| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/9 |
| 2005/8/19-22 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:39180 Activity:moderate |
8/19 http://compilers.cs.ucla.edu/~kchang/interesting/shortcar.jpg What kind of car is this? I'm trying to find more info like name, model, mileage, and other things. Thanks. -kchang \_ If you're interested in a small car, you might want to read http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150 http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html -- mini owner \_ Note that is from 2002. And the Neon, Cavalier/Sunfire, and Civic and Corolla do all have higher driver deaths than even the midsize cars. The Jetta is also not "tiny" as they say; it's a bigger car than a Civic. \_ But in general, some of the most dangerous cars to be in are SUVs (or light trucks as some people call them). http://tinyurl.com/cwp5w (NHTSA/DOT) \_ 3 of the 4 worst performing cars are subcompacts. Indeed, it seems like midsize cars had the best ratings. --mini owner \_ SMART car. Owned by the greater DCX corporation. \_ I saw quite a few of them in Canada. I wonder if they're in US \_ You buy it, and you go straight to Dr. Yeung. \_ I believe the guy driving the car is a 25 year old Bengali. \_ http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5217861 and http://akasa.ca/smart \_ When you get into an traffic accident, it conveniently crushes into the shape of a coffin, saving you funeral expenses further down the road. \_ And the solution is to have everyone buy bigger and heavier cars, thereby, starting an arms race and making everything, in general, more dangerous? \_ What solution? Is there a problem here? \_ The problem is that people getting bigger cars to make themselves safer is a fallacy because once other people start doing that, your "big" car will become dangerous to be in because of other bigger cars on the street. Meanwhile, your car will become more difficult to control because of the extra weight and size and you're more likely to get into an accident in the first place. \_ The problem with modern light (small is irrelevant) cars isn't being crushed; they have really strong frames (good ones do). The problem is just inertia. Your car will be hurled by the big SUV and when you then hit something else you and the pinball car will come to an abrupt stop. This is why buses don't have seatbelts. In general they don't need them. \_ When a bus rolls over, big inertia doesn't help. When you don't have seatbelts, you hit the roof and break your neck and die. BTW there are usually seat belts for the bus drivers. So I think buses should have seatbelts for passengers also. \_ Sure sure. There are lots of ways to get hurt and die in a car. Sometimes the seatbeltless guy who got ejected lives. Small nimble cars are more likely to completely avoid accidents but less likely to survive head-on collisions, yadda yadda. driver. \_ http://www.smart.com They are actually quite safe. Very rigid frame, tons of airbags. You see a lot of them in Europe (use almost no gas, very roomy--a colleague has one and we carpool regularly.) Not very much storage, fairly zippy, and there's a 4-door (which sucks), a roadster (which is cute but being discontinued) and the crossblade (which is an awesome idea-- http://www.smart-j.com/e/cb.html ) I think they even make some bizarre Brabus mad turbo version. The company's at least co-owned by DaimlerChrysler, and they sell them here in these giant glass towers that look like 10 story car vending machines. Pretty cool, and you can wedge them in perpendicularly into many gaps in parking spots. -John \_ That crossblade doesn't look safe. \_ OK granted, but I don't think "safety" is entirely the point with something like that. -John |
| 7/9 |
|
| www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150 Both of these vehicles hit the exact same off-set barrier at 40mph. Now there's no question what would win in a head-on collesion between th e two but then again the majority of accidents involve only a single car . All you have to do is look at the dummy's legs and you can get an idea of what would happen if you hit a wall in either car. The MINI had almo st no intrusion which "indicates that the driver's survival space was ma intained very well" - the F150 on the other hand had "Major collapse of the occupant compartment that left little survival space for the driver. " I'm interested in how a company could create a modern vehicle that could perform so badly on this test. Furthermore Ford had lots of space to wor k with to make this a safe vehicle. For BMW/MINI to do the job in 1/4 th e space is what engineering is all about. Broken Window Keep in mind also this is the best selling vehicle in the US. One would t hink that Ford, knowing