TSA hasn't forgotten about us...

fgcason said:
Have you actually seen one of those things in person? If that thing gets hit be another vehicle, either the frame has to be completely rigid (very doubtful) or it'll accordian into thin crust pizza thickness between two vehicles. The crumple zones are measured in inches, not feet. Heck, I could probably competely destroy one and likely do serious damage to it's occupants with my motorcycle. At least on a motorcycle, you're high enough to see around things to anticipate what's about to happen plus have the escape option of going between stopped vehicles at a redlight. I'm certain that one of those can't have more visibility than a zero visibility restriction motorcycle.
Click to expand...

Actually, they did well in the crash tests.
The smart fortwo meets or exceeds all federal government crash test standards, including a 5-star side crash rating, and the highest scores for front and side crash worthiness and roof strength from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Click to expand...
http://www.smartusa.com/is-the-smart-fortwo-car-safe.aspx
 
Government bureacracies are mainly run by little dictators looking for chances to expand their power over the people.
 
sba55 said:
Ah, but they aren't. Your motorcycle is much more dangerous. Besides the problems typically associated with riding a motorcycle (handling, other people crashing into you, slipping in the rain, etc., - all problems that this car doesn't have), you also get ABS, something like 4 airbags, and more visibility.

I'd much rather drive a one of these than a 1998 Ford Exploder. Much safer in so many ways.

-Felix
Click to expand...

I'll take the Explorer any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
 
Hey, that last picture is a keeper... This sharp, young, fella was bound to be a hit with the ladies, in that hot buggy... Springs even, a top for rain, the horses have fly skirts, and he even put on his Sunday shirt for the photo - though he still is wearing the manure shoveling pants and boots so he might be a bit ripe (by today's standards, but societal norms were different then)...

denny-o
 
The part that crash tests leave out is momentum since the test is against a rigid brick wall. You can have all the crumple zones in the world, but my Ford Excursion will eat your Smart for breakfast and ask for seconds. 8000 lbs vs. whatever a Smart weighs - I don't care what kind of collision you're in, my truck is winning.

Frank's right - I'll take a motorcycle any day. If you actually believe ABS is a safety feature (I don't) there are motorcycles with ABS. They even sell ones with airbags now. What they have over the little tin cans is that they can fit into small spaces, which makes it much more likely that you'll be able to get through a hole that cars won't.

TSA? Blegh... time for a ranch in the middle of nowhere.
 
Saw a Smart car on the way to work this morning: there were two stickers on it: one for PETA, the other fo Greenpeace.

Smarts are today what the Civics were in the 70's/80's.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Doubtful they pass US crash test standards. Saw tons of them in New Zealand.
Click to expand...
They pass jsut fine. But the ones you saw in NZ are different than the ones in the US.

In either case though they are well built.


Keep in mind that in the US that trucks and SUV are held to a lower standard than cars. So this smart will be tested to a safer and higher safety standard than your run of the mill land yachts.
 
wsuffa said:
Saw a Smart car on the way to work this morning: there were two stickers on it: one for PETA, the other fo Greenpeace.

Smarts are today what the Civics were in the 70's/80's.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the Prius - you always see them being driven in the left lane going 15 mph under the speed limit with lots of stickers for saving the environment. Meanwhile the driver has no clue about the ecological havoc wrought by those batteries. Hey, it uses less gas, it must be environmentally friendly!
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Don't forget the Prius - you always see them being driven in the left lane going 15 mph under the speed limit with lots of stickers for saving the environment. Meanwhile the driver has no clue about the ecological havoc wrought by those batteries. Hey, it uses less gas, it must be environmentally friendly!
Click to expand...

It uses less gas per mile but then driving and driving and driving
(after all, it gets such good gas mileage) can negate the savings.
 
ScottM said:
Keep in mind that in the US that trucks and SUV are held to a lower standard than cars. So this smart will be tested to a safer and higher safety standard than your run of the mill land yachts.
Click to expand...

