Slashdot Mirror

The crash test that is linked in the subject belongs to the first version of the Smart Car. You can find the Euroncap test information at http://www.euroncap.com/tests/smart_city_coupe_200 0/29.aspx (3 stars out of 5)

The 2008 version hasn't been tested yet, but hopefully it will get 4 stars in the same test.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/20680.shtm l

And, it's a deathtrap: http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/rat ings.php?id1=2
I believe European crash tests are much stricter than the American's because of the possible higher European highway speeds, and more twisty roads.

You could already achieve near 100MPG in most high MPG cars with sensible driving (such as Prius and Insight), or sensible size as you've said.

* SUV's are the only category of vehicle that is available with 7+ passenger seating How many drive SUV while being the only person in the car? I think a lot of people! Are the USA a country where the average family is 7+? * There is a big safety hangover from when someone published the obvious conclusion that a heavier car will suffer less damage in a crash than a smaller car. You're talking about security, while the US have bad records regarding: - seat belt use (73% in the USA, while it is obligatory in Europe: http://usgovinfo.about.com/blagencyrelease16.htm - car crashs tests. In Europe, there're the NCAP tests: http://www.euroncap.com/ Cars used in Europe are far more safer than US ones. The size does not matter. Construction and quality design do. * The big motors are there because we have a lot of hills (in some parts of the US) and a *lot* of stoplights. It's time for you to discover what a nicely built motor is. You're talking about torque. I already drove fat V8 american motors. I far better prefer the way European Diesel cars deliver their power. Did you try a BMW? * A lot of us Americans have owned and driven small cars, especially during high school and college years. We're not talking about "City cars". I assume you got your exams and get a decent car since then. IMO, driving a large car with a small MPG is all about self-centered mind and money. A prehistoric fat motor doesn't cost much to build. What cost money is to design a fuel efficient and powerful motor. Moreover, such large cars aren't generally needed. Anyway, the situation will change in the US in a few years, since gas prices will raise.

I would think that most European cars which have a normal/good score in the Euro NCAP Safety Ratings are probably among the safest (consumer) cars in the world.

Based on these Euro NCAP bigger cars are not always safer either, e.g.:

3 stars: Jeep Cherokee 2002
4 stars: Opel/Vauxhall Vectra 2002

Most European cars not safe enough.. sorry, but certainly anything built after 2001/2002 should be safe enough for the USA market.

I would think that most European cars which have a normal/good score in the Euro NCAP Safety Ratings are probably among the safest (consumer) cars in the world.

Based on these Euro NCAP bigger cars are not always safer either, e.g.:

3 stars: Jeep Cherokee 2002
4 stars: Opel/Vauxhall Vectra 2002

Most European cars not safe enough.. sorry, but certainly anything built after 2001/2002 should be safe enough for the USA market.

I would think that most European cars which have a normal/good score in the Euro NCAP Safety Ratings are probably among the safest (consumer) cars in the world.

Based on these Euro NCAP bigger cars are not always safer either, e.g.:

3 stars: Jeep Cherokee 2002
4 stars: Opel/Vauxhall Vectra 2002

Most European cars not safe enough.. sorry, but certainly anything built after 2001/2002 should be safe enough for the USA market.

I'm reasonably certain that you'd be safer in most of the offerings from a certain swedish brand of cars recently bought by Ford than you'd ever be in an Escalade.

SUVs don't make you safe, it only makes you bigger and gives you more kinetic energy to get rid of. Sure, it'll trump a 1980s Ford Escort, but that's not because an SUV is safe, it's because the Escort is shitty. http://www.euroncap.com/ runs a good testing program and you might note that a Toyota Prius gets a better safety rating than a Jeep Grand Cherokee.

The Daihatsu is interesting in another respect as the first car to introduce a radiator and bonnet design which is especially designed for pedestrian hit survivability. In fact it is one of the reasons why the test was changed later on. It is also copied nearly literally on most recent European and Japanese cars.

Granted, the best thing is not to hit pedestrians in the first place. This may be quite difficult sometimes. Just ask anyone who has had to dodge cretins with iPods on the max setting around a 6th form college during the morning rush hour.

Oh, and on the article topic - it is one of the very few cars delivering sub-9s 0-60mph while having under 150g/km CO2 emissions. In fact, possibly the only one capable of carrying 4 occupants.

That is already installed.

The Hummer chassis is incapable of absorbing its own impact energy after a crash. Making a car very big does not necessarily make it safe and vice versa. The Hummer has not been formally tested to EURONCAP, but it is likely to have a lower safety score than nearly all cars on the EU market. I have seen a hummer smashed at 30mph into a rock wall and it looks pretty much like this: http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/det ails.php?id1=1&id2=73 (classic example of bodyshell colapse).

A selfrespecting moderately safe car should look at least like this: http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/det ails.php?id1=1&id2=67 (Note the lack of chassis deformation)

or like this:http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_rating s/details.php?id1=9&id2=210 (for a vehicle in the same class as the Hummer)

That is already installed.

The Hummer chassis is incapable of absorbing its own impact energy after a crash. Making a car very big does not necessarily make it safe and vice versa. The Hummer has not been formally tested to EURONCAP, but it is likely to have a lower safety score than nearly all cars on the EU market. I have seen a hummer smashed at 30mph into a rock wall and it looks pretty much like this: http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/det ails.php?id1=1&id2=73 (classic example of bodyshell colapse).

A selfrespecting moderately safe car should look at least like this: http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/det ails.php?id1=1&id2=67 (Note the lack of chassis deformation)

or like this:http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_rating s/details.php?id1=9&id2=210 (for a vehicle in the same class as the Hummer)

That is already installed.

The Hummer chassis is incapable of absorbing its own impact energy after a crash. Making a car very big does not necessarily make it safe and vice versa. The Hummer has not been formally tested to EURONCAP, but it is likely to have a lower safety score than nearly all cars on the EU market. I have seen a hummer smashed at 30mph into a rock wall and it looks pretty much like this: http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/det ails.php?id1=1&id2=73 (classic example of bodyshell colapse).

A selfrespecting moderately safe car should look at least like this: http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/det ails.php?id1=1&id2=67 (Note the lack of chassis deformation)

or like this:http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_rating s/details.php?id1=9&id2=210 (for a vehicle in the same class as the Hummer)

Meganne safety rating is off the scale. The occupant safety level is so good that they are having to redesign the tests because of it. At 35 mph collision of any type (front, side flat, back and side pillar) there is no damage to the occupants. At all. The test result is all green with a possible minor spot of yellow (which corresponds to a bruise). Just look at the EUROncap safety tests http://www.euroncap.com/. Same for every Renault made in the last 3 years.

At the same time the Hummer is not even on the list. In fact if it was, it would have pulled a 2-2.5 star rating at best. Same as a suicidal box like Fiat Ceicento. I have seen a crashed Hummer so this unscientific opinion is based on seeing what happens when it smashes. If you are driving this POS you have a death wish.

Essentially even being in a something microscopic by American standards (like Modus http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/det ails.php?id1=1&id2=201) is safer then being in a Hummer.

Meganne safety rating is off the scale. The occupant safety level is so good that they are having to redesign the tests because of it. At 35 mph collision of any type (front, side flat, back and side pillar) there is no damage to the occupants. At all. The test result is all green with a possible minor spot of yellow (which corresponds to a bruise). Just look at the EUROncap safety tests http://www.euroncap.com/. Same for every Renault made in the last 3 years.

At the same time the Hummer is not even on the list. In fact if it was, it would have pulled a 2-2.5 star rating at best. Same as a suicidal box like Fiat Ceicento. I have seen a crashed Hummer so this unscientific opinion is based on seeing what happens when it smashes. If you are driving this POS you have a death wish.

Essentially even being in a something microscopic by American standards (like Modus http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/det ails.php?id1=1&id2=201) is safer then being in a Hummer.

http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/det ails.php?id1=9&id2=125 thats the link for the NCAP tests, basically for those lazy or waiting to load, 3 stars for passengers and 1 for the pedestrians :( Test Scores: Front 5 (31%) Side 16 (89%) Overall 21 (62%) Pedestrian 2 (6%) still.. better then before but no way i would get in one.. That said might be better then walking near one...

The idea is pretty simple. When the bonnet raises, there's more room to absorb the impact-energy. Earlier, the only things absorbing the energy were the metal on the bonnet and engine, and the bones in the pedestrian. With this system, the bonnet can absorb more of the impact-energy, sparing the pedestrian.

Here is the EURO-NCAP test-report for Citroen C6. As it happens, it's the first car to achieve the maximum score for pedestrian safety.

Sitting here in Europe as I am, cars like the Ford Crown Victoria baffle me. I've been in the back of one a few times since they're often used as taxis, and my impression was "hang on, this car's three-quarters of a mile long and I've got no legroom". It's like the Tardis in reverse. And the luggage capacity wasn't all that great either, due to some spectacularly bad design of the trunk/boot/whatever, with all sorts of things encroaching on the space. I don't really understand why anyone would buy one of these giant, unwieldy slugs when something as small as a Honda Civic is spacious enough that my sister, who's 5'6", was able to get up and walk into the passenger seat from the back row.

And of course, size=safety is a total fallacy. Size=weight=bigger bang when you hit something. And in a car like the Crown Victoria, which seems to have been completely unaffected by the last 30 years or so of progress in car design, I wouldn't be too confident that it'll crumple in a passenger-friendly way if I stuck it in a wall. Most fairly small cars are incredibly safe these days - check out the Euro-NCAP tests to see how our silly little European econoboxes cope with being flung at walls and stuff, and all whilst getting hybrid-style fuel ecnonomy out of their diesel engines.

Not having a go at you personally, you understand, I just don't see the point of these cramped, inefficient, slow, thirsty behemoths in this day and age.

Cars sold in Europe are rated for safety using the Euro NCAP system. If you check out the tables you'll see that in terms of crash protection the Smart MCC scores the same as a 2002 Jeep Cherokee. In terms of what it does to a pedestrian when it hits it the Smart is safer.

Looking at safety ratings, Ford cars are quite safe: http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/int roduction.php

60 mph head on collision = 120mph combined impact speed and you walked away with no injuries, don't think so.

Check Euro NCAP to read more about the relative safety of various cars. Cinquecento isn't listed but Seicento is and it looks like you picked probably the least safe small car to hit.

The Smart car has a Euro NCAP rating of 3, which is not good by modern standards.

by Euro NCAP is only at three stars.

Check out the whole "supermini" list.

by Euro NCAP is only at three stars.

Check out the whole "supermini" list.

Regarding safety stats, the results of the European tests are here

Here's the crash test results for MCC Smarts.

Go figure for yourself if that's safe(enough) for your. Generally -at least here in Germany- the cars are considered safe, but we don't have that many 5000lbs SUVs to crash against either...

euroncap.com

Actually, the Lupo may well be better than you think...

Well, I'd rather be in one of these than one of these, yet the former weighs almost a tonne less. Weight isn't the only important factor.

Well, I'd rather be in one of these than one of these, yet the former weighs almost a tonne less. Weight isn't the only important factor.

It also occurs to me - why not have the same crash tests before they let Boeing sell their next jumbo model? ;)

The 1500lb Smart gets as good a score as the much heavier Ford Escort. Many SUVs achieve this same score.

The 2000lb Audi A2 gets as good a score as a 2250lb Honda Civic. The rest of the SUVs fall into this rating.

Source

You mean that these students created an SUV that nearly doubled its fuel economy without jeapordizing the safety of the entire nation?

I've just read this link... Excuse me but this is hilarious. Just because a car weighs two tons and reaches the height of a man would mean that it's safe?

The two persons who wrote this article obviously don't know about Euro NCAP, which destroys their argumentation altogether. FYI, the best performing car at Euro NCAP tests until now is a sedan. And if you browse a little through test results, you'll see that what they call "knee-scraping subcompacts" perform equally well than any other categories on average. So long for "the bigger the safer".

Oh, and said sedan consumes less than the hypermodified truck which is the subject of this article... which destroys their argumentation even further. It consumes less than what US lawmakers want to impose for 2013, even. In fact, most cars sold in Europe these days improve on these limits. Hey, we pay nearly 5 times as much as you for the precious liquid!

Really, the US have LOTS to learn from Europe when it comes to cars.

You mean that these students created an SUV that nearly doubled its fuel economy without jeapordizing the safety of the entire nation?

