This a photo-shop job? Must be, eh? :wink:
Smooshed Smart car
- Thread starter 92 white 0650
- Start date
The smart is actually a very strong car and this looks like neither a smart nor a real photo. That wheel is not a smart wheel.
No it's not.
I was just talking with the owner of an insurance company and he said the premiums are 3 times higher on smart cars then any other business vehicle due to huge numbers of injeries.
Swift, that's your source for car safety? LOL... That car has a very strong high strength steel cage. It received the highest offset crash test rating from IIHS, a 5 star rating for side impact from NHTSA and a 4 star frontal impact. For a car its size it is very well built and strong.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CJHpUO-S0i8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CJHpUO-S0i8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Let's see how it does against a regular MB C class...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/he6TL15pJtw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/he6TL15pJtw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Highest offset crash test rating from the IIHS? Doesn't look like it to me. It looks more like my foot vs. a soda can.
Physics > airbags, structural reinforcements, and marketing
Last edited:
It doesn't really matter what it "looks like" to you, me, or to any other layman, the crash tests are based on bodily injury. This video doesn't say much, other than that the Smart's cabin looked like it performed as designed. Your video is actually proving my case.
There are many larger cars that protect its occupants LESS. Occupant injury and car damage are two different things and people mistake these two all the time. Ever see a Volvo in a hard crash? It too looks like a crushed soda can.
Anyway I never said you will be as safe in a Smart as you will in a Maybach 62, what I said was that it is not as weak as its size shows. I don't own a smart but I don't see the point of making fun of a well-designed car.
The only problem I see with the Smart Car is what boils down to simple physics. The shell of the Smart Car is strong no doubt, but in an accident a strong shell isn't exactly what you want. Your typical car has a large area of crumple zones which is used to ease the deceleration of a crashing car. What appears to be massive deformation is typically a designed feature to absorb much of the impact. Force = mass x acceleration; acceleration being the change in velocity over distance (namely the speed of the car down to zero). Mass (you) is fixed, so the more distance you can spread that change in velocity over, the less force your body will absorb. Or Force = mass x change in velocity / distance. In a Smart Car, there just isn't enough physical distance for your body to decerlate from speed to spread out that force. So while you can make a super strong cage to keep from deforming, it's going to brutal for the passengers on the inside of that cage. Think of an egg inside of a steel cage dropped from a certain height. The cage will be fine but the egg will be toast (pun intended). Even if you secured the egg down with straps, the force would be too great because the deceleration force would be huge. The only way to save the egg would to be to suspend it with rubber bands or padding which will actually slow the change in acceleration forces by increasing the distance in which it changes velocity. The Smart Car simply does not have much "crumple distance" in which to spread out that change in velocity, so the acceleration component of the F=m*a equation will always be restricted to a high number.
Notice in the Mercedes vs. Smart Car video the Mercedes crumples like crazy up until it gets to the passenger area. While the Mercedes is crumpling, it is "absorbing" forces which protect it from the drive. But also notice that as soon as the forces get to the cabin, it immediately holds firm. That is because it is more critical to keep from deforming the cabin than it is to absorb forces. So the Mercedes absorbs as much as it can through the hood and engine area but hold strong at the cabin. It's like a steel cage with large marshmallows strapped to the outside. That's a designed feature. Meanwhile the Smart Car also has a strong cage and in the video you can see it holds up as well. In fact we see far less deformation on the Smart Car than on the Mercedes. However, in an accident that's not a good thing for the driver. Note, like the Mercedes the Smart Car begins to deform up until the cabin, where it then holds firm. But because the hood area is so much smaller, the abrupt change in velocity happens must sooner and faster than in the Mercedes. Thus notice at the moment of impact the driver of the Smart Car is launched into his steering wheel faster and sooner than the driver in the Mercedes. It is this feature that will always penalize the Smart Car simply by physics and design. While the Smart Car is probably fine (the door would probably still open and close) the passenger would have suffered massive head trauma and spinal damage, despite the air bag. The close up of the dummy in the Smart Car accident, I believe, would have suffered fatal injuries.
Finally, I haven't even approached the issue of momentum and collisions. If you notice in the video the Mercedes is still moving forward. Meaning, that it even benefits in the F=m*a equation becuase the change in velocity isn't to a full stop. It's a change in high to lower velocity and will help lower the impact forces. The Smart Car, because of being a smaller (in mass) vehicle actually begins to go past 0 velocity and actually changes direction, which would then be a negative velocity. This would mean that in the F=m*a it's acceleration component would be even greater, on top of the crumple distance penalty. When all things considered, I could easily see the impact forces on the drive in the Smart Car being up to twice as much as those in the Mercedes. I like the Smart Car and I even considered purchasing one. But I do know of the inherent limitation of its design in safety and have to accept them no different than accepting them like with a motorcycle or other small car.
Notice in the Mercedes vs. Smart Car video the Mercedes crumples like crazy up until it gets to the passenger area. While the Mercedes is crumpling, it is "absorbing" forces which protect it from the drive. But also notice that as soon as the forces get to the cabin, it immediately holds firm. That is because it is more critical to keep from deforming the cabin than it is to absorb forces. So the Mercedes absorbs as much as it can through the hood and engine area but hold strong at the cabin. It's like a steel cage with large marshmallows strapped to the outside. That's a designed feature. Meanwhile the Smart Car also has a strong cage and in the video you can see it holds up as well. In fact we see far less deformation on the Smart Car than on the Mercedes. However, in an accident that's not a good thing for the driver. Note, like the Mercedes the Smart Car begins to deform up until the cabin, where it then holds firm. But because the hood area is so much smaller, the abrupt change in velocity happens must sooner and faster than in the Mercedes. Thus notice at the moment of impact the driver of the Smart Car is launched into his steering wheel faster and sooner than the driver in the Mercedes. It is this feature that will always penalize the Smart Car simply by physics and design. While the Smart Car is probably fine (the door would probably still open and close) the passenger would have suffered massive head trauma and spinal damage, despite the air bag. The close up of the dummy in the Smart Car accident, I believe, would have suffered fatal injuries.
Finally, I haven't even approached the issue of momentum and collisions. If you notice in the video the Mercedes is still moving forward. Meaning, that it even benefits in the F=m*a equation becuase the change in velocity isn't to a full stop. It's a change in high to lower velocity and will help lower the impact forces. The Smart Car, because of being a smaller (in mass) vehicle actually begins to go past 0 velocity and actually changes direction, which would then be a negative velocity. This would mean that in the F=m*a it's acceleration component would be even greater, on top of the crumple distance penalty. When all things considered, I could easily see the impact forces on the drive in the Smart Car being up to twice as much as those in the Mercedes. I like the Smart Car and I even considered purchasing one. But I do know of the inherent limitation of its design in safety and have to accept them no different than accepting them like with a motorcycle or other small car.
Last edited:
Re: The real story on the picture
Someone sent me this; I have no idea if it's true.
Someone sent me this; I have no idea if it's true.
Anyone got some of the nsx in a frontal crash? I figure a telephone pole in the front center would end up in the rear of the cab
Similar threads
