An anonymous reader writes "ZAP'sSmart Car has officially been approved by the EPA for sale in the United States. From the article: 'It was the last major regulatory hurdle the company faced.' Finally a 60 mpg car that can go 90 mph and look cool at the same time!!"
We have one and regularly go 90 mph on the motorways here. It's fab. The only reason they don't go more than 90 is that they have a speed limiter. You can get them chipped however... http://www.smarttune.co.uk/tuning.htm
Re:90 MPH????
by
DigitumDei
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The smart roadster, while still ugly in a way, definitely looks a lot better than the normal one.
I was given one of these as a replacement car when mine was being serviced. I took it out on the motorway round Brussels and while it's a lot like driving a hair dryer it is suprisingly comfortable. I wouldn't want to do any long motorway trips in one though, but then that really isn't what the designers intended either. I'd have preferred a manual gearbox (smart forfour is the only smart with this as an option) but that won't be an issue in the US.
One thing I noticed is nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, can stand being overtaken by one of these.
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
I'd be surprised if an average American could even fit into one of these things.
Re:90 MPH????
by
XenonDif
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
They look like they have the aerodynamics of a cardboard box. My old 70's VW bug wasn't very stable at high speed and especially with cross winds. I guess that design had too much lift at those speeds. Can anyone who's driven one of these at speed comment on it's handeling?
Hmm.. considering the rampant drunk driving, carjackings, "fishing"-style robberies (robbers standing on a bridge that goes over a motorway in order to be able to pick off cars by means of a well aimed throw of a suitably sized concrete block) etc. etc. neither would I.
hehe.. out of curiosity - can you get them with white walled tyres? guess you could fit a good dozen of ppl in it and call it a taxi!;-)
But I was under the impression that these things dont really happen that often in the US.. or..?/m
...and get a ticket for parking in the wrong way in a line parking space (I've seen several around here...)! In fact if the parking space is declared for line parking, you can't park parallel! (of course it may vary from country to country)
Here's a fun fact: This car is half the weight of some the lightest other cars on the road (the Honda Civic, for instance, is nearly double the weight at 2700lbs). Just wait until someone gets in a head on collision with an SUV (most of them are nearly 3 times the weight of these cars -- The driver of the SUV feels almost nothing, the accident investigators wonder what kind of car was even in the crash.
Yeah, you'd have to be real "SMART" to drive one of these. This is what I call "natural selection". Unless everybody else on the road is driving a 1588lb car, I wouldn't bother. More expensive on gas is more than worth the safety of myself, let alone my family.
Sir, I challenge you to a duel in my 3000lb jetta. Now, thats fab.
Re:90 MPH????
by
Xabraxas
·
· Score: 2, Informative
(of course it may vary from country to country)
Actually in the US it varies from state to state. The state's have different laws when it comes to driving/roads/etc. That's why the speed limit is different in different states. That's also why it is easy to get a driver's license in some states and harder in others.
Around here (arkansas) I dont think it matters how you park, as long as you are within the marked area and within a foot of the curb. I know this because I see motocycles parked two in a spot at an angle and the police say thats fine as long as they are in the marked out spot, they just consider it helpful to the limitated parking spot issues
Re:90 MPH????
by
Space+Coyote
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Just wait until someone gets in a head on collision with an SUV (most of them are nearly 3 times the weight of these cars -- The driver of the SUV feels almost nothing, the accident investigators wonder what kind of car was even in the crash.
OK, here's the thing: if two SUVs hit each other head-on, everyone dies. You are arguing that a disadvantage of the SMART car is that if you get involved in a fatal car accident, you don't get te satisfaction of taking the other guy out with you?
Americans are strange.
-- ___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
Re:90 MPH????
by
animaal
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Unfortunately, you have a point.
People are buying SUVs to be a bit safer than the average car in a crash. So now everybody's gotta get one to stay safe.
Then some people start to drive small trucks to stay safer than the average SUV in a crash. So now everybody's gotta have one to be safe.
Where does it end? Everyone driving 18-wheelers?
Tax private use of larger vehicles. Either through petrol(gas) tax, road tax, purchase tax, take your pick!
In countries where it's more expensive to drive huge vehicles, people chosoe smaller ones. The average car is lighter, more efficient, and better for the environment. And people in smaller cars (or pedestrians) are in less danger in a crash. Just look at the cars in an average city in Europe!
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
i rented the smart 4four recently, it has 4 seats which makes it actually useful and it was no problem at all to go over 190 km/h on the autobahn.
that should be fast enough for most US drivers...
it looks weak but drives surprisingly well, it's full with electronics to keep it stable - and it really feels like it.
to park you can just pull straight in, putting the front end (or rear) of the car parallel to the street.
Most cities require vehicles to be parked parallel to the curb; and often pointing in the direction of traffic. While the Smart Fortwo is physically capable of parking perpendicular to the curb without jutting into traffic, doing so could earn you a parking violation.
Besides, backing into traffic is usually not a good idea.
Driving one of these in Midtown Madness 3 on the XBox is a blast. Easily one of the most fun vehicles in the entire game, and it certainly makes me want to give one of these a real-life test spin.:)
-- SNACKS ARE AWESOME
Re:90 MPH????
by
supersnail
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
SUVs may be safer in a collision, but, they rollover at the slightest prompting.
One Brit TV program recently did a test where they recreated a fairly normal situation, trying to avoid a suddenly braking vehicle ahead of it.
The really interesting bit for the "ordinary car" (BMW!) the test was conducted by the TV presenter with no safty gear other than a seat belt.
The SUV test vehicle was driven by a professional stunt man with crash helmet and five point seat belt! They knew it was gonna role!
The SUV rolled on the first test at 70 mph. Thr BMW was still good at 110 mph.
But then again I dont actually remember seeing a bend on a US highway.
-- Old COBOL programmers never die.
They just code in C.
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well, duh, our dicks or boobs would get in the way!
Just wait until someone gets in a head on collision with an SUV (most of them are nearly 3 times the weight of these cars -- The driver of the SUV feels almost nothing
Just wait until that crappy SUV gets in a head on collision with a Freightliner. Only a moron would drive anything smaller than a Freightliner. Good thing the Liebherr isn't licensed for onroad use, or we'd all have to drive one of them.
I see these things everywhere here in Germany (I'm a US Cit). I even pass by a smart car tower with cars stacked up in a glass elevator every day while going to work. I wouldn't get in one of these things on the autobahn... After driving on it myself, I wouldn't feel comfortable in the states with one due to the fact that it looks like a nice go-kart in the states.
The company has also known about the US market for several months and thinks they'll be able to go after the teenagers without a problem.
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No, but your odds are better if you're in the SUV. That is, you're likely going to hit something lighter than you.
Sure, two SUV's hitting is a problem. Is just a matter of odds though. Two SUV's colliding is less likely than something lighter than your SUV hitting you.
When driving a light car then the odds are stacked against you. In fact, with the exception of motorcycles this Zapo thing would be the lightest vehicle on the road. That ain't good odds. The fact is, if you're in any accident at all you're going to be the loser. Period.
I heard people in the UK saying that years ago when the car first came out there. Then I saw one when I was visiting and certainly wouldn't wanted to park one perpendicular to the kerb. I would say it's longer than most cars are wide, especially in Europe where the cars are smaller. Every one I saw was parked parallel to the kerb. The article claims it is 8 feet long, yet even a large vehicle like a Hummer H2 is less than seven feet wide.
Interestingly, in the UK the various parking authorities have recognised the advantages of such vehicles and allow half price parking in many of the car parks, which is fair as they only take up half a space.
Also, on the stability issue, Stirling Moss has one and loves it. A mate of mine has one and also loves it.
-- Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
Don't forget, these cars are excellent for picking up chicks. They're so short, they'll think you're so long that you don't need to buy a big car to make up for your... insufficiently elongated masculin component?:)
I think I try too hard sometimes.
-- I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
SUVs aren't dangerous. Idiots driving SUVs without knowing their properties are dangerous.
That depends on the speed and conditions. It's quite possible to survive an SUV/SUV head-on collision. I think it'd be almost impossible to survive a head-on with anything in one of these.
-- It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
These were all over Spain when I was living there (3 years ago).
In one of the better television commercials, a couple is sitting in a smart car when Godzilla comes walking through the city. Godzilla's foot then comes crashing down on the Smart Car and nothing happens--it withstands Godzilla's weight.... Implying that this car is very safe (at least against large Japanese mutant monsters).
Besides - the kind of people who routinely drive faster than 90 MPH are NOT the target audience for this vehicle.
Stirling Moss had at least two when they first came out in Europe, one of which is
documented here. I'd suggest that he routinely drives faster than 90MPH.
Re:90 MPH????
by
Evil+Poot+Cat
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
But then again I dont actually remember seeing a bend on a US highway.
hahahha, now that's funny!
What isn't funny, is that curves in the highway aren't necessary to require swerving, although I periodically hear about someone taking an exit ramp or turn too quickly.
IIRC, I've seen three SUVs roll...
two were Explorers, one was a Rover of some type.
all three were avoiding a collision, one was avoiding a stolen car chase.
all ended up on their tops
one rolled several times, lost its top completely, and spread bodies and toys across the dry highway.
one merely slid/spun on its top, and remained on the wet highway.
one rolled onto a concrete divider (12 inches wide?), slicing the cab in half.
Then, there was the Jeep Cherokee which exploded after a rear-end collision, immolating a family of 3, and the SUV of some type which tried to drive a 270 ramp at 50mph, and exploded in the trees. I didn't see those, but they do happen.
That the collision would be between two very different cars is the important thing. It would be important in america, more and more people there are buying bigger and bigger cars. This is different from europe -- people there are more likely to own smaller cars.
You assume I am American, I am not. I also don't get satisfaction from killing others, regardless of what I'm driving. If I didn't care about others on the road, I would advocate this vehicle -- it's safer for me that way.
I was driving 90mph in my own (none-Smart/Zap) car last year near London, and a Smart car overtook me at a lot more than 90, more like 110mph. The Smart cars have an excellent safety record here and it is about time folks in the USA accepted them as they are not only a lot of fun and easier to park, but use literally 1/4 of the gasoline of your typical North American vehicle.
I agree with you somewhat, but that "weight means dick" is not realistic. The preveous post about the Freightliner is funny because it's true -- exaggerativly so.
The crumple zone on the front is non-exisent, a foot in and your bumper is on my kneecaps. The rear is just as bad, maybe two feet? And the sides... my chest is at bumper-height. I sat in one of these at a car show, it felt light when I sat down and it swayed. The door was far too light to have any significant reinforcement. Weight is important, it means that there is actually a big piece of tube steel in there to keep the baddies out of my cab.
So yea, weight isn't everything, but when I change lanes in my Jetta without looking, the SMART car is in the ditch and all I get is a scratch on my quarter-panel.
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The smart is a very special one. you can go on the web page www.smart.com Choose "America", and "Canada". You'll find there a lot of information about the security the car offer. Very interesting. In Canada, the car is sell by Mercedes-Benz. I think they would no go in this kind of car if it doesn't offer great security. Want to hear more about the car ? www.mbcanada.com
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
me too I drive a Mini
Smart drivers usually can't stand being overtaken by a Mini
Everybody assumes that SUV's are safer vehicles to own, but overall they're not.
So not only are you increasing the chances you'll kill someone else, but yourself too. So... given enough time, SUV owners should select themselves out of the gene pool.
Maybe the car is so light that it would just bounce away. In fact maybe they could install some super rubber bumpers so that it would guarantee a bounce... I think somebody already thought of the NERF car.
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'd have preferred a manual gearbox (smart forfour is the only smart with this as an option) but that won't be an issue in the US.
I drive a stick shift, you insensitive clod!
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Doesn't obesity reduce the size of your dick? Don't the USA have the most obesity among its population in the world?
I used to sit in the third lane of English motorways at over 90mph in a Transit. That used to bug the hell out of people. No matter how fast you make one of them things go, people still feel the need to get past you.
Re:90 MPH????
by
Spudley
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Also, on the stability issue, Stirling Moss has one and loves it....and for all those of you who don't know, Stirling Moss is a (retired) racing driver, so he should have some idea of what makes a good car.
*sniffle* I'll only drive a standard! I know I'm in the minority here in the states but some of us Americans do like to have control of our vehicles!!!
"Certainly not when the crumple zone is your knees."
In an SUV, not speaking metaphorically here at all, you understand: the crumple zone is the car of the poor bastard you hit. And the people in it.
That's how SUV's survive crashes unscathed.
Re:90 MPH????
by
FyRE666
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I wouldn't be on that. In fact a program called "Top Gear" recently tested this very car in a collision test with a concrete wall at 70mph. The wall was angled at around 10 degs from perpendicular, so the Smart car slammed into it and then slid off to the side. Although any occupants would indeed be killed in such a collision, it would be due to the deceleration forces, and not any problems with the car's structure. It's specifically designed to transmit the energy of a crash up through the (surprisingly strong) roof and underfloor sections. In the test, the roof glass remained intact, and the passenger side door was still operational!
They performed the same crash test with another normal family car (I think it was some vauxhaul) and it faired no better than the Smart.
Smart designers invented the Fortwo's main style and safety feature: a bulky steel cell, visible inside and out, that frames the passenger compartment like a roll cage and absorbs the shock of a head-on collision. What happens if some Detroit-engineered behemoth plows into the featherweight Fortwo? I got a pretty good idea, watching a Smart-sponsored crash test with a Mercedes E-Class: The big sedan crumpled, and the Fortwo ricocheted.
Ricocheted!
Personally, I'd prefer a car that can actually bounce when slammed into by some cretin piloting some huge land barge. The truth is that this car, being so much smaller, closer to the ground and with the driver nearer to the front, is likely to be the safest car on the road. The principle cause of car crashes is not some inherant safety factor of the car, but driver error. And being up away from the road, isolated from the driver in front of you by a couple of yards of hood makes one a far less safe driver. The belief that one is safe makes one more reckless.
-- "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure"
Charles Crumb
It's not even funny. My friends, who can't possibly afford SUV's and the gas bill that comes with, insist on them for reasons of "style". But it's not the reason they need the trucks. They are too bloody overweight to bend at the knees and proceed to enter any normal-sized automobile.
Safety my arse. They are too fat, won't discipline themselves, and wind up in a 5000 pound vehicle that crashes into objects with an extra 1000 pound payload consisting of their families. It's rather sad. Hell, not sad, anger-inducing. They are killing people by the thousands because they need to use a cargo truck to haul their keisters in.
Eh, I think it is much more simple then all of that. SUV's are much "cooler" cars then station wagons or mini-vans. Now, you can be a parent with out driving a classic family machine.
Yah, my room mate's brother's fiance died in an SUV rollover. She was swerving to avoid another vehicle. There wasn't even a collision.
I've never seen one roll personally, though I did see two come periously close one day out on the Interstate. Both of them were going well over the speed limit (I was going well over the speed limit and they came flying by me) and tried to merge into the same lane at the same time. They pulled out of it at the last moment and I was sure both of them were going to go flying off the road. You can not treat an SUV like a car and you really can't treat it like a sports car. There should be a separate license and extra training required to drive something that big (SUV, Minivan, whatever.)
I think that the safest way to approach driving in an SUV is to treat it like a tank. If some fuckwit does something stupid, just roll over him. You'll be much more likely to survive if you do that than if you try to avoid the accident.
--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Besides, backing into traffic is usually not a good idea.
Sounds like in your city, cars park so far away from each other that you have ample room to drive head on into free spots. It must nice, living in Fantasy-Land.
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Although any occupants would indeed be killed in such a collision, it would be due to the deceleration forces, and not any problems with the car's structure.
Yeah, and falling off of a building doesn't kill you---it's the landing.
The roadster is actually pretty good looking. It certainly compares favourably to most of its competitors in looks.
They're also said to have excellent road-holding, although they are down on acceleration. From my experiance american-designed cars, you guys can't have too many corners, so this probably isn't a big deal.
If I had the cash for a low-end sports car, I'd buy a VX220 Turbo, but I'd keep a Smart Roadster rather than sell it for the cash if given one...
Of course, you probably can't get the VX220 Turbo in the USA.
This should come as no surprize, but that's how you can get killed in ANY vehicle collision.
The problem here is a little thing called INERTIA.
Let's assume you are wearing your safety belt properly, so you are reasonably well fixed to the car. For all intents and purposes you and the car are one.
Two cars of identical mass and velocity collide head on. In a perfect world they would come to a complete stop that the point of collision.
Now, two cars.. one of mass m, one of mass 3m, with the same velocity, collide head on. The 3m car has more inertia. as a result, the smaller car gets pushed back by the difference in energy.
Which is a worse acceleration? "V1 -> 0" or "V1 -> 0 -> V2" (Where V2 is in the opposite direction of V1)? =Smidge=
They are making some pretty cool station wagons now. Not like those old wood panel ones you take camping, but ones like the Volvo Cross Country, or maybe even the new Dodge Magnum. That's like 300hp or something, and it can carry a pile of crap in the back.
The for4 is thought of by many Smart owners (myself included) as 'not a real Smart'. It's not got many of the original car's clever features, because it's actually just a Mitsubishi Colt with Smart-designed bodywork. If you liked the for4, you should definitely look at the Colt, because you'll be getting the same car with a higher spec for less money (and you won't have to deal with DaimlerChrysler's apallingly shoddy dealer network).
-- A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Quote: I'd have preferred a manual gearbox (smart forfour is the only smart with this as an option) but that won't be an issue in the US./quote
The assertion that this wouldn't be an issue in the states could only possibly mean that a manual gearbox will be availabe in the states.
You'll only take my six-speed out of my cold, dead hands.
People are buying SUVs to be a bit safer than the average car in a crash. So now everybody's gotta get one to stay safe.
While I suppose an SUV might be safer in a crash, I suspect you're that much more likely to get into a crash in the first place in a large vehicle than a smaller, more agile one. I seem to remember seeing far more accidents involving SUVs and minivans than normal cars... but it could just be that I remember them more because I despise SUVs.
Anyone have statistics on accidents/number of vehicles on the road for SUVs vs passenger cars?
Ever think that it's people with thinking like yours that cause people to buy the big cars/suv that crush other cars?
That is to say, if americans weren't living in fear for their life all the time there might not even be that problem?? Hence the popularity in other countries.
I have to say that, given the choice between being run over and watching an SUV roll, I'll take "watching the SUV roll" 10 out of 10 times.
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
The car is 2.55 meters long. Exactly the maximal width which is allowed in Germany for normal cars. So it's no problem to park non-parallel to the street in Germany (the main market of the Smart) with this car.
Re:90 MPH????
by
Thangodin
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
SUV's do not win in accidents. They don't stop and push the other car out of the way, they push the other car down and ramp over it. The center of gravity is much too high--usually 6 inches to a foot above the bumper, which is already high enough to pass over the bumpers of most passenger cars, initiating the ramp effect.
There is even a good chance of this happening with a Smart Car. As the bumper of the SUV compresses the front end, the front end and cage of the little car will become a ramp, the tires will blow or the axles collapse, and the car will be locked in place by the sheer friction of the weight of both vehicles plus the force of lifting the SUV. The Smart Car will stop abruptly, which is bad, but the SUV will become a tumbling death trap, with 2 to 4 tons of vehicle crushing the heads of its occupants like overripe grapes.
Trust me, stopping is better than tumbling. Accidents aren't about winning. It's about how you stop. SUV's don't, and that's the problem. Even the people that make them admit that SUV's are more dangerous than standard passenger cars.
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Somebody may have already said this but I don't want to sift through all posts now (I'm late:) --
I find this particularly shitty for bikers. I bike a lot, what am I supposed to do?
I supposed I could mount explosives to myself with a sign reading: "SUV: You hit me, you go too."
It's really bull, makes me quiet upsat. I drive a Scion xB. It's quiet small for a US car, but not as fuel efficient as the SMART. 30mpg.
People are buying SUVs to be a bit safer than the average car in a crash. So now everybody's gotta get one to stay safe.
What's great is, SUV's aren't safer. These things are always rolling over and killing the passangers, losing control in rainy weather, etc. It's true that colliding with an SUV is bad news, but it doesn't mean that driving an SUV makes you safer.
Do you really want to have the vehicle in the street that sticks out half a metre more than the other cars? It sounds like a good way to get it clipped by passing vehicles.
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I do this since years with my Smart. No other car ever hit it. Why should they? You must be blind to oversee it. Every truck is about 2.55 meters width,and no with the eyes on the street hit them. And when someone hit my car, his car-insurance will pay the costs for repair and a hired car.
It's just like the guns, dude. Once someone gets one, everyone needs one to keep up. Where it ends is anyone's guess. Not having them in the first place is the only answer.
Trust me, as an american who has driven large vehicles (work van) and small cars (honda civic) and motorcycles (totaled), there is a large intimidation factor involved. Some asshole in an SUV is much more likely to think twice about cutting you off if you're driving something that will obviosly kill them if it hits. I get cut off in my car at least once a day, because it isn't intimidating, And my Bike was totaled because some ass in a large truck decided to pass me on a one lane road. Honestly, with these electric cars, the only people who will still have any level of respect for the damage they can do is a college kid on a scooter. The "taking the other guy with you" factor is not a matter of vengful thinking. The fact that if a wreck happens someones going to die is what generates enough fear in most drivers to keep them driving somewhat safely. I don't like large suvs and trucks, but unless most people are driving them, anyone who has one of these small cars had best be exceptionally aware of other drivers.
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I've had a Smart cabriolet over here in the U.K for more than 12 months now and it is the most enjoyable car I have ever owned. It is very nippy round town and can happily trundle along at 70m.p.h on motorways for hours (though very high winds can be a little unsettling at 80). In summer with the roof down and driving along country roads at 6 a.m its a blast. If you're perpared to take responsibility for your own safety (presumably you do when you cross the road and it's much safer than a motorcycle)then I heartily recommend it.
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The safety advantage to a larger car is the extra distance between the front bumper and the driver. Instead of passing the forces around the car, the frame in this space can be designed to absorb the forces. This crumple zone is what keeps race car drivers safe in high speed crashes. The smart car is so short that there really isn't any room to engineer in a crumple zone.
actually, most states allow small vehicles to park "nose out" but not nose in, for instance motorcycles and street legal ATVs. parking nose out allows the vehicle to leave the parking place in as efficient a manner as a car parked the standard way, or even more efficiently.
I do not own an SUV. I do not want to kill people. I do not live in fear. I hope I never change this. It's just to make a point. I could have chosen a cadillac, or a BMW sedan. I drive a Jetta, I get 30 mpg. You get more safety in these cars. Go to the dealership and close the door on one. Notice how heavy the door feels. How much metal is in there to absorb the crash and not let the other guy into your car. I never stated that SUVs are the solution, just that a person wouldn't want to have a run-in with one if driving a smart car.
[sarcasm] Guess I should forget about my daughter's college education, and invest in a gas-guzzling tank, since the auto arms race appears to be in full swing.. Every other American is going into obnoxious debt to buy a [insert over-priced vehicle name here], maybe I should too, just so I can flatten that Toyota Echo when I collide with it.
Hey, it's better I pummel the shit out of some sucker getting 60MPG in an Echo than to subject my family to an equal head-on collision, right? Survival of the fittest, right? The guy is practically begging for a Darwin award by not spending half of his salary on a Hummer and its gas requirement! [/sarcasm]
If everyone adopts your way of thinking, we'll all have to be driving 5000lb cars in 10 years, just so that we can keep from getting killed by a soccer mom in a 6000lb H2.. I have a Mazda 3, which is a pretty average-sized small car, and I'm afraid of what will happen if I get hit by some of these SUVs..
Buy the bigger vehicle for comfort, but get out of here with this arms race bullshit..
--
Why do I keep typing pythong?
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
thanks for pointing that out, *and there i was riding along thinking i was driving a mercedes*...
well - i don't have a car nor do i need one. living in europe really helps with that of course : )
and if i really want one i rent one, as i did with the smart - and it's really cheap to do so.
the dealer thing wouldn't be such a problem since i live in the south of munich, which is a pretty rich area so there's a mercedes dealer in every second village.
but given what you just told me paying so much more just to get the "smart" tag would be stupid anyway...
didja ever git that deer cleaned out of urine radiator? How 'bout that gun rack, didja ever git that thin installed in urine pickup? I really enjoyed that squirrel stew yall fixed last time I was over!
Anyway, you're riat 'bout ol'ladies not bein able ta drive. Why last Sunday, Betty-Sue was tryin ta part the truck when weunz went ta our muntly KKK convention, an' hell if she didn't run inta Jimmy's 4x4 tryin ta park next ta him. She tried ta blame it on my 3 dogs that weunz brin wif us, but weunz know that's just an excuse. Them Taleban had the riat idea, I recon weunz in the US could learn a thin or two from 'em an' whump the shit out of our ol'ladies, an' tekk away their riat ta vote an' all that..
--
Why do I keep typing pythong?
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why worry about a Liebherr being licensed? Just drive it anywhere you want. No one could stop you.
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
manual all the way. Any american car enthusiast agree's, problem is most cars aren't sold for car enthusiasts:\
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The Smart car is amazingly tough. Just because something is small doesn't mean that it is necessarily fragile. The Smart car packs some very good safety features such as an encompassing structure around the passengers, crumple zones.
More expensive on gas is more than worth the safety of myself, let alone my family.
Until the monster hurricane made all the more fierce by global warming wipes them off the face of the earth...
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"The Smart Car will stop abruptly, which is bad, but the SUV will become a tumbling death trap, with 2 to 4 tons of vehicle crushing the heads of its occupants like overripe grapes"
Now to me that suggests not that Smart cars are unsafe but that SUVs are very dangerous to other road users.
An analogy might be that if people routinely fire guns randomly in the street you should buy a flak jacket rather than stopping people shooting all over the place.
Put any of those cars next to a Smart Car and I don't think it looks so Smart anymore, I was thinking closer to 6 or 7 grand, half what they plan on selling it for, considering the prices of the competition.
-- my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You are soo right! Driving a SUV is so safe I can drive at least 10 mph faster! Oviously I have to overtake all the time, but hey!, on h.o.c. I am safe! If a young mother & 3 children dies on the "accident" - it just "natural selection". You see, "I don't feel a thing"!
I'd have to agree with you. I've worked as a driver in the Colorado Rockies for the last three winters. We drive rear-wheel-drive Ford vans, Front-whell-drive Cadillacs, and 4WD Suburbans.
The ford vans are the most predictable to drive - you feel the back end go out but the long wheelbase gives you a fighting chance to recover from the skid and drive on more cautiously. The Cadillacs have some pretty heavy-handed traction control so you'd actually have to be pretty talented to make it go sideways (believe me, I've tried;-)
The Suburbans on the other hand have a locked centre differential so as soon as you try to _steer_ them you induce a skid. Add the high centre of gravity into the mix and you can get in trouble really quickly. Of course, anybody who knows anything about cars only engages the 4WD when they are actually _stuck_ and just use it to get moving again.
Trouble is, people tend to come to Colorado for a week of skiing, and the asshat at the car-rental place convinces them to rent an SUV because 4WD is essential in the mountains and will make them immortal. Of course the first thing these folks do is press the big "4WD" button on the dash!
In my three years I've seen a buttload of vehicles upside down in the ditch. On well-maintained Interstates and remote secondary roads. At least half of them would have been SUVs. If you eliminate the number of 17 year-olds who I swear are _deliberately_ going out of control in the snow, that proportion is even higher.
Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with GM or Ford.
But then we'd simply have the same discussion over sharp rocks or spiked clubs. Guns are irrelevant. What we need to get over is the widespread desire to mame or kill each other. Until you achieve that, it is pointless to discuss ridding the world of any specific weapon.
As it turns out, Smart gave one to Stirling Moss because they thought it would make good press. Stirling (and isn't that a great name for a racing driver) had a play with it and discovered that it handled like shite (that's not the actual words used but is the nub and the gist). He then set about improving it and I believe that Smart now incorporate many of his tweaks and offer the others as upgrades.
Stirling Moss is also a genuinely nice chap and still one the great drivers.
-- Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
Why is it that despite their huge brains, most humans have the clear thinking capacity of a goldfish?
Buying an SUV is dumb on so many levels. In fact, its worse than just dumb - it is flat-out anti-social. SUVs are a danger to pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and cars. They are terribly wasteful and environmentally destructive both to build and to run.
Despite the common misperception, they are not safer for the occupants. The most obvious reason why is because the best way to not be injured in a crash is to not have the crash in the first place. SUV's are heavy, slow to stop, more likely to roll, and less sure-footed and predictable than a sedan.
The only safety advantage they have is the better view afforded to the driver by being so high up. It may not actually reduce the number of accidents though, because this height also means that drivers around you can't see anything. Still, owners of SUVs have already decided that they really don't care about other people.
When you do end up in a crash, you are still not safer. SUVs don't crumple - the passengers absorb the shock instead of the chassis. Its not the car being wrecked that injurs people - its the sudden decelleration - and in SUVs, the decelleration is a lot more sudden.
SUVs have their place... but if you think that taking it off-road twice a year justifies all the extra fuel used the other 99% of the time, all the extra maintenance, all the
Part of the reason there are so many SUVs on the road is that they are subsidised. The owners don't pay the real cost of building or running them. In some countries (Australia, USA) they even get tax breaks compared to sedans! The larger subsidy comes from SUV owners not having to pay for the environmental damage they cause, or the medical a societal costs of their crash-victims.
You've got to wonder why we allow our governments to subsidise these vehicles? Do we really want to encourage people to be selfish, dangerous and tragically stupid?
If you want to be safe on the roads your number one priority is to get the best defensive driving training you can. Also, get the widest, best quality tyres, and ensure your car is well maintained. Lastly, do what you can to stop anti-social people from making the roads more dangerous for the rest of us.
-- Which nations do you trust to use nuclear weapons responsibly?
This is why I feel safer in a normal car than an SUV.
In a collision with an SUV, yeah, I know I'm fucked.
But in a car that can actually corner/stop/accelerate worth a damn, I'm far less likely to have a collision with another vehicle.
Better to avoid the collision than to be in one in the first place. Another reply to your poster illustrates my point - People dying because they rolled while trying to avoid an accident.
Of course, the best thing now are vehicles "in the middle" - Larger than average but with good handling. Such as my family's 2004 Subaru Outback. It's a larger vehicle, so more crumple area to absorb impacts. But it still has decent gas mileage, and thanks to 4-wheel disc brakes and a fully independent suspension (as opposed to your typical SUV's live-axle suspension), the OB outhandles my tiny LeBaron convertible. Unfortunately it has the base 4-cylinder engine so its acceleration sucks.:(
I feel safer behind the wheel of my 1995 LeBaron convertible than I ever did behind the wheel of my family's old 1989 Montero or any other SUV I've driven, simply because I have FAR more control over the vehicle and where it goes.
I'm thinking of friends in the UK. They all seem to have had experience with having their cars scraped and wing mirrors knocked off. Maybe the streets are more cramped with more cars parked on them there. It seems like every street I see is half blocked by parked cars causing headaches for two way traffic. It's also hard to claim on somebody else's insurance if they don't stop...
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
watch the video on the smart canada website. it shows transport canada crash tests and tests conducted by others.
these have been sold around the world for years. they are built by mercedes.
If we have the means at our disposal to instantly kill someone with zero effort, we will kill a LOT more people. Sharp rocks and spiked clubs can't be used in a moment's lapse of reason - they require premeditation or a very long fit of rage. Sure, we'll still want to kill each other once in a while, but we won't be able to do so that easily. It also applies to suicides (check out US's suicide rate compared to other developed countries). Once people can't kill each other so easy, we can work on the anger thing.:)
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Until the monster hurricane made all the more fierce by global warming wipes them off the face of the earth... You watch too much TV.
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So this went from talking about the Smart car being approved for sale in the US to someone talking about americans being the only country with overweight people? Interesting...
JB - Seattle, WA (6'3, 200lbs, can I fit?)
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Weight means dick.
Someone else failed high-school physics, I see. Could you be any stupider?
"They're also said to have excellent road-holding, although they are down on acceleration. From my experiance american-designed cars, you guys can't have too many corners, so this probably isn't a big deal."
Spend a few weeks driving in the mountins here in America, we have lots of bendy little roads and whatnot.
-- Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So the only sane way to be safe with all those SUV drivers out there is to get a decommissioned tank with rubber treads?
"270 ramp"? as in I-270? Up in Michigan on I-670 I saw 2 SUV models flipped over in the median just after an overpass/onramp with a slight curve to them. IT was January as I remember and the roads were slightly glazed, but because they had SUVs they thought they could go over the 70 MPH limit (everyone was doing about 45 due to the ice). Down here in central Ohio SUV drives dont seem to be aware of anythign ont he road around them, and the truckers are getting as bad.
-- Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Nope, "270 ramp" as in 270 degrees, like you'd find in a cloverleaf. Earlier this year, some genius tried to drive around one of those too quickly (in an SUV, of course), and the authorities had to resort to dental records to I.D. the body and the vehicle (through insurance records).
It is just some people that are strange. If you apply SP's logic we would all be driving semis, or tanks or one of those coal shovel earth mover things.
We already have many light weight vehicles on our roads....they are called motorcycles. The Smart Car looks to me to be a motorcycle with a cute body/frame put around it. The frame makes it safer than a motorcycle and keeps the rain off too. I just may buy one of these if the price is reasonable. If the price if over $20K I think I will just go with an Insight or Prius. Right now I drive a full size pickup everywhere because I can't really afford to purchase an additional vehicle and I need the utility of the pickup. I am saving my pennies though and hope to soon do my part to change the demand for oil.
Re:90 MPH????
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
and whatnot??? Are you from Utah??? Lots of bendy little roads in Utah.
Old known in Europe
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
In Europe we've seend this cars since probably 5 years ago. Right now there are getting popular the new SMART FORFOUR, which offers 4 places in an also reduced space. I think here it was distributed together with either BMW or Mercedes. Haven't heard anything about that "ZAP" thing...
Re:Old known in Europe
by
RupW
·
· Score: 2, Informative
In Europe we've seend this cars since probably 5 years ago. Right now there are getting popular the new SMART FORFOUR, which offers 4 places in an also reduced space.
Yeah, they've been around in the UK for five years now and they're still not that common (and I get to see both the South East's countryside and London).
That's not to say they're bad cars - they're basically two-seat Mercedes A-classes, I think, and I was impressed with the A-class when work hired me one. But I'd want more room.
Yeah, in the UK it's distributed by Mercedes, and I think they had quite a lot to do with building/designing it too...
Oh, no, having checked the Smart site it's actually part of Daimler/Chrysler.
-- I say we take off and nuke it from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure...
Re:Old known in Europe
by
tincho_uy
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
In fact, it's a joint venture between Daimler-Benz and Swatch (yes, the watch makers), IIRC.
It's got Mercedes technology under the hood, and the design is from Swatch ( check http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/pw/05smartc abriolet.htm for the new cabriolet version)
The ForFour is just a jazzed-up Mitsubishi Colt for more money with less kit, IIRC.
Re:Old known in Europe
by
Ender_Stonebender
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You don't follow the auto industry much, do you?
Mercedes is actually Mercedes-Benz, which was a part of Daimler-Benz, which merged with Chrysler corporation to make Daimler-Chrysler. So Maybach, Mercedes, Chrysler, and Dodge cars all come from the same parent corporation. (Don't ask about Ford, they're even worse.)
--Ender
-- Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
Re:Old known in Europe
by
dunkelfalke
·
· Score: 2, Informative
the original design is from swatch, but daimler benz has changed too much and swatch pulled out.
-- Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
Re:Old known in Europe
by
levell
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Yeah, I've seen them around, for some reason they really appeal to me. I have a feeling they'll be cult classics in the future like the original Mini and VW Beetle are today. I know I certainly wouldn't say no if anyone offered me one.
-- Struggling to find a day everyone can make? WhenShallWe.com
Err... You are off by very far. Both as price and efficiency.
1. There is only one more petrol (loads of diesels though) car besides the Smart to make the UK top 10 lowest pollution (and best economy). It is the new Daihatsu Charade. It is a 4 seater and is priced at about 50% of the Smart price. If you compare how bad of a deal you get when getting a Smart you should compare it to it, not to a Jazz or a Modus which are much bigger.
2. Modus or Jazz are in the higher category and should be compared to FourFour. There the category benchmark is Diahatsu Sirion (from next year Daihatsu Boom AKA Toyota Passo). It does 60+ mpg, under 9 secs 0-60, under 3.5 secs 0-30, 5 seater (though the 5 person will get a bit cramped) and has a very reasonable boot. Add a second on top of these for the 4x4 model (while keeping the same fuel economy). Basically - 2-3 times better acceleration then the Modus, the Jazz or the FourFour with the same size. And it is by 2K cheaper then the Jazz. Compared to it the relevant Smart (fourfour) is a laughing stock (15-20% worse performance and 15/20% higher price). Oh, almost forgot, 1m less turning circle, almost as good as on the two seater Smart.
Overall you do not get anything positive from buying a Smart. It is a big waste of money. All you do is to demonstrate that you are a silly idiot.
-- Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
a part of Daimler-Benz, which merged with Chrysler corporation
I work in the auto industry. Although the correct business term may be 'merged', the term everyone who has to work with DCX uses is 'bought' or 'swallowed'. The Germans are *definitely* in charge over there.
--
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
"Yeah, they've been around in the UK for five years now and they're still not that common"
I remember driving for nearly 5 minutes and seeing nothing but Smart cars coming the other way... We later found out that they hold a yearly rally (london to brighton or something...) and that was what we had seen.
Mercedes is actually Mercedes-Benz, which was a part of Daimler-Benz, which merged with Chrysler corporation to make Daimler-Chrysler. So Maybach, Mercedes, Chrysler, and Dodge cars all come from the same parent corporation.
You forgot Poland... err, I meant Plymouth, Jeep, and Eagle as well.
Mal-2
-- How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
VW is: Audi, VW, Skoda (all of these have the same VW "look"), Seat, Bugatti, Lamborghinii, Bentley Fiat is: Fiat, Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, Lancia, Maserati BMW is: BMW, Mini, Rolls Royce Daimler-Chrysler is: Maybach, Mercedes-Benz, Dodge, Jeep, Smart
Don't forget Ford and GM. Basically every other European company not mentioned above is at least partially owned by either Ford or GM.
IIRC, Ford owns Volvo and Aston Martin among others. GM owns Saab and about 20% of Fuji Heavy Industries (Subaru).
DCX also owns a significant share of Mitsubishi. Something a lot of old Chrysler loyalists don't like, because until Daimler bought out Chrysler (merger my ass, it was a buyout), Chrysler was taking measures to distance themselves from Mitsubishi. (For example, the 3.3/3.8 liter V6 engines used heavily in minivans were designed as a replacement for the Mitsu 3.0 V6 used heavily in Chrysler cars in the late 80s and early 90s.)
I think one of the Detroit Big Three also has their fingers in Mazda or Suzuki to some degree.
just wait till they find out they're built in france. i visited the place at one point, there's like an entire village pretending to be a car factory, or the other way around. looks pretty nifty tho.
--
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
. ..there's like an entire village pretending to be a car factory, or the other way around.
Bugatti and Krupp took the same approach. It's really very nice.
Ironically Krupp developed the concept out of a loathing for socialism, and then Bismark took it as a model for socialism, and Mussolini went on from there.
Make of that what you will.
KFG
Re:for real ?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Of course the US hasn't had this car, it had to be downgraded to achieve only 10mpg so that the US can carry on pretending that the greenhouse effect does apply, and that Kyoto doesn't matter.
Call that a Smart Car...?
by
Dynamoo
·
· Score: 5, Funny
The FourTwo is OK, but I just got myself one of these babies.. a Smart Roadster Couple Brabus. Pretty much all of the fuel ecomomy and a top speed of 120mph. Sorted. Oh yes, you cant't get them in North America for at least a couple of years.. heheh:)
--
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
Dynamoo
·
· Score: 1
Coupé I meant!
--
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Wrong.
They are available in Canada, right now.
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
Dynamoo
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I stand corrected! Buy one.. I've been grinning like a lunatic ever since I got it!
Now that one I might just start saving my pennies for. Very sharp looking, not at all like a reject from Voltron.
The first thing I've seen that looks like a viable replacement for my Alfa GTV2000 or Honda CRX.
KFG
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That one actually looks decent. Why does the US get the one that we know won't sell here with our cowboy, SUV-driving attitude instead of the one that may at least appeal to the sporty-side of our dual personalities?
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
joper90
·
· Score: 1
Really.. i have a 2 year old s2000, that cost only a couple of grand more.. And that really puts a smile on your face..
And, if restrained isn't too bad on fuel
Also, top car of the year in that TopGear power survey thingy..
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
jlanthripp
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
You paid the equivalent of $32,000 for what amounts to a beer can on wheels, with an engine that would be considered undersized on a motorcycle and generates less power than the lowest-horsepower non-hybrid car available in the US?
Do you realize that for that kind of money, we in the US can get a Honda S2000 - a two-seater with well over twice the horsepower, nearly twice the torque, actually looks like a car, and doesn't have a turbocharger to decrease engine life?
Or, for $2000 less, we can get a brand new Mustang GT with all the options, three times the horsepower, over three times the torque, and twice the seating.
Either of these will run circles around the "Smart Roadster-Coupe Brabus." Hell, even my "other car", a 1991 Nissan Sentra, with baseline 1.6L engine and automatic transmission, will do 120mph - with 250,000 miles on the odometer. Yes, I've verified this; the rev limiter kicks in at about 122mph. And its book value is somewhere around $1500. 120mph ability may be something to brag about elsewhere, but at least in this part of the US it's generally considered a bare minimum, though acceleration is more important. Get on I-285 in Atlanta sometime - you have about 100 meters of ramp, and then you'd better be doing at least 70mph or you're a greasy spot on the guardrail.
-- "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
Dynamoo
·
· Score: 5, Informative
This "beer can" has a watercooled turbo, traction control, electronic stability, tiptronic six speed gearbox, cruise control and the works. One key difference between a European car and a US car is that Europeans like to go round corners.. that the Smart Roadster is easily one of the best handling cards of it's type. A small roadster isn't for everybody, but if you're looking for a Mazda MX-5/Miata size car then it's pretty good. These little roadsters aren't designed for drag racing.. they're designed to be fun!
--
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
CountBrass
·
· Score: 1
Wow I've yet to see a post that missed the point by such a margin.
Here's a hint: what's the fuel consumption like on the cars you proposed?
-- Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
jlanthripp
·
· Score: 1
Here's a hint: what's the fuel consumption like on the cars you proposed?
Who cares what the gas mileage is like on a car that's marketed as a sports car? You buy one because you need a penis extension, not because you want to save the environment. Look at the page for that coupe-roadster thing. It's called "the ultimate roadster driving experience." And yet the parent poster proudly proclaims its top speed to be less than a 14 year old econobox with a quarter million miles.
If you're wanting to save money on gasoline, you'd be spending an extra $15,000 up front for the Smart Roadster Coupe Brabus over the cost of a Honda Civic EX, to save maybe $3500 over the course of driving 100,000 miles (assuming an average fuel price of $3.00 a gallon during that time, though current prices are under $2.00 per gallon). And the Honda Civic LX has more horsepower, more torque, and twice the seating. And it has a trunk that'll hold more than 2 sacks of groceries.
-- "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
Dynamoo
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually gas is about $7/US Gal here. Top speed isn't the point. Heck a lot of cars can go faster in a straight line, which is fine if you live in Arizona or something, but for the rest of the world we have these things called bends.
And although the Honda Civic EX/Type R/whatever is a decent car from a mechanical point of view, it's basically just a bland Japanese thing with zero character. If I wanted a dull car, I'd buy one perhaps. It might be fun to drive, but no-one would care.
Where the heck am I gonna do more that 120mph anyway? And horsepower doesn't matter when you weigh about 800kg. That's the whole point of any roadster vehicle.. small, light and with good handling. It's just coincidence that the fuel economy is so good (45MPG incidentally, even though I've been driving like a nutter).
The bottom line though is this - everybody likes something different. That's choice for you.:)
--
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
jlanthripp
·
· Score: 1
The turbocharger means the engine is being force-fed, which decreases its life expectancy due to higher cylinder pressures - and you get turbo lag too. With traction control, you can't "steer with the accelerator" (traction control is standard equipment on many American sports cars - and I still hate it). Six speed transmissions are quite common also, though more than 5 gears is probably overkill unless the engine has to rev to the redline to produce any power. Cruise control has been common for decades - even my dad's 1977 Oldsmobile 98 sedan had it.
The page you linked to talked about the car like it was the be-all end-all of performance roadsters. In reality, it barely qualifies as a sporty roadster. To get performance, you have to burn fuel. That car may be quite an achievement given its fuel consumption, but it's no world class sports car. Generally, vehicles either do one thing fairly well or do two things somewhat acceptably. Good vehicles either do one thing fairly well and something else acceptably, or just do one thing exceptionally well. Great vehicles might do two things exceptionally well. Your car apparently does one thing pretty well, and that one thing is to burn a small amount of fuel per mile travelled. I still maintain that it wouldn't be appropriate for most US drivers.
Look, my original reply probably came across as ragging on your wheels - I'm just saying that it's totally inappropriate for ~95% of the driving we do in the US, and that it's way overpriced for what it is. Drop the price by about half, and they might sell a few of these in the US market to someone other than the daddy-buy-me-a-car crowd at the local private schools.
And yes, we like to turn corners too - almost a third of the United States is covered by mountains, and mountain roads have curves:-P
-- "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
jlanthripp
·
· Score: 1
Your car apparently does one thing pretty well, and that one thing is to burn a small amount of fuel per mile travelled.
Oops, two things - I forgot about the turning corners thing;-)
-- "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
BgJonson79
·
· Score: 1
You might not need to go a buck twenty, but you might need to actually get up to speed in a reasonable timeframe.
--
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
jlanthripp
·
· Score: 1
Where the heck am I gonna do more that 120mph anyway?
I've done 150mph on the freeways here in the US...not that I'd want to be caught doing that, or that I'd do it again. Ah, the improprieties of youth...
And horsepower doesn't matter when you weigh about 800kg.
Damn, that's one fat dude....oh, you meant the car *grin* You're right, though. I look at torque a lot harder than at horsepower when I'm choosing a vehicle. Not just the max torque, but at what RPM the peak torque occurs. That's why I like my 1996 F-150 pickup with 4.9L inline-6 engine. Yeah, it's the smallest engine available that year, but under 2000RPM it has more torque than the 5.0L V8 engine, and about the same as the 5.8L V8. And for me, that low-end torque is the important part.
I think part of the antipathy I feel towards those tiny "beer can" cars is related to what I use my vehicles for. I use my truck for my daily transportation to and from work, and also to haul large heavy things for the work I do on the side. I do some home repair work and some landscaping on occasion, and find the need to haul stuff like a ton and a half (~1360kg) of cinder blocks, or a ton (2000 pounds/~900kg) or so of mulch or gravel, or lumber, or whatever. Do you realize that my pickup truck is rated to haul more weight in the bed than the weight of your car? My Nissan gets driven by my better half mostly, and is used for hauling around her grandkids, grocery shopping, that sort of thing. It handles all the curves around here, including the mountain roadss of northwest Georgia, just fine at the speed limit.
My dream car, though, is a 1965 Pontiac GTO convertible with 389ci (6.3L I think) engine and Tri-Power - three 2-barrel carburetors, which brings the engine's specs up to 360 horsepower and 424 foot-pounds of torque (~574 newton-meters) and a 4-speed manual transmission. Who cares if it can't turn fast? It'll just out-accelerate anything between the curves!:-P
Back to reality though. If I were shopping for a sports roadster and had $32,000 or so to spend, I'd probably go with the Honda S2000. Yes, it only gets about 25mpg, but it corners like nothing else I've ever driven, and I'd be willing to wager money on it against your car in a slalom. And it'll go from 0-60mph in 5.5 seconds, with a top speed of 150mph. Awwwwww yeah!
-- "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
Carpet
·
· Score: 1
As great as most people think the Smart City Coupe is, personally I like the A-Class better. Compact enough to park almost anywhere, enough horsepower to feel like you're driving a car, and sturdy enough to take a few hits.
Unfortunately, also another car that won't be seen in the states...
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Not the Brabus, but I did just get one of these last month. For my wife. What is it really with the U.S. not allowing the imports for the longest time!? I live in Japan, and we can get these just about the same time as they're released in Europe. It's not like American cars are any less polluting, safe, or even well built! So really, what is it? Japanese emmisions and safety standards are still way beyond those in the U.S., and we don't seem to have a problem with the SMART. Or, for that matter, a handfull of supercars that aren't street legal in the U.S. Oh, that's right, we also have the Skyline GT-R, another car that's not street legal in the U.S. (Well, at least not without spending a shit load of money...) Funny, it seems to be fine in Australia!
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The turbocharger means the engine is being force-fed, which decreases its life expectancy due to higher cylinder pressures
Bullshit. My turbocharged '95 Subaru WRX is nearing 10 years old and is still humming along nicely on the original engine, while my brother in law's 96 Honda Accord with a normally aspirated 4 banger now needs engine work. And don't claim it is because of the way we drive, I kick ass regularily in my scoobie, while he has (to my knowledge) never even had a speeding ticket.
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
jlanthripp
·
· Score: 1
My great uncle smoked a pack of filterless Lucky Strikes a day and lived to be 92 years old, but my grandfather died at 54. By your logic, we can assume that smoking is good for you.
-- "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
kosmicki
·
· Score: 1
Uhh. I live in Arizona, there are a hell of a lot of curvy roads... Just drive from Phoenix to Flagstaff. Mountains and an elevation change of about 5000 feet. Up in Flag you have to deal with snow and curves. (YES ARIZONA HAS SNOW. I live at 7000' Higher then Denver.) I think for long straight roads, you want Kansas. Lotsta them.;)
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
floodo1
·
· Score: 0
yeah and his beer can gets excellent gas mileage and isnt horrible for the environment.
stop being such a greedy american pig and expand your reasoning.
and turbo's dont decrease engine life. and its not a rev limiter that stops your car at 122mph its a governor.
-- I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yeah and it 'starts' at only 11,995.00 GBP -> 22,742.37 USD
At this price they will never reach North America.
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
Slack3r78
·
· Score: 1
Too bad the S2000 is notorious for blowing clutches when driven agressively, it's a great car otherwise, but I don't know if I'd have one myself for this reason. Something just scares me when I've read of magazine test cars losing the clutch during testing.
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
Ed_Moyse
·
· Score: 1
> In England, a 50 mile commute would be total insanity
Not really. Loads of people commute that far into london. My ex-girlfriend did that every day to work (outside london).
I think you're wrong about the motivation though, as I strongly suspect it's more about eco-friendliness rather than money: at least for the people who buy the roadster/brabus smarts (which aren't that cheap).
Oh, and having a car which is a bit more interesting.
One thing people often don't get about Smart's by the way is how stuffed full of technology they are. The traction control for one is excellent (straight from vastly more expensive mercedes), and that tiny little engine puts out a big whack.
There are many, many smarts with 140km on the clock now as well, so I agree with your point about properly designed turbos lasting (there are also stories about the turbo developing cracks but I think that this is rare, and fixed in newer models)
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
tabrnaker
·
· Score: 1
so, it's not good because it doesn't burn a non renewable resource at ridiculous rates?
hmm, so maybe to save the world from an energy crisis we need to wipe out the states. Or at least their ridiculous cars/tanks.
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
jlanthripp
·
· Score: 1
Your feelings towards those cars are caused by your apparent total ignorance of the difference between American and European driving habits.
Actually, if you'll read up a bit, you'll see where I said that those tiny cars are "inappropriate for ~95% of the driving we do in the US." I'm well aware of the differences in distances, road widths, and availability of public transport that exist.
You put an emphasis on power and straightline speeds (too much. Gotta be compensating).
You're arguing against your own argument now. Highways in the US tend to be straight or have gentle curves. Onramps are short, and speeds are high. Power and straightline speeds are important in those situations, far more so than cornering ability. My personal vehicles both have the smallest engines available for their models and years. One of them I chose specifically because it had the smaller engine (1996 F-150 longbed with 4.9L inline-6, chosen for longevity and low-end torque for pulling heavy loads up the mountains of southeastern TN and northwestern GA).
It is true that my view of force-fed engines is affected by the failures of the past, including the turbocharged V6 that Pontiac put in the Firebird for a few years in the 70s and some early Volvo turbocharging efforts, among others. It's also affected by the fact that any time you increase cylinder pressure, you increase the stress on the connecting rods, crankshaft, main bearings, wrist pins, and valves. You can beef these components up a bit to compensate, but you end up with a heavier rotating mass, which will erase some of the power benefits gained by turbocharging or supercharging. Turbocharging increases the temperature of the fuel-air mixture, thus also increasing cylinder temperatures, if all else remains equal. Forced induction also introduces more moving parts, increasing the chances for mechanical failure. And finally, there's the phenomenon known as turbo lag, wherein the engine lacks power for the time it takes for the exhaust to spin up the turbine. Component quality and tighter manufacturing tolerances can help address some of these issues, but not all.
-- "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
jlanthripp
·
· Score: 1
You might want to get that knee checked out. It seems to be jerking uncontrollably.
-- "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
schovanec
·
· Score: 1
It's also affected by the fact that any time you increase cylinder pressure, you increase the stress on the connecting rods, crankshaft, main bearings, wrist pins, and valves.
True, but I don't think that this is as much of a problem as you might think in this case. If I'm not mistaken, the Smart cars have diesel engines. Diesels achieve combustion by injecting the fuel (which is not previously mixed with air) under high pressure into the cylinder containing highly compressed air. This is why diesels are also called "compression" engines. Diesel engines operate at much higher compression ratios than gasoline engines even without a turbocharger, so they are designed for this. Even the engines used in long haul trucks have turbochargers, and they are designed for maximum durability.
Re:Call that a Smart Car...?
by
tabrnaker
·
· Score: 1
must be cause i live so close to the states!
Lots of nice people there, don't know how they let themselves be imprisoned by there gov't/corporations. It's sad, cause i see the cancer spreading everywhere.
-- Antti S. Brax - Old school - http://www.iki.fi/asb/
I've owned zap stock in my life,
by
way2trivial
·
· Score: 2, Informative
if you want a smart car, I'd buy some shares, they are very good about incentives on products to shareholders.
-- every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Re:I've owned zap stock in my life,
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's odd, since I thought Zap was all about "pump and dump" for the stock? Keep starting more and more subsidiarys which start with products but never finish?
Besides, they're not bringing the 60mpg smart to the usa, they're bringing a lower model. Why do that, when you can buy a Prius and actually get where you're going without being killed by a collision with a squirrel?
Other considerations
by
JamesD_UK
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
How about a a 90 mpg car that can go 60 mph? Wouldn't that better progress?
Re:Other considerations
by
idiotnot
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Perhaps in Europe, but not in the US. Where I live, speed limits under 35mph are confined to residential areas. Most in-city streets are 40 or 45, and the highways' traffic flows somewhere between 60 and 70, depending on the time of day. One of these roller skates wouldn't be able to keep up.
From what I recall, the Puegot 206 Eco can get 88mpg on it's turbo diesel and can do considerably more than 60mph. But like great things French, it's not available in the US.
Re:Other considerations
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How about a a 90 mpg car that can go 60 mph? Wouldn't that better progress?
Duh. And a 120 mpg car would be even better than that. You seem to think that they somehow had those two numbers to apply and then foolishly applied them in the wrong way.
Re:Other considerations
by
PoopJuggler
·
· Score: 0
How about a $60 car that can also play 90.MPG files?
60mpg is not impressive. Look at the Toyota Prius. And that is a real sized car. Not to mention power steering is an option... many thick headed lugs in the USA won't buy a car without power steering.:/
Re:Other considerations
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> I can see it now car wreck with one of those and a SUV who do you think lives? The smart car... no wait that was a trick question wasn't it?
Re:Other considerations
by
OblongPlatypus
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Perhaps in Europe
Ahem.. you do realize Europe contains, for example, Germany? Where the Autobahn has no speed limits whatsoever, and the traffic flows accordingly? And the most common maximum highway speed limit in other European countries is, in my experience, 120 km/h, which is 75 mph.
-- -- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
The smart driver because the SUV driver died of his toxic exhaust:)
-- Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Re:Other considerations
by
Vulture101
·
· Score: 1
haaa, how you USians are wrong about traffic in europe...
highway traffic here usualy flows at around 160kmh (100Mph) in a not very busy day
when i go to work my speedmeter usualy reaches 200kmh (125Mph), i dont like to get up very early:)
And i do not live in germany
Re:Other considerations
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
UK residential areas are usually 30, Most roads outside this are 40-50 and major routes are 60-70. Motorway speed limit is also 70. Not so differnt to the USA huh?
From what I have seen these 'Roller Skates' are more than capable of bombing down a British Motorway at 80. Probably sounds like a hyperactive wasp while doing it mind. There 0-60 is shit unless you have a brabus mind.
And the congestion on the Autobahn has forced the government to restrict speeds in many places. Last time I was there, there were more 120kph zones than unrestricted zones, and in places, limits dropped as low as 80kph (near Heillbron?).
But my point remains valid -- most people in Europe don't have a commute that takes them on a freeway for more than a few minutes, if at all. That's just not the case in the US, especially if you live in a suburb of a large city. My own commute, after I get out of my neighborhood (around two blocks), the speed limit is never under 35, and the vast majority of it is 55.
Re:Other considerations
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Reading your originial post again, I can't for the life of me see how it could be construed to have been making the point you're making now. But ok, either way, the point is valid to a certain degree.
I don't think that means many Europeans will settle for 60mph-max cars though. Case in point: I'm not sure how much you've seen of the traffic in countries like Spain and Italy, but I can tell you people do not care at all about in-city speed limits. They'll hurtle down narrow sidewalk-lined streets as fast as physically possible. And what about pedestrians, you ask? Well they'll just have to learn to watch their step, and hope the cars at least stay off the sidwalks:)
-- -- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
One of these roller skates wouldn't be able to keep up.
That's not exactly true.
On my way into Atlanta a couple of years ago (I live about 90 miles north of the city), I was passed by a black ForTwo with two business-suited gentlemen inside. It had a manufacturer plate, and a band across the top of the windshield that said NOT ELECTRIC.
Not only did the little car not have any trouble keeping up with GA400 traffic (known locally as the Buckhead Dragstrip), I had trouble pacing them to admire the car. In my VW Jetta!
I've been diligently keeping up with the progress of US imports of the thing ever since, and I've been on ZAP's mailing list since its inception.
I'd like for this to be my next car.
-- You can't take the sky from me!
Re:Other considerations
by
evilviper
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
the highways' traffic flows somewhere between 60 and 70, depending on the time of day
I've driven across many of the states in the US, and I've yet to find any place where there aren't Semi trucks on the road, going slower than the rest of the traffic.
In CA it's de jury, but most everywhere else, they just can't get up to 75 with all the weight, up a slope, into the wind, etc. It's a miserable experience to be behind a couple trucks as one decides to go into the open lane an gradually pass the other truck. But I digress.
The point is, no matter where you drive at up to 60MPH, you'll be in good company, with Semi trucks, Buses, trailers, etc. Just stick near one of them, and YOU won't be the one who's to blame for slowing down traffic
How about a 500 mpg car that can go 120 mph? Wouldn't that better progress?
Just because it's easy to swap numbers around in your sentence, doesn't mean it's so easy to make it happen in the real world. If you've got some revolutionary idea for making a 90 mpg car, by all means, get started on it.
most people in Europe don't have a commute that takes them on a freeway for more than a few minutes
Even if the amount of longer-range commuting traffic in Europe (here: Germany) may be considerably less than in the US due to the usually much better public transportation around most larger cities there are still more than enough people having a 50-100 km commute each way per day. I know more than enough people that commute every day from the city where I am living (Ulm, Southern Germany) to Stuttgart or even Munich every day by car (80-120 km, between 45 min. and 1,5 h. each way). If there wouldn't be any, the Autobahns around major cities wouldn't be clogged every day by commuters.
The same when I used to work in the London area; a lot of my colleagues commuted every day considerable distances by car, fighting their way over the constantly clogged M20(?) around London.
Re:Other considerations
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I can see it now car wreck with one of those and a SUV who do you think lives?
If any sudden swerving was attempted during the incident, then probably not the SUV driver.
Just because it's easy to swap numbers around in your sentence, doesn't mean it's so easy to make it happen in the real world. If you've got some revolutionary idea for making a 90 mpg car, by all means, get started on it.
My point wasn't merely to swap the numbers arbitrarily but to illustrate that 60mpg isn't revolutionary in terms of the fuel efficiency of consumer vehicles. There are other cars that already top this, the Citroen C2 can even reach just short of 80mpg. This site might be useful, it lists tens of cars that do greater than 60mpg.
Semis going slower then the flow of traffic? I've driven I-40 almost every day, and they always pass me, and I go at the speed limit... What mystical land are your truckers from? I'd like to import them into this world. (I keed I keed)
They just haul ass around here, they tend to pass at 85 in the 75 more often then not.
I too remember this being true, and in fact the last time I drove from California to Texas I was passing trucks all night long. However when I made the trip this last time I believe Arizona and New Mexico removed their truck speed limits and only Texas has a night speed limit, so I found myself constantly being passed *at 75mph* by semi's all through the night-not a particularly comfortable situation.
Have you ever driven in Argentina? Imagine a massive horde of thousands of 5 year olds rushing through a 4 meter wide hallway with absolutely no order or mutual respect for eachother at all. Then, picture the same thing on a 4 lane freeway. There are lane lines on the ground, but I swear, Argentine's are lane line blind. If there is room between two adjacent lanes to pass a car, then they pass. If there's room to merge between two cars leaving only a foot or two in front and back of your car, they do. And the craziest part about it, is that the people getting passed and cut off don't get pissed at you! It's the norm down there, they're all like it so it's no big deal. Of course, that didn't make me comfortable, coming from Washington State where people are afraid to merge at 50mph when there's many car lengths of room. And, noticing how many of their cars had heavily dented quarter panels and front/rear bumpers made me happy that people are more cautios in the states. Oh yeah, I went skiing there too, and the lift lines were the same thing. There was no order to you. You smashed and cut and pushed your way in. The nice part was that if you cut in front of someone, they didn't get pissed at you like they do in the states, cause they do it too!
You'll have to point me to one then. The only ones I've found with better than about 50MPG run on Diesel, which is an entirely different fuel... You might as well throw the MPG of a Propane-fueled vehicle in the mix too, it's just as irrelevant.
Actually the Honda Insight is listed at 83MPG, but numerous other sources list it at 60MPG, so it's safe to call this a mistake. In addition, it's listed as a "petrol" vehicle, when, in-fact, it is a hybrid. Hybrids are far more complex, need more maintenance, etc., so it's not fair to compare them with a pure combustion vehicle either.
So, despite your insistence that this vehicle isn't all that special, the facts say otherwise.
I've driven I-40 almost every day, and they always pass me, and I go at the speed limit...
Well, I-40 is a very long interstate, so I don't really know what state you live in. However, my own experience has clearly been the opposite.
I never saw a Semi going more than 75MPH, and they were usually MUCH slower than that... It seemed like I was stuck behind one for half an hour, as he very gradually overtook two other Semis, going about 60MPH. And believe me, that was typical of all the other Semis I passed as well. This was just a few months ago that I drove 3/4 of the way across the country (and back) on I-40.
Since I-40 goes east/west, that doesn't tell me much of anything! Not that it matters too much.
The part I drive is 65 MPH I've driven across the entire state Arizona on I-40 multiple times, and did not see ANY area where it was anything but 75MPH. Was the speed limit in your area changed in the last 6 months?
Anyhow, your point is rather lost on this thread, as the question is whether it would be safe to drive 60MPH down the freeway. Obviously it's not a real problem if the speed limit is 65.
That also explains why you don't see the "slow" Semis as I describe. Since you're going about the same speed as the slower Semis, you're pretty certain not to catch-up to them. There's always a few truckers out there, perhaps with an empty load, going 75MPH. Though the rest of the traffic is usually going 80.
Sure, but it looks like ZAP are distributing them in the U.S. Or maybe they just need a funkier name - what we Brits call Vauxhall cars the rest of the world call 'Opal'.
But I don't get it: Smart are DaimlerChrysler, and Chrysler's a big US name - ?
Back in the 70's chrysler stated that they would 'never' make small cars. Ofcourse all modern chryslers are small compared to the 60's and 70's land yachts (newport, newyorker, imperial), but calling a smart a Chrysler is a couple of steps too far.
Something funny/interesting about this Opel/Vauxhall stuff.. The Vauxhalls are made on mainland Europe, as the british shouldn't trust a uk-produced car ? (at least that's what I heard, don't know how much of this is true) but the general motors factories in the uk produce Opels..
I heard from people who work for a company which ships cars across the northsea, that it's funny to see a ship come in from the UK with Opels on it, and going back filled with Vauxhalls.. (same models, just a different badge and right steering).
SMART used to have Mercedes-designed engines under the hood and Swatch bodies. Since some time now, they seem to have shifted to Mitsubushi. The new smart ForFour is based on the Mitsubishi Colt platform.
Funny you say that, in the US now, they've just started advertising the new Snickers bar, with more carbs or something for those who like to work out. It's called; Marathon Bar
Damn right. And now when you go to the cinema to see a movie and you're at the counter buying sweets to munch during the film you ask for "a bag of Opal Fruits...er I mean Starburst" and they go "which one?" and you look and there's like three or four different bloody versions with different flavours. And you end up getting the wrong one that doesn't have any green ones. Or it has green ones but they're not the real green ones and they taste of piss. Fucking bastard product development bastards! Gimme back my bloody Opal Fruits!!!!
Seriously, when a company wantonly withdraws a much-loved product that has existed since your childhood for no apparent reason only to replace it with something inferior - that's a form of cultural robbery. Ditto changing the product name. It shouldn't be allowed. We need National Heritage status on some types of confectionery, IMHO.
Smart is manufactured and marketed in Europe by an unaffiliated party and made US/CA compliant by DMC.
That "unaffiliated party" is Mercedes Benz (and
hence ultimately, Daimler Chrysler). I wonder why
they don't seem to want to market it themselves,
and are relying on Zap instead. Worried about it
being a flop in the US and not wanting to damage
their reputation, perhaps?
-- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Worried about losing money in a market where small cars are notoriously unpopular more like it.
Re:"Zap"???
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
When I lived in Europe, "made compliant" meant adding required things like emission controls, side door reinforcements, and speedometers marked in mph. I think I'd rather have a car designed from the beginning to US crash standards.
DMC still reminds me of good ol' DeLorean Motor Company.;)
-- SNACKS ARE AWESOME
Re:"Zap"???
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No, I'm not kidding. Volvo has a justifiable reputation as a safer car because they put the work and cost into emphasizing safety. But since Volvo does, that doesn't mean there's a safety relationship to other European manufacturers. A Beemer or Mercedes bought in Europe would have to have side impact beams put in the doors when imported into the US for one thing (I don't know about the last few years though).
As to this Zap, there are no crumple zones, the whole car is a crumple zone!
Stupid troll. US crash standards are laughable, and the smart's emission levels are way below those of your stupid SUVs.
Re:"Zap"???
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
then one should be able to freely import cars from EU-land to the US w/o having to make modifications. Given that Zap and other low volume importers have to make these mods in order to get the vehicles to pass implies that the US standards are higher.
Not sure, but at the very least Dodge is working on a concept design (the Sling Shot) based heavily on the SMART.
In fact it looks almost identical to the SMART roadsters someone linked to earlier.
It sounds like the SMART is going to come to the U.S. from the original manufacturer in not too long, they're already available in Canada.
-- retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Nothing is then SMART
by
tid242
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Not so SMART... . . . when it meets the business end of an SUV or Hummer in an accident
Then the only "smart" thing to drive (extrapolating from your statement) would then be another Hummer or behemoth SUV, which i sure as fuck would not be driving.
Let's not be a part of the problem.
-tid242
--
With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. --Carl Sagan
Re:Nothing is then SMART
by
BiggerIsBetter
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No, that's even worse. A SMART will ricochet off most little trucks (unless it's stuck under a bullbar?) but an SUV to SUV collision is usually terminal for both drivers. Most SUVs don't crush too well so the impact passes to their occupants... If you want to crash into a Hummer, either drive a Semi or a safe but big sedan like an S-Class (more to absorb the impact).
-- Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Re:Nothing is then SMART
by
b-baggins
·
· Score: 1
Since the problem is people eager to run around and tell other people what they should and shouldn't be driving as some sort of moral crusade, I'd say it's too late; you are already part of the problem.
-- You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
It's important to remember that SUV's are built to meet truck safety standards. Which means that while you might be better off in a centered head-on collision with a smaller vehicle, anything else and you're endangered by missing all those safety standards which apply to passenger cars. I would hate to be in a Hummer2 hit from the side, or skidding on an icy road.
-aiabx
That's completely irrelevant since the smaller cars are even less well engineered than the bigger ones. The smaller cars infact need to be OVER-engineered to counteract their disadvantage in a collision. However, they are not.
I'd rather be merely injured in an Hummer than DEAD in a sub-compact.
This is the part of the argument that gets glossed over.
-- A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Here in South Africa the cars had Mercedes badges attached. They've been here for years - I'm suprised that they haven't been available in the US until now.
Keep in mind that in the US market small cars generally don't sell well, so nobody have wanted to push them in the US to any extent before, whereas in the rest of the world people care more about fuel consumption and don't mind (and in urban areas often see it as an advantage) if the car is small.
Up here in Canada the cars are marketed through Mercedes as well. It's not especially clear to me why DaimlerChrysler wouldn't brand it at least as a Chrysler/Dodge model... Chrysler has been importing vehicles and rebranding them as their own (Mitsubishi, etc) for decades.
HMM dunno about your neck of the woods but around Boston those Mini Coopers are becoming popular as hell. Seems to me small cars do just fine in the US if marketed correctly.
Re:Look Cool?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
That's a matter of opinion. Personally, I think it looks like my ass.
Maybe you should lose some weight?
smae 'SMART' as the one sold by Mercedes
by
UnderAttack
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Is this the same 'SMART' car as the one sold by Mercedes in Europe? Sure looks like it, but I can't see any reference to that.
Re:smae 'SMART' as the one sold by Mercedes
by
NoSuchGuy
·
· Score: 1
Looks like.
Smart is manufactured and marketed in Europe by an unaffiliated party and made US/CA compliant by DMC.
If not marketing and legal department of smart (or Mercedes Benz North America) would unleash hell for using the brandname "smart" (all lower case).
I wonder why they are allowed to write "smart" with a capital "S"
-- Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Re:smae 'SMART' as the one sold by Mercedes
by
nordicfrost
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Yes, it is Smart. It is a truly cool little car but sadly not very good in our (Norway) winter conditions. A coworker had the terrifying experience of sliding down a loooong hill sideways on snow with this baby. And winter tyres.
Re:smae 'SMART' as the one sold by Mercedes
by
Simon+Brooke
·
· Score: 1
Is this the same 'SMART' car as the one sold by Mercedes in Europe? Sure looks like it, but I can't see any reference to that.
It is, yes. The engine is made by Mercedes. They've been around for quite some time here; economical, quick and fun. The roll cage is enormously strong, the body panels (which are plastic) just pop onto it. Two seats only but a lot of luggage room.
-- I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Re:smae 'SMART' as the one sold by Mercedes
by
chirone
·
· Score: 0
Not exactly, Mercedes produces Class-A, a five-seat car. Pretty standard for European drivers...
Re:smae 'SMART' as the one sold by Mercedes
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Heck, I've seen that happen in my grandpa's 2 ton Merc with snow tires. With the "right" surface, it's easy for ANY vehicle to slide down a long hill sideways.
Re:smae 'SMART' as the one sold by Mercedes
by
nordicfrost
·
· Score: 1
Well, it happens a lot easier with this car. But in rain, summer it is tha bomb.
erm ..... no
by
thempstead
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
We've had these, or things that look just like these in the UK for quite some time. Looking cool in, IMHO, would not really be possible.... and of course there is the question that people ponder over about whether if one was stopped suddenly it would start rolling end of end....:)
t
Re:erm ..... no
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
But they are ideal for nipping round town in, so easy to park and cheap to run:)
For the futures cities (crowed, always rush hour) they seem ideal.
Cool is a matter of opinion, obviously. I happen to agree with you, the Smart marketed by Zap (aka the fortwo) is not cool-looking. You should have a look at the forfour and roadster versions they're selling over here in Europe though. Maybe not the coolest cars I've seen, but especially the roadster sure is a whole lot better than the fortwo.
I haven't actually been inside one though. Looking at these cars from the outside gives me a sneaking feeling that at six feet I might not even fit, much less fit comfortably.
-- -- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
Re:Not so SMART . . .
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Clearly the sensible thing to do then is to not let people drive hugly uneconomic SUVs then!
Re:Not so SMART . . .
by
Dynamoo
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Actually, you'd come out of that kind of collission pretty well. The Smart's tridion safety cage is almost indestructable. I've seen this thing crash tested.. the outside of the car is the entire crumple zone, and the passengers are protected in the safety cell. No cabin instrusions, nothing. Up against a normal road car, the Smart usually comes off better.
--
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
Smart cars
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
We have had them in the UK for a couple of years.
Most people would agree that they look quite handy for getting around in cities, but they look a bit weird, and they have very little luggage space, so hardly anyone actually buys them.
I honestly can't see them taking off in the states. Too small & too well engineered*;-)
*Yeah I know British cars are crap, which is why we all buy Japanese and German.
Most people simply need more out of a car than what this provides. They can't afford the extra cost for a speciality vehicle and/or don't have any extra space to park it.
Can't take the team out to lunch with it. Can't go shopping with it. Can't pack up the family in it. Probably wouldn't want to drive cross town in it.
Then there's that whole "waiting at a red light in Vegas" problem.
-- A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Don't know what you buy regularly that doesn't fit that would in another typical vehicle... Some may consider it a benefit.
"Can't pack up the family in it."
Very large benefit:) Of course, many don't have one....
"Probably wouldn't want to drive cross town in it."
Personal opinion. Granted, I probably wouldn;t want to drive cross country in it but that's not its purpose....
Re:Smart cars
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Somehow I dont believe cost has much to do with it. Especially here in South Africa. Those stupid half-cars cost a lot more than you would expect. Most South African men wouldnt want to be seen dead in one of those.
If it was cheaper, maybe it would make more sense to buy but when they sell for the same price as most sedans, nobody is really interested.
FYI, last time I checked, they were selling for close on R140,000 which in US dollars is about $23000
Some of those, fair enough, but Aston Martins are hand built, and the build quality often suffers as a result (lovely cars though), and Rolls Royces are only assembled in England. Most of it is made in Germany.
>>Can't go shopping with it. > >Don't know what you buy regularly that doesn't >fit that would in another typical vehicle... >Some may consider it a benefit.
Some recent transport items:
Bowflex Elite.
Construction supplies.
Small grocery run from Costco or Sam's Club.
A surround sound system.
Grandma's luggage....now if a commuter car can't be trusted on a cross town drive then it really is quite worthless. It's hard in many places to not end up routed through some sort of freeway.
-- A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Great. Y'all run out and buy one. I'll stick with a real vehicle. 20 miles a gallon doesn't bother me too much.
Can't Honda bring something like the CRX back? Didn't those get like 55mpg, while being a halfway substantial car (albeit for only two people)?
As for its appearance, "cool" is a very subjective term.
Re:In a Yugo....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
20 miles a gallon doesn't bother me too much
It would if the fuel your car uses cost more (petrol ("gas") is currenly about US$6.50/gallon in the UK), and as time gone on it will cost even more. (Oil is a finite resource and more people than ever want it).
If I lived in a city in Europe (something I did for six years), I probably would consider not even owning a car. However, I live in the US, in an area where public transportation is virutally nil (a rather bad bus system that I'd have to walk three miles to get to a stop is all), and have a 35 mile commute to work (through two tunnels). I can't hop on the tram and be there in 20 minutes. Much of America is like this, and yes, there's some stupid urban planning to blame (in most places, there are no mixed commerical/residential buildings built after around 1950). But it is what it is, and you can't assume everywhere's like the UK.
Re:In a Yugo....
by
Sarastrobert
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
20 miles a gallon doesn't bother me too much.
It should bother you, it is not all about how much of an impact it has on your wallet you know. It is about pollution also. Twice the fuel consumption is means twice the CO2, NOx, SOx etc let out in our air. Unfortunately most people are too ignorant or too stupid to factor this in when buying a new car.
Perhaps fuel prices are too low in the US (US people probably disagree, but we basically pay the same price per liter here in Sweden as you pay per Gallon in the US) it makes people mindless of how much their car drinks -> how much it pollutes.
The smart is a great car for it's target group, which is probably singles or couples living in urban areas. It is small (easy to manouver in traffic and to find parking space), cheap to run and don't pollute the already bad air too much.
I have one of those 2 seater crx things great fun car but people mistake them for a roadster (which have very poor acceleration and top speed compared to the crx (yes even a ten year old crx)) But then It has been tweaked.
Re:In a Yugo....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
We Americans don't give a fuck about the gas price in Europe. If we need some gas, we go get some fucking gas.
Put down the tea and crumpets and pick up a rifle and you could too.
Re:In a Yugo....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Oil is a finite resource and more people than ever want it
No... fossil oil is a finite resource. It is actually pretty easy to make oil from any bio-matter.
I wouldn't call the reason of the US's current transportation state a lack of urban planners. Some of the US's urban planners have done a lot more hurt than help. Look at Robert Moses. The US used to have very extensive mass trasit. Most cities over 10,000 people had streetcars and a railroad station linking it to other cities. Now very few cities have more than failing bus routes run by a local government authority.
Ok, so here's the question I'm trying to find the answer to:
How much do they cost?
They don't seem to to want to tell you... (A bad sign.)
-- 'Sensible' is a curse word.
Re:Who needs this shit??
by
Dot.Com.CEO
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Have you ever been in one? I drove one last week and it was surprisingly comfortable (I'm 1.86m, so hardly tiny).
-- Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
Zap don't build them
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Zap must be some kind of marketing company, these cars are manufactured by Daimler Chrysler. They're sold under the 'Smart' brand in Europe. In the UK most Benz dealers have them.
Before all the yanks start with 'Wouldn't fancy that against a Humvee' - These performed very very well in the NCAP tests, in faireness, I wouldn't fancy anything VS humvee, these cars are certainly no worse than your usual run of the mill.
