Smart Cars Coming to Canada and U.S. 605
AgniTheSane writes "Most importantly the Smart Car looks cool. It also gets 60 mpg, is four feet
smaller than a Mini Cooper (you can park two in a standard parking spot), the
plastic panels are easily swappable and one color all the way through (so you
can't scratch the paint), the steel frame makes it safe in an accident, and you
can get it with in-dash Bluetooth (and in Europe can read and write email via
the car speakers and a microphone). The Smart car is coming to the US soon, and will cost as little as $12,000. You can read about it in
Wired or on
MSNBC, or you can go straight
to ZAP who will be
selling them in the US soon, or the smart car
website in the UK. "
Already popular (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Already popular (Score:3, Interesting)
-aiabx
Heh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, I figured that only teenage girls would buy the MINI, and I see those things all over the place.
MINI (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Heh (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Heh (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Heh (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, the average American family is that large (read obscenely FAT).
Lucky for you that Microsoft didn't get the patent on FAT then, imagine the license fees!
Re:Heh (Score:3, Informative)
Don't get feeling too smug and superior; the Europeans are following closely behind.
I was in the deep East End of London recently, and the residents of the council estates there were as fat as any trailer-park trash in Arkansas.
The chattering classes are of course nice and trim, but that is mostly the case over here too.
-ccm
Re:Heh (Score:5, Funny)
Speaking from experience, a Vauxhall Nova can also seat seven.
Eight if you push extra hard, nine or more if you include the boot...
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the trends from the Centers for Disease Control http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/prev _char.htm [cdc.gov]
This is over and above those who are just considered overweight.Back on-topic, the car weights 1500 pounds. You won't see it hauling 2 300-pounders with a sub-700cc motor. Then again, as gas prices keep doubling, Mr. and Mrs. Lard-belly won't have the $$$ to both stuff their faces AND run their 8mpg SUVs/cattle haulers, so either they or their vehicles are going on a diet, one way or another.
Re:Heh (Score:3, Funny)
Delta P, Delta E (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Delta P, Delta E (Score:5, Funny)
Gotta look on the bright side. (Score:5, Funny)
There's an upside, however. In the event of a collision, the Smart folds conveniently into the shape of a coffin.
Re:Delta P, Delta E (Score:5, Interesting)
Smart were well aware that the car looks easy to break, so they put a LOT of effort into safety. I've seen pictures of a from end collision between a Samrt and a Mercedes E-class, the Merc was a write-off, while the Smart drove away.
Re:Delta P, Delta E (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Delta P, Delta E (Score:5, Interesting)
All the same, in an accident where I need to walk away, I'll take my Mercedes or my old Volvo before I'd take some of the cheap, tinfoil crap I see on the road every day (not saying the the Smart is one). On top of that, at the price I paid for my car, I'm much more careful with my driving and keeping the car in top mechanical condition. Small, cheap, disposable cars tend to be more dangerous simply from the standpoint that their owners may not have the same "investment" in keeping it in one piece.
Also, having a rigid frame around the driver is a great idea IF there is something sacrificial around it to absorb the impact energy in an accident. I can build a car that's strong enough to withstand an impact and drive away, but you'd have to scrape the occupants out with a paper towel. I have some experience in this. I built an ultra-light aircraft for my wife and decided to make is extra strong. When she crashed it (pilot error), it took almost nothing to put the ultra-light back in the air. My wife, on the other hand, was almost killed and spent 2 years with countless surgeries recovering. The investigation concluded that had the aircraft structure been weaker and able to absorb the impact, she might have been able to walk away. Needless to say, I don't fly that one any more.
On the other side of the equation, I was filming from the back seat of an ultra-light for an instructional video when we augured in (yep, camera rolling - great footage!). There was nothing left of the plane. It practically disintegrated around us, but we both walked away. The pilot broke a bone in his hand and the restraint system left some really impressive bruises on me, but we were able to spend the night out and wait for rescue just fine. The aircraft I fly now is designed to absorb the impact of a crash (I've also added a ballistic parachute to it).
Last week I was early on the scene of an accident where I thought for sure someone would be dead. One of the cars looked like no-one could have survived. However, upon closer inspection the driver's compartment was entirely intact, with several airbags deployed. The driver was standing a short distance away, talking to one of the other people one the scene. He looked shaken, but [apparently] unhurt. The other car look like it was in better condition, but the driver was still sitting in it (and was being attended to - so I didn't get any closer).
