[shankar.balan]

Going by the picture, it looks like the front "Crumple Zones" worked beautifully. One imagines that the chap in the Swift would certainly have escaped with relatively minor bruises.

Had the vehicle been more rigid, the chances of the driver/ passenger ending up either impaled on the steering column OR sitting about with the engine block or radiator parked in his/ her lap, would have been much higher.

So while it is all very well to bang on about the "lightness of build" and "flimsiness of construction", the fact clearly is here, that the car performed under stress, exactly the way it was designed to do, on account of the crumple zones kicking in.

[vigsom]

In a bid to avert a collision ,the left front part of my Versa(a Maruti) hit the rear right of a Zen(another Maruti) sometime in 2006.

Damage to my Versa : the front left fender bent into a V and the left front door couldn't open ,left headlamp mounting lugs broken and bruises to the bumper,Radiator top panel practically intact,left headlamp mounting plate slightly damaged.

Damage to the Zen : A damaged right taillight assembly plus a few scratches on the bumper,no damage to the frame.

The "weak fender" and the headlamp of the Versa took the hit and thus bigger components were saved.

[.anshuman]

The only way I would judge a car's safety would be intrusions in the cabin. How thick the sheet metal is, or how heavy the door is, or how it crumples does not say a thing. By that yardstick a Bolero or an Ambassador should be the safest cars on our roads. Let's not be Keyboard NCAP judges!

With increasing high strength steel content, the sheet metal thickness is getting thinner but does that mean newer cars have worse safety.

[shankar.balan]

Originally Posted by .anshuman

T, or how it crumples does not say a thing. .

Are you saying that the much vaunted "Crumple Zone" technology is not useful in case of frontal collision?

I was always under the impression (from what Ive read) that these very self same Crumple Zones help in minimising impact on the passengers and then the secondary restraint systems kick in, like the seat belts of course and the air bags too.

[Karthik1100]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

I can't locate the picture now, but someone once posted a comparo of the front crash structure of an Indian Swift vis a vis a European version.

I distinctly remember the front crash beam behind the bumper was flimsy on the Indian version, almost as good (err...bad) as not being there.

No idea if that's still the case.

Here you go.

FIAT Siena


Maruti Swift

[A350XWB]

Originally Posted by shankar.balan

Are you saying that the much vaunted "Crumple Zone" technology is not useful in case of frontal collision?

The crumple zones are definitely useful for a collision to dissipate the impact energy and channel it away from the occupants of the car. Crumple zones help to reduce the g-forces experienced by the occupants of the vehicle, thereby restricting their movement and limiting the injury. Even if you are belted in, in a vehicle with no crumple zone, most of the energy is transferred to the body and the loads at the restraint points will be more than what a human body can endure (depending on the kind of impact). This can lead to broken bones, dislocated joints etc. So, crumple zones are definitely required.
I don't think .anshuman meant that crumple zones are useless, but rather how the sheet metal is deformed is not important (highlighted in the below post). If the impact energy is routed away from the occupant, the way it does this is not a concern. Some materials does this by self destruction, some by deformation etc.

Originally Posted by .anshuman

The only way I would judge a car's safety would be intrusions in the cabin. How thick the sheet metal is, or how heavy the door is, or how it crumples does not say a thing. By that yardstick a Bolero or an Ambassador should be the safest cars on our roads. Let's not be Keyboard NCAP judges!
With increasing high strength steel content, the sheet metal thickness is getting thinner but does that mean newer cars have worse safety.

Material technology has improved leaps and bounds from the 70's and 80's. They are getting lighter and stronger. Cabin intrusion is one of the parameters that NCAP uses to judge the safety of a car. Lateral movement of the test dummies and also the registered load on the dummies show how successful is the body structure, in diverting the impact forces from the occupants.

[N.r.K]

Originally Posted by A350XWB

The crumple zones are definitely useful for a collision to dissipate the impact energy and channel it away from the occupants of the car.

That post is so well put!
It's surprising how so many people still don't understand the significance of modern cars seemingly crumbling down at the smallest of impact! It actually saves life!

Originally Posted by Karthik1100

Here you go.