I believe its the same car. The ZAPs are manufactured by Daimler-Chrysler if I'm not mistaken. (then again I'm an American and have never actually seen one in person.)
Re:Who needs this shit??
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They are pretty safe cars. UKs fifth gear plowed one into a solid brick wall at 70mph and the driver cell came off intact. Even the doors opened and closed.
roll cages with covers
by
davejenkins
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I have already seen some posts about how "dangerous" these cars will be in the states when sharing the road with the "killer" SUVs and such-- but let me dispell some prejudices:
1. SMART cars are essentially big roll cages with coverings for the hood, door, and roof. They are quite safe for the riders should there be an accident. Moreover, they are engineered to "bounce" away from an oncoming impact.
2. With the engines placed as they are, a front-end collision does not put the block in the drivers lap (and crush his legs).
3. I would much much much rather be in one of these than some crumplicious dwarf from Ford
How does a car bounce away from an oncoming impact?
If you mean it bounces away during the impact, then I'll stick with a regular car. The last thing I need is my car to be ping-ponging around, ready to cause another accident. I already have enough neck problems.
If you mean it bounces away before the impact...that's pretty cool tech! Or maybe you just mean that it's supposed to be easier to avoid the impact?
--RJ
Re:roll cages with covers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
WTF, are you stupid?
It's usually not the external impact that kills you. It's your organs getting bashed around inside your body. Remember, your organs are moving at 40 MPH along with your body. If your body suddenly starts "bouncing" around that's the worse possible action. A hard roll cage design just is not a good idea in low speed (60 MPH) accidents.
In a collision the vehicle with more mass wins. Even a little Ford Escort has a 2 to 1 weight advantage against this Zapper thing.
Trust me, you don't want to "bounce" in an accident. (ask any motorcycle rider who has been hit by a car) Just wait until you "bounce" into oncoming traffic.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
sifi
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
They may very well remain fully in tact - but just as cruical in a crash is the deceleration rate of the occupants. The "bounce" would only serve to make this worse.
What it lacks are crumple zones which reduce the deceleration rate.
The ideal design for a safe car is a large crumple zone (=length) with a ridged cage to protect the occupants.
-- Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
If you want to survive an accident, being in a roll cage that bounces away is not the way to do it.
There's a reason race car drivers have full harnesses and things like HANS devices... because the roll cage that keeps the car from crushing them also signficantly impacts the ability for the crush zones to absorb energy.
These things would be terrifying in an accident...
I have a 2000lbs race-prepped 911 with cage, race seats, full harnesses and an engine in the rear and being T-boned by an SUV scares me to death in it.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
EnglishTim
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Well, with most other cars in the US being quite big, I don't suppose it really matters *whose* crumple zones are doing the crumpling...
Re:roll cages with covers
by
jedidiah
·
· Score: 1
Ok then. You first.
Get back to us after you've been rear ended by a Suburban at 50mph.
-- A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"2. With the engines placed as they are, a front-end collision does not put the block in the drivers lap (and crush his legs)."
Sure, and insted of the engine blcok from your car, the other car's block ends up in the your lap.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
brentcastle
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
I'm not sure the issue is whether or not you'll die in one of these. The issue is the fact that the SUV drivers won't see the SMART cars while they're on their cell phones and will likely run into you. Whether or not you are seriously injured is a different story. You have to remember that we are far more spread out than the UK or Europe so most of our traveling is >60 mph and most of the vehicles outside of the extremely urban areas are quite large.
Sure, and insted of the engine blcok from your car, the other car's block ends up in the your lap.
If I were a SUV driver in a collision with one of these, I'd be more worried about the entire Smart ending up in my lap *in* my SUV;-)
Re:roll cages with covers
by
speed-sf
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Well, due to the wheel base/car dimensions this vehicle has outrageously agile handling. Right up there with the Mini Cooper.
As previously stated, a frontal collision doesn't put the engine in your lap like most domestic (US) models. I don't know what people are refering to with this bounce comment. This vehicle is not designed to 'bounce off' other vehicles in collision. The plastics used in the body are your 'crumple' zone. On impact they will absorb as much of the impact as they can before shattering. You'd be shocked how much abuse they take.
Most interesting of all is the axel spacing. Since the wheel base is so short, this vehicle ranks as one of the safest side impact vehicles. Instead of folding in on itself in the event of a t-bone accident, the axels absorb the punishment while the roll cage protects you.
This all requires perspective, this vehicle will survive an accident on par with any other vehicle. Not even a chevy impala will do well against a hummer or a semi truck. The goal is survivability. I feel that smart cars address that issue quite well compared to other more evolved vehicles. For example, the F-150 which is the most notorious fatal side impact vehicle.
--
All your database are belong to us
Re:roll cages with covers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
An SUV would prolly end up ontop of this thing.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Accidently modded down instead of up:-( Good comment
Re:roll cages with covers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Moreover, they are engineered to "bounce" away from an oncoming impact.
Why the hell would I want to "bounce" from an impact??
In a typical large sedan with a big front crumple
zone, you go from 60 km/hr to 0 over a distance
of around 2m. And then you sit there.
That's around 7G of decelleration.
If that little car "bounces", you go from
60km/hr to 0 over a distance of
only maybe a half a meter. That's around 28G
of decelleration! Ouch!
And, as an added bonus, you then get to
decelerate further as you bounce back
at maybe 20 km/hr, just to make sure that
other cars will get a chance to hit you.
Personally I prefer cars that don't act
like a ball in a pinball machine.
One gradual decelleration down to 0 km/hr
is enough, thanks.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
octothorpe
·
· Score: 1
they are engineered to "bounce" away from an oncoming impact.
So what happens when you are in the middle of a multi-vehicle accident? How can you bounce away when you are hit from behind and the front? Or if you bounce right off the cliff? I'm sorry but I can't see these making it in the U.S.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
autophile
·
· Score: 1
SMART cars are essentially big roll cages with coverings for the hood, door, and roof. They are quite safe for the riders should there be an accident. Moreover, they are engineered to "bounce" away from an oncoming impact.
Oh, that's what they reminded me of. Bumper cars!
--Rob
-- Towards the Singularity.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
untaken_name
·
· Score: 5, Informative
It's always hilarious to me how people never can seem to take the time to RTFA (or other links in the submission), but they take something a poster said (that this car 'bounces' in collisions) as not only proven but gospel truth. In fact, the manufacturer's site disagrees with you. It calls the entire body a 'crumple zone'; the front wheels are also crumple zones. This thing won't be bouncing more than any other car would, especially in front collisions, as the wheels are designed to crumple and absorb impact. Why is it that 40 people commented about how bouncing around in a roll cage is a bad thing, but not one of them could be troubled to find out if the car actually behaved that way? Shame on you lazy assholes. Also, the site specifically talks about how the wheelbase is too short for this car to fold in on itself in t-bone collisions. I wouldn't drive one of these because I'm not a techno-listening super dweeb. However, it does appear that they've gone far out of their way to ensure that these dorky little things are safe. hopefully they really *are* that safe, because I have a feeling I might have to bang my '83 Ford Crown Vic off one or two of 'em in the wild... you know, just to see if they bounce.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
Dolphinzilla
·
· Score: 1
Bouncing away from objects is bad - It might be OK in city driving where collision speeds would be lower but forget the highway. In Zap versus 18 wheeler you die, however your friends can take all the money you saved on gas to throw you a nice funeral.
Get back to us after you've been rear ended by a Suburban at 50mph.
I think it would generate enough force to help him qualify for the X-Prize. =)
-- "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Re:roll cages with covers
by
XenonDif
·
· Score: 0
It does matter. If a very heavy car and a very heavy light car collide, conservation of momentum says that the lighter car has more delta-V durring the collision. This means that the lighter car absorbs more energy and feels sustains higher g's.
I don't think filling the trunk with lead balast is the answer either though.
To be fair , most cars , even large SUVs are going to come off a very poor second if they have a head-on with a 40 ton truck.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
imsabbel
·
· Score: 1
If you dont see a smart, you wouldnt see a bicycle driver, or a mother with her little child either. And in that case, someone should remove you from the street.
-- HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Re:roll cages with covers
by
evilviper
·
· Score: 1
I don't suppose it really matters *whose* crumple zones are doing the crumpling...
I'm afraid it does. If this thing ran into the back of a truck, the truck would not crumble one bit, while this thing would (probably) be flattened, and go flying off into a different direction after the imapact as well.
See any side-impact accident, and you'll realize the crumple zones don't help the OTHER car very much.
Back in the day, my friend's Yugo skittered away from a side impact collision like it was a styrofoam cup flicked across a table. There was a little body damage, but most of the energy went to friction.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
TykeClone
·
· Score: 1
Wouldn't he have to do that twice in 2 weeks though?
-- A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
tgd
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm not entirely sure how a post insulting other posters and making gross assumptions gets moderated "Informative", but FYI, I did read the article. I've also seen crash studies of the Smart cars (the European version, not these "federalized" ones that are sold by a 3rd party, not the original manaufacturer).
They are not designed for high speed highway use, they are urban cars where a 75mph crash isn't likely to happen. The vehicle may survive them, but its a fallacy to think that a driver may be safer in them.
And in my case, I was replying to the points the parent was making, not the article, specifically around the point that a roll cage design is not inherantly safe, which was the parents point.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
evilviper
·
· Score: 1
Moreover, they are engineered to "bounce" away from an oncoming impact.
If only you could have seen the image that popped into my head right after I read that sentence:-)
Re:roll cages with covers
by
retinaburn
·
· Score: 1
Hey you should bring up your evidence with the EPA they would be astounded at your logical, tested statements. You could bring about a whole new revolution in armchair car-tests, space exploration, no thank you, we have anonymous coward regaling us with tales of what its like everywhere.
Here is a link of the safety features, and the msnbc car test.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
silicon-pyro
·
· Score: 1
Crumple zones are meaningless if the other guy is just gonna mow right through you anyway. Plus, the front crumple zone, which needs to be the largest, looks to be no more than a foot before the other vehicle is in the passenger compartment. The only collision at 60mph one might have a hope of surviving is a rear-ending, where the crumple-zone looks to be the largest.
I like your.sig, by the way. I used to keep a list of all the people who said 'For all intensive purposes' to me.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
nberardi
·
· Score: 1
Reading your statement, all that I could think of is the big red spots you see on the road after a 18 wheeler hits a deer going 70 mph.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
nberardi
·
· Score: 1
I don't see many bicycles or mothers with children going down the highway at >60mph.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How the deer was going 70 mph, I'll never know
Re:roll cages with covers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Hey dumbass, if rigid roll-cage bodies work better then why is damn near every single road vehicle made to crumple?
How's that foot taste?
Re:roll cages with covers
by
pyat
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It doesn't "bounce around", but i think it's fair to say that it does "bounce off" the larger vehicle.
I'm sure it's survivable, but i suspect i'd be more comfortable in the larger Merc (that said, i'm a fan of the smart car concept, my main problem with it is that i think it's overpriced for what it is).
In fact you're most likely to be killed by a head-injury rather than "bouncing around". I think the term bounce is a bit misleading, if you watch some crash tests you might bet a bit better idea:
crash test videos showing large-vehicle/smart car impacts.
with regard to motorcycles, i think the problem is not the mass of the motorcycle, but rather the fact that the driver is completely exposed to impact.
Wouldn't he have to do that twice in 2 weeks though?
Yes he would. Thankfully the US has a large supply of SUVs that could help. =)
-- "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Re:roll cages with covers
by
bombadillo
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
These cars are designed for city driving. You may not understand if you have never lived in a huge city. I saw these cars all over London. If I still lived in London I would want one too. They are great for the small roads of Europe. If I had to take a long trip I would probably take a train. However, in Atlanta I drive every where. I can not take a train for long trips. So a bigger car is needed to feel safe on I-75 while going down to Florida. However, this car could find a market as a commute car for some families. I wouldn't mind taking this on my daily commute to work in which I rarely go over 50MPH. This car is made to appeal to a certain market. As far as your '83 Crown Vic goes you would have problems even fitting on the average European city road. It would be intresting to see how your car would "Bounce" off the buildings and side walks.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You're the dumbass. By definition, a ROLL-CAGE is rigid. Every frickin modern car has a rigid roll-cage, otherwise it will not be allowed on the streets. What crumples is the BODYWORK. The bodywork is made to crumple in order to take away the MOMENTUM. In an accident, injuries are mostly caused by sudden changes in the direction of the body's movement: the vehicle hits something and bounces back, the more momentum it has, the faster it bounces back, making the change in direction that much more drastic. If, at the time of collision, the vehicle's bodywork crumples and/or disintegrates, some of the momentum is absorbed or dissipated and the change in direction is attenuated.
The roll-cage is a different story. It is your SURVIVAL CELL. It's a lightweight yet rigid. It surrounds you and stops your body from hitting external, yet its small weight doesn't add much to your momentum. If the roll-cage crumples, your head and limbs get way too close to the pavement, the truck that hit you, and/or the lamp-post. In other words, if your roll-cage crumples, you will be too dead to know about it.
Go read a couple of car-design books or analyze a couple of formula racing car accidents before you post nonsense again.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A hard roll cage design just is not a good idea in low speed (60 MPH) accidents.
Roll cages are hard by definition. They stop the occupants from hitting external objects. No cars are allowed on streets without a rigid roll-cage. You're mixing up roll-cages with bodywork. A car's bodywork is better if it squishes naturally (up to the roll-cage) or ideally breaks away from the roll-cage taking momentum with it. But that's only relevant at high-speeds. At low speeds it doesn't matter, although bodywork that doesn't take too much damage is better for repair costs.
Trust me, you don't want to "bounce" in an accident. (ask any motorcycle rider who has been hit by a car) Just wait until you "bounce" into oncoming traffic.
Motorcycles don't have roll-cages so there is no comparison. For cars, the lighter the car is, the less momentum it carries so the less it bounces. Occupants in a small car are more likely to get squished by the larger car as opposed to get "bounced" around.
I don't think you have any idea what a "roll-cage" is or what happens during a car accident.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
Idarubicin
·
· Score: 1
It's usually not the external impact that kills you. It's your organs getting bashed around inside your body.
And that, in turn, is more often due to people not wearing their damn seat belts than anything else. About sixty percent of traffic fatalities occur among individuals who aren't wearing their seatbelts. The human body can actually tolerate very high accelerations for short periods of time providing it's well-secured and not rattling around inside the car.
Twenty-five percent of fatalities occur among vehicle occupants who are ejected in a collision--it doesn't matter how good your roll cage and crumple zones are if you're outside the vehicle.
Incidentally, we could avoid a lot of accidents altogether if we could get drunk drivers off the road--about forty percent of traffic fatalities in the States have alcohol as a contributing factor. There is this obsession in the United States with vehicle factors in traffic safety, but very little regard for personal choices and responsibility issues--driving only while rested, sober, and seatbelted--that would make a much greater difference in safety on the road.
-- ~Idarubicin
Re:roll cages with covers
by
Unregistered
·
· Score: 1
It's physics, man. There just isn't much in these cars to crumple. Sure tehy crumple some, but not much.
Quite substantial ones, actually. Frame-based designs wont' crumple the frame, but everything around it will crumple inwards. The same parts that crumple on any vehicle -- engine bay, and rear end.
Non-frame based designs have all the normal crumple zones one would expect, as they are car-like unibody designs.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
nberardi
·
· Score: 1
Ha ha ha... I bet you are the funny guy thats running around getting the Honda, and Toyota confused in their posts. Still I know you knew what I was saying, and if you have ever diven along the highways in upstate NY you will know what I am talking about.
Yes. Why? I didn't say the Smart didn't have crumple zones.
What is it with reading comprehension on/.? I said the fact that the Smart may be functionally equivalent of a roll cage with siding doesn't mean its safe, since roll cages are inherantly not safe in a vehicle without substantial restraints.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You're not saying anything different than what I was saying, smartass.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I was actually referring to people with selt belts on. They die too, you know. And it's most often due to busted internal organs.
That's precisely what I was talking about with the Zapper car. Doesn't matter how safe and protected it keeps you inside if your organs are being bashed around.
The large crumple zones on large(r) vehicles is what keeps your insides happy.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
soft_guy
·
· Score: 1
Incidentally, we could avoid a lot of accidents altogether if we could get drunk drivers off the road--about forty percent of traffic fatalities in the States have alcohol as a contributing factor.
I would invite you to check out some of the articles at motorists.org (National Motorists Association) on DWI myths.
http://www.motorists.org/issues/dwi/articles.htm l
One of the things they point out is that alchohol is listed as a contributing factor if anyone related to the accident has had *anything* to drink. So for example, a passenger who was not driving who blows 0.08 on a BAC causes the accident to be listed as part of your 40%.
Yes, people who are driving drunk should not be on the road, but in the US today, I think we've gone overboard on this issue.
--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Re:roll cages with covers
by
Idarubicin
·
· Score: 1
One of the things they point out is that alchohol is listed as a contributing factor if anyone related to the accident has had *anything* to drink. So for example, a passenger who was not driving who blows 0.08 on a BAC causes the accident to be listed as part of your 40%.
Actually, that's incorrect. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) figures look at the highest blood alcohol content (BAC) of all the drivers involved in the accident, only. Granted, in some cases those drivers may not be at fault in an accident, but that's a far cry from suggesting that they count drunk passengers in the statistics. (Some of the articles on the linked web site also assert that someone who commits suicide with a firearm while drunk in their car is counted--this is also false.) The NHTSA figures are for crashes only. Here's their raw data in PDF, and the same tables in Google's HTMLized format. (You want the last page; there's data going back to 1982.)
Looking at the 2001 numbers (I can't be bothered to find the most recent 2003 figures, but I would expect them to be comparable), in 32% of fatalities, at least one of the involved drivers had a BAC of 0.08 or above. (29% for greater than 0.10)
You're right that the 40% figure is inflated, though. You only get that (actually, just 37%) if you include every driver with a perceptible level of alcohol in his blood. Consider my remarks suitably amended, but I still think that 30% is too high a fraction of accidents involving alcohol.
-- ~Idarubicin
Re:roll cages with covers
by
imsabbel
·
· Score: 1
ok, now you are on the highway. As far a I know, the us has rather strict speed limits, so you have a deltav of perhaps 10 or 20 mph at most. You should see it. If not, you should be removed from the street, because if you cant see a 1.5*1,5m big silluette in front of you, you cant be helped.
-- HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Re:roll cages with covers
by
brentcastle
·
· Score: 1
I was referring to highways, but as you are obviously not from America I should tell you that in most of the non-coastal states there are a lot of trucks. I would say its 30-50% of the drivers on the road. Among those trucks include every hillbilly who wants to jack their truck up so their seated position is 8-10 feet in the air. Undoubtedly someone will be talking on a cell phone and just barrel in to one of these things. I agree they shouldn't be on the road, my point was to show that it will happen to someone and that someone will not be me:-D.
-- http://www.brentcastle.com
Re:roll cages with covers
by
untaken_name
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure how you think informative absolutely cannot mean caustic. I never said anything about anyone being safer or not safer. I simply pointed out that these cars are not likely to 'bounce' in a collision as so many people stated ITT. If correcting a flawed assumption isn't informative....well, never mind. Apparently your definition of 'inform' is different from mine.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
untaken_name
·
· Score: 1
Yes, again, I didn't say these cars were safer, just that they aren't likely to 'bounce' in a collision as many people said they were. I wouldn't drive one of these dorky (slightly) oversized RC cars. That's just me, though. I mean, I think these things are likely to bounce just like a raw egg dropped on a tile floor in a collision, that's all. Thanks on the 'sig...I just saw 4 or 5 instances of 'for all intensive purposes' in one day and...just snapped.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
untaken_name
·
· Score: 1
Sigh. People were talking as though it would fly off like a pinball. I think most of us realize there will be *some* sort of adjustment after a collision, depending on its direction and the speed of both vehicles. I suppose I should have clarified for the extremely literal: it doesn't bounce more than most cars in a collision, as other posters indicated that it did.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
untaken_name
·
· Score: 1
I love my car. It's like driving a couch. It has plenty of power without guzzling too much gas. It's a terrifically comfortable car, and I hope to keep it roadworthy for years to come.
Re:roll cages with covers
by
untaken_name
·
· Score: 2
Having fantasies about me, are you? Sorry to burst your bubble, but I can't stand blues music. I *am* a gigantically overweight asshole with a tiny dick though. I'm 4'9", weigh 880 lbs and have a 1/4" penis. Amazing you could tell all that from what kind of car I drive. Let me try now...from your response, I can tell you're a scrawny dork with coke-bottle glasses, halitosis, and a hopeless crush on one of the MythBusters. Isn't this fun?
Re:roll cages with covers
by
untaken_name
·
· Score: 1
My car won't ever have to worry about driving on the small roads in Europe. That's because I don't happen to live there. I live currently in a huge city, and I have no problems whatsoever fitting on the streets. Why would you even speculate as to what my car would do in a situation that 1.) it wasn't designed for and 2.) will never occur? Oh well, I'm glad to know that my American car which will never be shipped across the ocean is better for driving in America than Europe. Wow, I sure lucked out there, huh?
Re:roll cages with covers
by
untaken_name
·
· Score: 1
They also don't bounce all over the road like a pinball after collisions, though, and they *do* have crumple zones, contrary to what many posters were saying. I never said how safe or effective the car was, just that it *does* have crumple zones and it does not 'bounce' all over after a collision.
Does anyone know what these things might go for in the US?
Re:Who needs this shit??
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
When you're stuck in city traffic for hours at a time you dont need 2 tonnes of metal around you to survive a 2mph crash.
Re:Who needs this shit??
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I assuming that you have never been in a smart car as they are actually quite comfortable. I am 6'2" and have no problems with leg room or driving position.
Re:Who needs this shit??
by
Dynamoo
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It's called "Smart" for a reason. The whole thing is based around a nearly-indestructable safety cage like an F1 car. They are incredibly safe. Yeah, a bit strange to drive though.
--
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
Re:Who needs this shit??
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
near zero survivability
Please, have you seen the crash test specs/results? if not, pipe down.
as uncomfortable a driving experience as can be
Have you ever driven in one? if not pipe down.
Maybe this car isn't suitible for your use, but don't assume is isn't suitible for everyone. It is ideal for driving round towns and in busy streets where there is little parking.
Comparison...
by
B5_geek
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If I was in the market for a 2-seat super-efficient car, why would I buy one from a manufacturer that has limited support/service options?
Compare the Zap to Honda's Insight http://automobiles.honda.com/models/model _overview.asp?ModelName=Insight 60/66 mpg city/highway (I can't view the Toyota Prius because of evil plugin-requirements.)
Honda, has a proven track record of quality automobiles. Zap, in Europe? I don't know. Colour me ignorant.
-- "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Re:Comparison...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Honda, has a proven track record of quality automobiles.
Daimler has the longest possible record. They build the very first car.
Re:Comparison...
by
Simon+Brooke
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Honda, has a proven track record of quality automobiles.
Zap, in Europe? I don't know. Colour me ignorant.
Why not consider a VW Jetta TDI? They get between 45 and 50 mpg,seat 4, and have a huge trunk.
Besides, I'd hate to test the safety of a Zap against an Excursion...
Re:Comparison...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Does DaimlerChrysler give a discount to Jews whos grandparents put the cars together in the late '30s and early '40s?
The current Toyota Prius is 5 seater with a large cargo space. 60 MPG city, 51 MPG highway, 55 combined. (Yes, higher in city, where speeds are lower and there's more braking and coasting for regeneration potential.)
$21,415 MSRP (no haggling), and there's still a U.S. Federal tax deduction. It started at $2000 and was decreasing, scheduled to be phased out by 2007, but was extended.
They've been selling the Prius in the U.S. for several years (my wife and I have owned a 2002 Prius since the end of '01), and for longer than that in Japan. There's the usual Toyota warranties on the car in general, and an 8-year, 100,000-mile warranty on the hybrid system and battery. Ours has been extremely reliably, with no problems besides a warning light when the gas cap didn't get screwed on tight.
I hired one for a week
by
jcupitt65
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
For a holiday with my missus driving around Southern Germany looking at stuff. It could cruise at 80mph, there was plenty of headroom (I'm 6'4", but had several inches spare over my head), enough room for luggage, it all felt slick and solid. I did have to ensure some scoffing about my lack of manliness from German friends though:-( I calculated fuel efficiency at the end of the week and it was ~67 mpg.
On the downside because the car is rather high and narrow (think two mopeds bolted together side by side), I'm told they can be scarey in side-winds.
Re:I hired one for a week
by
Johan+Veenstra
·
· Score: 1
is that 67 miles per US gallon (3.785412 liter) or 67 miles per imperial gallon (4.54609 liters) ?
Re:I hired one for a week
by
jcupitt65
·
· Score: 1
so when people from America say their SUV does a shockingly poor 15MPG what they really mean is that it does a truely dreadful 12.490123 MPG! Why are American cars fitted with huge engines when they don't go any faster than small efficient engines and the weight screws up the handling?
Re:I hired one for a week
by
OblongPlatypus
·
· Score: 1
What? No, it means they get an only slightly less shockingly poor 18.014245 MPG where G = imperial gallon. Your argument about the stupidity of SUVs still applies though.
-- -- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
oh, my bad. Grandparent post stated US Gallon vs Imperial rather than UK Gallon vs Imperial. Another reason to ditch imperial measurements in favour of something more sensible. Rods to the Hogshead or something.
Re:I hired one for a week
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
don't carry much heavy cargo or pull any trailers do you? Don't worry, 80% of SUV owners don't either, but for the ones that do, it's a necessity. Too bad the 20% that actually use the vehicles for what they are made for have to take the crap because the other 80% that have more money than brains.
Re:I hired one for a week
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
it doesnt matter, the vast majority of those SUV's are incapable of the "work" they are supposed to be capable of.
which i find hilarious, ever notice how crappy a 4 wheel drive SUV handles in rain/snow. or how dantily the driver HAS to take them over a bit of gravel to avoid destroying the poorly built machine.
SUV's are just rebranded stationwagons, anyone who owns one is just pathetic (and will suffer from the higher casualty rates unfortunately)
Re:I hired one for a week
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The SUV's i've driven have handled quite nicely in off-road situations, while pulling load, and in thick snow. I live in Michigan, where there's plenty of oppourtunity to test out those situations. I'm not sure where you're comment comes from.
Survivability
by
reality-bytes
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The Smart has actually been proven to come off very well in crashes.
There is no engine in the front of a Smart to be pushed into the passenger compartment (preventing leg injuries etc.)
A UK TV show demo'd the Smart being crashed into a solid concrete wall at 70mph. Amazingly, the tridion safety cell preserved the shape of the vehicle sufficiently that the doors would still open/close. Another bonus is the low mass and hence inertia of the Smart which means you can litterally 'bounce-off' solid objects while dissipating crash energy in a safe manner.
The Smart also features high-quality airbags to prevent neck/back injuries.
Furthermore, the Smart is pedestrian-friendly, once-again, the hapless would-be road-kill bounces off the plastic panels and there are no suspension turrets to impale them.
-- Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Re:Survivability
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Amazingly, the tridion safety cell preserved the shape of the vehicle sufficiently that the doors would still open/close.
It's not the impact that kills you, it's the sudden stop. I don't give a rat's ass if the doors still open and close if I'm dead.
Re:Survivability
by
martin
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
the car survived, comments from the people indicated they thought the occupants wouldn't have...
70-0 mph in less than 0.2 of a second is not easy to support by the human body...
I drive a coupe and I'll admit it is a little gay (no offence to anyone) but I like it(I also like listening to the village people but I digress).
But this thing, sorry but I would not been seen dead in it (which according to safety tests is near impossible) let alone alive.
As for pedestrian safety. They shouldn't be on the road. I am not going to buy a car based on how safe it is for the person I hit with it. (If am using a car to hit someone I am not going to use one that bounces off them).
Although I have seen how easy these things are to park as it is as long as normal cars are wide.
Re:Survivability
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
ANY car will roll over sideways when taking a curve too fast. NO car can predict that happening, that's why you have a brake and a steering wheel.
SMART's may roll over sideways when going too fast into a curve. So much for active safety.
Any non-anonymous source for this? Of course, any car can roll over if going sufficiently fast into a curve - it's plain physics. But I very much doubt that you can manage to roll over a SMART while it still has traction.
Citroen dispelled such a rumor about the 2CV in elder times by offering a replacement car to everyone who managed to overturn a 2CV. AFAIK, they never had to pony up.
--
Stephan
Re:Survivability
by
AndroidCat
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Although I have seen how easy these things are to park
Park? I thought they folded up into a briefcase like in the Jetsons. Damn, first no flying cars, now this!
But seriously, for parking it looks like it would be a great car in city, especially with it being dent and scratch resistant.
-- One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Most cars will slide before rolling. Of course, once they slide off the road, there's a decent chance of a roll.
As for rolling a Citroen, I'm guessing it wouldn't be too hard if you were actually trying. Just skid it sideways into a curb. The sudden stop should make it roll.
My dad had a funny story from his younger days: a group of guys would buy a car that ran from a junkyard for about $10. Then they'd drive it around some abandoned lot and try to roll it. They discovered the only way to roll a car was in reverse. After rolling it, they'd all roll it back over and try again. At the end of the day, they'd return it to the junkyard for $5. Sure beats going to the movies, eh?
Actually, I think you'll find that a lot of cars, especially sport compacts etc., are much more likely to slide in such a case. Unless, that is, provoked by a ditch or bump in the road that would otherwise upset the balance of the car.
Re:Survivability
by
Gordonjcp
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Citroen 2CVs (please,/. janitors, can we have accented characters?) are damn near impossible to roll. Even if you jack up one side, the other side will just dip lower and lower. You need to get one side around 3' off the deck before it will even start to roll.
Curiously enough, this is because they don't have anti-roll bars. If you throw one into a roundabout at 50mph, it will roll from side to side alarmingly but it will *never* *ever* lift a wheel off the road.
well I've never tried it myself, but the data in the page i linked to are based on experiments so i would give them some credence. As the article says, the time duration and the dynamic response of the organs in question are very important to the outcome.
Additionally, the direction of the acceleration is important, so you can withstand a far greater front/back acceleration than an up/down one (such as in an aircraft ejector seat). Sideways accelerations are particularly dangerous.
Re:Survivability
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
you can litterally 'bounce-off' solid objects while dissipating crash energy in a safe manner.
I call BS. A a physicist I can tell you that bouncing would introduce twice the damage (assuming damage went linearly) to the human as coming to a stop. Boucing = bad. Just because you see a ball bounce w/out changing shape and clay changing shape when it doesn't bounce, don't assume the human inside would be happier being inside a ball. The reason it is better to be in the SUV when it crashes into the mini is because the mini will slow down much quicker than the SUV so the occupant of the mini is in deep shit. A train won't slow down at all when hitting a mini. It is the sudden stop that hurts people. Having a sudden stop and then a sudden increse in speed (ie bouncing) is doulble bad.
My dad was driving home from work in our old '88 or so Subaru Loyale, and swerved to dodge a deer. Another deer came from the other side of the road, and he spun out in a patch of sand trying to avoid it. (Sand is good for traction when it snows, but bad news once the snow melts as it's far worse than dry pavement.)
The car hit the curb sideways at about 5 MPH and that's when it rolled. (Very slowly, it almost rolled back onto its wheels, but just barely continued over.)
Thanks to his seat belt and the low speed of the crash, my dad walked away without a scratch. The Subaru wasn't so well-off though.
You bet! The waiting lists are extremely long and they don't even both taking deposits at some dealerships. However, after stopping a man driving a ForTwo at Ikea Burlington, I asked him where he got his so very quickly. Apparently, the base white model with no accessory packages sells poorly and can be had at the list price without much hassle in Canada. Food for thought for anybody looking to buy one in Canada (and if you work in Toronto, as I do, it's the ease of parking that makes you want one of these things...)
Just FYI, although difficult to get, they have been around in Canada for a few months now, and sold by Mercedes. The MSRP is about $16000 Canadian.
For those looking for an economy car, its not really worth it, as you can get a 4 door for around $12000 CAN. Although, I am told that the Smart Car does get a rediculously high milage (I think it was 70miles per gallon).
Re:Very Popular
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What four door car can you get in Canada new for $12000 CDN?
Re:Very Popular
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
As they say, 'Small things come in little packages'.
Re:Very Popular
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A Kia Rio in base trim has a MSRP of $12995, which is close. Still, calling a Kia a "real car" is a bit of a stretch.
Re:Very Popular
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's not completely true. They just did a bit of a blitz in Montreal, billboards and renting out Place des Arts to show off a couple of them. Not to mention that there's already been people doing test drives and the like. I used to see people zip down long empty streets on these things on my lunch break. They're surprisingly quick.
If I had the money, I'd certainly consider getting one...
The coolest (techie-cool, anyway) cars I see around Vancouver are
the Toyota Prius, and the
Smart. I wouldn't mind
driving either.
I've only seen a handful of Smarts so far, but
zillions of Priuses. One taxi company run
a fleet of them. Two people in my office
whirr in to the parking lot in them.
...laura
Re:Very Popular
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
so.. none, then. You can't get a new four door car in canada for $12000, despite the parent's claim.
You certainly can at the end of a model year. In 2001 when new '02s had just come out I had my choice of a Kia Rio or Hyundai Accent for $9995CDN. I doubt they've inflated 20% since then.
Cavalier, Sunfire, Echo, and a few others.. (all in the range of $12k MSRP + taxes; but you can bargain them down). In any case, still cheaper than the Smartcar
Re:Not so SMART . . .
by
ceeam
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Hah! Imagine when your SUV is hit head on by an Abrahms tank! And they all suck if an asteroid hits you straight on! Well - it is a decent car with high sitting positions. I don't think its less safe than some Civic. (Yes, I've seen those on the streets. In Russia even).
Fifth Gear (a UK TV program) recently did a crash test between a remote-control-rigged smart car and a concrete barrier at 70mph, then did the same with an Opel/Vauxhal Corsa (GM's European mini car).
The Smart Car did as well as the Corsa - the occupant wouldn't have been squished, but in both cases the g-force would probably have killed them. The thing about the Smart though is the crumple zones are very small, so although the body stays rigid, there is less to absorb the force, so, unscientifically, I would imagine that the car would stop anything up to twice as quickly (half the crumple zone length...) meaning twice the G-Force, and half the chance to live.
As for looking cool - well over here in Britain I think most of us got bored quickly... especially with those people that insisted on having cow skin print Smarts:-S
On the plus side, something that size is very easy to stop, and very easy to steer away from danger. Not getting into an accident in the first place is something that is greatly undervalued as a safety feature.
Safe and Clean
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Bizarre that it took so long for a car as clean and safe (see http://www.euroncap.com - this car is safer than a Dodge Neon or Voyager...) as this to be passed in the US, where road safety and average fuel consumption is now far worse than it was 20 years ago, thanks to SUVs...
Re:Not so SMART . . .
by
Maddog+Batty
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
On channel 5 in the UK recently they showed Smart cars being driven into various other large cars. It came off very well. To do a final test they drove a Smart into a concrete barrier at 70mph to see what would happen. The car come off fine. Both doors would open and one would even shut again.
Unfortunately, anybody in the car at the time would be dead due to internal injuries. No amount of safety cages, seat belts and air bags will stop your guts from going splat internally when decelerating from 70mph to 0 in about 1 meter.
-- wot no sig
Re:Not so SMART . . .
by
JPDeckers
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Unusual definition of "looks cool"
by
MyNameIsFred
·
· Score: 1
...Finally a 60 mpg car that can go 90 mph and look cool at the same time!!...
If we're going to talk about a Daimler-Chrysler product that looks cool, how about this. The Zap looks like a golf cart with a good paintjob.
Re:Unusual definition of "looks cool"
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I don't think your cool car gets 60 MPG and it exceeds the 90 mph easily too. YOu also could buy 6 SMARTS with the money for one of your monster snakes. (Viper):)
Re:Unusual definition of "looks cool"
by
Malc
·
· Score: 1
Looks perfect for men who have a reason to have low self esteem...
Anyone know how much they cost? Anyone driven one?
Re:Cost?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
I have. Numerous friends and my brother have had a Smart in its time (some years ago, here in France). Very easy to drive, punchy in towns centers traffic jams, could be parked on a family camping table surface. The black and silver classic model is the coolest, taking you fit it with back tires on front wheels too, providing a naughty large seating look, very eighties. Given some German car shops provide hacked firmwares to enhance the performances, I think it's a nice geek toy. Nevertheless, a bit expensive as it drinks more than expected.
Cost.. Cheap. Easy to look up on the net. Yes, I've driven one. One of my friends owns one, and I was sceptical about it when I first saw it.
After getting in, it feels very spacious, and comfortable. Quite zippy for the engine size. Everything is well laid out. Stable on corners, good acceleration, and good braking.
Superb city drive, although I prefer my Saab 9000 for motorways and long drives, but, when in the city looking for somewhere to park, or just counting petrol costs for start/stop driving, you can bet that I'm missing that smart car.:)
Looks like somewhere around $8,000 US maybe? Not sure. It is not easy to find on the net regardless of what some bone head things. zapworld doesn't list prices.
With a little more details avaible on the costs it might be worth looking into.
Re:Cost?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Base model starts at $45,500 US and range up to $52,000 US.
It might look "different", and "futuristic", but it by no means looks cool to me. It looks like some bastard offspring of a VW Beetle, and a British Mini.
If you want a car that looks cool, I suggest going here. (just my 2 bits...)
It looks like some bastard offspring of a VW Beetle, and a British Mini.
Dude, you know that here in Britain Minis and Beetles are the epitome of cool? I mean, haven't you seen the (original) Italian Job, or any of Disney's "Herbie" films? For shame!
Dude, you know that here in Britain Minis and Beetles are the epitome of cool?
So many responses spring to mind. 8)=
Seriously... I realize that Mini's are big in the UK, and -well... I didn't realize that you Brits were big Herbie fans, but whatever. If nothing else, I find it funny putting the Herbie movies on the same level as the Italian Job.
But Americans, for better or worse, have never taken to such cars. Beetles yes, to a point, although IMHO, the older ones only start to get cool after you rip the fenders off, throw a baja kit on it, and build the engine up way over it's stock 1600cc's.
Us Yanks tend to want our V-8 power, nature destroyin', off-roading, luxury feeling, big old cars! Maybe that's pigeon holing it a bit, but lil' cars like we're talking about have never made a huge dent in US sales.
Maybe with todays gas situation there's hope for such cars here. But I still can't picture cruisin' the strip in such a car. Maybe the ex-hippee's will like it (they can replace their Yugo's finally!)
Re:(cough) Look cool?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Lambos are for flash gits with no class. David Beckham has one.
Seriously... I realize that Mini's are big in the UK, and -well... I didn't realize that you Brits were big Herbie fans, but whatever. If nothing else, I find it funny putting the Herbie movies on the same level as the Italian Job.
I think, for the sake of British pride, I need to say that my tongue was - slightly - in cheek when I said that. Beetles are cool - but comparing the Italian Job to Herbie Goes Bananas? Yeah, I'm sorry. Bad mistake;)
A Lamborghini may looks cool, but with the Smart, it's the driver who looks cool.
Did the coupe get approved?
by
nurb432
·
· Score: 1
Its nice they got the dinky one approved, but did the coupe thingie get approved as well?
