DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.

Really, the physics of crumple zones is not rocket science. The stiffness of
the zone determines the amount of force applied to occupants while the depth
of the zone (for a given stiffness) determines the maximum impact speed the
zone can absorb. Short zones work just fine, but become ineffective at lower
speeds than longer zones.

IIRC there is considerable disagreement on how much deceleration a human
body can safely withstand, and air bags complicate that. The major concern
is aortic rupture, and air bags alone have been known to cause aortic
rupture at speeds as low as 10 mph. It still doesn't change the shape of
things - longer crumple distances are effective to higher speeds than
shorter ones. Where the cutoff is for the SMART car is something I couldn't
find.

Mike

 

So let me state my post such that you can comprehend. One must further ask
the question "Do the research reviewers have a personal agenda that may
color his perspective, analysis, and findings?"

 

As I stated above. Yes, we do and that personal agenda is to evaluate the
perspicacity of the research and the researchers therein involved.

Dave D

 

I guess the air bags don't mean much with the engine in your lap.

 

Really? I was being paid big bucks to design crumple zones, when you where
probably still driving a tricycle There is not enough room in a vehicle of
that size to design a crumple zone that can sufficiently reduce the terminal
speed of the third collision, at which ones organs will strike their
skeleton, to prevent them from being killed at the mandated 35 MPH crash
test speed Before we had test dummies we used belted an unbelted cadavers.
Their livers, spleens, gallbladders, and etc
would explode. If they had lungs capable of holding air, or blood under
pressure, I'm sure they would have ruptured as well


mike hunt

 

Whoever paid you should ask for their money back

 

Here in Canada many Smarts sell to carry advertising, it gets noticed
initially.
As for an urban car it would sell much better if 50% of the current
price. Of course it is for two people and their brief cases; not
suitable for two people to grocery shop of go playing golf.

Here the much more practical and lower cost Toyota Yaris is running the
Smart off the road.

 

Safer than a Harley, dude. Better mileage, too, sounds like.

All I know is, I had to maneuver in the parking lot yesterday around
some idiot in their extra-cab Ford 150 that stuck its ass halfway
across the narrow lane, got past that only to see an even bigger Ford
350 4WD, parked outside the Wild Oats store where these two citizens
had gone to buy their non-fat lattes and cartons of sprouts. There
just gots to be a better way.

J.

 

Don't blame the big vehicles, get a gun and shoot the "it's-all-about-me"
drivers.

 

LOL, ain't it the truth. Then there's the take two spaces so it don't
get scratched gang.

 

But the drivers of those vehicles "need" them. Just ask and they will tell
you. While you can get into conversations about constitutional rights to
drive whatever you want, the fact is, few really need the size vehicle they
drive. I have a Regal and a LeSabre, but could really get by with a Civic
or Yaris about 99% of the time. Outside of North America, you just don't
see the huge trucks and yet people manage to get their jobs done and commute
to work.

I do like a lot of goodies in a car. I've been re-thinking my priorities.
I was about ready to spring for a Lucerne, but I may just wait and make a
larger down payment of a Cobalt, Civic or Corolla instead. There is more to
life than a big car.

 

If you like goodies like navigation, auto AC, heated seats, etc, in a small
car, think about a BMW 3 series, Lexus IS 250, Acura RL or TS.

 

The republican congress at the beginning of the current administration
passed tax legislation that made it *very* attractive to own an SUV.
Here in So Calif you see little soccer moms driving huge SUV's all over
town. Usually while talking on the cell phone.

 

To some extent, there is truth to that. To some extent, your synicism is
well placed. I had an S-10 for several years. Plowed snow every winter,
carried lumber, hauled the garbage, lugged around my snowmobile, carted some
of the family - but not all, etc. It did just fine. It was a bit cramped
and it lacked for heavy towing capability, but it really did most everything
I needed. When it came time for a new truck, I went with a full size truck
because it plowed better, towed better, was wayyyy more comfortable, carried
more, and only got 2-3 mpg less than my S-10. I could have gotten by just
fine with another S-10, but I got by with more capability with my K-1500.
Gas was cheap enough to not worry about the small difference in mileage.
Hell, the comfort alone was worth that sacrifice. This truck will stay
around for a few more years, but when it comes time for it to retire I'll
probably look at the equivelent of an S-10 again.

Unless it's a '66 Cobra, I'm having a hard time convincing myself to crawl
in and out of anything smaller than my current '03 Grand Am, or my wife's
'04 Sonata. Who knows, maybe in a couple more years...

 

I wonder, what was the difference in mileage? I have a four cyl S-10
(89) and my 97 4.6 T-Bird gets better mileage.

 

If I was in my twenties, I'd certainly be driving something different. MY
wife would like an Eclipse, but she'd have a helluva time getting in and out
of it.

 

My S-10 was the 2.8L 6 cylinder and it got 18mpg. My '94 K-1500 gets 15.

 

the term for those drivers is "MFFY"; Me First,F-You.

 

Most of the time,they could just RENT the large vehicle when needed,and
save a lot of money.

Small cars (Civic size)are SO much easier to drive and PARK.
More fun,too.

 

amen, amen.