Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Landos Mustache · Jul 13, 2006, 03:09 PM

"DaimlerChrysler today announced that an all-electric version of the Smart Fortwo will be available in the near future."

http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/...goes-electric/

Nifty. I see the gas versions all over the place for the past couple years.

ort888 · Jul 13, 2006, 03:23 PM

I love those things. Do they actually have them in Canada? I've never seen one in the US, since they aren't street legal here.

sek929 · Jul 13, 2006, 03:34 PM

Two questions.

How long does it's charge last?

and

How long does it take to charge?

paul w · Jul 13, 2006, 03:54 PM

Makes sense, since they're basically designed to be city cars anyway.

Landos Mustache · Jul 13, 2006, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by ort888

I love those things. Do they actually have them in Canada? I've never seen one in the US, since they aren't street legal here.

Ya they have had them in Canada for a while now. I thought they just recently became legal in the states.

ort888 · Jul 13, 2006, 03:59 PM

Well, if they are legal here, they haven't made it to Missouri. Not a big shock.

I wonder if they could accommodate someone who was 6'5".

ort888 · Jul 13, 2006, 04:02 PM

from wiki

All Smart Cars sold in the United States are grey market vehicles - modified versions of the smart Fortwo sold by some dealerships. U.S. Federal regulations allow certain grey market importing in large quantities provided the vehicles are modified and tested to conform to U.S. safety and emissions regulations. Appropriate certifications for safety (DOT) and emissions (EPA) have been obtained by Zap Motors, who purchase the car from a direct importer, but are not an official distributor of Smart vehicles. As at June 2006 Daimler-Chrysler is involved in a lawsuit against many or all such distributors [1]

On June 28, 2006, Daimler-Chrysler confirmed that retailer UnitedAuto Group "will be responsible for awarding potential dealerships and developing and maintaining a Smart vehicle dealership network throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico."[2] The first cars are expected to be available in 2008 and will be limited to the Smart fortwo
It is theoretically possible for an individual to purchase a Smart as a used vehicle from Canada, although impractical for most people due to various state title and licensing issues.

Gossamer · Jul 13, 2006, 04:10 PM

Hm....I don't know if the electric cars will pass emissions requirements...

Mastrap · Jul 13, 2006, 04:37 PM

Enter Ca$h ranting that this'll never work.

Seriously though, that's great news. If they make them affordable that could be excellent city transport.

ort888 · Jul 13, 2006, 04:41 PM

The problem is that the smart cars aren't that affordable. They cost about the same as a regular sized car.

Spliffdaddy · Jul 13, 2006, 10:31 PM

well that's not very smart. now is it?

Mastrap · Jul 14, 2006, 05:46 AM

It's a question of numbers. In Europe they are considerably cheaper.

Eriamjh · 06:33 AM

When they start selling the Smart ForTwo (God, I hope they rename it) in the US in 2008, I will be interested. I don't need a big car for getting around town and 40mpg in the city would be slick. Most of the time, only one person drives in a car to work so why carry all that extra weight around?

My wife says she would drive one. So would I, but not necessarily on a crazy Detroit freeway!

As far as cost, here's a few numbers:

At $3 per gallon and 10K miles per year, a 20mpg car will cost you $1500 to operate per year. 30mpg: $1000, 40mpg: $750, 60mpg: $500.

So if what you drive today gets at least 20mpg, you'll save about $750 per year in gas costs. That is a decent amount, but you can't save more than $1500 no matter what you do! If you have to finance a more expensive car to buy it, your net savings are much less. Sometimes, it's better to just keep what you have until you actually need to buy.

An interesting thing about saving money, you can't save money you don't have. I didn't buy a $1.5 million dollar yacht this week so I saved $1.5 million. Now where is that money I saved so I can spend it on something else?

SkirtmanMcSkirt · Jul 14, 2006, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by sek929

Two questions.

How long does it's charge last?

and

How long does it take to charge?

Hence the problem with electric cars.

Now the big question:

How long does the charge last at night, when using headlights, and when it's cold out, using the heater.

Answer: Dick.

SkirtmanMcSkirt · Jul 14, 2006, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Enter Ca$h ranting that this'll never work.

