backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 220 comment(s) - last by timmiser.. on Apr 24 at 4:13 AM

Volkswagen Up! Concept Car

Artist's rendering of the production Volkswagen Up!  (Source: Auto Express)

Smart Fourtwo
VW gets back to its roots with the Up!

Back in October 2007, DailyTech brought you news concerning Volkswagen's Up! concept car. The tiny Up! measures just 135.8" in length and only 64.2" in width. VW's hope with the Up! is to spark a revolution in economical vehicles like the original Beetle.

According to Auto Express, work on the production version of the Up! is coming along nicely and more details of the tiny runabout are starting to leak out of VW headquarters. Like the original Beetle, the Up! is a rear-engine, rear wheel drive vehicle.

Despite the tiny dimensions, the Up! will be able to seat four people within its cabin. Adding to its versatility, the three passenger seats of the Up! can be folded to accept large/bulky cargo or removed completely for even more storage space.

Power for the Up! will come from a choice of gasoline or diesel two-cylinder engines. Both engines will be around 600c in capacity and will be turbocharged. VW is projecting that the turbocharged diesel motor will be good for 94 MPG combined on the European cycle.

Pricing for the Up! is expected to start at around £4,000 ($7,900 USD) in emerging markets for completely stripped models. Better-equipped models destined for the European market are expected to start at £7,500 ($14,800 USD).

With tiny vehicles like the Smart Fourtwo seeing huge demand in the United States, it may only be a matter of time before VW sends the Up! to our shores. Compared to the Smart Fourtwo, the Up! features room for two additional passengers and vastly superior fuel economy.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
German engineering strikes again..
By Reclaimer77 on 4/17/2008 11:22:56 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't buy either of these cars, mostly because I still have a working reproductive organ.

However I must say if your into this kind of vehicle, the UP simply blows away the " Smart " car. It doubled its MPG, costs half as much, and even has a bit more utility and can seat 3 people.

How do those guys do it ! German engineering, I salute you.




RE: German engineering strikes again..
By Flunk on 4/17/2008 11:34:05 AM , Rating: 5
Not everyone needs are huge shiney car to feel like a man. If I can comfortably sit in one, I might consider it. Saving money on gas is great.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By mdogs444 on 4/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: German engineering strikes again..
By Reclaimer77 on 4/17/2008 11:42:19 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
This thing is a death trap/organ donor. The only thing more unsafe on the roads than this UP, Yaris, Smartcar, stuff is a motorcycle.


I probably agree. I have not seen crash tests on the UP. But side impact tests on the Smart conclude that the driver can be thrown up to 8 feet from the vehicle. Due to there being no B pillar and the door flying open during impact. Yeah, sounds real Smart eh ?


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/17/2008 11:49:24 AM , Rating: 5
RE: German engineering strikes again..
By mdogs444 on 4/17/2008 11:52:55 AM , Rating: 2
Could have been a 15mph drive way crash for all we know. I promise you that was not an accident at 35+ or 50+ mph speeds.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/17/2008 11:54:35 AM , Rating: 5
Wow, that big intersection sure looks like a driveway to me ;-)


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By mdogs444 on 4/17/2008 12:00:12 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, i couldnt tell. Only the last picture would come up for me for some reason.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By Spuke on 4/17/2008 12:12:43 PM , Rating: 2
I like the fact that it's RWD and rear engined. Interesting that VW can do this in a car like this but no one else can do it in a car the size of a Civic. I didn't see hp mentioned although with the 600cc gas motor this thing will be a high rpm screamer. I predict 10k+ rpm in the aftermarket. I might have to pick one of these UP!


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By Souka on 4/17/2008 3:06:29 PM , Rating: 5
The pics show good data...cars did their job.

truck was hit on front corner that is a crumple zone...doesn't take much to push it in like that.

smartcar was hit on side where there isn't a crumple zone...direct hit to frame (which bent) so only the outer body panel caved and wheel which is probably attached inches from the point of impact.

One thing not shown is the skid marks... I bet the truck pushed that car pretty vioently, whereas the truck just felt a dull thud.

My $.02


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By ebakke on 4/17/2008 5:03:54 PM , Rating: 3
If this (or the Smart cars) perform anything like the Yaris in a crash... no thanks. Those suckers get [i]launched[/i]. Compare it to your car.

http://www.safercar.gov/movie/2008/07Yaris-s.wmv


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By Alexstarfire on 4/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: German engineering strikes again..
By ebakke on 4/17/2008 6:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
It's not that I expect to get in a crash, it's more that I'd like to be prepared if I do. I don't need to drive an M1 Abrams down the street, but I also would like to know that every accident won't be a serious accident.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By daniyarm on 4/18/2008 2:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
Everybody is talking about this car like it's a deathtrap. Look at how many people choose to ride a motorcycle! These cars aren't meant to be driven on the freeway all the time or cities with wide open roads and high speed limits. These cars are meant for slower traffic densely populated areas where parking sucks.
And by the way, US is the only country with such a high number of SUVs and trucks. Most cars in Europe and Japan are small, so it's much less of a threat for passengers in smaller cars.