this, would have put more effort into the engine ering of this truck. this platform is also the basis of b oth the Ford Expedition and to some extent the Ford Excursion. Both are marketed to be tough, safe, go anywhere SUVs and are sold as family tran sportation. Why are they more interested in 5mph bumper tests - shouldn't this be front page news somewhere? article in t he New Yorker with some interesting information. The statistics were compiled by Tom Wenzel, a scientist at Lawrence Berke ley National Laboratory, in California, and Marc Ross, a physicist at th e University of Michigan. The information comes form a recent article in teh New Yorker: "The numbers are expressed in fatalities per million cars, both for driv ers of particular models and for the drivers of the cars they hit." Among the safest cars are the midsize imports, like the Toyot a Camry and the Honda Accord. Or consider the extraordinary performance of some subcompacts, like the Volkswagen Jetta. Drivers of the tiny Jett a die at a rate of just forty-seven per million, which is in the same ra nge as drivers of the five-thousand-pound Chevrolet Suburban and almost half that of popular SUV models like the Ford Explorer or the GMC Jim my. In a head-on crash, an Explorer or a Suburban would crush a Jetta or a Camry. But, clearly, the drivers of Camrys and Jettas are finding a w ay to avoid head-on crashes with Explorers and Suburbans. The benefits o f being nimble--of being in an automobile that's capable of staying out of trouble--are in many cases greater than the benefits of being big." Now granted this doesn't change t he fact that Ford designed and released the previous generation of F150s knowing there were safety concerns. Further it doesn't change any of th e statistics showing larger vehicles cause more havoc on the roads. But it does show that Ford clearly understood the issues with the previous g eneration and worked hard to alleviate them. I think the government is willing to look th e other way on a lot of things because the economy is tight. Maybe because they all drive thes e ridiculous vehicles? org) quote: "Why can't I compare vehicles from different categories? The kinetic ener gy a vehicle must absorb in a crash test increases with vehicle weight, so offset tests are more demanding of heavier vehicles. But people in he avier vehicles in real-world, 2-vehicle crashes typically fare better th an people in lighter vehicles (in many single-vehicle crashes, weight of fers no safety advantage). This is why test results shouldnt be compared among vehicles with large weight differences. "Now there's no question what would win in a head-on colles ion between the two but then again the majority of accidents involve onl y a single car" My point isn't to compare how the cars would do in a col lision with each other. Since most accidents involve only one car my poi nt is I was comparing the results of the off-set crash tests themselves. This indicates how well a car is made and how much time the company spe nt designing crash safety into them. My point is (and it's one that's ba cked up by every study I've ever seen) that larger trucks and SUVs don't offer the protection most people believe they do. On average they are m ore dangerous not only to others on the road but to their occupants as w ell. If identical tests are performed o n vehicles, the results can, and should, be compared. That the vehicles are from different classes doesn't make the dummy in the pickup any less dead. Permalink Where is the data that proves that "most crashes involve same-class vehic les or a single vehicle only"? I just can't imagine that a Mini driver i s going to coincidentally have an accident with a VW GTI or Honda Civic, when, in fact, our roadways are crowded with Jeep Grand Cherokees and F ord Explorers. BTW, a handful of popular SUVs have a better crash rating than the Mini. Ford GM, Mercedes and others are run by bean coun ters and they sell steel, plastic and glass by the pound. Their customer s are the share holders, not the person that buys the car. Why would a bean counter make an F-150 safer when they sell at a better p rofit margin without the extra work? The vehicle that is for sale is not the one they could build but the one the bean counters think you will buy. Ford engineers are no different than others and could build something bet ter if.... Permalink Larry - I guess that begs the question: Does Ford think so little of us? Why do BMW, Mercedes, and others engineer this safety into their cars fo r the mass market? Several Euro automakers even have teams that go out a nd investigate crashes on site right after they happen then take them ba ck to the lab for further study. Ford ma kes much more profit on a totally loaded F150 than BMW makes on a 