It sucks big-time to have your car looking like a grotesque piece of $50,000 modern art, but seeing your kid getting safely out: priceless!
:-)
Re:Delta P, Delta E (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously though, I live in Alaska now and to get to most places you have to fly in small planes. We also do a lot of hunting and fishing which you pretty much need to fly out to do effectively. There's nothing better than tossing the fly rod up into the wing of my ultra-light and landing somewhere on a gravel bar for some quiet fishing.
Re:Delta P, Delta E (Score:5, Interesting)
Of the two, I would have certainly preferred to be in the Smart. Of course, cars tend to fare better when hit from behind, but even so, the disparity in damage caused was incredible. I always thought that Smarts looked really fragile, being used to old Citroens and Volvos (which are can run over armoured personnel carriers with barely a scratch), but this was impressively strong.
They still look like they'd flip up and lie on their tailgates, though.
Re:Delta P, Delta E (Score:5, Informative)
Not necessarily. Smart is designed with safety in mind and has pretty good crash test [canadiandriver.com] results. Don't forget that crash tests describe only the passive safety (can you survive when bad things happen?), while Smart excels in active safety (can you avoid the bad things to happen in the first place?). I was driving a rented one on a business trip and the thing is agile like a TIE-fighter. Unless you're asleep at the wheel, you will be able to make an evasive manoeuvre avoiding getting hitted by the SUV.
On the other hand, large SUVs are hopeless in active safety (a pick-up truck with a wagon-like interior will always remain a pick-up truck in terms of agility), they prone to rollover [pbs.org] and the frame chassis does not add to passive safety, contrary to popular belief. Yes, the chassis will remain untouched by a minor collision, but it does not mean your spine will remain untouched as well. If someone drops you in a steel cage from a steep cliff, the cage might itself remain untouched on the bottom - but your spine probably won't. Modern cars wreck so horribly precisely because the chassis takes all the energy that would otherwise release - among other things - on your spine. It's no wonder that the safest 4x4 according to NHTSA is subaru forester [dot.gov]. It's a car-based SUV that gets totally wrecked in a crash - but that's because the driver leaves from collision in perfectly good health. Someone has to explain this to all the SUV moms...
Re:Delta P, Delta E (Score:3, Informative)
For starters, an SUV is far more likely to be involved in an accident, thanks to increased stopping distances and high center of gravity and weight mean that they are hard to perform emergency manouveurs in.
Once in the accident, it's not the sudden stop that will kill you. The crumple zone in the front isn't designed to slow you gradually. The cabin deforming and crushing you is what kills.
The reason the cabin crushes is because there is a lot of
Re:Heh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Take it from a European... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, you might want to check out this: http://www.insidercarsecrets.com/women.html [insidercarsecrets.com]
Or the stats a bit further down the page:
So it's a "chick car". So what? That's what people said about the new Mini - but I see guys snapping them up, and their girlfriends love 'em.A woman isn't going to get all gushy over you 'cause you have a 454 under the hood. She'll just think you're another one of those "horsepower substitutes for penis" idiots.
Safe in an accident? (Score:5, Insightful)
Provided the accident is a frontal collision with a Mercedes Benz sedan, like in the publicity video, with the Mercedes' crumple zone absorbing all the impact.
Re:Safe in an accident? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Safe in an accident? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Safe in an accident? (Score:2, Interesting)
Everyone in America seems to paranoid about driving. I don't get it. It's not like they don't have 18 wheeler monster trucks in Europe, and they seem to manage.
Re:Safe in an accident? (Score:2)
Re:Safe in an accident? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Safe in an accident? (Score:3, Insightful)
Small winding streets give you insufficient room to avoid being doored and limit visibility. It's playing russian roulette every day. I've been lucky so far *knocks wood*.
Heavy traffic load makes motorists impatient, agitated and unpredictable. Busses swerve into and out of what few "bike lanes" exist.
And the potholes...
Re:Safe in an accident? (Score:2)
Re:Safe in an accident? (Score:2)
It depends on what ratings the Yellow Submarine got in the goverment crash tests.