By Spuke on 4/18/2008 3:41:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most cars in Europe and Japan are small, so it's much less of a threat for passengers in smaller cars.
Different cultures and lifestyles not to mention we have WAY more open spaces.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By Reflex on 4/17/2008 7:01:27 PM , Rating: 2
When I drove my S-10 it was an accident magnet. Over the six years I hat it I collected enough insurance money that even after paying for repairs(I only repaired problems that affected its road worthiness, cosmetic issues I ignored) I ended up breaking even. Paid $8000 for it in 2001, collected $6500 in insurance payouts for the next five years(thats taking out what was spent on essential repairs), sold it in 2007 for $1500. Result: Drove a vehicle for five years(it was parked the sixth) for the cost of fuel, and routine maintinence.

While I certainly don't expect to get hit all the time, I am very aware now that it is inevitable that someone will not be paying attention. And I guarantee you that that Smart car(and probably this VW vehicle) would not have surived at least two of the hits I took, including a 35mph rear-ender from a truck that didn't realize I had stopped for a red light(there were four cars in front of me stopped as well, he was distracted by his kid). That was the most serious hit I took and it bent my frame as well as destroying the rear bumper and tailgate. In a Smart car his truck would have been embedded in the back of my head(especially since he had it raised, hence the damage to the tailgate).

For the record I don't advise people to drive tanks or anything, the S-10 was the largest vehicle I have owned(currently drive a Jeep Liberty CRD which is diesel and gets great mileage). But I do think a reasonably sized vehicle should be considered just for personal safety. If mileage was the only real concern, even a motorcycle can seat two...


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By Alexstarfire on 4/17/2008 9:09:07 PM , Rating: 1
OK, I can understand that. You certainly can't prevent being rear-ended, unless you have lots of space in front of you for some reason. Anything else, though, can be avoided. I guess we just having opposing views on the way cars should be made. While I normally think that the consumer should have ultimate control in what he/she wants, I don't think that's fair for the car market. I only think that way because of the amount of cars on the road, at least in the US. Cars got so big for many reasons, with one being that they are "safer" than smaller cars. To me that thinking just leads to bigger and bigger cars. Sure, you in the bigger car might be safer, but the smaller car gets a lot more force put on it. BTW, I equate bigger to mean heavier. I know it's not always true though. Anyways, cars really need to all be made the same height, at least the bumper height anyways.

Course, I think nearly every car on the road should be revamped.

Well, unless a car is literally a death trap then I'm going to value mileage over anything else.

BTW, I've been in an accident at 40MPH in an Isuzu Rodeo against a bigger SUV, can't recall the make and model off hand. Even with her car flipping twice everyone ended up up little more than scraps and bruises. Actually, the only thing that happened to me was a minor burn from the airbag deploying. Not sure about her car, but mine got totalled. Sounds bad, but pretty much only the front end was smashed in. Her car, on the other hand, had one of her back wheels literally broken off, plus tons of other damage.

I couldn't say how bad it would have been if I was in a smaller car, but it doesn't seem like it would have been much worse. Though, I can say that I hit her and not the other way around. Anyways, if I had been in a smaller car I probably would have avoided her, but the Rodeo doesn't turn so well.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By Alexvrb on 4/17/2008 11:07:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anything else, though, can be avoided.
Being rear-ended isn't the only unavoidable accident scenario, by a long shot. People are unpredictable.
quote:
Well, unless a car is literally a death trap then I'm going to value mileage over anything else.
This car looks a lot like a death trap to me. The damage to the car in an impact is only part of the ouch-that-hurts equation. Even if the car takes the damage well enough, secondary impact is kinda important too. That's why modern vehicles have crumple zones - something this vehicle is not going to have much of.
quote:
While I normally think that the consumer should have ultimate control in what he/she wants, I don't think that's fair for the car market. I only think that way because of the amount of cars on the road, at least in the US. Cars got so big for many reasons, with one being that they are "safer" than smaller cars. To me that thinking just leads to bigger and bigger cars.
I'm OK with lighter, to a point. But to each his own, and that is why I disagree with the idea that the government should control what you can buy. If you want a smart car or similar, good for you. The market will self-regulate. Despite what you think, most vehicles really aren't getting bigger and heavier. By and large, they are getting LIGHTER. Look at domestic "fullsize" vehicles these days. They are lighter and smaller than their body-on-frame predecessors. Full size SUVs are also being phased out in favor of crossovers. Even many trucks are getting lighter. There will always still be some large vehicles on the road (hard working trucks of various sorts). But fuel and vehicle costs will determine what people buy and drive.
quote:
I couldn't say how bad it would have been if I was in a smaller car, but it doesn't seem like it would have been much worse.
Think about this. How bad would it have been if SHE was in a smaller car and you plowed into her with your Rodeo. If there were goalposts, you'd get the extra point.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By Alexstarfire on 4/17/2008 11:23:33 PM , Rating: 1
Perhaps some examples of other so-called "unavoidable" situations then?

