Study Says Small-Car Buyers Sacrifice Safety

[JKA6373 0]

Smell Politic........

[smart142 605]

I tried to send a comment, but it refuses to let me, telling me the three letters I type are always wrong.

I tried too,no go!

[smart142 605]

Here's another one:

..................

Daily Gut: Deadly Dreams in Tiny Cars

by Greg Gutfeld

So according to MSNBC, President Obama is enjoying amazing support from “an uncommon alliance of auto executives, union leaders and environmental activists” concerning is new proposal to raise mileage standards and curb vehicle emissions.

But if you look at this support, you can see why it`s as pathetic as spoilers on a Yugo.

Of course, the auto executives are behind it, because the government is paying them to be behind it. For the union leaders and environmentalists, it just means a preservation of power and an increase in influence. The only people missing from this equation? The rest of America. They will pay with their wallets, and their lives.

According to the experts, Obama`s proposals will add about $1300 in costs to every car. How that helps an industry during a bottomless recession is beyond me. Worse, the National Academy of Sciences has linked mileage standards to roughly 2000 deaths per year. According to Steve Milloy, the author of Green Hell, every 100 pound reduction in the weight of small cars causes traffic fatalities to rise as much as 715 per year. He claims that Obama`s proposed plan will kill more Americans at a faster rate than the Iraq War. He might be right: last month, for example, crash tests found that drivers of the 2009 versions of so-called Smart cars- basically sardine cans without the odor or the protection - could suffer serious injuries in front-end crashes with larger, mid-size vehicles.

So wait a second. Who in God`s name would be criminal enough to be driving those larger, midsized vehicles?

Well besides evil parents who want to protect their families - try Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Yep, our fearless leaders Obama and Biden have the luxury of bullet-proof, tank-proof and smart-car proof transportation for themselves and their adorable offspring. Basically, if they hit us: they live, we die.

Unless, of course, we stick to buying the cars we want to buy, and not what the government wants. Which can only mean an inevitable punitive tax against evil people like us. Fact is, there is no huge demand for collapsible sippy-cup cars, because people prefer safety over economy. So the only way to get us into deadlier cars is to make it a financial burden to own the safe ones.

Red asphalt is often paved with good intentions.

............................

Source.

[MikeT 747]

Who are these idiots? This dumbass probably has an arms cache in his basement too......

[JKA6373 0]

Ahh, buy American made. Ford, GM. Next year the big brothers can have fat bonus again. If you don't, Uncle Sam had to bail 'em out again!

[steveyfrac 73]

Wow. Your honor, the defense pleads idiocy in the first degree.On a side note about domestic manufacturers: Check out the new Chevy Spark hitting our shores in 2011 (hopefully). It's a small domestic. The sport model has a 1.2L powerhouse (at 80ish HP) , and the standard mill is a 1.0L 68 hp beastie. Current estimates are putting it at 45 MPG (us) combined cycle. If it's inexpensive... sign me up! It looks sexy. I'll take one in green.-Steve

[smart142 605]

''The smart is built around a tridion safety cell''

26th of May 2009

How Crumple Zones Work

Introduction

Looking at photographs with car accidents that took place in the 1950's and accidents in more recent times you'd think that engineers have gone backwards and have made vehicles less safe. Early automobile design theories saw extremely rigid bodies that were very resistant during an accident and didn't allow too many deformations. As a consequence, all the forces were transferred to the occupants, most of the times this being quite fatal.

It wasn't until 1953 that the first crumple zones were implemented on vehicles. Like many other technologies in the automotive work, the company responsible for it was Mercedes-Benz. One of the engineers, Béla Barényi, had studied this problem for quite some time and in 1953, his ideas came to fruition in the "Ponton" (three-box body) Mercedes (model series W 120).

In 1967, the Mercedes Heckflosse (also known as the Fintail) was the first production car in the world with “crumple zone” safety features including a safety cage with crumple zones and a trunk that had been made almost 50% bigger.

