Indian Nano, Alto, Figo, i10 & Polo FAIL Global NCAP Safety Test

[CARDEEP]

Originally Posted by amolbh

IIRC, Osamu Suzuki had commented on the safety aspects of the Nano when it was announced (look who's talking!). Had Tata not used such tactics to reduce the weight they would have had the last laugh, and maybe even snatched some share from the Alto800. I did not like the double standards of Tata in making a safer car for checking the viability in foreign/developed markets, and giving us an unsafe car.

OT:
When I got my car, I had two options for the same price:
1. A 9-month A-Star VXi with 6000km and a free service remaining
2. A 2-year i10 with ABS+2 airbags and 30000km used

I wasn't aware of the crash-worthiness of the cars at that time and as anyone would, I chose the former, thinking that it is still OK without airbags. And after watching the respective EuroNCAP videos, I somewhat felt that I made a wrong choice. (A-Star 3/5 and i10 4/5 both with 2 airbags)

After seeing the above video, I no longer regret my decision. The A-Star may not be that safe originally (v/s European i10) or Maruti might have used inferior materials, but I am really happy I have a great handler and a car which still smells new. And no airbags blowing up into my face!!

Till now I used to think Hyundai is really doing something good for India. VERY BAD HYUNDAI!

Hi @amolbh

I shared a news for all, it wasn't meant for a fanboy who has the experience of driving a super-mini. I haven't named Hyundai in my either posts in wither thread...., may I know the reason for all your rant directed at me.

The fact is that all (as others have pointed out) almost all cars are unsafe (structurally) in India, & same is the case all over the world, except may be for the Volvos (pioneers in this) & European with sold build. Dependence on airbags to improve safety ratings is nothing more than a sham, like you have pointed out that airbag blown in face can cause harm to occupants.

Yes there is a need to have structurally safe cars with the type of tests US does not the type of tests & marking EuroNCAP has (lose a point for not indicating the presence of airbags with a sticker, more airbags means practically more safety as compared to structurally sound cars, & so on).

I would hereby request you to post on the forum with level head & lesser show of emotions.

Thanks

[k_ajay]

Originally Posted by amolbh

.................. OT:
When I got my car, I had two options for the same price:
1. A 9-month A-Star VXi with 6000km and a free service remaining
2. A 2-year i10 with ABS+2 airbags and 30000km used

..................

After seeing the above video, I no longer regret my decision. The A-Star may not be that safe originally (v/s European i10) or Maruti might have used inferior materials, but I am really happy I have a great handler and a car which still smells new. And no airbags blowing up into my face!!

Till now I used to think Hyundai is really doing something good for India. VERY BAD HYUNDAI!

Sorry but multiple queries. A-Star a great handler? What does that mean? And a car smelling new more important than a car with abs and 2 airbags?

Airbags don't 'blow up' on anyone's face. Airbags inflate in fraction of a second, cushion a passenger from impact by reducing their momentum of accelerating forward when the vehicle has been abruptly stopped and the airbag also instantly deflates.

They don't blow up and no airbag is designed to cause injury to a passenger (do we think the regulators or appropriate authority wouldn't have thought about an airbag in a car that is not very structurally sound, when the airbags were designed and finally put into vehicles for production use)?

Originally Posted by blacksport

I would happily sit in a structurally weak i10 with 2 airbags than a structurally weak Maruti without any airbags.

While that is not entirey true or helpful, the crash video of i10 makes me believe airbags 'may' save from a potentially serious head/chest injury (in this specific case, because the steering wheel hasn't shoved the dummy back into the seat). But fact is they've rated the car's structure unstable. An individual technically sound on both structural rigidity and airbag deployment would be the best person to comment on this.

Originally Posted by CARDEEP

Tata Motors has assured to work on the safety of its cars after a range of small Indian cars. More details here:

http://www.aninews.in/newsdetail3/st...ate-tata-.html

At least they are admitting the lapses & will work on improving cars on safety front.

