SMART wreck on Jalopnik

[Suze]

Originally Posted by Critical Thinker

.... I'd still rather be in my midsize SUV ....

Well, then that's where you should be!

good wishes --

[Neonspinnazz]

Originally Posted by Critical Thinker

Well, the Corolla is a relatively small car too, although not as small as a smart. I think size matters, but I don't think size is the ONLY thing that matters. Crumple zones and the ability to absorb impact force WITHOUT transmitting that force to the occupants is really the most important thing in my opinion. I always get a chuckle from the old timers who look down on today's cars because they sustain so much damage from any decent collision. I always tell them that they are supposed to get damaged like that to allow the occupants to walk away unharmed. I'd rather be in a 2009 Corolla than in a 1963 Lincoln if I smashed into a wall at 50 mph. The Corolla would be damaged beyond repair for sure, and the Lincoln might not be, but at least I'd have a better chance of walking away from the accident in the Corolla.

So using this logic, is the safety cell of the smart really such a great idea? Such a little car can't possible absorb much impact force in the small area between the headlights and the firewall area. And what about the rear? There seems to be no crumple zone whatsoever in that area? Have there been crash tests for smarts that were rear-ended?

Blah blah blah, you just don't seem to consider anything that the previous posters had said...

So, just like the many of the fools that appear on Yahoo Answers, pleading that the car is a definite death trap, let me give you a quick lesson on the car:

It got some of the highest crash test ratings of all subcompacts
It is owned by Daimler and Mercedes
Some drivers with a feather of a foot can reach around 50mpg
EPA Estimated 33/41 mpg
Parks anywhere
Great when gas prices are a killer
Speed limited to 90mph
0-60 in about 12.8 seconds. The fastest recorded was by Motorweek at 12.2 seconds.
USB 2.0 Upgrade makes the transmission shift faster and smoother.
Tridion Safety Cell
Exchangable body panels that cost not even a fraction of the cost of traditional body parts
ESP - Uses Bosch Stability Control systems to help keep you from losing control or your smart.
Hill Start Assist - so you don't fly back when starting up a hill
Roomy - It fits some of the biggest people (Shaq bought one)
Luxury - cabrio model - pano roof - A/C - iPod compatible stereo with optional subs - on 08 and early 09 models had Automatic headlights and automatic wipers
Halogen Headlights provide the path through the night
Rear mounted engine - Rear mounted engine - helps to provide better traction to the road. It also eliminates the need for the extra bulky parts required for a front engine. Also without a front engine, the front end of the vehicle could be as space saving as possible
Side airbags - an addon to the already rigid NASCAR quality safety cell
Turning radius of 27ft
Uses synthetic oil
Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV)
low MSRP sticker price
custom made for you or pick up an orphan

As for safety the smart has received the highest ratings of all subcompacts. And has received the IIHS highest rating of “GOOD”

'The smart brand (spelled in lowercase by the manufacturer) is a combination of Swatch, Mercedes and ART. The Swatch company had the idea for removeable body panels, but is no longer involved with the smart'. The smart brand continued this idea of low cost, high quality removeable body panels to this day.

And because of this, the smart was the only car to pass the IIHS' 2.5 mph bumper test. The damage caused to the vehicle would have to cost less than $500.The smart's body panel totalled around $190. All others had failed because of their poorly designed and expensive bumpers.

The smart plant in Hambach, France opened its doors in 1998 rolling the first city coupe off the line. But smart’s roots go all the way back to around 1996 when ideas were rolling and the first “smarts” were on the road.

[fpage77]

Originally Posted by Critical Thinker

Well, I'm still not convinced. The safety cell certainly seems like it is necessary in a car of such diminutive size (in the absence of normal size crumple zones), but I'd still rather be in my midsize SUV (4700 lb curb weight) if I were involved in a collision with the average vehicle found on U.S. roads.

Now if I were in Europe, I might feel differently because the roads seem to be filled with much smaller vehicles overall and driving a smart wouldn't be so far away from a level playing field. Physics still rule in my mind and I'd rather not be the lightest thing on four wheels even if I'm in a "safety cell"

Get lost troll.

