Smart Fortwo

snakeweasel · May 2010

wouldn't be the greatest thing to be in if one collides head on with something at 60 mph, so please don't start.

Not many things out there that would be great to be in with a head on collision at 60 MPH.

plekto · May 2010

What it boils down to is that deaths aside, because it takes a lot more force to die in a crash than get injured and some people manage to survive silly things thanks to modern technology, injuries will be greater, guaranteed, in a vehicle that light.

Looking at a Smart versus a typical car, I see three areas where it can be reinforced and create a similar vehicle.

1: Width. The car is without a doubt the thinnest thing on the road. They need to redesign it to be about a foot wider. This will add mass and safety as well as stability. It will also offer much better storage and comfort. The entire reason it was that thin was to park sideways legally in Europe, but the new one isn't legal for that and so it needs to be redesigned for standard parking dimmensions.

2: The rear needs to be expanded to a proper trunk or hatchback area. It needs to be able to fit a 36*36 inch box in the rear with the seats forward as much as reasonably possible and the back closed. Maybe 10-12 inches longer. That would be easy to hide.

3: Height can also be addressed(IMO, it need to be 2-3 inches higher seating position and door line to better protect versus side impacts) if the width and length are stretched a tiny bit. We're talking about a few hundred pounds from all three but almost twice the strength over the current design if it's all put into safety.

Both #2 and #3 can be done without anyone noticing if the ratios are kept exactly the same when they make it wider. Basically it would be similar in size to the IQ or the Fiat 500.

note - the Fiat 500 is the Smart's real problem. It's all around a better choice in this segment. When it comes out this fall, it's going to be the next big hit. Mercedes needs to get busy with a redesign asap.

snakeweasel · May 2010

But wouldn't making it longer and wider defeat the advantages that the Smart has?

Also I wouldn't worry to much about the Fiat, I know no one who had a fiat in the past that would drive one again. Well maybe they would if it came with spare parts and a mechanic.

jack137 · May 2010

Quote: Not trying to "prove" anything one way or the other here, but 30,000 smarts compared to 250 million plus vehicles seems too small a sample to say anything with certainty. The rate for the smart seems to be on the order of the overall rate, but I'd wager if we were talking about 10 times as many smarts on US roads, we'd be looking at significantly more than 30 fatalities because, like it or not, safety IS related to size. unquote

You had me nodding my head, saying "that's reasonable" through most of your post - until you came to the very end, where you slip in the zinger. This is a despicable tactic pointed out by the ANCIENT GREEKS in their philosophy classes, where someone would try to claim that "C" was true just because "A" and "B" were true.

If safety IS related to size, please explain why so many people die when a huge 747 airliner hits the ground? In fact, isn't it true more often than not, that most of the passengers in an airliner crash die? Not that I'm trying to prove anything here, but shouldn't airline fatalities be judged by the number of fatal "landings" than by passenger miles flown?

plekto · May 2010

But wouldn't making it longer and wider defeat the advantages that the Smart has?

Since the car was designed around sideways parking but it's no longer legal to do so in the U.S. with ANY Smart, then it has no advantages to defeat any more. Only things that hinder it at this point.

10-12 inches - pull out a tape measure. That's not a lot longer or wider. 1-2 inches taller won't be a factor, either, though it all will enable the windshield to be less steeply angled. This can mean another 2-4 inches of crumple space in the front with a careful redesign and still look like just a minor face-lift/refresh from the side. Unless you put both side-by-side, it would look nearly identical(the 1st vs 2nd gen New Mini is a perfect example - you don't notice the few inches at all unless they are literally next to each other)

So basically 4 inches in the front, 8 in the back(basically stretch the rear to equal the back of the rear wheel well arches - nothing major), 10-12 inches wider, same profile, and 1 inch larger tires to compensate for the visual effect. With a better engine/transmission combo, it could still get 45MPG and have better handling and interior.

[Deleted User] · May 2010

Pletko, please. You are trying to design a subcompact and there are already zillions of them out there. No shortage at all. Given the changes you suggest, you would end up with something that is not a smart. Like the FourFour was (besides being a miserably failure).

Let those overly concerned about getting mangled in a crash buy something other than a smart. But let there be a choice. There is nothing else like the smart available here, and you want to take away the choice because it is not as safe as a larger car would be.