I don't think, the bumpers are designed to absorb the crash anymore.
The crumple zones do that!

It would be impossible to judge the swift picture higher up in the page without seeing some side angles to see how the passenger area held up!

That said, there is no doubt that indian versions of international models do have compromises. But then again they do comply to local laws. So that's what we really need to complain about.

[.anshuman]

Originally Posted by shankar.balan

Are you saying that the much vaunted "Crumple Zone" technology is not useful in case of frontal collision?

No, I did not mean that. With "how it crumples" I meant the "visual deformation" on outside, and not crumple zones which are one of the most important aspects of chassis design in terms of safety.

Originally Posted by Karthik1100

Here you go.

FIAT Siena
Attachment 1557837

Maruti Swift
Attachment 1557839

Unfortunately this generation Siena had poor safety rating, Albea failed Russian NCAP.
Quote from Wikipedia

A Fiat Albea, the sedan version of the Palio, was tested in Russia according to the Euro NCAP latest standard (offset frontal crash at 64 km/h). The Albea scored 8,5 points in the frontal test, equivalent to three stars. The tested vehicle was equipped with standard driver airbag and regular seatbelts.[4]

Even the Palio after this generation got 1 star rating in Latin NCAP.

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by .anshuman

Let's not be Keyboard NCAP judges!

No need to be.

Thanks to GlobalNCAP, we have the proof that Alto, Celerio and Swift would fail spectacularly.

I hope the products from the NEXA chain atleast would pass the tests considering the premium pitch for those over their regular lineup.

Source -

1. Swift -
http://www.globalncap.org/un-crash-t...s-global-ncap/

2. Celerio -
http://www.globalncap.org/zero-stars...p-crash-tests/

3. Alto -
http://www.globalncap.org/crash-test...rs-are-unsafe/

[sourabhzen]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Here's another one reported by Cartoq -

We all know for a fact that Swift doesn't have a stable structure. So no big surprises here.

In 2008, my friends UVA rear ended a Scorpio at a speed of 30 kmph in Delhi. Trust me, the car was in equally bad shape with just a few scratches on Scorpio.

I am not saying that MS cars are of good quality (I know how bad it is - first hand experience) but a car's strength should not be judged by its performance/shape after rear ending a SUV.

[audioholic]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Here's another one reported by Cartoq -

We all know for a fact that Swift doesn't have a stable structure. So no big surprises here.

Ironically, the Scorpio too, did not fare any good in crash tests.

Issue here is, its a flawed practice to associate build quality with safety. The scorpio is the best example in such a case. Its a known fact that Marutis are built flimsy - No arguments on that. But associating flimsy build quality with poor safety is a misnomer. All manufacturers including the Germans are moving towards lighter shells and thinner material. This will become the norm, to ensure more efficiency. Just that candidates like Maruti were there from a long time, due to other reasons than safety.

Vehicle structures are never designed and validated based on how they look after an accident. They are designed and redesigned seeing how the test dummies behave during a crash. Any Indian car crash tested without airbags faired poorly. The ones with airbag did better ranging from 3-5 stars. Now thats a fair comparison. Not by showing a non airbag car with Zero stars and another one with airbags with 5 stars.

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by audioholic

Not by showing a non airbag car with Zero stars and another one with airbags with 5 stars.

Are you suggesting that Swift and other Maruti cars would have fared better with airbags? Global NCAP had clearly stated that it's not the case since the structure is unstable in the Swift.

And I have no misunderstandings associating build quality with safety. Here's my view. To make things clear, by safety, we equate to a crash at high speeds.

• Safer body shell crumple design = Good at high speeds. No arguments there.
• Safer body shell crumple design + Good sheet metal = Good at low speeds + Good at high speeds.
• Safer body shell crumple design + Thin sheet metal = Good at high speeds + Good for FE.
• Bad body shell design + Thick sheet metal = Good at low speeds + Poor at high speeds.
• Bad body shell design + Thin sheet metal = Better parked inside the garage.

Unfortunately, for the Maruti models mentioned above tested and failed for the crash tests, it falls in the last category.

Originally Posted by audioholic

Ironically, the Scorpio too, did not fare any good in crash tests.

Issue here is, its a flawed practice to associate build quality with safety. The scorpio is the best example in such a case.

While Scorpio falls in the second last category. The weight of the Scorpio tested by NCAP was around 2 ton and it failed.

Plus additionally, thanks to its weight - the effect on momentum on the Swift would be more than on the Scorpio. Scorpio is tested at half the crash test momentum, while Swift is at twice the already failed barrier.

Originally Posted by sourabhzen

In 2008, my friends UVA rear ended a Scorpio at a speed of 30 kmph in Delhi. Trust me, the car was in equally bad shape

Another car which failed crash tests globally.

[Ketz]

I would definitely take NCAP as the ultimate indicator for crash worthiness of any car instead of the visual indicators of the vehicle state after the crash.

But not all incidents on the road are fatal crashes where it is a matter of life and death. A flimsy built shows up during small incidents where the repair bills run high for a very minor alteration which we face regularly in city traffic.

I used to own a Tata Manza earlier, I wont claim that it was a safe car (not sure if it was NCAP tested). But the build and paint quality was very very good. Some minor incident in city traffic would not result in metal bender, nor would the paint have heavy scratched. Sometimes a clean swipe and some polish would just make the damage go away.

Now i own a 2013 Hyundai Sonata, with 6 airbags and all sorts of gadgetry the car has very good NCAP figures, but i know for sure that the built and paint quality is flimsy. A similar Nano incident happened recently where a Nano bumper lightly touched my driver door. If i was in my Manza, there would have been no damage, but in Sonata which is several segments higher, the paint gets scratched bad and the sheet metal has a very visible depression.

Why should i have to chose between safety and good built. I know they dont have be exclusive to each other. Why cant i have a good sturdy built with good safety?

[RSR]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

• Safer body shell crumple design = Good at high speeds. No arguments there.
  
• Safer body shell crumple design + Good sheet metal = Good at low speeds + Good at high speeds.
  
• Safer body shell crumple design + Thin sheet metal = Good at high speeds + Good for FE.
  
• Bad body shell design + Thick sheet metal = Good at low speeds + Poor at high speeds.
  
• Bad body shell design + Thin sheet metal = Better parked inside the garage.

I completely agree with your above description. Well stated indeed!

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Are you suggesting that Swift and other Maruti cars would have fared better with airbags? Global NCAP had clearly stated that it's not the case since the structure is unstable in the Swift.

This is where I'll have to disagree with you, CrAzY dRiVeR chaeta!

Please don't ever underestimate the importance of airbags. They are life-savers!

Let me state this carefully. A person will have a better chance of surviving a 64-kmph frontal crash (against the same object) in a Maruti Suzuki Swift ZXi / ZDi / other variant with 2 optional airbags than he/she would have in a Fiat Punto Pure / Evo Active / Evo Dynamic with no airbag at all, no matter how "tank like" the Punto feels and no matter how "tin can like" the Swift feels.

No, I'm not kidding! Global NCAP themselves tell us the same thing. Don't believe me? Take a look yourself.

Maruti Suzuki Swift with no airbag - 0* (with an unstable structure as well):

http://youtu.be/PNUPHflTrRA

Maruti Suzuki Swift with 2 airbags - 3* (with the same unstable structure):

http://youtu.be/hWUfSrbKDys

It must be noted that the latter car is not an LHD Latin American Suzuki Swift, but an RHD Indian Maruti Suzuki Swift. If you look closely enough, you would be able to see the "Maruti Suzuki" badge on the hatch. I'm quite sure no Latin American Suzuki would ever carry a Maruti Suzuki badge.

So yes, the Swift with 2 airbags not only fared better, but it also managed to get a 3* Global NCAP rating with the same unstable structure that earned it a 0* rating with no airbag.

Airbags are life-savers indeed!

That's why I'll always insist - if anyone is buying a car, just go for the one with airbags, even if it is a paid option or a higher variant. It's completely worth the additional cost!

[navdeep.rana]

Reliability to me matters but not over the build quality.