RON430

The link follows and it is about the best one I have found to see the video. Most of us here know that one of the ways to gain mpg is going to be to lose weight. But everytime I see a Smart, especially on the highway, I realize there are limits in what I will do to save gas. The Smart is the most impressive to me. And that is against a C Class not a Suburban or 18 wheeler. I saw an interview with an IIHS guy and whether you think the tests are accurate or not, in the mid size car you would walk away while in one of the micro minis you sustain life threatening injuries. Regardless of the number of air bags. I think the transcript was auto generated and the software leaves much to be desired. Be sure to follow the link and watch the vid.

http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/...#q=crash+tests

" Hey there are smaller and they're more efficient we know that they're being peddled by the White House and Detroit -- the next generation car you drive it home. The only problem is new crash tests show that size does matter when it comes to safety in the -- we're gonna show you this. I check it out these crash test pitting the newer smaller cars. Up against mid psychic scars by the same auto makers each car travels at forty miles an hour I'll show you first now. The Mercedes-Benz. Okay Mercedes-Benz. To see smart car gone against the company C class a dance. That's the smart car on the right. That's the C class sedan on the left whole lot of second -- going to get the Honda. This is the next test we can show you now. Honda's fits crashing into its older bigger brother model Honda Accord. There's the accord players that fit. It gets high marks in the White House for fuel efficiency well it's obviously much not much good. Are not much use in a collision. Now the third the only shows the Toyota you heiress OK here is the heiress and you can see this up against the midsize Toyota camera. Elf camera on the last year us on the right. All three cars received a poor rating. The worst rating given by the assurance agency again read as the camera that he see all over the highway today on the right is the new smart car. Michael Cardoza spokesman for the national automobile dealers association guide and he's my guest today Michael good morning to you and welcome good morning to America's new."

" Want the morning bill how are you this morning fire what you do is tell consumers."

" Well you know I mean this is a pure story of David Goliath you know NFL football you got the middle linebacker 280 pounds. Taken on a 190 pound quarterback it's just appear matter if physics now. Of course it's a comes out these ratings every year and there's a couple different ways to let data I think saying that the vehicles are not -- is is unfair to the auto -- why is that getting hit with a well they're getting hit with a variety of different pieces of legislation to. Increase their MPG I think it's by twenty. 35 were supposed to all vehicles on the road be about thirty miles per gallon so in order to do that cars need to be lighter cars need to be smaller they need to be more fuel efficient. Traffic heavy on the freeways. You need to find ways to to help reduce. The size of the vehicle to make it lighter on -- I thought I understand that."

" Let let me also say with the carmakers said they said the tests were extreme. And they simulated type and severity of crash that is rare in real world driving. I don't I don't see this test is being that extreme they look like the same as we've seen for the past ten years of testing. Your."

" You're a 100% correct -- it's those responsibilities. -- have -- as they say if authorities posts still serve as a watchdog against."

" You know the safety type things they want to make sure people are driving safe vehicles but at the same time."

" Here's what I would say regards the calling it NC you know these vehicles on the road they're meant to be driven."

" You're gonna have accidents but the same time 90% of these accidents that are out there on the road are really caused by driver error. -- these -- speed induce you got people driving in the fast lane going 7580 miles an hour here in Southern California they look up both on their in the back of somebody's idea what."

LexFather

Just saw this on the news. I've seen plenty of Smarts around Downtown, not on the highways. I don't see too many high impact crashes since most are for small trips.

Honda lil Fhit drivers are morons who are speeding like nuts and damn near causing accidents with their "Fit is go" in their heads. So trust me if they get hit by an Excursion, I won't even blink. Once I got cut off by some douche doing 90+ racing some SUV, the other some douche in a red one thinking he belongs in the fast lane (I still remember the tag, Bama78)

I have yet to even notice a Yaris and the ones I see seem to be in the slow lane where they belong.

This test= a big "no duh" and we need to worry more about driver skill and teaching/training.

The other thing is I've seen/heard/read just as many people hurt in giant SUVs.

Go figure.

RON430

Well, if I have to have an encounter with a Smart, I'll take the giant SUV.

IS-SV

I see dead people.

Threxx

Their fuel economy isn't even all that exciting or impressive IMO... 33/41 for that death mobile clown car with an ultra premium price tag.

LexFather

Good point. Yaris gets okay mileage, Fit gets worse than the last model and the Smart is a joke getting 35 MPG or so to be the size of a watermelon with only a 3 cylinder engine.

