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!!"

Comments

90 MPH????

[Karzz1]

After seeing that car, I don't think I would want to go 90MPH in it....

Re:90 MPH????

[Malevolyn]

I don't think I'd want to do any MPH in it. Is there some rule that says that no emission vehicles can't look good?

Re:90 MPH????

[DigitumDei]

We've had the Smart car in South Africa for about a year now. And yes I have to agree, I would not ride in one of those cars on a freeway.

That said, parking is not a problem in one of them.

Re:90 MPH????

[roy23]

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????

[DigitumDei]

The smart roadster, while still ugly in a way, definitely looks a lot better than the normal one.

Re:90 MPH????

[The_Rift]

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????

[XenonDif]

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?

Re:90 MPH????

[THEbwana]

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

Re:90 MPH????

[golgotha007]

That said, parking is not a problem in one of them.

No kidding. One of the highlighs of this car is that it's as long as a normal car is wide.

Therefore, to park you can just pull straight in, putting the front end (or rear) of the car parallel to the street.

For urban parking woes, it doesn't get any better.

Re:90 MPH????

[Democratus]

Surely it is much safer than a motorcycle? And more comfortable.

Besides - the kind of people who routinely drive faster than 90 MPH are NOT the target audience for this vehicle.

If this car has a price tag that competes with the Geo, I would definately consider it.

Re:90 MPH????

[silicon-pyro]

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????

[Xabraxas]

(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.

Re:90 MPH????

[Space Coyote]

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.

Re:90 MPH????

[animaal]

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????

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:90 MPH????

[503]

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.

Re:90 MPH????

[supersnail]

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.

Re:90 MPH????

[number11]

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.

Re:90 MPH????

[Ash and Flame]

Maybe for the American market, ZAP could install reactive armor to ensure an automatic vengeance response in the event of a fatal collision.

Re:90 MPH????

[Evil Poot Cat]

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.
  
  

Re:90 MPH????

[Spudley]

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.

Re:90 MPH????

[FyRE666]

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.

Re:90 MPH????

[Evil Poot Cat]

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????

[Thangodin]

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.

Old known in Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[RupW]

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.

Re:Old known in Europe

[tincho_uy]

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)

Re:Old known in Europe

[Ender_Stonebender]

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

Re:Old known in Europe

[dunkelfalke]

the original design is from swatch, but daimler benz has changed too much and swatch pulled out.

Re:Old known in Europe

[levell]

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.

for real ?

[Anonymous Coward]

serioulsy this wasn't already been sold in the US ????
it'll like 5 years old in europe, third gen model are shipping now

Re:for real ?

[kfg]

. . .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

zap!

[Kratos]

I believe it folds up into a briefcase for you to take in to the office once you finish your drive. ______ Kratos

Re:zap!

[roman_mir]

If you really want to do that
sure, why not.

Call that a Smart Car...?

[Dynamoo]

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 :)

Re:Call that a Smart Car...?

[Dynamoo]

I stand corrected! Buy one.. I've been grinning like a lunatic ever since I got it!

Re:Call that a Smart Car...?

[Dynamoo]

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!

Re:Call that a Smart Car...?

[Dynamoo]

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. :)

I've owned zap stock in my life,

[way2trivial]

if you want a smart car, I'd buy some shares, they are very good about incentives on products to shareholders.

Other considerations

[JamesD_UK]

How about a a 90 mpg car that can go 60 mph? Wouldn't that better progress?

Re:Other considerations

[idiotnot]

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.

Re:Other considerations

[OblongPlatypus]

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.

Re:Other considerations

[evilviper]

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

Real Website

[diablero]

Smart car are made by Smart

Re:Real Website

[RupW]

Smart car are made by Smart

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 - ?

Re:Real Website

[Delirium Tremens]

The rest of the world calls it Opel.

"Zap"???

[Tet]

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?

Nothing is then SMART

[tid242]

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

Re:Nothing is then SMART

[BiggerIsBetter]

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).

smae 'SMART' as the one sold by Mercedes

[UnderAttack]

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

[nordicfrost]

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.

erm ..... no

[thempstead]

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

Cool looking, huh?

