[travelpanthi]

We already have an existing thread discussing Indian Hyundais and developed market Hyundais.
So I wanted to share similar information for Kia Seltos.
We know that Indian version Seltos has codename SP2i, similarly new Creta is called SU2i.

SP2 vs SP2i (Non-Indian vs Indian)

Gray denotes mild steel.
Blue denotes High strength steel.
Red denotes Ultra High strength steel.





Similar comparison between Indian Seltos and Hyundai Creta 2020.





Adding Kia Sonet




By no means I am capable of concluding anything. I just want to share this information.

Source:
https://service.hyundai-motor.com/
https://www.kia-hotline.com/
Note: The information is neither publicly accessible nor freely available. One needs to register and buy some credit to access available content.

[giri1.8]

Originally Posted by travelpanthi

Attachment 2085295

Interesting to see hotstamping on the Indian Creta only on driver side footwell area, has this been done keeping NCAP crash-test in mind?

Also I can see that good amount of support has been given in the roof area, which is not visible on the variant with panaromic sunroof. Have they cleverly hidden it or has it been modified to fit the glass?

[VKumar]

Originally Posted by giri1.8

Interesting to see hotstamping on the Indian Creta only on driver side footwell area, has this been done keeping NCAP crash-test in mind?

Exactly same set of thoughts, although NCAP has proven the dual standards, these images show them completely.

Looks like Seltos still has more usage of the UHSS as compared to Creta. Probably Hyundai saving on steel, to give more features - after all, as a customer; you get what you demand (hence deserve too).

[OSH]

Originally Posted by travelpanthi

We know that Indian version Seltos has codename SP2i

If these drawings are correct, the Indian Seltos has these re-inforcements on both the front footwells but still the GNCAP report shows that the driver's feet had 'weak protection'. Was the footwell re-inforcement not enough ?

The crash test report can be downloaded from this link.

Originally Posted by giri1.8

Interesting to see hotstamping on the Indian Creta only on driver side footwell area, has this been done keeping NCAP crash-test in mind?

Such re-inforcement is also used to offer better protection to the driver's feet from the ABC pedals and steering column during a crash.

Based on the comparison, it is no doubt missing on the passenger side but maybe it was not that 'needed' and hence left out.

[papr23]

Originally Posted by OSH

Based on the comparison, it is no doubt missing on the passenger side but maybe it was not that 'needed' and hence left out.

...or Creta would fare even worse for footwell protection when crash tested!

[aaggoswami]

Originally Posted by OSH

If these drawings are correct, the Indian Seltos has these re-inforcements on both the front footwells but still the GNCAP report shows that the driver's feet had 'weak protection'. Was the footwell re-inforcement not enough ?

The crash test report can be downloaded from this link.

Such re-inforcement is also used to offer better protection to the driver's feet from the ABC pedals and steering column during a crash.

Based on the comparison, it is no doubt missing on the passenger side but maybe it was not that 'needed' and hence left out.

Two things I observed :

1. Indian Seltos has Ultra High Strength Steel in footwell, and the left side has more UHSS than right hand side, a trait carried over from LHD occident market.

2. The bigger difference is use of Ultra High Strength Steel on A-pillar and B-pillar for International Seltos vis-a-vis Indian Seltos. Indian Seltos lacks UHSS in A and B-pillars hence I guess the unstable body shell rating.

Only the driver's side getting reinforcement/higher strength material was observed in this thread also : https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/techn...vers-side.html (Why does the Tata Nexon's floorboard have a member only on the driver's side?)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, IIHS partial overlap tests are carried out at 25% overlap while NCAP/GNCAP does at 40%.

[ajaiD]

You seem to have been influenced by RSR's thread, but given the importance and quick info it's fine I guess.

@RSR is now needed to verify the above info.

[OSH]

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

Only the driver's side getting reinforcement/higher strength material was observed in this thread also : https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/techn...vers-side.html (Why does the Tata Nexon's floorboard have a member only on the driver's side?)

But there is one big difference. In case of the Nexon; the said re-inforcement was doing its job correctly in both the 4 star and 5 star crash test cars.

In both the crash tests, the driver's feet were getting protected which can be seen in the reports provided by GNCAP.

[travelpanthi]

Originally Posted by ajaiD

You seem to have been influenced by RSR's thread, but given the importance and quick info it's fine I guess.

I got inspiration to do my own research from his thread only.
Some reasons I created this thread:

1. His thread is more focused on Hyundai and has comparison between different Hyundai models.
2. I wanted to go through such information for my own curiosity sake. And neither Seltos nor Creta details are yet available. I wouldn't have spent approx Rs 2000 just for few images.
3. The images are straight from their website, only thing I did was to copy them side by side in Paint. Rest assured for the genuineness of these images.

[Godzilla]

Trying to do a rough calculation of how much cost can a manufacturer save by opting for using hss vs ahss. I believe it should be around 30k per car. Please correct me if I am wrong

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...182175631.html

A customer who is shelling out 20L is not gonna bother paying 30k more for a stable body shell. Hyundai Kia is anyways charging a premium compared to other manufacturers. Whoever has taken the decision to skimp on the advanced high strength steel or AHSS (which was originally designed by Hyundai designers with AHSS for best stability) especially for Indian cars is one of the most obnoxious decisions. They should be fired by Hyundai for putting millions of customers lives at risk.

https://youtu.be/HAvKYpPh_2w

Another thing I would really want to understand is a car body chassis originally designed with AHSS should not be simply built with HSS as it will severely impact the handling and safety?

Either Hyundai should design replacement structures using HSS with reinforcements or larger heavier panel HSS to compensate for lower quality. If that this the case then these diagrams will look slightly different. It appears to be different mostly But if they just simply chose to replace AHSS with HSS on some areas to save on design cost. That is another level of heinocity.

[WhiteSierra]

Originally Posted by travelpanthi

[*]I wanted to go through such information for my own curiosity sake. And neither Seltos nor Creta details are yet available. I wouldn't have spent approx Rs 2000 just for few images.[*]The images are straight from their website, only thing I did was to copy them side by side in Paint. Rest assured for the genuineness of these images.[/list]

Thanks a lot for sharing. This is exactly what I was waiting to see from RSR's posts, you put it together very well. Based on the SP2 vs SP2i (Non-Indian vs Indian) images, there is more Ultra high strength steel on international version. Also note that the international version of Seltos (U.S.A, Australia) is little bigger compared to Indian model, it has larger wheelbase. No doubt Indian Seltos is poorly made with less usage of Ultra high strength steel, which explains it's lower 3 star rating (just crossed 2-star rating by few points)

I love the looks of Seltos, it's features and comfort but I'd encourage people to buy relatively safer cars like Tata Nexon or a Mahindra XUV 3oo over this tin-can.

[21Archer84]

Originally Posted by travelpanthi

Attachment 2085283

This comparison of the Underbody is all one needs to look at to realize how different the car is across regions. Anyone working in the Automotive industry would not call these same cars.
My reasons:
1. Keeping the usage of different Steel aside, the design of the structure itself looks weak. The Fore-Aft members in the SP2 continue till the Mid Floor(just under the rear seat), whereas in the SP2i, they end abruptly in the middle of the floor. The Fore-Aft members help absorb and also transfer the energy over the body, it definitely looks weak in SP2i.
2. Beads pattern are very different between both the underbodies. Bead patterns too have influence on the stiffness of structure.
3. Usually, during development of a specific Vehicle, the parts are kept common to reduce cost and development time. However, it appears to be the case of developing two different vehicles with common top-hat(upper body) and different underbodies.
4. It's unclear from these images, but I'm assuming that the Reinforcements or Stiffening brackets inside the pillars, side members and cross members too would be different.

Keeping the safety aspects aside, I'd be interested to know how the body stiffness numbers look for both these vehicles. SP2i definitely looks like it might have more NVH issues over SP2.

