Originally Posted by lawdgawd
One charitable way to look at them, then, is that Japanese cars have lightweight, easily crumped sheet metal - which helps them save cost - which does not affect car passenger safety positively or negatively. It just means that costs are initially low, but in an accident, the metal crumples right away and you end up paying to get the panel replaced.
I could be wrong though, just thinking aloud.
Other than the cost, is there any negative, for lightweight and easily deformed sheet metal of Japanese cars?
Originally Posted by aerohit
Lets just say it is to avoid killing the the vulnerable, like a pedestrian, that you may run over in India. Saves the pedestrian's life and saves you from spending long time in jail.
I know I'm going to receive a lot of flak for saying this, but then that's fine! Because at some point truths have to be told, even if it's harsh. I can't believe so many Bhpians are blinded by this hollow "crumple zone theory" & "pedestrian safety". Crumple zones work only if the crumple zone crumples while the rest of the structure stays intact. The entire car should never be a crumple zone! Unfortunately with Maruti Suzuki all the cars except may be Scross feels/shows that. They are coming up with absolutely flimsy cars just because it helps to reduce cost, improve fuel efficiency/power to weight ratio and also because of the fact that the cheapest thing in our country is the life of a human being both to the corporates as well as to the Government. It's got nothing to do with pedestrian safety.
I don't think the Government is going to step in to these things immediately because there are much worser things to look into. Then it's us consumers who should teach these manufacturers a lesson by giving them a feedback that we are not going to allow them to manhandle our lives n family for their pity profits!
I always discourage my loved ones from going in for a Renault/ Maruti Suzuki because these manufacturers don't give a damn about the safety of their customers. I'm sorry if it hurts any Bhpians and we can never blame ourselves individually but it's our overall attitude about safety that should be blamed. Corporates know Indians don't value safety so they cut corners everywhere when it comes to safety. Renault reducing the size of airbags/ or Marutis flimsy build etc.. are all examples of these. Where's the thing called "ethics"? They exist only because of us & the very basic thing that they should ensure is that their product provides an average level of safety that the competition too offers in the corresponding price range.
I had driven the baleno and yes it has lots of space, good ride quality, nice cluster, very practical but it felt like a toy car to me. It was too flimsy! & no Maruti Suzuki is not using carbon fibre in baleno to make it that light weight and strong at the same time. You know what happens. Going through our own accidents thread gives us enough insights about Marutis safety focus or to be exact- the sheer lack of it.
Renault reducing the size of airbags in Duster and reinforcing the driver side alone in Kwid works only in India. If they ever dared to try that anywhere else they might have suffered a life time ban/penalised heavily. No wonder why Kwid in Brazil is 130kgs heavier. But then Kwid is an affordable offering. Cars such as the Baleno/duster aren't! So I try my best to stay away from the most flimsy cars & those who are decidedly unethical in business practises. Yes you might lose some money n bling in the process but atleast your family will be safe. For many people by the time this realisation comes in it may be too late. Now the reason I picked Maruti n Renault here is because there are enough examples about their disregard to safety. I believe many of the cars in India below 10 lacs have their safety compromised except the very few that has been tested n some Europeans.
Once when I went to an FNG with my Linea I got to see this one with its bonnet and a few panels removed. Clearly seen is the impact beam in front. Above you can see what's provided on a Swift dezire. These cars were launched during the same period at similar price point and are comparable. It's difficult to believe that those two tiny pipes on the dezire is going to offer the same level of safety as the one below it. Haven't seen newer ones so can't comment on them but seeing how they fare I don't think there's much improvement.
This post a few pages back shows exactly how crumple zones work. Whatever was designed to crumple on both the cars crumpled while passenger cabin stayed intact despite a severe hit. Despite the Linea being 1/3rd the cost of a bimmer it still got the occupants out safe. & it's not a simple nudge as can be seen from the damage on the 3 series. Now I'm not saying these are the safest cars you can get etcc but atleast build quality matters at some places and just used an easily available example. Most of the european cars offer excellent pedestrian safety by using collapsible materials on vulnerable places and stronger beams where strength matters. While manufacturers here take it to the next level by using it everywhere and fool customers in the name of pedestrian safety and crumple zones.
With the absolute non sense that goes on in our roads on a daily basis, safety is of paramount importance even more than what was in the past. So try laying your hands on the safer ones in the market even if it's a bit of stretch. Now which are the safe ones? That's a difficult question- but I would stay away from Suzuki(except S-cross) & Renault anyday. They have to learn a lesson or two about safety of their own customers. Not intending to hurt the sentiments of any owners but I'm really fed up with seeing our lives taken for granted in our country and we all being blind about it too! Things have to change from us through our attitude and concern for safety to Government guidelines to force manufacturers to behave ethically.
Here's the pic of the impact beams on the said cars. The image failed to load earlier.
Last edited by Samurai : 12th December 2017 at 00:49.