Seriously though, that's great news. If they make them affordable that could be excellent city transport.

They'll work GREAT!*

*: In florida communities where everyone already uses golf carts to get around. But in the really real world an electric car is a pretty stupid idea.**

**: Until battery technology makes a good jump forward toward more power in a lighter smaller package.

angelmb · Jul 14, 2006, 08:40 AM

(we) europeans are going to get new Smart cars as soon as maybe this year… nevertheless I really like the Smart models, I am sick and tired about huge cars -not only SUVs- getting just one or two humans inside, like a fugly Q7 I saw today over the sidewalk… pure non sense.

BTW I have read an article @ forbes.com about the Smart being a bad idea in the USA:

Like UHT milk, the Smart is a product Americans don't need, because it is designed to solve a problem they still don't have: lack of space.

Accordingly, we offer Smart the same advice as Parmalat: Skip the U.S

is that really true?, I am jealous!

http://www.forbes.com/2006/07/12/uns...0712smart.html

Landos Mustache · Jul 14, 2006, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by ort888

The problem is that the smart cars aren't that affordable. They cost about the same as a regular sized car.

They can fit into really small parking spots and they use less gas.

Mastrap · Jul 14, 2006, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by SkirtmanMcSkirt

They'll work GREAT!*

*: In florida communities where everyone already uses golf carts to get around. But in the really real world an electric car is a pretty stupid idea.**

**: Until battery technology makes a good jump forward toward more power in a lighter smaller package.

As per usual you have an opinion that'll be completely immovable without you going through the effort of actually researching the features the car might or might not have.

Not even Zim is as block headed as you can be, and that's saying something.

ort888 · Jul 14, 2006, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

They can fit into really small parking spots and they use less gas.

Don't get me wrong, I think they are cool as hell, I was just surprised when I learned that they start at about $15,000 and quickly go up. A well equipped smart car is about $20,000.

There are also lots of other cars that also get similar gas milage.

Landos Mustache · Jul 14, 2006, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by ort888

Don't get me wrong, I think they are cool as hell, I was just surprised when I learned that they start at about $15,000 and quickly go up. A well equipped smart car is about $20,000.

There are also lots of other cars that also get similar gas milage.

Ya I heard about the costs.

Don't know what the advantages are really, I just thought the fact that they are small is better for roadways over having 1 person riding around in an SUV.

analogika · Jul 14, 2006, 10:51 AM

And you can park them at a right angle to the curb.

badidea · Jul 14, 2006, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by ort888

I love those things. Do they actually have them in Canada? I've never seen one in the US, since they aren't street legal here.

This reminds me of a question I already wanted to post here quite often (and always forgot):

What kind of regulations do you have in the US?
If Smart cars are not legal, why is that so and why is it allowed then to drive around in total crap like the pre-pimped cars they show on "Pimp My Ride" (totally unsafe cars with almost no brakes...)??

Gossamer · Jul 14, 2006, 11:42 AM

AFAIK we don't have regular safety inspections and only certain states have emission checks, so it would be fairly easy for a car to get into that state of disrepair. For a car to be imported into the US, it's got to pass some sort of emissions requirements and safety requirements to become verified and those are usually fairly expensive. How would that thing do in crash tests? Frankly, I wouldn't want to go against a Suburban or Expedition with that. I'm sure there are much better reasons.

Landos Mustache · Jul 14, 2006, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Gossamer

How would that thing do in crash tests?

It does better than most small cars and exceeds requirements.

SkirtmanMcSkirt · Jul 14, 2006, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

As per usual you have an opinion that'll be completely immovable without you going through the effort of actually researching the features the car might or might not have.

Not even Zim is as block headed as you can be, and that's saying something.

Do the research. Battery life is very poor on any electric vehicle, and it drops like a freaking ROCK if you have the heater and headlights on. HENCE, electric cars are only good in very mild climates. During the day. With no radio.

Gossamer · Jul 14, 2006, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

It does better than most small cars and exceeds requirements.

That's quite impressive then.

SkirtmanMcSkirt · Jul 14, 2006, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

It does better than most small cars and exceeds requirements.