I've just read this link... Excuse me but this is hilarious. Just because a car weighs two tons and reaches the height of a man would mean that it's safe?

The two persons who wrote this article obviously don't know about Euro NCAP, which destroys their argumentation altogether. FYI, the best performing car at Euro NCAP tests until now is a sedan. And if you browse a little through test results, you'll see that what they call "knee-scraping subcompacts" perform equally well than any other categories on average. So long for "the bigger the safer".

Oh, and said sedan consumes less than the hypermodified truck which is the subject of this article... which destroys their argumentation even further. It consumes less than what US lawmakers want to impose for 2013, even. In fact, most cars sold in Europe these days improve on these limits. Hey, we pay nearly 5 times as much as you for the precious liquid!

Really, the US have LOTS to learn from Europe when it comes to cars.

The European standards body that does this stuff has its results here and one to note is the abysmal results on this MPV. I quote The Voyager did so badly in the frontal impact that it earned no points, making it the worst of the group by some margin. The body structure became unstable and the steering column was driven back into the driver's chest and head.

So while there may be concerns about these cars if all cars had to get decent scores in these tests that it would ensure that everyone was safe. As it is the gap between the worst and the best is enough to make the fuel inside it only one of the considerations in safety.

The European standards body that does this stuff has its results here and one to note is the abysmal results on this MPV. I quote The Voyager did so badly in the frontal impact that it earned no points, making it the worst of the group by some margin. The body structure became unstable and the steering column was driven back into the driver's chest and head.

So while there may be concerns about these cars if all cars had to get decent scores in these tests that it would ensure that everyone was safe. As it is the gap between the worst and the best is enough to make the fuel inside it only one of the considerations in safety.

The European standards body that does this stuff has its results here and one to note is the abysmal results on this MPV. I quote The Voyager did so badly in the frontal impact that it earned no points, making it the worst of the group by some margin. The body structure became unstable and the steering column was driven back into the driver's chest and head.

So while there may be concerns about these cars if all cars had to get decent scores in these tests that it would ensure that everyone was safe. As it is the gap between the worst and the best is enough to make the fuel inside it only one of the considerations in safety.

That could change quite dramatically if a few ISPs actually started to make their users aware of security and provide them with help (both helpdesk and software like ZoneAlarm). It happened to cars, for example. Manufacturers knew you were in big trouble when you crashed a car, but no one thought of telling the public, because it might scare them away from their cars. Look what the situation is nowadays: results from crash-tests (such as Euro NCAP) are heavily used in commercials for cars. The more security measures a car features, the better the public likes the car. Security sells!

So why wouldn't this be true for ISPs? Suppose I'm someone who wants to get a cable modem because I want to surf a lot and maybe run some other stuff. Not an advanced user, just John Doe who likes having a permanent and fast connection (and I think that's the larger part of cable modem users all over the world). Now two of my friends have normal providers who keep their mouths shut about whatever might concern security and two others have a decent ISP, that explains about what might happen and how to avoid it. Sure, the first two guys will probably have less "strange messages" to worry about, but I think I'd sleep a lot better if I knew that my connection had at least some sort of protection against the threats my other two friends don't even know exist.

And I think it would be better for ISPs themselves. After all, if their users have some basic knowledge of security and check their configuration every now and then, the ISP will not get involved in this kind of stories as often. Better for their name and the chance of probable claims from victims.

Again I want to point to a story from car history: the Ford Pinto. This car had the petrol tank behind the rear wheels. It proved that this was catastrophic when another car crashed into your back: the tank would burst and the petrol would instantly turn to fire because it was in immediate contact with the hot engine of the car that crashed into it. Ford didn't change it, because at that time security didn't sell. When it turned out that Ford had known that this car was dangerous and hadn't done anything to change it (because it was cheaper to pay a few claims than to change the design of the car), they got the public opinion against them.

I think the same goes for ISPs: security does sell, it's just that the general public needs to be made aware of it. I'm sure a lot of @Home users aren't too pleased to hear that they've been abused for criminal activities, while their ISP knew that but didn't act. So let's spread the word: using the Internet can be dangerous, just as driving a car can be dangerous. Don't be defenseless, do something about it!