32,000 325i. I don't think there's much questi on that a Mini would not fare so well in a collision with a pickup. Howe ver, don't you think that the occupants of an automobile ought to have d ecent chances of survival if they were to run off the road? I certainly wouldn't want to be in a collision between a tree and an F150. Yes the MINI is small - it has what's call ed active safety built in. Because it's incredibly agile and can allow p eople to get out of bad situations before they get into them. Most peopl e forget about the idea of active safety - but it's probably the most im portant part of the equation. this (thank s Azwed) National Center for Statistics and Analysis Study. Even though there are more cars on the road trucks are almost 25% more likely to be involved in fatal crashes. Permalink Raymi - please read the above comments before posting. If you did you'd s ee the point you were trying to make was discussed before. "My point isn't to compare how the cars would do in a collision with each other." Since most accidents involve only one car my point is to compare the results of the off-set crash tests themselve s This indicates how well a car is made and how much time the company s pent designing crash safety into them. My point is (and it's one that's backed up by every study I've ever seen) that larger trucks and SUVs don 't offer the protection most people believe they do. On average they are more dangerous not only to others on the road but to their occupants as well. Permalink Thanks for the great pictures showing so clearly that bigger does not nec essarily mean better. Accident a voidence capability (good handling, steering, brakes) has been an import ant car purchase criteria for years, and my current modern Mini is one o f a series stretching back to Austin Minis. Permalink I think this shows that people may think the SUV's and bigger vehicals ar e the answer to safer driving, but really a smaller car gives you a safe r compartment in a head on collision. That F150 picture makes me never w ant to get into a truck again. This article isnt comparing the two vehicals hit ting eachother, it is comparing the saftey compartment! My Dad has been concerned abo ut the size of the Mini and he drives a truck. If a MINI hits a brick wall at 40mph, th e driver lives - if he does the same thing in the Ford, he's toast. However, I've seen LOTS of photo's of wrecked MINI's - and I've... |
| www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html January 12, 2004 COMMERCE AND CULTURE How the SUV ran over automotive safety. The Expedition was essentially the F-150 pickup tru ck with an extra set of doors and two more rows of seats--and the fact t hat it was a truck was critical. Cars have to meet stringent fuel-effici ency regulations. The handling and suspension and braking of cars have to be built to the demanding standards of drivers and passe ngers. Cars are built wit h what is called unit-body construction. To be light enough to meet fuel standards and safe enough to meet safety standards, they have expensive and elaborately engineered steel skeletons, with built-in crumple zones to absorb the impact of a crash. The result is heavy and rigid and not particularly safe. But it's an awfully inexpensive way to build an automobile. Ford had planned to s ell the Expedition for thirty-six thousand dollars, and its best estimat e was that it could build one for twenty-four thousand--which, in the au tomotive industry, is a terrifically high profit margin. Sales, the comp any predicted, weren't going to be huge. After all, how many Americans c ould reasonably be expected to pay a twelve-thousand-dollar premium for what was essentially a dressed-up truck? But Ford executives decided tha t the Expedition would be a highly profitable niche product. s rolled off the assembly line i n Wayne, there was nothing "niche" about the Expedition. Ford had intended to split the assembly line at the Michigan Truck Plant between the Expedition and the Ford F-150 pickup. Assembly-line work ers were put on sixty- and seventy-hour weeks. The plant was now running twenty-four hours a day, six days a week . Ford executives decided to build a luxury version of the Expedition, t he Lincoln Navigator. They bolted a new grille on the Expedition, change d a few body panels, added some sound insulation, took a deep breath, an d charged forty-five thousand dollars--and soon Navigators were flying o ut the door nearly as fast as Expeditions. Before long, the Michigan Tru ck Plant was the most profitable of Ford's fifty-three assembly plants. By the late nineteen-nineties, it had become the most profitable factory of any industry in the world. In 1998, the Michigan Truck Plant grossed eleven billion dollars, almost as much as McDonald's