Appreciated

I read through the news article via that link and didn't see the president of passenger vehicles, Ranjit Yadav, admit anywhere that they have provided a structurally weak car or an unsafe car in the Nano (which was the only Tata vehicle crash tested in the Global NCAP test this thread is based on).

They've only mentioned that they're committed to safety and are working on it. How they're committed to safety when they have a car for sale which can, from severely injure passengers to also kill them, I cannot understand.

And if they're working on it, why did they rush to manufacture and release an unsafe car for Indian public? Their statement also mentions Mr. Yadav produdly claiming he said that these cars (so Nano included) are for global markets and they will meet the safety requirements of the country where the vehicle is going. Let them first produce a safe Nano car for customers in their home country, before trying to please the world.

If by stating that 'the company would meet safety requirements' is admitting for selling a structurally unsafe car, that's not even a respectful confession.

But that they will work on improving passenger safety, is the right way forward and worth appreciating. Like how VW declared all of their cars will now come with safety kit on all their variants.

Originally Posted by volkman10

More than having airbags, structural rigidity is of concern. No use of airbags if the structure crumbles on impact!

Exactly. What I echoed a few posts/pages prior.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Forget all this. How many individuals who drive cars equipped with airbags even know that for an airbag to be beneficial in its functioning, that they need to sit with a distance of at least 25cms, from the centre of the steering wheel to their chest?

We don't know because manufacturer didn't tell us when selling the car?


Our safety is our responsibility. Safety should also be Affordable, so everyone can drive a safe car.


I recommend anyone a read about how airbags work in its totality.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-dr...ces/airbag.htm

[amolbh]

Originally Posted by CARDEEP

Hi @amolbh

I shared a news for all, it wasn't meant for a fanboy who has the experience of driving a super-mini. I haven't named Hyundai in my either posts in wither thread...., may I know the reason for all your rant directed at me.
...
Dependence on airbags to improve safety ratings is nothing more than a sham, like you have pointed out that airbag blown in face can cause harm to occupants.
...
I would hereby request you to post on the forum with level head & lesser show of emotions.

CARDEEP, I am extremely sorry if I have offended you in any manner. It is always appreciated when a teammate shares a news of any kind. Nothing was directed at you. Whatever was there was only meant for the companies manufacturing those cars. I am not a fanboy of any company, and definitely not of Maruti, even though I like many of their cars.

Originally Posted by k_ajay

Sorry but multiple queries. A-Star a great handler? What does that mean? And a car smelling new more important than a car with abs and 2 airbags?

The only thing I said was that I had once thought I made a wrong choice by going for the A-Star, but now I don't regret it at all. This is wrt the two car options I had. (An almost new car v/s a 2yo car) Whatever I said was wrt the A-Star and i10.

From our official reviews,
A-Star:

What You Will Like
Surefooted Handling and Stability

i10:

Unsettled ride on less-than-perfect roads. Rear (especially) gets bouncy

My additions underlined.

Airbags don't 'blow up' on anyone's face. "see video below" Airbags inflate in fraction of a second, cushion a passenger from impact by reducing their momentum of accelerating forward when the vehicle has been abruptly stopped and the airbag also instantly deflates.

They don't blow up and no airbag is designed to cause injury to a passenger (do we think the regulators or appropriate authority wouldn't have thought about an airbag in a car that is not very structurally sound, when the airbags were designed and finally put into vehicles for production use)? we all very well know our authorities

While that is not entirey true or helpful, the crash video of i10 makes me believe airbags 'may' save from a potentially serious head/chest injury (in this specific case, because the steering wheel hasn't shoved the dummy back into the seat). But fact is they've rated the car's structure unstable. An individual technically sound on both structural rigidity and airbag deployment would be the best person to comment on this.
.
.
.
I recommend anyone a read about how airbags work in its totality.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-dr...ces/airbag.htm

Quote from the link you have posted.

The airbag system ignites a solid propellant, which burns extremely rapidly to create a large volume of gas to inflate the bag. The bag then literally bursts from its storage site at up to 200 mph (322 kph) -- faster than the blink of an eye!

