MINICARS MICROCARS CRASH TEST FAIL CAR CARS AUTOS New Crash

by admin on August 25, 2010


MINICARS MICROCARS CRASH TEST FAIL CAR CARS AUTOS New Crash Tests Demonstrate the Influence of Vehicle Size and Weight on Safety in Crashes Results Are Relevant To Fuel Economy Policies Three front-to-front crash tests, each involving a microcar or minicar into a midsize model from the same manufacturer, show how extra vehicle size and weight enhance occupant protection in collisions. These Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tests are about the physics of car crashes, which dictate that very small cars generally can’t protect people in crashes as well as bigger, heavier models. “There are good reasons people buy minicars,” says Institute president Adrian Lund. “They’re more affordable, and they use less gas. But the safety trade-offs are clear from our new tests. Equally clear are the implications when it comes to fuel economy. If automakers downsize cars so their fleets use less fuel, occupant safety will be compromised. However, there are ways to serve fuel economy and safety at the same time.” The Institute didn’t choose suvs or pickup trucks, or even large cars, to pair with the micro and minis in the new crash tests. The choice of midsize cars reveals how much influence some extra size and weight can have on crash outcomes. The Institute chose pairs of 2009 models from Daimler, Honda, and Toyota because these automakers have micro and mini models that earn good frontal crashworthiness ratings, based on the Institute’s offset test into a deformable barrier

Originally posted 2010-03-29 11:20:44.

No related posts.

{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }

cmg5363 March 29, 2010 at 11:36 am

it does seem bad, i admit that. and yes after spinning around like that you would have quite a headache. but i want to see the real evaluation of the smart car like in other videos. i think theyr hiding it from us to make big cars seem better.

LinkMyBoy March 29, 2010 at 11:56 am

It’ll buff out.

ineverrememberthese March 29, 2010 at 12:12 pm

lol… they dont even test cars on barriers at 60 MPH.. of course a car hitting a person at 60 MPH would kill the person instantly.

tickle2012 March 29, 2010 at 12:15 pm

I wonder if they can actually put G-meters in crash tests……to actually measure the amount of deceleration instead of relying on dummies alone….

TheMightyAntar March 29, 2010 at 12:51 pm

Yahh Shock! Horror! Talk about stating the bloody obvious! What you should do is test the Smart and the Mercedes against a pedestrian. All cars are bloody dangerous if you crash into other cars. Try these tests on any car – SUV, Merc or Smart and crash it at 60mph, I’d bet all of them would produce fatalities.

ZajoSTi March 29, 2010 at 1:41 pm

Have in mind that Smart is not a car. It is just a vehicle, but not a car.

MrCola2009 March 29, 2010 at 1:51 pm

i want to see this smart car tested against a big rig!!!!

wyunaboy March 29, 2010 at 2:37 pm

i guess they will not tested against SUV..stop buying small ugly car..they are not save at all..don’t have money used public transport instead.. or work harder..anyway SUV is not expensive these days. second hand SUV still a lot saver than this micro cars and majority of cars

eltfell March 29, 2010 at 2:47 pm

In ten years, the smart cars will rule the world, because there wouldn’t be left enough oil to fuel anything bigger than an Golf.

jamus47 March 29, 2010 at 3:12 pm

G-forces kill.
For it’s size the smart car maintains its shape well, but your brain will come out your nose.
Just don’t crash. simple.

lowcostvideos March 29, 2010 at 3:27 pm

Anyone notice the mercedes emblem flying by the camera at 1:35?

lowcostvideos March 29, 2010 at 3:29 pm

The point is it’s a dangerous choice when you’re driving it on the same road as the moron neighbor.

darkcoeficient March 29, 2010 at 3:43 pm

I think you are bashing the wrong way. They do tell in their description that you can have both size and fuel economy. And size does equal safety, they didn’t even used SUVs for the test. I think this was very objective. For all the fuel economy it may have, I woldn’t want to be in a smart in a crash. I’ve seen Toyota Yaris get totally wrecked in dumb accidents too. If companies are going small, they’ll need an overhaul on their structural design for small cars.

webweaver13s March 29, 2010 at 3:52 pm

because this was not a safety test for the red car it was a safety test for the smart car for starters.

fmflores2000 March 29, 2010 at 4:39 pm

Gas savings for the smart car 5000 dollars. Hospital bill plus a lifetime wheelchair confinement priceless…..

wph1138 March 29, 2010 at 5:24 pm

its just a demo jesus relax. No the smart is not the dangerous choice. Its a choice that would most likely cause more bodily damage if it were involved in an accident. people can chose to drive what they wish.

manbearpigonabike March 29, 2010 at 6:16 pm

it has never been the car it is always the driver that has endangered everyone on the road it doesn’t matter what you drive a fortwo or c300, if you’re a bad driver than you are a threat. all this video demonstrates is that a bigger more expensive and better engineered car with more safety features will do better in a head on collision with a smaller vehicle. Yes, it is the smart car that is the dangerous choice.

cchmaness March 29, 2010 at 6:25 pm

Why don’t they put on this a comparison of a Semi hitting the red car? Would that prove that we should all be driving 18 wheelers? if we get away from the mentality that we all have to be driving around two tons every time we go to the shopping mall we will all be safer. Why does my neighbor need two suv’s when she only drives down to the burger king a half a mile away, talking on her cell phone and texting her boyfriend? Yes, it’s the smart car that is the dangerous choice, yes.

FunAtSundown March 29, 2010 at 6:41 pm

Note the passenger compartment of the Smart car held up remarkably well..in fact the windshield didn’t even break on the yellow one — but there is little crumple zone to absorb the g-forces. When the Smart went flying backwards it could also fly into the path of another vehicle or tree. Amazing engineering on the Smart but I’ll take my big old tank-like car even if the mileage sucks.

websuspect March 29, 2010 at 7:33 pm

smart car

Draivynn March 29, 2010 at 8:06 pm

This is why smart cars are deathtraps! Imagine if the red car had been a truck or anything heavier!

00048480 March 29, 2010 at 8:33 pm

physics people! 3560lbs vs 1800lbs bad mismatch in an accident!

omarfosho2 March 29, 2010 at 8:41 pm

haha i love how the mercedes embelm flys @ 1:30

Pikansokamikaze March 29, 2010 at 9:22 pm

FORCE? why? do you wanna avoid accidents and injuries? I have the solution: DRIVE SAFE!

Neonspinnazz30 March 29, 2010 at 9:58 pm

Good Job Bob, that’s the best way to put it!

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: