[extreme_torque]

I am sorry but this thread reeks of hypocrisy. No offence but most of the so called safety conscious beings here on team bhp can be regularly seen glorifying k10 as a performance car for the budget minded totally unmindful of the safety implications. And of course boasting the fuel efficiency as well.

[Mpower]

I am sorry but this thread reeks of hypocrisy

Rubbish!

its only now that the car has been tested and the poor results revealed. Obviously nobody had predicted that it would be so bad.

If you had, then you should have spoken up? Hindsight is 20-20

[audioholic]

Originally Posted by RSR

It's about time we had an I-NCAP with the same norms as the Euro-NCAP, to put an end to manufacturers taking us on a death ride. If the hon'ble Supreme Court can force the govt. :

If not I-NCAP, at least we should have M-NCAP, where M stands for maruti. From suzuki cars that score decent safety ratings, if not the best, the MSIL engineers do their best job in cutting down weight and costs. Though this practice has stopped with the upper range of cars they sell, when it comes to small cars, the structure is made as thin and fragile as possible. There is a humongous difference in the way the Alto or wagonr is built, compared to say a swift or an Sx4. Hence, these people must be gifted a crash test facility and for every change they make during designing a car, one car must be crash tested, probably on the condition that whoever designs the car, must be one of the passengers(a light one here, no offense meant).

Thats when you will get better built and safer cars from MSIL.

[romeomidhun]

These crash tests and safety features are good to have and must to have in a country like America,where all of them have cars and people can choose between cars based on safety features.

But in a country like India where only a small percent of people have cars, and others are driving extra unsafe two-wheelers or walking on the streets to danger, any vehicle with more than 2 wheels are safer for them than a 2-wheeler. Adding all safety features and pushing the price of cars to a higher level will not help either. They can offer the safety features as an option, and whoever prefer them, can buy them. Why in the name of safety we need to restrict the basic safety of a car to many people?

[julupani]

Originally Posted by romeomidhun

These crash tests and safety features are good to have and must to have in a country like America,where all of them have cars and people can choose between cars based on safety features.

But in a country like India where only a small percent of people have cars, and others are driving extra unsafe two-wheelers or walking on the streets to danger, any vehicle with more than 2 wheels are safer for them than a 2-wheeler. Adding all safety features and pushing the price of cars to a higher level will not help either. They can offer the safety features as an option, and whoever prefer them, can buy them. Why in the name of safety we need to restrict the basic safety of a car to many people?

Completely agree with your point here.

But I dont think it really costs a lot to make the basic structure of a car safer than what many of our cheap cars offer today. The Nano for example proves that there is quite a bit of safety offered by just having a good chassis structure. The cost of having properly designed structure is not going to massively increase the price of a car.

Also on the other hand, manufacturers in India dont give the option to its customers to chose safety features over other comfort features, by offering ABS and airbags only on the top end variants. Why not offer optional ABS, EBD, Airbags on all variants?? Why not have more than just 2-airbags on offer as optional equipment, or even other electronic safety features as optional??

I agree, blanket implementation of European level safety standards in India is not an option yet. But manufacturers must be made to comply with some level of safety, as well as being required to offer at least ABS and 2 airbags as optional on every variant of every car in the market.

Safety should be made an important factor in the minds of car buyers, and every car buyer should be allowed the opportunity to spend as much as he can on safety equipment.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by Mpower

Rubbish!

its only now that the car has been tested and the poor results revealed. Obviously nobody had predicted that it would be so bad.

If you had, the you should have spoken up? Hindsight is 20-20

Did it really needed a test to prove its safety or rather lack of it? We always knew it and it sounds like a poor excuse when we say it needed a test to prove that Alto offered poor safety. Neither the review talked about safety, nor the subsequent ownership reviews by eventual owners. The fact is deep down all we want in a small car is cheap spares, good fuel mileage with very little towards safety or security.

[romeomidhun]

Originally Posted by julupani

Why not offer optional ABS, EBD, Airbags on all variants??

Completely agree. The safety features should be made available as optional on all models. Please find what I mentioned in my mail: "They can offer the safety features as an option, and whoever prefer them, can buy them."

[Mpower]

Did it really needed a test to prove its safety or rather lack of it? We always knew it and it sounds like a poor excuse when we say it needed a test to prove that Alto offered poor safety. Neither the review talked about safety, nor the subsequent ownership reviews by eventual owners. The fact is deep down all we want in a small car is cheap spares, good fuel mileage with very little towards safety or security.

How do you evaluate crash safety on a test drive & pray tell me how an owner is supposed to evaluate safety as it relates to crash performance? Clearly we are not into guesswork although we do mention the age & origins of the platform to the best of our knowledge (note this is something not revealed by OEMs)

Were others like Autocar (with their big budgets) able to provide any more insight than us?

We report on other features that contribute to safety like

• Braking
• Grip at high speed
• Ability to make evasive manuveres
• visibility & ergonomics
• wiper performance (subject to weather)
• Presence of airbags/ABS/EBD/BAS/ESP
• Provision to fit Child seats in a secure manner

[giri1.8]

I think there is no point in bashing any car company here, car makers will give us what we demand!

A-star has decent safety rating but failed due to the price tag. Making a car safe needs lot of investment which must be passed on to the customer who rejects it completely, thinking they will never crash. I want to replace my sedan with a decent petrol hatch(used) with safety features, but market is flooded with fuel efficient unsafe cars(ABS and airbags are ALWAYS given a miss if they are optional). This shows peoples attitude towards safety while purchasing a car.

Cars which are well built(in terms of safety) like Punto do not sell well because they are heavier and as a result return less mileage.If buyers do not want a safe car, seller will not design one, its as simple as that.

[Sutripta]

IIRC, quite some time back, when Mr. Suzuki came to India, he refused to ride along in one of his own cars. A MB was arranged!

Regards
Sutripta

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by Mpower

How do you evaluate crash safety on a test drive & pray tell me how an owner is supposed to evaluate safety as it relates to crash performance? Clearly we are not into guesswork although we do mention the age & origins of the platform to the best of our knowledge (note this is something not revealed by OEMs)

Are others like Autocar (with their big budgets) able to prove any more insight than us?

We report on other features that contribute to safety like

• Braking
• Grip at high speed
• Ability to make evasive manuveres
• visibility & ergonomics
• wiper performance (subject to weather)
• Presence of airbags/ABS/EBD/BAS/ESP
• Provision to fit Child seats in a secure manner

I agree when you say you cannot objectively comment on the safety aspect in absence of quantitative data. But then again if I were to slightly change the looks of the 800 altering the front bumpers without touching the basic platform, it doesn't take an Einstein to understand that it will meet the same fate as far safety is concerned. Secondly in all these test reviews we never even raised a question mark on the safety choosing to glorify instead the performance aspect which basically is a result of the bare basic light platform poor on safety.

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

I am sorry but this thread reeks of hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Mpower

Rubbish!

Cut the emotional reactions please.

IMO - almost everyone knows these cars dont offer much in terms of safety. I knew when we had our M800. It was not a safe car either, but then - it was safer than a family travelling on a motorcycle, or Omni (which was the only other choice available). Not much has changed till now - safety still comes at a price!

Originally Posted by Mpower

We report on other features that contribute to safety like
[list][*]Braking[*]Grip at high speed[*]Ability to make evasive manuveres[*]visibility & ergonomics[*]wiper performance (subject to weather)[*]Presence of airbags/ABS/EBD/BAS/ESP[*]Provision to fit Child seats in a secure manner

Both of you have your points here -
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/offici...-pictures.html
@Mpower: Only handling is mentioned, and that too - the understeer from an enthusiast's POV. No references to airbag/ ABS. Now lets move on?

@extreme_torque: The review was still during the early days and the format and standards have changed since then. I'm sure you'll agree the current reviews are as detailed as it gets. Lets discuss on the car/ or its competition.

Originally Posted by giri1.8

I think there is no point in bashing any car company here, car makers will give us what we demand!

Originally Posted by romeomidhun

But in a country like India where only a small percent of people have cars, and others are driving extra unsafe two-wheelers or walking on the streets to danger, any vehicle with more than 2 wheels are safer for them than a 2-wheeler. Adding all safety features and pushing the price of cars to a higher level will not help either.

+1.

I own a 2004 WagonR in the family which might not fare much better from the k10 either. But then - it was a big step up from the barebones 800 then! All the talk about structure, airbags etc came only when we could afford the Punto.

[shreyan_k10]

I think it would be interesting to see how the 'L' variants of all Maruti hatches fare up in such a crash test. What say?

[giri1.8]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

I own a 2004 WagonR in the family which might not fare much better from the k10 either. But then - it was a big step up from the barebones 800 then! All the talk about structure, airbags etc came only when we could afford the Punto.

I think Santro has got three stars, I agree that difference between santro and wagon R in terms of safety may not have been know back in 2004, but now a days we can gather all the information we want from internet.

Can someone throw some light on Wagon R's rating? One sold in japan performed decently.

[vinu_h]

Is it reasonable to assume that claims from policy holders of zero/poor safety rated cars are more than those that are rated better ? If yes, do they consider the safety features/rating while calculating the preimum ?