AGH!

MYTH! MYTH MYTH MYTH!

Go find the thread someoen posted with it hitting a mercedes head on. The smart car HAS NO CRUMPLE ZONES. The 'dummy' in the smart car would have sustained BRAIN injury in that crash. Meanwhile, the mercedes CRUMPLED around the smart, dispersing energy, and leaving the driver of the merc free of any major harm.

IT IS JUST TOO STIFF WITHOUT ANY PART OF THE CAR TO ABSORB IMPACT TO BE SAFE.

SkirtmanMcSkirt · Jul 14, 2006, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Gossamer

That's quite impressive then.

It's wrong. It's way STIFFER than most small cars. That is a BAD thing. There is ZERO area of the smart car that crumples in an impact. If you had a neon and a smart both hitting a concrete wall, the neon would be FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR safer.

SkirtmanMcSkirt · Jul 14, 2006, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by badidea

This reminds me of a question I already wanted to post here quite often (and always forgot):

What kind of regulations do you have in the US?
If Smart cars are not legal, why is that so and why is it allowed then to drive around in total crap like the pre-pimped cars they show on "Pimp My Ride" (totally unsafe cars with almost no brakes...)??

Because we don't have inspections. Not very good ones anyway.

Landos Mustache · Jul 14, 2006, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by SkirtmanMcSkirt

Go find the thread someoen posted with it hitting a mercedes head on. The smart car HAS NO CRUMPLE ZONES.

Cash you're wrong. Canada's standards are pretty damn high on safety and medical drugs. It wouldn't have been approved otherwise.

"The core of the fortwo is a high-strength tridon safety cell. The safety cell acts as a shield to protect the passengers during a collision. Impact forces are directed by the safety cell to both the collapsible structure in the fortwo and to the other vehicle involved in the collision.

]The structure surrounding the tridon safety cell is designed to crush during a collision. Even though the front and rear of the vehicle are very short, they can quickly absorb impact energy. The fortwo structure has undergone many crash tests. While all have shown outstanding safety results, the most impressive tests are when the fortwo is shown in a car-to-car crash with a Mercedes E-Class sedan. The E-Class car is twice the weight of a fortwo and is recognised as safe car in its own right."

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/040908.htm

ort888 · Jul 14, 2006, 12:00 PM

New cars have all sorts of safety and emissions standards they have to comply with. Once you have them you can do whatever you want as long as your car can pass inspection, which includes an emission test. I don't think there are any laws about gutting out things like door bars and stuff. But there are minimum safety standards you have to have to pass inspection. Things like seat belts and mirrors and such.

Then again, it's very easy to sneak a car through the system. You just have to know someone. My brother knows people who will pass any car for a small price. There aren't a lot of checks and balances in the system.

SkirtmanMcSkirt · Jul 14, 2006, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Cash you're wrong. Canada's standards are pretty damn high on safety and medical drugs. It wouldn't have been approved otherwise.

"The core of the fortwo is a high-strength tridon safety cell. The safety cell acts as a shield to protect the passengers during a collision. Impact forces are directed by the safety cell to both the collapsible structure in the fortwo and to the other vehicle involved in the collision.

]The structure surrounding the tridon safety cell is designed to crush during a collision. Even though the front and rear of the vehicle are very short, they can quickly absorb impact energy. The fortwo structure has undergone many crash tests. While all have shown outstanding safety results, the most impressive tests are when the fortwo is shown in a car-to-car crash with a Mercedes E-Class sedan. The E-Class car is twice the weight of a fortwo and is recognised as safe car in its own right."

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/040908.htm

I like how they rely on another vehicle to absorb the impact energy. Just hope it doesn't hit an SUV with a real frame, a tree, or some other immovable object, because then you're totally ****ed.

Also, if you believe all that, just remember this quick tip in case the elevator fails... just jump right before the elevator car hits the ground. You'll be fine!

SkirtmanMcSkirt · Jul 14, 2006, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by ort888

New cars have all sorts of safety and emissions standards they have to comply with. Once you have them you can do whatever you want as long as your car can pass inspection, which includes an emission test. I don't think there are any laws about gutting out things like door bars and stuff. But there are minimum safety standards you have to have to pass inspection. Things like seat belts and mirrors and such.