Re:Safe in an accident? (Score:3, Informative)
Just my $0.02
- Thomas;
Re:Safe in an accident? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Safe in an accident? (Score:2)
Re:Safe in an accident? (Score:4, Interesting)
In the brussels car fair they did the test by driving the SMART car against a concrete wall at 60 kmph, the doors opened without problems and the passenger-cage was perfectly intact.
ps.:My girlfriend drives a smart. It's the perfect car for women; you don't need to be able to parrallel park as you can just drive into a parking spot under a 90 angle
They aren't coming to Canada (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They aren't coming to Canada (Score:2, Funny)
smart drivers (Score:2, Funny)
Another article (Score:2, Funny)
To paraphrase Basil Fawlty, "You realise they are equipped with steering wheels?"
It is a safe car (Score:5, Informative)
It _has_ been rigourously tested.
You know, we here in Europe do make more out of less and don't need a 2 Ton SUV to have a save car.
Re:It is a safe car (Score:5, Informative)
I owned such a car for four years, specifically a Smart Cabrio. It feels much safer from the inside than from the outside. Even the most basic model comes standard with all the safety features: double airbags, ABS, stabilization... The room in front of you is all made up of buffer zone that folds when you crash. The distance between the wheels is so short that in any side crash at least one wheel takes a part of the punch.
It's a fun car to drive, with a direct feel but not like a go-cart. The suspension may be a bit dry but it corners well and is handles well in any situation.
advantages/disadvantages (Score:2, Informative)
Advantages:
Little parking space required
Coolness of especially the cabrio version
Price and costs of ownership
Disadvantages:
Speed limit of 140 km/h (although less speeding tickets is ok)
Little storage space
Re:advantages/disadvantages (Score:2)
Of course I stayed off the road as much as I could. Trains are better at avoiding traffic than cars.
Twisted Numbers (Score:3, Funny)
Jonah Hex
Not so cool (Score:5, Informative)
Positive points:
- looks cool
- each passenger has a lot of room (really)
Negative points:
- automatic shift is very slow, it is dangerous and reduces confort (it brakes the car during the shift)
- the vertical construction implies rather hard suspensions, with reduced confort (you feel every bump in the road in your spine)
- noisy inside
- pricy
In Europe you can find lots of small cars that have a comparable MPG (or better km/l), have 4 seats and are cheaper.
To sum it up, coolness factor aside, I would not reccomend it.
Re:Not so cool (Score:2)
Can you tell me please? I looked amoung all of the manufacturers last year and couldn't find anything actually on the market which was as efficient. The diesel in particular does 84mpg.
Re:Not so cool (Score:3, Informative)
It's 4.7 l/100km vs the 4.7 l/100km of the smart fortwo coupe 37kW.
Or the Daihatsu Cuore which sports a 4.6 l/100 km.
Re:Not so cool (Score:5, Informative)
3L means it does 100km on 3 litres of diesel. My limited knowledge of ancient measurement systems indicates that that is around 20% more efficient than a smart. It costs a bit more though.
Canada + USA == "North America" (Score:2, Insightful)
Canadians use this more than Americans do, and there can be confusion about whether you intend to include Mexico and the Caribbean Basin, but all in all Americans underuse the term.
Finally got over the safety standard hurdle (Score:2)
When I first saw these released in Europe many people said that such tiny vehicles would never be released in the US because the small size made it impossible to meet US safety standards (similar reasons for the Ford Ka (no real bumpers), and Mazda 121). I'm glad to see that perhaps with some engineering creativity, we now know that is not the case . . .
How do you pay for parking? (Score:2, Interesting)
Acceleration (Score:5, Insightful)
These things are going to need all the crash protection they can get. They're going to get flattened on any highway on-ramp.
Re:Acceleration (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Acceleration (Score:2, Insightful)
Repeat two points from the (modified) highway code after me...
Up and over is not a valid alternative to overtaking.
Cars are not sexy. Meet some women. They can be sexy.
On the downside... (Score:5, Insightful)
...It is not user-serviceable without a proprietary toolset.
Jokes about comparing proprietary software to a car with the hood welded shut are very chilling if this car is the beginning of a trend.
MartRe:On the downside... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:On the downside... (Score:4, Insightful)
As for a welded-shut hood, good luck trying to weld plastic, if you do manage it, I'd be interested to see which bits you plan to weld, considering the engine is at the back of the car, reached by lifting out a panel in the trunk.
There are NO proprietary fastenings that I managed to find, apart from some very clevel soft plastic fixings that are designed to be undone with your fingers to allow access to the bulbs. You can even swap the coloured panels with another colour when you get bored with them. I've known Smart owner's club members do this in a car park with no unusual tools, it's that easy.
Style issues (Score:5, Insightful)
A few years later I heard things like great mileage, funky distinct design, low price, reliable, and most importantly able to park it in the tiniest of spaces.
I don't think that the SMART will ever be the cross country driving car of choice, but as a second car in the city for the 2 parent working family I think its a brilliant idea . . . Why drive a 4000 pound SUV to pick up a gallon of milk at the supermarket if you don't have to?
Re:Style issues (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Style issues (Score:5, Interesting)
Smart Cars are so short they can park nose in parking spaces that aren't wide enough for a Hummer to park laterally.
As for style, my wife squeaked in delight for months on seeing them and often wanted no more than to "hug" them. They've even turned into small art and advertising billboards in the case of rental and corporate vehicles.
They're definitely a cool car by most Spaniards' measurements.
Crash Test Results (Score:2, Informative)
Go figure for yourself if that's safe(enough) for your. Generally -at least here in Germany- the cars are considered safe, but we don't have that many 5000lbs SUVs to crash against either...
euroncap.com [euroncap.com]
Cars != smart (Score:3, Insightful)
I would expect that the majority of the US and Canada will continue to buy more 'full on gas guzzzlers' as opposed to these not so smart cars. We've had them in Europe for a while and they really haven't made a big impact here, even with the more green and liberal thinking that we have.
Why? welll like i say, they really arent that smart. Selling cars that reduce the amount of co2 is always a worthwhile thing however you cannot substitute sensible, flexible and economically sound [manchester2002-uk.com] public transport policy for the automotive industry's equivalent of the 'light/lite' cigarette. Not that most of the tax payers in the western hemisphere care anyway, that's why we still buy and love the freedom of our cars.
Make no mistake, car sharing and long distance travel is pretty much unviable in these things so understandably they only really get bought in urban areas. Mostly smart cars are seen and viewed as a posher and wankier version of the scooter [vespa.com]. Mercedes would be thrilled if everyone in the city bought one; I'm not so sure our planet would be
Cool? not...
Disclaimer: I'm not a 'manc', I'm Scottish
Whose kids will love it ? (Score:2)
Only if they hate their parents as there is no where for them to get into this 2 seater so they cannot go out with mum and dad anymore. This is not a family car so kids are not a part of the picture. This is for stupid young idiots who like to look 'different' and end up all looking the same because they all go around in the latest fashion. If you want an economical family car get a diesel VW Passat estate which is several times bigger and just as econom
First prize car (Score:2)
How I miss.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Most importantly... (Score:3, Funny)
bah - there is no safety argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Lighter = safer
Everything else aside, this vehicle is safer because it's lighter. There is no substitute for a lack of mass when your vehicle becomes a ball of plastic and metal momentum; the more weight, the more force is required to curb that momentum, so to speak. Force, in this case, typically translates into rolling, or crumpling. Modern vehicles do lots of both, particuarly SUV's. So bear in mind, mass is an inherent evil in vehicle safety.
Solid cage = safer
Second, this little critter has a solid cage that can withstand the problem I just mentioned - its own mass. Most vehicles will crumple under their own mass at moderate speeds. At 65 km/h, head-on this car will walk away mostly unscathed, and the passenger will only have minor injuries.
Lateral weakness = myth
From the side, the risk of being "T-boned", or laterally impaled, is highly overrated. The solid beam connecting the rear wheels, the axle, and the similarly reinforced front wheels, in such close proximity pretty much insure that if you are hit, unless it's a motorcycle, two of your strongest and most reinforced points of impact (the tires) are involved in the crash. Furthermore, there is a metal cage surrounding you that can easily withstand substantial impact.
Run-over = myth
The risk that it will be "run over" are also highly overrated. If a big vehicle hits a smart car, it becomes a wedge, pushing the larger vehicle into the air so that the larger vehicle can dissipate its energy on other things, like concrete, pavement and telephone poles.
See, eg. Smart and Tough, The National Post, 6/11/04
Arguing that this car isn't safe is being on the wrong side of competence, akin to arguing the superiority of Microsoft Windows' security. There may be valid points, but for the most part, you're just wrong.
(Not to sound too cynicial, but I think it's a valid point, and hypocricy is a peeve)
Re:bah - there is no safety argument (Score:3, Insightful)
From what I hear, cars crumple for a reason. That reason being changing your deceleration from 60 mph to 0 in
Re:bah - there is no safety argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Everything else aside, this vehicle is safer because it's lighter. There is no substitute for a lack of mass when your vehicle becomes a ball of plastic and metal momentum; the more weight, the more force is required to curb that momentum, so to speak. Force, in this case, typically translates into rolling, or crumpling. Modern vehicles do lots of both, particuarly SUV's. So bear in mind, mass is an inherent evil in vehicle safety.