Well, cars may be getting lighter NOW, but I'm not talking about what cars are doing now, I'm talking about how they got this way to begin with.

Perhaps she would have, who knows. I always thought the Rodeo was too big anyway. Only reason I had it was because my parents gave it to me. Can't beat free. I can say this, if she were in the smaller car it probably wouldn't have flipped over. I can't speculate more than that though. Course, if she had been PAYING ATTENTION instead of chatting on her cell phone. It got tossed out the window when she got hit. Only know that cause they found her cell phone on the ground. Not sure if it was still working or not though.

If drivers would pay attention more then we wouldn't have so many damn accidents to begin with. The US has the most lenient drivers test I've ever seen. I can't even count how many people I know got their license without knowing how to drive. ONLY IN AMERICA.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By weskurtz0081 on 4/18/2008 1:34:22 AM , Rating: 2
Clearly you have not driven in many other countries. Go drive around in the Middle East, Mexico, South America.... just to name a few. I have been to MUCH worse driving countries than the US.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 1:45:22 AM , Rating: 2
> "I have been to MUCH worse driving countries than the US. "

Agreed. I thought Thailand was as bad as it could possibly be...then I visited Vietnam. I tell people stories, and no one believes them.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By Alexstarfire on 4/18/2008 5:35:26 AM , Rating: 2
I bet a lot of them don't have licenses though. I know that over in Taiwan driving isn't nearly as bad, same as in Japan. Their streets are smaller as well.


By Reflex on 4/18/2008 4:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
If you think driving in Taiwan isn't worse than the US then you haven't spent much time there. We have team members go over there every year for trade shows and the horror stories they tell are amazing. I've seen pictures as well. Heck, Anandtech once chronicled the horror of getting around in Taipei.

As for unavoidable accidents, its very simple: Anytime your movement is restricted by other traffic or you are unable to see the other vehicle in time, the accident is unavoidable. For instance, the rear end collision I mentioned, I saw the guy coming and realized he wasn't going to stop. But as I was boxed in by traffic I was not able to move, signal or do anything that would have halted it, all I did was hammer my e-brake and regular brakes down as hard as I could as fast as I could which kept me from sliding into the car in front of me(stopped maybe an inch short).

Other times I have been sideswiped by people who are in my blind spots(I had a canopy, so a significant portion of the back was not visible if someone chose to change lanes next to me). And like I said, even if you have some ultra-elite evasive maneuver in mind for any given situation, you are still at the mercy of other drivers and thier car placement, that 'dodge to the left lane' maneuver you've got in your head only works if there is no one in the left lane when you need to use it. Honestly I'd rather take the hit on my vehicle than drive so defensively that I cause an even worse accident or kill a pedestrian trying to get away from an impending crash.


By PitViper007 on 4/23/2008 2:19:19 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think anyone EXPECTS to be in a crash, however, there is a good likelihood, that over the life of the car it will be in one.

My wife was just in an accident about a week and a half ago. Driver of the other vehicle ran a red light and smacked into my wife's driver side door. She didn't expect to have an idiot run a red light and hit her. I thank GOD that she was in a large "mini"van (Chrysler Town & Country) which helped to minimize damage to her. As it is she's still hurting.

The point is, the larger the vehicle is that you are in, the more likely you are to walk away from any accident that you do have, and you need to think of that when deciding on buying a new vehicle. Just my 2¢


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By mrteddyears on 4/18/2008 8:44:01 AM , Rating: 3
I think this is the reason smart cars are better left for the golf course

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJHpUO-S0i8


By 306maxi on 4/20/2008 12:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
That's a 70mph impact into a fairly immovable object. Most accidents occur at much lesser speeds. If you'd taken the time to watch the video you'd have seen that the car performs quite well.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By michal1980 on 4/17/2008 11:55:36 AM , Rating: 5
actually looks like the truck did better.

not only did the truck absorb the damage instead of the passangers. it didn't break and axel like the smart did.