Then again, it's very easy to sneak a car through the system. You just have to know someone. My brother knows people who will pass any car for a small price. There aren't a lot of checks and balances in the system.

Actually if you remove the door bars, or bumper supports (but leave the bumper cover on) and then get into an accident, the insurance dude will inspect your car. If you removed that stuff without telling hte insurance company, they won't cover anything.

analogika · Jul 14, 2006, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by SkirtmanMcSkirt

AGH!

MYTH! MYTH MYTH MYTH!

Go find the thread someoen posted with it hitting a mercedes head on. The smart car HAS NO CRUMPLE ZONES. The 'dummy' in the smart car would have sustained BRAIN injury in that crash. Meanwhile, the mercedes CRUMPLED around the smart, dispersing energy, and leaving the driver of the merc free of any major harm.

IT IS JUST TOO STIFF WITHOUT ANY PART OF THE CAR TO ABSORB IMPACT TO BE SAFE.

dude HOW MANY TIMES DOES EVERYBODY HAVE TO PROVE YOU WRONG?

The simple fact is that YOU cannot comprehend the design of the smart car, and since your mind is of such god-like all-encompassing genius, and in your tiny universe, that means that it must be crap.

Landos Mustache · Jul 14, 2006, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by SkirtmanMcSkirt

I like how they rely on another vehicle to absorb the impact energy. Just hope it doesn't hit an SUV with a real frame, a tree, or some other immovable object, because then you're totally ****ed.

Cash you really think they don't test smashing it into a concrete wall?

It would not have been approved in Europe and Canada which both have higher safety standard than the US if what you say is true.

SUV's are big and high but people die in them each day.

SkirtmanMcSkirt · Jul 14, 2006, 12:23 PM

Dude, we've discussed this before.

IN THE VIDEO, you see the smart car slamming to a stop, then REVERSING direction, as the mercedes plows it backwards.

That's a sudden stop and change of direction.

From the merc's perspective, it slows down a lot when it hits the smart, but continues to move forward. It also crumples and disperses a shitload of energy in the process, and as you can see in the crash video it slows down more gradually than the smart.

THE MERCEDES IS MUCH SAFER. If you can't understand that you're just a ****ing idiot. Sorry.

SkirtmanMcSkirt · Jul 14, 2006, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Cash you really think they don't test smashing it into a concrete wall?

It would not have been approved in Europe and Canada which both have higher safety standard than the US if what you say is true.

SUV's are big and high but people die in them each day.

If Europe and Canada have higher safety ratings, how come there are so many cars in europe that were never ALLOWED in the usa? Take hte lotus elise for example. It just got here, and was redesigned COMPLETLEY to be safe in the USA. The old one didn't cut the mustard.

Seems to me that if cars are allowed certain places, and they don't meet the stadards of another place, then the USA has HIGHER SAFTEY STANDARDS (which still suck when it comes to SUVs and trucks)

Gossamer · Jul 14, 2006, 12:40 PM

http://www.mercedes-benz.ca/mbccusto...vent_clips.cfm

SkirtmanMcSkirt · Jul 14, 2006, 12:41 PM

Ooo neato the guy who says they're safe is the same guy selling them! Fancy that!

ort888 · Jul 14, 2006, 12:45 PM

Ban please.

Landos Mustache · Jul 14, 2006, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by SkirtmanMcSkirt

Seems to me that if cars are allowed certain places, and they don't meet the stadards of another place, then the USA has HIGHER SAFTEY STANDARDS (which still suck when it comes to SUVs and trucks)

Problem is "seems to me" isn't reality cash.

"In 2002, the US had sunk to 16th place (behind Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Great Britain, Iceland, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland) in terms of deaths per thousand vehicles."