That might be worth having, but the stupid looking one? Nah.. no thanks.
-- ---- Booth was a patriot ----
It's not authorised by DCX
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
ZAP gets the cars from European dealers. DCX has nothing to do with it, because they feel that there is not enough demand to balance the risks. ZAP thinks different and does it on its own.
To counter the negativty...
by
mccalli
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I can see a lot of negative comments at the moment, so I thought I'd add my own (UK-based) opinion.
I've always been an in-principle fan of these SMARTs. I haven't driven one, but I've been inside one at various motor shows and there's plenty of space for two plus shopping or weekend luggage. You're not going to go trans-America with it, but to think about in that way is missing the point.
It makes an excellent city car. There are a decent number kicking around in London, and I seem to remember seeing even more when I was Hamburg a few years ago. In the city, you don't care about 90mph, you care that you can pull out nippily, find a parking space and turn round. This is the best answer I've seen since the original Mini (or maybe the Renault Twingo - never did understand why that didn't make it to the UK).
I'm actively considering swapping a Jaguar X-Type for one. Reason? My car mainly drives me to the train station in the morning and back, and a Jag is total overkill for that. We have an S-Type also for weekend trips or serious travel...why have two cars that do the same job? Only thing holding me back at the moment is a concern about its ability to cope with bad weather.
No, I'm seriously interested in these.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:To counter the negativty...
by
aug24
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I recommended a couple I know to try these out a few years ago, on the same 'in principle' bit as you. They tried it (Frank was very sceptical), loved it (the bit where he changed his mind was doing a U turn in a normal road instead of a 3-point), bought one. Then his bro and bro-in-law got one. Then some friends... you see where I'm going.
They are every bit as good as you think. They are totally stable, comfortable and customiseable, safer than many other 'normal' cars both for those inside and any peds you might hit, and you get big smiles from people - tops!
Justin.
-- You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Re:To counter the negativty...
by
Sajarak
·
· Score: 1
There are tons of them in Rome. Must be a godsend given the way the Italians park their cars.
I've heard that in Germany the government offers subsidies for Smart owners because of their environmental friendliness. I wonder if the Bush administration would be willing to consider something along the same lines...
Re:To counter the negativty...
by
bindo
·
· Score: 1
Weve got one at the office for city trips.
I "steal it" in the weekends. I have driven this on highways with any kind of weather.
The speed is electronically limited to 140 kmph (88 mph, after you know what happens;) It can easily manage 140 kmph sustained. In fact downhill you can feel the car slowing the engine on purpose. Weird feeling:)
Under heavy raining its no problem. In fact slowing down to 110 kmph is advisable, but I guess it should be regardless of the car. The thing has go so much electronic controls that it corrects a lot of driving mistakes ( I think it kept me from loosing the car in a sharp turn in a highway under the rain at least once). Its a good feeling:)
I would definetly say it is SAFER than most small cars.
Strong side winds (as in VERY strong, say a couple of days a year in northern Italy) are another matter.
It is so high and weighs so little it behaves more like a bike in those conditions:) It is drivable, and I have done it. But it stops being fun and you have to "drive it"...
But for driving in a city and some weekends on the snow or at the sea barring thunderstorms it is simply PERFECT.
Bindo
Re:To counter the negativty...
by
Urkki
·
· Score: 1
I've always been an in-principle fan of these SMARTs. I haven't driven one, but I've been inside one at various motor shows and there's plenty of space for two plus shopping or weekend luggage. You're not going to go trans-America with it, but to think about in that way is missing the point.
Then what are you waiting for? Just go and test drive one:-)
Be sure to try the roadster too. I personally wasn't very happy with it, there just isn't enough *anything* to justify the price... If it had 30% smaller price, or if it had a few more things as a standard (such as gear shift buttons/paddles in the steering wheel, better seat adjustments), then I'd be getting it in an instant. But current configuration with current price, can't justify spending that much in such a toy.
But don't take my word for it, go and try yourself!
Re:To counter the negativty...
by
mccalli
·
· Score: 1
I have driven this on highways with any kind of weather.
Excellent, then perhaps you'll be able to reassure me.
The only thing I'm uncertain about is how well it will cope with ice, specifically on hills. My commute involves a fairly serious hill, and I don't want to get stuck in it.
Ever driven one when it's icy?
Cheers,
Ian
Re:To counter the negativty...
by
Moredhel
·
· Score: 1
> (or maybe the Renault Twingo - never did understand why that didn't make it to the UK).
My understanding (from chats with French colleagues) is that the Twingo was made as a concept car, and they put it into production after the reception it got at Shows. But as a concept car, it was designed as Left Hand Drive only, so switching it over for UK use wasn't financially viable. I've seen a few in the UK, but always LHD.
Re:To counter the negativty...
by
brunogirin
·
· Score: 1
The Renault Twingo was never marketted in the UK because, for some reason, the way it was engineered meant they could not provide a right-hand drive version. Note that Smart took its time to provide it as well but they did.
Re:To counter the negativty...
by
Ed_Moyse
·
· Score: 1
Er, not the smart you mean, but a roadster instead (I own one now;-) It was very, very, very impressive. The traction control is extremely effective.
We had an amazing snow storm last winter and I was passing car after car that had got stuck. The traction control was making a godawful noise, but it kept me going (snow was actually coming up over the bonnet!). And this was in summer tyres. It's even more impressive with proper winter tyres.
Try one - you'll be surprised at how nippy even the bottom end ones are.
Re:To counter the negativty...
by
jbash
·
· Score: 1
I've heard that in Germany the government offers subsidies for Smart owners because of their environmental friendliness. I wonder if the Bush administration would be willing to consider something along the same lines...
Re:Not so SMART . . .
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Up against a normal road car, the Smart usually comes off better.
Uh, but what about the people inside?!
It's not the impact that kills you, it's the sudden stop.
More mass always wins. This Zaptaskic thing is just a motorcycle with a roll cage.
is the US a market for these?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Surely they have enough of a hard time selling more euro-centric compacts like the Ford Focus in the US? A tinier car would surely be a hard sell. Long distances, rather than short city hops being what seems to influence American buying power.
As for safety, I'd be as happy in one of these than anything short of a big Volvo. They drove one into a concerete block at 75mph (by remote control) on UK tv programme 'Fifth Gear' a few weeks ago, and it came out of it pretty well.
Incidentally, there's some think-tank today bemoaning the penchant for consumers to buy ridiculously huge cars, on health and environmental reasons. They argue that proportionately more damage to the environment through gas-guzzling, and health (deaths through running people over, etc) is caused by larger cars than smaller cars. Film at 11.
I saw these all over the place when I travelled to Italy in late 2000. When I got back, I showed some of the photos I took to my jeep dealer, who was familiar with the car (it's made by Daimler/Chrysler, just like my jeep), and he was even familiar with the car.
He said the only way D/C would bring the car to the states was if they could a) get it to pass US emissions standards (looks like they did), and b) gas prices skyrocketed (looks like they did)
I do plan on buying one of these. It'll fit in my garage WITH my jeep.
disregard my bad english. I can't afford to turn my furnace on, and brain is frozen.
The Brabus Smart Roadster...
by
Chicane-UK
·
· Score: 1
Now a decent Smart car is the Brabus version of the roadster.
I think the petrol engine is something like a 0.7 litre 3 cylinder with a low pressure turbo.. Brabus made 6 proof of concepts with basically two of the engines welded together to produce a twin turbo V6. And being as they weigh nothing it went like absolute stink.. even the wheels they used looked really nice as well.
Some piccies here:
http://www.fast-autos.net/brabus/brabusroadster. ht ml
Shame they'll never make it as a production car really. Its the only Smart i'd ever own;)
-- "Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
I think this is definitely a nice way to go if you're looking to save the environment. Electrics cars have many problems including range, recharge time, and the fact that most electricity is generated by fossil fuels or nuclear power anyway. Hydrogen doesn't have a good enough distribution system, and takes electricity, generated from fossil fuels, to produce anyway. I think that efficient gas vehicles could really do the environment a favour, with inconveniencing the people driving them.
--
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Practically speaking for most people right now, I agree with your conclusion, but a common misconception about electric cars that you seem to share is that EV's have no benefit since the electricity has to be generated by fossil fuels. In fact even if the electricity is generated by burning coal or gas or oil, there is still a significant efficiency advantage for electric cars (PDF link to a study about this very subject). In addition to that, keep in mind that it is a lot simpler to improve the efficiency of a single power station than it is 10 million individual mini power plants.
-- STFU about slashdot bias.
Re:MSRP? Better than an Insight?
by
adzoox
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The MSNBC article that is linked on the ZAP site say $12,000 for the basic model and up to $20,000 for the convertible with all the options.
There are a few posts here talking about support too, saying the Honda Insight is a better purchase because of proven track record. The Insight is battery electric that needs to be completely replaced after 6 years, it also is a VERY expensive car $36,000 for what you get.
This vehicle will most likely be serviced at Mercedes or Chrysler dealerships and runs on ordinary gas.
The surprising thing is this gets as good a gas mileage as the Honda Insight 60MPH - and may be safer and better for the environment.
-- Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
the Insight has similar proportions; is it built on the CRX chassis? seems plausible, esp. because honda started offering hybrids with the smallest size and is working up.
Hmm..
--
I have nothing witty to fill this space with yet.
The CRX (which is no longer manufactured by Honda) was built on the standard civic chassis. The Civic coupe, sedan, hatchback, and CRX all had the same chassis just a different passenger cab. Not only did these four cars share the same chassis, they also shared the same front-end (hood, fenders, windshield, headlights, engine, dashboard, etc). I used to own a CRX, and I often found myself buying sedan or coupe parts to replace broken parts on my CRX.
I don't know a whole lot about the Insight, but it does have a striking resemblance to the old CRX's. Maybe it too is based on the standard Civic chassis?
At last! I've been chasing after these with my Dodge Caravan in Spain for years, waiting for one to ignore a "Yield" or "Stop" sign to ram it and reduce it to smithereens. But alas, few people drive big enough cars here.
Now that they're sold in the US we're bound to see some gruesome fatalities as they embed themselves under the tires of the ubiquitous SUVs and Hummers.
Finally people will realize the sorry excuse for a car this shit is!
If you're looking for mileage take a look at what Audi or Volkswagen have to offer. You can get easily 40 mpg without looking like a circus clown accessory.
Have you ever wondered why people call you a jerk? Do you really want to try to kill someone in a road traffic "accident" (or a "road traffic on purpose" in your case.) It is attitudes like this that make me sick, think how you would feel if you were the owner of that car, or the parent/SO of the person who had just passed their driving test you ran into the back of and killed? Please.
If you're looking for mileage take a look at what Audi or Volkswagen have to offer. You can get easily 40 mpg
Or you could have a smaller, cheaper car, which is easier to drive round cities and gets 50% more milage for the same volume of fuel.
Your Dodge caravan would bounce off a Smart. They are Mercedes-built, with one of the toughest roll-cages available. While the Smart may need the scratches polishing out of it, and a new body panel or two, your Dodge would be waiting to be towed to the scrappers. Try me sometime. I'll be the one stopping correctly at the lights, and sueing you for ramming me in the back.
-- b3 4phr41d 0f my 4bov3-4v3r4g3 c0mpu73r kn0wI3dg3! MadDwarf
Just so. The company is being very misleading about the vehicle's safety. They point out (correctly, I assume) that their passenger compartment survived virtually intact when they smashed the thing with a Mercedes sedan "twice as big" as their car. They don't say, however, how the passengers would have faired, and they don't say that U.S. roads are jammed full of vehicles that weigh over three times as much as this little doorstop.
Maybe their passenger compartment is tough, but unless people are willing to wear five-point harnesses and helmets, they're still going to get busted up or killed in a collision with an Expedition.
My wife and I got rid of a Mazda Protege after about two years, because we didn't like how badly overmatched we would likely be in a wreck--and it weighed a thousand pounds more than the SMART car.
I can't wait to see the first Hummer-Zap collision on the news. Or maybe a tracktor trailer-Zap collision. And you know the Zap isn't getting out of the way by speeding up, with a 60 hp engine.
If you're looking for mileage take a look at what Audi or Volkswagen have to offer. You can get easily 40 mpg without looking like a circus clown accessory.
Not easily. I own an Audi A3 1600cc. While I've managed to go down to 6L/100km (39mpg) it's really really difficult. You have to drive with great care: non-urban areas, 90km/h, 5th gear, no braking. My usual consumption is around 8L/100km (29mpg) in semi-urban area, and pretty agressive driving. Top consumption is 10L/100km (23mpg) when driving at 200km/h for long trips in highway (if the police asks, this was in Germany, not Portugal;-).
If you want a nice looking car, with great mileage, the best current option IMHO is the Honda Jazz.
-- If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
So to take this type of thinking to it's logical conclusion American roads will soon be filled with fully armored twelve tonne combat vehicles.
People on here are talking like American roads are vastly different to Eurpoean ones, this may come as a shock to you but if you were to drive down a motorway in England in a Hummer a great many of the other vehicles would be significantly larger and heavier, yes that's right we have trucks and coaches over here too. Another thing that would come as a shock would be just how much of an idiot you look.
Maybe we're just not so selfish and fearful that we would purchase a car specifically to plough through other cars in a collision.
They don't say, however, how the passengers would have faired, and they don't say that U.S. roads are jammed full of vehicles that weigh over three times as much as this little doorstop.
Of course mass has a lot to do with it when running up against tanks, but in terms of relative safety I would put a Smart up against any of the millions of small sedans or coupes in America today.
The thing is just safety-engineered that well. Not much of a crumple zone in the front to absorb energy, right? Well, the rear-end actually sustains damage in a frontal crash because energy is transferred around the passenger compartment. The SUV bumper height problem is also not as bad in a Smart, because the driver sits higher than in most cars.
I have seen a 30mph offset head-on impact test between a Smart and a car about 1.5 times its weight. The Smart driver would have been uninjured, while the other driver would have been in the hospital. The rear-end did sustain visible damage.
The difference is that the soccer moms don't drive said huge vehicles to go pick up the kids at school around here (thankfully). But around there, they do...
>I'll be the one stopping correctly at the lights, and sueing you for ramming me in the back.
Unfortunately for you, I follow the road rules. And about bouncing, you sure would. There's this thing called "conservation of momentum", what you should be wondering is where you'll land.
Re:Lanky geek fits, with space for warm beverage.
by
jdp
·
· Score: 1
A non-geeky Slashdot-reading friend of mine said of the above: "Is this marked funny, or informative?" Apparently, in her world, lugging 22" monitors and ATX cases is not on the short list for important attributes of a new car (although she still wants a Smart car for all the other good reasons).
Used as a Police car
by
edo-01
·
· Score: 2, Funny
There's at least one of these cars being used by the New South Wales police here in Sydney and it's painted just like a regular cop car.
It drove past me once as I was walking to lunch in the city, the sight of two cops in this thing made me and a lot of other people piss ourselves laughing:-)
You could tell the cops felt like dicks in it, they just had these sheepish grins on their faces...
Re:Used as a Police car
by
JamieKitson
·
· Score: 0
No, the sheepish grins were due to the dead Aboriginal folded up in the boot.
in London too. They are very easy to park. In fact you can park nose in to the pavement because the length of the car is the same as the width of everything else.
Re:Used as a Police car
by
Slashamatic
·
· Score: 1
Yep, this means that you can get 2*Smarts in one standard European parking space.
There's at least one of these cars being used by the New South Wales police here in Sydney and it's painted just like a regular cop car.
It drove past me once as I was walking to lunch in the city, the sight of two cops in this thing made me and a lot of other people piss ourselves laughing:-)
You could tell the cops felt like dicks in it, they just had these sheepish grins on their faces...
Being a police officer is about ensuring the safety of the citizens, not looking macho. In a city it makes a lot of sense. You can do an instant u-turn in a street instead of a 3-point turn. Easier to weave around people/obstructions. Acceleration is more important than top-end speed. And for a car that is supposed to be permanently moving, usually at low speed, the high mpg is a plus for the taxpayer. So cut the poor guys some slack!:-)
IIRC, NYC uses Chevy Malibus as their main "workhorse" car for this reason.
In the stop-and-go driving of the city, the smaller and more fuel-efficient Malibu has big advantages.
In suburban and rural areas, Crown Vics rule because of good acceleration (big V8) and the fact that the car itself can be used as a weapon in a vehicular chase. Crown Vics can take (and give) a beating in situations that require aggressive driving.
it's just a yuppy shopping trolley. Won't solve congestion, it'll just mean more people in smaller cars.
Walk.
Cycle. Get the bus.
Rollerskate.
Couple of things
by
AlexEdwards
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Great cars - driven one of the sporty cabrio, roofless ones around Mont Blanc. Amazing how cool the little turbo engine sounds in the back, like a mini Porsche.
They are also designed to park "end-on" to the curb - they are the length of a normal car's width. Great for those San Fransisco hills?;)
Only downside is there's not much room between your arm and the window. They are generally very safe, but a friend's friend (sorry) toppled one on a motorway, slid it on its side and mashed his arm nastily.
I'd still get one for the city driving tho'.
If you parked it sideways on a San Fransisco hill, surely it would fall over, or atleast be very easily pushed over by a small child? I heard they were pretty dangerous on motorways because of the falling over risk, my cousin has one and says it feels like a big car inside but i still can't see myself with one. On the plus side though, driving in London for example will cut you down to about 3mph so no risk there;)
-- This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
City Driving
by
Tomahawk
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This car is designed purely for city driving. It's a 2 seater car, and when you actually see them up close, they are really dinky.
Personally, I think they are great. I probably wouldn't have one as an only car, but have it as a second car for city driving only.
Seemingly the majority of cars caught speeding in London are Smart cars. Only in the UK and here they are Mercedes Smart cars (designed by the Swatch people, no less).
I have always wanted a car that looks like a door wedge.
Gotta chime in
by
Bowdie
·
· Score: 2, Informative
(UK) I took delivery of a Smart ForTwo two weeks ago, and the grin still hasn't left my face.
They're superbly well made, very very quick off the mark. I grew up driving Minis (proper minis, not those funny BMW things) and this Smart is the logical progression.
On the bad side, they're noisy when you stick your foot down hard, the traction control is a bit keen in places, and the standard stereo system blows.
Other than that, I could not be happier. Please take one for a test drive before you judge!
--
yes, www.dotcomforwardslash.com is my real URL.
Daimler/Swatch
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
SMART is a joint venture between Daimler and Swatch. They are the unaffiliated party.
The word "unaffiliated" means a company which this company doesn't have a relationship with. That means DC aren't "relying" on Zap, Zap is merely buying the cars on the open market, converting them and selling them somewhere else.
If DC wanted to bring the car here themselves, Zap would just take it in the shorts. Much like another company did (I forget the name) when M-B brought the G500 here. I have two friends who bought the converted models by a remarketer/federalizer before M-B brought it.
...IF I had to pick one, I guess I like the worldcar LUV the most, even though performance claims are wimpy. Looks normal & pure electric. Cage a plugin at work for it, have some dedicated solar panels for it at home. With that said, make it bigger, a couple/three feet longer say, with a larger motor and more batteries, and have the batteries be "maintenance friendly", not "maintenance free". And the roof of the car itself could be a few panels just "because". Lead acid batts you can add distilled water to once in awhile are a lot more economical and functional. It would fit, people are used to periodic "oil change", so periodic "battery top-off" isn't that hard to grok. They even make "hydrocaps" for that purpose, helps to keep the batteries full.
Americanized and U.S. Compliant??
by
sl4shd0rk
·
· Score: 1
Can only mean: - Sticker prices raised $2500 to cover tax. - Fuel economy will actually be half of sticker. - RFID installed in several places. - Cost to import spare parts is 700% over cost. - Registration will cost double of the state next to you. - It comes equipped with Diebold electronics to automatcally vote for you in the next election.
In Spain these cars are known officially as 4-wheel quadro-cycles, not cars. They fall into the same classification as motorised wheelchairs and bicycles. I kid you not, I'm studying for my driving test!
Re:4-wheel quadro-cycles
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
false. Smarts are cars, with 700cc motors. the " 4-wheel quadro-cycles" as you call them have 50cc or 125cc motorcycle motors, an yoou don't need a driving license. maybe you should study a little more to pass your test;) and i'm spanish btw, and i love those lil no-way-cheap bastards
Finally? Honda Insight and Toyota Prius both
by
Sai+Babu
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Driving a hybrid is rather unnerving the first few months because the engine starts and stops on it's own.
EPA figures are a little off from reality. A friend has a geo and consistabtly gets 50+ mpg on the freeway. Also the Subaru Justy does much better than EPA numbers.
Re:Finally? Honda Insight and Toyota Prius both
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I wonder what efficiencey would be achieved if the Smart cars were hybrids?... remeber they are conventunal engines!
Winter Driving
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Several weeks ago they arrived in Canada and I've started seeing them around the Toronto area. I will concur with other posters that as a 6'4" individual I had no trouble with interior room when I sat in one at this year's auto show. I am also equally convinced that they will protect a passenger in the event of a collision. The diminutive diesel engine is located under the floor in the back so even in the event of a high-speed front-end crash the engine will most likely pass under your seat on it's way forward.
However my concern is how this vehicle will handle in winter weather driving. All of the weight is over the rear tires which may make cornering and breaking more difficult, as will the overall light weight of the vehicle.
Furthermore the tires are very VERY small. I would guess at 12" or less. The puts the axle very close to the road and I would expect that you will be susceptible to being dragged and thrown around by snow and slush buildup. Of course it has every traction and stability control system they could throw at it, but this only works if your tires are actually on the road...
Great commuter car, but you might be safer working from home in bad winter weather.
60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
2$+Crack+Whore
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Here in Europe it has been possible to buy 60mpg cars that will do 90mph+ for years...I really don't see how this is a revelation. Most new hatchbacks (especially the turbodiesels) can do this. Hell my 15 year old Peugeot 205 can do 55mpg.
This is not a troll but it would be really nice when certain parts of the world realise that having a 2.5 tonne behemoth that barely can get 5mpg is just not a smart idea.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
MtViewGuy
·
· Score: 2, Informative
However, until the USA switches to low-sulfur diesel fuel completely in September 2006, you can forget about buy turbodiesel-powered small cars here in the USA.
But I do think that Honda will sell turbodiesel-powered small cars here in the USA by 2007. Imagine a second-generation Honda Fit powered by a 1.4-liter I-4 i-CTDi turbodiesel engine getting 60+ miles per US gallon fuel efficiency! =)
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
CdBee
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Audi's A2 has a 3L model which is so named as it can do 100km on 3 litres of fuel - it's a 1.2 litre turbocharged 3-cylinder diesel. The Volkswagen Lupo is available with the same engine. Both are more substantially-built cars which feel safer than a Smart - although Mercedes-Daimler-Chrysler's marketing shows that the Smart may easily be as safe in an accident - refer to earlier posts with more detail.
The only real innovation of the 2-door Smart is that its an efficient Petrol car (overcoming a seeming aversion to Diesel in the US market) and is much easier to drive in tight spaces.
-- I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
agarrett
·
· Score: 1
Seconded: My 998cc polo (2000) will do 100 (despite the engines extremely verbose protests) and averages around 58mpg (though not when doing 100, shockingly..)
-- Go ahead and search, you will never find it all, I am baking muffins as I speak. - ComicBook Guy
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
But your Peugeot 205 only does 44 mpg(US) -- British gallons are 25% larger than American ones, which I think accounts for your confusion.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
MSBob
·
· Score: 1
Yeah but you're talking about 55 miles per British gallon as opposed to 60 miles per American gallon. Big difference
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
Johnny+Mnemonic
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Americans are adverse to diesel, even TDI, for historical reasons. There's been some talk that they're going to try to reintroduce "next-gen" TDI cars in the next few years; how they do in the US market will determine how many more diesels are marketed here in subsequent years.
So the closest we can get to 60mpg is the Prius, which is selling like hotcakes. I think the Smart Car will have a specific demographic, but will do well in those markets: I forsee a lot of them going to big metro areas. But they probably won't do so well in Texas.
--
-- $tar -xvf.sig.tar
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
mapmaker
·
· Score: 1
Here in Europe it has been possible to buy 60mpg cars that will do 90mph+ for years
That's because you are talking about deisels. The Zap uses regular gas.
While it's true that diesel engines get much better mileage than gasoline engines, they are worse for the environment because they pollute the air much more per mile driven than gasoline engines.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I am afraid you are mistaken. Its fun to start wars with other countries for their oil.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
alwayslurking
·
· Score: 1
US gallon is four fifths of a UK gallon (16 fl oz per pint instead of 20). Hence the misleading rhyme "a pint's a pound the world around". That makes 60mpg much more impressive in the US. I was baffled that my Focus only managed high 20's until I learnt that fact.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
hattig
·
· Score: 1
Sadly the UK does have a Chelsea Tank* problem as well, bloody horrible cars that block visibility for following cars (especially those fuckin' ugly black Chryslers with tinted windows).
Still, it can't be as bad as it is in the US.
* SUV - Chelsea is an affluent area of London, and you know what a Tank is:)
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Acutally newer diesel engines are a lot cleaner than equivalent petrol/gas engines. The five main emissions for petrol and diesel cars are:
Of these five, a diesel car is better than a petrol car with three of them, about the same with one, and worse with one. Only one of these classes of emissions is visible (particulates, or soot), and rather unfortunately for diesel cars, that is the one which is worse for them. The three emissions for which petrol cars are worse are invisible, so you won't realise that they are there; however they still cause harm to health and the environment.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
in north america you can have diesel right now, there's a lot of truck like the F150 available with big V8 power stroke diesel for instance
however if you want a diesel *car*, there's *one* mercedes priced 75000$CAD, and all the VW line: golf, jetta, passat, beetle, touareg (V10) is available with TDI.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
pyat
·
· Score: 1
according to a prof I know who works in the area of automotive engineering, the real death of diesel in america was the raft of substandard diesel cars rushed onto the american market during the oil crisis. These machines were very badly thought out and ran poorly, and rather than blaming poor design the market associated these problems with diesel.
The current generation of diesels are very good vehicles indeed, and although the purchase cost is higher than a petrol model, you get more miles per gallon and (at least in Ireland) each litre of fuel is cheaper too. A problem in the US is that it's probably pretty hard to find diesel pumps to refill from, and this will hold back adoption of the fuel even if people realise the cars are good.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
My wife and I own two diesels (both are VW TDIs, which are the only modern diesels that were available in the US until this year. We only get one model of engine too).
Diesel pumps aren't as common as gasoline pumps, but since fueling stations are everywhere it is still easy to find diesel. In town you just learn where they are. On road trips diesel is easy to find everywhere because it is used by agricultural vehicles (tractors) and tractor trailers.
In town I primarily use biodiesel. That is harder to find on the road, but the car happily runs with either fuel or any blend of them.
alex
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
Jeff+DeMaagd
·
· Score: 1
One other difference is, IIRC, complying with stricter US crash safety regulations and the costly crash testing.
Not that it helps, because Americans are generally less safe drivers, for example, 60% more deaths per 100,000 passenger miles than Japan and Europe.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
Dread_ed
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I work in a MINI Cooper dealership in Texas and I can definitely say that the Smart Cars will do quite well here.
There is a huge backlash against SUVs in Texas, and not by those granola munching tree huggers that everyone hates to stand next to on the bus, but by the much maligned Soccer Moms and Neo-yuppies that have kept the SUV business growing over the last few years. It seems that people that live in urban areas and that have owned a SUV would rather not have one again. I can't tell you how many people trade in F250 crew cab trucks, Suburbans, etc. here for MINIs.
Personally, I think that the fact that everything in Texas is so spread out and requires so much driving to get to will accelerate the demand for smaller more fuel efficient cars here, especailly when coupled with the rising cost of fuel.
I can cite a couple of things to back this up: A two to three month wait for a new MINI in Texas, a 8-10 month (maybe!) wait for a new Prius in Texas. In addition, I talk to quite a few people each week that not only know about the Smart cars but who also want to own one.
I will concur that in the more rural areas you won't see many of these, but that will be common to all places, not just Texas.
-- When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
jawtheshark
·
· Score: 1
Actually... In Europe you can get the "Smart" (your "Zap") in Diesel versions too. They probably won't sell in the US, so they won't bother trying to import them.
Perhaps when the US market is ready for Diesel, they will start importing them.
-- Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
fiannaFailMan
·
· Score: 1
I'm open to correction here but I believe that the diesel sold in the US isn't as clean as the stuff sold in Europe. Has a higher sulphur content. Or something.
-- Drill baby drill - on Mars
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
Crag
·
· Score: 1
Part of the difference between the US and European auto markets is that the entirety of Europe would fit in the land area occupied by one or two of our largest states (depending on what one includes as part of Europe). I'll drive two hours to visit my sister, six to visit my parents, and I'm planning a week-long roadtrip for next spring.
When one has the mindset that one is going to spend a lot of time inside something, one wants a lot of room and comfort. A motorhome is impractical because it's hard to find parking and they're no fun to drive. Over-sized regular vehicals are a compromise.
We've lived like this for many generations, and it's going to take a lot of work to grow out of it. It has already started in the major cities. Public transit in large cities has improved a great deal (I spend 40 minutes a day on the bus commuting), and small efficient vehicals are showing up more frequently.
So as one of the people trapped in the US, I ask that the rest of the world please be patient with us while we come to our senses.
Thank you.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
CdBee
·
· Score: 1
yeah, probably true
That said, what's worse? 60mpg on high-sulphur diesel, or 25-35mpg on petrol/gasoline? As it happens, high sulphur fuel gets better performance and economy although engines designed for low-sulphur fuel only might not appreciate it as much.
-- I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
Ricdude
·
· Score: 1
Once the US switches to ULSD (ultra low sulfur diesel), diesel engines can use the same advanced exhaust treatment systems currently in use in Europe today. The high sulfur content of US diesel fuel kills the nitrate and particle reduction systems. But once ULSD is the national standard, diesel emissions will be no worse than gas engines, and you have the option of running domestically grown, all natural, no-sulfur biodiesel. Yummy.
-- How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
60% more deaths per 100,000 passenger miles than Japan and Europe.
But compared with all the peole killed by drive-by shootings and armed police, this is so insignificant.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
Art+Deco
·
· Score: 1
I've been noticing a lot of VW's with 'TDI' badges on them lately. At least in my area (D-FW area of Texas) turbo diesels do seem to be pretty good sellers.
Now if bio-diesel was available here that would really be something. I'd gladly pay $4-$5/gal for biodiesel knowing my money is going to our farmers and our economy than pay $2/gal for gas knowing the money is going to multi-national corporations and terrorists.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
amembleton
·
· Score: 1
Is this engine option available in the UK? I've just been looking around the Lupo UK site but cannot find it.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
jafac
·
· Score: 1
Diesel in the US has two things going against it;
1. Environmentalists love to hate it. Older diesel engines, true, are terrible polluters. Newer diesel engines are much better, and would be still far better if Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel were available in the US. Diesel proponents in the US are anxiously awaiting some magical date in 2005 where it will be come available. Don't hold your breath, it'll make you blue. Oil companies have been fighting it. If they can get their own little taxpayer funded adventure in Iraq, you can be damn sure they won't supply ULS Diesel if they don't want to. Every indication shows that they don't.
2. West of the Rockies, for some reason, the diesel fuel supply has been constrained, supposedly by some pipeline cut that happened early in 2004. Diesel is now more expensive per gallon than gasoline. I doubt this situation will ever be rectified. What economic incentive do oil companies have to fix it? None.
-- These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
jafac
·
· Score: 1
There's still the ugly reality that, for soccer moms, they take turns driving their kids' teammates to and from practices and games. (THE literal "soccer mom" issue). A two-seater, even a four-seater, won't cut it under those circumstances. Just an ugly fact.
-- These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
jafac
·
· Score: 1
Well, the NOx is visible, as the brown haze you see over every major city in the US today.
Also, when petroleum runs out, biodiesel production will get more serious investment. Biodiesel does not produce nearly the particulates as petrodiesel.
-- These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
gotih
·
· Score: 1
AFAIK, the only reason sulpher is still in diesel is for it's lubrication properties. the same properties can be achieved by using B20 -- a blend of 80% petrodiesel with 20% biodiesel. biodiesel has much better lubrication properties than petrodiesel with none of the catalitic converter destroying sulpher. i'm told that in 2006 california will require all diesel to be of the ultra low sulfer variety thus paving way cleaner, catalitic convert using, diesel vehicles. i expect B20 to be the standard choice for older engines requiring additional lubrication.
the sulpher content of american petrodiesel is one of the main reasons european diesel vehicles aren't sold here. diesel vehicles sold in america don't have catalitic converters because they would be destroyed by the sulpher. but as the US (slowly) converts to cleaner diesel fuels catalitic converters will become common and required. it seems to be a change similar to the removal of lead from gasoline. considering that the technology has been around for years, i wish it would happen faster.
--
fear is the mind killer
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
jafac
·
· Score: 0
Silly.
Measure the "comfort" of riding in a larger car, against the "comfort" of getting halfway to where you're going, turning out your pocket at the gas pump and finding it empty.
The ONLY thing necessary to change the status quo in the US, is high oil prices. Thanks to that tireless ecologist, George W Bush (greatest President Evar), we have high oil prices! And not through some evil socialist taxation scheme - this oil price hike brings profits that go directly to the tireless, and ever-deserving shieks in Saudi Arabia, who are working night and day to make sure every illiterate 3rd World Child is schooled in a Wahhabist Madrassa, by learning to memorize the Koran, hate Westerners and Jews, and build IEDs for the Jihad. Isn't it great that every mile driven by a God Fearing Cowboy in their SUV, brings another illiterate 3rd World Child closer to Martyrdom and Paradise?
. . ..
People in the US will adapt to smaller, more efficient cars for the same reason they did in Europe. Because they can't afford to feed the beasts.
(of course, with the Euro rising against the Dollar, and a trend to price oil in Euros, mabye this situation will become reversed, and it will be the brie-eating socialists in Europe that will adopt the SUV addiction next!).
-- These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
gotih
·
· Score: 2, Informative
ultra low sulpher diesel is already available at many gas stations (most arco stations) in california.
maybe i'm a rouge environmentalist (or maybe i don't fit a box) -- i think diesel technology is great. the problem is the fuel. removing sulpher from petro diesel allows catalitic converters to be used while biodiesel closes the carbon cycle -- it doesn't put any more carbon into the air than was removed from the air by the organisims that created the fuel.
traditionally, biodiesel has focused on waste oils from the food industry, waste tallow from the meat industry and food oils such as canola (AKA rape seed [yes, there are differences]) and palm oil when the prices are low. the problem is that producing enough oil to fuel even a relatively efficient country would require enormous amounts of land (the entire country of england would have to be covered in rape/canola to produce enough diesel to meet their current demand). but new ideas have emerged, placing oil producing algae at the cutting edge of bio-fuel oil production. some algae are well over 50% oil. farming these algae would drastically reduce the area needed to produce oil and could be produced using waste water from sewage, crop runoff or sea water. this paper on biodiesel from algae, published at the university of new hampshire, claims that the vehicle energy requirements of the US could be met by flooding 12.5 percent of the sonora desert with sea water and producing algae (the article doesn't advocate this -- production should be distributed, it's just a measurement demonstration of the possibilities).
--
fear is the mind killer
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hard to find diesel pumps? Where? Most frieght is shipped in diesel trucks. They have to fuel up someplace and they aren't that hard to locate. Maybe not all the stop-n-rob stations have deisel. Big deal.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I guess the TDI VW Beetle isn't small enough, huh?
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
caulfield
·
· Score: 1
Don't forget that a main cause of North American's hesitance toward diesel is the type of diesel sold here. The high sulphur content in NA's diesel causes dirty, smelly exhaust. With the more refined, low-sulphur diesel in Europe, the difference is very noticeable.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
jafac
·
· Score: 1
(my arco station doesn't even sell any diesel) - Don't get me wrong.
I'm a big proponent of biodiesel, (I own a TDI Jetta, and have run it on biodiesel at times) and if this algae thing works out, then I believe it will truly be the Salvation of (what's left of) Humanity.
I just think that the transition from Gasoline to Biodiesel is going to be a relatively quick, but very painful (economically) process, and it's entirely dependent on whether ULSD becomes (and stays) readily available. Since the oil companies are railing against oxygenated fuel blends or any other externally mandated controls, I doubt very much that they're making any real effort to make ULSD available in the US. Especially under this Adminsitration.
If the ULSD-thing were going to happen, it would probably encourage more people to buy diesels, increasing demand for diesel fuel, and also increasing the number of modern, biodiesel-compatible vehicles, so that more petrodiesel will be refined, etc, making the inevitable transition to biodiesel less painful for American consumers (but much more painful for the oil industry, which would have to bear the trasitional retooling costs as investment, before being able to pass those costs along to the consumer).
However, if ULSD is forstalled in the US (as I believe it will be), then when gasoline supplies start to tighten, and prices rise, a lot of people are going to be "stuck" with gas-burners, and the price of biodiesel will likely become lower than that of gasoline or petrodiesel. It will be a painful process as people will have to ditch relatively newer gas-burning vehicles for biodiesel-capable vehicles. (this includes a lot of the American-made diesel trucks on the road today, which cannot burn biodiesel, because they're not Direct-Injection type motors.) In this scenario, the consumer pays the investment cost of transition up front, in the form of buying the new vehicles, and paying elevated prices for fuel without the inherent "vaule" - since the fuel is of the high-sulfur, low-quality type during the transition.
-- These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
One car company ruined disels in the US:
Cadilac with their 6.4L "diesel". After that, everyone gave diesel engines a bad repuatation.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
gotih
·
· Score: 1
where do you live? i get the impression that california is serious about ULSD. though i don't have a diesel vehicle (actually, no automobile of any kind), i saw it at arco stations all over los angeles and it's hyped on arco's front page too. i don't know if i agree with your theory that this will be a quick transition. well, maybe, if you consider 5 years quick. i guess i do.
--
fear is the mind killer
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
aminorex
·
· Score: 1
60% higher....
almost certainly entirely due to the much higher rate of drunk driving in the U.S.
"How could anyone be so unkind as to arrest a man for driving while blind" -- ZZ-Top, Tejas
-- -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
MtViewGuy
·
· Score: 1
Alas, the Volkswagen new Beetle TDI isn't as small as you think, given that it's derived from the VW Golf platform. And it's not using the more modern PD130 engine rated at around 134 bhp (SAE) found on European-market Golfs and Boras, which is more fuel-efficient than the 90 bhp TDI engine found on 45-state legal VW Beetles.
Because Honda's i-CTDi engine uses the latest in common-rail direct-injection fuel delivery, the result is very fuel-efficient operation combined with much lower exhaust emissions and far less clattering noise compared to older diesel engines. I do see such engines on future production Honda cars sold in the USA, at least starting in the fall of 2006 when low-sulfur diesel fuel becomes available nationally.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Diesel has improved, and stands to improve a good bit still, but I don't think it's better than gas yet. It's still dirtier than gas, even with low-sulfur versions. And emitting particulates is the worst of all the five you list. Particulates are *bad*.
Diesel also has another problem: It requires 25% more crude oil to make diesel than gas. So while it's more efficient, it's actually worse on crude oil economy. And when you run the numbers in polution per gallon of crude oil, diesel is awful.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
SenorCitizen
·
· Score: 1
I'll drive two hours to visit my sister, six to visit my parents, and I'm planning a week-long roadtrip for next spring.
