Team-BHP - Tata Motors mocks the S-Presso for its zero safety rating

I think that the Indian manufacturers have already done their job by providing us cars with top-level safety. Now it’s up to the Indian buyer to prove how much he values safety in his life by purchasing their products which can now really be termed as of international standard. This will not only encourage Tata and Mahindra to further compete with global brands but also force Maruti to change their approach towards Quality and safety. After all customer is the king.

Completely agree with what is being said regarding the lack of importance given by Indian consumers as regards to safety and more importance being given to parameters like fuel economy and after sales service. In no way I am saying that these parameters should be overlooked or given less importance than safety but safety aspect should come bundled into a package with other strengths to which Maruti and Hyundai is playing.

Regarding less importance being given to safety reminds me of an incident which happened at the FCA plant in Ranjangaon when I was working there in the assembly section. The Vista used to be produced there almost exclusively and only a few Vista's would be produced at the Pimpri plant to balance the production requirements.

One fine day a quality inspector caught a unique defect in one of the Vista cars produced that day where the rear seat belt would make a gadgad sound when it was retracted after being unbuckled. Now when this issue was backtracked it was found that almost 200 Vista's produced in the last couple of days had this same issue and so all the cars were held up from being dispatched.

All the senior management people from both Tata and FCA came and checked the issue and it was found to be a fault with a certain batch of rear seat belt retractor mechanism which was confirmed by the supplier. Now it was month end and so there was tremendous pressure of delivering the cars to the dealers so a decision was made to pass the cars as it is without rework since it would take at least a week to rectify all the cars. This decision was made simply on the fact that most Indians do not wear front seat belts let alone rear ones so chances of this issue being reported by a consumer were next to nil.

The only reason I was reminded of this incidence is because in extreme circumstances like these even a company like Tata will bypass safety protocols which often go unnoticed by the end user. Of course all this happened before Tata launched the Zest and the Nexon, but still.

I am putting 2 links from an old thread where I had mentioned how things used to work at FCAs production plant while I was working there.

Link 1- https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/india...ar-buyers.html

Link 2 - https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/india...-buyers-2.html

Here is a thought though. I am trying to correlate this with the "Beater Car" thread in the forum. Would it not be a bad idea to use that beater car (within 4-5 lac budget) literally for what it is worth, ie, as an urban workhorse, abused if needed? The prevailing notion is that a beater car is safer than a 2 wheeler.
People therefore use their WagonRs, SPressos, Celerios and Altos accordingly (even first time users). A Tiago with all the key features is still about 1-2 lac costlier , and MSIL cars are traditionally more reliable (engine/transmission).

Quote:

Originally Posted by tushky (Post 4936689)

And now its time for Wagon R. Truly hilarious.

I personally believe Tata Motors should restrain itself from further disparaging its competitors before prospective customers get irritated with the brand, and instead go for less safe yet expensive offerings from Hyundai and the like.

However, hasn't the Wagon-R already been crash tested (with the Santro and Ertiga), and has achieved a two-star rating?

Quote:

Originally Posted by armaan_singh (Post 4937877)

Imagine if some day a Tata car scores a two star rating, every single manufacturer will come back to attack like a blood hound.

Well, the nano had scored zero and probab the Safari Storme also wouldn't have got any "shining star" score.

The competition didn't have any better scores to prove except the Etios and Polo and Tata's Zest itself so that didn't matter then. And now since Nano and Safari are long gone Tata can go all guns blazing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TROOPER (Post 4937003)

There's no point in blaming any company. End of the day, customer is king. The day the scales tip and safer cars top the sales charts, these guys will automatically manufacture safe cars.

Very well said.

In fact, in my own residential society, I have requested many to stop their kids poking heads out of sun-roof. I request with folded hands and then also, I get weird looks. Anyways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VKumar (Post 4937009)

Already making a car, that is safer than other light weight counterparts, takes some cost. Note, these are low cost cars, hence they don't use the space age weight saving material - they simply use lesser steel to save the weight.

That's the common mis-conception. To achieve the basic GNCAP 4 or 5 rating, the type & quantity of material, as well as process is not space age. Its usually high strength steel grades (upto 1000MPa), requiring now-common processes like hot-stamping. Moreover, the cost of all this should fall within Rs. 3000~5,000 bracket (per vehicle).