While there is truth to that, the trucks and SUVs will then crush the Smart without much similar damage. My 8000 lb truck will win, there's not much of a question there.
 
dmccormack said:
Your insistence that smart cars "pass just fine."
Click to expand...
Yes and that response was that they pass just fin to the US safety standards. Which you article does coroborate.

The feds at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration give the smart 4 stars on frontal impact and 5 on side impact.
Click to expand...
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/14/smart-usa-responds-to-iihs-crash-test-results/


So again what part of F=MA did anyone say that the Smart car is ignoring? You laid out this silly claim, almost as silly as your free VOR receiver claim from the other day. Can you substantiate any of it?
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
While there is truth to that, the trucks and SUVs will then crush the Smart without much similar damage. My 8000 lb truck will win, there's not much of a question there.
Click to expand...
Possible, you and I know there are a lot of factors that go into the survivability of the people inside the vehicle. Which really is the issue here, not who vehicle looks the worst after a test. I think the Smart is pretty amazing that something so small has some really inovative safety features that do enable the occupants to survive collision that some occupants of bigger vehicles might not.
 
ScottM said:
Possible, you and I know there are a lot of factors that go into the survivability of the people inside the vehicle. Which really is the issue here, not who vehicle looks the worst after a test. I think the Smart is pretty amazing that something so small has some really inovative safety features that do enable the occupants to survive collision that some occupants of bigger vehicles might not.
Click to expand...

I will agree with those points, and don't doubt that it has some nifty safety features, plus fits into most overhead luggage bins. :D

Certainly there are multiple things that impact survivability in a crash, but let's say I'm driving along in my Excursion down a straight and level 2-lane road and a Smart comes into my lane. We collide at the same speed. Assuming my truck weighs 8000 lbs (it actually weighs a bit more than that) and the Smart weighs 2000 lbs (I don't know the exact speed), I have 4x the momentum and kinetic energy. So when we collide, the Smart will have much higher acceleration values than mine.

That's a basic example, but in multi-vehicle collisions, it gets down to more than just how many stars. I'm happy to just try to stay out of them, it's worked so far. But we've all been on 2-lane roads with the idiot coming the other way who's a couple inches over the yellow line and your mirrors end up passing inches away from eachother. Happened to me yesterday.
 
ScottM said:
So again what part of F=MA did anyone say that the Smart car is ignoring? You laid out this silly claim, almost as silly as your free VOR receiver claim from the other day. Can you substantiate any of it?
Click to expand...


Please provide a quote of the "free VOR receiver" claim. :skeptical:

I won't repeat what Ted just replied, because it's as simple as dirt -- big, heavy object crushes small, light object.

Or do you need further explanation? :skeptical:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I will agree with those points, and don't doubt that it has some nifty safety features, plus fits into most overhead luggage bins. :D

Certainly there are multiple things that impact survivability in a crash, but let's say I'm driving along in my Excursion down a straight and level 2-lane road and a Smart comes into my lane. We collide at the same speed. Assuming my truck weighs 8000 lbs (it actually weighs a bit more than that) and the Smart weighs 2000 lbs (I don't know the exact speed), I have 4x the momentum and kinetic energy. So when we collide, the Smart will have much higher acceleration values than mine.
Click to expand...
That is true but is it survivable? Would it be more survivable if the the two vehicles were of equal size? One of the things about crash survivability is how the energy is dissipated and deflected away from the occupants.

Ted DuPuis said:
That's a basic example, but in multi-vehicle collisions, it gets down to more than just how many stars. I'm happy to just try to stay out of them, it's worked so far. But we've all been on 2-lane roads with the idiot coming the other way who's a couple inches over the yellow line and your mirrors end up passing inches away from eachother. Happened to me yesterday.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I do think the Smart has it up on other small cars. The video that I posted was pretty interesting comparison of two similar class vehicles. I really wonder what the comparision to say a typical sub-compact are?

