editor Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 I have a similar photo of one in Vienna in 2003. But I can't post it here because the side is painted with pornography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 I have a similar photo of one in Vienna in 2003. But I can't post it here because the side is painted with pornography.aww..go ahead, i won't look atthe picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesternGulf Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Yeah these seem like the vehicles where you would take a moped. Not for the freeway or FM1960. Not a long commute vehicle. Only natural that these will have a great market in the Northeast, San Fran, or even cities like New Orleans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Ugh...its even uglier with people inside. Makes them look all diminuitive and weak. The guy looks like what I'd expect a guy to look like if a rabbi was plastered and cut off a bit more than he was supposed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1fd Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 It isn't about preventing all harm. There's only so much that can be done, afterall, and in the most extreme circumstances, nothing is good enough. I recognize that.But this little pip-squeak of a car looks like it would just disintegrate. With a regular car, at least there's usually a fair bit of metal between you and either the front or back bumper...enough equipment so that engineers can creat crumple zones in some spots and reinforcements in others to ensure that you aren't as likely to be impaled by the steering column. With the pip-squeak, the crumple zone is your abdomen. They actually hold up surprisingly well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston1stWordOnTheMoon Posted November 29, 2006 Author Share Posted November 29, 2006 They actually hold up surprisingly well. That thing is a freaking death trap. I wonder what the insurance companies would charge for something like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rantanamo Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Death trap = having to slow down to make a simple turn, cars behind you can't see causing many sideswipes and rear enders, tall vehicles rolls onto another vehicle. in the era of the SUV, road fatalities are at an all-time high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 in the era of the SUV, road fatalities are at an all-time high.link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1fd Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 That thing is a freaking death trap. I wonder what the insurance companies would charge for something like that?Uhmm...I guess you're not terribly familiar with offset impact collisions. An SUV subjected to an offset impact collision at 70 MPH would look as bad, probably worse since the body structure has to maintain its integrity under the greater loads presented by the rear 10' of the vehicle pressing forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 link?I think you can give him that one, coog. Crash rates/deaths increase almost every year, with or without the SUV factored in. The REAL question is the RATE of accidents involving SUV single or SUV/Auto Accidents. One thing I have been noticing on the news as of late is that when they report a fatality or serious accident, a good portion of the time (no exact percentages) an SUV is pictured, but not mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Crash rates/deaths increase almost every year, with or without the SUV factored in. True.More people, more cars, more crashes.Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston1stWordOnTheMoon Posted November 29, 2006 Author Share Posted November 29, 2006 One thing I have been noticing on the news as of late is that when they report a fatality or serious accident, a good portion of the time (no exact percentages) an SUV is pictured, but not mentioned.Could that be because Texas leads the nation in number of SUV's and thats the reason they are always pictured in crashes even when the crash doesnt involve an SUV? Same with airline incidents on the local news in Houston. It can be a different non Houston based airline involved in the incident, but often times you see a Continental Airlines jet pictured. One of those things that make you go hmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston1stWordOnTheMoon Posted November 29, 2006 Author Share Posted November 29, 2006 Uhmm...I guess you're not terribly familiar with offset impact collisions. An SUV subjected to an offset impact collision at 70 MPH would look as bad, probably worse since the body structure has to maintain its integrity under the greater loads presented by the rear 10' of the vehicle pressing forward.I wouldnt have to be going 70 in my SUV to make the SMART car look like total disaster. In an offset crash my Navigator vs SMART car, the driver of that SMART car will have himself an instant casket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmancuso Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Ugh...its even uglier with people inside. Makes them look all diminuitive and weak. The guy looks like what I'd expect a guy to look like if a rabbi was plastered and cut off a bit more than he was supposed to.haha...that guy was about 6'2" too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 This cars always reminds me of Nelson on the Simpsons making fun of the tall guy in a little car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesternGulf Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Hey I saw one of these at Greenbriar and University this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDeb Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Highway deaths per vehicle-miles traveled are at an all-time low (most recent numbers I've seen are for 2004) and total deaths are relatively flat, even with increasing VMT.And they can put all the steel in the frame they want (and even then they can't, else they add too much weight and lose significant efficiency), but it won't help the severe trauma that comes with the rapid negative acceleration of the body due to the lack of a crumple zone. Also, it takes a lot of energy to stop even a mid-sized car. In a collision, that energy is converted to the crumpling of your car. This vehicle does not have to crumple much at all in order for the