"The vehicle mix, and vehicle regulations in Canada are not all that different from those in the US, yet Canada cut its traffic deaths in half while those in the US declined by only 16%. An immediate illustration of how much more important are the factors that Canada (etc.) emphasized."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHTSA

" Canada's first belt wearing law was in effect in January 1976 (in the Province of Ontario). The first belt law in the US was in effect in December 1984 (in New York State)"
http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/ts/text/ch15.htm

SkirtmanMcSkirt · Jul 14, 2006, 12:51 PM

I don't think death per millions of vehicles is all that accurate. Again, SEEMS TO ME, that canada doesn't have a huge nascar beat their wife let's get drunk and drive our 'mayon' trucks population like the USA does.

analogika · Jul 14, 2006, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by SkirtmanMcSkirt

If Europe and Canada have higher safety ratings, how come there are so many cars in europe that were never ALLOWED in the usa? Take hte lotus elise for example. It just got here, and was redesigned COMPLETLEY to be safe in the USA. The old one didn't cut the mustard.

Seems to me that if cars are allowed certain places, and they don't meet the stadards of another place, then the USA has HIGHER SAFTEY STANDARDS (which still suck when it comes to SUVs and trucks)

Unfortunately for your argument, the opposite is true.

ALSO unfortunately for your argument, the Smart would actually be ILLEGAL to sell in the US if you were right.
But it ISN'T - you can import and sell a Smart car. In fact, the only reason it isn't sold YET in the U.S. is because Daimler (rightly) fears image confusion if they started offering a compact car through a different brand.

The European market works very differently, since "environmenalist-whackos" have made enough inroads into politics in the past twenty-five years to actually change society, and compact cars are actually quite desirable here. Ergo, Daimler actually offers a compact range under their Mercedes-Benz brand - the A class (and since it turned out to be fairly successful, the B class).

Landos Mustache · Jul 14, 2006, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by SkirtmanMcSkirt

I don't think death per millions of vehicles is all that accurate. Again, SEEMS TO ME, that canada doesn't have a huge nascar beat their wife let's get drunk and drive our 'mayon' trucks population like the USA does.

Very true but it is also because Canada made seatbelts law 8 years before the US. Similar for airbags.

ASAIK daytime running lights.

Gossamer · Jul 14, 2006, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

ASAIK daytime running lights.

I'm less than convinced that those do much.

analogika · Jul 14, 2006, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by SkirtmanMcSkirt

I don't think death per millions of vehicles is all that accurate. Again, SEEMS TO ME, that canada doesn't have a huge nascar beat their wife let's get drunk and drive our 'mayon' trucks population like the USA does.

They also don't have the small-penis loudmouth know-it-all-don't-hit-me-i-can't-help-it-i-have-ADD population.

SkirtmanMcSkirt · Jul 14, 2006, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

Unfortunately for your argument, the opposite is true.

ALSO unfortunately for your argument, the Smart would actually be ILLEGAL to sell in the US if you were right.
But it ISN'T - you can import and sell a Smart car. In fact, the only reason it isn't sold YET in the U.S. is because Daimler (rightly) fears image confusion if they started offering a compact car through a different brand.

The European market works very differently, since "environmenalist-whackos" have made enough inroads into politics in the past twenty-five years to actually change society, and compact cars are actually quite desirable here. Ergo, Daimler actually offers a compact range under their Mercedes-Benz brand - the A class (and since it turned out to be fairly successful, the B class).

... but isn't it illegal to import one here? I can't just go sign it up at the DMV can I?

Landos Mustache · Jul 14, 2006, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Gossamer

I'm less than convinced that those do much.

From your government funded study or from walking down the street?

SkirtmanMcSkirt · Jul 14, 2006, 12:59 PM

From studies shown that they make a car almost invisible if there is a back light. If the lights were off, it's easier to see. DTRL are only safer in certain situations, and once everybody has them, it won't matter at all.

Landos Mustache · Jul 14, 2006, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by SkirtmanMcSkirt

From studies shown that they make a car almost invisible if there is a back light. If the lights were off, it's easier to see. DTRL are only safer in certain situations, and once everybody has them, it won't matter at all.

"Nearly all published reports indicate DRLs reduce multiple-vehicle daytime crashes. Evidence about DRL effects on crashes comes from studies conducted in Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States. A study examining the effect of Norway's DRL law from 1980 to 1990 found a 10 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes."

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html