"Mercedes Streeter" (smart)
02/08/2018 at 08:55 • Filed to: Crash Test
1
7|
"Mercedes Streeter" (smart)
02/08/2018 at 08:55 • Filed to: Crash Test | 1
| 7 |
So long as I’m not crashing into anything much heavier than a S-Class, looks like I’ll be okay! *Whew*
The second gen smart has the most “failures” to worry about. In both the IIHS test and the NHTSA tests, a door latch failed and the door was able to open freely.
The IIHS also tossed (at 40mph) a C-Class (2009) at a second gen smart (2009) and the smart did poorly. To the smart’s credit, that generation of C-Class weighed just an occupant or two short of a crossover or small SUV.
However, that test does seem to imply that second gen smarts are slightly “softer” than the first and third gens, which both can take on the even heavier S-Class (weight comparable to a Tahoe or Ford F-150) with much better results in similar tests.
Real world second gen smart performance seems to disagree with the crash tests, with plenty of crashes with large vehicles with the smart driver coming out okay. Why? That’s something that will likely never be known. My estimation is that most front end second gen smart crashes involve more front surface area than the test had. The handful of fatal second gen smart crashes out there almost exclusively involves larger vehicles (like a van) and speeds of around 55+ mph.
Nibby
> Mercedes Streeter
02/08/2018 at 09:06 |
|
just don’t crash into an excursion
facw
> Mercedes Streeter
02/08/2018 at 09:10 |
|
I suspect given the Smart’s very limited crumple zones, that crashing into a solid barrier is far worse for the car than crashing into another vehicle (which probably does have crumple zones).
duurtlang
> facw
02/08/2018 at 09:31 |
|
The upside of a barrier is that it’s stationary. Another vehicle moving in the opposite way is not.
Before the crash (assuming a much heavier car than the Smart colliding with a Smart):
—[]——-——[_]—
———[]-[_]———
After the crash:
—[][_] —————
Imagine what instantly bouncing back during a crash does to you internal organs. The heavier car uses your vehicle as the crumple zone. When driving a relatively light weight vehicle I’ll take my chances with a stationary object.
|
duurtlang
> Nibby
02/08/2018 at 09:35 |
|
Depends. An excursion of cake enthusiasts seems like a rather soft target.
Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap
> Mercedes Streeter
02/08/2018 at 09:54 |
|
I’ll do my part and keep this in one thread.
Not so great but mine is the updated one with different bumpers but I’m not sure how much good that is actually going to do.
|
Mercedes Streeter
> duurtlang
02/08/2018 at 10:44 |
|
Imagine what instantly bouncing back during a crash does to you internal organs.
In a smart, the seatbelts begin giving slack when crash forces exceed a safe margin. Human organs are also quite resilient, surviving a lot more force than people think they can. So bouncing off the other vehicle (at least in real life crashes) has not typically resulted in additional injury in real life crashes.
Another common point made is that bouncing off another vehicle increases the chances of a second crash. While true, there has not been many (if any) recorded instances of that happening. Generally, the car will deflect outward. And since most American Interstates are generally divided in some way, head on collisions on multi-lane highways should not be too much of a worry.
|
duurtlang
> Mercedes Streeter
02/08/2018 at 11:02 |
|
To be fair, I was mostly talking about a heavy versus a light car in general. My weekend car is a 1980s subcompact 2000 lbs convertible with a bigger turbo engine stuffed in. I’m entirely sure each of your Smarts is way safer than my car.
Anyway, my point being that small versus large doesn’t matter much when crashing against a stationary object. However, if you’re crashing against a moving object things change. More mass = more force, assuming the same speed.