Slashdot Mirror


ZAP Smart Car Approved for Sale in the US

An anonymous reader writes "ZAP's Smart 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!!"

9 of 759 comments (clear)

  1. "Zap"??? by Tet · · Score: 4, Informative
    From the Smart homepage:
    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
  2. Re:90 MPH???? by roy23 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  3. Lanky geek fits, with space for warm beverage. by ear1grey · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  4. 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.

  5. 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
  6. 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.

  7. 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!

  8. 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.

  9. 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

    Now, to judge how deadly this is, we look at some data:
    http://www.vnh.org/FSManual/02/03ImpactAcceleratio n.html

    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".