Although you can no longer say that the new Ibiza is small, it still plays a role in the European supermini segment. It's about 4-meters long, about the size of a Golf II series. Nevertheless, it's good to know that you don't have to be a big kid to be safe. The Spanish-German Ibiza got 5 stars at the EuroNCAP test in both frontal and side impact tests. During the front impact, the dashboard protected occupants correctly but there were some concerns raised about the steering column. Keep an eye on Seat: some rumors say VW could build Seat cars in Mexico to appeal the Latin/Spanish-speaking market.



[Source: EuroNCAP]

Click on the image for more shots of the GG Quadster

Take a look at the GG Quadster, a machine which is designed with four wheels but powered by a motorcycle engine. The 1200cc liquid-cooled inline four cylinder design comes from BMW's range of K-bikes. This particular machine features 167 horsepower, which is enough to propel the lightweight vehicle to sixty miles per hour in no time at all. While these are very impressive acceleration statistics, for the purpose of this post, we don't care about that. We're more interested in the actual design and layout of the vehicle. Because this machine has four wheels, it cannot be classified as a motorcycle in the United States. That would make a machine such as this next to impossible to register as a road-legal vehicle. This fact raises an interesting conundrum: are vehicles like the GG Quadster really less safe than a motorcycle? If not, what are the rational reasons that it cannot be registered as such?

The engine powering the GG Quadster is quite modern, featuring electronic fuel injection, catalytic converters and all the electronic gadgetry necessary to pass emissions tests. While this particular beast was not really designed with efficiency in mind, it will likely return fuel mileage which is much better than most cars on the road. Many new vehicle designs, like that of the Aptera, are using three wheels to get around safety requirements. We are not suggesting for a minute that safety is not of utmost importance, because it is. But with all the motorcycles, including those with sidecars, circling our roads, what makes a vehicle such as this any less worthy of the same?


[Source: Faster and Faster]

Are high gas prices having an impact on EV sales? Yep.

Washington state news station KING5 did a report on an electric car dealership's recent sales increase. Jim Johnson of MC Electric Cars has sold more electric cars in the last month than the last three years combined. With a barrel of oil trading around $105, NEV (neighborhood electric cars) sales probably won't decrease even though NEVs have a top speed of 35, a range of around 50 miles or so and no air bags. The amazing cost savings of a penny a mile (versus fifty cents a mile for fossil fuels, according to Jim in the video) seems to have reached a tipping point with the public. The news report also says electric cars with air bags will be available the middle of this year.

[Source: KING5]

We got our first official look at Tata's Nano in January (and a very good unofficial look in December). Tata's Nano will make its international debut at this year's Geneva Motor Show but when will it go on sale in Europe? According to reports, Europe may have to wait up to four years for the cars to arrive. Meanwhile, Indians will be able to get a hold of the world's cheapest car the second half of this year.

According to Reuters, Girish Wagh, head of compact car projects at Tata Motors, told German magazine Focus, that Europe would get second-gen Nanos. "We will develop a successor model in four years time, which will meet the Euro 5 emission regulations and the crash standards in Europe," Wagh said. European safety upgrades, which should include air bags because India does not mandate them, will add an unknown amount to the $2,500 car. Second-gen Nanos are also expected to get 78 MPG.


[Source: Inside Line]

Recently, we told you that Tesla got a waiver for advanced air bags for the Roadster. The Roadster "will be manufactured under Tesla's supervision and direction at a factory owned by Lotus" according to a file with regulations.gov. Lotus (which does not sponsor Tesla and Tesla is not a subsidiary of Lotus) got an airbag waiver for its Elise (on which the Roadster is based) and for being a low-volume carmaker. Why shouldn't Tesla get the same waiver? The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the DOT (Department of Transportation) agreed and granted Tesla the waiver. We've heard this news already.

But what exactly is an advanced air bag? We mentioned it has "sensors in the front seats that adjust the inflation rate of the bags based on passenger weight and position." What's that good for? According to a file with Regulations.gov, "The upgrade was designed to meet the goals of improving protection for occupants of all sizes, belted and unbelted, in moderate-to-high-speed crashes, and of minimizing the risks posed by air bags to infants, children, and other occupants, especially in lowspeed crashes." That's why, as I hope you know, if you drive with small kids you should turn off the non-advanced air bags in their seats or seat them in the back (consult your car's manual for details).

So, does this mean the Tesla isn't safe for kids? Not so fast. We are talking about a three-year waiver for a very expensive, limited-run sports car and not exactly a family minivan here. In the file at Regulations.gov it says that "Tesla stated that it is unlikely that young children would be passengers in the Roadster, so an exemption from the advanced air bag requirements that are designed to protect children will not create a significant safety issue. In addition, as with the Lotus Elise, the front passenger seat in the Roadster is fixed in its rearmost position, thereby reducing air bag risks to children and other passengers." Also, in a comment to the waiver, David Nguyen "estimated that, based on Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data, the exemption would not result in any additional fatalities."