[epbrown]

Originally Posted by Critical Thinker

Well, I'm still not convinced. The safety cell certainly seems like it is necessary in a car of such diminutive size (in the absence of normal size crumple zones), but I'd still rather be in my midsize SUV (4700 lb curb weight) if I were involved in a collision with the average vehicle found on U.S. roads.

And that's certainly your choice, but that line of thinking is not very intelligent. People tout the physics of size, but ignore the math. I recommend reading up on accident stats.

[Critical Thinker]

Originally Posted by rfernatt

I'm sure the Hummer driver below would 'rather' be in the school bus. I'm sure a Harley rider would 'rather' be driving a car IF he were in an accident. I'm sure the truck driver slammed at a railroad crossing would 'rather' be in the train. I'd 'rather' take the elevator IF I knew I would fall down the stairs. IF a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his butt on the ground. Statistically more people will die of heart disease and many other factors before they die in a small car, but I don't see anyone picketing McDonald's. Life is full of risk and we each have our own tolerance for it. Most of us don't go around thinking "I might get hit by a car IF I ride my bike or go for a walk" and never ride a bike or go for a walk. Enjoy your 4700lb vanilla-saurus and steer clear of school buses. I'm out of troll food. Sorry BB.

Sorry, but the "Critical Thinker" in me realizes that the road is filled with all kinds of different vehicles. So yes, the Hummer driver probably would rather be in the school bus. But anyone who happened to be in a smaller vehicle than the Hummer would also MUCH rather be in the school bus. Seems obvious to me...much like the food chain. Nobody wants to be at the bottom of the food chain, but I guess someone has to be, right?

[Critical Thinker]

Wow, what a group here. So very defensive about how well the car can handle a crash. Did I strike a nerve with my statements? Anyone that is confident about the car certainly shouldn't be so quick to resort to name calling and such in a simple and calm debate.

[Critical Thinker]

Originally Posted by epbrown

And that's certainly your choice, but that line of thinking is not very intelligent. People tout the physics of size, but ignore the math. I recommend reading up on accident stats.

So you're basically trying to say that the driver a 4700 lb SUV hitting an average sedan (say, 3200 lb Honda Accord) head on would be worse off than a "safety cell" equipped smart in a head on accident with the same Honda Accord?

Here's my guess: The SUV would probably absorb more of the impact forces than the smart would in the given scenarios. Therefore, less of the impact forces would be transmitted to the occupants of the SUV, lessening the chance of injury. In the SUV vs. Accord accident, I think the Accord would suffer more damage (occupants and all). In the Accord vs. smart accident, I think the smart occupants would suffer more damage BECAUSE there's just not much to absorb the impact forces, especially if the safety cell stays intact.

Anyone who wishes to prove me wrong could easily do so with by posting a link to an accident & story where a similar accident occurred and the smart occupants walked away and the midsize sedan occupants were seriously injured by their "crushed" car.

[Critical Thinker]

Here's an interesting video. Seems to go right along with my whole "physics" way of looking at things. And this is an offset head-on collision against a Mercedes C-class, a small car itself!

Smart Car Crash Test

[jwight]

Originally Posted by Critical Thinker

Wow, what a group here. So very defensive about how well the car can handle a crash. Did I strike a nerve with my statements? Anyone that is confident about the car certainly shouldn't be so quick to resort to name calling and such in a simple and calm debate.

Sorry but I have to agree; no need to be defensive. You can do the research on the NHTSA, IIHS and NCAP testing through Google. You can find actual crash experiences from smart owners at safeandsmart.com: home. And you can form your own opinion, as the smart owners here have done. Have a great, smart day.

PS - thanks for the video link, no way we would have seen that before.

[RussBarnes]

snopes.com: Save the Planet with a Small Car This photo shows what was reported to be a smart car, mainly because it ended up so small. I heard on the radio yesterday about it being a smart and had to check. Turns out it was a Ford Escape SUV. It does affirm what Critical Thinker is pointing out and that no matter how clever the engineers were at MB, you can't reinvent the laws of physics. Now as to being a butthead in the way he comments I do think Critical Thinker wins first place in this thread.