Who says a smart is dangerous?

[SmartWombat]

70 mph into a wall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNwtEE9Dd6M

Not one of those cars on string indoors tests.
Real wall, real car, engine working ... BANG !

I reckon even with airbags you'd be seriously injured.
But from 70-0 instantly, I think in any car your body is going to suffer.
Particularly internal injuries and whiplash.

[Medley]

I'm actually rather impressed. I assumed it would suffer substantially more damage.

In the end, I think that may be one of the smart's biggest liabilities: fighting the perception that it's a dangerous car, wether or not crash and safety tests bear that out. We are, after all, taught to trust our instincts and listen to our intuition.

- Joe U.

[SmartWombat]

Yep.
It kept me safe in my one big accident.
Despite the impact throwing a wheel over the hedge into a field.

[JSPhoto]

Well at least it wasn't a test done here, a 35mph test, 70 is more realistic, but what I want to see are crashes similar to this with two vehicles both at 70mph, as that is more likely to occur than one car hitting a cement barrier. I wonder how a smart car would stand up to hitting a full size pickup when both are going 70mph. Obviously the occupants wouldn't hold up too well in the Smart car.
These smart cars just don't seem all that smart for my liking on US roads. In England and Europe they are OK, but they do not have the number and size of vehicles there to contend with. We have too many SUV's and pickups to deal with and small cars just don't stand up to them in a crash.
Also, what about side impacts? These are the most common accidents.
The Smart cars seem to have advanced safety in some ways, proving that a small car can have a safer passenger compartment, but it still seems there is no leg and foot protection from what I saw in that video. Thats one area lacking in most vehicles though.

There is another thing I am curious to see, and that is when they will start building highways with the Safer Barrier that they are using at race tracks now. There are some areas that could benefit from that, like Deadmans Curve on I-70 in Richmond In. where they have a nasty turn that a lot of cars and semis hit the barrier.

I'll stick to my 2 Jeep Wagoneer's and my Dodge 2500 HD pickup. They may suck a bit more gas but they are also much safer in a collision.

JS

[SmartWombat]

I don't think that at a closing speed of 140mph you're going to have much that survives.
No matter what the vehicles are.
There's just too much energy in that collision to dissipate before you reach the soft, wet, squidgy bits in the middle.

There are some scary images that I'll try to find of a Range Rover hitting a people carrier side on. The people carrier is NCAP 5* rated, highest award you can get.
The 4x4 nearly comes out the other side of the people carrier - everyone inside would be in a 6" thick layer on the opposite side to the impact.


"The safest cars would be made of eggshells, with no seat belts and a 6 inch sharpened spike sticking out of the steering wheel."
Discuss

[JSPhoto]

Well cars and trucks can be made much safer than they are, but makers won't do it until they are forced to by the governments. Mostly due to the high costs of research and manufacturing, but also due to greed. Look at Ford in the 70's. They knew that by spending an extra $1.00 on the Pinto they could make the car safer in a rearend collision and keep the fuel tank from exploding, instead they skipped the $1.00 part and sold the cars as is, and continued until they got sued and the truth came out. It all comes down to money.
Racing has led to many improvements in car safety, but some things just seem to get ignored by manufatueres, such as foot and leg crush zones, few work, yet with some fairly simple design changes that area could be improved greatly and limit those injuries. Injuries caused by impact with the steering wheel could also be reduced by better designs of both the steering wheel and the seats. A steering wheel similar to those used in race cars designed to crush and not push back towards the driver isn't all that difficult, but with smaller vehicles it is a bit of a design problem because of the shorter area to work with.

I have scrapped a lot of cars, trucks and vans and it's amazing to see how some vehicles are put together, especially how seats are held in, it's amazing how some seats stay in even in cars that were not wrecked. I had one where a seat without a passenger in it was ripped out of the floor. The car had been rearended while parked by a car half it's weight going 35mph. The nuts used to hold the seat in had no washers and were 1/2 in size (13mm). They should have had a large washer and at least a 9/16th inch nut and bolt (15mm) to hold the seat in.

I'll admit I have been known to make changes to my vehicles to help make them safer for certain accidents. My truck has drive shaft hoops and skid plates to keep things from crushing the plastic fuel tank and the rearend by the bumper has had some strengthening added because it has already been rearended 5 times. And the plow attachment stays on year round....no one wants to hit that, it's moved trees. The truck still needs the rollbar added but it's tricky to design as I have 5th wheel trailers I haul and that makes for a bit of a design issue so they don't interfer with the trailers.
My Jeeps will both be getting new bumpers that won't give like the originals and both have 1/4 inch steel skid plates for the fuel tanks versus the stock 1/8th in plates and both will get side rubrails which will give added side protection. The seats are installed with larger bolts, nuts and washers than what they were stock and both will have roll bars.
The Jeeps are prone to foot zone crushing so there is some extra bracing added there, inside and outside. It would take a 90mph crash to ge my feet trapped in there. And the steering wheels both have racing parts that allow them to crush 8" before moving the steering wheel.
The rollbars in the Jeeps also help in side impacts, making it harder to push the side in.

JS