Couldn't you just take a train? At least over here public transport is way cheaper than paying for petrol.... and I don't even enjoy long drives.
Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid
by
valenti
·
· Score: 1
As a diesel fan, I was happy to see the new research that claimed particulate size was also important. Big particles are less a problem than small. Diesel puts out big, gas engines put out small. This might reverse the popular wisdom that diesel particulates are worse than gas.
And maybe biodiesel is the future. The Minnesota dept of agriculture did a study that showed gas was a 20 percent net energy loss (diesel was 16% loss), while biodiesel was 220% net energy gain.
Finally, I'm not so sure why 90MPH is so important? Of the last 30,000 miles I've driven, maybe a half hour of that was over 85. I know different parts of the country drive at different speeds, but the limit here is 70MPH and driving over 80 puts you at great risk of being ticketed.
Coming soon...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
...Americans thin enough to actually fit in the damn thing!!
The manufacturing process is cool too.
by
dominux
·
· Score: 1
All the components are manufactured and processed by a bunch of companies working together in one factory, the ERP systems trade with each other constantly and they deliver stock as it moves about, for example a door processing company might fit the window then send the completed door on a hook on a chain from the roof, when it reaches a particular point on it's way to the car a transaction takes place from one ERP selling it and delivering it to another. The next system belonging to the next company takes over and bolts it to the car.
I'll take two!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
One for each foot.
But seriously, who in their right mind is going to drive one of those dinky things in the U.S.? Some schmuck in a Hummer could run right over you without even knowing it-- or just knock you aside like a bowling pin.
In South America, it's Chevrolet. (like in "Chevrolet Corsa", or "Chevrolet Celta" We call Opel the european imports, German maybe?
Not So Smart
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The problem with the Smat car being "one big safety cage" is that it has no crumple zones to slow impact. You see: as the crumple zones are crushed, energy is dissipated. Having the entire car solid is going to translate into g-force injuries to occupants. I's like putting an egg into a bank safe, and then throwing the bank safe off a four-story building. The safe might still be in one piece, but what happened to the egg?...Also, it will probably end up priced so high in the US that people who will most desire to have a high-efficiency car (poorer people) will not be able to afford one. High rates of g-force injuries will translate into high liability costs for the importer, which will result in high retail prices. I will start my bid at $20,000, Alex....
Also, we note that most of the electric cars on the "for sale" page are really amazingly crap-tastic. 25MPH for 25 miles? That's not a drive, it's a bicycle ride. ~
Cool? Are you joking?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"...Finally a 60 mpg car that can go 90 mph and look cool at the same time!!"
Look cool? I seriously hope the poster was joking. That is the ugliest machine I have ever seen, it beats the VW Thing and the Honda Element hands down.
The story seems a bit like a plant.. and well, the web site doesn't seem to go into Price... Pricing being something that would put this all into prospective... Is this something that working stiffs can afford or just a play toy for the rich.
The Mini ATM is 699.00 but someone I'm thinking the car is more expensive...
yeah, that's what i told the comp' salesman when i noticed that the vaio laptop was worth, like, four times the price of an average desktop.
-- i had a sig, once..
Re:Not so SMART . . .
by
Lumpy
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
you are absolutely right. I used to hear the same FDUd from people when I bought and drove my 88 Pontiac Fiero GT that could easily do 160mpg and after some very cheap mods still would kick the arse of any ricer on the road today.
People would call it a deathtrap, freaked out when I mentioned that their armrest was the gas tank, and ignored that it recieved one of the highest safety ratings of all the sports cars of it's size and was very high in safety rating for all cars of that time.
These are also the same people that think a SUV is safer even though more people die is SUV accidents than small car accidents.
If you are insterst in safety then drive a minivan or other highest rated safe in crash tests cars.
I have 2 smart's on order now. I paid them a 50% deposit on both cars back 6 months ago and can not wait to drive these econoboxes 140+ miles daily on combined highway and city driving.
also for anyone interested, these things are insanely quick off the starting line because of their light weight. Almost feels like the honda insight with it's low end torque that is higher than most mucscle cars. It took a ton of willpower to not go to Canada and illegally import one after I had my first test drive in one 3 months ago.
at $15,900.00 for the base model these things are a steal and put all the hybrids to shame in efficiency department.
-- Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Who needs this shit?? Pretty corpses, anyone?
by
gd23ka
·
· Score: 1
Any which way you twist or turn it, it is definitely _not_ a safe vehicle. Just because the vehicle survive a crash, does not mean you do. The makers of miniature cars all claim that they have found a way to make their car-alikes safe enough for a collision with a real car or even a concrete wall. However, that is just not possible. Real cars are designed to be "crash compatible to each other, meaning that the zones and structures within the cars that take up the kinetic energy of the impact are positioned in a way for optimum result. Miniatures do not come close to the geometry a real car has and which is required to be crash compatible. Instead of trying to minimize the amount of kinetic energy that has to be buffered by the car structures, they make these materials extra hard and rigid so that they will pass the impact shock through the passenger compartment. During a crash test this strategy achieves extremely good results as far as the passenger cage itself undergoes only minimal deformation.
However, and this is where the low survivability comes in, much like in aircraft crashes where not even one bone of the recovered corpses was broken, a passenger in a Smart/Zap/Mini-whatever will most likely not die because of being crushed during impact but because of internal bleeding as blood vessels and organs are burst because of the shock of impact. This is also called the "pretty corpse" phenomenon.
Need? Bull.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Can't take the team out to lunch with it."
Right, and in America the members of the team don't have their own cars. Bullshit. With cellphones rampant and everyone owning their own vehicles, there's no reason to shove everybody in one car. It just distracts the driver to have everybody talking. And of course one member of the team is sure to have insisted on his behemoth.
"Can't go shopping with it."
It carries a decent amount of groceries. Admittedly, given the amount Americans eat...
In any case, with the money you save on gas you can easily pay for a taxi on the few occasions that you actually buy enough to take up that much space.
"Can't pack up the family in it."
You know, a huge number of people aren't parents of 1.7 kids. In any case, such families try their best to own two cars... so why not 1.7 cars instead? One for packing everyone up, one for errands. At that level of usage, this thing'd last forever.
"Probably wouldn't want to drive cross town in it."
Why not? You don't like being able to nip in and out of traffic quickly with a windshield that gives you much improved visibility and using far less gas while you do it?
What it comes down to is that Americans haul around a car which is just a little larger than is sufficient for their absolute peak space needs. That may make sense if you can only have one car, but if you have two the second should almost never be something bigger than this.
...all of which is irrelevant if you can't solve the:
"Sitting in a stoplight in Vegas" problem.
I'm not going to risk the equivalent of "living the rest of my life in a pain amplifier" just to save a little money on petrol. The ultimate cost benefit analysis simply doesn't support that course of action.
-- A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
We mind. I don't like big cars, they are a bitch to park. There is no other reason but culture and tradition for transporting a huge pile of iron to work and back just because you like to carry luggage once in a while.
Canadians are a little more receptive to smaller cars than Americans, but not by much. When my new Mazda3 5-door arrives (6-8 week wait, damn popular car!) it'll be considered a small car by our standards, but in Europe it would actually seem quite average, if not large.
Canada also gets a fancy version of the Honda Civic called the "Acura 1.7 EL", which I don't think is available anywhere else in the world. I probably wouldn't sell well in the US, but it's fairly popular here. At least it was until the Mazda3 arrived...
-- Carpe Cerevisi - Seize the Beer
Re:90 MPH???? Not so bad
by
technogogo
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The main motoring TV program in the UK, Top Gear recently showed crash tests involving the SMART car, which is designed with a one piece, very strong passenger shell. The car stood up very well in these tests.
One of the tests shown was an offset head on impact with a Mercedes S-class. Can't recall the speeds, but the combined speed was high. The front of the s-class was seriously smashed in by the smart car. The front of the smart car too was a mess BUT crucially the passenger compartment of the smart was intact and the occupants would have escaped serious injury.
However, because the passenger shell of the SMART car is so strong and stiff, some tests have shown high passenger loads due to restraints. No doubt due to the small crumple zones on the vehicle.
So I guess if you hit something in a SMART, hit something with a crumple zone that you can share!
Another benefit: parking
by
PeteDotNu
·
· Score: 0
In Richmond (that's a district in London), there's a guy who owns a green smart car and lives on a busy road. He keeps it parked at right angles to the kerb.
It sticks out a little bit, but seeing as most roads in London are too narrow for two lanes of traffic once there are people parked down both sides, you could actually line one side of the road with smarts at 90 degrees without affecting the driveability of the road at all. And you've just effectively increased the parking capacity of the road by 50%.
-- My other processor is big-endian.
I guess I'm getting too old...
by
aml666
·
· Score: 1
It's sad but this car makes little sense in USA. Not because it's a bad car but because it doesn't fit in very well in among the other cars.
-It's made in Europe so it will cost more than an american car. Free trade? Yeah right...
-The way I see it cars are more inexpensive in USA. So the competition and price level on used/second hand cars is more competitive. This car will have to compete with a lot of three year old cars that are much cheaper.
-Gas is less expensive in USA than in Europe so the incentive to buy a high milage car just isn't there.
-The average car(and person:-)..) in USA is much heavier. In Europe the most likely car to crash with is a 1500kg car with crumble zones and the bumper in the same height as the Smart. In USA you are much more likely to crash with a 3-ton truck without crumble zones and a bumper 20 cm above your Smarts bumper. Even if the constructinon of the Smart will protect the car from collapsing your organs will collapse in a crash. Remember that the Suburban will continue in the same direction. The Smart is just too light compared to most other cars on the road. No advanced construction can make up for that when the car lacks crumble zones and the other cars are so heavy. Imagine going from 30 mph in one direction to 20 mph in the other direction in less than a second. Then think about how it will be in 40 mph , 50 mph, 60 mph....
So congratulations to al the congersmen and senators that have managed to create a system that promote excessive use of energy and old constructions. The fact that this kills a lot of people every day, in many ways...; is just a nice bonus.
--
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
I live in downtown Baltimore. There are about the same mix of car sizes here as there is in London... while there are more SUV's around there aren't that many more - the big 4x4's seem to live in the burbs. (That said I drive a Jeep Cherokee - which is pretty small for a 4x4 but still.)
Regardless of what people say there are some big vehicles in London. Nailing a London Taxi head on would be about like hitting a Suburban (I think Taxi's weigh about 7000 pounds).
People here would snap the Smart Cars up. Many people don't even own a car. Main reasons seem to be parking, cost of insurance.
I agree however: taking this vehicle onto the beltway would be some what "exciting" - but no less so than a Mini.
-- I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Info. about ZAP . . .
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
ZAP is a company headquartered in the town of Santa Rosa, California - part of the greater San Francisco Bay Area. They originally started with electric-powered two wheeled vehicles.
Here is the link to their company overview page: http://www.zapworld.com/about/index.asp
"being driven into various other large cars. It came off very well"
Well , aside from the fact that when they drove it into a large Merc it was tossed to one side and rolled over a few times. Perhaps not lethal but the Smart passengers would be a hell of a lot more shaken up that the ones in the Merc. Now replace that merc with a large SUV.
This won't go far...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
When I tried to sign up I got this nastygram:
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e57'
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]String or binary data would be truncated./cars/colorPoll.asp, line 10
You've obviously not seen the Smart Roadster, i agree the normal smart car looks bad but the roadster looks nice
Background information
by
O0o0Oblubb!O0o0O
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The Smart car is actually of Swiss origin. The project was started by Swiss watch (Swatch) manufacturer Hayek who approached Volkswagen with his ideas (which were at that stage much more enviromentally friendly). Volkswagen did not have the guts to actually produce the vehicle and Hayek ended up with a joint venture with Mercedes Benz. The design was altered and ended up the way it is now (a car for cities featuring low fuel consumption but with only standard technology). The brand name Smart consists of the parts S for Swatch, M for Mercedes Benz and A for art.
When the Smart hit the market, it met initial setbacks and marketing fiascos for Mercedes when spectacular accidents occured. Smart cars would lose traction and fall over backwards due to the heavy engine being located in the back end. After the cars were given ESP (electronic stability program) as a standard feature, this effect seems to have disappeared and the Smart has become a car that especially people in bigger cities love because of the fact that you always manage to find a parking spot:-)
I am not surprised that Mercedes Benz/Daimler Crysler does not advertise this as their car because in the U.S. their main line of cars are even more of a luxury item than they are over here in Germany. Selling a shopping cart for young people does not fit their image as a luxury car manufacturer.
Whether the Smart is able to compete with the recent trend of asian hybrid vehicles in the U.S. is another story and remains to be seen. I guess those fall into another category because they are full size cars:-)
I am not surprised that Mercedes Benz/Daimler Crysler does not advertise this as their car because in the U.S. their main line of cars are even more of a luxury item than they are over here in Germany. Selling a shopping cart for young people does not fit their image as a luxury car manufacturer.
I remember seeing Mercedes 4-door compatct hatchbacks in England. Wish they would sell them in the US.
Re:Background information
by
thebigmacd
·
· Score: 1
That would be the A-class
Finally a car for tree hugging liberals
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Took years but we finally have a car that makes a Yugo look good. A car that my Humvee can flatten like a M1 Abrams tank can do to a normal car. Bla ha ha ha ha! A wearable car. Watch out for strong winds, could blow you down!
Re:Finally a car for tree hugging liberals
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
People like you are the reason why people like you get nuked by so called terrorists:D
I wanted a Smart grease car ever since they started making the conversion kits in Europe.
I generate enough waste veg oil from my turkey fryer to drive for a week. Around here, the land of the giant pickup trucks, I'm sure it would be a laughing stock. I'd cry all the way to the bank, stopping off at my friend's Chinese restaurant to pick up his waste oil for next week. Then I'll laugh passing them at the gas station putting 60 bucks worth of gasoline in their monster trucks that actually get used to haul something maybe once a month.
-- That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Cute yes, but...
by
MtViewGuy
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
...Why bother.
Especially with Honda about to introduce the Honda Fit here in the USA within next 18 months.
For those who don't know, the Honda Fit (known as the Jazz in Europe) is an very small car that has just as much interior room as a Honda Civic sedan and is quite a bit more fuel efficient than the Civic, especially when powered by the 1.3-liter I-4 i-DSI engine. Honda has publicly said that they will sell a car smaller than the Civic in the USA market soon, especially since Honda will design the next-generation Honda Civic due in September 2005 for a more upmarket type of buyer; the Honda Fit will fill the gap for first-time Honda car buyers here in the USA. However, note that the Honda Fit Americans will get will NOT be the current model sold in Japan and Europe, but a slightly-larger second-generation model designed with larger-sized American passengers and side-curtain air bags in mind; that new model is supposed to be unveiled in Japan this coming summer.
Re:Cute yes, but...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
by "larger" you mean us "fat ass Americans". makes sense, Americans are so fat and unhealthy. but hey, we kill iraq to get oil, but instead we pay higher oil prices. to top it off, government is bigger today than before George idiot Bush took office. hurray for our f-ing democracy.
Yeah, I'm trolling, but why the hell not. I do drive a honda and thank god I get great mileage unlike a big ass Dodge RAM gas guzzling wallet emptying smog producing tank.
Despite your trolling, you are making a few salient points.:-)
I think you're forgetting that even with healthy Americans, because of the wide availability of foodstuffs Americans tend to grow up on average quite a bit taller than most of the world's peoples. As such, a car that is designed around the shorter statures of Europeans and Japanese ain't going to cut it with American buyers for the most part. For example, the Toyota Echo--derived from the Toyota Yaris hatchback not sold in the USA--has more room than usual for such a small car because of the necessity to accommodate American-sized passengers.
Which model Honda are you driving? I drive a Honda Civic HX CVT coupé (1998 model) and get around 34 MPG city, 37 MPG highway. =)
-- Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:OK, here it is, a perfect uncool hat trick.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
not to mention "American" which pretty much makes it the worst car ever built
Re:OK, here it is, a perfect uncool hat trick.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Big, ugly, stupid, and indicitive of people with small to non-existent penises.
what happened to the passengers?
by
Stone316
·
· Score: 1
Did they have to get peeled off the front windshield? I'm sure its possible to design a vehicle that can withstand a concrete wall relatively intact but what softens the blow for the occupants?
In modern cars you have crumple zones and lots of metal 'softener' to obsorb some of the impact.
--
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
Re:what happened to the passengers?
by
Maddog+Batty
·
· Score: 1
what happened to the passengers?
As I said in the parent to your post, the occupants would not have come out alive. One of the problems with the Smart car is that its crumple zones are small so the decelaration is great compared to larger cars. However, in many accidents it will bounce off and roll which though not ideal will shed energy rapidly.
-- wot no sig
A single collision with a Chevrolet Suburban....
by
Seeker_350
·
· Score: 0
...will end anyone's illusion that this is a safe, "Smart" car.
This car isn't new - it's been around for many many years here in Europe, but what's confusing me is this "Zap" thing. Who on earth are Zap?
I'm confused enough already as in the UK, you seem to be able to buy "Smart" and Mercedes versions of this car. Is it just that they are licensing the design to lots of different manufacturers?
By the way - you do NOT want to crash one of these cars. The only thing that can possibly crumple in a car this small is the bit where the passengers hit. I'm not guessing - I've seen one that had been in a head-on collision at 60mph it was VERY VERY small afterwards (like, shorter than it was wide!). Not pretty
Zap are just the distributors/importers, there is only one plant making Smart cars. The Mercedes badged ones you see over here are the same cars but with Mercedes badges on. This is just marketing so that stupid people can brag about owning a Merc.
btw, name one car that would not make you rather ill after a 60mph head-on collision.
FYI, I've been driving one of these for almost two years and have heard many crash tales on forums etc and the real-world (okay anecdotal) conclusion would seem to be that they are about as safe as any other small car (safer than many), not accounting for the fact that most small cars are almost twice as big.
> btw, name one car that would not make you rather ill after > a 60mph head-on collision.
It's funny you should say that... I drove my P reg Mazda 323 head on into another car on a complex junction writing both cars off instantly. My mazda had massive front end damage (to the point where both wheels had been smashed off the car) but there was absolutely ZERO visible damage behind the engine firewall (apart from really minor things like the glove box hinges and some light fittings on the ceiling). The doors closed perfectly and everything. The car I hit (a fiat Cinquecento - probably not dissimilar to a Smart) was massively deformed and many of the windows had smashed due to the whole car warping in the collision. I walked away with some burns from the airbag and a very sore nose (airbags are hard!) but I was basically OK and got the train home. The other guy is currently suing me for head injuries.
In fact probably MOST modern cars would leave you OK after a head on collision (providing it really is head on and not at a weird angle).
I couldn't afford another 323 after the accident, so I hope my Ford Focus is as well built as the Mazda was when it comes to crashing:)
Incidentally, they said that the 323 wouldn't have even been a write off had it not been for the huge cost of mazda parts (eg the airbags alone cost nearly £1800 for the pair - whereas on my ford it would only be £650). The entire front end is apparently fairly easily replacable and the engine itself hadn't really been damaged.
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.
No - a 60mph collision obviously means both cars were going 30mph. Otherwise I would have said 120mph as you suggested. Except I wouldn't - because I'd be dead:)
Gas isn't that expensive, and my Ford Mustang GT Convertable, eats gas just like any car with a V8. And since it gets really cold up here in the north, I like to think of it as my way of keeping the planet warm.
There are already 60 mpg cars that go 90+ in the U
by
scott9676
·
· Score: 1
I have one in the garage. It's a Honda Insight. It has mileage that varies between about 40 and 120 mpg depending on how aggressively you drive in it and what terrain you drive it over. However, when I was cruising (cough) at 90 mph, it was still getting about 50 mpg.
The problem -- they really aren't selling very well even though they (for the most part) are pretty nice cars.
There is also the Toyota Prius that gets 50+ mpg, which I would take a long time before the Smart Car.
Americans are comfort creatures with relatively cheap gas. California is even talking about doing away with the gas tax and replacing it with a miles driven tax, so that will take another incentive to get cars with reasonable gas mileage.
We are also lead foots. Chrysler offers V8 HEMI engines on many of its models and it appears to be a popular option. Why people would want 300 HP in a station wagon I'm not sure. But it's their money (for the larger engine and extra gas).
We have also been subjected to some of the crummiest small cars out there. There never has been a small car (other than say the new Minis) in full production that are something other than rattletraps. There was the Yugo, the Geo Metro 1L hatchback, The Ford Aspire, and numerous others. All of them were awful cars coming off the showroom floor. The reason we don't have any diesels here is because of the early 80s diesels that Detroit offered that broke down at 30-50,000 miles. They used converted gas engines which couldn't stand up to the stresses.
The Honda Accord used to be a small car, now it's almost a full sized sedan. The Civic used to be a small car, now it's getting bigger every year.
If the smart car is going to succeed in the US marketplace, it needs to be a nice rock solid car that runs well and doesn't have many problems. Otherwise it will be the latest version of the Daewoo and Kia. It will also need to be cheap, which is hard to do and keep quality up. I suspect that a small car costs about the same as a large car to make given the same quality standards. The only difference I see is the amount of bulk metal and other materials (ie paint), which MIGHT be $1000. The actual part counts are probably pretty close to each other.
I agree it is a good idea to bring them in. I just hope they do it right because Americans are getting more and more suspicious about different car ideas.
Spiritual Succesor to the original Mini
by
dr_strangeloveIII
·
· Score: 1
I've been driving one of these for almost two years now and I'd have to say that it is the best car I've ever owned. Not since the original Mini (not that huge monstrosity by BMW) has a car been produced which seems to generate so much goodwill from fellow road users.
Many of the design elements are innovative but not in a non-essential luvvie kind of way (I'm thinking VW new Beetle here) rather it all just works.
In an age where automotive design is sometimes reduced to retro styling an existing model to make it look like a more intersting classic from a bygone era (again new mini and new beetle, sorry but I just hate these cars, they are the wheeled equivalent of stone clad houses or a cover version of a much loved song by some talentless teenaged boy band) it's refreshing to me to own a car where every element has been carefully considered from the ground up.
Anyway I'm obviously biased because I own one and I don't expect that they'll tempt you lot out of your SUVs just yet but you should really try one out before you write them off.
Hah, but seriously Mazda DID make a briefcase car back in the 90s. IIRC it could hit 35mph, and folded up into a standard-sized briefcase for taking into the office. Pretty fresh!
Check Google Images for "briefcase car" and it should pop up a few snapshots of it.
-- SNACKS ARE AWESOME
Comparing apples and oranges.
by
expro
·
· Score: 1
The hybrids I have seen actually seem to get better milage in the city than on the highway, because of their hybrid nature.
One that a friend has was rated that way. So just because someone is measuring highway MPG below the rated number does not mean it does not get better mileage in the city.
I'm not wanting to be a troll here, but after having read all of these comments, I am now beginning to see how Dubya became the Prez once again.
Talk about ignorance...
-- Love all, Trust few, Follow one.
Re:Dubya became Prez...
by
/dev/trash
·
· Score: 1
He was elected because none of the other parties ran a decent candidate.
Re:Dubya became Prez...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
He was elected because most Americans don't mind big government and useless wars, but they desperately want to preserve the sanctity of the 24 hour Vegas wedding.
Pricing should run between $12,000 for the cheapest model, and just over $20,000 for a convertible with all the available extras, Heidemann says. That's a markup of a few thousand dollars over the price in Europe, where Heidemann has been buying them from dealers.
12-20 Grand? Sounds like the same price for the low-to-mid range cars over here. My Sentra was $13500. And these things are literally half the car!
In my mind they should be half the price too.
Go to MSNB and watch the crash test this thing takes a coupe out
60 mpg is nothing?
by
dogfull
·
· Score: 1, Informative
it's 25 km/l (tnx google calc:))
Thats decent. Not as decent as my moped (35 km/l | 82 mpg) but still, very nice.
Price of $12,000 to 20,000? I don't think so!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
12 grand for the no frills model and 20 grand for everything? Sorry, not gonna fly in the US.
Esp for something that small.
For someone who has money to blow for the coolness factor, maybe. But this thing aint gonna fly for Joe Sixpack.
SUVs are pretty fragile, though.
by
Gordonjcp
·
· Score: 1
After all, an imported Ford Explorer wiped itself out when it rolled down the carpark at work into the back of my Volvo 340. The tailgate wouldn't open in the Volvo without me climbing over the back seat, because the handle had bent away from the lock. The Explorer was utterly destroyed. The radiator was wrapped around the engine, the engine was torn off its mountings and pushed 4" back, none of the doors would open, and about the only panel left straight was the tailgate. It wasn't even towable, because the bulkhead had buckled and jammed the steering column.
The Volvo had a slightly bent tailgate, badly scratched bumper, and a broken tail light.
ZAP! = Pump n Dump
by
microcars
·
· Score: 3, Informative
"if you want a smart car, I'd buy some shares"
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.
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.
Re:ZAP! = Pump n Dump
by
way2trivial
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I had 22 shares in my IRA once upon a time.
occasionally, they sent me snail mail spam that included shareholder only discounts on their products.
it was a 'green' smidge in my IRA that cost me about 150$ total.. I don't however work for them- or have any connections with them whatsoever... nor do I know that such is still a practice with them.
-- every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Re:ZAP! = Pump n Dump
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You're right on the money with ZAP.
I was at the Long Beach, CA Electric Vehicle convention last year...ZAP was there.
The president of ZAP (Steve something or another) was talking with a Chinese electrochemist / PhD / battery engineer.
The Chinese engineer asked Steve if the rumours he heard were true -- if Zap was using a particular Chinese electric vehicle/battery manufacturer to build their latest Electric Vehicle. Steve replied "Yes, we are".
The Chinese engineer became *very* alarmed and started telling horror storries about this particular battery vendor, how they didn't have very good quality control and how there have been explosions and loss of life because of this vendor. The Chinese guy added that doing business with Chinese companies can be dangerous because many are overnight operations and/or dishonest.
Steve didn't really seem alarmed and started courting the Chinese engineer to work as a consultant to help "iron out issues exactly like this".
Also, at the time, ZAP was bandying about some flyer that showed their Electric Vehicle had a HUGE range (in miles), much larger than any of the others at the show. After talking with Steve, I came to learn that that figure (the range, in miles) was the distance their car traveled in some closed race track competition -- it wasn't a figure based on any actual city/highway traveling.
Regarding the business side of things, I also did hear Steve brag several times that he's able to raise large amounts of capital being a public company.
I smelled snake oil and lost interest in ZAP and their products.
No, I'm not a disgruntle employee, I'm just passing on what I heard.
Looks like a good second car
by
metamatic
·
· Score: 1
I'd buy one as a second car.
That said, my first car is a Prius.
I imagine the ridiculous reactions of closet case SUV drivers could be amusing. I see some of that with the Prius, some people really can't stand being behind one.
-- GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Re:Looks like a good second car
by
The+Cisco+Kid
·
· Score: 1
I'd prefer to be behind a Prius over an SUV - you cant SEE around a damn SUV, so when the car ahead of the SUV slams its brakes on suddenly, you get no advance warning.
...I can't help envisioning a Hummer or Mack truck with some of these "smart" cars embedded in the radiator; kind of like butterflies or grasshopers you pick up on cross country trips.
-- When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Ultimate smart car is this one ;-)
by
zakkie
·
· Score: 1
In all seriousness, how long till someone cranks the boost up to 50 million bar and leaves those 500 hp monsters in the dust?
Like ATP Turbo making 426 whp / 430 lb-ft Audi A4 1.8T.:D 11.97 second 1/4 mile.
"All engine components including engine block, cylinder head, cams, etc. remain stock. Only reprogramming of the stock ECU along with larger injectors were required to accomodate the additional horsepower."
The smart sold in canada is an 800cc turbo diesel. I'm calling 110 hp / 150 lb-ft...in a rear-engined car with a maximum loaded weight of 990 kg
Looks like my son's (2 years old) police car that he sits in an pushs around with his feet.
Reading these threads is why the US has a problem
by
hipsterdufus
·
· Score: 1
"You'll die if you hit a motorcycle..." "I wouldn't take it on the freeway...." "I couldn't fit in one...."
Overseas, you don't see a lot of SUVs because they are gas guzzlers and gas can cost $4/gallon over there. Americans somehow feel that a 2+ ton vehicle is safe. Going 90mph in a SUV is pretty darn dangerous due to a high risk of rollover. In the event of a rollover (which SUVs are 10x more likely to do in the event of an accident) there is a 35% increase in the possibility of a serious injury.
The fact of the matter: if you're going 60mph and then suddenly de-accelerate to 0 in less than 12 feet, you are going to get hurt. Will you get hurt more in a SMART? No.
In America where bigger=better, we have roads littered with these monstrosites. Because they are called "trucks", they aren't subject to the same emission requirements as a car. The laws surrounding SUVs need to change.
Reading the slashdot opinions here paints an image of America as fat, lazy, and arrogant people with no regard for anything other than themselves.
You'd be just as dead in a Humvee.
by
Gordonjcp
·
· Score: 1
Since what part of it looks "cool" ? As a nerd-mobile? Or as a chick-turn-off? Doesn't offer passenger capacity, luggage capacity, strong safety features (i survived a 70mph crash on a Toyota SUV, not sure i can survive with this Zap car), lacks the horsepower, lacks the leather seats, lacks the amensities, lacks the aerodynamic look, and definitely not a car i wanna drive to a hip club in town. Daily commute? Sure. Pleasure or visitors? Give me an Audi.
You do realise that in a lot of Europe (where the smart comes from) the Ford escort is about average, if not above average, in terms of car size? In Britain a lot of us drive Ford Fiestas and Peugot 206's and the like because they are economical and you don't need a hulking beast of a car. I drive a Ford Ka.
And the smart has a very good safety record. It's a very modern well designed small car. I personally wouldn't be seen dead in one 'cos I think they're ugly......
Re:You do realise?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Uh, but we're talking about this Zapper car in America. In America the Escort is a subcompact teenie car.
A good safety record in Europe maybe. Where an Escort is cosidered "above average" in size (LOL).
Re:Reading these threads is why the US has a probl
by
Mongo222
·
· Score: 1
We still aren't buying it.
Re:A single collision with a Chevrolet Suburban...
by
Seeker_350
·
· Score: 0
>>>>
Legal? Sure...WTF?
So, being Legal is more important to you than being alive, huh?
Re:A single collision with a Chevrolet Suburban...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yes, but nobody with an ounce of sense is going to argue that a motorcycle is safe.
The company that makes these things is claiming that about this contraption. I'll believe it when I see video of one getting t-boned by a Hummer doing 40 or 50, and see how the crash test dummies fare.
I notice that the specs sheet says "automatic or manual mode selectable," and not "available in manual or automatic."
This makes it sound like there's a button to change "modes" and go from manual to automatic? This would be rather sweet, being able to switch from one to another depending on traffic and other circumstances.
Re:Automatic or manual mode?
by
microcars
·
· Score: 1
it has what we in the US know as "tip-tronic".
you press a button and it goes into a terrible, but useable "automatic" transmission mode, or tap the shifter up to upshift and down to downshift "manually".
the response is not as quick as a "real" manual transmission though.
Re:Automatic or manual mode?
by
RealBorg
·
· Score: 1
Correct, it's a manual drive operated by a servo, this makes power transmission a lot more efficient than classic automatic.
Not good
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
In US roads, one won't be able to spot the car in the rear view mirrors, in the middle of all oversized SUVs...
Dangerous. Also, being so light and small, any little "touch" on the road would send it flying out of the highway. How can it survive a 5 ton Hummer?
Two questions: Crumple zones and width on corners?
by
phorm
·
· Score: 1
a) From anyone with experience, how does the seemingly narrower width affect turning, cornering, and handling in winds?
b) Many people have mentioned that the passenger cabin is strongly re-inforced, but the rest of the body is mainly crumple-zone. How does the car handle in low-speed impact (e.g. does something that would normally crumple a fender on a bigger car cause severe damage to the Smart?)
Re:Not so SMART . . .
by
pyat
·
· Score: 5, Informative
> Unfortunately, anybody in the car at the time > would be dead due to internal injuries. No amount > of safety cages, seat belts and air bags will stop > your guts from going splat internally when > decelerating from 70mph to 0 in about 1 meter.
Are you sure about that?
say we start at 70mph, which is u=70*1800/(60*60)=35m/s.
Assume the deceleration is uniform, then we can say v^2=u^2+2as, now say that the final velocity, v, is zero, and the displacement s is 1.0m, the acceleration a works out as a=(35**2)/(2*1.0)=612m/s^2 or about 62g
The duration of the impact will be (70*1800/3600)/612=0.06s
Table 2.6 gives tolerable x direction accelerations of 45-85G depending on whether it is +x or -x direction with times between 0.04 and 0.1s. the earlier charts give similar information.
So even if we do come to a dead (hopefully not literally!) stop from 70mph in one metre, it is very severe, but it is in the range of accelerations that can be survived. The difference between survival and death is likely to be down to the quality of the restraint system "safety cages, seat belts and air bags".
Re:90 MPH???? Not so bad
by
UnderScan
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps you meant Fifth Gear? The Nov 1 2004 episode of Fifth Gear is the episode that involves a SMART car crashed into a concrete road barrier at 70MPH. The video that pyat posted is also shown in that episode.
parking isn't a problem, tickets are
by
obtuse
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
A friend with a BMW Isetta (the little one, not the bloated 600cc version) gets tickets in San Francisco for parking perpendicular to the curb, never mind the fact that the car is designed for it. Until the cops are clued, the law doesn't matter as long as paying a parking ticket is less costly than fighting it, if your time is worth anything.
-- Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
Re:parking isn't a problem, tickets are
by
Mycroft_VIII
·
· Score: 1
Except you only have to win ONCE if you fight it. (hopefully, some small town judges only care if they can put your cash in the town treasury, from whence come thier paycheck)
So which cost more, Get one ticket thrown out through a couple or three court apearances, or pay parking tickets repeatedly.
Of course the cheapest rout is to park in the expected way. But if the law allows for parking in that direction I'd fight it.
Smart cars were designed (By Swatch and Mercedes) specifically for the kind of driving most Americans do. That is, short-hop, city-driving. It would seem custom made for the market.
The real hurdle seems to be the country's preoccupation for BIG cars. Perhaps Fab! could bundle it with a massive cod-piece, to compensate.:)
I've had a Smart Pure for the last 14 months and I absolutely love it. £20 fills it up and I get a good 300 miles out of it.
It is incredibly comfortable (I've had two 240 pound guys in it and still had pleanty of space), accelerates like a rocket (up to 35 mph;) ), cuts through traffic like a hot knife through butter and I've never had problems finding a parking space.
Its only problem is aerodynamics. If you go much over 70mph even the slightest cross wind can blow you over the road. This is especially scary when it is raining, windy and you are on a motorway passing lorries. I live in England so these situations are a daily occurance - who wants to live forever!
When I was in the states I really missed my smart car. They would eat up the traffic New York and Philly and on the highways with a 60mph speed limit and 60mpg you just couldn't go wrong.
My only suprise is that Apple arn't marketing it. It really is the car for the rest of us.
-- Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
Only 60MPG? (how'bout a BioDiesel version?)
by
CatGrep
·
· Score: 1
Since I read about the Smart car in Wired a few months back I've wanted one (and I am a US Citizen so yes, some of us care about the environment more than our personal comfort). But the article said that while it has the lowest emissions of any car made, the EPA wouldn't approve it. (why is that?)
That article mentioned that the car gets 70MPG, though, so I suspect that the Zap folks had to do something to it to appease the EPA (makes sense, eh? make it consume more gas so the EPA approves it). Really, given the problems caused by our dependence on foreign oil the US government should be falling all over itself trying to get people to drive cars like this. Tax incentives, etc. (instead we give tax breaks to people who by Hummers).
The article also mentioned a diesel version that would probably be exported to the US and Canada. That would be great as it should burn bioDiesel without any modifications.
Re:Only 60MPG? (how'bout a BioDiesel version?)
by
thebigmacd
·
· Score: 1
The smart fourtwo coupé and cabriolet have been for sale in Canada since early this summer. They are offered with turbodiesel powerplants only.
Re:Not so SMART . . .
by
Maddog+Batty
·
· Score: 1
If I had some mod points I would give you some for that. Interesting points made and your maths is fine.
However, I doubt you will find too many people who have driven directly into a concrete wall at 70mph and have survived... Your sums + link do suggest though that these sort of crashes are survivable and improved "safety cages, seat belts and air bags" may well allow it in the future.
Here in Canada we get the Smart for two as our buying power is less then the US (as well as fuel as more expensive), and small cars are a lot more popular here than the US.
Here's a couple of reviews :
http://www.mcuniverse.com/The_Smart_Car_Comes_to_C anada.1325.0.html
Turns out the ZAP thing is important as not only will SMART only be introduced to the US in 2006, which is a way off yet; the US isn't going to get the forTwo. SMART figures, you big car drivin' folk won't want a forTwo and they are going to release a SUV instead.
You know it'd be great if these kind of vehicles would take off in the US. The US heavily influences transportation choices, and those chooses, in North America. If the US driving market changed it's attitude to a more European taste, we could make some serious moves forward with transport options with regard to fuel consumption. Fuel consumption doesn't seem to be taken very seriously in the US as fuel is cheaper in the US than Canada. Therefore in places like Canada, where fuel isn't that cheap, we get screwed, as the car options are dictated by the US market. If the market in the US changed to a more fuel conscious one I'd have more beer money.
Here's a good article on the details for the US.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217861/
Some other links you may want to read:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/mediaroom/releases/nat/2004/04 -h077e.htm
http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/atvpgm/menu.htm
Who are these "Zap" people anyways?
by
WebCowboy
·
· Score: 1
The SMART cars are a DaimlerChrysler product and this year they finally crossed the pond to be sold in Canadian Mercedes-Benz dealerships. Right now demand far exceeds supply but nonetheless these cars are slowly finding their way onto Canadian roads now.
If DC has gone through the trouble of making these products available in Canada I'd think that they would soon be doing the same in the US, so why would some relatively obscure company go to any lengths to import this particular line of cars? This ZAP company smells a bit like the fly-by-night Canadian outfits that imported Yugos, Ladas, Skodas and Innocentis to this continent in the 80s.
Of course those 80s minicars really sucked and the SMART has consumer appeal so maybe ZAP is onto something. Given the interest in Canada however, how long will it be before DC comes into the US and takes over? Europe has a lot of minicar models they could've imported where this possibility would be less likely--why not import the teeny tiny offerings from Renault or Peugeot for example (Just re-badge them because even if the products they make now are much improved, French car brands still have a stigme in North America)? Those manufacturers have no presence here so they wouldn't but heads with their dealerships.
Re:Who are these "Zap" people anyways?
by
Jonavin
·
· Score: 1
The Smart aren't that great according to a friend of mine that's spent some time in one. He works for the City of Toronto and often tests new vehicles like the hybrid Honda Insight, Honda Civic, Toyota Prius, Ford Escape.
His comments were that the Smart car is like riding a lawnmower with a roof over it; extremely noisy and it "feels unsafe".
Re:Who are these "Zap" people anyways?
by
jalex
·
· Score: 1
I test drove one and found neither to be true. It was suprisingly solid.