So, even though I agree with TROOPER's assertion, there is no worthwhile excuse for manufacturers to skimp. Now-a-days, customers don't change their vehicle choices for such small price difference. Heck, many customers make purchase on loan, where this difference (Rs. 5000 etc.) just vanishes in EMI.

Quote:

Originally Posted by superguy282 (Post 4937568)

This is quite a common misconception but two cars when involved in a head-on collision at any speed does not equate one of them crashing at the sum of their combined speeds.

A car when hit to another moving car at 50kmph will be almost equal to a car hit to a stationary barrier at 50kmph.

Check this article out :-http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/collisionmath.html

While I do agree that two cars involved in a head-on collision at any speed does not equate one of them crashing at the sum of their combined speeds but saying that it's almost equal to hitting a stationary barrier is completely wrong.
Mass, velocity and shape of the object play a significant role.
It's hilarious to compare a rock and a car as it's done in the article you mentioned.
More importantly, Newton's third law of motion which has been cited in the article has been proved wrong theoretically and efforts are being made to prove it wrong practically as well.(all thanks to an Indian scientist)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tucker48 (Post 4938164)

Well there was a reason I said almost however I thank you for this information. I wasn't aware of it. I just wanted to clear the false impression of head on collisions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nalin1 (Post 4936746)

The crash results are for the worst of the worst case scenario where the structure of the car and not seat belts or air bags, has to protect occupants. These tests are conducted and stars awarded to keep the manufacturers on their toes so that they do not neglect this aspect.

Bottomline- It is all down to the driver to protect himself, passengers, car and others on the road :thumbs up.

Agree to the above statements. Thanks to Tata for calling out manufacturers directly for their lack of safety or focus on safety.

Tata is not saying - Please crash the car is safe, but saying if the worst happens would you and your loved ones rather be in a Tata or a Maruti.

:)

Marutis response is similar to two wheeler riders wearing helmet without straps just so that the cops do not catch and fine them and also mocking riders wearing full gear and a good helmet (Who happen to be like Tata).
:deadhorse

Quote:

Originally Posted by superguy282 (Post 4937568)

This is quite a common misconception but two cars when involved in a head-on collision at any speed does not equate one of them crashing at the sum of their combined speeds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by superguy282 (Post 4938176)

Well there was a reason I said almost however I thank you for this information. I wasn't aware of it. I just wanted to clear the false impression of head on collisions.

This has been discussed in enough detail in the below mentioned thread.
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/road-...ml#post4934510
I suggest you to go through it once.

"A front offset crash test is designed to simulate a head-on collision between two cars. In the Global NCAP test, the car is driven at 64kph and with 40 percent overlap into a deformable barrier which is the equivalent of a crash between two cars of the same weight, both moving at 50kph."

This is the basis of GNCAP tests and these tests are pretty scientific in nature. If the statement made by you is true, then the GNCAP tests are not relevant and I don't think that is true. GNCAP tests are according to the global standards across all NCAP in different countries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Napalm (Post 4938438)

You are making a gross generalization here, though I have shared the specifics. I don't think there is any misconception here. The GNCAP test takes into account the % of overlap, type of barrier and other things into account before coming at this conclusion.
This has been discussed in enough detail in the below mentioned thread.
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/road-...ml#post4934510
I suggest you to go through it once.
"A front offset crash test is designed to simulate a head-on collision between two cars. In the Global NCAP test, the car is driven at 64kph and with 40 percent overlap into a deformable barrier which is the equivalent of a crash between two cars of the same weight, both moving at 50kph."

This is the basis of GNCAP tests and these tests are pretty scientific in nature. If the statement made by you is true, then the GNCAP tests are not relevant and I don't think that is true. GNCAP tests are according to the global standards across all NCAP in different countries.

I think you misunderstood my statement. I agree with everything else that you said in your post and only disagree to this

Quote:

The Global NCAP's frontal-offset crash-tests are done to replicate a head-on collision occurring when 2 identical cars, both travelling 50Kmph hit each other, which is effectively 100Kmph.

Two cars crashing at 50 kmph into each other is not equal to one of the cars crashing at 100kmph is all I have to say. In fact you have also agreed to it the your post here