Uh, where did you learn physics? Or did you mean "safer
Re:bah - there is no safety argument (Score:5, Interesting)
Reduce braking distance
Having done any research into vehicle safety would reveal this (though, admittedly, I didn't mention it, presuming that anyone with a iota of physics background would take this for granted): Even though you can't reduce reaction time, the next most important factor in traffic safety is braking distance, which is directly proportional to mass. You stop faster with less weight.
Accident avoidance
After that, I understand the next most important safety factor is avoidance, a function of lateral traction, proportional to tire width, gumminess, and closeness of the axels, and inversely proportional to mass. The less your mass, the more lateral traction. If you can avoid or stop before the accident, the odds of a detrimental accident decrease.
Functions of time
So, as you say, "it's not the speed that kills you, it's the sudden stop", the Smart Car simply slows faster prior to the sudden stop, so when that sudden stop happens, you're going much slower. Safety as a human function is directly proportional to the time of the stages in an accident: realization, reaction, braking or avoidance, and impact. More effective braking and avoidance make your time more useful.
Crumple zones
Albeit, in a smaller vehicle, there is a small but substantial increase in the potentially vital impact component. However, if you put a 730kg (1600lb) vehicle (the Smart car) against an average vehicle sized sedan at 1500kg (3300lb), the sedan will simply stop further away from the point where the driver realized and acted on an emergency situation. That distance translates into not just fewer accidents, but lower speed at the point of impact, hence less force involved in the impact, and hence fewer and less severe injuries.
Emperical questions
To measure the safety, you have to look at the merits of the differences between this vehicle and others. These merits are not necessarily obvious, involving at least:
* How do most accidents happen?
* How do most injuries happen? I believe the vast majority of accidents are rear-enders, which can be substantially reduced with better breaking distance and avoidance.
* How many vehicle accidents are related to inadequate lateral traction?
* Does the increase in avoidance and braking capacity result in fewer accidents?
* Lower the cost insurance?
* Lower fatalities? Of the owners? Of SUV drivers?
* Result in fewer fender-benders?
* How many are head-on collisions? (The only case where this vehicle would seem to be substantially less safe, isn't it? This is the case where momentum clashes and your body velocity goes from +X to -X)
Geneology of Driving
These are sort of anecdotal arguments that I've bought into: Humans aren't designed to acquire and react to information at speeds provided for by vehicles, though we have compensated very well. Two factors remain very good at making drivers more comfortable, and hence more adequate: visibility and fit. The more visiblity you have, the less compensation your brain has to do to make up for blind spots. The better you feel you have control of the vehicle, ie. how it 'fits' you, the less time your brain spend compensating for unresponsive or poorly responsive mechanics. However, a large car can have both of these. There is also a question of security; insecure drivers, ie. those in a smart car who are uncomfortable being surrounded by SUV's, may react poorly (or perhaps drive more cautiously; who's to say).
I hope that clarifies the reality and reveals to you how physics of lighter vehicles can, and typically emperically does, make them inherently safer. Bear in mind, the old Volvo tank model of safety has its merits, too. But the Smart Car is not a death trap, unlike nearly all SUV's (save the Subaru Forrester, in the USA, iirc).
Re:bah - there is no safety argument (Score:4, Informative)
Re:bah - there is no safety argument (Score:3, Interesting)
A rudimentary knowledge of physics is no compensation for ignorance of traffic engineering and safety. Prior to spreading FUD, perhaps read the referenced, or looking up on google a relevant, article. (Would you do any less if Windows were claimed to be the patron saint of network efficiency?)
Ev
Re:bah - there is no safety argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why we hear of so accidents involving Mack Trucks and Yugos that end badly for the over-the-road truck driver.
Re:bah - there is no safety argument (Score:3, Insightful)
How About Getting Smart Drivers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Drivers seem to be getting dumber, and ruder, by the day.
So, I'd like smart cars that pull over to the curb and turn themselves off when the driver does something stupid, like turning right across three lanes of traffic from the far left lane, or speeding along the right shoulder on an Interstate to pass, or speeding up to go through a yellow light, or....