[Source: Regulations.gov]

The video above, "The Energy Debate: Just the Facts," is from the Heritage Foundation and includes the results of a study on CAFE and safety that I think may have been misstated. The video starts out by asking the loaded question "why will raising CAFE standards hurt Americans?" to which Ben Lieberman, a Senior Policy Analyst at The Heritage Foundation, answers:

Raising CAFE standards will make cars less safe. In order to meet these standards cars have to be made smaller which makes them less safe in crashes. The National Academy of Sciences have confirmed this effect. Past CAFE standards have caused an estimate 1,300 to 2,600 lives per year. So, tightening these standards will only add to the death toll on the highways.

Now, let's take a look at how the study was presented to the Congress:

There have been adverse consequences as well. Safety is most important. The majority of the committee concludes that the downsizing and downweighting that occurred in the 1970s and 80s (partially in response to CAFE) resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 fatalities in 1993. While fatalities were declining in this period, most committee members believe that they would have declined much more had the downweighting and downsizing not occurred. Two members of the committee dissent from this view. They believe that the data does not support this conclusion, and that the net effect on highway fatalities of the increases in fuel economy may have been zero. David Greene, one of the authors of the dissent in the report, may elaborate on that conclusion.

So, the study concludes CAFE was "partially" responsible. Maybe. In 1993, fatalities were actually going down at the time and not everyone on the committee agreed with the conclusion. What are some of the dissenting views from the National Academies? David Greene found "higher mpg is significantly correlated with fewer fatalities." I think the Heritage Foundation misstates the conclusions but we want to know what do you think. Did they cross the line? Do you think higher CAFE mpg requirements increases fatalities?

[Source: YouTube]

Want to know a dirty little secret about the car industry? A lot of cars are not that different from other cars. I don't mean designs look the same, I literally mean many car brands are exactly the same cars (frame, engine, etc, etc) except for small differences in things like the interior design. The term often used to describe these cars is corporate twins and these nearly identical vehicles are used not just by the car industry to sell different car brands without developing a new car - the twins are also considered the same vehicles by standards and safety groups.

Why waste money crash testing or certifying say, an ethanol conversion kit for a specific car when you can do it for a corporate group of cars? When we reported on our list of the safest hybrids, corporate twins was the explanation I got from Department of Transportation to why hybrids lacked roll over testing. In more recent communications with the DOT, I was told it's their plan to test hybrid versions separately and that they have hybrid vehicles scheduled for testing in model year 2008, even for passengers cars where the changed center of gravity in the hybrid would tend to have little impact.

I am not accusing anyone of undermining safety, fraud or even laziness by writing about this. It would be a waste of money if safety groups tested every car using tests that can cost a half a million dollars each, when the only difference is a cup holder and the logo on the grill. Also, most hybrid cars, until quite recently, had low sales and many groups did not test them because it would be waste of money. Why spend million for tests to rank cars, already certified basically safe, when the market for the cars is actually smaller than the cost of the tests?

I look forward to specific testing of hybrids for roll overs because I think there will finally be documented proof of hybrid's inherent increased safety when it comes to roll overs. Also, I am very pro-consumer and I don't think corporate twins are that great because they can be used by car makers to make claims that are not exactly true. Also, lack of enthusiasm by some over recent news that GM will release a new hybrid brand every three months is based on the fact most will probably be corporate twins.

The car industry, maybe more than any other industry, has created a way of selling that makes it impossible to tell from advertising things like which is the safest, most fuel efficient car to buy. Corporate twins are really modus operandi for the car industry and many other industries, and while we might embarrass Toyota a little by pointing out that Highlander safety went down a bit with our safety award, the industry will not stop making corporate twins. However, would you be in favor or something like EPA labels that included a list of the twin's rating instead of an explanation like "rating pending"?

Related:

• Why you should never trust MSRP
• 2008 Toyota Highlander hybrid less safe than 2007 model
• Caught! Hummer using old MPG rating in TV ads

[Source: DOT]

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has awarded the Audi A3 as "Top Safety Pick". The A3 scored very well in the tests preformed at the IIHS, which shows that small cars don't have to be unsafe. Other Audi models in the US such as the A4 and the A6 have already been awarded with the top safety rating.

According to Audi, the A3 outdid in the frontal, rear and side crash test. What I found very interesting from the press release is how the side crash test is defined: "vehicles are struck from the side by a moving barrier at a speed of 31 mph (50 km/h). The barrier is shaped to resemble the front end of a pick-up or SUV."

Full press release after the jump.

