Ferrari Mailing List: Re: GM & Corvette NFC

[Erik Nielsen (judge4re]

Nothing wrong with the Fit, I was part of the design team for the
emissions system...

On 6/4/09, Jim Conforti <lndshrk [at] xmission.com> wrote:
> 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.html
>
> 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.
>
>    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.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
> http://lists.ferrarilist.com/mailman/options/ferrari/judge4re%40gmail.com
>
> Sponsored by BooyahMedia.com
> and F1 Headlines
> http://www.F1Headlines.com/
>