Keep in mind where Smarts are designed to drive as well. These are not cross country highway vehicles. They are meant for city and suburban driving. Speeds are lower in those types of places. The collisions are not the out in the country road head on types. But more likely the typical intersection t-boning when some moron runs the red or a stop sign.

Like you said there is more to this than the star ratings.

I just downsized from Jeep Cherokee to a VW Jetta. The Jeep was 14 years old. WOW! am I impressed with all the safety features on the VW. I feel far more safe in that than I ever did in my Jeep.
 
dmccormack said:
Please provide a quote of the "free VOR receiver" claim. :skeptical:
Click to expand...
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=570053&postcount=10

dmccormack said:
I won't repeat what Ted just replied, because it's as simple as dirt -- big, heavy object crushes small, light object.

Or do you need further explanation? :skeptical:
Click to expand...
I understand F-MA quirte well. I am still waiting for you to explain why yyou think someone said that the Smart did not follow those rules? your the one who asked the question about the smart ignoring it and then tried to say that when I mentioned that the car passed the US NHTSA tests that I made that claim. Your misunderstanding of the English language aside, I am still waiting for you to make some sense out of your posting.

So I will ask again. Who is claiming that the Smart cars do not obey the F=ma law that you brought up?
 
ScottM said:
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=570053&postcount=10

I understand F-MA quirte well. I am still waiting for you to explain why yyou think someone said that the Smart did not follow those rules? your the one who asked the question about the smart ignoring it and then tried to say that when I mentioned that the car passed the US NHTSA tests that I made that claim. Your misunderstanding of the English language aside, I am still waiting for you to make some sense out of your posting.

So I will ask again. Who is claiming that the Smart cars do not obey the F=ma law that you brought up?
Click to expand...


Since I don't have all yer fancy learnin', we'll make this easy.

You get yourself a smart car, and I'll drive my 2005 F150 extended bed filled with 1000 lbs of manure.

We'll start from opposite ends of a parking lot, reach a speed of 60 MPH and then collide head on.

Then we'll discuss the merits of trucks and smart cars.

Whaddya say? :yesnod:
 
dmccormack said:
Whaddya say? :yesnod:
Click to expand...
I say I still do not see where anyone has claimed the law of physics are not in effect, which was your claim, and that whatever amount of caffeine you are drinking you need to cut it in half ASAP. Your postings are getting stranger and stranger. You seem to not understand the conversation is about occupant survivability, not vehicle damage.
 
ScottM said:
I say I still do not see where anyone has claimed the law of physics are not in effect, which was your claim, and that whatever amount of caffeine you are drinking you need to cut it in half ASAP. Your postings are getting stranger and stranger. You seem to not understand the conversation is about occupant survivability, not vehicle damage.
Click to expand...

You argued that the Smar Car passed certain crash tests.

:yawn:

As we all know, tests are staged events with limited parameters, and anyone with the simplest understanding of physics will conclude that a Smart Car ain't so smart on the majority of North American public roads.

Should you choose to purchase one, may you live long and prosper.

I'll choose an overpowered, underweight, nimble, agile motorcycle over a Smart car anyday.

That is all.
 
ScottM said:
That is true but is it survivable? Would it be more survivable if the the two vehicles were of equal size? One of the things about crash survivability is how the energy is dissipated and deflected away from the occupants.
Click to expand...

This is true, and I also didn't give a speed, which does have an impact. Let's say that we both hit the brakes, and we hit head on at 13 mph each (the supposed average speed of impacts). My Excursion will end up pushing the Smart and so the effective speed that we'll have hit eachother with will be slower on my end (probably more like 5-8 mph) and the Smart will be higher (say 20 mph). These are SWAGs, not actual numbers.

Both cars will be in the body shop, but I'd guess the Smart driver to be a lot more likely to be hospitalized. The car may be better at dissipating energy away from the occupants, but whether or not it can dissipate enough is the real question. There's no doubt that after hitting head on I'll push the Smart my direction a ways

ScottM said:
Agreed. I do think the Smart has it up on other small cars. The video that I posted was pretty interesting comparison of two similar class vehicles. I really wonder what the comparision to say a typical sub-compact are?