Re:Who are these "Zap" people anyways?
by
Profane+MuthaFucka
·
· Score: 1
This comment is useless unless I also know what his opinion of a car like a Ford Crown Victoria is.
Anyone that likes a Crown Victoria is of course not going to like a car that is 1/4 the mass. Similarly, if a dude who drives a Hummer says that the Smart would be really bad on a dirt trail, plus it won't hold a sheet of plywood, that's a useless comment.
If this person isn't a large car fan, but actually likes and drives other cars that are similar in size to the Smart, then his comments might be worth paying attention to.
-- Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
US diesel stocks are very high in sulfur content, and this causes additional problems, especially cleaning up the emissions. I've heard for years that we're supposed to be reducing the sulfur in the next few years, but I'm about to stop believing it.
The US auto industry also implemented the diesel the same way they implemented the small car and clean emissions. Their first implementations were so incompetent as to amount to sabotage.
-- Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
No, you are the joke.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ford Mustang GT! ROTFLMAO! I bet you have a mullet.
Nope not mullet, that is like me sterotyping you as gay because you hate SUV's. I actually have a great paying job in King of Prussia, which is right out side of philly. I like the 99 mustang that I have because it is an awsome peice of machinery.
OT: tree huggers and buses
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
...and not by those granola munching tree huggers that everyone hates to stand next to on the bus,
Out of curiosity, is this for serious or are you just making joke? And why would people hate that? Do they smell? Make disgusting noises? Read over your shoulder? Step on your toes? Demand too much elbow room?...
I was under the impression that Daimler-Benz was going to import them to the US sometime around the summer of 05. Starting with the forfour followed by a new SUV version.... UGH.
Me I'm waiting for the roadster-coupe version to replace my trusty 85 CRX. (If they fit a proper manual transmission)
I have a smart crossblade, for the summer. Lots of fun!
-- Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Why you *HAVE* to parallel park.
by
BigBlockMopar
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A friend with a BMW Isetta (the little one, not the bloated 600cc version) gets tickets in San Francisco for parking perpendicular to the curb, never mind the fact that the car is designed for it.
Isetta. Now that's a scary car. There's no crush space at all in those things, and the handling is horrible - especially the smaller 3-wheeled version. But they're a fun car - I'd love to have one because the BMW logo on it would piss off snobs.
Until the cops are clued, the law doesn't matter as long as paying a parking ticket is less costly than fighting it, if your time is worth anything.
I don't think it's an issue of clueless cops. There's a very good reason why you have to parallel park facing the same direction as traffic (at least in most jurisdictions): your brake light assemblies contain red "cat eye" reflectors. If you're not parking with the rear of the car facing the headlights of approaching traffic, your car is very hard to see, and it becomes a dangerous obstruction in the roadway.
Of course, this isn't a problem if the microcar is parked between two adult-sized vehicles, but what if they leave?
One could argue that parking on a lit street, it shouldn't be any problem which way you park. But drivers get accustomed to the shapes of certain things (like taillight reflectors) and drive habitually - it'll take them a moment longer to react to the unexpected shape. They might also panic, thinking the vehicle is pulling into or out of traffic based on its awkward position. The streetlight could go out.
Call your local police and ask them if it's illegal to parallel park your car backwards with respect to the traffic on that side of the road. Same reason - people expect red reflectors, not amber or headlights, as they approach your vehicle.
Along those lines, every year or two depending on how dusty the driving has been, I pull the taillight assemblies out of my cars and my truck, and I throw them into the dishwasher on the crystals and plastics setting. Really makes a startling difference in the brightness of the reflectors and the appearance of the vehicles.
Re:Why you *HAVE* to parallel park.
by
XenonDif
·
· Score: 0
There's a very good reason why you have to parallel park facing the same direction as traffic (at least in most jurisdictions): your brake light assemblies contain red "cat eye" reflectors. If you're not parking with the rear of the car facing the headlights of approaching traffic, your car is very hard to see, and it becomes a dangerous obstruction in the roadway.
Here's a counter argument. Motorcycles are allowed to park perpendicular to the curb, and yet this isn't seen as a public hazard. At least in California, you ARE required to have red reflectors on the side of the vehicle, but brake lights don't have to act as reflectors, just as lamps.
The applical part of the California Vehicle Code says you have to park parallel, but gives exceptions for motorcycles, public vehicles like garbage trucks, and for loading/unloading cargo and passangers. The bmw might get by on this last claim.
Smart Canada
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They hit the roads here in Canada with the fourtwo about 2 months ago. Price is C$17k to C$19k. Perfect in urban environments and urban freeways (ie, 120 km/h or 70mph plus congestion). Acceleration is slow but not noticable in the city. Funky style, commuter space, fuel economy, and easy driving and parking. Selling like pot cakes. I did a test drive and was told that the 2005 allotment for the country was sold out and that they were attempting to get additional allotment.
What the person you are responding to doesn't understand is that the Smart car is safer than a SUV. SUV are oversized minivans built on truck bodies and are classified as "light trucks" (or just "trucks" for the bigger units) and do not have to meet the safety requirements of passenger cars. They are built with stiff frames that simply fold like taco shells when they hit something.
Smart cars, on the other hand, are small roll cages on wheels. While the SUV folds itself up and kills its occupants, the Smart car simply bounces off.
SUVs give the illusion of safety. But they are more dangerous than any car on the road today save a pre-1963 Corvair or a pre-1975 Pinto.
-- Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Re:Strange? No. Stupid? Yes.
by
PhatAir
·
· Score: 1
A TV motoring show in the UK (5th Gear, I think it's called) did a test where a Smart was remotely driven head on into a concrete wall at 70 mph. The roll cage hardly deformed to the point where the doors would still open ok. Naturally such rapid decelaration would probably still kill you at that speed, but it just goes to show how strong the roll cage is and safe you'd be at a lower speed collision.
1. stiff frames that simply fold like taco shells: How stiff is a frame that folds like a taco shell. For future reference, taco shells are brittle, they don't fold. Ductility is your friend.
2. bounces off: I'm sure we'd all be better off completely reversing our direction rather than absorbing some of that kinetic energy. Impulse be damned. Ductility is your friend.
3. Stupid? Yes.: Stereotyping is fun. Especially when you are a member of the club. Perhaps you are just in denial.
Please pay no attention to point 3, it's inflammatory -- I'm just bitter about points 1 and 2.
If you make sure you have valid arguments, I can be made to change my mind. I'm a flexible person. Ductility is your friend.
Re:Strange? No. Stupid? Yes.
by
Unregistered
·
· Score: 1
Do you honestly believe the shit that is coming out of your mouth?
First, i want my car to crumple in a wreck. That absorbs energy. If your car bounces, you're gonna be killed. When my truck "colapses" it absorbs the energy of the collision, so i can walk away. Also, i can't believe they you actually think that a smart wouldn't hold up to a truck or suv. A normal sedan can't hold up to a big car. While i've never been in a wreck in a truck, i was rear-ened in my Crown Vic. Messed up the Accord that hit me pretty good and m only damage was the exhaust pipe came loose and a tail light cracked.
Re:Strange? No. Stupid? Yes.
by
Slack3r78
·
· Score: 1
There was never a major problem with the Corvair. Yes, the suspension did look funny when on a lift, and yes, Chevrolet did eventually redesign it to make it somewhat more stable (and better handling), but it was *NOT* the death trap Ralph Nader claimed it to be. In fact, the NHTSA performed a study in 1971 to test Nader's claims and found that the Corvair performed as well as any of contemporaries (better in fact than some imports like the VW) and did *not* have a rollover of the Corvair occur in any of their tests.
It irks me that Nader's career was kick started on a complete distortion of reality, and that he's never really been called out on it since then.
Re:Strange? No. Stupid? Yes.
by
silicon-pyro
·
· Score: 1
If I remember correctly, another problem with the cars of the day were that the hard, angular dashboards and windshields were within striking distance of the passenger, and that the steering wheel was too stiff. Deadly injuries were caused by the stuff in front of you not deforming in the collision. Padded dashes, more flexible steering wheels, and airbags all came out as a result of the corvair and other cars like this. The corvair is oft singled out to this day because of it's popularity, but the book was just using it as an example of the cars of the day. Your post should read: NHTSA performed a study in 1971 to test Nader's claims and found that the Corvair performed just as poorly as any of [its] contemporaries. That said, the plush suspension probably didn't help the handeling when trying to avoid the crash.
Nader's career was kick-started because he wrote a viable book and lobbied for the cause at a time when automobiles were unsafe in general. IMHO this is how we want people to get into politics -- push something you believe in, something in the public's best interest, and get results doing it. The same can't be said for most other politicians.
I'm not an american, I'm as far outside their political world as anyone can be these days, and I don't know enough about Nader to like or dislike him. I do know that cars are safer today than they were back then, fueled in part by Nader's book and subsequent efforts. I just can't see being irk'd by something that so benefits you today. I would like to know the real reason he irks you.
Re:Strange? No. Stupid? Yes.
by
Slack3r78
·
· Score: 1
I can't comment on the interior portions beyond the fact that the interior of the 1968 Corvair we own is no different from that of any other car from the vintage, so that wouldn't be the reason for singling out the Corvair.
The reason was Nader specifically cited for the Corvair's 'unsafeness' was the Corvair's unique swing style rear suspension. Nader claimed that it allowed the rear tires to fold under, causing rollover, which, as the NHTSA showed, was untrue. You assertation that the car was difficult to handle in comparison to contemporaries is also incorrect.
The Corvair tended toward oversteer in hard cornering, as opposed to the severe understeer of most of the boat-like American cars of the day. It's much easier to recover from a loss of control with a car that leans toward oversteer. In fact, the Corvair in the hands of a skilled driver handles comparably to many *modern* sports cars. There's a reason why the Corvair has a strong enthusiast community around it to this day in the amateur racing circuit. But maybe Nader was right and they're mistaken and the Corvair really *is* a horribly handling vehicle prone to rollovers under normal conditions. They wouldn't care about things like that, after all.
We're talking about a car that sported a fully independent suspension when that was something found only on the Corvette. If you do some research, you'll find that the Corvair's suspension borrowed heavily from the Vette's engineering.
So no, the Corvair wasn't perfect by any means, but the reality of how the car performed and Nader's version of the story are completely different things. A car that was in many ways superior to other cars of the time unfairly picked up the reputation of a deathtrap, when it wasn't the case at all. This is why I'm irked. I'm absolutely thrilled we have safer cars today, but it annoys me that one of the better cars being made at the time was essentially crucified over something that just plain wasn't true.
1. stiff frames that simply fold like taco shells: How stiff is a frame that folds like a taco shell. For future reference, taco shells are brittle, they don't fold. Ductility is your friend.
It is only your friend in the correct places. Many cars (including some SUVs) have the problem that during side impacts especially the ductility means that driver or passenger legs are crushed and doors are deformed such that egress is not possible. In head on crashes often the engine is driven into the passenger compartment.
The Smart car, on the other hand, has cunningly designed crumple zones front and back, and an engine that folds under the seat in the event of a rear impact. (And is mounted in the rear - in most crashes the front hits the obstacle first). What gives it is survivability is the roll cage. Both of these concepts (crumple zones and strong passenger safety areas) are common on cars, but not so common on SUVs. The advantage that the Smart car is that because it is a small 2 passenger car the passenger safety area can be made very strong without being very heavy.
very useful car
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
When you die in one of these after being crushed by a 300 ton truck you wont need a coffin they'll use the body of the car as one and direct to the hole, save on fuel and save on funeral charges...
well hmm lets see.. i believe that any person in any car, getting hit by a 300 ton truck would die..
what the hell is the difference??
-- - Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
tree huggers and buses : The Aversion
by
SeanDuggan
·
· Score: 1
I think that it's a similar situation to how people who have quit smoking tend to be a bit on the annoying side. It's that evangelist air which has frequently led to bizarre segues. "I notice your hands have a biker's glove tan. I haven't driven in years because it's so bad for the environment." That said, I have nothing against most tree huggers. I see them as being similar to members of the NRA in that they're typically represented by the lunatic fringe, something I can relate to, being Pro-Life.
-- This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Mass Always Wins, 6'4" Europeans
by
BigBlockMopar
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That the collision would be between two very different cars is the important thing. It would be important in america, more and more people there are buying bigger and bigger cars. This is different from europe -- people there are more likely to own smaller cars.
We do have a lot more automotive diversity here (North America, not just the USA) than in Europe. In the US, there's more of a do-it-yourself spirit than I find in either Canada or Europe - Americans tend to enjoy working with their hands. This means larger, handier vehicles capable of carrying around ladders and gravel and stuff. This is part of why, I think, the SUV is more popular in the US than in Canada.
We also like to drive more. A huge percentage of family vacations involve hopping into the V8 RWD Caprice Classic or Crown Vic station wagon of yesteryear and driving halfway across the country. EPA's CAFE regulations killed the big station wagons people wanted, so the automakers responded by dropping station wagon bodies onto CAFE-exempt pickup truck frames and calling them SUVs (which are, ironically, less fuel efficient than the CAFE-banned vehicles they replaced). (Lesson here: anytime the government attempts to dictate consumer demand by forcing the discontinuation of a popular product, it will backfire somehow.)
Having said that, I'm 6'4" tall. I see lots of other 6'+ people every day here in Canada, and lots when I travel to the United States. In Europe, my height seems to be less common.
What does this mean, from a practical standpoint? Most small cars, especially those designed for European or Asian markets, don't fit me very well, and I feel clautrophobic. This, as well as the versatility, is part of why I like trucks (in particular, my 1976 Dodge Ram). In fact, the only small car I've ever been in that really felt comfortable was the Pontiac Fiero - which, of course, was designed for the American market.
So, North Americans tend to like larger vehicles for whatever reason. Smart cars will sell well here, though - there are plenty of urbanites who will like them. And if I were a smaller person who had a regular life in the city (ie. didn't collect 1950s TV sets like I do), I wouldn't need a large vehicle.
A few years of university-level dynamics classes will probably limit the sales of these things to engineers and scientists, however. While I like 'em and I think they're neat, I'd be terrified driving around in one.
Mass always wins.
Why the concept of winning? Dunno. But in any inelastic collision, momentum is conserved - and goes from the large object to the small object. This means that the small object will undergo the most drastic acceleration or deceleration - causing all sorts of injuries to the occupants. The only way to change that is to make it an elastic collision, which will require a hell of a lot of crush space (which I don't see the Smart car having, given its small size).
I saw the result of a head-on between an SUV and a BMW Zx (1? 3? can't remember) about seven years ago. The BMW was so low to the ground that the SUV used it as a ramp, went airborne, flipped over, landed on its roof and killed the driver.
The driver of the BMW walked away.
-- "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
The only way to change that is to make it an elastic collision, which will require a hell of a lot of crush space
No. Elastic collisions conserve momentum, like the inelastic ones, and also the kinetic energy, i.e. no energy is used up in the crush spaces, so there is more energy left to hurt people.
How is this difference possible, when momentum is conserved just like in the less dangerous inelastic collision? Because momentum is a vector quantity -- in a head-on collision, one car's momentum is represented by a positive number, and the other car's momentum by a negative number, while their respective kinetic energies are always positive numbers. Thus, the arithmetic works out to give different post-collision momentums to the cars depending if it was an elastic or an inelastic collision.
The inelastic case is kinder to the cars' occupants, because the deceleration takes place in the length of the crush space, not the few cm of an elastic, rigid-body, collision.
chl
Re:Reading these threads is why the US has a probl
by
gatkinso
·
· Score: 1
Lot's of them drive SUV's, hence they are fat.
?
If this is the reasoning of the rest of the world, we don't have much to worry about in the way of competition.
(I also note that the second they can afford to, many immigrants head stright to the nearest show room floor checking out the Escalade's and Expeditions).
-- I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Geopolitical games. That's why.
by
h00manist
·
· Score: 1
Why wasn't the smartcar, and many other small cars, motorcycles, mopeds, bicycles, electric cars, trains, or anything else that saves OIL sold mass-market in the US?
Because two thirds of US dollars are abroad. Oil is traded in dollars. If oil demand goes down too much, dollar demand goes down with it.
Heck, then the financiers would have to worry about actually hiring and paying someBODY and financing and building someTHING to export, rather than financing paper-politics-and-war-games, which have rather amazing profit margins.
I think that it looks sporty. Though a little tough to haul much around. I wonder what the total cost of ownership is. I like my Civic Hybrid, though the poor design on the EGR valve sucks.
I own and drive a MCC Smart for 3 years now...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
...and can say: I LOVE THIS CAR. For an single student in a city with narrow lanes and alleys and tight space for parking, this car is an bless for you. In addition it is cheap in maintenance and taxes. Despite of its low power, it accelarates amazing fast, because the cars is very light. The low Vmax of 135 km/h (or 150 km/h in the BRABUS-version) of the car is not tragic, remember that this' car natural habitat is the inner city. It makes no difference to stay in traffic jam with an Porsche-GT2 or Smart. You stand;)
You Americans... ;-)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The Smart is a safe car developed by Mercedes Benz -- long before they were thinking of working with a company that sells cheap cars...;-)
Certainly, the car could not be sold as a Mercedes (the buyers do not have much in common -- the smart rather sells to city-hipsters than to senior citizens), but had to feature Mercedes qualities like safety and reliability. Qualities this car has proven during the five years it was on sale in Germany (you innovative Americans;-)
No, the car is not made for long distances, where you want to comfortably cruise at 115 mph (180 km/h). Instead, it is made for people living in a city, only occasionally going further than 100 miles. The car is comfortable, great fun, handles like a go-cart. And considering it's weight, you can expect it to perform better than most V6 SUVs.
So, here you have the reason why this car is 'smart'. But if you prefer to drive a lot of heavy metal arround, you are wellcome.
You see, me as well, I am wearing one of these Penis-Push-Up trousers to impress the girls...
(The author is an America-loving German now based in Britain. He sometimes cannot help but laugh about cliches being confirmed...)
Your Honda S2000 gets---at best---1/3 the MPG the "Beer Can" does, and puts out an equivalent amount of additional pollutants. Oh, but that's okay, because "it goes fast and has lots of power."
I'm sure you could care less about pollution because it is "somewhere else," it "doesn't really affect me," or that it "will cause me to pay more taxes" to prevent.
Think about that when you take your next breath: you get more carbon in each cough because some kiddie wanted to go faster with more power to prove how much of a man he was to the other kiddies. Oh, while you're at it, have a glass of water.
-- Yeah, right.
Re:A reason you left out
by
jlanthripp
·
· Score: 1
I believe I covered the points you attempted to make in other posts in this thread. See the "penis extension" portion of one of my other posts, for example. The S2000 gets roughly 1/2 of the MPG that his Smart Roadster-Coupe does - not exactly a ULEV, but not bad for a car that does 0-60 in 5.5 seconds and has a top speed of 150mph. Your assumptions about what I care about and don't care about are false. I could have had a pretty nice late-60's Chevelle with a big block for what I paid for my Sentra, but I actually give a shit.
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good half-informed screed against someone whose tastes differ from your own.
-- "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Re:Not so SMART . . .
by
Quino
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's hard to imagine that there's 1 meter worth of crumple zone in the Smart car.
It's hard to tell from the pictures, but it seems that half that is still a bit generous -- that alone doubles your figures, right?
Also, assuming constant deceleration -- for sanity's sake, I understand -- greatly reduces the peak force and impact that you're calculating. You're essentially assuming that the crash will only involve a perfect crumple zone.
I don't work in test-crashing cars, but personally I would be surprised if crumple zones are this effective.
The problem is when you run out of crumple zone during impact, and now it's the hardened "walnut like" steel cocoon hitting a wall.
Fifth Gear Rollover Tests
by
equiraptor
·
· Score: 1
IIRC, they started the sets with the BMW at 70 mph... They did the first (and only) SUV test at 45mph. They also stated that it was an older SUV (a Land Rover of some variety), and that newer SUVs are frequently slightly better. However, they'll still roll easily at freeway speeds.
Re:There are already 60 mpg cars that go 90+ in th
by
The+Cisco+Kid
·
· Score: 1
I'd love to drive a car that got better gas milages - the only problem is that my budget limits me to 12-15 year old vehicles, and there just arent any hybrids/etc in that market.
The people who would most appreciate the gas savings are also the people least able to pay the exorbitant prices a 'new' car demands.
Someone needs to start making sub-$4000 vehicles that are worth buying.
You don't understand how crumple zones work.
by
i41Overlord
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If you were able to make a car that was indestructible, that didn't bent at all when you hit something, you'd die in most impacts because the amount of energy absorbed by the car would be none.
However, if you had a car that folded up like an accordian except for where you're sitting, the impact would be much less since the metal absorbed a lot of the energy from the impact.
That is the point of crumple zones. You have a cage around the passenger compartment which is not supposed to deform, and then you have the sheet metal around that cage to act as a shock absorber. The bumpers push in, the engine drops down, the hood bends, etc... the whole car in front of the passenger compartment is designed to deform.
In the case of the Smart car, regardless of how strong the cage is in a Smart car, it only has about a foot of metal in front of the passenger compartment to absorb the impact. If you hit a solid object you'd have a foot to decelerate. However, if you had a car with 4 feet of metal in front of the cage you'd have 4 times the distance to decelerate in a collision, and you'd experience only a fraction of the full impact you'd experience otherwise.
Re:You don't understand how crumple zones work.
by
RatBastard
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm not talking about crumple zones. I know how they work. I'm talking about the fact that SUV frames are stiff and they tend to fold on impact killing the people inside the car. Not the engine compartment or the fenders, the structural beams under the car. Because they are classified as trucks and not passenger cars they are not required to meet the same safety requirements and they don't.
The fact of the matter: if you're going 60mph and then suddenly de-accelerate to 0 in less than 12 feet, you are going to get hurt. Will you get hurt more in a SMART? No.
Why would both the smart car and an SUV decelerate in 12 feet? If they both had an equal distance to decelerate then yeah you'd have the same deceleration forces in each car.
But that's not quite reality.
In reality if you both went head-on into the same object, the crumple zones will pretty much dictate the stopping distance when you hit a solid object, and the Smart doesn't have a very big crumple zone.
I hate SUVs as much as the next guy but I won't ignore the physics of an impact.
i noticed a lot of people saying "blah blah when you die in that thing blah blah", I question wether or not they know what they're talking about..
because you should of obviously seen the crash test dummy video, with the car having a head on collision with the big mercedes going atleast 50mph.. any minor accident, even to a bit of a head on collision, you'll be perfectly fine in this car..
however, in any car, having a head on collision going 60mph, you'll probably die.. this makes no more difference..
this car would be perfect for my 35 minute commute to work everyday..
-- - Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
Let's see if you can afford to fill the tank of your Mustang with gasoline when it's $10 a gallon.
-- These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
60 Horse Power - to Low
by
seanda-geek
·
· Score: 1
Just curious, how would the Zap perform on the uphill drive through Colorado's Eisenhower Tunnel (11,158 feet West Portal) on Interstate 70. I live at 9500 feet and its always humorous watching the heavy air breathers when they realize their performance automobiles respond more like a bicycle at that altitude. And please ignore the falling boulders creating holes in the bridges. A force of nature, pay it no heed.
Re:60 Horse Power - to Low
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Oh, boy... a turbo-powered car with 60 hp and an light-weight of 760 kg climbs fast enough also steep ways. I had never problems with hill-starting or steep longer distances (e.g. between Karlsruhe and Stuttgart).:D
A friend of mine in Switzerland tells me that the Smart has issues going up some of their monster hills/mountains. But, from what I understand, those climbs aren't exactly a cakewalk for a lot of vehicles.
-- A new feature is just a bug waiting to happen.
And vice versa.
Diesel is the way of the future
by
fiannaFailMan
·
· Score: 1
I could see a quiet revolution taking place when sulphur gets kicked out out of Diesel in the US. For all the talk about hybrids, it'll be Diesel that becomes the fuel of choice. Once people start to hear about people filling their tank once a month word will soon spread like it has back at home. My mates back in Ireland all drive diesel cars, and they've developed now to the point where you can barely hear the difference between a diesel and a petrol engine. It's not as noisy as it used to be. They all drive down to the border once a month to fill up because of the exchange rate. I posted an article about this a long time ago but the philistines at/. rejected it.
-- Drill baby drill - on Mars
Re:Diesel is the way of the future
by
gotih
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
i'm really interested in (commercially non-existant) diesel hybrids whose engines run at a constant speed, producing electricity which powers an all electric drivetrain (this is how locomotives have been built for years). by running the engine at a constant speed, the engine can be tuned for maximum efficiency without need for fancy add-ons like turbo chargers which are needed to improve diesel's otherwise sluggish acceleration. give me an efficient diesel power generator, fewer batteries, and high output electric motors. i know i'm an eception tho, i ride a bike (in LA no less!) for local transportation. i want a car for road trips.
--
fear is the mind killer
Re:Diesel is the way of the future
by
fiannaFailMan
·
· Score: 1
That's how the trains work in the UK, they're diesel-electric. Local trains don't have locomotives, there's just an engine and electric generators in each coach under the floor. Makes it a lot easier to piece together trainsets. It strikes me as a bit inefficient though, converting chemical energy to kinetic energy to electrical energy and finally back to kinetic energy to get the train moving. But that does seem to be the way the trains work, so the savings that you mention must more than make up for it.
-- Drill baby drill - on Mars
Re:Diesel is the way of the future
by
Politburo
·
· Score: 1
the engine can be tuned for maximum efficiency without need for fancy add-ons like turbo chargers which are needed to improve diesel's otherwise sluggish acceleration.
A lot of constant-rpm diesels (trains, generators, etc.) still have turbochargers. It allows for cleaner combustion (less NOx) and higher efficiency.
solution, stick reflectors on the sides
by
DABANSHEE
·
· Score: 1
Luckily, with the rate of increases that won't be for another 40 years. It's currently only 1.80, which is cheaper, perspectivly, than it was in 1980. Gasonline has stayed pretty even with inflation, so I don't every persee a problem when I am going to have trouble.
It still looks like a clown car.
what about all those...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
diesel VWs and Mercedes?
Re:OT: tree huggers and buses
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
yep. They smell because they haven't bathed in weeks and anything they say is usually disgusting. Austin has too damn many of these hippies.
Gas tank size
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why is it on cars that have enormous MPG ratings, they have TINY gas tanks? I'd love to see a vehicle with 60+ mpg and 15+ gallons.. imagine, 900+ miles without having to fill up in the middle. With the Smart Car, it has 8 gallons and 60 mpg, so it's a meager/average 480 miles.
Offtopic: MTV Pimp my Ride
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This comment is offtopic and about the MTV show "Pimp My Ride".
Recently the modifications on that show have gotten ridicilous. They modified a Volkswagon van on a recent show to house a 46 inch television along with a Playstation 2. How long can a car battery actually power such a thing? Recently they also modified an old 80s Suburban and put over 8 flatscreen monitors in it. "Pimp My Ride" is getting out of hand and is starting to add sensationalist modifications. Do not support the show with your viewing. Car batteries cannot power such nonsense for very long, they are off their rockers.
It's a turbo, that will make the difference
by
jake-in-a-box
·
· Score: 1
I've done just what you are talking about. Took a Ford Aerostar 3.0 v6 through Yellowstone, and across the Beartooth pass. Lots of wheezing. Why? At that altitude it's generating maybe half the power it would at sea level. But do the same with a turbo and it will generate the same power it did at sea level, because the turbo precompresses the intake air so that it's being fed the same amount of air at 10,000 ft that it was getting at sea level.
Turbos rock!
-- To hear the gods laugh tell them your plans.
Alternatives?
by
rainman_bc
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Why not get an echo that gets ~55 mpg if you want cheap, or a VW Golf TDI that gets ~90 m.p.g. instead (both IIRC)?
Re:Not so SMART . . .
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, I hit a concrete wall at 70 MPH and was really pissed that my F-150 was beat up. I had to remove the front bumper because it was dragging on both tires and the transmission tailcone was broken so it was streaming tranny fluid. The frame shop had a hell of a time getting it straight enough to get re-aligned and the hood and grill were trashed. The radiator leaked but that was easy to fix. I still don't know why the damn airbag didn't go off, but I was pretty sore for a week, so no complaints there. Oh yeah, fuck small cars.
You think that's only in the US?
by
Gordonjcp
·
· Score: 1
I drive a 600-mile round trip twice a week to visit my Mum. I drive a 100-mile round trip just for my daily commute. It's not that unusual, either.
Soon to be seen at your next rodeo...
The ZAP Clown car, complete with inflating air bags to cushion bull strikes. Easy to fit into any NARA barrels!
Only $4995 with an additional option such as tootie horn ($98.88), fake smoke generator ($149.00) and REAL smoke thrown in for free.
Interchangeable panels make for easy repairs for the most descriminating clowns around, who want a night on the town after a day at the pen.
Yours! For a song AND a dance!
If you call now! We'll throw in a CUSTOM clown costume that is compressible to fit behind the front, er, only seats. Machine washable, indestructable and comes with a matching clown nose, inflato shoes and a woopie cushion which doubles for front seat comfort.
Call soon! They're not expected to last long!
I'll stick with my Mini
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This 1500 lb monstrosity can just stay the heck out of my garage. My lighter 1962 Austin Mini has state of the art British car technology and safety. And the 25 mpg I get from the 998cc engine cant be beat.
Re:Not so SMART . . .
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
you mean 160 MPH not mpg right?
because if you are telling us that a regular production car from 1988 could get insane gas mileage then something is wrong.
the 88 GT could do 160 MPH after upgrading the chip and exaust manifold and exaust system.
test drove it - I would buy one.
by
jalex
·
· Score: 1
I test drove the petrol fortwo at the 2004 StarFest. I thought it had a strange feel to it but was stable, quick and comfortable. I used to drive a 78 Mercedes 240d. Although that may have been more safe in size, I had worse acceleration than any of the smart cars. And the 240d only gets around 26-29mpg on the highway. All the pain and no gain is a 240D.
I really liked the amount of interior space on the fortwo and would not mind driving it. I do not think it is any less save than a civic or aveo. Less car is less car and there are a lot of small cars that could be more crushed easier than a smart car.
And they do not make many motorcycles that get near 60mpg. Most harley's get around 40, non 650cc BMW's get around 40-50, etc.
If you are just going to buy a deathbox anyway, (such as a civic, aveo, or echo) , and only need 2 seats, you may as well get the best efficiency you can.
My co-worker calls it the 'egg' and we joke about making it a lawn mower.
Zap has been Razor dealer for many years
by
wsanders
·
· Score: 1
Zap has been selling the Razor electric scooter line for since I first saw them online in 96 or so - they also carried the Corbin Sparrow line IIRC and have various other electric vehicles for sale.
I don't think you will be able to mailorder a Smart car. If they are so cool why aren't DaimlerChrysler dealers offering them? In the SF Bay area the could mark them up $5K and still sell out.
-- Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Re:Zap has been Razor dealer for many years
by
WebCowboy
·
· Score: 1
If they are so cool why aren't DaimlerChrysler dealers offering them?
You must've missed the first paragraph of my post--they ARE in fact already selling them at DC's Mercedes dealerships across Canada (apparently they are too cool for Chrysler dealerships--plus they can command higher prices)--but for some off reason the US dealers haven't followed suit (yet). You are also right about their popularity--they are indeed sold out and there is a waiting list despite being a high-margin item.
That said, it's pretty rare that Canada gets something without the US soon following suit (or vice versa). The biggest exception I can remember are the Canadian Pontiacs from way back when (Acadian, Parisienne, etc). If I were Zap I'd see that as writing on the wall.
Re:Zap has been Razor dealer for many years
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I've had a Oxygen Lepton scooter purchased from ZAP for two and a half years, through their bankruptcy, re-location and all. Have been trying all this time to get them to respond to maintenance questions -- ZIP ZAP as far as responsiveness goes. They've never responded to an email or returned a phone call yet.
They also failed to send the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin which made it impossible to license until I got it resolved from the manufacturer in Italy. The scooter itself is fine: I really like it. But buyer beware when dealing with ZAP. Finally, although I got my scooter for a reasonable price pre-bankruptcy, ZAP regularly charges $5995 for a scooter for which everyone else charges under $2000.
Re:Zap has been Razor dealer for many years
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
but for some off reason the US dealers haven't followed suit (yet)
Two reasons. #1 Emissions reqirements. #2 Safety regulations compliance.
DaimlerChrylser further doesn't believe that there is a market for the twofour here in the states, and intend to introduce a SUV-styled smart instead. Zap is exploiting the gap in perception by importing twofours into the states and fixing them to comply with #1 and #2.
You must be confusing the CRX (which is no longer manufactured by Honda) with the insight (Honda's hybrid)? The insight does have a striking resemblance to the CRX. But the CRX never got 67mpg. I used to own one, and it did get great gas mileage (between 35 and 40mpg on the highway)... but never did it come anywhere close to 67.
Re:90 MPH???? Not so bad
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
As a smartcar owner, I am interested in how safe my car really is (I read that it was safer than many small cars before I bought it). According to my calculations, if the safety cell remains more or less intact during impact a person should be able to survive a head-on crash for speeds up to 70 mph. The human body has been tested up to 48G on a living subject. The formula for calculating G force in a crash is G's=.0333X(M.P.H. X M.P.H.) / Distance in feet. So if the speed was 70 mph and stopping distance 3 feet we get 54G which is survivable, hopefully.
Re:Two questions: Crumple zones and width on corne
by
RealBorg
·
· Score: 1
Nothing, at least for me when someone hit my smart in the back.
Diesel?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Bah, VW TDI Diesels will get you 64mpg and go 120mph and not look like a Star Trek prop!
you're safer in a compact car than in an SUV
by
mishmosh
·
· Score: 3, Informative
While you'd be more protected in a crash in an SUV than in a compact, SUVs are far more likely to get into an accident in the first place due to reduced maneuverability and larger size. Also, some SUVs are classified as trucks, which means they don't have to meet the auto body safety standards of passenger vehicles.
"Drivers of the tiny Jetta die at a rate of just forty-seven per million, which is in the same range as drivers of the five-thousand-pound Chevrolet Suburban and almost half that of popular S.U.V. models like the Ford Explorer or the GMC Jimmy." --Malcolm Gladwell, http://gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html, which also includes a full chart of fatalities-per-million drivers of the most popular cars in the US.
Don't forget the Air Car. It is always nice to see improvements in gas powered cars, but one which runs on air is a lot better. For us and for the environment as well.
-- Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.:-)
We have had these in Canada for a few months now. My wife and I went to the local Mercedes dealer ( the brand is made in France, but owned by Mercedes) While a nice car, the price tag is ludicrous! With a decent configuration it is $19,000 Canadian. http://www.mercedes-benz.ca/mbccustom/s mart/getsma rt/pricing.cfm
For you Yanks that is about $16,150 US.
For a LOT less money one can get a LOT more car! For example a KIA RIO lists for $12,995 ($11,050 in devaluing US$) And comes with a full 5 year warranty. http://www.kia.ca/img/en/showroom/offer s.pdf
We bought a KIA RIO RX-V for my daughters' grad last year, and it has run flawlessly.
I think you hit the nail on the head there. I can get a Hyundai Accent nicely equiped for $12000. It doesn't get 60 MPG but it does get 30 and has over 100 HP. So, I have to agree; sell these for 7K or so and they might really have something.
Almost as good as a Freightliner...
by
akamoe
·
· Score: 1
I want one of these. Wait till they bring it out in an SUV! I'll show the world!!
Look cool? Judging from the picture, you'd look cooler on a pogo-stick.
-- "How like you to drag your keyboard to a gun fight." - Aaron Bedard (BANE)
I test drove one in the US over 5 years ago!
by
Not-a-Neg
·
· Score: 1
Nichol's Research in Sunnyvale, CA was doing a focus group for them. We got to drive it around the block(literally), and it wasn't all that fun.
-It had no power steering(according to Zap!'s site it's an option)
-It didn't feel like it had power brakes(might've, but it didn't feel like it)
-Rear visibility was blocked by the head rests
-It took damn near 3 seconds for it to change down gears, and 2 seconds to change up(using the manual shift mode)
Lastly, the people overseeing the testdrives, never mentioned that the speedo was in KMH instead of MPH. Thought I was doing 45 in a 25mph zone for a few heart pounding seconds.
I can't remember if this was back in '98 or '99. If they've improved since then, I'd be interested in buying one as a second car for around town, but there's no way in hell I'd get rid of my SUV for one.
This sounds like a great idea for large cities, where traffic is more of an issue, but in Minnesota and other cold areas, you need the extra weight of an SUV to simply get up a hill in the winter. Also, I cant see one of these pulling a boat or a trailer of firewood... It doesn't matter what kind of gas mileage it gets if it can't be useful. Half of my time spent driving involves hauling (snowmobiles, boats, lumber, etc.) and am afraid to say that my SUV would still get more use, no matter what the price of gas is.
It was the Nov episode of Fifth Gear. Tottent avaialable here
http://gear.viper007bond.com/downloads.php
-- Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
Buy American, even if you have to import it
by
psyburn
·
· Score: 1
Why bother with that German toy when you can can get a good ole American Catipillar
You can take the putzy Liebherr 252 and fit it inside of a CAT 797B and the CAT will take it away at the ole double nickel on cruise control.
This beautiful CAT takes up 3 full Amercan lanes. However any vehicle under 41 inches high (attn: Ferrari owners) can easily blow by this in the middle lane. And don't worry about the driver, he'll see you comin'
with his rear-view camera. And for the SUV-haters out there all SUV's would be stuck just waiting for this beauty to get there.
-- This was brought to you buy the Department of Redundancy Department
Commuter Cars Company was featured as having a pretty sweet little car called the Tango. They claim that it will do 0-60 in 4 seconds (better than most high-end sports cars), will finish a standing 1/4 mile in 12 seconds @120 MPH. On top of this, it is electric, not hybrid. On top of that, it will go 80 miles before needing a recharge. A 10 minute charge from a 400 amp feed will charge it for 50 miles (80% full) whereas a full charge is achieved in less than three hours.
Check out the movie of the Tango cornering on a closed track. Very impressive!
SUV's indirectly are charged higher taxes than smaller rides. As an example, in California 1 gallon of gas is taxed at approximately $.36 plus sales tax. I'm guessing right now that puts it at about $.50 per gallon these days.
Bigger the SUV, the lower the mileage, the more tax they pay for the same mile travelled. The poor Expedition driver is getting tagged for about $3.60 per 100 city miles travelled as opposed to $.83 for a Zap.
Add to that registration and licensing based on car value and the SUV crowd is getting to pay a little more at a time. Higher fuel taxes anyone?
-- Starting next week, all passwords will be entered in Morse code
Re:Is this a clown car?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Also as Click and Clack, the car guys from Boston say, never buy a French car. I don't care what your Peugeot can do, because it's still one of the worst engineered cars on the face of the planet. You put that thing next to a Ford Model T and tell them to race my money is on the Model T.
My Peugeot 206 laughs at your staggering ignorance, in an arrogant, mocking Gallic style.
If you enjoy driving cars, don't buy this. If you like exciting cars, don't buy this. If you you want a cheap car, don't buy this. If you want a comfortable car, don't buy this.
I got this car as a replacement vehicle from the car-audio center when they where installing my GPS unit. You wouldn't believe how RELIEVED i was to get rid of that thing. I got used to certain things while driving a car (see above) and it did not have any of these (or at least it did not meet my standards) and i would never ever buy a car like it.
The only good thing about it was the mileage. Ofcourse there are other cars available who provide more of comfort for less money, so i would never put my money on a smart.
(oh yeah, rush hour on the highway in that car is scarier then Doom3, because all other drivers think of you as an insect and the car has no performance _what so ever_ to get you out of sticky situations, in fact there is this gigantic lag!! before any power gets transferred to the wheels - HORROR)
-- On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
I know a lot of loyal Chrysler customers (including myself) who refuse to buy any of their post-buyout products because those morons in Germany (Especially Schrempp, although I think he's gone now. He should've picked his family over his company, it would have been better for BOTH.) have been running the company into the ground.
Subarus seem to be quite popular with the unhappy ex-Chrysler loyalists. Yes, GM owns part of the company now, but the stake is only 20% and so far it seems like it's been purely beneficial to everyone involved. (Subaru gets a financial benefit but basically retains control, GM gets lots of Subaru goodies/technology to boost their not-so-well-off divisions like Saab. Although Saab loyalists are probably not too happy that the 9-2X is just a repackaged WRX.)
Not trollin, just FYI. Chevy dropped the Geo moniker in 1998 and absorbed their lines. The Storm with their awful (Isuzu) engines were dropped entirely, and they sold the Metro, Prism, and Tracker under the Chevrolet badge.
The Metro has recently been replaced by the Aveo in 2004. Chevrolet.com says it starts at $9,995, but I would argue that it's not even worth that. They show it at $13,405 - that's just shy of the Cobalt, which starts at 14,190 (and is an immense improvement over the Cavalier, which it is replacing).
Enough with the run-on sentences! And pointless information!
I grew up in Michigan; hard to buy foreign cars when you do that. DCX is definitely well on its way to removing itself from the Big 3. I wound up with a Mazda assembled up in Flat Rock; yes, Ford owns it, but so far it seems like the same sort of deal - Mazda develops with Ford financing, and Ford takes the platform and makes a Ford car based on it (e.g. the 500).
But DCX seems to have taken German pricing and combined it with the worst parts of both of their engineering. If Chrysler had managed to retain any control, maybe it would have been different, but it was definitely a buyout, not a merger.
Haven't really been all that impressed with the WRXs I've driven, but each to their own.
--
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
There is a generally different approach to cars in Europe and the USA. Americans like big cars because they think they are safer. When it comes to ships, they'd probably prefer the Titanic to a nippy powerboat. That's why you find so many li'l ole ladies driving huge SUV's. Apart from factors like functionality and ecology, there are few things to be remembered about safety.
First, the number of head on crashes is minimal. In an overlapping frontal crash, the smaller cars gets a spinning momentum and it becomes important to remain in the seat (belts, airbags, seat construction, doors remain closed). You also have a very good chance in a wel constructed small car, maybe more so than in a crude big one. Any smart has all the electronic goodies that keep you on the road (most heavy accidents are curve accidents) and a smart with great handling and good brakes will give you a much bigger chance to stear clean of trouble.
By the way, try it: a 6 ft 4" guy will be surprised at the room and the feeling of space in a fortwo.
Re: You don't understand how crumple zones
by
hackstraw
·
· Score: 1
Crumple zones don't matter when you have 2x the mass of the other guy.
People die from forces. Put simply F=M*A. A is basicly constant, M is variable. The more M you have the more force you apply to other people.
SUVs don't need crumple zones, thats what the other cars are for.
Motorcycle not parallel in CA
by
obtuse
·
· Score: 1
And I got a ticket for parking my motorcycle with my rear wheel on the curb in Palo Alto, California (side street just off of the Oregon Expressway for those who'd know.) Here in CA, you are supposed to park perpendicular to the curb. There are lots of clueless cops. The law is clear, but I had the choice of spending hours on the ticket or paying it.
If they were clever, they'd do research to find out at what point most people decide the burden of paying a ticket isn't worth the trouble of fighting it.
-- Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
Re:Motorcycle not parallel in CA
by
XenonDif
·
· Score: 1
Were you parked on a street with no curbs? On a motorcycle, that's the only reason why you should've gotten a ticket for parking perpendicular.
22502. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter every vehicle stopped or parked upon a roadway where there are adjacent curbs shall be stopped or parked with the right-hand wheels of such vehicle parallel with and within 18 inches of the right-hand curb, except that motorcycles shall be parked with at least one wheel or fender touching the right-hand curb. Where no curbs or barriers bound any roadway, right-hand parallel parking is required unless otherwise indicated.
(b) The provisions of subdivision (a) or (e) do not apply to a commercial vehicle if a variation from the requirements of subdivision (a) or (e) is reasonably necessary to accomplish the loading or unloading of merchandise or passengers on, or from, such vehicle and while anything connected with such loading, or unloading, is being executed.
This subdivision shall not be construed to permit any vehicle to stop or park upon a roadway in a direction opposite to that in which traffic normally moves upon that half of the roadway on which such vehicle is stopped or parked.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (b), local authorities may, by ordinance, prohibit commercial vehicles from stopping, parking, or standing on one side of a roadway in a business district with the wheels of such vehicle more than 18 inches from the curb. The ordinance shall be effective only if signs are placed in the areas to which it is applicable clearly indicating the prohibition.
(d) This section does not apply to vehicles of a public utility when such vehicles are being used in connection with the operation, maintenance, or repair of facilities of the public utility or are being used in connection with providing public utility service.
(e) Upon a one-way roadway, vehicles may be stopped or parked as provided in subdivision (a) or with the left-hand wheels parallel to and within 18 inches of the left-hand curb, except that motorcycles, if parked on the left-hand side, shall have either one wheel or one fender touching such curb. Where no curb or barriers bound any such one-way roadway, parallel parking on either side is required unless otherwise indicated.
The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply upon the roadways of a divided highway.
Amended Ch. 448, Stats. 1971. Operative May 3, 1972.
Slashdot Mirror
After seeing that car, I don't think I would want to go 90MPH in it....
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
In Europe we've seend this cars since probably 5 years ago. Right now there are getting popular the new SMART FORFOUR, which offers 4 places in an also reduced space. I think here it was distributed together with either BMW or Mercedes. Haven't heard anything about that "ZAP" thing...
serioulsy this wasn't already been sold in the US ????
it'll like 5 years old in europe, third gen model are shipping now
do you think it's intentional that it looks like a Radio Shack Zip-Zap?e =CTLG&category_name=CTLG_006_005_002_004&product_i d=60-7017/
http://www.radioshack.com/product.asp?catalog_nam
...yup...
I believe it folds up into a briefcase for you to take in to the office once you finish your drive. ______ Kratos
The FourTwo is OK, but I just got myself one of these babies.. a Smart Roadster Couple Brabus. Pretty much all of the fuel ecomomy and a top speed of 120mph. Sorted. Oh yes, you cant't get them in North America for at least a couple of years.. heheh :)
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
if you want a smart car, I'd buy some shares, they are very good about incentives on products to shareholders.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
How about a a 90 mpg car that can go 60 mph? Wouldn't that better progress?
Smart car are made by Smart
-- Et Dieu dit "M-x lumiere" et la lumiere fut. --
That "unaffiliated party" is Mercedes Benz (and hence ultimately, Daimler Chrysler). I wonder why they don't seem to want to market it themselves, and are relying on Zap instead. Worried about it being a flop in the US and not wanting to damage their reputation, perhaps?
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Then the only "smart" thing to drive (extrapolating from your statement) would then be another Hummer or behemoth SUV, which i sure as fuck would not be driving.
Let's not be a part of the problem.
-tid242
With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. --Carl Sagan
Who are ZAP?
Here in South Africa the cars had Mercedes badges attached. They've been here for years - I'm suprised that they haven't been available in the US until now.
Daar is nie 'n lepel nie
That's a matter of opinion. Personally, I think it looks like my ass.
Maybe you should lose some weight?
Is this the same 'SMART' car as the one sold by Mercedes in Europe? Sure looks like it, but I can't see any reference to that.
---- join dshield.org Distributed Intrusion Detec
We've had these, or things that look just like these in the UK for quite some time. Looking cool in, IMHO, would not really be possible .... and of course there is the question that people ponder over about whether if one was stopped suddenly it would start rolling end of end .... :)
t
If this thing looks "cool" to you, I'd hate to see what wasn't cool....
Clearly the sensible thing to do then is to not let people drive hugly uneconomic SUVs then!
Actually, you'd come out of that kind of collission pretty well. The Smart's tridion safety cage is almost indestructable. I've seen this thing crash tested.. the outside of the car is the entire crumple zone, and the passengers are protected in the safety cell. No cabin instrusions, nothing. Up against a normal road car, the Smart usually comes off better.
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
We have had them in the UK for a couple of years.
;-)
Most people would agree that they look quite handy for getting around in cities, but they look a bit weird, and they have very little luggage space, so hardly anyone actually buys them.
I honestly can't see them taking off in the states. Too small & too well engineered*
*Yeah I know British cars are crap, which is why we all buy Japanese and German.
Great. Y'all run out and buy one. I'll stick with a real vehicle. 20 miles a gallon doesn't bother me too much.
Can't Honda bring something like the CRX back? Didn't those get like 55mpg, while being a halfway substantial car (albeit for only two people)?
As for its appearance, "cool" is a very subjective term.
These cars have been driving around in Europe for a few years allready.
They are better than you'd expect from such a small package, allso more expensive than you'd expect.
Have you ever been in one? I drove one last week and it was surprisingly comfortable (I'm 1.86m, so hardly tiny).
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
Zap must be some kind of marketing company, these cars are manufactured by Daimler Chrysler. They're sold under the 'Smart' brand in Europe. In the UK most Benz dealers have them.
Before all the yanks start with 'Wouldn't fancy that against a Humvee' - These performed very very well in the NCAP tests, in faireness, I wouldn't fancy anything VS humvee, these cars are certainly no worse than your usual run of the mill.
What does ZAP add to Mercedes' version?
They are pretty safe cars. UKs fifth gear plowed one into a solid brick wall at 70mph and the driver cell came off intact. Even the doors opened and closed.
I have already seen some posts about how "dangerous" these cars will be in the states when sharing the road with the "killer" SUVs and such-- but let me dispell some prejudices:
1. SMART cars are essentially big roll cages with coverings for the hood, door, and roof. They are quite safe for the riders should there be an accident. Moreover, they are engineered to "bounce" away from an oncoming impact.
2. With the engines placed as they are, a front-end collision does not put the block in the drivers lap (and crush his legs).
3. I would much much much rather be in one of these than some crumplicious dwarf from Ford
davejenkins.com |
Does anyone know what these things might go for in the US?
When you're stuck in city traffic for hours at a time you dont need 2 tonnes of metal around you to survive a 2mph crash.
I assuming that you have never been in a smart car as they are actually quite comfortable. I am 6'2" and have no problems with leg room or driving position.
It's called "Smart" for a reason. The whole thing is based around a nearly-indestructable safety cage like an F1 car. They are incredibly safe. Yeah, a bit strange to drive though.
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
Please, have you seen the crash test specs/results? if not, pipe down.
as uncomfortable a driving experience as can be
Have you ever driven in one? if not pipe down.
Maybe this car isn't suitible for your use, but don't assume is isn't suitible for everyone. It is ideal for driving round towns and in busy streets where there is little parking.
http://100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1960/cad60.htm Cadillac
If I was in the market for a 2-seat super-efficient car, why would I buy one from a manufacturer that has limited support/service options?
l _overview .asp?ModelName=Insight
Compare the Zap to Honda's Insight
http://automobiles.honda.com/models/mode
60/66 mpg city/highway
(I can't view the Toyota Prius because of evil plugin-requirements.)
Honda, has a proven track record of quality automobiles.
Zap, in Europe? I don't know. Colour me ignorant.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
On the downside because the car is rather high and narrow (think two mopeds bolted together side by side), I'm told they can be scarey in side-winds.
The Smart has actually been proven to come off very well in crashes.
There is no engine in the front of a Smart to be pushed into the passenger compartment (preventing leg injuries etc.)
A UK TV show demo'd the Smart being crashed into a solid concrete wall at 70mph. Amazingly, the tridion safety cell preserved the shape of the vehicle sufficiently that the doors would still open/close. Another bonus is the low mass and hence inertia of the Smart which means you can litterally 'bounce-off' solid objects while dissipating crash energy in a safe manner.
The Smart also features high-quality airbags to prevent neck/back injuries.
Furthermore, the Smart is pedestrian-friendly, once-again, the hapless would-be road-kill bounces off the plastic panels and there are no suspension turrets to impale them.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
In Canada, Mercedes isn't even marketing them - there's a long waiting list, without them even spending a dime on advertising.
Hah! Imagine when your SUV is hit head on by an Abrahms tank! And they all suck if an asteroid hits you straight on! Well - it is a decent car with high sitting positions. I don't think its less safe than some Civic. (Yes, I've seen those on the streets. In Russia even).
Fifth Gear (a UK TV program) recently did a crash test between a remote-control-rigged smart car and a concrete barrier at 70mph, then did the same with an Opel/Vauxhal Corsa (GM's European mini car).
:-S
The Smart Car did as well as the Corsa - the occupant wouldn't have been squished, but in both cases the g-force would probably have killed them. The thing about the Smart though is the crumple zones are very small, so although the body stays rigid, there is less to absorb the force, so, unscientifically, I would imagine that the car would stop anything up to twice as quickly (half the crumple zone length...) meaning twice the G-Force, and half the chance to live.
As for looking cool - well over here in Britain I think most of us got bored quickly... especially with those people that insisted on having cow skin print Smarts
Bizarre that it took so long for a car as clean and safe (see http://www.euroncap.com - this car is safer than a Dodge Neon or Voyager...) as this to be passed in the US, where road safety and average fuel consumption is now far worse than it was 20 years ago, thanks to SUVs...
On channel 5 in the UK recently they showed Smart cars being driven into various other large cars. It came off very well. To do a final test they drove a Smart into a concrete barrier at 70mph to see what would happen. The car come off fine. Both doors would open and one would even shut again.
Unfortunately, anybody in the car at the time would be dead due to internal injuries. No amount of safety cages, seat belts and air bags will stop your guts from going splat internally when decelerating from 70mph to 0 in about 1 meter.
wot no sig
Drive one myselve...
...Finally a 60 mpg car that can go 90 mph and look cool at the same time!!...
If we're going to talk about a Daimler-Chrysler product that looks cool, how about this. The Zap looks like a golf cart with a good paintjob.
Anyone know how much they cost? Anyone driven one?
Have you seen the images of the car?
It might look "different", and "futuristic", but it by no means looks cool to me. It looks like some bastard offspring of a VW Beetle, and a British Mini.
If you want a car that looks cool, I suggest going here. (just my 2 bits...)
Its nice they got the dinky one approved, but did the coupe thingie get approved as well?
That might be worth having, but the stupid looking one? Nah.. no thanks.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
ZAP gets the cars from European dealers. DCX has nothing to do with it, because they feel that there is not enough demand to balance the risks. ZAP thinks different and does it on its own.
I've always been an in-principle fan of these SMARTs. I haven't driven one, but I've been inside one at various motor shows and there's plenty of space for two plus shopping or weekend luggage. You're not going to go trans-America with it, but to think about in that way is missing the point.
It makes an excellent city car. There are a decent number kicking around in London, and I seem to remember seeing even more when I was Hamburg a few years ago. In the city, you don't care about 90mph, you care that you can pull out nippily, find a parking space and turn round. This is the best answer I've seen since the original Mini (or maybe the Renault Twingo - never did understand why that didn't make it to the UK).
I'm actively considering swapping a Jaguar X-Type for one. Reason? My car mainly drives me to the train station in the morning and back, and a Jag is total overkill for that. We have an S-Type also for weekend trips or serious travel...why have two cars that do the same job? Only thing holding me back at the moment is a concern about its ability to cope with bad weather.
No, I'm seriously interested in these.
Cheers,
Ian
Seriously - awesome pictures. I didn't see one where the SMART car had intrusions into the cabin.
These cars are awesome, and incredibly cool. The amount of options you have when you choose outside/inside colors/textures is amazingly wide.
But not everybody fall in love with its bubble shape, of course
Check this.
Up against a normal road car, the Smart usually comes off better.
Uh, but what about the people inside?!
It's not the impact that kills you, it's the sudden stop.
More mass always wins. This Zaptaskic thing is just a motorcycle with a roll cage.
Surely they have enough of a hard time selling more euro-centric compacts like the Ford Focus in the US? A tinier car would surely be a hard sell. Long distances, rather than short city hops being what seems to influence American buying power.
As for safety, I'd be as happy in one of these than anything short of a big Volvo. They drove one into a concerete block at 75mph (by remote control) on UK tv programme 'Fifth Gear' a few weeks ago, and it came out of it pretty well.
Incidentally, there's some think-tank today bemoaning the penchant for consumers to buy ridiculously huge cars, on health and environmental reasons. They argue that proportionately more damage to the environment through gas-guzzling, and health (deaths through running people over, etc) is caused by larger cars than smaller cars. Film at 11.
I saw these all over the place when I travelled to Italy in late 2000. When I got back, I showed some of the photos I took to my jeep dealer, who was familiar with the car (it's made by Daimler/Chrysler, just like my jeep), and he was even familiar with the car.
He said the only way D/C would bring the car to the states was if they could a) get it to pass US emissions standards (looks like they did), and b) gas prices skyrocketed (looks like they did)
I do plan on buying one of these. It'll fit in my garage WITH my jeep.
Now a decent Smart car is the Brabus version of the roadster.
:
. ht ml
;)
I think the petrol engine is something like a 0.7 litre 3 cylinder with a low pressure turbo.. Brabus made 6 proof of concepts with basically two of the engines welded together to produce a twin turbo V6. And being as they weigh nothing it went like absolute stink.. even the wheels they used looked really nice as well.
Some piccies here
http://www.fast-autos.net/brabus/brabusroadster
Shame they'll never make it as a production car really. Its the only Smart i'd ever own
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
I think this is definitely a nice way to go if you're looking to save the environment. Electrics cars have many problems including range, recharge time, and the fact that most electricity is generated by fossil fuels or nuclear power anyway. Hydrogen doesn't have a good enough distribution system, and takes electricity, generated from fossil fuels, to produce anyway. I think that efficient gas vehicles could really do the environment a favour, with inconveniencing the people driving them.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
The MSNBC article that is linked on the ZAP site say $12,000 for the basic model and up to $20,000 for the convertible with all the options.
There are a few posts here talking about support too, saying the Honda Insight is a better purchase because of proven track record. The Insight is battery electric that needs to be completely replaced after 6 years, it also is a VERY expensive car $36,000 for what you get.
This vehicle will most likely be serviced at Mercedes or Chrysler dealerships and runs on ordinary gas.
The surprising thing is this gets as good a gas mileage as the Honda Insight 60MPH - and may be safer and better for the environment.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
the Insight has similar proportions; is it built on the CRX chassis? seems plausible, esp. because honda started offering hybrids with the smallest size and is working up.
Hmm..
I have nothing witty to fill this space with yet.
At last! I've been chasing after these with my Dodge Caravan in Spain for years, waiting for one to ignore a "Yield" or "Stop" sign to ram it and reduce it to smithereens. But alas, few people drive big enough cars here.
Now that they're sold in the US we're bound to see some gruesome fatalities as they embed themselves under the tires of the ubiquitous SUVs and Hummers.
Finally people will realize the sorry excuse for a car this shit is!
If you're looking for mileage take a look at what Audi or Volkswagen have to offer. You can get easily 40 mpg without looking like a circus clown accessory.
---- Take the Space Quiz!
Having owned one of these for a few years, may I suggest a few plus points, tailored for slashdotters.
0. the cup holder is large enough for a thermally efficient coffee mug.
1. the boot area is large enough for two laptop rucksacks and an overnight bag, perfect for commuting.
2. the passenger seat can be folded flat, providing enough space to easily transport both a 22" monitor and an Extended ATX case.
3. with the iMove centrepiece, you can plug your iPod into it.
4. the soft top has a remote control.
6. this lanky geek (196cm 98k) finds it spacious - more roomy than say a Ford Mondeo (IIRC called a Galaxy over the pond).
7. it can be powered down in the tiniest of spaces
boakes.org
Insert obligatory "US is teh suck, Europe is the coolest" troll here. (Yeah, if you want to be first in taxation, Statism, and irrationality)
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Damn, I wish I could mod .sigs :)
It drove past me once as I was walking to lunch in the city, the sight of two cops in this thing made me and a lot of other people piss ourselves laughing :-)
You could tell the cops felt like dicks in it, they just had these sheepish grins on their faces...
it's just a yuppy shopping trolley. Won't solve congestion, it'll just mean more people in smaller cars. Walk. Cycle. Get the bus. Rollerskate.
They are also designed to park "end-on" to the curb - they are the length of a normal car's width. Great for those San Fransisco hills? ;)
Only downside is there's not much room between your arm and the window. They are generally very safe, but a friend's friend (sorry) toppled one on a motorway, slid it on its side and mashed his arm nastily. I'd still get one for the city driving tho'.
Galmarley - Free research on economic hi
This car is designed purely for city driving. It's a 2 seater car, and when you actually see them up close, they are really dinky.
Personally, I think they are great. I probably wouldn't have one as an only car, but have it as a second car for city driving only.
Seemingly the majority of cars caught speeding in London are Smart cars. Only in the UK and here they are Mercedes Smart cars (designed by the Swatch people, no less).
T.
I have always wanted a car that looks like a door wedge.
(UK) I took delivery of a Smart ForTwo two weeks ago, and the grin still hasn't left my face.
They're superbly well made, very very quick off the mark. I grew up driving Minis (proper minis, not those funny BMW things) and this Smart is the logical progression.
On the bad side, they're noisy when you stick your foot down hard, the traction control is a bit keen in places, and the standard stereo system blows.
Other than that, I could not be happier. Please take one for a test drive before you judge!
yes, www.dotcomforwardslash.com is my real URL.
SMART is a joint venture between Daimler and Swatch. They are the unaffiliated party.
The word "unaffiliated" means a company which this company doesn't have a relationship with. That means DC aren't "relying" on Zap, Zap is merely buying the cars on the open market, converting them and selling them somewhere else.
If DC wanted to bring the car here themselves, Zap would just take it in the shorts. Much like another company did (I forget the name) when M-B brought the G500 here. I have two friends who bought the converted models by a remarketer/federalizer before M-B brought it.
...IF I had to pick one, I guess I like the worldcar LUV the most, even though performance claims are wimpy. Looks normal & pure electric. Cage a plugin at work for it, have some dedicated solar panels for it at home. With that said, make it bigger, a couple/three feet longer say, with a larger motor and more batteries, and have the batteries be "maintenance friendly", not "maintenance free". And the roof of the car itself could be a few panels just "because". Lead acid batts you can add distilled water to once in awhile are a lot more economical and functional. It would fit, people are used to periodic "oil change", so periodic "battery top-off" isn't that hard to grok. They even make "hydrocaps" for that purpose, helps to keep the batteries full.
Can only mean:
- Sticker prices raised $2500 to cover tax.
- Fuel economy will actually be half of sticker.
- RFID installed in several places.
- Cost to import spare parts is 700% over cost.
- Registration will cost double of the state next to you.
- It comes equipped with Diebold electronics to automatcally vote for you in the next election.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
In Spain these cars are known officially as 4-wheel quadro-cycles, not cars. They fall into the same classification as motorised wheelchairs and bicycles.
I kid you not, I'm studying for my driving test!
get 60mpg. IMO both look good. 145kph no problem
US EPA has a web site where one may compare cars.
Driving a hybrid is rather unnerving the first few months because the engine starts and stops on it's own.
EPA figures are a little off from reality. A friend has a geo and consistabtly gets 50+ mpg on the freeway. Also the Subaru Justy does much better than EPA numbers.
Another friends civic hybrid (honda) averages 47mpg with, conservative, mostly freeway driving.
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
Several weeks ago they arrived in Canada and I've started seeing them around the Toronto area. I will concur with other posters that as a 6'4" individual I had no trouble with interior room when I sat in one at this year's auto show. I am also equally convinced that they will protect a passenger in the event of a collision. The diminutive diesel engine is located under the floor in the back so even in the event of a high-speed front-end crash the engine will most likely pass under your seat on it's way forward.
However my concern is how this vehicle will handle in winter weather driving. All of the weight is over the rear tires which may make cornering and breaking more difficult, as will the overall light weight of the vehicle.
Furthermore the tires are very VERY small. I would guess at 12" or less. The puts the axle very close to the road and I would expect that you will be susceptible to being dragged and thrown around by snow and slush buildup. Of course it has every traction and stability control system they could throw at it, but this only works if your tires are actually on the road...
Great commuter car, but you might be safer working from home in bad winter weather.
Here in Europe it has been possible to buy 60mpg cars that will do 90mph+ for years...I really don't see how this is a revelation. Most new hatchbacks (especially the turbodiesels) can do this. Hell my 15 year old Peugeot 205 can do 55mpg.
This is not a troll but it would be really nice when certain parts of the world realise that having a 2.5 tonne behemoth that barely can get 5mpg is just not a smart idea.
...Americans thin enough to actually fit in the damn thing!!
All the components are manufactured and processed by a bunch of companies working together in one factory, the ERP systems trade with each other constantly and they deliver stock as it moves about, for example a door processing company might fit the window then send the completed door on a hook on a chain from the roof, when it reaches a particular point on it's way to the car a transaction takes place from one ERP selling it and delivering it to another. The next system belonging to the next company takes over and bolts it to the car.
One for each foot.
But seriously, who in their right mind is going to drive one of those dinky things in the U.S.? Some schmuck in a Hummer could run right over you without even knowing it-- or just knock you aside like a bowling pin.
From the ZAP Smart Car page:
Don't be fooled by its charming, futuristic look
So, they're saying it's really old and boring?
One thing to watch out for are claims that it is safer because of X oe Y. It still comes down to that it is a small car.
In Europe it still only got a 3-star rating. Follow the link to the MSNBC artcile from the ZAP link at the top.
Oh, boucning is no good if you bounce into another moving vehicle. I don't thing road way ping pong is a safety feature I want to try out.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
If there ever was an inappropriately-named car, this is it.
In South America, it's Chevrolet. (like in "Chevrolet Corsa", or "Chevrolet Celta"
We call Opel the european imports, German maybe?
The problem with the Smat car being "one big safety cage" is that it has no crumple zones to slow impact. You see: as the crumple zones are crushed, energy is dissipated. Having the entire car solid is going to translate into g-force injuries to occupants. I's like putting an egg into a bank safe, and then throwing the bank safe off a four-story building. The safe might still be in one piece, but what happened to the egg? ...Also, it will probably end up priced so high in the US that people who will most desire to have a high-efficiency car (poorer people) will not be able to afford one. High rates of g-force injuries will translate into high liability costs for the importer, which will result in high retail prices. I will start my bid at $20,000, Alex....
Also, we note that most of the electric cars on the "for sale" page are really amazingly crap-tastic. 25MPH for 25 miles? That's not a drive, it's a bicycle ride.
~
"...Finally a 60 mpg car that can go 90 mph and look cool at the same time!!"
Look cool? I seriously hope the poster was joking. That is the ugliest machine I have ever seen, it beats the VW Thing and the Honda Element hands down.
The story seems a bit like a plant.. and well, the web site doesn't seem to go into Price... Pricing being something that would put this all into prospective... Is this something that working stiffs can afford or just a play toy for the rich.
The Mini ATM is 699.00 but someone I'm thinking the car is more expensive...
Is it 6k? 15k? or 25k?
http://www.hawknest.com/
you are absolutely right. I used to hear the same FDUd from people when I bought and drove my 88 Pontiac Fiero GT that could easily do 160mpg and after some very cheap mods still would kick the arse of any ricer on the road today.
People would call it a deathtrap, freaked out when I mentioned that their armrest was the gas tank, and ignored that it recieved one of the highest safety ratings of all the sports cars of it's size and was very high in safety rating for all cars of that time.
These are also the same people that think a SUV is safer even though more people die is SUV accidents than small car accidents.
If you are insterst in safety then drive a minivan or other highest rated safe in crash tests cars.
I have 2 smart's on order now. I paid them a 50% deposit on both cars back 6 months ago and can not wait to drive these econoboxes 140+ miles daily on combined highway and city driving.
also for anyone interested, these things are insanely quick off the starting line because of their light weight. Almost feels like the honda insight with it's low end torque that is higher than most mucscle cars. It took a ton of willpower to not go to Canada and illegally import one after I had my first test drive in one 3 months ago.
at $15,900.00 for the base model these things are a steal and put all the hybrids to shame in efficiency department.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Any which way you twist or turn it, it is definitely _not_ a safe vehicle. Just because the vehicle survive a crash, does not mean you do. The makers of miniature cars all claim that they have found a way to make their car-alikes safe enough for a collision with a real car or even a concrete wall. However, that is just not possible. Real cars are designed to be "crash compatible to each other, meaning that the zones and structures within the cars that take up the kinetic energy of the impact are positioned in a way for optimum result. Miniatures do not come close to the geometry a real car has and which is required to be crash compatible. Instead of trying to minimize the amount of kinetic energy that has to be buffered by the car structures, they make these materials extra hard and rigid so that they will pass the impact shock through the passenger compartment. During a crash test this strategy achieves extremely good results as far as the passenger cage itself undergoes only minimal deformation.
However, and this is where the low survivability comes in, much like in aircraft crashes where not even one bone of the recovered corpses was broken, a passenger in a Smart/Zap/Mini-whatever will most likely not die because of being crushed during impact but because of internal bleeding as blood vessels and organs are burst because of the shock of impact. This is also called the "pretty corpse" phenomenon.
"Can't take the team out to lunch with it."
Right, and in America the members of the team don't have their own cars. Bullshit. With cellphones rampant and everyone owning their own vehicles, there's no reason to shove everybody in one car. It just distracts the driver to have everybody talking. And of course one member of the team is sure to have insisted on his behemoth.
"Can't go shopping with it."
It carries a decent amount of groceries. Admittedly, given the amount Americans eat...
In any case, with the money you save on gas you can easily pay for a taxi on the few occasions that you actually buy enough to take up that much space.
"Can't pack up the family in it."
You know, a huge number of people aren't parents of 1.7 kids. In any case, such families try their best to own two cars... so why not 1.7 cars instead? One for packing everyone up, one for errands. At that level of usage, this thing'd last forever.
"Probably wouldn't want to drive cross town in it."
Why not? You don't like being able to nip in and out of traffic quickly with a windshield that gives you much improved visibility and using far less gas while you do it?
What it comes down to is that Americans haul around a car which is just a little larger than is sufficient for their absolute peak space needs. That may make sense if you can only have one car, but if you have two the second should almost never be something bigger than this.
We mind.
I don't like big cars, they are a bitch to park.
There is no other reason but culture and tradition for transporting a huge pile of iron to work and back just because you like to carry luggage once in a while.
One of the tests shown was an offset head on impact with a Mercedes S-class. Can't recall the speeds, but the combined speed was high. The front of the s-class was seriously smashed in by the smart car. The front of the smart car too was a mess BUT crucially the passenger compartment of the smart was intact and the occupants would have escaped serious injury.
However, because the passenger shell of the SMART car is so strong and stiff, some tests have shown high passenger loads due to restraints. No doubt due to the small crumple zones on the vehicle.
So I guess if you hit something in a SMART, hit something with a crumple zone that you can share!
In Richmond (that's a district in London), there's a guy who owns a green smart car and lives on a busy road. He keeps it parked at right angles to the kerb.
It sticks out a little bit, but seeing as most roads in London are too narrow for two lanes of traffic once there are people parked down both sides, you could actually line one side of the road with smarts at 90 degrees without affecting the driveability of the road at all. And you've just effectively increased the parking capacity of the road by 50%.
My other processor is big-endian.
That car does NOT look cool.
www.thejulingtoncreekplantaion.com
Yikes, it has Power Windows. How about a cross-platform version?
Bert
If you keep the Power Windows glass wall closed, viruses will still sneak in thru one of many leaks.
-It's made in Europe so it will cost more than an american car. Free trade? Yeah right...
-The way I see it cars are more inexpensive in USA. So the competition and price level on used/second hand cars is more competitive. This car will have to compete with a lot of three year old cars that are much cheaper.
-Gas is less expensive in USA than in Europe so the incentive to buy a high milage car just isn't there.
-The average car(and person :-)..) in USA is much heavier. In Europe the most likely car to crash with is a 1500kg car with crumble zones and the bumper in the same height as the Smart. In USA you are much more likely to crash with a 3-ton truck without crumble zones and a bumper 20 cm above your Smarts bumper. Even if the constructinon of the Smart will protect the car from collapsing your organs will collapse in a crash. Remember that the Suburban will continue in the same direction. The Smart is just too light compared to most other cars on the road. No advanced construction can make up for that when the car lacks crumble zones and the other cars are so heavy. Imagine going from 30 mph in one direction to 20 mph in the other direction in less than a second. Then think about how it will be in 40 mph , 50 mph, 60 mph....
So congratulations to al the congersmen and senators that have managed to create a system that promote excessive use of energy and old constructions. The fact that this kills a lot of people every day, in many ways...; is just a nice bonus.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
ZAP is a company headquartered in the town of Santa Rosa, California - part of the greater San Francisco Bay Area. They originally started with electric-powered two wheeled vehicles.
Here is the link to their company overview page: http://www.zapworld.com/about/index.asp
"being driven into various other large cars. It came off very well"
Well , aside from the fact that when they drove it into a large Merc it was tossed to one side and rolled over a few times. Perhaps not lethal but the Smart passengers would be a hell of a lot more shaken up that the ones in the Merc. Now replace that merc with a large SUV.
When I tried to sign up I got this nastygram:
/cars/colorPoll.asp, line 10
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e57'
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]String or binary data would be truncated.
You've obviously not seen the Smart Roadster, i agree the normal smart car looks bad but the roadster looks nice
The Smart car is actually of Swiss origin. The project was started by Swiss watch (Swatch) manufacturer Hayek who approached Volkswagen with his ideas (which were at that stage much more enviromentally friendly). Volkswagen did not have the guts to actually produce the vehicle and Hayek ended up with a joint venture with Mercedes Benz. The design was altered and ended up the way it is now (a car for cities featuring low fuel consumption but with only standard technology). The brand name Smart consists of the parts S for Swatch, M for Mercedes Benz and A for art.
:-)
:-)
When the Smart hit the market, it met initial setbacks and marketing fiascos for Mercedes when spectacular accidents occured. Smart cars would lose traction and fall over backwards due to the heavy engine being located in the back end. After the cars were given ESP (electronic stability program) as a standard feature, this effect seems to have disappeared and the Smart has become a car that especially people in bigger cities love because of the fact that you always manage to find a parking spot
I am not surprised that Mercedes Benz/Daimler Crysler does not advertise this as their car because in the U.S. their main line of cars are even more of a luxury item than they are over here in Germany. Selling a shopping cart for young people does not fit their image as a luxury car manufacturer.
Whether the Smart is able to compete with the recent trend of asian hybrid vehicles in the U.S. is another story and remains to be seen. I guess those fall into another category because they are full size cars
Took years but we finally have a car that makes a Yugo look good. A car that my Humvee can flatten like a M1 Abrams tank can do to a normal car. Bla ha ha ha ha! A wearable car. Watch out for strong winds, could blow you down!
I generate enough waste veg oil from my turkey fryer to drive for a week. Around here, the land of the giant pickup trucks, I'm sure it would be a laughing stock. I'd cry all the way to the bank, stopping off at my friend's Chinese restaurant to pick up his waste oil for next week. Then I'll laugh passing them at the gas station putting 60 bucks worth of gasoline in their monster trucks that actually get used to haul something maybe once a month.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
...Why bother.
Especially with Honda about to introduce the Honda Fit here in the USA within next 18 months.
For those who don't know, the Honda Fit (known as the Jazz in Europe) is an very small car that has just as much interior room as a Honda Civic sedan and is quite a bit more fuel efficient than the Civic, especially when powered by the 1.3-liter I-4 i-DSI engine. Honda has publicly said that they will sell a car smaller than the Civic in the USA market soon, especially since Honda will design the next-generation Honda Civic due in September 2005 for a more upmarket type of buyer; the Honda Fit will fill the gap for first-time Honda car buyers here in the USA. However, note that the Honda Fit Americans will get will NOT be the current model sold in Japan and Europe, but a slightly-larger second-generation model designed with larger-sized American passengers and side-curtain air bags in mind; that new model is supposed to be unveiled in Japan this coming summer.
it's a mercedes class A coupé, no doubt about it.
Do people really have such a problem saying the word "passed"?
The facts regarding auto safety is shocking. Take a look at the least safe vehicles on the road, and you'll find it packed with SUVs.
On the flip side, you'll find that the safest cars are small.
Sure, a Hummer could do some serious body damage to a Miata.
But just look at the statistics: Who is more likely to be injured or die: passengers in a Hummer, or passengers in a Miata?
big, ugly and stupid.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
In modern cars you have crumple zones and lots of metal 'softener' to obsorb some of the impact.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
...will end anyone's illusion that this is a safe, "Smart" car.
This car isn't new - it's been around for many many years here in Europe, but what's confusing me is this "Zap" thing. Who on earth are Zap?
I'm confused enough already as in the UK, you seem to be able to buy "Smart" and Mercedes versions of this car. Is it just that they are licensing the design to lots of different manufacturers?
By the way - you do NOT want to crash one of these cars. The only thing that can possibly crumple in a car this small is the bit where the passengers hit. I'm not guessing - I've seen one that had been in a head-on collision at 60mph it was VERY VERY small afterwards (like, shorter than it was wide!). Not pretty
Swatch sold its shares of Smart to Daimler-Benz AG in 1998. So Smart has been a fully-owned Daimler subsidiary for six years now.
Marko Karppinen
According to Google, 60 mpg is 3.9 l/100km and 90mph is 145 km/h.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
i think you mean the roadster looks worse
The same could be said for a motorcycle, yet they are legal and you can carry up to two passengers on one (w/side car).
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Gas isn't that expensive, and my Ford Mustang GT Convertable, eats gas just like any car with a V8. And since it gets really cold up here in the north, I like to think of it as my way of keeping the planet warm.
I have one in the garage. It's a Honda Insight. It has mileage that varies between about 40 and 120 mpg depending on how aggressively you drive in it and what terrain you drive it over. However, when I was cruising (cough) at 90 mph, it was still getting about 50 mpg. The problem -- they really aren't selling very well even though they (for the most part) are pretty nice cars. There is also the Toyota Prius that gets 50+ mpg, which I would take a long time before the Smart Car. Americans are comfort creatures with relatively cheap gas. California is even talking about doing away with the gas tax and replacing it with a miles driven tax, so that will take another incentive to get cars with reasonable gas mileage. We are also lead foots. Chrysler offers V8 HEMI engines on many of its models and it appears to be a popular option. Why people would want 300 HP in a station wagon I'm not sure. But it's their money (for the larger engine and extra gas). We have also been subjected to some of the crummiest small cars out there. There never has been a small car (other than say the new Minis) in full production that are something other than rattletraps. There was the Yugo, the Geo Metro 1L hatchback, The Ford Aspire, and numerous others. All of them were awful cars coming off the showroom floor. The reason we don't have any diesels here is because of the early 80s diesels that Detroit offered that broke down at 30-50,000 miles. They used converted gas engines which couldn't stand up to the stresses. The Honda Accord used to be a small car, now it's almost a full sized sedan. The Civic used to be a small car, now it's getting bigger every year. If the smart car is going to succeed in the US marketplace, it needs to be a nice rock solid car that runs well and doesn't have many problems. Otherwise it will be the latest version of the Daewoo and Kia. It will also need to be cheap, which is hard to do and keep quality up. I suspect that a small car costs about the same as a large car to make given the same quality standards. The only difference I see is the amount of bulk metal and other materials (ie paint), which MIGHT be $1000. The actual part counts are probably pretty close to each other. I agree it is a good idea to bring them in. I just hope they do it right because Americans are getting more and more suspicious about different car ideas.