Thanks for the comparison. Would be interested to see similar comparisons for other local/global vehicles.

[Storm2.0]

I think manufactures in India should launch two packages ie 1st one focusing on features and less of safety and the other one providing less of features and more of safety and let the customer choose and pay for accordingly. This will cater to the needs of both safety and bling conscious customers in India.

[for_cars1]

Originally Posted by Storm2.0

I think manufactures in India should launch two packages ie 1st one focusing on features and less of safety and the other one providing less of features and more of safety ...

This is not feasible due to two reasons:
1. It will show the manufacturers in poor light that they are publicly acknowledging that their more feature version does not care about passenger safety.
2. It will raise the production cost significantly. Production costs are kept low by making the sub components as common and shareable across their offerings, even assembly lines are shared for some models. Body shell is a core structure and the more mass produced it is, the cheaper for them.

Bottom line is that all the vehicles sold in India are passing the Indian crash norms which are not as good as the NCAP norms. Only making the Indian crash test norms to the same level as global standards will keep the manufacturers from skimping on body shell rigidity and passive safety requirments.

[arjab]

High levels of crash safety in automobiles can come to a country if:

1. The country in question has very tough homologation and certification standards which all OEM's have to adhere to without which they cannot sell their products (Eg: USA, Continental Europe and UK)

2. Consumer awareness and maturity. Where the consumer demand for safety and safety systems forces the OEM's to implement high levels of safety in their products

3. Combination of 1 & 2.

Unfortunately in India we have a diluted Point 1. And neglible involvement w.r.t. Point 2.

And from the OEM point they are technically correct: they are meeting the India crash norms of full frontal and offset frontal as prescribed by Government of India. (so what if it is at lower speeds, the OEM's will say: we didn't set the rules did we?)

Also, India does not have:
-25% small overlap (as done by IHS, USA - possibly the most cruel test as the entire crash load is taken by the door hinges and yet the body structure has to remain stable),
-side impact (moving sled),
-pole test,
-rear crash
-roof crush
-luggage retention (the reason why the back of the rear seats in our hatchbacks have a carpet covering because it is not reinforced to prevent luggage intrusion in case of a rear end impact. Only the PUNTO and PALIO had a metal rear seat back as FIAT did not dilute the standard).

So, obviously OEM's will not do those. Till these are implemented, all OEM's will explore the safety loophole to price their products at a lower price point, because India is perhaps the most price sensitive car market, by cutting out anything and everything possible from the remotest engneering point of view.

What do you think VW is doing for the last two years, for their much touted MQB A0-IN platform? Bet on it that all high UHSS (Ultra High Strength Steel) will be cut back from areas deemed unnecessary.
Even Ford did it - by quietly removing the boron steel reinforced "A-pillars" of the Ecosport and "Aston Martin grilled" Fiesta to HSS "A-pillar"

Because 64-ODB (64kmph Offset Deformable Barrier) is done on the driver side, only driver side floorpan reinforcement and pedal box intrusion / stabilisation will be incorporated. Even extreme levels of cost cutting at the altar of safety was seen in Gen-1 Renault Kwid's and Hyundai Eon's which had a "half" trans-fascia tube or "dash carrier"
Check out the front seat belts of the Nexon and Tiago. Only the driver side seat belts have a Dynamic Locking Tongue (the buckle/tongue ends are slightly thicker because of this, as it contains a spring loaded toothed wheel inside to prevent twsiting of the belt under severe crash loads). The co-driver side does not have it.

So, the onus is not on the OEM's. They are here to make money and they will continue to do so as it's a business they are running. No, I am not defending car makers at all.

So, we the car buying public have to demand safety, of course that means we have to prepare to pay a higher sticker price, (which can be negated somewhat by rolling out better & multiple scope for purchases by the banks), to buy our cars and the Government of the land has to be very firm in implementing safety standards o that we are at par globally.

For eons, third world countries, (okay developing countries to be politically correct), lives are considered to be cheaper. It's time that mindset changed.