Re: GM & Corvette NFC | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Jim Conforti (lndshrk![]() |
|
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:34:46 -0700 (PDT) |
At 10:01 AM 6/4/2009, Michael James wrote:
If you saw a 'Smart' Car on a US Highway, then it passed the EPA/DOT minimum crash-safety standards prior to US importation by MB.
It would be DOT/NHTSA (EPA has nothing to do w/ crash ratings) And when you look up the Smart ForTwo at NHTSA you find that there are (curiously unstated) "safety concerns" To quote the IIHS at http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr041409.htmlLaws 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.
My comment: They were engineered to "pass the test". So if you happen to hit a concrete offset barrier at XYZ mph, you should be fine. If however you get hit or hit another vehicle - you likely will NOT be fine. further: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.
and: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.
Translation: Hope that hospital bed feels comfy to you... or worse that casket.
- Re: GM & Corvette NFC, (continued)
-
Re: GM & Corvette NFC Michael James, June 4 2009
- Re: GM & Corvette NFC Fellippe Galletta, June 4 2009
-
Re: GM & Corvette NFC Scott Saidel, June 4 2009
- Re: GM & Corvette NFC Brian E. Buxton, June 4 2009
- Re: GM & Corvette NFC Jim Conforti, June 4 2009
- Re: GM & Corvette NFC Erik Nielsen, June 4 2009
- Message not available
- Re: GM & Corvette NFC Jim Conforti, June 5 2009
- Re: GM & Corvette NFC Doug and Terri Anderson, June 5 2009
- Re: GM & Corvette NFC Erik Nielsen, June 5 2009
-
Re: GM & Corvette NFC Michael James, June 4 2009
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.