Haha, as awesome as that is, I'd hope that crashing it would kill you faster than you're moving.

The Smart Car is actually very rigid and pretty safe. As I recall, it scores very well in head on collisions, and only slightly worse than most cars in side collisions.

Smart vehicles use a very small front crumple zone. The new Smart Fortwo has been awarded 4 out of 5 stars in the Euro NCAP Adult Occupant Protection, 2 out of 4 stars in the Pedestrian protection test but it was not tested for Child Occupant Protection as it has no rear seats.[39] The original Smart was awarded 3 out of 5 stars for Adult Occupant Protection.[40] In American tests using a five star rating, Smart cars received a four star safety rating for the driver from a front impact, and a five star safety rating for the driver for a side impact.[41] It also received "Good" ratings (top rating) for front and side crash protection in Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) tests.[42] However, in an April 2009 40 mph frontal offset crash test between a Fortwo and a Mercedes C class, the IIHS rated the Smart Fortwo "Poor," noting that "Multiple injuries, including to the head, would be likely for a real-world driver of a Smart in a similar collision."[43]
The main structure of the car is a stiff structure called a Tridion Safety Cell, which is designed to activate the crumple zones of a colliding vehicle. This design creates a very strong safety cell around the passengers.[44]

So what did I see there, exactly, other than a video and some jackass's assertion of "POOR"?

The best information I can find right now is from Wikipedia:



So I really don't think it's the case of "smart car crash = dead" at all.

Seems what you saw, exactly, was a video and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's assertion of poor.

Now where did I saw that, exactly? :downs:

Uhm, in car-car collisions mass does matter, as the lightest car absorbs the largest amount of kinetic energy.

Mass has nothing to do with it. It's about rigidity. The McLaren F1 has a monocoque made entirely out of carbon fiber and is extremely lightweight. Yet it's probably as safe as a Grand Marquis.

I didn't know the McLaren F1 was a smart car.

However, strength has nothing to do with the kinetic energy place on the car and, ultimately, the occupants.

How can you possibly take something like that so far out of context? The example was just to point out that something very light can also be very strong and very safe.

It has nothing to do with the force applied to the car but it DOES help the occupants, because a stronger frame will resist crumpling more effectively. Cars crumple because the frame can't stay rigid under the force of the impact. If the frame COULD stay rigid, then the kinetic energy would simply push the car backward instead of crumpling.

What I'm getting at is that a stronger frame creates a more elastic collision, which is better for the occupants.

If mass was all that mattered, you might as well just throw sandbags into your trunk.

You seriously think the mass of cargo in a trunk is equivalent to the mass of the vehicle?

If the car stayed completely rigid, with no deformation, more energy would be transferred to the occupants.

If the cargo in the trunk were secured to the vehicle, it would contribute to the mass of the vehicle.


Most of it would still be transferred to the vehicle, it would just push it away instead of deform it. It would create a greater impact force on the occupants, but airbags and seatbelts do a pretty good job of taking care of that.

Who else wants a Smart car?

If the cargo in the trunk were secured to the vehicle, it would contribute to the mass of the vehicle.

Most of it would still be transferred to the vehicle, it would just push it away instead of deform it. It would create a greater impact force on the occupants, but airbags and seatbelts do a pretty good job of taking care of that.

A vehicle that has a heavier mass likely has heavier frame, body panels, and components that add to the integrity of the vehicle.