[Carpainter]

Originally Posted by gsurya

Sham from Govt this, instead of implementing basic safety first.

Main reason for our 'unsafe' roads are:

• Most roads are full of potholes, uneven or badly surfaced.
• Pedestrians & Bicycles mix freely with scooters, bikes, cars & trucks
• Bicycles mix freely with scooters, bikes, cars & trucks
• Not proper zebra crossings provided everywhere
• Bad lighting on vehicles or streets - fixing this itself will cut 25% accidents
• Bad maintenance on highways - oil slicks, garbage, animals, scrap, stones
• MOST IMPORTANT: People just dont FOLLOW rules/laws/norms.

Instead of targeting the right things which wont get them any headlines, Govt goes for pompous announcements - this will be like PUC scam 'fixed' the enviornment?

I agree with the points you mentioned and they are indeed reasons for many accidents in India but these are passive safety requirements whereas ABS and airbags along with solid structural integrity are primary/active safety requirements to have in a car. It's like saying not to drive on a slightly water logged street or asking the government to make drainage system better to avoid hydrolocking a car instead of making the car in a way so that it doesn't hydrolock when driven through knee deep water.

[chandras1]

If thickness of sheet metal is indeed the yardstick then Amby would be the safest car around. Personally I trust Etios would do quite well in a crash test. The Liva did get a decent rating in the video below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqNM5q5Dvf8

[Passiautonate]

Originally Posted by chandras1

If thickness of sheet metal is indeed the yardstick then Amby would be the safest car around. Personally I trust Etios would do quite well in a crash test. The Liva did get a decent rating in the video below

Structure and Chassis are the most important things here, a good heavy metal indeed compliments the above.

Nano is safer than Alto despite later having fiber body against sheet metal for alto- owning to better chassis and structure.

[chandras1]

Originally Posted by Passiautonate

Structure and Chassis are the most important things here, a good heavy metal indeed compliments the above

Fully agree. What I meant to say was I have full faith in Toyota to have had its home work in structure/chassis design. All Toyota vehicles do have thin sheet metal compared to their European or even Indian competitors. However to extrapolate that to poor on road safety without proof is something altogether :-)

[Thad E Ginathom]

This is good news.

Even better news would be a Bharat New Driver Safety Assessment Programme!

[sudeepg]

Ah, finally. I just love the changes being considered by our current Govt. It's high time we actually saw stickers on the car in the showrooms which indicate what is their safety rating is. I for sure would be delighted.

[Amarkarthi]

At last it's a ray of hope for the SAFETY perspective of Indian motorists. Though the move is aimed at making motoring more safer in the Sub-continent, the time span planned for implementing doesn't look justifiable - That too when most of the models of all manufacturers already have at least one version of the car coming with all safety features and 3 years is really long time to redesign/modify assembly lines and cars(atleast in my personal view). And still Airbags are not listed as mandatory/compulsory safety equipment for all versions of a car in the statement and this again looks like a major hole in the rule.

[VeluM]

Originally Posted by D4D

No joke here. Absolutely not!

What matters is the way the monocoque has been made and the number of crumple zones. The car is light because of the thin sheet metal.

If I remember, there's a video of Liva in Latin NCAP getting 4 star rating, over a cruze which got 3 star.

I think momentum also plays a role here. A heavier car would have greater momentum, hence pushing it further into the obstruction causing greater damage. There would obviously have to be a balance between light and strong, but it makes sense to have a relatively lighter car with a really strong/rigid passenger cell.

[D4D]

Originally Posted by VeluM

I think momentum also plays a role here. A heavier car would have greater momentum, hence pushing it further into the obstruction causing greater damage.

Agreed. Heavier cars=greater momentum.

But one must understand, that thinner sheet metal doesn't save too much weight unlike removing a critical safety component.

[rajess_in]

Originally Posted by chandras1

If thickness of sheet metal is indeed the yardstick then Amby would be the safest car around. Personally I trust Etios would do quite well in a crash test. The Liva did get a decent rating in the video below
https://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=XqNM5q5Dvf8

Originally Posted by Passiautonate

Structure and Chassis are the most important things here, a good heavy metal indeed compliments the above.

Nano is safer than Alto despite later having fiber body against sheet metal for alto- owning to better chassis and structure.

Not necessarily. Let me explain the logic of crash in terms of physics (Sorry for the lecture / boring post, but I presume awareness of the concept is important to understand crash tests in general).

Driver is seated in vehicle driving a car, brakes suddenly to avoid bumping another car or pedestrian. This happens in an progressive and controlled span. Though driver is stationary inside the vehicle, the inertia will tend to pull him forward (the same case why few people loose balance while standing inside a bus while braking suddenly). This is expressed in terms of g forces (number of times of weight of the person. Most cases it doen't even cross 2g max. (Point to note that the g here is the gravity force and not spectrum of mobiles).

This g force is very low because the decelration is very smooth and small.

When a crash happens the car decellerates rapidly. This force is more than 150gs or higher depends on speed, mass of vehicle, driver and the time for the vehicle to come to stand still. Even though vehicle is stationary, the driver just moves forward towards the steering wheel / windscreen and eventually hit them with huge force.

Generally, for humans of fair build and reasonable health chances of survival is around 11~15g. This ratio also vary from person to person (factors like age, size, threshold pain capability, etc.).

Now the vehicle structure (the steel of the chassis and other parts) absorb some amount. This is achieved by using crush zones in front of engine.

The rest is absorbed by the air bag ( and it also ensures the driver or occupant do not bang their heads on hard materials like the dash, steering wheel, hear lever, etc.) The function of the seat belt is also crucial because you need to hold the driver in a specific zone from moving further up for the air bags to be effective. If not secured by the seat belt, the impact with the air bag would be equally fatal. This is the reason why, seat belts are mandatory for air bag vehicles and they also help in lower speed impacts. So wearing seat belts is primordial (air bag / no air bag).

This is the reason why crash tests are done on a fixed variable - speed, collision barrier and same type dummy. This would help in assessing different vehicles with same gauge of reference and rate the better ones.

So companies employ different methods as per their design philosophies. But funda is same, you need an energy changer (crush box, seat belts, air bags, etc.) to absorb the energy created (crash - kinetic to potential / inertial energy) since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but transforms from one form to another.

[psankar]

Originally Posted by Aditya

The Government of India is planning to roll out the Bharat New Vehicle Safety Assessment Programme (BNVSAP) in October 2017.

Link to Team-BHP News Article

Very very bad move by the Government to delay things so long. After rolling out the procedure in 2017, they are giving another lifeline of 3 years to the automobile manufacturers. By six years, a lot of changes would have happened and we may have self driving cars or mass public transport systems or electric cars in place, which may end up requiring a different set of safety guidelines.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by rajess_in

Generally, for humans of fair build and reasonable health chances of survival is around 11~15g. This ratio also vary from person to person (factors like age, size, threshold pain capability, etc.).

r.

No, that is not true at all. Survivability is depended on the amount of Gs and the duration to which the person is subjected. During your typical crash scenario as used in crash testing the amount of Gs could be considerably higher, but it is only for a very short duration. E.g. A few tenths of a second.

Whether you break something due to a certain amount of G is highly depended on the physical environment you find yourself in. More practically speaking, how much support your body and or body parts have during the deceleration. For instance a seat belt has a relatively small surface to support your body, so it exercises a lot of force on your body/rib cage. An airbag has a much larger surface etc.

Jeroen

[Thad E Ginathom]

It isn't the G force that kills you, it is hitting the things in front of you.

leave out crush zones, airbags, seat belts, and the fact that, in real life, there is no such thing as instant, and consider this...

Car is moving at 80kmh. Driver is also moving at 80kmh.

Car hits solid object and stops. Driver does not stop. Driver is still moving at 80kmh.

I don't think I need to go into what happens a few moments later.



~

[latentpotential]

How will they test the soda can material trucks and buses with custom bodies made across the country? Has anything been provisioned for these vehicles? These are the actual people movers across the country. Has anyone seen any plans or documentation about covering these?

[Jeroen]

Today on page 21 of the Times of India there was a small article on these crash plans and it left me a little confused.

It states that the governement wants to pass mandatory frontal crash testing for all new models.

But toward the end of the article it also talks about the BNVSAP. Am I correct in understanding that is not mandatory? And it only provides a (star) rating, but not the mandatory crash test?

So the way I read it is:
- All new cars need to pass a mandatroy frontal crash test
- By choice manufacturers can put their cars up for BNVSAP to get a safety rating

Two different things altogether/

Jeroen