The Theory

Like it or not, physics has the explanation as to why crumple zones are necessary. Isaac Newton's first law states that an object in motion will stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. If a vehicle is traveling at 50 mph, so are the bodies inside and if this vehicle stops abruptly into a solid wall, the bodies will “feel” the need to keep going in the same direction at 50 mph, unless of course something stops them. What's more, even if the bodies themselves stop, the internal organs will continue to move, thus causing severe injuries.

We're still not out of the physics woods yet. There's another law, the second, from the same Newton saying that force equals mass multiplied by acceleration. Translated to our situation, that of an accident, it means that the force experienced by the automobile and its occupants decreases if the time required by the vehicle to stop increases.

So What Do Crumple Zones Do Anyway?

They work exactly according to the two laws. Placed at the front and the rear of the car, they absorb the crash energy developed during an impact. This is achieved by deformation, something unheard of in the early days of automobile design. While certain parts of the car are designed to allow deformations, the passenger cabin is strengthened by using high-strength steel and more beams.

Second, crumple zones delay the collision. Instead of having two rigid bodies instantaneously colliding, crumple zones increase the time before the vehicle comes to a halt.

What About Very Small Cars?

That's a very good question as small cars don't have room for crumple zones. Take the smart for instance. Where could you possibly have crumple zones on a car like that? Engineers found a solution for that minute vehicle as well.

The smart is built around a tridion safety cell, a steel housing that combines longitudinal and transverse members that displace impact forces over a large area of the car. Another important component of the smart is the crash box.

“The smart fortwo is designed with steel bumpers at the front and rear that are bolted to the safety cell´s longitudinal beams via slip tubes. They can be replaced after minor collisions at low costs. For parking lot bumps, an impact of less than 2 miles an hour won't affect the crash box at all. Up to about 10 miles per hour, the slip tubes move to keep impact away from the tridion safety cell. Over 10 miles an hour, the tridion safety cell transmits impact over its entire surface to dissipate energy and protect its occupants (assuming a perpendicular impact involving the entire front width). At the rear of the car, the crash box is also built of steel, which crumples much like the front slip tubes do. At an impact exceeding the severity threshold, the fuel supply to the engine is stopped and the central locking system is automatically unlocked”

In 2004, Pininfarina's Nido concept showed an alternative to the classic crumple zones. The Nido Concept is composed of 3 primary elements: the cell, the sled and the absorber. In the event of a head-on collision, the vehicle absorbs part of the energy with the deformable front section of the chassis, constructed of two metal struts with internal plastic foam absorbers. These components are shaped as truncated cones in order to dissipate the energy over the cellular sheet metal firewall, which in turn transfers the energy along the central tunnel and the side members.

The remaining energy, due to the mass of the dummies and the sled, shifts the sled itself forward and compresses the two honeycomb absorbers between the rigid cell and the dashboard of the sled shell, resulting in the gradual and controlled deceleration of the dummies.

The insertion of honeycomb absorber elements between the rigid cell and the sled shell means that, in a collision, the deceleration curve for the sled is lower than the curve for the rigid cell.

..............................

Source.

[2seatragtop 3]

This crumpling of honeycomb structure was also what Grumman used in the landing legs of the Lunar Exploration Module for the moon landings to absorb the landing shock. Conventional shocks would have cased the craft to rebound fro the lunar surface which would have ruined everyone's day!If you visit the Cradle of Flight Museum in Long Island you will see an original lander and notice that the ladder doesn't go all the way down the landing leg. The answer is that it hasn't yet landed and assumed the final length.2seat

[MikeT 747]

Now THAT is good trivia!

[smart142 605]

Another detractor! Or should I say moron???

''I’m sure my Harley could take one of those Smart Cars any day of the week. In fact, in a collision with a bicycle, it’s even money which vehicle would go down first.''

.................................................

Big vs. small cars; safety and economy

Steve Pomper, Seattle Commuter Examiner

June 3, 4:28 PM

Let’s discuss a dichotomy, which has existed probably since more than one size of car was available from which to select. The dichotomy involves safety vs. economy. While smaller cars in general provide better fuel economy, larger cars typically provide a safer mode of transportation. The dichotomy explodes in our faces when some of our political leaders advocate for “more fuel efficient and safer cars.” While this is laudable in theory, the evidence has shown that an emphasis on smaller over larger has resulted in thousands of needless roadway deaths over the past three decades or so.