The smart is a niche vehicle. If you take away its essence, it really has no reason to be. The Fiat 500, the Audi A1, the little Mercedes that is coming are all welcome choices that I will be glad to see us finally have here. I'd also like to see the the Tata Nano offered here, and yes, I'd like to see the smart continue. If you make the car small enough, it can be an alternative for those of us who feel a bit too vulnerable on a scooter or small cycle. Like a scooter, a tiny and narrow car can be parked more places. There will never be a big market for it, but let it be a choice please.

jack137 · May 2010

Priggly, do you own/drive a Smart car? If not, please stop looking out for those of us who do. While it gives me the warm fuzzies to realize that "someone out there" cares enough to save me from myself, I'm not sure if your approach of mixing a few "statistics" with personal opinion, which you invariably deliver at the end of each new message, is the best way to convince people that you're right.

I would think that the failure of Prohibition to save people from the far worse problems of alcoholism would at least serve as a warning to people with your prediliction for pontificating on the safety of cars they don't happen to like. :confuse:

[Deleted User] · May 2010

You just don't get it. Adding length and width renders the car something else. It has already been lengthened more than half a foot in the redesign for the US.

Not being able to park bumper to curb in some places (not ALL places as you contend) does not negate the advantage of diminutive size. It has an advantage in urban driveways and parking areas that must be used where on street parking is not allowed. Many residential streets have parking that is restricted by time periods or permit requirements, not how much space you do or don't take up (no painted spaces). I can park with just a few inches on either end, without scraping either the front or back car, but that space can be too small for a car larger than the smart. There are houses in the university area where I stay in the city which have alleys that are too narrow for most cars to negotiate without scraping. And a smart will fit in a utility shed that no other car would.

I had considered buying an urban house that had no front yard other than a thin flower bed between it and the sidewalk of the cul de sac it was on. The "driveway" was only about 12 feet long, and though there was space for a utility shed, the lot would not have held a normal size single car garage. Having a smart plus public transport would have worked fine. Size does matter.

jack137 · May 2010

On a separate note, a picture has been circulating on the internet that purports to show a Smart car squished down to virtually nothing between two 18-wheelers. The only part of the car that is clearly identifiable is one of the wheels.

Fortunately, the moron posting that picture failed to realize that Smart cars don't have FIVE lug-nuts on their wheels. This points out the truly vicious nature of some Smart-bashers.

Back in the '30's, the FBI decided that the best way to catch mobsters was to "follow the money" and put the perps in jail for tax evasion.Using that concept, let's try to find out who would benefit the most by bashing Smart cars and then put them out of business by boycotting them. :mad:

jack137 · May 2010

Thanks, Gregg-VW. You made a lot of good points, and I'd like to add a few as well.
For example, some parking spaces are made too narrow for "normal-width" cars to park and get the doors open enough to exit or enter their cars. Inconsiderate drivers can also park off-center in a slot, making it impossible to park anything bigger than the Smart in the only parking slot left open.

Finally, I bought a Smart so I could park two motorcycles in the same garage slot with my car. There's almost enough room to park a small third bike in there too, and my bikes are both 500+ pound 1200cc machines. The Smart also makes a perfect TOAD (towed vehicle) for small RV's, like the van-based class "B"'s.

snakeweasel · May 2010

Since the car was designed around sideways parking but it's no longer legal to do so in the U.S. with ANY Smart, then it has no advantages to defeat any more.

I beg to differ with you. I have had the opportunity to drive the Smart in cramped crowded urban streets here in Chicago. There was more than one time I was able to navigate through an area that I know for a fact I wouldn't be able to in any other car available in the US.

Hate to tell you this but in those situations a couple if inches often is the difference between getting through and being stuck.

plekto · May 2010

This may be true, but even after a small "redesign" like I posted, it would still be the smallest thing on the road by a significant margin. As it is, though, it's just too tiny to deal with major traffic like I get here in Los Angeles. It's horrendously slow and ridiculously tiny compared to the massive SUVs and trucks that are everywhere. I'd not feel safe in it on a major freeway.

And, remember, this originally was about what car to get for a teenager. You know, the types that WILL get in a crash sooner or later and that are starting to drive.

The smart money there is to get them a big cheap full-size sedan and let them destroy that instead.

priggly · May 2010

No, Jack, I do not own or drive a "Smart" (I have more regard for life and limb than that) but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

snakeweasel · May 2010

It's horrendously slow

But the reality of the situation traffic in large urban areas are even more horrendously slow. Sometime time how fast traffic takes to get to 40.

and ridiculously tiny compared to the massive SUVs and trucks that are everywhere

And that is what makes them so much better in high density urban settings. I have gotten a Smart through areas that an SUV or a truck would have never gotten through.

beachfish2 · May 2010

I have seen 2 on rural interstates in Virginia and everytime a tractor-trailer went by them they were blown all over their lane. The trucks were only doing 70 in an area where 75 or 80 is more common. (I remember the same kind of problems when I drove a '65 VW bug and then a '75 Datsun B210. They just weren't up to it.)