The Download on their site does not work. (Score:2)
What about pot holes? (Score:3, Insightful)
In Helsinki, we have the smartest car ever (Score:3, Insightful)
Other advantages: no need for a garage, no problem starting it up in winter and, best of all, it steers itself to destination.
It's only used in urban areas, but so are the SMARTs.
This wonder of modern technology is our rock-solid public transportation network. My visit to Dallas a couple of years ago has convinced me that Americans have no clue of this concept. Heck, I'm not even sure you guys ever heard of bycile lanes or walkways.
The gripping hand... (Score:3, Interesting)
There's unquestionably room in the market, especially in highly urbanised countries where fuel is expensive, for tiny funky city cars like these. I'd buy one. But the Smarts, despite being a Mercedes co-production (which would lead you to think it'd be nice but have lousy quality control...), are just lousy to drive and too expensive, according to all reports. The reviews (Review 1 [fairfax.com.au], Review 2 [fairfax.com.au]) have been so lousy that I ruled out even ever test driving one; if the things cost $AU5000 then that'd be another matter [everything2.com], but they're really quite expensive here, and the US pricing would seem to be similarly inflated, compared with the lower pricing of regular cars in the States.
Here in Sydney, Australia, I see a Smart tooling around every now and then, but every single one I've seen has been a corporate promotional vehicle, not a private car. There's no reason at all for a private citizen to buy one of these expensive, annoying little things, when perfectly good four-seat Japanese subcompacts are available for the same money. Korean ones [webwombat.com.au] cost rather less.
Re:Too small (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Too small (Score:2)
Granted, but you can park it in spaces normally available only to motorbikes, and pop into a cafe to sit down with your coffee, while the people with bigger cars continue to drive around looking for somewhere to park. (Remember it's a city car)
Re:Too small (Score:2)
Re:Too small (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Too small (Score:2)
Re:Death Trap (Score:4, Informative)
I'm guessing page 3 was a little too far for people to read, so I'll copy it here:
A steel frame absorbs front-end impact - no cockpit crumple. Get hit head-on, and the car collapses behind the doors near the back wheels.So there is a crumple zone, it's just behind you
Re:Death Trap (Score:2)
Many years ago, Volvo found out that a strong, rigid box may protect the car from catastrophic damage, and yet kill the passengers. The g-forces from a collision can kill you while the car body stays intact.
Re:Death Trap (Score:2, Informative)
Contrary to popular belief, the UK isn't a place with a few cars, empty country roads and stuff. It has tonnes of cars, tonnes of bad drivers (not as many as the US though, our driving test is a bit more advanced) and lots of accidents.
Oddly enough, there hasn't been a revolt or outcry over SMART car accident rates being higher than average.
Of course, they are more ideal for the UK which in-town is slow to drive due to ro
Re:Death Trap (Score:2)
As good as many SUVs (Score:2)
http://www.euroncap.com/
Front and side impacts:
http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_
Picture:
http://www.euroncap.com/downloads/med
You don't drive a Jeep do you? Or a pre 1997 car?
Re:Death Trap (Score:3, Funny)
Oh well, it was nice whilel it lasted
Re:Coffin on Wheels (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, I wouldn't buy a Smart. Why? Because it's too wide, and can't be used to "split" between lanes of traffic. In NYC, 9 or 10 months out of the year, a motor cycle or bicycle makes a much better "city car."
-b
Re:SUV vs Rubber Cone - Rubber cone wins (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps, but if the professional hired by a magazine to test-drive the SUV fucked up, what about the soccer-mom who drives the SUV day to day?
My point was that an SUV is much more likely to kill its driver than a small car. In a head-on crash between an SUV and a small car, perhaps the SUV driver is safer. But what about all other accidents? A small car, no matter how skilled its driver is, will have a greater chance to avoid accidents. In a real emergency, you may not be ab
Not true at all (Score:2)
Re:I've been lied to (Score:2)
Re:I've been lied to (Score:5, Insightful)
Not actually 'free', but subsidised. Either your employer, your bank, the mall, or your town paid for the land, paid to have it paved, pays to have it maintained and striped routinely. Unless vast expanses of asphalt just appear by magic, someone is paying for it. And that someone is almost always us, either directly or indirectly.
Money that could go elsewhere.
Re:Looks cool?? (Score:2)
Re:Looks cool?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What's the sense of this here? (Score:2, Informative)
Also it can hit 80mph without too much of a problem, plus the electronic limiter can be removed by a hack.
As for the 19 sec 0-60mph that is due to the automatic tra