how smart is it to get smartcar

Discussion in 'Motorized Vehicles' started by useroflaptops, Jul 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Shyster1

    Shyster1 Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    6,926
    Messages:
    8,179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    1) They don't appeal to me in the slightest (obviously)

    2) When I spoke of being "phony" but just in different ways, I meant that whether it was a photoshopped image, a fibreglass kit, or an (un)Smart car, it's a matter of indifference to me because all of those things are "phony," they're just phony in different ways. Thus, it's irrelevant to me which is just photoshopped, and which is a kit.

    3) I have a pretty good sense of scale, even when I blow things out of proportion.

    4) Believe what? I am utterly agnostic on the whole issue.

    5) Yes, I have. Several, in fact; I even owned one.

    6) Let me add another reason for not wanting one - dangerous.
     
  2. ac500

    ac500 Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    216
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Maybe you're just not the sportscar type then? I can't say your preference is any less valid than mine, but really, if you've driven a sportscar (not pony/muscle car though), you should know how tacky something like those toy car photoshops would be. At least a smartcar doesn't pretend to be something it's not.

    Then I'd say one is far "phonier" than the other :). I don't see a toy version of a Porsche being any more of a legitimate car than a smartcar that is at least built for a purpose that it achieves to some extent.

    Then I'd love to see you trace out, in proper scale, how that guy's body would fit into that tiny thing in a way that doesn't require him to be surgically inserted / removed (and of course allows room for the mechanics, and is reasonably comfortable like the smartcar / any sportscar).

    What, a sportscar or a smartcar? I car is only as dangerous as the driver, beyond that it's just a matter of good protection and good handling that makes it safer (being able to stop quickly, etc.)

    o_O. Well this is good proof that opinions vary. Widely :).

    It's a fair feat I guess, but utterly useless IMO compared to something like a Prius. Besides, I don't care what youtube smash tests you may see, it's a law of physics that the less mass your car has compared to the mass of the object you collide with, the more dangerous and lethal the accident will be. I'd suggest you read the quote someone posted about an independent test on the smartcar safety before jumping to any conclusions based on a few youtube advertisement videos.
     
  3. Shyster1

    Shyster1 Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    6,926
    Messages:
    8,179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ok, I think we've got a little failure to communicate here. You asked if I had ever driven a sportscar; I answered, "Yes, I have. Several, in fact; I even owned one."

    Now, I don't know but I've been told that, if you enjoy driving sportscars (which I do, otherwise I would have stopped after the first one, no?) then I must, ipso facto, be the "sportscar type" (which I am, notwithstanding that family obligations make that a currently unachievable fantasy). And no, I'm not talking pony/muscle cars, I'm talking things like a couple of Porsches, an Audi TT Quattro, and a VW Corrado. I owned the TT, until marriage came between us.

    Neither do I; they're both toys, dangerous toys. I'm glad we're in agreement on that point.

    Why should I, as I've already stated that it's a phony that I don't care a fig about. In fact, I'll even take your unsupported word for it that the phony Porsche in the picture is not as comfortable as the phony car called the (un)Smart car.

    Well, which is it? Either a car is only as dangerous (i.e., unsafe) as the driver, or it is as dangerous (i.e., unsafe) as the combination of the driver and the design of the car's protection and handling characteristics; you can't have it both ways.

    But, to answer your question, I was referring to the (un)Smart car which, in my view, suffers from inherent design defects that make it unsafe for its intended use.

    As to sportscars, I wouldn't consider any of the sportscars I've driven to be "dangerous" because they were both well-designed and well-manufactured; I hold to the theory that people kill people, not guns, and so I also hold to the theory that, provided a car is well-designed and well-manufactured, and otherwise fit for its intended purpose, then it is only as dangerous as the fool behind the wheel.


    o_O. Well this is good proof that opinions vary. Widely :).

    It's a fair feat I guess, but utterly useless IMO compared to something like a Prius. Besides, I don't care what youtube smash tests you may see, it's a law of physics that the less mass your car has compared to the mass of the object you collide with, the more dangerous and lethal the accident will be. I'd suggest you read the quote someone posted about an independent test on the smartcar safety before jumping to any conclusions based on a few youtube advertisement videos.[/QUOTE]

    With all due respect, just whom do you think it was that posted the long tirade about the independent crash tests conducted by the IIHS wherein they smashed a SmartForTwo and a Mercedes C-Class together, and the (un)Smart car did a 450 degree rotation in the air? I'll give you one guess.
     
  4. ac500

    ac500 Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    216
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    You're right, I did misunderstand one of your sentences. Nevermind :)

    I guess I did word that not as clearly as I should. I meant that the minimum danger of a car is defined by the driver, but the maximum is defined by the car, if that makes any sense. Anyway, you know what I mean I think.

    Who do you think I was quoting in that response? It wasn't you obviously :).

    Yup, that's basically what I meant :). (I'm not arguing with you, just going on a tangent here -) In fact, having a faster / better performing car can be safer in many ways, in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing anyway. For just "brute" safety the best is the most tank-like car you can get. The smartcar is neither of these (again, not arguing with you, I'm agreeing) :)
     
  5. Shyster1

    Shyster1 Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    6,926
    Messages:
    8,179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Well, I for one am glad that we got that worked out; I must admit that I was a little frustrated that I couldn't seem to say what it was I was trying to get across, which is that, for the most part, I think we agree with each other.
     
  6. ac500

    ac500 Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    216
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Yeah, I think so. It was mostly my fault for misunderstanding a few things you said, I'm not usually that dense :)
     
  7. masterchef341

    masterchef341 The guy from The Notebook

    Reputations:
    3,047
    Messages:
    8,657
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    206
    glad we all settled down.

    in short, a smart car is smart, but not nearly as smart as Smart would like to make people who think of themselves as smart believe.

    Ultimately, there are many downsides to the smart car.

    Maybe consider a honda civic (possibly hybrid).
     
  8. stewie

    stewie What the deuce?

    Reputations:
    3,666
    Messages:
    2,174
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Shyster and ac500, you two are wasting bandwidth and database space. :laugh:
     
  9. Shyster1

    Shyster1 Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    6,926
    Messages:
    8,179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    That'd be a smart idea!:D
     
  10. Bog

    Bog Losing it...

    Reputations:
    4,018
    Messages:
    6,046
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    206
    To illustrate my point:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s

    Though both occupants would be killed in both the Smart and the sedan, it is clear that the Smart transfers far more energy to the passenger simply because it offers limited crumple zones.

    More info: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/smart-car1.htm

    While it has some innovative designs that make it surprisingly safe, it clearly isn't as safe as competitors *and* it doesn't offer many overall benefits that give it an edge over other cars. It's not smart to buy a Smart car.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page