i10 unsafe?

[amannarwal]

one cannot gaurantee on the quality of review but the important things in the review is no impact beam in the front. i do not know about other cars but i do know about crumple zones and sacrificing a car for driver and i consider that an impact beam is vey necessary.....If one had ever tried to straighten a tempered beam you can know how much help it can give.

[esteem_lover]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I think we should be told what happened to the tree.

Minimising impact damage to trees should be a major part of car design, and a big selling point.

You wouldn't sell a single car here.

[dadu]

I agree, but the problem in India is that not many people understand this and they are willing to walk crippled the rest of their life but their vehicle should not get damaged much in such accidents.

Originally Posted by Samurai

The primary purpose of the car safety system is to protect the passenger by sacrificing the car if required. That it seem to have done. Has there been any crash test done on the i10?

[esteem_lover]

Originally Posted by dadu

I agree, but the problem in India is that not many people understand this and they are willing to walk crippled the rest of their life but their vehicle should not get damaged much in such accidents.

Maybe they love their cars more than they love themselves. . I guess we could make a few movies with this theme.

[vinodbijlani]

guys not dont understand this...he saying he was at not a very high speed think its probably 25. not sure how he couldnt control at tht speed. but things happen...i bet everyone of us would have come complaining if this would have happen to their cars..low speed impact damange coming to engine block..i think its a pretty serious thing..

i think the point here is wht if the impact was at high speed...probably somene inside could get hurt..i m not sure about i10 but in some cars airbags only release after 60kph

i dont understand why everyone starts complaining about how indian people think abt security etc....

Originally Posted by dadu

I agree, but the problem in India is that not many people understand this and they are willing to walk crippled the rest of their life but their vehicle should not get damaged much in such accidents.

Originally Posted by [B

Samurai[/b];689902]The primary purpose of the car safety system is to protect the passenger by sacrificing the car if required. That it seem to have done. Has there been any crash test done on the i10?

[pingping]

I cant comment on how safe is i10, but here goes few facts - the writer has said that by hitting his car in the tree some parts got broken, pl. note the following...

- there are few crumple zones kept in the car to intake the impact of the crash so that the impact transfers to body of the car and not the occupants... this makes the occupants to face relatively less shock during collision. During collision the car should crumble and break so that the impact is not heavily transferred to the occupants or else it may lead to severe body injuries and sudden heart attacks and spinal breakage too

- Though i'm not sure i guess nothing would have happened to the driver (unless he was not wearing the seat belt...) despite the car is damaged.

My opinion.... Thanks

[srishiva]

How can the engine block break ? What does he mean by that ?

[rks]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Most people think that its the components in the engine bay that protect them from a crash! Majority doesn't understand 'crumble zones'. Even worse is that people think the thickness of metal body is what matters in safety.

The point I am making is that with the cab-forward design, there is very little "zone" in the first place, leave alone "crumple zone", in the front of the car. This has been done to maximize leg room for the occupants and the longer wheel base apparently gives better handling. If there were some bonnet space then the crumple zone could be more effective and absorb frontal impacts, but in these small cars it is hard for me to visualize how they can take major frontal impacts and still protect the front seat occupants (crumple zone or no crumple zone).

The thickness of the metal and the presence of the engine in the front do play a role in absorbing impacts. The old-fashioned monster-cars are safe to impacts, but very expensive to run and maintain and will not handle all that well.

[Freaky_Sid!!]

Samurai
It might have hit a protruding part of the tree. Besides, he doesn't tell what happened to him, probably nothing. The primary purpose of the car safety system is to protect the passenger by sacrificing the car if required. That it seem to have done.

Probably the design of the car (front engine) did protect him, however he also states that the speed was just 25kmph. Imagine the car was at an 80-90kmph speed, dont you think the engine would come crashing into the driver compartement? How safe is that!! I dont know how the manufacturer could compromise on impact beams.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Freaky_Sid!!

however he also states that the speed was just 25kmph. Imagine the car was at an 80-90kmph speed, dont you think the engine would come crashing into the driver compartement? How safe is that!!

