by taking advantage of the quick steering of your vehicle.
    Notice how wide the paved shoulder is, it is practically another lane. The Smart car driver could have avoided the accident if he had been alert enough to realize that a collision was imminent and flicked the wheel in an emergency lane change maneuver. In any case, taking the ditch is preferable to a head-on collision.

  46. Its all about physics and the kinetic energy each vehicle possesses at initial contact. If some want to remain delusional about how their little tonka car has a high safety rating and that will save them in a headon crash with a larger vehicle at city speeds over 40mph, well as the song goes “keep on believin”. Some useful information:
    http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/new-crash-tests-demonstrate-the-influence-of-vehicle-size-and-weight-on-safety-in-crashes-results-are-relevant-to-fuel-economy-policies
    http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/05/suvs-are-safer-than-cars-in-front-crashes-but-there-is-more-to-the-story/index.htm

  47. Ray,
    The name came from the person who designed it (don’t remember his name but it starts with S). The M is for Mercedes. And they thought it was a work of art. Thus SMart.
    AI learned this shortly after I first saw them in Germany, back in 2000.

  48. …yea, I have a bumper on my Duramax, just like the one in the Ford pic. Deer, small animals, drunken fools walking on the freeway and smart cars…. good solid 3/16″ steel protection from all of them
    I also have a crucifix attached to the main bar…in case of moose. then I simply duck under the dash and pray.
    might not help, but I feel better…

  49. By the way…I have in the past easily driven my CrewCab ShortBox Duramax truck in Downtown Centre of the Universe on more than one occasion and drove it out of downtown to Barrie/Hamilton and a few other forgettable dumps…not a big deal..and to answer your question, no I am not an idiot.
    I moved back…

  50. We should go back to first principles here. The Smart car was driving properly. The driver of the van was 77, had a medical episode and crossed lanes. The logical side of this argument is to ban old people from driving, not banning smart cars. It’s pretty clear that elderly drivers are the dangerous thing in this conversation.
    I read the article and was about to make a similar comment, but I’m more surprised at how many completely missed this most important point.
    Once people reach 65, they should be driver tested, then again at 70, 75, and every year after that. Some of these people no longer have the medical or mental capacity to be piloting a 4000 lb lethal weapon on public roads and we should treat them like any other form of impairment.
    What the victim was driving is immaterial. Everyone has to assess the risks and make a choice if they want to drive.
    My lightest road vehicle is 2200lbs, and the truck I drive in traffic is compact and solid at 4600lbs and I wouldn’t trust my life to anything else with the idiots and impaired former mayors that are let loose on the roads.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation