Ever Wondered How You would Fare in a 70MPH Head On Collision Driving a Smart Car?

Published on January 12th, 2009

Impressive, or is it a fluke?

38 users responded in " Ever Wondered How You would Fare in a 70MPH Head On Collision Driving a Smart Car? "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Ron Larson said, on January 12th, 2009 at 6:14 pm

I would like to see a second test where it is t-boned on the driver’s side by a car running a red light, a much more likely scenario.

# 2 QB said, on January 12th, 2009 at 6:15 pm

CBC As It Happens interviewed a guy a couple of years ago who walked from a freeway collision between his Smart car and a semi.

Good cage, not much mass.

# 3 sargasso said, on January 12th, 2009 at 6:27 pm

It’s likely, or probable that the occupants in that would not survive. Above 55km/h (34mph) your chances in a collision with an imovable object drop exponentially. But the Smart, is fully washable and recyclable afterwards.

# 4 Opus said, on January 12th, 2009 at 6:43 pm

Have a look at the space where the drivers legs should be…about 1:23 into the video. The airbags will deploy, but the legs will be crushed under the steering wheel. Who would want to drive one of those that fast anyway?

# 5 deowll said, on January 12th, 2009 at 6:49 pm

Even if the cage can take it can the driver?

The cage looked like it did its job and that makes it about as safe as any car.

# 6 laxdude said, on January 12th, 2009 at 6:55 pm

The problem with the ultra-compact is the lack of room for energy absorbing crumple zones. Even if you are belted in…your internal organs keep moving and your heart can virtually detach from the aorta.

If you want to get people in smart cars, then you have to put in good active crash avoidance systems that already exist AND take measure to keep big vehicles either off the road from AM rush until after PM rush OR give them much lower speed limits. You could also have barrier segregated micro car lanes on highways.

That being said, those cars have amazing engineering…which is why they are so damn expensive when compared to the other mainstream city cars by Honda, Toyota, and VW.

# 7 dusanmal said, on January 12th, 2009 at 6:58 pm

I actually have had a collision with the tractor-trailer in my Honda CRX that produced very similar results. Hard to estimate the speed at the actual impact but it started at hwy. speeds (truck lost control and I was left with no space to escape or time to break). I too was able to open the driver side door and exit uninjured, but the front of the CRX didn’t exist anymore, just as in this example…

@#1: You’d be surprised at what modern technology does for the T-bone impacts… Though I haven’t experienced it with as small car as CRX (or Smart), I was T-boned by fully grown Chevy’ Suburban in my Subaru Outback at about 30-35 mph of his speed. Result: I drove about 70 miles back home and passenger side door needed to be replaced, but everything else was fine and I ended driving that same car without issues for another 135000 miles. Big ol’ Suburban? Engine dropped out and front wheels splayed weirdly… Likely totaled (though no injuries to me or Suburban driver).

# 8 Cap'nKangaroo said, on January 12th, 2009 at 7:13 pm

Did anyone notice that the concrete wall was at an angle. A significant amount of energy was dissapated first when the car lifted up in the air and second as it squirted to the right.

# 9 MikeN said, on January 12th, 2009 at 7:23 pm

Higher fuel efficiency requirement have killed thousands of people in the US(search for ‘CAFE kills’.

# 10 Yiorta said, on January 12th, 2009 at 7:44 pm

I detached my heart in San Francisco.

# 11 m.c. in l.v. said, on January 12th, 2009 at 7:58 pm

I like the SmartCar but you probably wouldn’t survive an impact like this and if you did you’d probably feel well below average. I wouldn’t drive one here in Vegas since most of the drivers here drive like fucktards.

# 12 jbenson2 said, on January 12th, 2009 at 8:58 pm

Small can win out with good design.

Take a look at the poor sap in the Ford F150 truck crash vs the MINI Cooper (both done at 40mph). Yeah, I know they are just dummies.

http://bit.ly/ri01

# 13 rzwo said, on January 12th, 2009 at 9:08 pm

I always see a shopping cart behind these things. I’m weird that way.

# 14 BigBoyBC said, on January 12th, 2009 at 10:07 pm

Ok, now let’s see the test done with a test dummy wired up, just because the car door opens, doesn’t mean the people in the car would…

afterthought; I didn’t know they could actually go that fast…

# 15 Greg Allen said, on January 12th, 2009 at 10:34 pm

Who paid for the car? The TV show? That’s fairly expensive episode, I assume. Maybe they made an insurance claim on the car.

# 16 Robert said, on January 12th, 2009 at 11:25 pm

If you are going to hate it pick a real reason like it’s craptastic manumatic transmission, high price for it’s size, or mediocre mileage for it’s weight. As far as crash safety it is an engineering marvel for it’s diminutive size.

#3 What’s your point? That they won’t survive or that this type of crash is unlikely. Is it that they won’t survive a crash that won’t happen?

#4 Exactly, who would want to drive that fast. That’s why they are designed and marketed as urban cars.

#5 Look up John Stapp to see what the human body can withstand.

#7 CRX- great car, but I’d never want to wreck one. Congrats on walking away.

#8 Great observation if only all accidents happened exactly perpendicular to immovable walls.

#15 The BBC payed for it on the show Fifth Gear. The cost is a pittance compared to the elaborate stunts on their sister show Top Gear, which has a habit of up blowing cars and caravans and racing exotic cars across continents.

Also, the car in the video is the previous generation, not the one on sale in the US.

# 17 andycactus said, on January 13th, 2009 at 1:45 am

#16 Not funded by the BBC (so not TV license fee funded). It is a commercial venture and thus not public money.

This show (5th Gear) was originally made to be broadcast in UK on Channel 5 (now called Five), hence the title “5th Gear”, and a dig at its intended competitor BBC’s “Top Gear” and interestingly poaching presenters from the original BBC show when they changed the format to the current jokey-bloaky ‘Stig’ and ‘airfield track’ one. Subsequently sold to other other countries too.

# 18 Miguel Correia said, on January 13th, 2009 at 2:04 am

The idea in the Smart is to use the *other* car’s ripple zone to absorb energy. The really dangerous scenario is two Smarts crashing head on, not a Smart against a big car.

# 19 brian t said, on January 13th, 2009 at 2:18 am

Wasn’t the Smart car was originally sold in Europe? There, the manufacturers are obliged to meet a certain standard, in crash tests, before they can even sell one. They don’t just build them, sell them, and wait to see what happens when someone crashes one. They don’t do that in the USA, either, thanks to (spit, spit) Ralph Nader.

# 20 RTaylor said, on January 13th, 2009 at 3:04 am

The G forces in the collision would cause massive internal injuries. The brain, liver, and spleen are rather disagreeable to such forces. As other posters stated this is not a typical traffic collision. The crumple zone at the front did work rather well.

# 21 jescott418 said, on January 13th, 2009 at 3:12 am

I would imagine the lower weight helped with less inertia transfer. Just look at Indy cars for example. They are hardly a tank and yet when they hit a wall except for the well protected cage for the driver the rest of the car absorbs the impact. As someone else mentioned that the wall appeared to be set at a angle. But not enough to significantly affect the out come.

# 22 dave said, on January 13th, 2009 at 3:24 am

Interesting. But I’m still hoping for fully automated cars. No steering wheels. Humans have no business pretending to know how to drive. I’d rather put my faith in a computer than a human any day. The statistics speak for themself.

# 23 Deep-Thought said, on January 13th, 2009 at 3:37 am

Does anyone know the episode of fifth gear this was presented in? I like to have some more back story.

btw. I think too that any driver would have been very sorry. But as for the looks of the car after the crash. Impressive. Probably no sperated limbs or so.

# 24 John E. Quantum said, on January 13th, 2009 at 3:41 am

A freind of mine recently saw one of these cars get picked up and moved over one lane by 50 MPH crosswind while crossing the American Legion Bridge near DC. Fortunately there was no resulting collision, but you will never get my freind to ride in one of these smart cars.

# 25 Paddy-O said, on January 13th, 2009 at 5:35 am

I’m not surprised. Do the same test with a bicycle.