RON430

Not to go out of my way to pick on the Smart, OK, maybe I am going out of my way, as IS-SV can vouch, we are having high winds (for us in the South Bay) today predicted to be in the 20 to 30 mph range. I wouldn't want to get near a Smart today as I figure keeping that thing upright is a real chore in this wind.

IS-SV

Yes, can you imagine driving across one of the bridges today in a Smart car., a thrill a minute.

TwiBlueG35

Wow I was surprised at how the Smart bounced off the C-class sedan.

RON430

Just about managed to wind up on its roof. I imagine an E or S would have put it through the uprights for three.

lexmenow

If you were in a yaris you would be dead. The dummies head slammed the door. Man forget that crap.

JessePS

did MB release a video of the Smart a few years ago going up against an S-class??

leedogg

Umm, these cars are designed to crumple, the more they crumple, the better they're doing their job. So where do they tell us how the dummies fared?

gotta love reporting that shows the dramatic, but leaves out the facts.

IS350jet

It's painfully obvious that the driver of the Smart/Fit/Yaris did not fare as well as the driver in the mid size cars.

RON430

In the interview I saw this morning, the guy that I think was from IIHS said that the occupants in the minis would have all sustained life threatening injuries. There is probably more available at their site but here is their release:

New crash tests demonstrate the influence of vehicle size and weight on safety in crashes; results are relevant to fuel economy policies

ARLINGTON, VA — 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. Researchers rated performance in the 40 mph car-to-car tests, like the front-into-barrier tests, based on measured intrusion into the occupant compartment, forces recorded on the driver dummy, and movement of the dummy during the impact.

Laws of physics prevail: The Honda Fit, Smart Fortwo, and Toyota Yaris are good performers in the Institute's frontal offset barrier test, but all three are poor performers in the frontal collisions with midsize cars. These results reflect the laws of the physical universe, specifically principles related to force and distance.

Although the physics of frontal car crashes usually are described in terms of what happens to the vehicles, injuries depend on the forces that act on the occupants, and these forces are affected by two key physical factors. One is the weight of a crashing vehicle, which determines how much its velocity will change during impact. The greater the change, the greater the forces on the people inside and the higher the injury risk. The second factor is vehicle size, specifically the distance from the front of a vehicle to its occupant compartment. The longer this is, the lower the forces on the occupants.

Size and weight affect injury likelihood in all kinds of crashes. In a collision involving two vehicles that differ in size and weight, the people in the smaller, lighter vehicle will be at a disadvantage. The bigger, heavier vehicle will push the smaller, lighter one backward during the impact. This means there will be less force on the occupants of the heavier vehicle and more on the people in the lighter vehicle. Greater force means greater risk, so the likelihood of injury goes up in the smaller, lighter vehicle.

Crash statistics confirm this. The death rate in 1-3-year-old minicars in multiple-vehicle crashes during 2007 was almost twice as high as the rate in very large cars.

"Though much safer than they were a few years ago, minicars as a group do a comparatively poor job of protecting people in crashes, simply because they're smaller and lighter," Lund says. "In collisions with bigger vehicles, the forces acting on the smaller ones are higher, and there's less distance from the front of a small car to the occupant compartment to 'ride down' the impact. These and other factors increase injury likelihood."

The death rate per million 1-3-year-old minis in single-vehicle crashes during 2007 was 35 compared with 11 per million for very large cars. Even in midsize cars, the death rate in single-vehicle crashes was 17 percent lower than in minicars. The lower death rate is because many objects that vehicles hit aren't solid, and vehicles that are big and heavy have a better chance of moving or deforming the objects they strike. This dissipates some of the energy of the impact.

Some proponents of mini and small cars claim they're as safe as bigger, heavier cars. But the claims don't hold up. For example, there's a claim that the addition of safety features to the smallest cars in recent years reduces injury risk, and this is true as far as it goes. Airbags, advanced belts, electronic stability control, and other features are helping. They've been added to cars of all sizes, though, so the smallest cars still don't match the bigger cars in terms of occupant protection.

Would hazards be reduced if all passenger vehicles were as small as the smallest ones? This would help in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, but occupants of smaller cars are at increased risk in all kinds of crashes, not just ones with heavier vehicles. Almost half of all crash deaths in minicars occur in single-vehicle crashes, and these deaths wouldn't be reduced if all cars became smaller and lighter. In fact, the result would be to afford less occupant protection fleetwide in single-vehicle crashes.