Now as good as automobile manufacturing materials and engineering may be, until we discover some sort of Star Trek-breakthrough, in general, smaller amounts to better fuel efficiency, but bigger equals safer cars. We all make choices and decide how much risk we’re willing to accept. I don’t know about you, but if I’m helping my kid decide on his or her first car, I’m not opting for one of those so-called, “Smart Cars,” over, let’s say, an Escalade or H2. Okay, perhaps that’s overkill, but you get my point.

Every time I see some poor driver scrunched into one of those “cars,” which amounts basically to a seat precariously attached to four wheels and an engine wrapped by a flimsy shell, I imagine a Road Warrior-type scene, the highway littered with tiny cars flattened like Coke cans, but larger vehicles blissfully unaware that any collision has occurred.

Now, as you all know, I ride a motorcycle so I know what you’re thinking: Who is he to talk? But, as small as those cars are, they aren’t nearly as nimble as a motorcycle, and besides—I’m sure my Harley could take one of those Smart Cars any day of the week. In fact, in a collision with a bicycle, it’s even money which vehicle would go down first.

But seriously folks, forget smart cars and instead make smart choices. Maybe for you that choice will be to purchase a Smart Car (it’s your right, your body, and your money), or a big, bad, gas-guzzlin’ Expedition (for the same reasons). Most likely your choice will fall somewhere in between. Either way, keep an eye on your congressional representatives, and make sure they understand it’s important that Americans retain their choices—all of their many choices.

.............................................

Source.

[JKA6373 0]

Safe the American auto industry.

[smart142 605]

Lot's of people are taking liberties with the Ins Inst ''study''

................................................

How Smart Is It?

Steering You Right • With Sharon Peters • June 24, 2009

Q: I love the idea of that new little Smart car. My daughter's coming home for the summer and with all the running around she has to do for her summer job as a wedding-planner assistant, I think it would be great to get terrific mileage, not to mention the parking advantage such a tiny little car offers. In the fall, I'd use it to run errands and drive the 12 miles to work every day. Still, I'm worried that it's not safe. What do you think?

A: Well, there's no question that tiny cars don't fare very well in crashes with much larger vehicles. And almost everything is a much larger vehicle when compared to a Smart ForTwo. The crash disadvantage is a reality based in physics. It was also the focal point of a recent report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the group that does those much-publicized crash tests.

Although the car meets all safety standards, it received poor ratings for impact protection when crashed into by a standard-size car traveling at 40 miles per hour. One of the reasons, the IIHS said, was the lack of extra crushable metal up front to help absorb the impact.

It must also be pointed out that two other almost-as-tiny cars, the Honda Fit and the Toyota Yaris, also fared poorly in the IIHS' frontal-impact tests.

All of the manufacturers of the little cars disputed the results, saying crash simulation was conducted in a way that bore little resemblance to real-world driving, calling the 40 mph front-to-front crash "rare and extreme."

It's worth noting, too, the IIHS says, that the death rate in mini cars involved in single-vehicle crashes in 2007 was 35 per 1 million, which is three times higher than the rate in very large cars and twice as high as the rate in midsize cars.

So that's what is said about the safety of mini cars and safety is what you asked about. We all have to make our own decisions about how we prioritize our hierarchy of car features and standards, however.

.............................

Source.

[cheapohubby 12]

It's worth noting, too, the IIHS says, that the death rate in mini cars involved in single-vehicle crashes in 2007 was 35 per 1 million, which is three times higher than the rate in very large cars and twice as high as the rate in midsize cars.

Ummmm.... why only quote the "single-vehicle" stats? If their tests were truly indicative of the safety of the car in crashes with other cars, then they would have used that stat as well....One should also recognize that the statistic came from the NHTSA, and pre-dates the smart car introduction to the US.