Slashdot Mirror
Smart Cars Coming to Canada and U.S.
AgniTheSane writes "Most importantly the Smart Car looks cool. It also gets 60 mpg, is four feet
smaller than a Mini Cooper (you can park two in a standard parking spot), the
plastic panels are easily swappable and one color all the way through (so you
can't scratch the paint), the steel frame makes it safe in an accident, and you
can get it with in-dash Bluetooth (and in Europe can read and write email via
the car speakers and a microphone). The Smart car is coming to the US soon, and will cost as little as $12,000. You can read about it in
Wired or on
MSNBC, or you can go straight
to ZAP who will be
selling them in the US soon, or the smart car
website in the UK. "
I would definitely go for a Smart diesel so I could use biodiesel. But alas, it's petrol only for us. Meh.
Big European familes seem to be able to cope with http://vauxhall.co.uk/showroom/search/brand.jhtml? brand=Zafira&vehicleType=Carsub compact people carriers like these which can seat 7. Is the averge american family that large or is it more to do with status really?
Then you're going to get Teed and will slide across the road several hundred yards, stuck to the front of the truck. Just like any other car that gets hit by a truck travelling at speed, in fact.
Everyone in America seems to paranoid about driving. I don't get it. It's not like they don't have 18 wheeler monster trucks in Europe, and they seem to manage.
In all seriousness, if two of these fit into a standard parking spot, can you double up at a meter? Does the first person in to the meter spot pay, and the second one piggybacks and adds on as necessary?
Yes, and in Europe we don't have 18 wheel trucks. Everything is pushed around on hand carts, making the roads a much safer place.
Oh no, that was a weird dream I had. We really do have cars, vans and trucks just as big as the US and in fact they regularly travel much faster than in the US (E.g. 70Mph national speed limit in the UK, 100Kph in most of mainland Europe, faster in Germany). With similiar population sizes, and a higher population density in most of western Europe. Oddly enough people manage to drive on the roads every day without a cripling fear of being crushed to death on the motorway.
There are a few possible reasons why Americans are so paranoid about driving that I can think of. You're all naturally paranoid (Who made you that way?), American cars are generally made to a much lower and dangerous standard (Possible, but Ford are everywhere in Europe), or you're just all such terrible drivers that it's just a healthy survival instinct (In which case, learn to drive properly).
The American 'aesthetic' sense rears its ugly head again.
Don't forget that this car was originaly developped for the european market. In europe safety in a car is regarded as very important.
:)
In the brussels car fair they did the test by driving the SMART car against a concrete wall at 60 kmph, the doors opened without problems and the passenger-cage was perfectly intact.
ps.:My girlfriend drives a smart. It's the perfect car for women; you don't need to be able to parrallel park as you can just drive into a parking spot under a 90 angle
How I miss my Subaru Justy, not quite as efficient as this, but a great little car. I would get 50mpg+ if I drove on the interstate and occassionally got behind a semi.
meh
Smart cars are one thing, but how about smart drivers?
Drivers seem to be getting dumber, and ruder, by the day.
So, I'd like smart cars that pull over to the curb and turn themselves off when the driver does something stupid, like turning right across three lanes of traffic from the far left lane, or speeding along the right shoulder on an Interstate to pass, or speeding up to go through a yellow light, or....
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
uhm... There are quite alot of cars that are "contains no user-serviceable parts" - Audi A2 comes into mind - You can't open the hood without a proprietary key. But it's not like there is alot in a modern car that joe sixpack can poke around with to their advantage.
They started selling them here in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago. I took a convertible out for a test drive, expecting to be disappointed because of the glacial 0-60 time (current car=WRX). It actually didn't suck nearly as bad as I thought it would. We had no trouble keeping up with traffic, in town and on the freeway, and with the top down even at freeway speeds, it wasn't unpleasantly noisy.
:-)
I'm 6'2" and there was lots of headroom and legroom; there was no indication from within the car that you were driving something so small.
The only thing that was unusual about the whole experience was the shifting. I drove the "manual", and the pause and forward pitch after requesting a shift was a little strange. And since the redline was 4000 rpm (all the Canadian models are diesels), you have to shift a lot, even from a stoplight to get to 50 km/hr.
They come in Coupe and Cabriolet models and three levels of trim: pure, pulse, and passion. Coupes run from $CDN 16,500 to $19,200 and Cabriolets run from $19,500 to $22,200
It was cool, and I can see it as the bomb in urban areas, but it wasn't quite my cup o' tea, so I bought an M3 instead
Smart Cars are so short they can park nose in parking spaces that aren't wide enough for a Hummer to park laterally.
As for style, my wife squeaked in delight for months on seeing them and often wanted no more than to "hug" them. They've even turned into small art and advertising billboards in the case of rental and corporate vehicles.
They're definitely a cool car by most Spaniards' measurements.
On a serious note, the SMART cars have been in the US for some time now. I used to see them in Florida on a regular basis before moving.
Not only does it get only slightly better mpg than a 1980 VW diesel rabbit, it's slow enough in getting upto highway speed to pose an actual safety threat.
"Only" 50hp and it's that speed impaired? Something is else wrong.
Also, you might want to check out this: http://www.insidercarsecrets.com/women.html
Or the stats a bit further down the page:
So it's a "chick car". So what? That's what people said about the new Mini - but I see guys snapping them up, and their girlfriends love 'em.A woman isn't going to get all gushy over you 'cause you have a 454 under the hood. She'll just think you're another one of those "horsepower substitutes for penis" idiots.
I've seen one driving around Toronto with the licence plate "REVOLT". I thought it was pretty funny. It looks like an excellent tooling-around-the-city car.
-aiabx
Just this guy, you know?
(disclaimer, I just Swapped my For2-shape Smart for a Smart Roadster) The Smart is actually one of the safest small cars there is thanks to the stridion safety cage, ands also since you can't t-bone one between the wheels in anything wide than a motorbike, due to the short wheelbase.
Smart were well aware that the car looks easy to break, so they put a LOT of effort into safety. I've seen pictures of a from end collision between a Samrt and a Mercedes E-class, the Merc was a write-off, while the Smart drove away.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Of the two, I would have certainly preferred to be in the Smart. Of course, cars tend to fare better when hit from behind, but even so, the disparity in damage caused was incredible. I always thought that Smarts looked really fragile, being used to old Citroens and Volvos (which are can run over armoured personnel carriers with barely a scratch), but this was impressively strong.
They still look like they'd flip up and lie on their tailgates, though.
The Smart car has a Euro NCAP rating of 3, which is not good by modern standards.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Lighter is safer. Ask any traffic engineer.
Reduce braking distance
Having done any research into vehicle safety would reveal this (though, admittedly, I didn't mention it, presuming that anyone with a iota of physics background would take this for granted): Even though you can't reduce reaction time, the next most important factor in traffic safety is braking distance, which is directly proportional to mass. You stop faster with less weight.
Accident avoidance
After that, I understand the next most important safety factor is avoidance, a function of lateral traction, proportional to tire width, gumminess, and closeness of the axels, and inversely proportional to mass. The less your mass, the more lateral traction. If you can avoid or stop before the accident, the odds of a detrimental accident decrease.
Functions of time
So, as you say, "it's not the speed that kills you, it's the sudden stop", the Smart Car simply slows faster prior to the sudden stop, so when that sudden stop happens, you're going much slower. Safety as a human function is directly proportional to the time of the stages in an accident: realization, reaction, braking or avoidance, and impact. More effective braking and avoidance make your time more useful.
Crumple zones
Albeit, in a smaller vehicle, there is a small but substantial increase in the potentially vital impact component. However, if you put a 730kg (1600lb) vehicle (the Smart car) against an average vehicle sized sedan at 1500kg (3300lb), the sedan will simply stop further away from the point where the driver realized and acted on an emergency situation. That distance translates into not just fewer accidents, but lower speed at the point of impact, hence less force involved in the impact, and hence fewer and less severe injuries.
Emperical questions
To measure the safety, you have to look at the merits of the differences between this vehicle and others. These merits are not necessarily obvious, involving at least:
* How do most accidents happen?
* How do most injuries happen? I believe the vast majority of accidents are rear-enders, which can be substantially reduced with better breaking distance and avoidance.
* How many vehicle accidents are related to inadequate lateral traction?
* Does the increase in avoidance and braking capacity result in fewer accidents?
* Lower the cost insurance?
* Lower fatalities? Of the owners? Of SUV drivers?
* Result in fewer fender-benders?
* How many are head-on collisions? (The only case where this vehicle would seem to be substantially less safe, isn't it? This is the case where momentum clashes and your body velocity goes from +X to -X)
Geneology of Driving
These are sort of anecdotal arguments that I've bought into: Humans aren't designed to acquire and react to information at speeds provided for by vehicles, though we have compensated very well. Two factors remain very good at making drivers more comfortable, and hence more adequate: visibility and fit. The more visiblity you have, the less compensation your brain has to do to make up for blind spots. The better you feel you have control of the vehicle, ie. how it 'fits' you, the less time your brain spend compensating for unresponsive or poorly responsive mechanics. However, a large car can have both of these. There is also a question of security; insecure drivers, ie. those in a smart car who are uncomfortable being surrounded by SUV's, may react poorly (or perhaps drive more cautiously; who's to say).
I hope that clarifies the reality and reveals to you how physics of lighter vehicles can, and typically emperically does, make them inherently safer. Bear in mind, the old Volvo tank model of safety has its merits, too. But the Smart Car is not a death trap, unlike nearly all SUV's (save the Subaru Forrester, in the USA, iirc).
This has got to be the biggest bunch of B.S. I've ever read. And the moderators who modded the parent post up should be ashamed of themselves for their complete and total lack of understanding of simple physics.
A rudimentary knowledge of physics is no compensation for ignorance of traffic engineering and safety. Prior to spreading FUD, perhaps read the referenced, or looking up on google a relevant, article. (Would you do any less if Windows were claimed to be the patron saint of network efficiency?)
Everything else aside, the vehicle is LESS SAFE to the occupants because it's lighter. I suppose that makes it more safe to the people in the other vehicle. When two masses hit, the lighter mass undergoes a greater change in velocity. This will be "felt" by the occupants, which means they're going to be injured easier.
Don't confuse traffic safety with head-on collisions. The latter is a relatively very small, albeit sensational, component of traffic safety. Breaking distance, vehicle responsiveness, and accident avoidance, on the other hand, are fundamental components to traffic safety, especially in emergency situations. They generally increase the occupants safety, including the rare cases of head-on collisions. I'm not saying the Smart Car is less safe in head-on collisions; it may or may not be. But it is certainly generally more safe.
[The crumple zone is there so] the occupants of the car do not feel the full "smack" of going from 60mph to 0mph in a hundredth of a second. Decelerating that quickly will severely injure a person. Airbags can help, but regular cars have those as well. Advantage larger car.
Bear in mind that "crumple zones" are an industry invention that makes a fender bender a multi-thousand dollar affair, proceeds to said industry. They increase the distance of sudden deceleration by up to two feet. A Smart Car car, on the other hand, has half the weight of the average vehicle, meaning that its capacity to decelerate prior to the accident is increased dramatically, not including its greater capacity for avoidance. Your capacity to safely stop suddenly is less important if you can avoid or break more efficiently.
See, also: this comment
All the same, in an accident where I need to walk away, I'll take my Mercedes or my old Volvo before I'd take some of the cheap, tinfoil crap I see on the road every day (not saying the the Smart is one). On top of that, at the price I paid for my car, I'm much more careful with my driving and keeping the car in top mechanical condition. Small, cheap, disposable cars tend to be more dangerous simply from the standpoint that their owners may not have the same "investment" in keeping it in one piece.
Also, having a rigid frame around the driver is a great idea IF there is something sacrificial around it to absorb the impact energy in an accident. I can build a car that's strong enough to withstand an impact and drive away, but you'd have to scrape the occupants out with a paper towel. I have some experience in this. I built an ultra-light aircraft for my wife and decided to make is extra strong. When she crashed it (pilot error), it took almost nothing to put the ultra-light back in the air. My wife, on the other hand, was almost killed and spent 2 years with countless surgeries recovering. The investigation concluded that had the aircraft structure been weaker and able to absorb the impact, she might have been able to walk away. Needless to say, I don't fly that one any more.
On the other side of the equation, I was filming from the back seat of an ultra-light for an instructional video when we augured in (yep, camera rolling - great footage!). There was nothing left of the plane. It practically disintegrated around us, but we both walked away. The pilot broke a bone in his hand and the restraint system left some really impressive bruises on me, but we were able to spend the night out and wait for rescue just fine. The aircraft I fly now is designed to absorb the impact of a crash (I've also added a ballistic parachute to it).
Last week I was early on the scene of an accident where I thought for sure someone would be dead. One of the cars looked like no-one could have survived. However, upon closer inspection the driver's compartment was entirely intact, with several airbags deployed. The driver was standing a short distance away, talking to one of the other people one the scene. He looked shaken, but [apparently] unhurt. The other car look like it was in better condition, but the driver was still sitting in it (and was being attended to - so I didn't get any closer).
It sucks big-time to have your car looking like a grotesque piece of $50,000 modern art, but seeing your kid getting safely out: priceless!
:-)
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
There's unquestionably room in the market, especially in highly urbanised countries where fuel is expensive, for tiny funky city cars like these. I'd buy one. But the Smarts, despite being a Mercedes co-production (which would lead you to think it'd be nice but have lousy quality control...), are just lousy to drive and too expensive, according to all reports. The reviews (Review 1, Review 2) have been so lousy that I ruled out even ever test driving one; if the things cost $AU5000 then that'd be another matter, but they're really quite expensive here, and the US pricing would seem to be similarly inflated, compared with the lower pricing of regular cars in the States.
Here in Sydney, Australia, I see a Smart tooling around every now and then, but every single one I've seen has been a corporate promotional vehicle, not a private car. There's no reason at all for a private citizen to buy one of these expensive, annoying little things, when perfectly good four-seat Japanese subcompacts are available for the same money. Korean ones cost rather less.
Seriously though, I live in Alaska now and to get to most places you have to fly in small planes. We also do a lot of hunting and fishing which you pretty much need to fly out to do effectively. There's nothing better than tossing the fly rod up into the wing of my ultra-light and landing somewhere on a gravel bar for some quiet fishing.
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution