The Smart Car.. smaller isnt more dangerous

I saw a picture of a collision between one of the midget Toyotas and a Harley. The car pulled out from a lot into the path of the bike, which struck at the drivers door. The bike was halfway into the interior of the car, both drivers died. Buying a midget car to save a relative few dollars a year in somewhat foolish, from what I know about the structural design of cars and the laws of physics. :-(

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter
Loading thread data ...

You were not either. Does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that snug spaces are often more protected than large spaces...

Guess those scientist who gave the Smart Car a 4 star safety rating for side impacts and all around, are stupid also...

Reply to
GoMavs

A 4 star safety rating in side impacts... hmmm

All your information is made up. You're one of the people I was talking about Mack. Just because it's little must mean it is more dangerous right? When are you buying your 3 mpg tank?

Reply to
GoMavs

Speaking of, If you are driving a tank, and you hit a midsize or smaller sedan.. and you kill that person... you should be charged with wreckless endagerment or manslaughter... if your car does not have more than 4 occupents and is not loaded.

The issue is not most small cars but the fact that gas hogs afraid of getting in a wreck with another small car while being in a small car, are afraid of getting a boo boo.

Reply to
GoMavs

You know, some people ride things called "motorcycles".

Reply to
dizzy

dizzy wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

True, but then motorcycles aren't sold on the basis of how "safe" they are.

Reply to
Tegger

I'm not here to debate the subject, one is free to believe whatever one chooses. I have been simply trying to enlighten others on the subject. Personally I could not care less if one understands the subject or not, it's their life and their money they can spend it where they wish. If more people understood the dynamics of a collision they would be less like to buy smaller cars simply to save a relative few dollars a year on fuel, in my opinion.

My degree is in metallurgy and I spent the last 15 years of my 30 years as an automotive engineer as a structural design engineer, designing crumple zones and performing destructive cash tests of hundreds of all size vehicles. I understand the laws of physics, I KNOW that the larger the vehicle, of which the passenger compartment is not impinged, the more likely it is that properly belted passengers will have a far grater chance of surviving in a similar collision than will those in a smaller vehicle, even though they may have the same "star" rating.

The reason is we have more room into which we can design proper crumple zones, that must do their "work" in milliseconds, that will lower the terminal speed of the "third collision" to a point below were ones organs will strike their skeleton and ends their life. Bye!

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

If people drove smaller cars equipped with the latest of safety features then there would be less deaths... FACT!

There is no reason for a soccer mom with 1 kid to be in an expedition. None at all. If she kills someone in that hog then she should be held liable for it.

Reply to
GoMavs

No reason? Perhaps she's trading some gas mileage for some more safety for her child. Would you prohibit such a person from purchasing such a vehicle, on the basis that she doesn't NEED it? We don't NEED half the contrivances of modern life, but if we feel comfortable buying them, for a plethora of reasons, we should be able to do just that. Even if the fuhrer, GoMavs objects. Screw him, it's still a (relatively) free country.

Reply to
mack

All things being equal, you bet it is. There's more to crumple and more force being exerted on the smaller vehicle than the smaller vehicle is exerting on yours.

My car is a V6, and gets 29-31 mpg on the highway....it also carries five people in comfort and can park in the space necessary for a Camry. But you go ahead and spend your 12 grand +++ to get a peanut vendor's cart for all I care. Just keep up your life insurance premium.

Reply to
mack

As I said, you are free to believe whatever you choose, I could not car less. You are correct when you say "If people drove smaller cars equipped with the latest of safety features then there would be less deaths," but the fact is they would be even safer, properly belted, in a larger vehicle equipped with the latest of safety features, as well. One can not defy the laws of physics. LOL

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

We have gone over this. Bigger cars and SUV's kill more people than smaller cars, per million.

YES! Or else everyone would be driving abrams tanks.

Laws are in place to protect the masses. A fact of life you better get use to. P.S. the Fuhrer was a fascist and protector of capitalism.

You don't have the freedom to put poison in peoples food. You should not have the freedom to put a life in danger just for your own thoughtless convenience.

Reply to
GoMavs

Not really...

A 1 ton vehicle flying at a 1 ton vehicle is not going to do less damage than a 3,500 pound car flying at a 3,500 pound car.

Takle for instance the wreck I witnessed with the three SUV'... 2 people died and one was crippled, PROBABLLY from when they moved the SUV off of one half of her body. She was belted in.

Reply to
GoMavs

There is less of a reason to crumple in the crumple zone when the cars involved in the impact are 3,500 pounds.. vs two vehicles that are 1 ton or more.

We have standards on the road. Just because you feel safe doing something that can easily harm other people does not make it right.

Camry is a good car and I like them. As long as they are getting the MPG and a 4 litre engine. There is no reason to have a V6 if you are not living in mountains or in the hill country. I am not near as afraid of being hit by a Camry in my Yaris than I am by a single mom on her cell phone yelling at her kids in the back seat while going 60 in a 40, in her Expedition.

However, you are a liar if you are saying your V6 gets 31 on the highway. Maybe if you have your airconditioner off, your radio off, your lights off, no luggage and family or friends in the car, then perhaps. But the average v6 Camry gets 28 mpg on the highway and thats if those things are done. I know how they test vehicle MPG; they cut off everything... Now, if you are driving in the city like most folk, then you are getting 18 mpg per gallon and even less in stop and go traffic. Still good for a midsize car.

With that said, despite having served this country for 4 years (1 year in Iraq), and being in school fulltime. There is no way I could afford a 20 thousand dollar vehicle at this time.

I do have the right to buy a smaller car and feel safe from people driving tanks for no damn reason.

Reply to
GoMavs

A few observations about the report: Both compact cars hit the barrier at an angle, not straight head-on. The smart-car uses a rigid body design. So did the old Indy style roadsters from the 1940's and

1950's, and they killed a lot of their drivers while the car survived the crash with minor damage. Today's race cars use crush zones and tear-away parts to allow the driver to survive the crash with minor damage while the car is destroyed. Also, the speeds of the roadsters was about 1/2 of the speeds today (120-130 mph vs 220-230 mph).

You drive one of those death traps if you want.

Jack

Reply to
Retired VIP

Sky diving is an extremely safe sport. No one has ever died as a result of his parachute not opening and falling several thousand feet. It's only the sudden stop when they hit the ground that kills them. So, using your logic, if we put them in a rigid cage of some sort, they won't be killed.

Right?

Jack

Reply to
Retired VIP

Retired VIP wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Partially. But you surround that rigid cage with crumple zones. That's why all modern cars (except the "Smart", apparently) are designed with sophisticated crumple zones to bring the vehicle to a stop slowly, so the human body will not have to sustain unsurvivable G-forces.

Similar logic is behind the sort of giant airbags fire departments set up so people can jump out of flaming buildings and not smash themselves on the rigid pavement.

Reply to
Tegger

You are free to believe whatever you choose. LOL

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

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.