Keep in mind where Smarts are designed to drive as well. These are not cross country highway vehicles. They are meant for city and suburban driving. Speeds are lower in those types of places. The collisions are not the out in the country road head on types. But more likely the typical intersection t-boning when some moron runs the red or a stop sign.

Like you said there is more to this than the star ratings.
Click to expand...

Well, where the vehicle is designed to drive as far as I know doesn't impact the crash testing it goes through it. Crash testing doesn't have a little star next to it that references "Tested for city driving." I can still blow through a red light in New York City going 30 mph in my Excursion (the legal speed limit there), t-bone a Smart, and we'll see how that works out. Similarly, a Smart can run a red light at 30 mph and t-bone my Excursion. That would be an interesting accident to see, actually, because I don't suspect my truck has a lot of strength there despite its weight. Plus cities still have very densly populated highways and 2-way roads that have people crossing the yellow lines all the time at speeds high enough to cause damage. So, I don't think that is a valid argument.

ScottM said:
I just downsized from Jeep Cherokee to a VW Jetta. The Jeep was 14 years old. WOW! am I impressed with all the safety features on the VW. I feel far more safe in that than I ever did in my Jeep.
Click to expand...

There's a big thing on "feeling" safe (as you know with TSA). Some people buy cars with lots of safety features for it, some people by big trucks for it. I would take your Jeep any day over the Jetta, but that's because the Jetta doesn't do what I need it to. I stopped caring about "safety" features a while ago. So long as it has seatbelts I'm good. Preferably no ABS, traction control, or airbags. I don't like them. Otherwise, I buy the vehicle that does what I need it to. It just so happens in my current case that vehicle happens to weigh 8,000 lbs, but I would downsize if I could afford to have less space. I know, odd that a single guy needs an Excursion, but you should see me pack it full of dog cages and get up my driveway in the winter...

dmccormack said:
Since I don't have all yer fancy learnin', we'll make this easy.

You get yourself a smart car, and I'll drive my 2005 F150 extended bed filled with 1000 lbs of manure.

We'll start from opposite ends of a parking lot, reach a speed of 60 MPH and then collide head on.

Then we'll discuss the merits of trucks and smart cars.

Whaddya say? :yesnod:
Click to expand...

Well, I can answer that one: You'll both be dead. 60 mph head on against even a motorcycle may not be survivable in your truck, people have died from hitting deer at that speed.
 
The Smart is a fascinating exercise, and the level of safety that they have managed to innovatively design in is amazing. They are a remarkable and useful appliance for use in the places where they make sense.

Which is nearly nowhere in the USA.

In mainstream driving, they are hazardous because of their ****-poor handling at speed (ever drive one?) and gutless inability to keep up with traffic. This, and they are expensive and don't get all that great gas mileage.

Nonetheless, I see 'em scurrying all over around here, which is a testament to salemanship, P. T. Barnum style.

You have to admire their remarkable achievements in energy vectoring.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Well, I can answer that one: You'll both be dead. 60 mph head on against even a motorcycle may not be survivable in your truck, people have died from hitting deer at that speed.
Click to expand...

After I retired from the Army, I was a volunteer firefighter.

60% of our calls were car wrecks.

Trust me -- the truck wins.
 
dmccormack said:
Since I don't have all yer fancy learnin', we'll make this easy.

You get yourself a smart car, and I'll drive my 2005 F150 extended bed filled with 1000 lbs of manure.

We'll start from opposite ends of a parking lot, reach a speed of 60 MPH and then collide head on.

Then we'll discuss the merits of trucks and smart cars.

Whaddya say? :yesnod:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I want to be in either vehicle (or on the cleanup crew either)!

:)
 
I guess, for convenience sake, you could just bury the whole Smart car.
 
Matthew said:
I guess, for convenience sake, you could just bury the whole Smart car.
Click to expand...

smart-car-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
After I retired from the Army, I was a volunteer firefighter.

60% of our calls were car wrecks.

Trust me -- the truck wins.
Click to expand...

I never said the truck didn't win, I agree it wins. I'd still expect you both to be dead.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I never said the truck didn't win, I agree it wins. I'd still expect you both to be dead.
Click to expand...


I survived a head on with a drunk driver -- my speed was 50, his in excess of 60.

My new wife and I were both wearing seatbelts. The engine was under my legs, the roof was where the steering wheel used to be.

The car was a 1980 Ford Fiesta.

I'll take the truck, thanks.
 
One thing to keep in mind when comparing NHTSA and IIHS crash test ratings is that the results are only valid for vehicles of similar weight/size.

It's important to note that both tests can only be used to get an idea of how the vehicle would perform in a collision with a vehicle of similar size and weight or in a single-vehicle collision, which results in essentially the same forces as a collision with a similarly sized vehicle. They cannot be used to assess how a vehicle would fare if it collides with a vehicle that is significantly different in size. "Most people think that the majority of crashes are with other vehicles, but a lot of the most severe crashes are single-vehicle crashes, so the results are more relevant than you might think," says the IIHS's Lund. According to NHTSA's statistics, about half of all occupant fatalities in 2003 (the most recent statistics available at press time) were from single-vehicle collisions.

http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/43804/article.html

So, a 5-star rated Smart Car could very well end up on the losing end of a collision with a 3-star rated Chevy pickup.


Trapper John
 
dmccormack said:
smart-car-2.jpg
Click to expand...

I drove by a similar scene about 30 years ago south of San Jose. Two 18 wheelers had sandwitched a Cadillac between them. The caddy was shorter than the Subaru I was driving and the ambulance leaving the scene was in no hurry. Some things just aren't survivable.
 
ScottM said:
But even it were I doubt it would have survived. But then not many cars would have.
Click to expand...

Fake picture or not, that's a classic wait to die scenario. Nothing to do, nowhere to go, no time to get out, just sit there and watch while waiting to be converted into a sandwich and crushed out of existence.

On the motorcycle, I actually escaped from that scenario and heard the kablamo when the suv behind me rammed the pickup ahead of me. Two cars ahead were also involved in the smashbanger. I was watching the mirrors and didn't like what I saw behind so I dumped the clutch and ran up between stopped cars. The smart car would have had no chance to escape yet the narrow motorcycle can easily. Final score -- 4 safety designed vehicles: 0. Motorcycle: 1

Then there was last week when my nerves wimped out. The behavior of the car/suv drivers were nothing short of blatant active terrorism/attempted murder. I gave up and rode about a mile and a half on the sidewalk.


Crashes or near misses are scenario based probability. IMNSHO, you either want to completely escape the situation (motorcycle) or outmass the enemy (truck or larger) when push comes to bang.
 
Last edited:
I don't necessarily choose to drive vehicles based on their survivability. Personally, if I lived in a city I would choose a Smart Car any day over an 8000 pound truck just for the convenience of parking.
 
dmccormack said:
I'd still prefer a bike -- motorized or pedal.

:yesnod:
Click to expand...
I have ridden both but, to me, they are not practical enough. I prefer just to hop in the car and not worry about what kind of paraphernalia I need to be wearing and what I can or cannot bring with me either because it's too big or it might get stolen. The Smart Car is small but at least there is another seat which would be mostly empty in my case.
 
Everskyward said:
I don't necessarily choose to drive vehicles based on their survivability. Personally, if I lived in a city I would choose a Smart Car any day over an 8000 pound truck just for the convenience of parking.
Click to expand...

That I agree with. If I lived in NYC still and didn't need the cargo capacity, I would be driving something that's smaller and easier to park. I hate trying to find parking for my truck. However, my needs include lots of cargo capacity and 4x4, so...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top