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. ac500

    ac500 Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    216
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    My Corvette even gets 30+ MPG on the highway at ~75 MPH. Another reason why the "smartcar" is smart only for those selling it. I could possibly understand a desire if it got 50+ MPG on gasoline. And as someone mentioned it could be more maneuverable in the city, where speeds are low and the high-speed unsafety won't make it as much of a death trap.
     
  2. allfiredup

    allfiredup Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    1,482
    Messages:
    3,209
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    106
    I must admit, I am impressed...make that AMAZED...after seeing that crash test video! 70mph into a concrete barrier and passenger compartment maintained it's shape. That doesn't mean it would fare quite that well in a head-on with an SUV. But I wonder how well any other small car would perform hitting a 70mph concrete wall!?

    As for performance, comparing it a base Civic or Corolla? I'm guessing that you're referring to non-US versions of those cars?
     
  3. Shyster1

    Shyster1 Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    6,926
    Messages:
    8,179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    One question: what are the odds that you'd be running into a concrete barrier, and what are the odds that you'd be involved in an off-center collision with a vehicle like, oh, say, a Mercedes C-class (or its functional equivalent)? Which should you be prepared for? Which is the more real-world scenario? In the real world, this thing is a death-trap.
     
  4. allfiredup

    allfiredup Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    1,482
    Messages:
    3,209
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Yeah, yeah...that's what everyone used to say about my Honda CRX! Luckily, I never had an accident in it.

    I agree that a fixed barrier crash doesn't simulate a real-world crash. Hitting a fixed barrier is one thing, but absorbing the energy of a significantly heavier object (vehicle) hitting you head-on is quite another. That's how they should crash test cars, IMO.

    The smart didn't do well on side-impact either. It would have done even worse, but instead of "t-boning" the passenger compartment as it does on normal-sized cars, it knocked the whole car off the road! The driver's door came unlatched.

    After seeing how easily that plastic roof shattered, the answer is obvious- Ejection seats! :eek: :D
     
  5. stewie

    stewie What the deuce?

    Reputations:
    3,666
    Messages:
    2,174
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    If this is how they do crash tests, most of the cars today will never pass, unfortunately. :p
     
  6. allfiredup

    allfiredup Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    1,482
    Messages:
    3,209
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Take a look at these-

    2009 Honda Accord vs. Honda Fit- frontal offset crash- LINK

    2009 Toyota Camry vs. Toyota Yaris- front offset crash- LINK

    No matter what they say, size DOES matter!!!
     
  7. stewie

    stewie What the deuce?

    Reputations:
    3,666
    Messages:
    2,174
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    The Yaris got owned pretty bad! :eek:
     
  8. allfiredup

    allfiredup Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    1,482
    Messages:
    3,209
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Yeah, both the Fit and Yaris were on the losing end...but the Yaris fared significantly worse than the Fit. The A-pilllar folded like a piece of origami!!!
     
  9. Shyster1

    Shyster1 Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    6,926
    Messages:
    8,179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Depends. Also depends on what constitutes, or should constitute, a "pass." Clearly, at a certain point, the cost outweighs the benefit (discounted for probability of collision) of adding additional safety measures. For example, if you're stopped immediately behind a tractor-trailer on the interstate, and another tractor-trailer slams into you going full speed (65mph), unless you happened to be in either (a) a tank, or (b) another tractor-trailer, you're not going to survive, whether you're in a Humvee, a Hummer, a Mercedes C-class, or a (un)Smart car. However, the odds of that happening are sufficiently low that the cost and expense of maintaining a tank, or a tractor-trailer, as your personal motor-vehicle outweigh the discounted benefit. It strikes me, however, that a vehicle should fail if it cannot withstand the typical collision, and that is precisely the problem with the (un)Smart car - if every other car in the world were also an (un)Smart car, then it would certainly be "safe;" however, that will never be the case, and accordingly, the (un)Smart car should not have been passed for highway safety.

    The only reason is was passed is politics - and a very illegitimate subterfuge that mis-states exactly what it means for a vehicle to "pass" highway safety tests - the purpose of which is to engage in a rhetorical strategy that defines "safe" as any car that passes these unworldly tests and, because the (un)Smart car is "safe" - it passed the government's tests, didn't it? - any car that causes injury to the occupants of a (un)Smart car must necessarily be a danger, a threat that has to be legislated out of existence. After all, there's nothing wrong with the (un)Smart car, because, as we said, it passed the so-called "safety" tests.

    Thus will the nanny-minders attempt to force all of us to drive only (un)Smart cars, by using rhetorical jujitsu to abuse the meaning of the highway safety test results and convert every other car into a threat to be banned.

    The analogue, if we go back to the 1970s Pinto - which also passed highway safety tests, notwithstanding that it had a propensity to burst into flame when struck in the rear - the Nanny-minders would have argued, "look, the Pinto passed the government's safety tests, it is therefore a safe car, and if it so happens that it bursts into flames when struck in the rear by another vehicle, then the danger is that other vehicle; if you cannot redesign every other car on the road so that it does not cause a Pinto to burst into flame when it strikes the Pinto in the rear, then every other car on the road must be banned as a dangerous, defective device."

    You can already see this illegitimate rhetorical subterfuge being tried, with strident demands to legislate that all SUVs, for example, be redesigned to have car-height bumpers so that if/when an SUV strikes a non-SUV car, their bumpers meet evenly, instead of the SUV's bumper riding up over the other vehicle's bumper.

    If the occupants in that non-SUV car are being injured at an unacceptable rate, then that is the result of a design flaw in that other non-SUV car, it is not the result of a design flaw in the SUV. However, way too many people have already swallowed the Nanny-minders' false logic, and are going along with the rhetorical charade.

    Anyone who thinks that this is anything other than a rhetorical charade, had better get used to the idea of driving nothing but (un)Smart cars, because that is where that false logic will inexorably lead.
     
  10. stewie

    stewie What the deuce?

    Reputations:
    3,666
    Messages:
    2,174
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    You hit the nail on the head, it is more politics than anything else.

    I need to start using nanny-minder's logic, if I can't get something done, then it must be everyone else's problem. :twitchy:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page