[Dan500]

I`m not sure if this has been posted already but on Yahoo Autos, Cars.com has a list of the 10 worst cars of the 2000`s. Guess who made #1? They say that it has a SUV type roll over problem...good thing they told me or I would have never known! Just when you thought you heard it all.

 

[NCC1701]

I gather from what I've read that smarts are kinda prone to rolling when hit by a heavier vehicle. The smart is hard like a nut. It activates the other vehicle's crumple zones, but when physics dictate that's not enough to neutralize things, the little booger bounces off and can roll. Wear your seat belts. It is light, and hard. In a serious collision, rolling is likely better than crushing.

There is not evidence I've seen that the smart is prone to rolling in a non-collision situation.

 

[John_H]

It's sad, really. A bad personal opinion shows up in print at a larger online site. Not pleasant considering the contradictions and factual absence.

http://www.smartcarofamerica.com/forums/f3/shoot-heart-cars-com-26040/

 

[forestacademy]

I`m not sure if this has been posted already but on Yahoo Autos, Cars.com has a list of the 10 worst cars of the 2000`s. Guess who made #1? They say that it has a SUV type roll over problem...good thing they told me or I would have never known! Just when you thought you heard it all.

Tell everyone so they will stop buying suv's

 

[jwight]

smart gets 3 stars from the NHTSA for rollover tendency: Safercar.gov

For comparison, the 09 Yaris liftback is rated 4 stars.

 

[forestacademy]

But what one is going to crush in on you when it does roll over

Yaris roof Strength-to-weight ratio 3.78 acceptable but best in its class
Roof strength details: Microcars

Smart roof Strength-to-weight ratio 5.41 Quite a bit above a Good rating
Roof strength details: Microcars

 

[Old smart]

Several test procedures and actual incidents have the smart knocked off its feet. I wonder if that is not a good thing - that by the impact imparting some of the smart’s inertia into lifting and/or spinning (and the occupants with it), the deceleration is not as instantaneous.

We are recently buoyed by the fact that if we do go upside down, the roof structure will fare better than any other vehicle in its near but larger class (the smart was tested against “minis,” not “micros”).

 

[jwight]

Personally, I'd prefer not to have a car roll over in the first place.

 

[Macaw]

I had a Suzuki Samurai the "original" alleged roll over king. I drove the poo out of it and never felt like I was going to roll over. And the smart is way safer than that!

 

[wildman]

I questioned the stability of my Samurai,, but that was after I put on over 9" lift and 33x12.5 on 10" rims. I have never questioned my smart, I feel as stable in it as any other car I currently own.

 

[Smart Enuf]

I have a tendency to roll over, but only if I don't feel like cuddling. Call it a design defect.

 

[bigcritter]

In the 3 books that I've read on our cars, they had a tendency to roll over very early on, when they were still being called 'city cars.' That's why they lengthened the rear axle, made the rear tires wider, and added/upgraded the ESP. So I don't agree with the premise that they have the same tendency to roll as certain SUVs did a number of years ago when all the 'hoopla' began after the Consumer Reports test. Personally, if I get hit, and I roll, bounce, jump up and down, spin and do the 'cha-cha'..........if it keeps me from getting crushed, seriously injured, or killed........then I'm all for it!!

 

[BobDiaz]

Given the wrong set of conditions, any car will rollover. Granted, a lower center of gravity helps prevent a rollover and a wider base helps prevent a rollover, but there are practical limits here.

Once the car does rollover, does it have the kind of solid roof support like the Smart Car has to prevent crush death due to the roof caving in? The funny thing is, that many of the "safer" SUVs on the road do NOT have the necessary roof support, yet there are the people calling the Smart Car a "Death Trap".

Bob Diaz

 

[PerryA]

The photo in the news clipping appears to answer my question for SUV drivers. . .what if you're hit by a Smart Car? Perhaps it is the SUV driver who should be worried, not the Smart owner.

The type is a bit fuzzy, but it looks like a 25-year-old woman driving the Smart ran a red light and hit the Mercedes SUV that was entering the intersection on the green light. The SUV had 40,000 Euros damage. The Smart looked like it had a broken front panel, but I didn't see any real description of damage.

Sorry, 40-year-old drive of the SUV it was 45,000 Euros of damage.

 

[Miss Mercedes]

The photo in the news clipping appears to answer my question for SUV drivers. . .what if you're hit by a Smart Car? Perhaps it is the SUV driver who should be worried, not the Smart owner.

...

Oh man, time to ditch "The Beast" quickly! I don't want to get laughed at by a smart in a crash!

I've never heard of a crash where a smart had rolled because the driver took a smooth curve. Those articles belong to the SUVs, which always fail at smooth curves!

 

[NCC1701]

I've never heard of a crash where a smart had rolled because the driver took a smooth curve. Those articles belong to the SUVs, which always fail at smooth curves!

It figures that SUVs can't handle smooth curves.

 

[DarkTalon]

My question is why is smart letting this kind of press stand, shouldn't they be doing a safety campaign to prove it wrong? This is the sort of press that absolutely kills sales.

 

[Pops900]

Never knowingly been to cars.com...

...and I never plan to. This bs article is one good reason why. They have succeeded with their base plan - to get people to log on to the site. Bottom line goal with sites like this (similar to news, editorial, etc) is to say it how ever you want to, just get people to visit. Visitors are needed to view the ads, the more ads viewed, the more money made for the site.
How many smart enthusiasts would have gone to cars.com if it would have published a true accounting? I bet not as many as are visiting now, just to see what supposed damage is done.
Our rabid support of one of the safest cars on the road (yes, I really believe it for overall safety factor) is good for smart, but also allows a feeding ground for others to stir up controversy. In this case, cars.com makes some money off of it. Other examples of the same thing have been past questions on 'yahoo answers', and the cartoon site a few weeks ago. I take the bait every now and then, but try to avoid it when possible.

Let's be careful out there,
Pops and Carlito

 

[jimvw57]

lets put this into the correct perspective... 99% of all cars involved in accidents have a driver sitting behind the wheel... 100% have tires, 100% have bumpers and seatbelts... Sounds like we should get rid of seatbelts, bumpers and drivers......

Most cars and trucvks have a 25% chance of landing on their wheels after a rollover...

Statistics are just numbers from people with nothing else to do!

 

[wiltjk]

Several test procedures and actual incidents have the smart knocked off its feet. I wonder if that is not a good thing - that by the impact imparting some of the smart’s inertia into lifting and/or spinning (and the occupants with it), the deceleration is not as instantaneous.

I have been contemplating exactly what Old smart suggests for some time. Watching commentary on iihs.org suggests the smart's ping pong ball effect is a bad thing, however, I'm inclined to agree with Old smart in that it is effective dissipation of energy that otherwise might be causing more damage if attempted to be contained.

The downside is when bouncing places you in further harms way. Still, I'd much rather bounce than be smashed, stomped on, or otherwise squished