I saw another one on a rural interstate in a 30-35 mph crosswind and it was downright scary to watch the driver fight it and try to maintain the 65 mph speed limit.

[Deleted User] · May 2010

This is so absurd. Every situation has its drawbacks. Has anyone here said the thing handles best on rural gusty freeways? The advantage is in urban congestion. If you take it occasionally on rural interstates, you will be fine, but your drive would be more pleasant in a Lacrosse, ok? The smart handles way better (not to mention being much safer) than the VW Beetle ever did, and lots of people braved the roads in those years ago. If you buy a motorcycle, you are almost guaranteed to get wet sometime. So no one should buy one?

dstrom · May 2010

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. I owned VW bugs for 20 years and they were affected, often dramatically, by big trucks and crosswinds, but my smart is not. I live and drive in rural Virginia and drive mine on the interstates all the time at 70-75 mph. No problem! Most of the time I don't even notice trucks or crosswinds. And when I do notice them it's no worse than every other small car and never even close to as bad as my VWs were.. And I've certainly never had to "fight" to maintain control. I suggest that you may want to drive them yourself before making uninformed observations -

PS: I often find myself drifting up to 80-85 mph so I've installed a cruise control

redfred1 · May 2010

Rural VA (probably 66/64/85/ or 81 I would guess) is not as windy as the open highways of central TX. I speak as an owner of a Smart and during large gusts of wind and large trucks I have found the car to move around about the same as my Civic and van. I guess I am not sure what you are referring to in terms of cars leaving their lanes unless the drivers panic and over-react (which is not the cars issue). I have never had to "fight" for control but have found that the car handles wonderfully in tight turns, 180's, and 90's (taking a sharp turn into my driveway at speed). Car easily does 90 for long stretches on our straight and flat TX roads and I have never lacked power to merge into traffic. All of this coming from a guy that owned and street raced a 69 RT Charger with a 440M, 68 RR stick with a 440M, and 71 Cuda with a 383. I am not bragging, just explaining that even a muscle car owner can concede that the Smart is a pretty durable and fun car to drive AND gets 40 mpg on the highway.

snakeweasel · May 2010

I have seen two on rural interstates in Illinois, they didn't seem to have any issues with the wind or trucks.

kneisl1 · August 2010

Nope not a Gorite. But come back in 20 years and I bet your opinion will have changed.

priggly · October 2010

In essence, the IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) crash test results confirm the fundamental laws of Physics  when two vehicles are accelerating at the same rate, the one with a bigger mass exerts more force (F = m * a). In short, if a Cadillac Escalade collides head-on with a Smart Fortwo, most likely the Smart driver would suffer more injury than the Escalade driver. For vehicles (and among other things), size matters.

http://www.automaxblog.com/2010/04/top-5-most-dangerous-cars/

Still, in an accident, "the laws of physics can't be repealed," said Russ Rader of the Arlington, Va.-based Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "Even with modern safety features like multiple air bags, people in small, light cars are always at a disadvantage in crashes."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19699245/

oldguy89 · March 2011

Yes, yes, most if not all people who drive cars are aware of said laws.
But you know I hear this all the time, and once had a guy with a Honda Gold Wing tell me he wouldn't drive a smart as they aren't safe. Now that was a riot. Be honest there are a lot of small cars on the road, not to mention a lot of high powered fiber glass cars on the road, so the issue isn't just a smart issue. I just wish that people would recognize that this is an issue for all small cars and not just harp on the smart car.
Just my 1 million turkish lira. :P

stout7735 · March 2011

Show me the bodies...Over 40,000 Smarts sold in America in the last 3 years and only 4 fatalities in Smarts... That is better survival rate than an average motor vehicle...Mercedes design and engineering trumps American common sense...

priggly · April 2011

My friend, nothing trumps American common sense, least of all Mercedes engineering (or lack thereof).

stout7735 · April 2011

Don't talk smack, when American engineering built such gems as exploding Ford Pintos and "lethal at any speed crash" Ford F-150s...

PF_Flyer · April 2011

Let's not let this turn into a personal beef please.

dmathews3 · April 2011

YA, don't talk about Toyota, Nissan, or mitsubishi to start.

Smart Fortwo

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles