Slashdot Mirror

I thought you were wrong, but apparently the price ahs dropped a lot in the last decade or so. They were close to 40K.

I bet they are still horrible to drive.

Interesting, there website say 12,400 fro an electric, but when you actually find a price, it's 25G

http://www.smartusa.com/models...
http://en.ta64.smart.com/is-bi...

So the Swatch/Mecedes ART piece is still way over priced for what you get.

Have you heard of the word effeciency, and unconventional!

Swedish watches:
http://www.arlanch.se/
http://www.sjoosandstrom.se/
http://mutewatch.com/
http://www.watcheroo.com/swedish-watches.php

Swiss cars
http://www.smart.com/

Boing! That coffee hit me hard!

Your problem is that you have the budget for a Smart car but the desire for a Aston Martin.

That's not actually an rebuttal, or even an argument.

A 32GB iPod Touch is $299 at the Apple Store. The extra bits that make a smartphone can be added for under $150. That doesn't add up to anywhere near $649.

Your problem is that you have the budget for a Smart car but the desire for a Aston Martin.

Not quite 100 mile range, but cheap - very cheap. http://www.smart.com/-snm-0164329964-1153205850-0000017610-0000003413-1154020467-enm-is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/mpc-uk-content-Site/en_UK/-/GBP/SVCPresentationPipeline-Start?Page=issite%3A%2F%2Fmpc-uk-Site%2Fmpc-uk.com%2FRootFolder%2Fsmart%2Fsmart_news%2Fsmart_news_2006%2FsmartEV_news.page

Link to pictures here. (from the original post here on slashdot)

I don't know which cars you're talking about.. Being an European myself, the only car I can think of that closely resembles the MIT's prototype is the Smart. And even then, only the basic model, the Smart Roadster, for example, has more of a buggy look to it.

Anyway, while I've certainly seen plenty of them around, there even seems to be a tuning cult around them (Smart with a Lamborghini Diablo engine beating a Ferrari), I've yet to see a single one with a bike handle instead of a driving wheel.

But the City Car concept reminds me of the city bike system many European cities have adopted. The idea is basically the same: you have some sort of a sign-up procedure, community card or something like that. With plenty of bike "parks" spread across the city, all you need to do is pick one up from a park near the start point, cycle to the bike park closest to your destination and drop it off.. And it works! The number of people using them in Lyon, for example, really blew my mind. It also raised some issues when, at about 3am, I saw a couple of teenagers driving them while obviously intoxicated.. But I suppose they're bound to get into a lot less trouble than if they were driving a car.

As far as safety is concerned, they were meant to be driven within a city, ie, I seriously doubt they were built for speed, what with those pesky speed limits being the lowest and all. Overall, I've seen some vehicles (a couple of models specially designed for the handicapped come to mind) that seemed way more unsafe/weak than the MIT's prototype.

It might be a really good idea, as long as people don't treat them like crap just because it's not theirs..

This seems like the natural progression of a couple of existing ideas: http://www.smart.com/ Smart cars are popular in uk (I don't know about elsewhere). Small, efficient and comfortable. Yeah, everyone thought they looked stupid at first but they are immensely practical. http://www.streetcar.co.uk/ A similar hire a car by the hour type scheme with no human interaction. This has been running for a few years in uk and appears to be growing steadily.

I think it's a good idea with a lot of potential here in Europe, maybe not in the US.

I see these cars and the similar Smart car all the time around my office in central London. Seems to be because they are exempt from the London Congestion Charge ($16 / day at the moment so if you drive around London I guess you'll soon make your money back ...).

For me it's definitely enough car. For most people it would make a great second car.

If you don't have kids or carry lots of luggage regularly, then these cars are great. Easy to park, cheap to run. As a second car for going to the shops they'd probably make sense too.

Rich.

You will pay approximately the same for a smart and even more for something like a Volkswagen Polo, and that's without gas! (Today about $1,80 for a liter at my nearest gas station!) The price is reasonable for Europe.

I bought my first smart in 2000 and I got the second one in 2003. Both have been different revisions of the original smart. What now (or soon) comes to the US is again a new revision ("the new smart fortwo") which was released to european markets in April this year.

For a timeline see here
For a complete list of revisions (in German though) see here.

Hmm... What you described is pretty much here.

Light, unsafe, fuel efficient(kinda), small, aerodynamic(depending on model)... Sounds like a Smart Car to me.

I personally hate these things. They may be alright in Europe, in the cities, but I cringe every time I see one of these things fly past me on the Autobahn at their top speed. I'm amazed they think there is a market in the US for them. I don't even want to visualize one of these things getting flattened by some Soccer Mom in a Hummer H2.

Mercedes and Swatch would have been pretty "smart" to call that a 'charity' cause, but I would call it 'profitable business'. There are a lot of causes to find that can not be mistaken for profitable business, what about helping the people at the bottom of society, for example.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm all in favor of high-MPG cars, but I think that the parent is right on this one. Google maybe should transform their business into a general innovation-company, since they apparently have lots of nice ideas but can't place them within their current 'core business', which is web searching (or actually something else, I don't really know). Currently, they will have trouble selling stockholders/investors the idea to build a car, so they had to make this construction to go through with it.

By the way, you don't have to be google to develop innovative low-fuel cars (both links unrelated, also check out the VW lupo 3 L / 100 km car)

I believe you're referring to the Smart Car. http://www.smart.com/

This would be perfectly fabulous if there were federal regulations on vehicle sizes permitted in urban or other zones, but it sounds like a logistic nightmare for lawmakers to get a gradual migration to this going at any level that would prove effective. It's not really a phased migration thing. You can't put such a small car on roads with normal compact and larger cars. It's a safety nightmare.

Don't be silly. People drive motorcycles right now, on perfectly normal roads. Small, cheap cars are popular (at least in Europe) among companies whose employees need to move around rural areas. Just get the car on the market at a reasonable price and some will be sold and used. Lawmakers can help by taxing gas or emissions, without making any vehicle-specific laws.

I know this wont work for large distances (20km+) but I just got a bike this week and I drive ~10km a day with it to work and home.
In a green city like mine (Munich, Germany) it does not only make driving to work fun, its healty, I am just as fast as with a car in a urabn environment and since I own a smart roadster it doesnt make much difference on what I can carry with me. ;)

An additional plus: you can take shortcuts through parks and industrial sites where no car can get through wich cuts the distance even further.

I don't see it that way. To me it's more like IBM's research labs. Enable people to run with their ideas, and eventually usable stuff will come out of it.

Nobody in the FSF ever said that it is simple to make money off free software, and they are very aware of the fact that the environment is in many parts still hostile. In the conservancy's case, I guess it's about helping free software grow despite this hostility. You only see it as a charity because it's free software and you are predisposed to see it that way, otherwise, why would you have said "the FSF has been yelling" in the OP.

Nobody calls Smart a charity financed by DaimlerChrysler, although Smart never made money. It's about long-term strategy.

Don't go hybrid, be SMARTer!

http://www.smart.com

You'll get more bang from your buck and will lower your gas consumption radically!

Mercedes-Benz (a.k.a. Daimler-Chrysler - God only knows why the hell they thought Chrysler was worth having) doesn't make "economy cars"?

Smart: http://www.smart.com/
A Class: http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/content/unitedking dom/mpc/mpc_unitedkingdom_website/en/home_mpc/pass enger_cars/home/products/new_cars/a-class_hatchbac k/May_offer_internalv2.html
B Class: http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/content/unitedking dom/mpc/mpc_unitedkingdom_website/en/home_mpc/pass enger_cars/home/products/new_cars/b_class.html

As for Muscle Cars, what about http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/content/unitedking dom/mpc/mpc_unitedkingdom_website/en/home_mpc/pass enger_cars/home/products/new_cars/b_class.html ? 626 bhp seems a fair amount of muscle....

A forty year old mini is one heck of a lot safer than most of todays econo boxes. I have seen drivers walk away from a roll over in a mini more often than any other car. The fact is that the mini was very solid. Most accidents just cause the mini to bounce off, not to mention the fact that the visibility is much better. Also ability to react quicker and get out of the way of some idiot trying to force you off the road in a Ford Explorer is a real bonus.

Bigger does not mean safer. If you have a head on with someone at 70mphX2 your chances are just as bad no matter what you drive, with the exception of a commercial 100,000 pound truck. In which case give me the mini any day. My chances of getting out of the way are increased exponentially.

The point is Americans in general are anal retentive when it comes to size. The safest car on the road today is the SMART car (http://www.smart.com/ with a smart driver. By the way smart cars get the best mileage of all! Too bad they were deliberately kept out of the American market.

copyright 2005

the ratfynk

People don't like small cars (not that this is acceptable or anything, just telling it how it is)

I am not so certain if this is the case anymore...

Personally I drive standard because I don't know how to drive an automatic... ;)

I doubt that many people anywhere would lust after a cheap "simcar for people who can't afford real cars."

Coincidentally, http://www.smart.com/ exists.

I bought an Echo for half the price of a Prius, and I only get (officially) 3 less miles per gallon than I would if I was driving a Prius.

Yes, but a Prius has far more chick appeal than an Echo. So does a Smart car.

What? If you want the car, buy some shares of ZAP! ?
What kind of nonsense is that? You must work for ZAP!
So just how MANY shares of ZAP! stock should I buy to get to the top of the waiting list to get a SMART ForTwo?

ZAP! exists not to sell cars, but to pump up their stock price.
These cars are imported by a Registered Importer and converted to US Standards for resale to US Citizens. Overseeing the import and conversion is a company named "Smart-Automobiles LLC" which has NO CONNECTION to Mercedes Benz / DaimlerChrysler.
They have to buy these things RETAIL in Europe, bring them over to the US, convert them, then ZAP! sells "dealerships" and "franchises" across the country and then the "dealer" takes his cut. No wonder the price is so high.

ZAP! exists merely to sell franchises and dealerships for a brand they do not own the rights to.

You cannot buy a Smart ForTwo from ZAP!, you can only buy a dealership.
Despite their advertising claims, ZAP! does NO CONVERSIONS, they are nothing but a bunch of marketing droids in an office trying to get people to think they are a "real" company that actually produces some sort of product.

Here is a conversation on FARK where a few people (including a former employee apparently) pull back the curtain on ZAP!

Here is one quote from the conversation:

The SMART car may be a good idea, but don't buy it from ZAP. They exist for the sole purpose of pumping up their stock price so a few big investors can dump them before any serious shareholders know what happened.

MB / DaimlerChrysler plans to introduce the SMART BRAND to the US with a 2006 model that is a small SUV,built in Brazil called the ForMore, from that point they may introduce a re-designed version of the ForTwo for the US / World market.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the "real" SMART Brand comes to the US and whether all these ZAP! dealers get hit with a restraining order to cease advertising or dealing a Brand they do not have the rights to.

it was Mercedes and Swatch. You can find the smart history here.
In germany even the police use them :-)

Smart car are made by Smart

"Smart" cars are now available in Canada, and will be available in the USA in 2006, according to the car's website.

Smart is owned by DaimlerChrysler.

They're aparantly also coming to the USA, but not until 2006

Drive this Smart car and you can just nose in: Smart Car--

My dad drives an A2, my girlfriend a A-Class and I have a friend who owns a Smart. You can't beat these kind of cars when you mainly do city traffic.

For an example of real neat integration of an iPod in a car look at what smart did with the i-move

Although I must admit that I'd still prefer a BMW over Smart anytime. ;-)

Well my company only has a single smart car but I can tell you they are not a lot better in doing personaly maintaning them. Most parts are closed, you can't really do anything on the car yourself that gets your hands greasy. It even has not got a spare tire (that's optional and there's not too much space for it). It does save a bundle on road taxes though. (In my country we have road taxes based on the weight, age and fuell type of your car)

Same sort of recurring problem we had with a diesel Citroen Berlingo car. Engine light kept comming back up, but the place we bought it checked it out a couple of times for free, and the last time they replaced some coil or something not sure, was a two digit price.

Another option would be to stay away from those new type of cars with all the problems you have, and be quite independant of where you get it fixed. Before the berlingo we had a C15 and for instance now I drive a 1967 Citroen DS Pallas, and sure, it does have it's own sort of problems, I have plenty of choice where to get those fixed. (Even so, the Citroen dealerships/stealerships do not know anything about those anymore)

Well I like the concept and all, but what is the big fuss about a small urban car ?

The Smart has been on the road for some years now, and is about the same size but seats 2, and has a trunk big enough to put a box of ceral.

Smart dimensions (length, width, height) : 2.5/1.5/1.55 [meters]
Toyota Egg (length, width, height) : 2.65/1.47/1.85 [meters]

Okay so it isn't electric and doesn't have funky drive-by-someone (tm) technolofy, but it's already commercialized and viable.

Murphy(c)

Well I like the concept and all, but what is the big fuss about a small urban car ?

The Smart has been on the road for some years now, and is about the same size but seats 2, and has a trunk big enough to put a box of ceral.

Smart dimensions (length, width, height) : 2.5/1.5/1.55 [meters]
Toyota Egg (length, width, height) : 2.65/1.47/1.85 [meters]

Okay so it isn't electric and doesn't have funky drive-by-someone (tm) technolofy, but it's already commercialized and viable.

Murphy(c)

If gas is too expensive, there's a simple solution: don't drive.

i would suggest the "smart". it's a two seater, but it has a lot of things going for it:

• ~4/100k fuel efficiency. not sure what that is mpg, but it's excellent.
• $15k cdn price tag. that's half the cost of an austin mini
• it's made by mercedes. while that means nothing to me, i know there are people out there who care about such things.

I'd rather have a Smart...

These things are highly desireable in the US partly because they are not available, a friend bought a rolling SMART chassis (no drivetrain) off eBay from the now-defunct eMotion. He has since purchased all the other bits (engine, drivetrain, etc) and is now trying to put it together but he's stumped because he cannot get the SEVEN computers to talk to each other. He is no stranger to working on cars either. And once he screws it up, he can't exactly take it in to a "dealer" either since both he AND the car are in the US.

BTW, the EV1, the only all-electric car to come anywhere near mass production in the US, did look more or less like a normal car, and it still died. Until our politicians get out of the auto industry's pockets, we're not going to see electric cars succeed here. (See my rant on the subject if interested.)

Joe Ganley

That would be a Smart. Soon coming to Canada apparently.

SMART. Why the hell hasn't DC rolled out electric SMARTs yet? Their little roadster or a worked coupe would make a pretty sweet little EV.

SMART. Why the hell hasn't DC rolled out electric SMARTs yet? Their little roadster or a worked coupe would make a pretty sweet little EV.

Only problem that's simply a Smart. A great city car that goes fast enough for the highway. I've rented one before and they're great, been around a few years aleady and use gas.

Daimler-Chrysler makes SMART. So it's not all bad news...

Hooray! The smart is due in the US in 2006. Unfortunately, they have decided for their first model to be the ForMore, an SUV-like iteration of the ForFour, their upcoming four-door four-seat model.

Then maybe we'll get the ForFour and the ForTwo later on. The powers that be at DaimlerChrysler seem to think that we won't buy the things, despite a barrage of grey-marketers trying to bring the the little cars into the US. And their US product announcement FAQ basically says that we won't get the smaller cars.

But there's hope!

An "Americanized" version of the roadster was debuted at the Detroit Auto Show. The Dodge SlingShot concept car is obviously based on the smart roadster, down to its three-cylinder rear-mounted engine and the targa style removable roof panels.

I'll keep my '94 del Sol a little longer, thank you!

Bertie sort of addresses this in his reply as well, but I thought I'd chime in here and say that I, too, would get a kick out of an exceedingly tiny car, provided it at least looks reasonably good (i.e. not a Yugo). Hell, I'll give up on looks if I could fold it up and carry it like a briefcase, a la The Jetsons.

A few years ago I toured some of Europe with some friends in a Smart. Nifty car. You can see it here. Good news, or bad, depending on how you look at it: they plan to debut in the US in 2006.

What pricks my curiosity is why large cars are such a status symbol. In a city like New York, you have these massive limos that must be impossible to park (I guess that's why you get one with a driver, so they can drive around the block while you entertain yourself). London seems to be riddled with big ol' 4wd monsters that never even see a national route, let alone go off-road. Admittedly the Smart car is a bit uglee, but if you're only going to be averaging 30mph and need to park to a short order, seems a sensible option...

My 2 coppers.

- Lnr

A smart car being an extreme example and vw lupo being an example of a smaller, more economical car with better use of interior space...

I drive a Smart for anything over 3 km (2 miles) walking distance away.

repeat after me... the only thing that should replace those damned SUV are the smart...

maybe it would have made more sense to get smart cars street legal in the US, to replace those over-consuming SUVs...

That may be true, but driving the Lupo 3L in "Eco" mode is a bit like slow torture. Yes, a hybrid Lupo could probably get 130 mpg without breaking a sweat, but it's not a "solution" that appeals to a lot of people. I'd settle for a larger model 100 mpg with AC, CVT transmission, some good pickup, and seats that don't warp your spine. The Mercedes Smart Roadster would be a good place to start...