made that year. Some factory workers, with overtime, were makin g two hundred thousand dollars a year. The demand for Expeditions and Na vigators was so insatiable that even when a blizzard hit the Detroit reg ion in January of 1999--burying the city in snow, paralyzing the airport , and stranding hundreds of cars on the freeway--Ford officials got on t heir radios and commandeered parts bound for other factories so that the Michigan Truck Plant assembly line wouldn't slow for a moment. The fact ory that had begun as just another assembly plant had become the company 's crown jewel. In the history of the automotive industry, few things have been quite as unexpected as the rise of the SUV Detroit is a town of engineers, and engineers like to believe that there is some connection between the suc cess of a vehicle and its technical merits. But the SUV boom was like Apple's bringing back the Macintosh, dressing it up in colorful plastic , and suddenly creating a new market. But the overwhelming majority of con sumers don't need four-wheel drive. SUV buyers said they liked the el evated driving position. But when, in focus groups, industry marketers p robed further, they heard things that left them rolling their eyes. As K eith Bradsher writes in "High and Mighty"--perhaps the most important bo ok about Detroit since Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed"--what consume rs said was "If the vehicle is up high, it's easier to see if something is hiding underneath or lurking behind it." Vs Fred J Schaafsma, a top eng ineer for General Motors, says, "Sport-utility owners tend to be more li ke 'I wonder how people view me,' and are more willing to trade off flex ibility or functionality to get that." s tend to be bought by peop le who are insecure, vain, self-centered, and self-absorbed, who are fre quently nervous about their marriages, and who lack confidence in their driving skills. Ford's SUV designers took their cues from seeing "fas hionably dressed women wearing hiking boots or even work boots while wal king through expensive malls." Toyota's top marketing executive in the U nited States, Bradsher writes, loves to tell the story of how at a focus group in Los Angeles "an elegant woman in the group said that she neede d her full-sized Lexus LX 470 to drive up over the curb and onto lawns t o park at large parties in Beverly Hills." s are going to be off-road is when they miss the driveway at 3 am" The truth, underneath all the rationalizations, seemed to be that SUV buyers thought of big, heavy vehicles as safe: they found comfort in bei ng surrounded by so much rubber and steel. ph crash test, for instance, the driver of a Cadillac Escalade--the GM counterpart to the Lincoln Navig ator--has a sixteen-per-cent chance of a life-threatening head injury, a twenty-per-cent chance of a life-threatening chest injury, and a thirty -five-per-cent chance of a leg injury. Over the past decade, a number of major automakers in America have relied on the services of a French-b orn cultural anthropologist, G Clotaire Rapaille, whose speciality is g etting beyond the rational--what he calls "cortex"--impressions of consu mers and tapping into their deeper, "reptilian" responses. And what Rapa ille concluded from countless, intensive sessions with car buyers was th at when SUV buyers thought about safety they were thinking about some thing that reached into their deepest unconscious. s know at the cortex level that if you are high there is more chance of a rollover. But at the reptilian level they think that if I am bigger and taller I'm safer. You feel secure be cause you are higher and dominate and look down. That you can look down is psychologically a very powerful notion. And what was the key element of safety when you were a child? It was that your mother fed you, and th ere was warm liquid. That's why cupholders are absolutely crucial for sa fety. If there is a car that has no cupholder, it is not safe. If I can put my coffee there, if I can have my food, if everything is round, if i t's soft, and if I'm high, then I feel safe. It's amazing that intellige nt, educated women will look at a car and the first thing they will look at is how many cupholders it has." During the design of Chrysler's PT C ruiser, one of the things Rapaille learned was that car buyers felt unsa fe when they thought that an outsider could easily see inside their vehi cles. So Chrysler made the back window of the PT Cruiser smaller. Of cou rse, making windows smaller--and thereby reducing visibility--makes driv ing more dangerous, not less so. But that's the puzzle of what has happe ned to the automobile world: feeling safe has become more important than actually being safe. It is tucked awa y in the woods, in south-central Connecticut, on