Not that it means much, but consumer reports rated this thing at the very bottom of new cars.
12k could buy alot more car, especially on the used market.
It isn’t all about the mpg…
get one and swap it…
Someone find the Top Gear video of them smashing one in to a wall at 80MPH. They are probably safer than most of the shit boxes out there. Esp. stuff that is over 10 years old.
look up ^
That video sure makes it look good, but it’s pointless. Without a G-meter in there the fact that the passenger space held up means nothing. I can almost guarantee that anyone in that car would be dead after that crash because all their internal organs would have shifted after such a violent stop.
I would never put someone I cared about behind the wheel of one of those, regardless of imaginary world crash rating it gets. You can’t engineer real world safety into something with no crumple zones. Sure, you can super reinforce the cage so you aren’t squashed like a bug when hit by an SUV, but now all the force of the impact is getting transfered to the occupants.
Old cars (50’s and 60’s) were made the same way. Build it like a tank and you could run it into a wall at 40 mph and it barely looked crashed. The people still died though because the human body can’t go from 40 to zero instantly. You’re going to see the same kind of deaths as these smarts and other ultra compact but ultra reinforced cars become popular.
wouldn’t be as much a problem if every other American thought they needed a huge SUV or pick-up truck and don’t even use the space or capabilities of it.
Doesn’t matter. You get hit head on by ANYTHING in that little smart and it’s all over. There are very few cars on the road that weight less than a smart so the smart is going to have to absorb more energy in any crash. With no crumple zone to absorb that energy guess who’s left to pay Mr Newton? The passengers.
Did they do US crash tests yet? those should show the numbers to decide if passengers will survive hard impacts.
psngrs ARE the crumple zones.
:mamoru:
srsly tho, the energy has to be absorbed by something. Physics says so. Argue with those laws.
Now, if the car isn’t absorbing the impact force, what is it transferring the force to?
Hint: the force doesn’t just dissipate into thin air.
How about this:
An egg is small, light, and has an incredible frame / shell. You cant crush an egg from the top.
You are playing pool.
You you hit the cue ball full force into the egg, right at the top of the shell.
The shell doesn’t break.
What do you think happened to the yolk & whites inside?
I understand the concept of the laws of forces. Though like previously said, it’s probably safer than a lot of older cars…like my 91 beretta or a honda civic.
But, will it still take off if it’s on a treadmill?
Eh, yea thats a possibility.
i still wouldn’t buy it for a DD, unless it was strictly a campus car. Putt around Google; MS; Likewise campuses with it. Under 15 mph
But a crash test makes some very incorrect assumptions about what a real world crash is going to be. I’m sure one of the mechanical engineers can explain it in a formula, but I’ll just use generalizations for now.
The big problem is the “immovable barrier”. A 2000 lb car at 30 mph hitting an immovable barrier has much less energy it needs to displace than a 5000 lb car hitting the same barrier at the same speed. But how often do you hit immovable barriers in the real world? The concrete dividers are immovable, but how often does someone hit one perfectly square?
So the crash test is great if the vehicle is of average weight because chances are it will crash with another car of average weight and both vehicles will need to absorb a similar amount of energy.
When you take vehicles at extreme ends of the spectrum however real world crashes with other vehicles are much different than the immovable object crash test. A 5500 lb SUV that did marginally hitting an immovable object because it crumpled so much absorbing all it’s own energy is going to impart that energy into a moveable smaller object that it hits. It’s why the guy on the Ford Expedition forum was alive and well posting about the street racer in the civic that hit him head on. The Expedition was doing 35-40, the Civic 70-80 by police estimates. They hit head on, offset slightly to the drivers side. The Civic actually had a better head on NHTSA crash test rating, but the Civic driver died and the Expedition driver walked about. Again, real world differing weight crashes are much different than immovable object testing.
Same problem but reversed for the small car with great crash test ratings. But it’s that “immovable object” issue again. When 2000 lbs hits 4000lbs and they are travelling the same speed the impact on the 2000 lb car is worse than hitting an immovable barrier.
Then take all those problems for the small car and multiply them by 100 for the smart with it’s almost total lack of crumple zones. Like I said, no way I’d put someone I cared about in one.
Smartsuki ftw. Otherwise, you are just gay.
hm, ever since getting one in GT4 ive wanted to find a suzuki cappuccino. i can understand the attraction factor. but your going to be like a deer in a world of dinosaurs, and everyone knows at least a t-rex will stomp your ass
God i hate these things…
they’re one of few cars i think have the capability of flipping, and easily…
they’re hideous…
no practicality…
death trap…
if you want an ugly car that gets amazing MPG get an old civic hatch and call it a day, plus that way you’ll still have $11K in your pocket, or more depending on the deal you find.
They’re a lot safer than any motorcycle, so you’d just have to be extra careful.
I think they’re pretty badass.
Thank you captain obvious.
I’d like to also point out that the smart is a lot safer than all of the following for daily transportation:
Jet pack
Catapult
Riding a wild untamed tiger.
Lots of dead motorcycle riders subscribed to the “I’ll just be extra careful” theory of crash safety. And many of them were 100% in the right in their crashes. Sometimes there’s nothing you can do but hope your vehicle design saves your ass.