DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.

That little two passenger death trap ought to sell well against all of the four passenger, $10,000 to $12,000, cars available in the US. LOL

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter
Loading thread data ...

yeah, we europeans never have had a big vehicle in our lives.

Heck, I went and looked up the same vehicles on the europNCAP rating, and on safercar.gov - Every vehicle that was on both scored much higher in the US ratings than the EU ones - maybe EU cars are safer, or at least rated more stringently.So, just as a supposition, if a vehicle was that dangerous, it wouldn't be allowed in the EU, and oh, thats where the SMARTs been for many years now.

Reply to
flobert

The Focus is described as a semicompact car. This size of vehicle is at the price sweet spot in the United States.

I'm aware of both of these vehicles, but we're talking about the Smart here. It is going to be expensive and what are you going to get for this money? A compact car will be a much better buy.

It will also probably be gasoline here, as US diesel fuel standards preclude the use of domestic European-market diesel engines.

Reply to
zwsdotcom

Just think of it as a stylish Gator or a motorcycle with training wheels, then the driver and passenger can feel safe.

Reply to
Ray O

The problem with a limited crumple zone is that the vehicle has to be much more rigid to minimize intrusion or deformation of the passenger compartment. Designing a passenger compartment that does not deform at 40 mph is not as difficult as designing a passenger restraint system that does not transmit all of the crash forces to the occupants, like a falling elevator.

For example, you could put someone inside a padded safe, and push it out a

4th floor window and let it hit the ground. The safe may be structurally sound, but the occupant is mushed inside.
Reply to
Ray O

true, but the way that f150 deformed, it didn't absorb much impact, /and/ mushed the occupants by intrusion - the worst of both worlds.

personally, as a guy that like to surf junkyards from time to time, i've taken the trouble to examine a fair number of wrecks. i'll take the vehicle that doesn't allow intrusion any day thanks very much - i'll take my chances on the effects of being punted around inside.

Reply to
jim beam

I saw a bunch of these earlier this year in Germany. They're smaller than you can imagine. Take a MINI and chop off a third of it. They also are higher and narrower in profile. I think you might get a paper grocery bag in the trunk area width-wise. I think they're only good for driving around cities; I'd be afraid of driving over 50 MPH in one of those.

Reply to
badgolferman

Ahhhhhh... no. 140mph head on and the F1 car explodes. But, that's the design intent. The only thing that escapes is the driver's tub. If a car did not dissipate the energy the driver would. Chances of survival in a

140mph head on impact which only crushed 8-10" of a car would be quite low.
Reply to
Mike Marlow

jim beam wrote in news:2PqdnaKiHuhwMjjZnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@speakeasy.net:

Now that's a cool hobby. And so peaceful...

Y'know, they make SUCH a BIG deal about "crumple zones". The term even makes it into advertisements. The NHTSA makes dramatic videos (vividly displayed in automaker adverts) showing the effect of such "crumple zones". The idea of the "crumple zone" is that the energy of the impact will be

*slowly* absorbed, so that Mrs. PorkPie's internal organs won't suffer G-forces sufficient to extrude their liquid contents into her minivan's cupholders and kill her.

Now -- get this -- all of a sudden, the "Smart" car does not have to have "crumple zones"! Somehow, it will violate all the laws of physics while protecting its occupants! Instead of slowly converting impact energy into deformation, the "Smart" is "bounced around like a pinball", so all the energy is dissipated in bouncing the car around. But wait..you're IN that car...

Transport Canada rigged frontal impact tests for 1998 model year cars to make sure automakers would have to install airbags without having the threat of legislation forcing them to do so. At the time of this occurrence (around 1996), a major bureaucrat boasted that TC had done this. This avoided the need for a vote in Parliament. I think the "Smart" benefited from that sort of rigging, and that this particular "rigging" was done in order to allow the introduction of the sort of car the commie pinkos liked.

Canada requires (and is the ONLY country that does so) that bumpers be able to absorb the forces of a 5 mph impact into a fixed object without damaging the car's "safety" systems". Well, have you ever looked at an actual "Smart" car? The only reason the lighting system is protected from damage is because it is quite high up, almost at windshield level. The wheels and suspension...hmmm...There is a 5mm layer of plastic between intruding objects and the tires and nothing else. Is that "safe"? The slightest bump, and your steering goes...

Seems to me that Daimler Chrysler have tugged at the enviro/safety heartstrings of the powers-that-be, and have convinced them that something as expensive and demonstrative as the "Smart" MUST be a Good Thing. Therefore the "Smart" should achieve certification for Canadian roads on account of its moral goodness, and nothing else. Seems like US lawmakers are now similarly in thrall to this nonsense.

My suspicion as to why the "Smart" shows low collision and injury rates? Because nobody under the age of 50 drives one. Nobody under the age of 50 can AFFORD one. 50-year-olds have collision rates far below those of younger drivers.

