Can you identify this roadster?
Mr. MOTD
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,741
Likes: 3
From: Spring Hill, Florida
It's a smart car, here's a link to a article about it
http://archive.cardesignnews.com/aut...mart-roadster/
http://archive.cardesignnews.com/aut...mart-roadster/
6th Gear
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,748
Likes: 0
From: Napa, CA
A guy here in Orange county has one and absolutely loves it. He drives it to the MOALA meetings once in a while. Unfortunately, it is not legal in California so he has to drive it with dealer plates.
2nd Gear
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
From: atlanta ~ grant park, baby!
Trending Topics
6th Gear
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,285
Likes: 0
From: Wilmington, NC
I haven't wanted one of these for almost a year now! The blue one is sick!
I even emailed smartcar to see if/when it's coming over. I waited 3 months toget a response...they said "we don't know"...arrrrrr. unfortunately I hear they were slow but I still want one
I even emailed smartcar to see if/when it's coming over. I waited 3 months toget a response...they said "we don't know"...arrrrrr. unfortunately I hear they were slow but I still want one
The recent press release from Smart about entering the US Market in 2008 only mentioned the ForTwo and didn't say anything about the roadster.
It would be very cool if they were to sell it (or its replacement) here.
It would be very cool if they were to sell it (or its replacement) here.
...
Banned
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,756
Likes: 0
It was discontinued at the end of last year.
How Smart Became Dumb
The original Smart car, the ForTwo, developed by Swatch and Daimler-Chrysler (then Daimler Benz AG) and released here in Europe in 1998, is perhaps one of the most innovative pieces of automotive innovation since the Lancia Lambda in 1923. As its brand name implies, the first Smart was novel in that it was a car developed through a process that obviously featured hefty amounts of analytical and creative thought about consumers in context (rather than the more traditional automotive practice of mixing styling-testosterone with corporate politics.)
The Smart ForTwo is the perfect response to the needs of people who drive in contemporary European cities. Its design is based solely on responding to these needs. To their credit, its creators never felt impelled to make the ForTwo more "car-like." They never piled on features because they could. The ForTwo is a drivable product that can park almost anywhere in a tightly cramped city. It is fuel stingy in the land of perennially high fuel prices. It carries two people comfortably with room for modest cargo. But best of all, it is a beautiful object because it is not trying to be a beautiful object. It exists simply to answer a particular set of needs.
But Smart is in trouble. Smart found it difficult to make money from small cars alone and thought to expand to other categories. Where did it go wrong for Smart? There are undoubtedly many answers to this question. (How Smart would fare if released in the U.S. is a heated debate—possibly moot—and belongs in another discussion.) Smart failed in product definition after the ForTwo. The later Smarts did not courageously or ingeniously address particular sets of consumer needs. The Smart roadster—an abomination to the Smart brand because it is the type of vehicle that ForTwo drivers laugh at, not aspire to—is thankfully being discontinued. The Smart ForFour, a car that excites almost no one, is also in trouble. These attempts at brand extension alienated Smart's core audience and were not strong enough to win over a new one. The ForTwo, now an old design, is still the leading earner for Smart because it is the only Smart product that continues to differentiate itself from any and all competitors. It is almost as though Smart woke up one day, looked in the mirror, got frightened and realized that it should act like a typical car company. It not only lost sight of its brand; it seemed to lose its nerve.
One lesson here is that a brand is not simply delivered by cool graphics, styling or advertising. A brand exists, perhaps most critically, at the point of product definition. And if both the consumer's ideals and the spirit of a brand are not clearly felt and articulated when conceiving of new products, then that brand is already in trouble before anyone pulls out a pencil and a sketchbook
How Smart Became Dumb
The original Smart car, the ForTwo, developed by Swatch and Daimler-Chrysler (then Daimler Benz AG) and released here in Europe in 1998, is perhaps one of the most innovative pieces of automotive innovation since the Lancia Lambda in 1923. As its brand name implies, the first Smart was novel in that it was a car developed through a process that obviously featured hefty amounts of analytical and creative thought about consumers in context (rather than the more traditional automotive practice of mixing styling-testosterone with corporate politics.)
The Smart ForTwo is the perfect response to the needs of people who drive in contemporary European cities. Its design is based solely on responding to these needs. To their credit, its creators never felt impelled to make the ForTwo more "car-like." They never piled on features because they could. The ForTwo is a drivable product that can park almost anywhere in a tightly cramped city. It is fuel stingy in the land of perennially high fuel prices. It carries two people comfortably with room for modest cargo. But best of all, it is a beautiful object because it is not trying to be a beautiful object. It exists simply to answer a particular set of needs.
But Smart is in trouble. Smart found it difficult to make money from small cars alone and thought to expand to other categories. Where did it go wrong for Smart? There are undoubtedly many answers to this question. (How Smart would fare if released in the U.S. is a heated debate—possibly moot—and belongs in another discussion.) Smart failed in product definition after the ForTwo. The later Smarts did not courageously or ingeniously address particular sets of consumer needs. The Smart roadster—an abomination to the Smart brand because it is the type of vehicle that ForTwo drivers laugh at, not aspire to—is thankfully being discontinued. The Smart ForFour, a car that excites almost no one, is also in trouble. These attempts at brand extension alienated Smart's core audience and were not strong enough to win over a new one. The ForTwo, now an old design, is still the leading earner for Smart because it is the only Smart product that continues to differentiate itself from any and all competitors. It is almost as though Smart woke up one day, looked in the mirror, got frightened and realized that it should act like a typical car company. It not only lost sight of its brand; it seemed to lose its nerve.
One lesson here is that a brand is not simply delivered by cool graphics, styling or advertising. A brand exists, perhaps most critically, at the point of product definition. And if both the consumer's ideals and the spirit of a brand are not clearly felt and articulated when conceiving of new products, then that brand is already in trouble before anyone pulls out a pencil and a sketchbook
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ECSTuning
Vendor Announcements
0
Oct 1, 2015 12:13 PM
fkrowland
R50/R53 :: Hatch Talk (2002-2006)
5
Sep 30, 2015 10:30 AM
daviday
R50/R53 :: Hatch Talk (2002-2006)
1
Sep 25, 2015 01:31 AM