Yet another claim is that minicars are easier to maneuver, so their drivers can avoid crashes in the first place. Insurance claims experience says otherwise. The frequency of claims filed for crash damage is higher for mini 4-door cars than for midsize ones.

Here's how the pairs of cars fared in the Institute's new crash tests:

Honda Accord versus Fit: The structure of the Accord held up well in the crash test into the Fit, and all except one measure of injury likelihood recorded on the driver dummy's head, neck, chest, and both legs were good. In contrast, a number of injury measures on the dummy in the Fit were less than good. Forces on the left lower leg and right upper leg were in the marginal range, while the measure on the right tibia was poor. These indicate a high risk of leg injury in a real-world crash of similar severity. In addition, the dummy's head struck the steering wheel through the airbag. Intrusion into the Fit's occupant compartment was extensive. Overall, this minicar's rating is poor in the front-to-front crash, despite its good crashworthiness rating based on the Institute's frontal offset test into a deformable barrier. The Accord earns good ratings for performance in both tests.

Mercedes C class versus Smart Fortwo: After striking the front of the C class, the Smart went airborne and turned around 450 degrees. This contributed to excessive movement of the dummy during rebound — a dramatic indication of the Smart's poor performance but not the only one. There was extensive intrusion into the space around the dummy from head to feet. The instrument panel moved up and toward the dummy. The steering wheel was displaced upward. Multiple measures of injury likelihood, including those on the dummy's head, were poor, as were measures on both legs.

"The Smart is the smallest car we tested, so it's not surprising that its performance looked worse than the Fit's. Still both fall into the poor category, and it's hard to distinguish between poor and poorer," Lund says. "In both the Smart and Fit, occupants would be subject to high injury risk in crashes with heavier cars." In contrast, the C class held up well, with little to no intrusion into the occupant compartment. Nearly all measures of injury likelihood were in the good range.

Toyota Camry versus Yaris: There was far more intrusion into the occupant compartment of the Yaris than the Camry. The minicar's door was largely torn away. The driver seats in both cars tipped forward, but only in the Yaris did the steering wheel move excessively. Similar contrasts characterize the measures of injury likelihood recorded on the dummies. The heads of both struck the cars' steering wheels through the airbags, but only the head injury measure on the dummy in the Yaris rated poor. There was extensive force on the neck and right leg plus a deep gash at the right knee of the dummy in the minicar. Like the Smart and Fit, the Yaris earns an overall rating of poor in the car-to-car test. The Camry is acceptable.

Fuel economy implications: One reason people buy smaller cars is to conserve fuel. Gasoline prices skyrocketed last year, and there's no telling what the price at the pump might be next week. Meanwhile, the gears are turning to hike federal fuel economy requirements to address environmental concerns. The conflict is that smaller vehicles use less fuel but do a relatively poor job of protecting people in crashes, so fuel conservation policies have tended to conflict with motor vehicle safety policies.

A problem with the current structure of fuel economy standards for cars is that the target of 27.5 miles per gallon is applied to an automaker's whole fleet, no matter the mix of cars an individual automaker sells. This encourages manufacturers to sell more smaller, lighter cars to offset the fuel consumed by their bigger, heavier models. Sometimes automakers even sell the smaller — and less safe — cars at a loss to ensure compliance with fleetwide requirements.

In response, the Obama administration announced it is boosting the fuel economy standard for cars, beginning with 2011 models, and instituting a size-based system to set fuel economy targets like the one already in effect for SUVs, pickups, and vans. This system will mandate lower fuel consumption as cars get smaller and lighter, thus removing the incentive for automakers to downsize their lightest vehicles to comply. It also could mean that technology currently used to enhance horsepower would go instead to reduce gas consumption — a direct safety benefit because less powerful cars have lower crash rates.

Another way to conserve fuel, and serve safety at the same time, is to set lower speed limits. Going slower uses less fuel to cover the same distance. The national maximum 55 mph speed limit, enacted in 1974, saved thousands of barrels of fuel per day. It also saved thousands of lives. Highway deaths declined about 20 percent the first year, from 55,511 in 1973 to 46,402 in 1974. The National Research Council estimated that most of the reduction was due to the lower speed limit, and the rest was because of reduced travel. By 1983 the national maximum 55 mph limit still was saving 2,000 to 4,000 lives annually.

"Fifty-five was adopted to save fuel, but it turned out to be one of the most dramatic safety successes in motor vehicle history," Lund concludes. "The political will to reinstate it probably is lacking, but if policymakers want a win-win approach, lowering the speed limit is it. It saves fuel and lives at the same time."


http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr041409.html