Forty inches between your steering wheel and the front bumper. Think about that. Go measure it against your own car. Go sit in a "Smart" once they become available, and think for yourself.

Smart is stupid.

Reply to
TeGGeR®

well, /i/ like it. i'm just a grease monkey.

crumple zones are definitely useful, but the truth is, many cars' crumple zones "activate" at speeds well below that necessary to prevent serious injury. it's a /fantastic/ mechanism for ensuring vibrant health of motor manufacturers and local body shops however. particularly when they're arranged such that the body shell becomes irreparable or seriously expensive at say 6mph. "fix or repair daily" are /experts/ in this. their initial deformation zones are usually /behind/ the engine, not in front!!! that's BIG $$$$'s and it's hardly enough of a slam to have even spilled your frappa-latta-mocha-chino.

to be honest, i've not seen this particular vehicle up close - it's a long time since i've been to europe or canadia, but i seriously doubt it has no crumple zones. the important thing is that it has a sufficiently strong passenger cell.

that used to be the case here in the states, but you can bet your sweet little rear end that the auto and repair industries scotched that pdq once they felt the bleak wind of dramatically fewer repairs/write-offs blowing around their sensitive parts. which they did for a few years in the 70's.

they would be if they weren't much more enthralled at the, er, "contributions" that big oil still lavishly slops around the d.c. area. do /not/ misunderestimate the impact this has on current nhtsa policy.

maybe, but a responsive nimble car probably has something to do with it too. in addition, if it's lighter, there's less energy to absorb.

energy = force x distance moved. for a given impact, if the force necessary to deform a crumple zone is low, it needs a larger deformation distance over which to absorb that energy. provided the deceleration rate does not exceed that which causes injury, and with seat belts and air bags, it's a lot higher than it used to be, there's no reason to have large scale deformation if more limited deformation does the job.

come on tegger, don't be bashful - how do you /really/ feel?!!!

Reply to
jim beam

Quite sure it is! However, I would submit that you haven't sussed my personal agenda in this case, so I will state it so you can comprehend! My personal agenda was to point out how flawed the study was that was cited. It was an evalutation of the sources cited. That and nothing more!

Dave D

Reply to
Dave and Trudy

There is some information about construction if you click on "why are they safe"

formatting link
Click on the MSNBC link or go directly here to see a crash test
formatting link

Reply to
Edwin Pawlowski

Yes, I noticed that. Europeans seems to use cars for transporting people only. Busses and trains, more people. Trucks, large and small, seem to move everything else. Been there (Rome, Gaeta, Marseilles, Toulon, Palma de Mallorca, Cannes, Antalya, Naples, Livorno, and many I don't remember that well) on liberty/furlough, Navy recently retired here. Lot of em just walk to the local market for daily foodstuffs if they live in town. Spanish seem the most likely to walk in western Europe. Live in rural S. central Texas. Need a vehicle to go into some town for groceries etc. that is friendly on gas. Local grocer is very pricey compared to big supermarkets selling same size/brand foodstuffs. Local Ace hardware (franchise) is similar in their prices. Unless its a lotta items or a few expensive ones, its not worth driving elsewhere. My Blazer S-10 is okay for comfort, but my VW wagon is the one I usually use. My opinion regarding very small engine displacement vehicles is that they should be given a break regarding pollution standards here in U.S. Imported or not. Not saying they should be immune entirely, just less stringent. Maybe pollutants per mile standard, say around 1.8L or smaller engine?

Reply to
Jonny

Maybe so but here in California, every now and then, someone starts talking about putting standards on lawn mowers. Never seems to get legs. Must be the dreaded lawn keepers lobbyist's.

Reply to
F. H.

They apparently use your skeleton in lue of crumple zones ;)

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

They say that is a great place to find a lot of the parts one needs for their Toyotas.

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

fud

Reply to
jim beam

I read in a auto magazine about DaimlerChrysler "BLUE TECH" engines that are a hybrid diesel that should get some impressive MPG's when they hit the us shores pretty soon. Daimler has been selling them in Europe for some time now and is about to start using these high tech motors in U.S. cars soon. I like my Honda but these new DC sound mighty impressive.

Reply to
Rob

Really, the physics of crumple zones is not rocket science. The stiffness of the zone determines the amount of force applied to occupants while the depth of the zone (for a given stiffness) determines the maximum impact speed the zone can absorb. Short zones work just fine, but become ineffective at lower speeds than longer zones.

IIRC there is considerable disagreement on how much deceleration a human body can safely withstand, and air bags complicate that. The major concern is aortic rupture, and air bags alone have been known to cause aortic rupture at speeds as low as 10 mph. It still doesn't change the shape of things - longer crumple distances are effective to higher speeds than shorter ones. Where the cutoff is for the SMART car is something I couldn't find.

Mike

Reply to
Michael Pardee

So let me state my post such that you can comprehend. One must further ask the question "Do the research reviewers have a personal agenda that may color his perspective, analysis, and findings?"

Reply to
FanJet

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.