The shock to the people in the smart car, would have likely been many times more then the people in the nissan.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By TheDoc9 on 4/17/2008 12:04:54 PM , Rating: 1
yeah it's really not a fair comparison because of where the truck hit the smart. It's entirely possible to total one vehicle and leave the other with minor damage if you hit it in certain areas.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By FITCamaro on 4/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: German engineering strikes again..
By TheDoc9 on 4/17/2008 4:32:17 PM , Rating: 1
Obviously you've never been in a wreck, and when your best argument against someone is to make fun of what they say because you have no argument then it's time you wake up or go back to highschool.


By Spuke on 4/17/2008 5:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it was pretty funny personally.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By Reclaimer77 on 4/17/2008 12:18:36 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
actually looks like the truck did better.


Most certainly. Based alone on the fact that the truck probably drove off after the accident. Meanwhile the Smart has a busted axel. And by the way, good luck walking into your local parts store and finding a replacement lol.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By mindless1 on 4/17/2008 2:14:12 PM , Rating: 1
You'd have to be a bit silly to think your local parts store would have the front end for the truck.

Accidents break car parts, so what? It's not like driving off after an accident is all that important, if you have thousands in damage (which the truck did) you might as well have it towed to the shop. That is, unless you were in some remote inhospitable area and driving away was a life necessity but I don't see that as the intended purpose behind these small runabout vehicles.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By masher2 (blog) on 4/17/2008 3:36:20 PM , Rating: 3
> "It's not like driving off after an accident is all that important"

The point, of course, is that if the vehicle can be driven off after the accident, the occupants inside probably weren't turned into strawberry jam.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/17/2008 4:27:36 PM , Rating: 1
Mass is not the main problem.

The problem is hitting a significant higher vehicle which generates an incompatibility problem with the car's crumple zones (an SUV crashing any car of your choice, even the heaviest of the cars, will make its front bumper end up passing through the windshield).

I've read several statistical reports and analysis on the web and the mass differential, though plays a role in fatality, is not as important as you'd think.

Remember that on a car-car collision you're not talking about rigid body physics, and a larger car usually has a larger front end with more space for more crumple zones negating part (but of course, not all) of the mass differential.

As I've read, the heaviest car vs the most feather weighted ones doesn't have as big an advantage in a crash as the one even the smallest of the SUVs has against the biggest car


By Reclaimer77 on 4/17/2008 4:44:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Mass is not the main problem.


I agree with what you said. But... well.. everyone should just watch this vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02eghIfyHP0


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By masher2 (blog) on 4/17/2008 5:07:36 PM , Rating: 2
> "Mass is not the main problem"

Mass *is* the main factor. Let me illustrate with some real-world figures. Let's assume two cars, one weighing twice the other, both travelling 60mph collide head on. The total velocity of the combined system after the crash will be 20 mph in the direction of the larger vehicle's travel.

For the heavier car, that crash is equivalent to hitting a fixed barrier at 40mph. But for the lighter car, its equivalent to hitting at EIGHTY mph (it winds up moving backwards at -20 mph).

Sure, a crumple zone can spread that impact out in time...but it can't reduce the total momentum change one bit. And lighter cars are smaller, which means the crumple zone has less room to work in anyway.

Yes, stronger materials, cabin design, height, all play a part. But the mass differential is THE primary factor. When you start talking about 2:1 (or for some of these tiny cars, even 4:1 differentials) no amount of design is going to trump that.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/17/2008 9:00:12 PM , Rating: 3
Mass is the main problem when you compare car to car collisions, but not SUV vs car collisions. And it's not as important as you think. I know that what you say is true, but statistical reports I've read from many countries say something different: fatality rate induced by mass difference does not increase in a linear fashion (that is, a twice as heavy car inducing double the probabilities for the smaller car to die).

But in turn, head on SUV / Truck - car collisions have the crumple zone incompatibility as the main problem.

It won't matter how much your car weights if the SUV crashing you weighs only 75% of your car's heft, but has its front bumper hanging 1 foot above your car's front bumper: the SUV's front end will completely override your car's crumple zone and you, inside the heaviest vehicle by far, are still the most likely to come up dead from the unfortunate encounter.

This is such a problem that in the US a large group of auto makers promised that by 2010 they will only be selling SUVs / light trucks which in some way are made compatible with cars as far as what crumple zones concern.

Besides, your calculation of momentum is not taking the crumpling effect into consideration. What you say applies for perfectly rigid bodies, not deformable ones as cars, so the final speed of the combined system in favour for the heaviest car will be much less and for the lighter vehicle it won't be that much either. So basically your figures are not real world, unless we're talking about high rigidity framed vehicles such as not so new trucks which won't crumple.