Now, try a head on with an SUV, that’s a more likely scenario than a wall…

# 26 The Monster's Lawyer said, on January 13th, 2009 at 6:07 am

# 7 dusanmal – I loved my CRX. I was T-boned on the interstate after spinning out in standing water. A guy in a Expedition hit me at 60 mph +/- 5 mph. Took out the driver side door but did not break it’s window! When he was coming at me I had time to undo my seat belt and lean away from the driver side door and ponder the impending pain. I was not hurt in the least. The CRX body was bent so I ended up replacing the door and selling it.

As far as one of these ugly cars, I would have died of embarrassment way before hitting the wall.

# 27 B. Dog said, on January 13th, 2009 at 8:24 am

Did they catch the teenager driving it, or did he run off like they always do?

# 28 Miguel said, on January 13th, 2009 at 9:01 am

The really important question is: will it blend?

(I’d like to see that one)

Now, seriously, I watched this TV show on the BBC, in normal TV def the ‘explosion’ was even more impressive. And they clearly stated nobody would survive such a crash, which was at 100 Km/h (around 60 Mpg).

Smarts are so solid Fire Departments have to use special tools to open them up in case of accident. Some people died because emergency workers only had the ’standard’ car opener stuff…

As for people driving them fast, you’d be amazed at what we in Europe see Smarts doing on highways! They’re fast as hell (routinely overtaking me over legal speed limits, 120 Km/h), and their owners take advantage of it. Inside one doesn’t have a feel of insecurity, much the opposite, a nimble and stable car. Hence the danger.

I guess it’s kind of like riding a motorcycle. It’s fun, but with risks. If only people could be made more aware of those risks…

# 29 JoaoPT said, on January 13th, 2009 at 11:09 am

Miguel, they’re limited at 160KmH (not 100% sure on the figure…).
My boss has one with full extras: 1100cc turbocharged 97CV (Bhp ?) airbags, ABS, ASR auto windscreen wipers, the Works…
Still won’t go over 160…and drinks almost as much as my old 1400cc dual carb Civic (yes, no injection…)

# 30 James Hill said, on January 13th, 2009 at 11:16 am

Top Gear > Fifth Gear

And you can watch the most recent episodes of both off your favorite torrent.

# 31 Tippis said, on January 13th, 2009 at 11:20 am

#4 You wouldn’t travel at 70mph on your own in a Smart, no. However, you could easily get up to 70mph total speed as you ran into a car going the other way.

Also, yes. The people in that car wouldn’t exactly jump out and do a jig, but chances are they’d survive and make a full recovery — in the end, that’s all that matters.

Also, small has been safe for a very very long time now — it’s about time the myth about them died. That said, though, the Smart is smaller than most, so I’d still stay away…

# 32 Miguel said, on January 13th, 2009 at 11:35 am

#29 – 160 is a lot for this tiny car… And it accelerates like hell!

And your boss’ car must have cost as much as a ‘real’ car

# 33 joaoPT said, on January 13th, 2009 at 12:02 pm

32 Miguel:

That’s what I’ve told him…

# 34 Daniel Dacey said, on January 13th, 2009 at 3:09 pm

An accident at that speed means you are going to die, regardless of the size of the car or truck you are driving. The deceleration on your internal organs will do it every time.

That said as a demonstration of the structural integrity of the Smart, it is extremely impressive.

# 35 edsoto said, on January 13th, 2009 at 6:21 pm

Try a google search of the Smart Car hitting a Mercedes S-Class…

# 36 Bogaty said, on January 13th, 2009 at 9:21 pm

Here, IIHS side impacted a Smart:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=936

It did rather well.

# 37 chris said, on January 14th, 2009 at 9:23 am

Very sound little car. In most cases it will dissipate energy by sliding about, like a bar of soap. Put it between a jersey wall and a full size car where it can’t skitter off and the results would be bad.

I’ve owned a small car before, but not nearly this small. SUVs and trucks would just pull into my lane. I guess they thought in any crash it would be me that paid.

Instead of making people buy toy cars why not just stop allowing morons to buy behemoths?

# 38 Miguel said, on January 14th, 2009 at 2:51 pm

#35, just did:

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

Seems like a couple broken necks inside the Smart… Can you imagine going spiral at that speed???

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Discounts on domain names!