I've been driving one of these for almost two years now and I'd have to say that it is the best car I've ever owned. Not since the original Mini (not that huge monstrosity by BMW) has a car been produced which seems to generate so much goodwill from fellow road users.
Many of the design elements are innovative but not in a non-essential luvvie kind of way (I'm thinking VW new Beetle here) rather it all just works.
In an age where automotive design is sometimes reduced to retro styling an existing model to make it look like a more intersting classic from a bygone era (again new mini and new beetle, sorry but I just hate these cars, they are the wheeled equivalent of stone clad houses or a cover version of a much loved song by some talentless teenaged boy band) it's refreshing to me to own a car where every element has been carefully considered from the ground up.
Anyway I'm obviously biased because I own one and I don't expect that they'll tempt you lot out of your SUVs just yet but you should really try one out before you write them off.
Hah, but seriously Mazda DID make a briefcase car back in the 90s. IIRC it could hit 35mph, and folded up into a standard-sized briefcase for taking into the office. Pretty fresh!
Check Google Images for "briefcase car" and it should pop up a few snapshots of it.
SNACKS ARE AWESOME
The hybrids I have seen actually seem to get better milage in the city than on the highway, because of their hybrid nature.
One that a friend has was rated that way. So just because someone is measuring highway MPG below the rated number does not mean it does not get better mileage in the city.
I'm not wanting to be a troll here, but after having read all of these comments, I am now beginning to see how Dubya became the Prez once again.
Talk about ignorance...
Love all, Trust few, Follow one.
...it's considered somewhat of a "Holy Grail" to get to the 60mpg/90mph horizon. Funny how that works, eh?
SNACKS ARE AWESOME
Go to MSNB and watch the crash test
this thing takes a coupe out
it's 25 km/l (tnx google calc :))
Thats decent. Not as decent as my moped (35 km/l | 82 mpg) but still, very nice.
12 grand for the no frills model and 20 grand for everything? Sorry, not gonna fly in the US.
Esp for something that small.
For someone who has money to blow for the coolness factor, maybe. But this thing aint gonna fly for Joe Sixpack.
The Volvo had a slightly bent tailgate, badly scratched bumper, and a broken tail light.
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:
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.
I like microcars
I'd buy one as a second car.
That said, my first car is a Prius.
I imagine the ridiculous reactions of closet case SUV drivers could be amusing. I see some of that with the Prius, some people really can't stand being behind one.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
...I can't help envisioning a Hummer or Mack truck with some of these "smart" cars embedded in the radiator; kind of like butterflies or grasshopers you pick up on cross country trips.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/id/? id=112409
V6, 167 bhp, twin turbo, yum!
Only 10 made though, unfortunately...
Ciao
Zak
....some redneck yanks that 60 mpg powertrain and replaces it with a 500 HP smallblock?
Looks like my son's (2 years old) police car that he sits in an pushs around with his feet.
"You'll die if you hit a motorcycle..."
"I wouldn't take it on the freeway...."
"I couldn't fit in one...."
Overseas, you don't see a lot of SUVs because they are gas guzzlers and gas can cost $4/gallon over there. Americans somehow feel that a 2+ ton vehicle is safe. Going 90mph in a SUV is pretty darn dangerous due to a high risk of rollover. In the event of a rollover (which SUVs are 10x more likely to do in the event of an accident) there is a 35% increase in the possibility of a serious injury.
The fact of the matter: if you're going 60mph and then suddenly de-accelerate to 0 in less than 12 feet, you are going to get hurt. Will you get hurt more in a SMART? No.
In America where bigger=better, we have roads littered with these monstrosites. Because they are called "trucks", they aren't subject to the same emission requirements as a car. The laws surrounding SUVs need to change.
Reading the slashdot opinions here paints an image of America as fat, lazy, and arrogant people with no regard for anything other than themselves.
Or indeed, anything else.
You can see an offset collision between a smart and an s-class here:. avi
http://www.off-road.com/mbenz/videos/Sclass_Smart
Since what part of it looks "cool" ? As a nerd-mobile? Or as a chick-turn-off? Doesn't offer passenger capacity, luggage capacity, strong safety features (i survived a 70mph crash on a Toyota SUV, not sure i can survive with this Zap car), lacks the horsepower, lacks the leather seats, lacks the amensities, lacks the aerodynamic look, and definitely not a car i wanna drive to a hip club in town. Daily commute? Sure. Pleasure or visitors? Give me an Audi.
You do realise that in a lot of Europe (where the smart comes from) the Ford escort is about average, if not above average, in terms of car size?
In Britain a lot of us drive Ford Fiestas and Peugot 206's and the like because they are economical and you don't need a hulking beast of a car. I drive a Ford Ka.
And the smart has a very good safety record. It's a very modern well designed small car. I personally wouldn't be seen dead in one 'cos I think they're ugly......
We still aren't buying it.
>>>>
Legal? Sure...WTF?
So, being Legal is more important to you than being alive, huh?
Yes, but nobody with an ounce of sense is going to argue that a motorcycle is safe.
The company that makes these things is claiming that about this contraption. I'll believe it when I see video of one getting t-boned by a Hummer doing 40 or 50, and see how the crash test dummies fare.
I notice that the specs sheet says "automatic or manual mode selectable," and not "available in manual or automatic."
This makes it sound like there's a button to change "modes" and go from manual to automatic? This would be rather sweet, being able to switch from one to another depending on traffic and other circumstances.
In US roads, one won't be able to spot the car in the rear view mirrors, in the middle of all oversized SUVs...
Dangerous. Also, being so light and small, any little "touch" on the road would send it flying out of the highway. How can it survive a 5 ton Hummer?
a) From anyone with experience, how does the seemingly narrower width affect turning, cornering, and handling in winds?
b) Many people have mentioned that the passenger cabin is strongly re-inforced, but the rest of the body is mainly crumple-zone. How does the car handle in low-speed impact (e.g. does something that would normally crumple a fender on a bigger car cause severe damage to the Smart?)
> Unfortunately, anybody in the car at the time
o n.html
> would be dead due to internal injuries. No amount
> of safety cages, seat belts and air bags will stop
> your guts from going splat internally when
> decelerating from 70mph to 0 in about 1 meter.
Are you sure about that?
say we start at 70mph, which is u=70*1800/(60*60)=35m/s.
Assume the deceleration is uniform, then we can say
v^2=u^2+2as,
now say that the final velocity, v, is zero, and the displacement s is 1.0m, the acceleration a works out as
a=(35**2)/(2*1.0)=612m/s^2
or about 62g
The duration of the impact will be
(70*1800/3600)/612=0.06s
Now, to judge how deadly this is, we look at some data:
http://www.vnh.org/FSManual/02/03ImpactAccelerati
Table 2.6 gives tolerable x direction accelerations of 45-85G depending on whether it is +x or -x direction with times between 0.04 and 0.1s. the earlier charts give similar information.
So even if we do come to a dead (hopefully not literally!) stop from 70mph in one metre, it is very severe, but it is in the range of accelerations that can be survived. The difference between survival and death is likely to be down to the quality of the restraint system "safety cages, seat belts and air bags".
Perhaps you meant Fifth Gear?
The Nov 1 2004 episode of Fifth Gear is the episode that involves a SMART car crashed into a concrete road barrier at 70MPH. The video that pyat posted is also shown in that episode.
A friend with a BMW Isetta (the little one, not the bloated 600cc version) gets tickets in San Francisco for parking perpendicular to the curb, never mind the fact that the car is designed for it. Until the cops are clued, the law doesn't matter as long as paying a parking ticket is less costly than fighting it, if your time is worth anything.
Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
Smart cars were designed (By Swatch and Mercedes) specifically for the kind of driving most Americans do. That is, short-hop, city-driving. It would seem custom made for the market.
:)
The real hurdle seems to be the country's preoccupation for BIG cars. Perhaps Fab! could bundle it with a massive cod-piece, to compensate.
Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
I've had a Smart Pure for the last 14 months and I absolutely love it. £20 fills it up and I get a good 300 miles out of it. It is incredibly comfortable (I've had two 240 pound guys in it and still had pleanty of space), accelerates like a rocket (up to 35 mph ;) ), cuts through traffic like a hot knife through butter and I've never had problems finding a parking space.
Its only problem is aerodynamics. If you go much over 70mph even the slightest cross wind can blow you over the road. This is especially scary when it is raining, windy and you are on a motorway passing lorries. I live in England so these situations are a daily occurance - who wants to live forever!
When I was in the states I really missed my smart car. They would eat up the traffic New York and Philly and on the highways with a 60mph speed limit and 60mpg you just couldn't go wrong.
My only suprise is that Apple arn't marketing it. It really is the car for the rest of us.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
Since I read about the Smart car in Wired a few months back I've wanted one (and I am a US Citizen so yes, some of us care about the environment more than our personal comfort). But the article said that while it has the lowest emissions of any car made, the EPA wouldn't approve it. (why is that?)
That article mentioned that the car gets 70MPG, though, so I suspect that the Zap folks had to do something to it to appease the EPA (makes sense, eh? make it consume more gas so the EPA approves it). Really, given the problems caused by our dependence on foreign oil the US government should be falling all over itself trying to get people to drive cars like this. Tax incentives, etc. (instead we give tax breaks to people who by Hummers).
The article also mentioned a diesel version that would probably be exported to the US and Canada. That would be great as it should burn bioDiesel without any modifications.
If I had some mod points I would give you some for that. Interesting points made and your maths is fine.
However, I doubt you will find too many people who have driven directly into a concrete wall at 70mph and have survived... Your sums + link do suggest though that these sort of crashes are survivable and improved "safety cages, seat belts and air bags" may well allow it in the future.
wot no sig
Here's a couple of reviews : http://www.mcuniverse.com/The_Smart_Car_Comes_to_C anada.1325.0.html
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/pw/05smartc abriolet.htm
Turns out the ZAP thing is important as not only will SMART only be introduced to the US in 2006, which is a way off yet; the US isn't going to get the forTwo. SMART figures, you big car drivin' folk won't want a forTwo and they are going to release a SUV instead.
You know it'd be great if these kind of vehicles would take off in the US. The US heavily influences transportation choices, and those chooses, in North America. If the US driving market changed it's attitude to a more European taste, we could make some serious moves forward with transport options with regard to fuel consumption. Fuel consumption doesn't seem to be taken very seriously in the US as fuel is cheaper in the US than Canada. Therefore in places like Canada, where fuel isn't that cheap, we get screwed, as the car options are dictated by the US market. If the market in the US changed to a more fuel conscious one I'd have more beer money.
Here's a good article on the details for the US.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217861/
Some other links you may want to read:4 -h077e.htm
http://www.tc.gc.ca/mediaroom/releases/nat/2004/0
http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/atvpgm/menu.htm
The SMART cars are a DaimlerChrysler product and this year they finally crossed the pond to be sold in Canadian Mercedes-Benz dealerships. Right now demand far exceeds supply but nonetheless these cars are slowly finding their way onto Canadian roads now.
If DC has gone through the trouble of making these products available in Canada I'd think that they would soon be doing the same in the US, so why would some relatively obscure company go to any lengths to import this particular line of cars? This ZAP company smells a bit like the fly-by-night Canadian outfits that imported Yugos, Ladas, Skodas and Innocentis to this continent in the 80s.
Of course those 80s minicars really sucked and the SMART has consumer appeal so maybe ZAP is onto something. Given the interest in Canada however, how long will it be before DC comes into the US and takes over? Europe has a lot of minicar models they could've imported where this possibility would be less likely--why not import the teeny tiny offerings from Renault or Peugeot for example (Just re-badge them because even if the products they make now are much improved, French car brands still have a stigme in North America)? Those manufacturers have no presence here so they wouldn't but heads with their dealerships.
US diesel stocks are very high in sulfur content, and this causes additional problems, especially cleaning up the emissions. I've heard for years that we're supposed to be reducing the sulfur in the next few years, but I'm about to stop believing it.
The US auto industry also implemented the diesel the same way they implemented the small car and clean emissions. Their first implementations were so incompetent as to amount to sabotage.
Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
Ford Mustang GT! ROTFLMAO! I bet you have a mullet.
...and not by those granola munching tree huggers that everyone hates to stand next to on the bus,
...
Out of curiosity, is this for serious or are you just making joke? And why would people hate that? Do they smell? Make disgusting noises? Read over your shoulder? Step on your toes? Demand too much elbow room?
I was under the impression that Daimler-Benz was going to import them to the US sometime around the summer of 05. Starting with the forfour followed by a new SUV version.... UGH.
Me I'm waiting for the roadster-coupe version to replace my trusty 85 CRX. (If they fit a proper manual transmission)
A friend with a BMW Isetta (the little one, not the bloated 600cc version) gets tickets in San Francisco for parking perpendicular to the curb, never mind the fact that the car is designed for it.
Isetta. Now that's a scary car. There's no crush space at all in those things, and the handling is horrible - especially the smaller 3-wheeled version. But they're a fun car - I'd love to have one because the BMW logo on it would piss off snobs.
Until the cops are clued, the law doesn't matter as long as paying a parking ticket is less costly than fighting it, if your time is worth anything.I don't think it's an issue of clueless cops. There's a very good reason why you have to parallel park facing the same direction as traffic (at least in most jurisdictions): your brake light assemblies contain red "cat eye" reflectors. If you're not parking with the rear of the car facing the headlights of approaching traffic, your car is very hard to see, and it becomes a dangerous obstruction in the roadway.
Of course, this isn't a problem if the microcar is parked between two adult-sized vehicles, but what if they leave?
One could argue that parking on a lit street, it shouldn't be any problem which way you park. But drivers get accustomed to the shapes of certain things (like taillight reflectors) and drive habitually - it'll take them a moment longer to react to the unexpected shape. They might also panic, thinking the vehicle is pulling into or out of traffic based on its awkward position. The streetlight could go out.
Call your local police and ask them if it's illegal to parallel park your car backwards with respect to the traffic on that side of the road. Same reason - people expect red reflectors, not amber or headlights, as they approach your vehicle.
Along those lines, every year or two depending on how dusty the driving has been, I pull the taillight assemblies out of my cars and my truck, and I throw them into the dishwasher on the crystals and plastics setting. Really makes a startling difference in the brightness of the reflectors and the appearance of the vehicles.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
They hit the roads here in Canada with the fourtwo about 2 months ago.
Price is C$17k to C$19k.
Perfect in urban environments and urban freeways (ie, 120 km/h or 70mph plus congestion). Acceleration is slow but not noticable in the city. Funky style, commuter space, fuel economy, and easy driving and parking.
Selling like pot cakes. I did a test drive and was told that the 2005 allotment for the country was sold out and that they were attempting to get additional allotment.
What the person you are responding to doesn't understand is that the Smart car is safer than a SUV. SUV are oversized minivans built on truck bodies and are classified as "light trucks" (or just "trucks" for the bigger units) and do not have to meet the safety requirements of passenger cars. They are built with stiff frames that simply fold like taco shells when they hit something.
Smart cars, on the other hand, are small roll cages on wheels. While the SUV folds itself up and kills its occupants, the Smart car simply bounces off.
SUVs give the illusion of safety. But they are more dangerous than any car on the road today save a pre-1963 Corvair or a pre-1975 Pinto.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
When you die in one of these after being crushed by a 300 ton truck you wont need a coffin they'll use the body of the car as one and direct to the hole, save on fuel and save on funeral charges...
I think that it's a similar situation to how people who have quit smoking tend to be a bit on the annoying side. It's that evangelist air which has frequently led to bizarre segues. "I notice your hands have a biker's glove tan. I haven't driven in years because it's so bad for the environment." That said, I have nothing against most tree huggers. I see them as being similar to members of the NRA in that they're typically represented by the lunatic fringe, something I can relate to, being Pro-Life.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
That the collision would be between two very different cars is the important thing. It would be important in america, more and more people there are buying bigger and bigger cars. This is different from europe -- people there are more likely to own smaller cars.
We do have a lot more automotive diversity here (North America, not just the USA) than in Europe. In the US, there's more of a do-it-yourself spirit than I find in either Canada or Europe - Americans tend to enjoy working with their hands. This means larger, handier vehicles capable of carrying around ladders and gravel and stuff. This is part of why, I think, the SUV is more popular in the US than in Canada.
We also like to drive more. A huge percentage of family vacations involve hopping into the V8 RWD Caprice Classic or Crown Vic station wagon of yesteryear and driving halfway across the country. EPA's CAFE regulations killed the big station wagons people wanted, so the automakers responded by dropping station wagon bodies onto CAFE-exempt pickup truck frames and calling them SUVs (which are, ironically, less fuel efficient than the CAFE-banned vehicles they replaced). (Lesson here: anytime the government attempts to dictate consumer demand by forcing the discontinuation of a popular product, it will backfire somehow.)
Having said that, I'm 6'4" tall. I see lots of other 6'+ people every day here in Canada, and lots when I travel to the United States. In Europe, my height seems to be less common.
What does this mean, from a practical standpoint? Most small cars, especially those designed for European or Asian markets, don't fit me very well, and I feel clautrophobic. This, as well as the versatility, is part of why I like trucks (in particular, my 1976 Dodge Ram). In fact, the only small car I've ever been in that really felt comfortable was the Pontiac Fiero - which, of course, was designed for the American market.
So, North Americans tend to like larger vehicles for whatever reason. Smart cars will sell well here, though - there are plenty of urbanites who will like them. And if I were a smaller person who had a regular life in the city (ie. didn't collect 1950s TV sets like I do), I wouldn't need a large vehicle.
A few years of university-level dynamics classes will probably limit the sales of these things to engineers and scientists, however. While I like 'em and I think they're neat, I'd be terrified driving around in one.
Mass always wins.
Why the concept of winning? Dunno. But in any inelastic collision, momentum is conserved - and goes from the large object to the small object. This means that the small object will undergo the most drastic acceleration or deceleration - causing all sorts of injuries to the occupants. The only way to change that is to make it an elastic collision, which will require a hell of a lot of crush space (which I don't see the Smart car having, given its small size).
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Lot's of them drive SUV's, hence they are fat.
?
If this is the reasoning of the rest of the world, we don't have much to worry about in the way of competition.
(I also note that the second they can afford to, many immigrants head stright to the nearest show room floor checking out the Escalade's and Expeditions).
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Why wasn't the smartcar, and many other small cars, motorcycles, mopeds, bicycles, electric cars, trains, or anything else that saves OIL sold mass-market in the US?
Because two thirds of US dollars are abroad. Oil is traded in dollars. If oil demand goes down too much, dollar demand goes down with it.
Heck, then the financiers would have to worry about actually hiring and paying someBODY and financing and building someTHING to export, rather than financing paper-politics-and-war-games, which have rather amazing profit margins.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
I think that it looks sporty. Though a little tough to haul much around. I wonder what the total cost of ownership is. I like my Civic Hybrid, though the poor design on the EGR valve sucks.
...and can say: I LOVE THIS CAR. ;)
For an single student in a city with narrow
lanes and alleys and tight space for parking,
this car is an bless for you. In addition it is
cheap in maintenance and taxes. Despite of its
low power, it accelarates amazing fast, because the cars is very light. The low Vmax of 135 km/h (or 150 km/h in the BRABUS-version) of the car is not tragic, remember that this' car natural habitat is the inner city. It makes no difference to stay in traffic jam with an Porsche-GT2 or Smart. You stand
The Smart is a safe car developed by Mercedes Benz -- long before they were thinking of working with a company that sells cheap cars... ;-)
;-)
Certainly, the car could not be sold as a Mercedes (the buyers do not have much in common -- the smart rather sells to city-hipsters than to senior citizens), but had to feature Mercedes qualities like safety and reliability. Qualities this car has proven during the five years it was on sale in Germany
(you innovative Americans
No, the car is not made for long distances, where you want to comfortably cruise at 115 mph (180 km/h). Instead, it is made for people living in a city, only occasionally going further than 100 miles. The car is comfortable, great fun, handles like a go-cart. And considering it's weight, you can expect it to perform better than most V6 SUVs.
So, here you have the reason why this car is 'smart'. But if you prefer to drive a lot of heavy metal arround, you are wellcome.
You see, me as well, I am wearing one of these Penis-Push-Up trousers to impress the girls...
(The author is an America-loving German now based in Britain. He sometimes cannot help but laugh about cliches being confirmed...)
I'm sure you could care less about pollution because it is "somewhere else," it "doesn't really affect me," or that it "will cause me to pay more taxes" to prevent.
Think about that when you take your next breath: you get more carbon in each cough because some kiddie wanted to go faster with more power to prove how much of a man he was to the other kiddies. Oh, while you're at it, have a glass of water.
Yeah, right.
It's hard to imagine that there's 1 meter worth of crumple zone in the Smart car.
It's hard to tell from the pictures, but it seems that half that is still a bit generous -- that alone doubles your figures, right?
Also, assuming constant deceleration -- for sanity's sake, I understand -- greatly reduces the peak force and impact that you're calculating. You're essentially assuming that the crash will only involve a perfect crumple zone.
I don't work in test-crashing cars, but personally I would be surprised if crumple zones are this effective.
The problem is when you run out of crumple zone during impact, and now it's the hardened "walnut like" steel cocoon hitting a wall.
IIRC, they started the sets with the BMW at 70 mph... They did the first (and only) SUV test at 45mph. They also stated that it was an older SUV (a Land Rover of some variety), and that newer SUVs are frequently slightly better. However, they'll still roll easily at freeway speeds.
I'd love to drive a car that got better gas milages - the only problem is that my budget limits me to 12-15 year old vehicles, and there just arent any hybrids/etc in that market.
The people who would most appreciate the gas savings are also the people least able to pay the exorbitant prices a 'new' car demands.
Someone needs to start making sub-$4000 vehicles that are worth buying.
If you were able to make a car that was indestructible, that didn't bent at all when you hit something, you'd die in most impacts because the amount of energy absorbed by the car would be none.
However, if you had a car that folded up like an accordian except for where you're sitting, the impact would be much less since the metal absorbed a lot of the energy from the impact.
That is the point of crumple zones. You have a cage around the passenger compartment which is not supposed to deform, and then you have the sheet metal around that cage to act as a shock absorber. The bumpers push in, the engine drops down, the hood bends, etc... the whole car in front of the passenger compartment is designed to deform.
In the case of the Smart car, regardless of how strong the cage is in a Smart car, it only has about a foot of metal in front of the passenger compartment to absorb the impact. If you hit a solid object you'd have a foot to decelerate. However, if you had a car with 4 feet of metal in front of the cage you'd have 4 times the distance to decelerate in a collision, and you'd experience only a fraction of the full impact you'd experience otherwise.
The fact of the matter: if you're going 60mph and then suddenly de-accelerate to 0 in less than 12 feet, you are going to get hurt. Will you get hurt more in a SMART? No.
Why would both the smart car and an SUV decelerate in 12 feet? If they both had an equal distance to decelerate then yeah you'd have the same deceleration forces in each car.
But that's not quite reality.
In reality if you both went head-on into the same object, the crumple zones will pretty much dictate the stopping distance when you hit a solid object, and the Smart doesn't have a very big crumple zone.
I hate SUVs as much as the next guy but I won't ignore the physics of an impact.
i noticed a lot of people saying "blah blah when you die in that thing blah blah", I question wether or not they know what they're talking about..
because you should of obviously seen the crash test dummy video, with the car having a head on collision with the big mercedes going atleast 50mph.. any minor accident, even to a bit of a head on collision, you'll be perfectly fine in this car..
however, in any car, having a head on collision going 60mph, you'll probably die.. this makes no more difference..
this car would be perfect for my 35 minute commute to work everyday..
- Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
Let's see if you can afford to fill the tank of your Mustang with gasoline when it's $10 a gallon.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Just curious, how would the Zap perform on the uphill drive through Colorado's Eisenhower Tunnel (11,158 feet West Portal) on Interstate 70. I live at 9500 feet and its always humorous watching the heavy air breathers when they realize their performance automobiles respond more like a bicycle at that altitude. And please ignore the falling boulders creating holes in the bridges. A force of nature, pay it no heed.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
like bicycles
Luckily, with the rate of increases that won't be for another 40 years. It's currently only 1.80, which is cheaper, perspectivly, than it was in 1980. Gasonline has stayed pretty even with inflation, so I don't every persee a problem when I am going to have trouble.
It still looks like a clown car.
diesel VWs and Mercedes?
yep. They smell because they haven't bathed in weeks and anything they say is usually disgusting. Austin has too damn many of these hippies.
Why is it on cars that have enormous MPG ratings, they have TINY gas tanks? I'd love to see a vehicle with 60+ mpg and 15+ gallons.. imagine, 900+ miles without having to fill up in the middle. With the Smart Car, it has 8 gallons and 60 mpg, so it's a meager/average 480 miles.
This comment is offtopic and about the MTV show "Pimp My Ride".
Recently the modifications on that show have gotten ridicilous. They modified a Volkswagon van on a recent show to house a 46 inch television along with a Playstation 2. How long can a car battery actually power such a thing? Recently they also modified an old 80s Suburban and put over 8 flatscreen monitors in it. "Pimp My Ride" is getting out of hand and is starting to add sensationalist modifications. Do not support the show with your viewing. Car batteries cannot power such nonsense for very long, they are off their rockers.
I've done just what you are talking about. Took a Ford Aerostar 3.0 v6 through Yellowstone, and across the Beartooth pass. Lots of wheezing. Why? At that altitude it's generating maybe half the power it would at sea level. But do the same with a turbo and it will generate the same power it did at sea level, because the turbo precompresses the intake air so that it's being fed the same amount of air at 10,000 ft that it was getting at sea level.
Turbos rock!
To hear the gods laugh tell them your plans.
Why not get an echo that gets ~55 mpg if you want cheap, or a VW Golf TDI that gets ~90 m.p.g. instead (both IIRC)?
Neither look as lame as the smart car IM.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Actually, I hit a concrete wall at 70 MPH and was really pissed that my F-150 was beat up. I had to remove the front bumper because it was dragging on both tires and the transmission tailcone was broken so it was streaming tranny fluid. The frame shop had a hell of a time getting it straight enough to get re-aligned and the hood and grill were trashed. The radiator leaked but that was easy to fix. I still don't know why the damn airbag didn't go off, but I was pretty sore for a week, so no complaints there. Oh yeah, fuck small cars.
I drive a 600-mile round trip twice a week to visit my Mum. I drive a 100-mile round trip just for my daily commute. It's not that unusual, either.
Soon to be seen at your next rodeo... The ZAP Clown car, complete with inflating air bags to cushion bull strikes. Easy to fit into any NARA barrels! Only $4995 with an additional option such as tootie horn ($98.88), fake smoke generator ($149.00) and REAL smoke thrown in for free. Interchangeable panels make for easy repairs for the most descriminating clowns around, who want a night on the town after a day at the pen. Yours! For a song AND a dance! If you call now! We'll throw in a CUSTOM clown costume that is compressible to fit behind the front, er, only seats. Machine washable, indestructable and comes with a matching clown nose, inflato shoes and a woopie cushion which doubles for front seat comfort. Call soon! They're not expected to last long!
This 1500 lb monstrosity can just stay the heck out of my garage. My lighter 1962 Austin Mini has state of the art British car technology and safety. And the 25 mpg I get from the 998cc engine cant be beat.
you mean 160 MPH not mpg right?
because if you are telling us that a regular production car from 1988 could get insane gas mileage then something is wrong.
the 88 GT could do 160 MPH after upgrading the chip and exaust manifold and exaust system.
I test drove the petrol fortwo at the 2004 StarFest. I thought it had a strange feel to it but was stable, quick and comfortable. I used to drive a 78 Mercedes 240d. Although that may have been more safe in size, I had worse acceleration than any of the smart cars. And the 240d only gets around 26-29mpg on the highway. All the pain and no gain is a 240D.
I really liked the amount of interior space on the fortwo and would not mind driving it. I do not think it is any less save than a civic or aveo. Less car is less car and there are a lot of small cars that could be more crushed easier than a smart car.
And they do not make many motorcycles that get near 60mpg. Most harley's get around 40, non 650cc BMW's get around 40-50, etc.
If you are just going to buy a deathbox anyway, (such as a civic, aveo, or echo) , and only need 2 seats, you may as well get the best efficiency you can.
My co-worker calls it the 'egg' and we joke about making it a lawn mower.
Zap has been selling the Razor electric scooter line for since I first saw them online in 96 or so - they also carried the Corbin Sparrow line IIRC and have various other electric vehicles for sale.
I don't think you will be able to mailorder a Smart car. If they are so cool why aren't DaimlerChrysler dealers offering them? In the SF Bay area the could mark them up $5K and still sell out.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
For our European friends who don't understand miles per gallon, here is Googles conversion: 67 mpg in liters per kilometer:
67 miles per gallon = 3.51066544 liters per 100 kilometers
The CRX got 67 mpg on the highway .
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
As a smartcar owner, I am interested in how safe my car really is (I read that it was safer than many small cars before I bought it). According to my calculations, if the safety cell remains more or less intact during impact a person should be able to survive a head-on crash for speeds up to 70 mph. The human body has been tested up to 48G on a living subject. The formula for calculating G force in a crash is G's=.0333X(M.P.H. X M.P.H.) / Distance in feet.
So if the speed was 70 mph and stopping distance 3 feet we get 54G which is survivable, hopefully.
Nothing, at least for me when someone hit my smart in the back.
Bah, VW TDI Diesels will get you 64mpg and go 120mph and not look like a Star Trek prop!
While you'd be more protected in a crash in an SUV than in a compact, SUVs are far more likely to get into an accident in the first place due to reduced maneuverability and larger size. Also, some SUVs are classified as trucks, which means they don't have to meet the auto body safety standards of passenger vehicles. "Drivers of the tiny Jetta die at a rate of just forty-seven per million, which is in the same range as drivers of the five-thousand-pound Chevrolet Suburban and almost half that of popular S.U.V. models like the Ford Explorer or the GMC Jimmy." --Malcolm Gladwell, http://gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html, which also includes a full chart of fatalities-per-million drivers of the most popular cars in the US.
Don't forget the Air Car. It is always nice to see improvements in gas powered cars, but one which runs on air is a lot better. For us and for the environment as well.
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
We have had these in Canada for a few months now.s mart/getsma rt/pricing.cfm
r s.pdf
My wife and I went to the local Mercedes dealer ( the brand is made in France, but owned by Mercedes)
While a nice car, the price tag is ludicrous!
With a decent configuration it is $19,000 Canadian.
http://www.mercedes-benz.ca/mbccustom/
For you Yanks that is about $16,150 US.
For a LOT less money one can get a LOT more car!
For example a KIA RIO lists for $12,995 ($11,050 in devaluing US$) And comes with a full 5 year warranty.
http://www.kia.ca/img/en/showroom/offe
We bought a KIA RIO RX-V for my daughters' grad last year, and it has run flawlessly.
They have GOT to be kidding!
Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
I want one of these. Wait till they bring it out in an SUV! I'll show the world!!
Look cool? Judging from the picture, you'd look cooler on a pogo-stick.
"How like you to drag your keyboard to a gun fight." - Aaron Bedard (BANE)
-It had no power steering(according to Zap!'s site it's an option)
-It didn't feel like it had power brakes(might've, but it didn't feel like it)
-Rear visibility was blocked by the head rests
-It took damn near 3 seconds for it to change down gears, and 2 seconds to change up(using the manual shift mode)
Lastly, the people overseeing the testdrives, never mentioned that the speedo was in KMH instead of MPH. Thought I was doing 45 in a 25mph zone for a few heart pounding seconds.
I can't remember if this was back in '98 or '99. If they've improved since then, I'd be interested in buying one as a second car for around town, but there's no way in hell I'd get rid of my SUV for one.
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
This sounds like a great idea for large cities, where traffic is more of an issue, but in Minnesota and other cold areas, you need the extra weight of an SUV to simply get up a hill in the winter. Also, I cant see one of these pulling a boat or a trailer of firewood... It doesn't matter what kind of gas mileage it gets if it can't be useful. Half of my time spent driving involves hauling (snowmobiles, boats, lumber, etc.) and am afraid to say that my SUV would still get more use, no matter what the price of gas is.
"There is no spoon."
Some pictures, check out all the customization on the side panels: http://www.pkshiu.com/gallery/smartcars.html/
It was the Nov episode of Fifth Gear. Tottent avaialable here
http://gear.viper007bond.com/downloads.php
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
Why bother with that German toy when you can can get a good ole American Catipillar
You can take the putzy Liebherr 252 and fit it inside of a CAT 797B and the CAT will take it away at the ole double nickel on cruise control.
This beautiful CAT takes up 3 full Amercan lanes. However any vehicle under 41 inches high (attn: Ferrari owners) can easily blow by this in the middle lane. And don't worry about the driver, he'll see you comin' with his rear-view camera. And for the SUV-haters out there all SUV's would be stuck just waiting for this beauty to get there.
This was brought to you buy the Department of Redundancy Department
Not true. In Australia (which was part of "the rest of the world" last time I checked) it is called Holden. (As in Holden Astra, Holden Vectra etc)
Zilch
Commuter Cars Company was featured as having a pretty sweet little car called the Tango. They claim that it will do 0-60 in 4 seconds (better than most high-end sports cars), will finish a standing 1/4 mile in 12 seconds @120 MPH. On top of this, it is electric, not hybrid. On top of that, it will go 80 miles before needing a recharge. A 10 minute charge from a 400 amp feed will charge it for 50 miles (80% full) whereas a full charge is achieved in less than three hours. Check out the movie of the Tango cornering on a closed track. Very impressive!
No sig for you! Come back one year!
SUV's indirectly are charged higher taxes than smaller rides. As an example, in California 1 gallon of gas is taxed at approximately $.36 plus sales tax. I'm guessing right now that puts it at about $.50 per gallon these days.
Bigger the SUV, the lower the mileage, the more tax they pay for the same mile travelled. The poor Expedition driver is getting tagged for about $3.60 per 100 city miles travelled as opposed to $.83 for a Zap.
Add to that registration and licensing based on car value and the SUV crowd is getting to pay a little more at a time. Higher fuel taxes anyone?
Starting next week, all passwords will be entered in Morse code
My Peugeot 206 laughs at your staggering ignorance, in an arrogant, mocking Gallic style.
If you enjoy driving cars, don't buy this.
If you like exciting cars, don't buy this.
If you you want a cheap car, don't buy this.
If you want a comfortable car, don't buy this.
I got this car as a replacement vehicle from the car-audio center when they where installing my GPS unit. You wouldn't believe how RELIEVED i was to get rid of that thing. I got used to certain things while driving a car (see above) and it did not have any of these (or at least it did not meet my standards) and i would never ever buy a car like it.
The only good thing about it was the mileage. Ofcourse there are other cars available who provide more of comfort for less money, so i would never put my money on a smart.
(oh yeah, rush hour on the highway in that car is scarier then Doom3, because all other drivers think of you as an insect and the car has no performance _what so ever_ to get you out of sticky situations, in fact there is this gigantic lag!! before any power gets transferred to the wheels - HORROR)
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Chrysler used to be a damn good company.
I know a lot of loyal Chrysler customers (including myself) who refuse to buy any of their post-buyout products because those morons in Germany (Especially Schrempp, although I think he's gone now. He should've picked his family over his company, it would have been better for BOTH.) have been running the company into the ground.
Subarus seem to be quite popular with the unhappy ex-Chrysler loyalists. Yes, GM owns part of the company now, but the stake is only 20% and so far it seems like it's been purely beneficial to everyone involved. (Subaru gets a financial benefit but basically retains control, GM gets lots of Subaru goodies/technology to boost their not-so-well-off divisions like Saab. Although Saab loyalists are probably not too happy that the 9-2X is just a repackaged WRX.)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
That looks a lot like pictures of the Dodge SlingShot concept car.
4 .html mentions that the SlingShot is based on the SMART.)
Not surprising since they're both made by DCX.
(Aha. http://www.allpar.com/model/concepts/concepts-200
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Not trollin, just FYI. Chevy dropped the Geo moniker in 1998 and absorbed their lines. The Storm with their awful (Isuzu) engines were dropped entirely, and they sold the Metro, Prism, and Tracker under the Chevrolet badge.
The Metro has recently been replaced by the Aveo in 2004. Chevrolet.com says it starts at $9,995, but I would argue that it's not even worth that. They show it at $13,405 - that's just shy of the Cobalt, which starts at 14,190 (and is an immense improvement over the Cavalier, which it is replacing).
Enough with the run-on sentences! And pointless information!
I grew up in Michigan; hard to buy foreign cars when you do that. DCX is definitely well on its way to removing itself from the Big 3. I wound up with a Mazda assembled up in Flat Rock; yes, Ford owns it, but so far it seems like the same sort of deal - Mazda develops with Ford financing, and Ford takes the platform and makes a Ford car based on it (e.g. the 500).
But DCX seems to have taken German pricing and combined it with the worst parts of both of their engineering. If Chrysler had managed to retain any control, maybe it would have been different, but it was definitely a buyout, not a merger.
Haven't really been all that impressed with the WRXs I've driven, but each to their own.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Finally a 60 mpg car that can go 90 mph and look cool at the same time!!
Huh.. I guess it changes into it's "cool looking" shape at 90MPH? And they say there's no excuse for speeding.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
There is a generally different approach to cars in Europe and the USA. Americans like big cars because they think they are safer. When it comes to ships, they'd probably prefer the Titanic to a nippy powerboat. That's why you find so many li'l ole ladies driving huge SUV's. Apart from factors like functionality and ecology, there are few things to be remembered about safety. First, the number of head on crashes is minimal. In an overlapping frontal crash, the smaller cars gets a spinning momentum and it becomes important to remain in the seat (belts, airbags, seat construction, doors remain closed). You also have a very good chance in a wel constructed small car, maybe more so than in a crude big one. Any smart has all the electronic goodies that keep you on the road (most heavy accidents are curve accidents) and a smart with great handling and good brakes will give you a much bigger chance to stear clean of trouble. By the way, try it: a 6 ft 4" guy will be surprised at the room and the feeling of space in a fortwo.
Crumple zones don't matter when you have 2x the mass of the other guy.
People die from forces. Put simply F=M*A. A is basicly constant, M is variable. The more M you have the more force you apply to other people.
SUVs don't need crumple zones, thats what the other cars are for.
And I got a ticket for parking my motorcycle with my rear wheel on the curb in Palo Alto, California (side street just off of the Oregon Expressway for those who'd know.) Here in CA, you are supposed to park perpendicular to the curb. There are lots of clueless cops. The law is clear, but I had the choice of spending hours on the ticket or paying it.
If they were clever, they'd do research to find out at what point most people decide the burden of paying a ticket isn't worth the trouble of fighting it.
Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.