To whom it may concern

A (SMART CAR) ,Did i start something here? is it really smart? can i make it smarter? ....Also can it be driven in the florida climate, Please send specks. only have webtv for now thanks, ED.....

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Its as smart as the person driving it

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
OK then,if its that smart why dont i own? also how smart do u have to be ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Zorm turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:

Smart enough not to use web tv and to get a real newsreader?
Just a hunch.
--
www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org

powered by the lizard: www.opensuse.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But how is it in snow? I live in the New England area, I made a deposuite for one of these cars
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is that why I keep seeing crashed Smart cars? Just kidding. However, I did dig up a few youtube videos of smart cars being crash tested. Quite impressive stuff. If it had a crumple zone, it would be a really safe car. Since it doesn't, it isn't. That nearly impenetrable cage that protects the occupants likely makes the difference between open casket and closed, but little more.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The latest (2007>) Smart ForTwo gained a four star rating in the European NCAP tests. This rating indicates a very high degree of protection for vehicle occupants.
The earlier model performed less well but still gained three stars.
A careful look at this video of the actual NCAP test will tell you that the Smart ForTwo does indeed have a crumple zone. The 2007 model is about 4.5 inches (112mm) longer than the earlier model and all of this additional length is at the front of the car, accounting for the improved performance and a four star rating:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3wVvDYOXcE

I don't own a Smart but have rented several FourTwos while on vacation. I found them to be far more capable cars than their appearance would suggest.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I did not know about the new longer crumple zone. I am going solely off the crash tests that I have seen done with the smart car, and am not sure which generation I saw.
One thing I just noticed that I did not specify in my earlier statement is that I am talking about high speed crashes. That is where high levels of acceleration, (or deceleration if you 'd like to think of it as that) matter.
In the Smart the safety cage stays remarkably and impressively intact. It actually performs better than most cars. However, doing the math shows that even using a uniform deceleration--which is ideal, unrealistic, and definitely best case scenario--still yields a high deceleration experienced by the passengers. Simple physics can't be denied. It really is as simple as dividing the velocity at the beginning of the crash by the amount of time that the body is decelerating. This gives the deceleration (technically it is referred to as an acceleration.) This time is a function of how far the body is allowed to move after the crash, which for most cars is a function of how far it crushes. Technically the smart gives you a little more since the shoulder belts give.(This doesn't help for abdominal injuries though.)
The mass of the Smart works against it for head-on collisions. In most situations, unless the smart is going siginficantly faster, it means that the smart will move backwards following the crash. It won't just be the acceleration of stopping the car, but the car will experience the acceleration of the car gaining velocity in the rearward direction.
Even though the cage stays intact, and the belt tensioners allow some give to the shoulder belt, which lessens the jolt to the torso, there is still going to be a higher chance of casulaties at high speeds than a car that has more crumple zone.
So while it is impressive,and I'd even be willing to experience a crash in one at up to say 25 mph, I doubt a crash is surviveable at much over 45.
Look at this video.
http://crashtestvideos.magnify.net/item/LS8J2JD0GR5D9RQK
Is that with the new one or the old one?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's the old one. The frequent references to its three star rating in the EuroNCAP test should tell you that. The new model gets a four star rating and might just have achieved five stars had side airbags been fitted as standard - which they are only on the more expensive Smart models.
I find the car's crash performance nothing short of incredible. It's a really tiny car, but it performs as well as many larger cars in the demanding, realistic and representative EuroNCAP test. Some of Europe's best selling family cars fail to manage three stars, let alone four, and one didn't even manage one star!
Of course a larger car would appear to offer greater safety, but EuroNCAP results show otherwise in the case of the Smart.
Many people believe that older, larger Volvo and Mercedes sedans offer greater safety than a new small car. Fifth Gear, the same TV programme that staged the Smart tests, arranged for an offset head-on collision between a Volvo 940 and a three year old Renault Modus, which is very much smaller.
The Renault virtually demolished the Volvo. The combination of an effective crumple zone and a strong safety cell was remarkable in such a small car. Google on "Renault Modus" for details of the car, which is also sold as a Nissan Note. The video is available on YouTube in several versions. Just search on "renault modus volvo".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Here's the one that has been cut to show the most important content:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrkwdshZkv0

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is impressive. But we are pitting two cars from different generations against each other. The Volvo was designed and built before offset crashes were used in crash testing. It was never designed for that. The cards were stacked against it so to speak.
The Volvo was designed solely for straight on full frontal impacts. It by design uses the entire front end to absorb the energy in that sort of impact, and was made flimsy enough to absorb as much energy as possible to lessen teh acceleration experienced by the occupants. Since only half the front end was being crashed, it couldn't use the other half to soak up the energy, and smooshed too far. The Renault is actually designed for offset crashes. They mention this in the video. That bar going across the front helps to dissipate the energy into the rest of the front end. This also serves a second function. It helps reshape the front end in a way that lets the car slide off the object it is striking. If you notice the trajectory of the Renault versus the volvo, it keeps going after it rotates. It does a much better job of lightening the accelerations experienced by the occupants.
As far as passenger compartment intrusion and intactness the Renault did better, and this is also where the Smart shines. I've noted multiple times that the Smart is really great for passenger compartment integrity. The volvo did poorly because the engineers had not considered offset crashes where the energy is not absorbed by the entire front end.
So I think I've established that it is my opinion that the Renault did so well versus the Volvo because it was an offset crash, and it is a newer car with offset crashes taken into consideration in the design. Additionally, the intentionally-crumply crumple zone of the volvo helped absorb some of the Renault's energy.
Now if we shift gears and go to a full frontal collision, I think that the volvo would not cave like that since both sides of the passenger compartment would take the impact, the Renault would likely still stay intact, and the Renault would not be able to slough off the side of the Volvo. The end result would be that the Renault would wind up moving backward a few feet, the volvo would stop a few feet past the impact, and the Renault passengers would experience higher levels of acceleration than those in the Volvo.
But I am not really interested in debating the Renault versus the Volvo as much as the Smart. I know that in America we test cars against cars of the same size. I had a hunch that it was that way across the pond, and the video mentions that that is the case. I still believe that this is why the Smart scores so well.
Although we have seen that small cars can hold their own against large cars(Renault versus Volvo) and that the Smart can experience some really heinous crashes with almost no passenger compartment intrusion or deformation, I still do not see how the matter of acceleration experienced by the passengers in a real crash can be overlooked. I say real crash, because you aren't always going to be crashing a Smart into a Smart size vehicle. That is how it got its four star rating though. The real world pits much heavier cars against the Smart, and when they collide, the Smart occupants will experience much higher accelerations than those in the large car. This is why I believe the Smart car passengers will not fair as well. It is actually my reasoning behind my statement that a crash in a Smart versus another car would be the difference between a close casket and an open casket funeral. In the smart you'll still be uncrushed and still look good, but be dead from internal injuries. If it didn't have such a good cage, you'd also be crushed, thus the closed casket funeral. Either way the Smart occupants are not going to see tomorrow. When I say high speed I am thinking on the order of 45 mph and up.
In real crash tests the dummies are monitored for G loads, which is a measure of acceleration. This is factored into the crash test rating. None of the videos that I have seen with the Smart have reported what the peak levels are. They concentrate on how intact the compartment is. Seems like pure marketing to me. Until I get the whole story, I will remain skeptical of the real world crash-worthiness of the Smart car.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.euroncap.com /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you like YouTube videos of Smart cars, try this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pxs-dWwxaE&feature=related

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Now that smarts! Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The IIHS has released the crash test results for the USA Smart ForTwo, headed "First Institute crash tests of Smart car: diminutive two-seater earns top ratings for protecting people in front & side crashes." An impressive performance, I'm sure you will agree.
Here are links to the IIHS announcement and comments from elsewhere in the auto industry. If the links wrap on to a second line, you may need to copy and paste the sections of the link into your browser window:
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr051408.html http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/14/autos/smart_fortwo_iihs_crash_test/index.htm?postversion 08051411 http://www.autoblog.com/2008/05/14/iihs-releases-official-results-on-the-smart-fortwo / http://www.thetorquereport.com/2008/05/official_iihs_crash_test_resul.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.