How can you assume the damage to increase in a linear fashion? We don't know how it will behave at 80-90Kmph unless specific crash test has been done. In addition we really don't know whether the real speed was 25kmph, we are just taking his word. There is no alternative to crash tests when it comes to judging the impact.

[Thad E Ginathom]

My remark about the tree was, of course, facetious* --- but the profile of a fairly small tree is not that different to that of a human being, and then the effect of the collision becomes very critical indeed.

I'd recommend this particular guy to fit bull bars to his car: that way he can do more damage to trees, and probably kill a few people too

Cars must, and mostly are, be built to maximise safety --- but we have to live with the fact that they are a dangerous form of transport, and that that thin steel shell gives us a impression of safety and protection which is largely false.

So what that any car is capable of travelling at four times 25Km/hr --- that doesn't make it slow

Seeing as how the reviewer makes no comment on the injuries to himself, it seems to me that he has little to complain about the safety of his car!

*There are very few English words containing all five vowels, in alphabetical order: this is one!

[RX135]

Originally Posted by Samurai

How can you assume the damage to increase in a linear fashion? We don't know how it will behave at 80-90Kmph unless specific crash test has been done. In addition we really don't know whether the real speed was 25kmph, we are just taking his word. There is no alternative to crash tests when it comes to judging the impact.

As you said, it would not be linear. Actually, it would be even worse at higher speeds. It is the kinetic energy of the vehicle which gets converted into impact energy being released. It increases in exponential way (square of velocity). So from laws of physics, it can't fare any better than at lower speed.

[for_cars1]

Take the case of European cars, opel, fiat, VW, skoda etc the always use thick guage sheet metal, their cars are heavy and well built and
they don't crumble like paper during low speed impacts.

On the other hand, cars like New Honda City crumple like paper even
during minor bumper to bumper brushes, leave alone medium
to severe impacts.
Agreed--the cars are crumpling to dissipate energy
and reduce impact to passengers, but I think making a flimsy build
out of cars in the name of safety is just beneficial to manufacturers in
in the following ways.
1. They can use thin sheet metal and make more cars with less metal and save manufacturing costs
2. They get good money in the name of repairs even if a cyclist touches these cars. These cars get totalled easily.
3. Flimsy build = lighter cars = fuel efficient cars = happy customers(atleast while running these cars) = more sales(in india)

Bottom line: I'm with the European design approach, they don't make their cars to "self-destruct" that easily in the name of safety.

Cheers

[vinodbijlani]

guys got the answer from hyundai - engine block is supposed to drop down when the impact is high so that the engine doesnt get pushed in towards the cabin & down below in the cabin there are couple beams to stop the engine or any other part coming inside the cabin. i was satisfied with the explaination.

[Gangsta]

Originally Posted by vinodbijlani

guys not dont understand this...he saying he was at not a very high speed think its probably 25. not sure how he couldnt control at tht speed. but things happen...i bet everyone of us would have come complaining if this would have happen to their cars..low speed impact damange coming to engine block..i think its a pretty serious thing..

i think the point here is wht if the impact was at high speed...probably somene inside could get hurt..i m not sure about i10 but in some cars airbags only release after 60kph

i dont understand why everyone starts complaining about how indian people think abt security etc....

See, last week a girl hits my Accent with her Skoda at around 40-50 kmph. I was standing on the traffic signal. My rear bumper's paint was just scapped off and very mild impressions of the grill. Her skoda was busted open. It was in so much bad condition i can't tell you. What should i think now? Hyundai's Built is better than skoda? or Skoda don't have the quality in them? Or my car's bumper is like He-Man's Protection Sheild . lol It was just her bad luck and my good luck. Many people makes small things look worse (like in mouthshut's review).

Today itself at Ashram Road, A civic hit a car at around 20-30 kmph (i can make that out because i was there just behind the civic.) and its front bumper was on the road. lol now Honda is meant for Built Quality (better than Hyundai). Now we should stop buying civic because its front bumper was off just at 20-30 kmph?
We should not consider it as unsafe. if this is unsafe then what about Nano?