the site of the old Con necticut Speedway. The facility has two skid pads to measure cornering, a long straightaway for braking tests, a meandering "handling" course th at winds around the back side of the track, and an accident-avoidance ob stacle course made out of a row of orange cones. It is headed by a trim, white-haired Englishman named David Champion, who previously worked as an engineer with Land Rover and with Nissan. On the day of my visit, Cha mpion set aside two vehicles: a silver 2003 Chevrolet TrailBlazer--an en ormous five-thousand-pound SUV--and a shiny blue two-seater Porsche B oxster convertible. Champion warmed up the Chevrolet with a few quick circuits of the track, and then drove it hard through the twis ts and turns of the handling course. He sat in the bucket seat with his back straight and his arms almost fully extended, and drove with practic ed grace: every movement smooth and relaxed and unhurried. Champion, as an engineer, did not much like the TrailBlazer. "Cheap interior, cheap p lastic," he said, batting the dashboard with his hand. He turned onto the strai... |
| tinyurl.com/cwp5w -> www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/finalreport.cfm?title=Trends&stateid=0&year=2001&title2=General Analysis Reporting System (FARS) Web-Based Encyclopedia Reports : Trends : General Main Home Did you know? |
| msnbc.msn.com/id/5217861 Green Machines Europe's 'smart' cars coming to US - in 2 sizes Importers promise 60-mpg coupes; carmaker itself eyes SUV SHOWROOM WITH SMART CARS ZAP Several smart cars sit in a showroom for potential dealers at the headqua rters for ZAP. Smart crash test Watch a crash test by smart between one of its cars and a Mercedes sedan that's twice as big. MSNBC By Miguel Llanos MSNBC The tiny car that won over Europeans with its cute looks and very high mi leage is finally coming to America, just not in the way you might expect it to. DaimlerChrysler division is not the one selling them here an ytime soon. True, they will be sold in Canada starting in September, but not so in the United States. Instead, smart USA is betting Americans won't want the small smarts, at l east not yet, and has taken a different strategy: a smart SUV, available here in 2006. The first press release touts not the mileage but that it 's "loaded with adrenaline - both off road as well as on." While that might run counter to smart's origins as a nifty, thrifty machi ne, it also has left the door open for third-party importers to bring th e small smarts into the United States. Importers' hurdles The most ambitious plan was conceived by a German entrepreneur, an auto c onversion specialist and an electric-vehicle company. Thomas Heidemann threw himself, and $5 million, into his import venture a fter selling his construction business in Germany. His goal: Selling 15, 000 smarts a year in large US cities. Two years later, he's learned that it's not easy getting a foreign car mo dified for approval by US agencies. But with the help of a G&K Automot ive Conversion, a California company, he's finally gotten approval from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration and is awaitin g emission results from the Environmental Protection Agency. Heidemann, of course, thinks smart has the wrong strategy. "I never would do an SUV because there are so many of them already," he says. ZAP has agreed to pay $10 million for exclusive ri ghts to distribute the car for 10 years and is now lining up dealers. "The response has been incredible," says Alex Campbell, a ZAP spokesman. "When people found out that we were in this deal, they have been contact ing us wanting to buy them right away." Pricing should run between $12,000 for the cheapest model, and just over $20,000 for a convertible with all the available extras, Heidemann says. That's a markup of a few thousand dollars over the price in Europe, whe re Heidemann has been buying them from dealers. Each dealer will have a service department, he adds, and vehicles will be warrantied by smart-automobile. Specifics are being worked out, but a b asic warranty should be around 36 months. Some 200 are in a California warehouse, he adds, ready to ship once the f ederal green light is given. Ironically, California won't be one of the first states to see the cars, since its car certification process is eve n more stringent than US standards. A potentially bigger obstacle for Heidemann is convincing Americans that the smart cars - just over eight feet long - are safe. STEEL SHELL OF SMART CAR Smart The frame for smart cars is made of reinforced steel, creating what engin eers compare to the way a walnut shell protects the nut. In Europe's five-star crash rating system, the smarts get three stars. Since introducing smarts in 1998, the carmaker itself has spent time and advertising money convincing Europeans on safety, touting a frame design it likens to a walnut, with high-strength steel beams reinforcing key a reas. Smart also likes to show off a 30-mph crash test between a smart coupe an d a Mercedes sedan twice as big. "The passenger cell survived the collis ion almost unscathed," says spokeswoman Julia Knittel. Other safety features on the manual transmission smarts include braking a nd stability technology usually found only on high-end luxury cars. And on hills, a start assist keeps the brakes on for just under a second to allow time for the feet to adjust. SIDE CRASH TEST OF SMART CAR Smart Since smart cars are so short, side impacts like this crash test will lik ely hit an axle. Smart engineers say that will absorb some of the impact , adding protection for those inside. Adrian Lund, of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, isn't impress ed by such claims, saying that "every carmaker advertises that they have the state of the art design" on safety. But he adds that as long as the imports meet with federal approval "they' re not unsafe." "On the other hand," he says, "they are small and lightweight and cannot protect you" as well as a larger car. "Fatalities are much higher with s mall, lightweight vehicles." The institute, a group funded by insurers that crash tests cars, hasn't t ested the smarts and probably wouldn't unless they were sold in large qu antities. "I don't expect them to be less safe than other small cars," Lund says, " it's just that they face the same limitations." Mercedes-Benz USA headquarters in Montvale, NJ, won't have to worry about the size issue with its SUV, d ubbed the formore. SKETCH OF SMART SUV Smart USA Smart USA plans to sell a smart SUV, called the formore, in the United St ates in 2006. It feels a bigger market lies in the small SUV segment, where drivers can get a bit of bo th worlds. The company hopes to sell 30,000 a year in the United States, and product manager Mark Ramsey says the first should be available in the third qua rter of 2006. As for the small smarts, Ramsey says the company is flattered by the impo rters. "It speaks very well for the car and the brand in general," he sa ys, while adding that his concern about third-party imports is how they' d be serviced and warrantied. And Ramsey doesn't discount the possibility that the company might sell t he small smarts, known in Europe as fortwos, through Mercedes dealers in America some day. "We are definitely looking at the next generation of the fortwo to come to the United States," he says. Canadians get diesel versions Up north, meanwhile, Canadian drivers will get two-seater smart cars star ting in September. In fact, they'll have two models to chose from that g et around 70 mpg because they're diesels, not gasoline-powered. The models use what's called common rail diesel, a technology that's clea ner than older diesel engines. The top speed is 75 mph and prices start around $12,100 for the coupe and $15,170 for the cabriolet. So what about heading north and bringing a diesel-powered smart back over the border? JoAnne Caza, a Mercedes-Benz spokesperson in Canada, says d on't even think about it. "It is not possible since the Canadian car is not certified for sale in the USA," she says. Heidemann, for his part, is optimistic the first smarts in the United Sta tes will be ready for purchase "in four or five weeks." |
| akasa.ca/smart -> www.akasa.ca/smart/ Dealership: We ordered the car from the Mercedes-Benz/smart Dealership at 1395 West Broadway in Vancouver. Our smart specialists are: Lisa Powell & Tasi Gottschlag Phone: 604 736-7411 ext. Features: (items in BOLD italics are options we added to our car) Fuel consumption: (Average liters per 100k) city: 4,6 (standard mode), 4,6 (automatic mode) highway: 3,7 (standard mode), 3,8 (automatic mode) combined: 4,2 (standard mode), 4,2 (automatic mode) 3-cylinder cdi turbo diesel engine (799 cc) with charge air cooling (rear -mounted) rear wheel drive 4 Airbags, driver front and side, passenger front and side softip - automated, sequential 6-speed transmission softouch - automatic gear programme with kickdown function Power Steering styleline alloy wheels (front tires: 145/65 R 15; |
| www.smart.com english franais |
| www.smart-j.com/e/cb.html No wonder - after all, the smart crossb lade is a car like no other. Its uncompromising vehicle concept boldly c asts off all the trappings of conventionality. And the pay-off is more s un, more wind and boundless freedom. smart crossblade 2,782,500* smart crossblade Left hand steering wheel, 598cc, electronic controlled 6-speed AT/MT swit chable type *Price shown is for the main vehicle only and does not include maker opti ons, accessories, taxes (excl. |