[Sourci: Audi USA]

Recently, I wrote about a small, public fight between Aptera and Tesla over safety. It was just a few remarks and there are just a handful of electric car companies. Could they actually be fighting each other behind the scenes? Yes, and the fights have apparently gotten really serious. According to filings at regulations.gov, Tesla filed for an exemption on "advanced air bag provisions" in March of this year because it qualified for an "economic hardship exemption." Also, Tesla claimed, because the Roadster was basically an electric version of the Lotus Elise, Tesla wanted to use the standard air bags (and other safety systems) from the gas-powered cousin (read Tesla entire argument in this PDF). Kevin Kiley, Miles Automotive's President and COO then wrote to U.S. DOT/NHTSA a letter that reads in part;

We applaud petitioner's efforts to provide significant environmental benefits and energy savings and their intent to "change the way the world sees electric-powered cars", but we believe strongly that success in this area must be predicated on careful attention to safety. ... Our concern in this matter relates directly to perceived and actual safety of electric vehicles and the potential effects on the acceptance of all electric vehicles including ours if important safety standards are not strictly adhered to.

The files at regulation.gov are dated between August 31 and September 17. Martin Eberhard, Tesla's CEO, stepped down around Aug. 12. The first file from Miles Automotive is August 30; talk about salt in the wound. I am not going to take sides on whether Tesla should get an exemption or if Miles should have intervened. There is a good discussion on this topic over at the Tesla Motor Club (guess which side most of those folks are on?). I just have one request: PLEASE, Telsa and Miles, give each other a call, have lunch, talk to each other. SOMETHING!

Seriously, a normal, electric car that the average guy can afford does not exist yet and you will have enough trouble getting one to market. Not to mention what the big car makers are going to do to BOTH of you when they start to see you as a threat. I will bet they will do more than write a letter and make a few sly remarks at a show. Guys, form a club. You have more in common than you think. Learn from each other. Help each other. This in-fighting will only hurt both of you.

The image of Kevin was taken from a video of Miles staff on YouTube. You can watch them below the fold.

[Source: Comment by ABG-reader Kardax via post to Tesla Motor Club]

The video below the fold includes Stephen Heckeroth talking about his RAV4 EV on Green Wheels, a Zoom HD TV show. Stephen mentions that the RAV4 EV's 800-pound battery pack is under the floor, as low as you could want it, giving the still-popular electric vehicle a very low center of gravity. This opens up the interesting possibility: What if hybrids, which have a similar battery configuration, are safer than their gas counterparts when it came to rollovers? I cannot find roll over ratings for hybrids to compare to their gasoline-only versions, something I lamented when I did the research for AutoblogGreen safest hybrid award.

I have not heard the claim hybrids are less likely to roll over before and I think it would really be a great selling point, especially with the barrage of headlines you often read about SUV rollovers. I will contact the government about the lack of hybrid rollover ratings and report back soon on why we can't have hard numbers on this possibly major advantage for hybrids. In the meantime, tell me, do you think there might be an advantage at all? Would a star or two better rating for a hybrid in rollover tests make you want to buy a hybrid?

[Source: YouTube]

I don't mean to pile on the bad news that seems to be hitting Toyota recently but I was doing some work on AutoblogGreen's second annual pick for safest hybrids and things don't look good for Toyota. Our pick for safest hybrid in 2007 was, for passenger cars, the Toyota Camry and, for SUVs, the Toyota Highlander. In 2008, it looks like the safest hybrids for the passenger and SUV classes will be from GM, not Toyota.

It's not even a close call in the SUV class. The 2008 GMC Yukon hybrid and 2008 Chevy Tahoe hybrid both got 5 stars. The 2007 Toyota Highlander hybrid got 5 stars too BUT... the 2008 Toyota Highlander hybrid got all 5s except for a 4-star rating for passenger safety. That's right, the 2007 Highlander Hybrid is actually SAFER than the 2008 version. We simply can't reward Toyota for dropping the ball there. These awards are all about highlighting screw ups like that and encouraging innovation.

As for the passenger class, the number are not quite in yet but it looks like the 2008 Toyota Camry hybrid might lose out to 2008 Saturn Aura hybrid. The Aura is a mild (some think that's too kind) hybrid and only improves the fuel efficiency by 2 miles per gallon but we think we might give it an extra point for finishing with crash test results equal or better than the Camry. I also think the lack of ESC as standard in the 2008 Prius should lose Toyota points.

The criteria for this award is very simple, the cars must be a hybrid and have ESC. After that, it's simply which car has the best crash rating in the passenger and SUV class. This award is really shaped by our readers who changed it from just a simple ranking to a much better award. Our brilliant readers even corrected the government's car safety website in the process of creating the award. So, we ask our readers again for their comments. Should AutoblogGreen's 2008 award for safest hybrid go to GM because Toyota has dropped the ball on safety?

Update: I changed the text "the lack of ESC in the 2008 Prius" to say "the lack of ESC as standard in the 2008 Prius."

Recently, I wrote that the Zap-X could be "months" away from mass production. No one shared my enthusiasm because the estimate included an indeterminately long "testing" period. I contacted Zap and they said the "situation is evolving very quickly because Youngman is already a very large manufacturing company with plans to move into automobiles" unlike, say, Tesla. Zap says the "ZAP-X is on the agenda" but "timetable projections will not be confirmed until the JV (joint venture) business plans between ZAP and Youngman have been further developed."

What was I thinking? The ink on the Zap-Youngman contract is still wet. Zap just showed the car images for the first time this year. The safety testing required for American cars could easily push the release to late 2008, early 2009... in America! I found an interesting interview with the CEO of Zap, Steve Schneider, where he says Zap will develop "electric vehicles for sale in China, and the Middle East, and South America, and here in the United States." Youngman is in China so "it gives us (Zap) the China market, of course" said the CEO.

This opens up an interesting possibility: What if affordable, normal, electric cars are commonplace in China before the US? Four things could keep Zap-X from premiering on China's streets. First, could the Chinese afford the Zap-X? The Cleantech article says "with volume manufacturing, Schneider said ZAP's target is to not have any passenger vehicle over $30,000." Two, can Youngman make enough cars? Youngman expects a capacity of 200,000 vehicles in 2008 and 300,000 in 2009. Three, what about safety tests for China? I don't mean to insult the great nation of China but from what I see in the headlines and Congressional hearings; IMHO quality testing won't cause a big delay there. Four, what if Zap just does not want to release in China first? I asked them but have not received a response yet.

I could see why Zap might be concerned. I know if I saw affordable, good looking, four door sedans driving around the streets of China for under $30,000, for a whole year while it went through testing in America, I might start to look into the electric car grey market. This is all very hypothetical, but do you think seeing the Zap-X crowding the streets of China could be a Sputnik-like moment for China-US relations? Do you think America should be embarrassed if it loses the "electric-car race" to China or another country?

[Source: Cleantech]

Recently, we wrote that Tesla's director of communications enjoyed crashing the company car in Project Gotham Racing 4. How about a taste of the real thing? Below the fold is a video from Gadgetoff 2007 of co-founder and ex-CEO of Tesla, Martin Eberhard, showing crash tests of the Tesla electric sports car. At the beginning of the video, Martin says these videos are the difference between Tesla and companies that make a "three wheel imaginary car that would never be safe on the highway." Could Martin be talking about Zap?

So how much does all this fun footage cost? Martin says the cars cost $350,000 to build and the tests cost another $100,000. The Tesla sells for $100,000 but the cars in the crash tests have equipment added to measure the damage done to the crash test dummies. Martin says Tesla has done about 8 tests; So the video is about a million dollars a minute, give or take a million. These are, of course, hand picked videos done by Tesla but the car looks amazingly safe. Air bags are "freaking amazing" as Martin points out.

[Source: YouTube]

Recently, we told you Consumer Affairs wrote the Prius had unintended acceleration problems caused by something mysterious. Consumer Affairs later wrote that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had quietly started an investigation. Today, it looks like we know what caused the unintended acceleration: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is recalling all-weather floor mats for the Camry and Lexus because it may get caught in the acceleration pedal and cause "unintended acceleration." Prius and Avalon hybrid drivers that have the all-weather mats are urged to check to make sure it's properly installed. I wonder why no recall for them? Anyway, the NHTSA did not find a design flaw in the mats but did find it could slip forward under the acceleration pedal if the all-weather mat is stacked on top of other mats. Got that Prius and Avalon hybrid drivers? Don't stack your mats! This may sound a little funny but NHTSA knows of 7 crashes, 12 injuries, and people zipping above 90 MPH because of a floor mat.

Update: Don't worry about checking the mats in your Avalon hybrid; Avalon hybrids don't exist :D

[Source: Reuters]

Small cars are not as safe as big cars in a crash. It's basic physics: If you put tons of metal around you, of course it's going to take the brunt of a crash. The engineers at XP Vehicles just might change that with their new small car, the Whisper. They say the Whisper "is the safest car ever designed for drivers, passengers and pedestrians." The Whisper achieves this level of safety because it's inflatable.

The inspiration for the Whisper design came from the Mars rover landing system. The car will cost less than $5,000. The Whisper will come in "two cardboard boxes for shipping by common carrier." After you inflate it, the engineers are "confident you can drive it off a 25-foot cliff without serious injury to its passengers." You don't have to worry about a tsunami or floods because it floats.

The Whisper FAQ says "research shows that the metal in your car is the largest cause of death and injury." But what if your car is punctured, will you blow away cartoon-like? They "have a special ballast and aerodynamic design set of features which makes the car very stable." The Whisper runs on batteries or fuel cells and will ship 7 months after they get funding.

[Source: PESN]