passenger cabin to be intruded upon. Anyone who thinks this thing is a safer vehicle than your average SUV needs to stop drinking the kool-aid. However, if confined to dense urban areas where speeds are relatively low (by design or congestion), then the extra safety is unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 And you can tell this due to what....x-ray vision? It's called engineering. I'd sooner take my chances in this vehicle than the pre-Nadar deathtraps. I accept your challenge ! Your plastic bubble that can barely get out of it's own way, againt my, full steel, '72 Olds Cutlass Supreme with a whopping 10 mpg from my hopped up 5.7L V8, head on or offset at 45 mph. I'll even give you odds. Do you still like your chances ? Hey I saw one of these at Greenbriar and University this week. I saw one at I-10 and Mason last night on the feeder road, there was some guy in a wheelchair on the sidewalk next to them passing them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Our country need not worry about our enemies thinking we're gutless wonders. This car puts that thought to rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Based on the European NCAP crash test saftety standard, the two-door Smart scores 3/5, and the four-door gets 4/5, which is very good. Larger cars are generally safer for passengers, but there are other important contributing factors such as airbags, frame strength and design, propensity to rollover, etc. That said, I don't think these are that common even in Europe, since they are a lot smaller than most people would want. Overall, the vehicles have been a flop and a big money-loser for DCX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 I accept your challenge ! Your plastic bubble that can barely get out of it's own way, againt my, full steel, '72 Olds Cutlass Supreme with a whopping 10 mpg from my hopped up 5.7L V8, head on or offset at 45 mph. I'll even give you odds. Do you still like your chances ? I saw one at I-10 and Mason last night on the feeder road, there was some guy in a wheelchair on the sidewalk next to them passing them up. Your car doesn't qualify as "Pre-Nader". Unsafe At Any Speed was published in 1965, and safety reforms began the following year. The first 30 safety standards, issued in 1967 and designed to improve a car's crashworthiness and crash avoidance, were largely invisible to the untutored car buyer. They included such simple items as laminated windshields to absorb head impact energy and prevent heads and necks from being slashed; collapsible steering assemblies to cushion the trauma to the upper body; enhanced door locks to keep occupants from flying out of the car in a crash; seat anchorages to prevent bodies from smashing into the roof; and lap belts. Tire safety standards were also issued in 1967; shoulder harnesses in 1968; head restraints to prevent whiplash in 1969; side-impact protection standards in 1973; and new standards to protect fuel tanks from exploding in crashes went into effect in 1977. Automakers fought to eliminate or weaken virtually all these new safety improvements, but Nader, the Center for Auto Safety and individual engineers and bureaucrats helped push them through the regulatory process. link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feufoma Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 I'm with you about the low-speed wrecks.When I had my car, here's how the expense broke out:Insurance: $50/monthState registration: $130/year ($11/month)City registration: $75/year ($6.25/month)Parking: $230/monthGas: $30/monthTotal: $327.35/month. Back then I had a $280 car payment, so it was $607.35 a month for the car. Now I have an all-you-can-ride public transit pass that costs me $55/month. About every other month I'll rent a car for $34/day for trips to places I can't get to on regional rail or Amtrak.So, essentially I'm saving $555/month by not having a car. I actually saved almost twice that because my wife had a car, too.I work with people who are spending $400/month on gas to commute to work. They insist it's better because they have more freedom. And as an aside -- Last month I was in a rental car driving through the next state when my wife saw a state trooper in the median and urged me to slow down. At first I did, but then after we passed him I thought to myself, "Why? What is he going to do to me?" Assuming he didn't want to be a jerk and chuck me into jail for no particular reason, he would just write me a ticket. I'd pay the ticket and that would be that. IT'S NOT LIKE MY INSURANCE RATES WOULD GO UP! They can't -- I don't have auto insurance. Since I don't have a car, I don't need it. It was then that I realized that the real reason I was always worried about getting caught speeding wasn't that I feared paying the fine -- it was what it would do to my insurance rates. Now -- no insurance = no fear in the back of my head.I'm off the insurance merry-go-round, as well as the gas, maintenance, parking, and monthly payment merry-go-rounds. Anyway -- the point I'm eventually trying to make is that I think these cars won't be great for real city-dwellers like me. I think they'll be good for people who live in parts of cities that are somewhere between urban and suburban. Places where there are single-family homes and lots of parking. In Houston, that's just about everywhere except right in the heart of downtown. So, no, this car isn't great for Houston. But it would be great in places like Seattle, Vancouver, Chicago, Houston, and others that have this middle ground.I envy you. I deplore having to drive a car with all the moronic drivers in Houston (and elsehwhere for that matter). It must be the European in me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwcre8tive Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 I prefer the roadster version (below). Here's a link to the new US Smart Car: http://www.smartcarofamerica.com/category/fortwo/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesternGulf Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Half of it almost looks like the new Saturn convertible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmancuso Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 in the NL, there is actually a car even smaller than the smart 4-2 but it's maxes out at 45 kmph and isn't allowed on highways...only the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.