But as I said, when you are talking about similar vehicles crashing, yes, mass differential is a problem and the main one. Once you involve two different kinds of vehicles in the collision, mass takes a second seat, specially in side collisions (a car hitting an SUV by the side is not as fatal for the SUV as it would be for the car if it were to be laterally hit by an SUV).


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 12:32:29 AM , Rating: 2
> "I know that what you say is true, but statistical reports I've read from many countries say something different"

Perhaps you could link to a few of these reams of statistical reports? I read one that indicated SUVs were more dangerous than their mass suggested...however, that report left off the most dangerous class of vehicle of all -- small, two-door coupes/sports cars.

And in any case, I never disputed that SUVs were more prone to rollover. The issue being discussed, though, is *mass*. Heavier cars win; lighter cars lose. Driving a 1600 lb vehicle on roads frequented by 4000 lb sedans and 6000 lb SUVs *is* more dangerous than a more conventional choice, no more how well-engineered that vehicle is.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/18/2008 2:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
Here's one, doesn't talk directly about mass but however says which cars are reported to be less fatal on accidents and things like that.

http://www.aceee.org/pubs/t021full.pdf

If I find the other ones I'll post them, too.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 3:42:17 PM , Rating: 1
> Here's one, doesn't talk directly about mass but however says which cars are reported to be less fatal on accidents and things like that."

Err, that report AGREES with me. Look at the risk to drivers for SUVs...its far below that of compact and subcompact cars. And the study even quotes an earlier study, which specifically ties decreasing vehicle mass to decreasing safety!

You may have been fooled by a line in the intro which talks about the "combined risk" for SUVs. But that includes risks to other drivers -- people in cars struck by SUVs.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/18/2008 6:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
You cheater! :D

Look at figure 3, in which the picture shows risks for the driver and other drivers according to vehicle type (including examples of specific models) in a bidimensional chart (x-axis represents risks for the driver and y-axis is risk for others).

I'll quote the conclusions of the article a little below that graph:

quote:

Midsize and Large Cars. The safest midsize and large cars (Avalon, Camry, and Accord)
are as safe as the safest SUV (Suburban); average midsize and large cars are just as safe
as the average SUV. However, SUVs impose a greater risk on drivers of other vehicles
than do all types of cars. The combined risk of the average SUV (129) is about 30%
higher than that for the average large car (100) and 25% higher than that for the average
midsize car (105), while the safest SUV (Suburban, 111) has at least a 40% higher
combined risk than the three safest midsize and large cars (Avalon, 63; Camry, 72; and
Accord, 79).
2. Subcompact and Compact Cars. The safest subcompact (Civic and Jetta) and compact
(626 and Altima) car models are as safe to their drivers as the average SUV (see Figures
2 and 3, and Table A5 in the appendix). When one considers the combined risk, including
those killed in the other vehicle in two-vehicle crashes, then the safest subcompact and
compact models are actually safer than the average SUV. Moreover, the combined risk
for the average subcompact or compact car (147 and 136, respectively) is only slightly
higher than that for the average SUV (129).
A critical aspect of the dispute regarding whether light or small cars are relatively
dangerous for their occupants is the very large range in the risk to drivers of subcompact
cars (see Figure 2). At one end are the low-risk Jetta and Civic models, as just mentioned,
but at roughly twice their risk are the Cavalier, Escort, and Neon models (and their
twins). Those three very popular models are responsible for increasing the average risk to
drivers of subcompact cars. Does the safety record of those three models prove that light
cars are unsafe? We present evidence that there is no such simple rule. Might it instead suggest that relatively inexpensive cars tend to be unsafe? Perhaps. In any event, the
argument that the low weight of cars with high fuel economy has resulted in many excess
deaths is unfounded; that by paying careful attention to safety in vehicle design, smaller
cars can be, and indeed have been, made as safe as larger ones.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 6:34:13 PM , Rating: 1
Sure, but let me point out some facts:

a. The study disagrees with an earlier study that found mass *was* a crucial factor in safety.

b. The study excluded the very lightest cars entirely (2,500 lbs and under) It specifically said this group "tends to have a high risk to their drivers (169 deaths per million sold)"

c. The study excluded all the sports cars from the compacts/subcompact category, on the grounds that these are driven "more agressively" (and thus dangerously.) That takes out the worst of the small car drivers...but no such correction was done for SUV drivers (and trust me, a lot of young urban punks driving Escalades and Hummers account for far more than their fair share of accidents). This is one of the reasons vans get the highest rating of all..who drives a minivan like a sports car?

d. Even excluding sports and sporty cars, three of the four worst cars on the chart are subcompacts...and the fourth is a compact pickup.

e. Comparing small cars to large cars, and small SUVs/trucks to large ones, one clearly sees that, even in this study, mass DOES make a difference. Take for instance the Chevy Blazer (risk: 110) to the heavier Tahoe (risk:60 ). Or the Camry (risk:45) to the Civic (risk:75).

Mass *does* make a difference.


By DeepBlue1975 on 4/18/2008 10:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't mass doesn't make a difference.

My whole point was that in a car - SUV head on crash, even if the car is 1.5x the weight of the SUV, he who drives the car has the biggest chance of having an SUV's front bumper fatally tattooed in his forehead while de SUV's driver has larger probabilities of stepping out of his vehicle unharmed. :)

Of course, a lighter car's driver will get "even more killed" after hitting an SUV.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By andrinoaa on 4/18/2008 6:09:50 AM , Rating: 2
again , I ask, what should we be driving, Kenworths?
Surely, mass isn't the problem. Its the fool behind the wheel! lol


By misuspita on 4/19/2008 4:01:36 AM , Rating: 2
RE: German engineering strikes again..
By random git on 4/20/2008 8:38:04 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, using that reasoning getting shot is equivalent to hitting a fixed obstacle the size of a bullet at 0.01 ft/s. And to nitpick a bit, the momentum change will obviously be the same for both vehicles no matter what their weight ratio.


By masher2 (blog) on 4/20/2008 12:18:18 PM , Rating: 2
> "the momentum change will obviously be the same for both vehicles no matter what their weight ratio."

Delta P will be, yes...that's what conservation of momentum means. But what the human body feels isn't total momentum change, but dP/m, or the instaneous change in velocity. The "m" of course in that equation is mass...which is why a larger mass equates to a smaller force felt. And that, in turns, translates to less damage taken.

> "using that reasoning getting shot is equivalent to hitting a fixed obstacle the size of a bullet at 0.01 ft/s."

From a ratio of momentum transfer, it certainly is. How else do you think bulletproof vests work? The total momentum in a bullet is very small...spread it out over a surface large enough to prevent penetration, and you take no damage.


By mindless1 on 4/19/2008 11:14:21 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the opposite tends to be true with trucks (having a full frame). The body itself does not absorb as much of the impact so the people inside are jarred more, not less.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By andrinoaa on 4/18/2008 6:07:16 AM , Rating: 2
so what are you suggesting - drive a Kenworth?


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 10:10:57 AM , Rating: 2
> "so what are you suggesting - drive a Kenworth? ".

I'm not *suggesting* anything. Drive a 1500 lb Smart Car all you want.

My family, however, will remain in vehicles that weight ~3X that much...as long as there are so many 6000 lb idiot-propelled SUVs on the road.

In any case, the entire mass issue will be moot in 15-20 years, as soon as a substantial portion of vehicles on the road are computer-driven.


By Donkeyshins on 4/18/2008 12:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
A 4500 lb car? Are you serious? Hell, even your 3000 lb cars are extremely safe in a crash.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By andrinoaa on 4/18/2008 5:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
yes you are masher2 suggesting. Your reasoning is clouded by emotion and illogical fear. Just extrapolate your arguement. Your suv needs to be BIG to survive crash with other BIG suv. Surely to survive crash with other Big suv, you NEED a BIGGER suv ie Kenworth!
You have touched on the real problem ( subconsciously )
"so many 6000lb IDIOT-PROPELLED suvs".
This probably is what is holding back american car developments in line with the rest of the developed world.
You won't have to address this issue soon because oil is fast running to $150/barrel. There won't be any suv then, lol
When I line up to get petrol and see some sucker in a V8 pouring money into his tank, I have a chuckle - there goes another days wages, lol, because I like to work! lol


By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 6:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
> "Your reasoning is clouded by emotion and illogical fear. "

There's no "emotion and illogical fear" in basic Newtonian mechanics.

> " because oil is fast running to $150/barrel. There won't be any suv then, lol"

Ten years ago, when oil was $20/bbl, people said $100 oil would be the end of SUVs...and yet today, they're still selling well. To most buyers of expensive SUVs, $4/gallon gas really isn't that big a cost.


By Spuke on 4/18/2008 7:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have a chuckle - there goes another days wages, lol, because I like to work! lol
I make quite a bit more per day than any SUV or pickups tank of gas. As a matter of fact, I make more than a semi trucks tank of gas per day. Besides those that can afford to buy these things already know that they're not great on gas. You can't afford it but others can.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/18/2008 2:29:40 PM , Rating: 2
I know SUVs are the best in case of a head on collision, but I'd never buy one because I hate them.