[cbqwinner]

If this thing looks "cool" to you, I'd hate to see what wasn't cool....

Re:Not so SMART . . .

[Dynamoo]

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.

Re:Who needs this shit??

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Have you ever been in one? I drove one last week and it was surprisingly comfortable (I'm 1.86m, so hardly tiny).

roll cages with covers

[davejenkins]

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

Re:roll cages with covers

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[sifi]

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.

Re:roll cages with covers

[EnglishTim]

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

[speed-sf]

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.

Re:roll cages with covers

[untaken_name]

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

[tgd]

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

[pyat]

here's some video of a smart car impacting a mercedes E class: http://www.off-road.com/mbenz/videos/Sclass_Smart. avi From this webpage

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).

Re:roll cages with covers

[bombadillo]

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

[untaken_name]

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:Who needs this shit??

[Dynamoo]

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.

Re:ZAP?

[vidarh]

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.

Comparison...

[B5_geek]

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.

Re:Comparison...

[Simon Brooke]

Honda, has a proven track record of quality automobiles. Zap, in Europe? I don't know. Colour me ignorant.

Otherwise known as Daimler Benz; been making quality automobiles since 1886. So, not much track record there.

I hired one for a week

[jcupitt65]

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.

Survivability

[reality-bytes]

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.

Re:Survivability

[martin]

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...

Re:Survivability

[AndroidCat]

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.

Re:Survivability

[Gordonjcp]

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.

Very Popular

[HeyBob!]

In Canada, Mercedes isn't even marketing them - there's a long waiting list, without them even spending a dime on advertising.

Re:Not so SMART . . .

[ceeam]

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).

Crash Test

[jjeffrey]

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

Re:Not so SMART . . .

[Maddog Batty]

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.

Re:Not so SMART . . .

[JPDeckers]

Like here ?

Drive one myselve...

To counter the negativty...

[mccalli]

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...

[aug24]

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.

Re:MSRP? Better than an Insight?

[adzoox]

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.

Re:In a Yugo....

[Sarastrobert]

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.

Lanky geek fits, with space for warm beverage.

[ear1grey]

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

Used as a Police car

[edo-01]

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...

Couple of things

[AlexEdwards]

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'.

City Driving

[Tomahawk]

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.

Gotta chime in

[Bowdie]

(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!

Finally? Honda Insight and Toyota Prius both

[Sai Babu]

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.

60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid

[2$ Crack Whore]

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

[MtViewGuy]

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

[CdBee]

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.

Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid

[Johnny Mnemonic]

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.

Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid

[Dread_ed]

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.

Re:60mpg? 90mph? Old news I'm afraid

[gotih]

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).

Re:Not so SMART . . .

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:90 MPH???? Not so bad

[technogogo]

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!

Re:Cost?

[malkavian]

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. :)

Background information

[O0o0Oblubb!O0o0O]

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 :-)

Cute yes, but...

[MtViewGuy]

...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:A single collision with a Chevrolet Suburban...

[gatkinso]

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).

ZAP! = Pump n Dump

[microcars]

"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.

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

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

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

Here is one quote from the conversation:

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

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

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

Re:ZAP! = Pump n Dump

[way2trivial]

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.

how long until....

[brad3378]

....some redneck yanks that 60 mpg powertrain and replaces it with a 500 HP smallblock?

Re:Not so SMART . . .

[pyat]

> 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".

parking isn't a problem, tickets are

[obtuse]

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.

Why you *HAVE* to parallel park.

[BigBlockMopar]

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.

Mass Always Wins, 6'4" Europeans

[BigBlockMopar]

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).

Re:Mass Always Wins, 6'4" Europeans

[blincoln]

Mass always wins.

It depends on the type of collision.

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.

Re:Not so SMART . . .

[Quino]

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.

You don't understand how crumple zones work.

[i41Overlord]

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.

[RatBastard]

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.

Re:Diesel is the way of the future

[gotih]

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.

Alternatives?

[rainman_bc]

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.

you're safer in a compact car than in an SUV

[mishmosh]

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.