My actual car has a weight of 1320kg (2900 lb I think) and is a hatchback that's only 4.22m long (some 14 ft) and as 99% of the time there's only my wife and myself inside (combined weight of 300lb and each of us being 5' 6" tall) and it feels like wasted space on wheels.

I'd like it to be at least 200kg lighter for its size and I definitely know that my next car has to be smaller and less hefty. I don't care so much about head - on crash security because I've been driving for 15 years and never had a single crash, so I won't waste my money on a car I don't like just to improve the surviving probability on a less than likely situation.

But then again, I know that a Hummer H2 would be among the safest choices out there...


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By Spuke on 4/18/2008 3:48:46 PM , Rating: 2
You guys don't plan on having any children? You'll probably want to keep your present car with all of that "wasted space" if you do.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/18/2008 5:33:03 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, me and my wife are not planning on having any children by the time being.
Don't know if I'll change my mind in the years to come but for now it is not something we'd like to happen.

I like small, lightweight and powerful cars. If some day unipersonal cars come to market I'll definitely want one.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By Spuke on 4/18/2008 7:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I like small, lightweight and powerful cars.
So do I but I'm an empty nester so I can indulge if I choose. When my kids were home, my wife and I both drove sedans until we decided she should have a truck to support her hobby (horses). With kids, you need the extra space. We didn't have enough room for their friends unless we took both cars and sometimes we had to rent a large sedan for more cargo capacity. In all honesty, we should've just bought a large SUV that she could use to tow with while hauling the kids and their friends around. The cost would have been the same as driving two cars. But neither of us likes SUV's. In our case, efficiency and practicality took a back seat to what we wanted.

BTW, my perfect car would be a 2000 lb, RWD hatchback with a turbo 4 cylinder making at least 250hp.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/19/2008 4:00:12 AM , Rating: 2
When you find that hatch, tell me and I'll just run to buy it, even if it means being "weak" against a Cadillac Escalade :D


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By Spuke on 4/20/2008 2:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
I could take the motor out of a Acura RDX and install it in a 92 Civic hatchback. Then lighten the car a bit but I'd STILL be missing RWD. I honestly think this will never happen. Car markers only seem interested in RWD in large sedans and sports cars. My Solstice is about the lightest RWD car you can buy new and it still weighs 2900 lbs.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By masher2 (blog) on 4/20/2008 5:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
> "Car markers only seem interested in RWD in large sedans and sports cars..."

RWD hurts the fleet average MPG too much in subcompacts. As long as CAFE standards continue to rise, I wouldn't expect to see too many RWD small cars.


By Spuke on 4/20/2008 6:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
RWD hurts the fleet average MPG too much in subcompacts.
How so? You might lose a little cargo space but everything else is the same. MPG should be unaffected. My car (Solstice) gets 28 mpg (lead foot too) on my commutes and it has the drag coefficient of a brick. There's no reason a RWD subcompact with a better drag coefficient to not get the same or better gas mileage. It might cost a little bit more but with direct injection, turbocharging, diesels, lightweight materials becoming a requirement, cars will be a LOT more expensive than they are now anyways.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By Reclaimer77 on 4/17/2008 12:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/03/autos/smart_crash_...

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20...

K Brandon I can post links too :)

Interesting note : Crash test star ratings don't take into account doors flying open. Which is what happens when a Smart is hit on the side.

The Smart scored 3 stars in the passenger safety category. Only one other car in the 2008 linup of all manufacturers scored as low, the BMW M5.

I'm hoping the UP! will fare a bit better. But I still wouldn't climb into one of these. And if a friend of mine ever expects me to ride in one of these, I'm going to have to insist I drive.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By masher2 (blog) on 4/17/2008 12:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
> "The Smart scored 3 stars in the passenger safety category. Only one other car in the 2008 linup of all manufacturers scored as low"

And of course crash test ratings are performed against a fixed barrier, which negates vehicle mass as a factor in the equation.

Cabin strength, crumple zones, etc, all play their part...but there's no working around a large disparity in mass.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By manoj252 on 4/17/2008 6:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGTzDLi1B1o&NR=1

What if the crash test with the fixed barrier was at a much higher speed like in this video? The frame sure looks solid!


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 6:41:59 PM , Rating: 2
See my previous post. If a car collides with one twice as heavy, both doing 60 mph, the larger car experiences a force as if it hit a fixed barrier at 40mph...but for the smaller cars, it's equivalent to hitting at 80.

No matter how solid your frame is, if you deccelerate a cabin from 80 to 0 in 1/10 of a second, the occupants are going to be seriously injured.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/19/2008 4:16:47 AM , Rating: 2
Again, that would only happen talking about perfecty rigid bodies.

You give crumple zones less credit than they deserve. Granted, they're not miraculous, but in fact do highly reduce the fatality in a crash.

Your rigid body calculations applied fairly well to old cars with framed bodies, which would transfer the crash's deceleration in a rather immediate fashion. The crumple zones, when activated, can shave a bit of that speed change, enough that, coupled with the action of airbags and pretensioned seatbelts really help to reduce the chance of death.

Sure, the heaviest car has an advantage but that doesn't mean that if you are in the smallest car you have a near 100% probability of dying.

Let me put it into perspective:
How many times were you involved in a head on collision in your driving lifetime?
How many miles passed between those crashes?
What is your miles / accident ratio?
How risky are the places you usually are cruising?
How often did you find yourself passing by near a deadly crash?

Taking that into account, how high do you think it is your probability of being involved in a likely to be fatal accident?

If you like big cars or SUVs, great, buy them.
But if you don't, just spending money on them because you think that reducing your chance of death in an accident from 1/10000 to 1/30000, at least IMHO is not worth it, and fear is winning you over if it is preventing you from getting the kind of car you'd really enjoy driving.


By masher2 (blog) on 4/19/2008 10:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "Again, that would only happen talking about perfecty rigid bodies."

No, no. If the body was perfectly rigid, the decelleration would be instantaneous, yielding an infinite force(mathematically, such "impulse" effects modelled with a Dirac delta). No such thing as a perfectly rigid body exists for this reason, though we can often model as such with reasonably accurate results.

The crumple zones are certainly effective...they're the reason that decelleration is spread out in time. But on a small car, not only does the crumple zone have less room to work, but the lower mass means it has to absorb a much greater force. Double whammy.

A large car might have, say, two foot of frame to crumple...and it only has to decellerate by 40 mph (given my original example above). A car massing half as much might have 1.5. of crumple zone...and it has to absorb double the impact. That's 2.6X the resultant force on the cabin, and its occupants.

> "how high do you think it is your probability of being involved in a likely to be fatal accident?"

Each year, some 43,000 in the US die in traffic accidents. Over an 80 year lifespan, that equates to slightly over a 1% chance. Roughly twice as many are seriously injured, though they avoid death.

Those are odds worth reducing, however you slice it.


By 91TTZ on 4/17/2008 9:51:55 PM , Rating: 2
Pictures are misleading. I bet the occupants in the Smart felt a much more violent impact than the occupants in the truck.

1. The truck had a crumple zone whereas the Smart did not. The full force of the impact was felt by the occupants of the Smart since the whole car was displaced instead of a crumple zone deforming.

2. The truck is probably twice as heavy as the Smart. As a result, when they collided the change of velocity of the Smart was much more drastic than the truck.

If I put you in a reinforced steel cage and slammed you against a wall, the steel cage would look unharmed. But you'd be dead inside since your body cannot take the acceleration forces that a steel cage can.


By Captain Orgazmo on 4/18/2008 8:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
It's a matter of simple physics and common sense: a two ton SUV and a Smart hit head on... who will be better off? For that exact reason (namely the abundance of ridiculously over-sized SUVs driven invariably by inept 5 foot tall females) I am very reluctant to drive a car the size of a golf cart on a freeway.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By AlexWade on 4/17/2008 12:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
I would be afraid of these small cars at 70+ MPH because Americans love SUV's. Have you noticed how concrete medians are now taller? That is because of the popularity of SUV's. And besides, there are people like the really tall man in the Simpsons episode 22 short tales about Springfield and Smart cars would not work for them, though it would look funny.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By ikkeman on 4/17/2008 12:10:35 PM , Rating: 2
if Jeremy Clarkson of top gear (6'5") not only fits in an VW golf, but actually prefers it to any other car - big poeple don't require big cars...


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By Spuke on 4/17/2008 12:15:18 PM , Rating: 1
The Golf is not a small car by any means. I used to own one. This car and the Smart are WAY smaller. The Smart makes the Fit look like a limo.


By Spuke on 4/19/2008 3:23:58 PM , Rating: 2
So the Golf IS a small car? What the hell did I say that rated a one? I DID own one and it wasn't small. It had plenty of room for 4 people and a good amount of cargo space. And at nearly 3000 lbs, it really is NOT a small car.


RE: German engineering strikes again..
By masher2 (blog) on 4/17/2008 12:54:30 PM , Rating: 4
> "Jeremy Clarkson of top gear (6'5") not only fits in an VW golf, but actually prefers it "

That doesn't really say much, given I've seen Clarkson squeeze into a Peel P50...a car so small one can pick it up and carry it into your home or office:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqf1yKxb9hI


By marsbound2024 on 4/17/2008 2:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
Man that's a great video.