Ajay, have a look at this video. It is in slow motion, but you'll get the picture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVNbYaqIAws

Originally Posted by volkman10

No use of airbags if the structure crumbles on impact!

Exactly. What I echoed a few posts/pages prior.

Ajay, this was your reply to volkman10, and is exactly what I meant.

Tata Motors only mentioned that they're committed to safety and are working on it. How they're committed to safety when they have a car for sale which can, from severely injure passengers to also kill them, I cannot understand.

And if they're working on it, why did they rush to manufacture and release an unsafe car for Indian public? Their statement also mentions Mr. Yadav produdly claiming he said that these cars (so Nano included) are for global markets and they will meet the safety requirements of the country where the vehicle is going. Let them first produce a safe Nano car for customers in their home country, before trying to please the world.

That is what I said too.

[mittal_v2002]

A little OT, but it just occurred to me to find, what would happen to a 2-wheeler rider with a pillion hitting the similar strong wall at 64 KMPH ? with helmet, or without helmet ?


Also found another report on crash test in US. The noticeable car is Chevvy Spark as this is the only one sold in India. but, US and India may get different grade products :(

http://www.inquisitr.com/1107161/toy...yt-gSdQyVNUvTc

[saket77]

Originally Posted by mittal_v2002

A little OT, but it just occurred to me to find, what would happen to a 2-wheeler rider with a pillion hitting the similar strong wall at 64 KMPH ? with helmet, or without helmet ?

I shudder to think that! Two wheelers are heavily exposed to life threatening situations, in that way if you think and it is highly alarming.

[pratyush6]

Originally Posted by mittal_v2002

A little OT, but it just occurred to me to find, what would happen to a 2-wheeler rider with a pillion hitting the similar strong wall at 64 KMPH ? with helmet, or without helmet ?

I do not think there is any doubt on the result if that happened. With the helmet, the guy, just 'might' and it is a very big 'might', have a chance. The pillions are supposed get the brunt of an accident usually, no chance whatsoever.

What might save them are good brakes and possible an evasive maneuver.

And prayers to the almighty as well.

[gops2009]

It is heartening to see the topic on safety finding a lot of attention and comments, frankly I was not at all surprised with the Alto 800 getting a perfect zero, but never expected i10 to be in the same league!! that is shocking to say the least.
The larger issue is the build and structural integrity of the vehicle in the unfortunate event of a crash, there is no point in providing secondary restraint systems like Airbags in the absence of the first. I got the impression that a lot of people out there think that simply having airbags will make a vehicle safe which is a perception that cannot be further away from truth. Airbags in a structurally weak vehicle can cause more damage than protection.

India is among a few countries with zero value placed to human life- there are no safety norms and crash worthiness defined and where ever this is defined it is seldom implemented ( the road worthiness certificate issued by the RTO is a cruel joke!!)

We need to get the authorities to wake up, the tax levied on a vehicle, especially passenger cars needs to also be pegged to the safety rating of the car, this way people buying cars also may not go an buy the base version and even if they did , it would have the basic safety built in. True, this may make cars more expensive, but this would be far below the value of human life.

In India we believe that accident is something that happens to others , so I do not need to bother about safety or pay more to ensure that I have a safe car, this attitude to some extent is due to ignorance and can be handled as for the other die-hard fatalist, ensuring that cars built, purchased and driven in India adhere to some basic safety norms is the only route.

Quite surprised that Nano failed the crash test, in-fact, I was given to understand that Tata had tested the crash worthiness of the Nano before the handed the keys to the first customer- wonder what kind of test that was??
I would not still loose much sleep on the Nano, as this is meant to be a city car and most of the Indian cities ensure that cars move on an average of 12- 24 kmph ,but think about the million + worth so called SUV's and UV's like Xylo's, Scorpio's, Sumo's and many others, I would be very surprised even if they got a 2 star safety rating with airbags, these are vehicles which I doubt have undergone physical crash tests except on the road!!- No offence meant to the owners and fans of these vehicles- but just making a point.

With the typical question Kitna deti hain?( how much does she give) we also need to ask ourselves Hum kitina khone ke liye thyyar hain?? ( How much are we ready to loose??)

[H_Dogg72]

Those SUV's are a pathetic excuse. Toyota still has structural integrity in the innova and fortuner as shown by various accidents.
But the others,oh they are just the worst.

I remember some manufacturer ,I think Mahindra launched a 9 seator compact SUV!!!

9 seator !!!
The back seat ,with no seatbelts ,no crumple zone!
That's just stupidity.

I still get funny looks from people when I fasten my seatbelt at the rear and force them to fasten it.

That's the sorry state of safety.

Don't get me started on the overloaded omnis with KIDS !

[mpksuhas]

Originally Posted by gops2009

The larger issue is the build and structural integrity of the vehicle in the unfortunate event of a crash, there is no point in providing secondary restraint systems like Airbags in the absence of the first. I got the impression that a lot of people out there think that simply having airbags will make a vehicle safe which is a perception that cannot be further away from truth. Airbags in a structurally weak vehicle can cause more damage than protection.

Completely agree with you.
For those who has watched NDTV CNB show featuring this crash test there was a video shown to get this point across.
The car in video was a Chinese sedan (not sure of the make), it was having 2 airbags but the entire car till B pillar crumpled like it was made out of clay.

[tanwaramit]

Seeing the ads in paper for cars like Etios (just an example) with Airbags I wonder if the airbags in this car is helpful OR more damaging.

The car manufacturers are claiming premium in such cars over airbags and people are even paying the premium thinking that the cars are safer.

However as has been seen that a Scorpio with airbags is still dangerous as it can crush the driver with its structure crumbling on his chest.

Have a look at the crash test for new corolla. The cabin stays where its supposed to be and doesn't jump to hit the driver. Though we in India may not see the car with curtain airbags however the front airbags are atleast useful in this car.

I see no point in having airbags in a car which crumples so badly that having airbags is nothing more than a fashion statement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir3LY3xmlgw

[WindRide]

Safety equipment should NOT be made mandatory across variants of a car model.
Where does GOI draw the line if it adopts this approach? Mandating front and side airbags, ABS and EPS as mandatory even in the basic variant is not practical nor desirable. Customer should have the option to buy according to his needs. Unlike in other markets (say, financial services) there is never an attempt at mis-selling, over-selling a customer in auto industry. If he is buying a car to drive within city/neighbourhood, he shouldn't be forced to fork out more to buy things he doesn't foresee as a requirement for his style and usage.

What is required from GOI though is to ensure vehicles that indulge in dangerous driving (highway driving, race track, rally sports, etc) have necessary safety equipment in them.

[zenren]

Originally Posted by WindRide

If he is buying a car to drive within city/neighbourhood, he shouldn't be forced to fork out more to buy things he doesn't foresee as a requirement for his style and usage.

What is required from GOI though is to ensure vehicles that indulge in dangerous driving (highway driving, race track, rally sports, etc) have necessary safety equipment in them.

And how do you propose government achieve this requirement of making the safety equipment mandatory for ONLY those vehicles that are used for highway driving? And how can the government ensure that a vehicle owner who purchased his vehicle for only city usage NEVER takes his car on a highway?

[WindRide]

Originally Posted by zenren

And how do you propose government achieve this..

Same way as how you wouldn't drive without a DL due to the 'fear' factor.
Of course, it doesn't imply everyone who drives, does so with a DL in the pocket. Lets leave law enforcement to the experts.

[zenren]

Originally Posted by WindRide

Same way as how you wouldn't drive without a DL due to the 'fear' factor.
Of course, it doesn't imply everyone who drives, does so with a DL in the pocket. Lets leave law enforcement to the experts.

Consequence of driving without a DL and meeting with an accident is murder/attempt to murder charges which is why most people are afraid of doing it. Moreover, you become liable for the damages too since insurance policy conditions are violated. There is no such risk with driving a car meant for use in city on a highway.

Government can ask manufacturers to ensure that the maximum speed of cars without safety kit is 35 km/h (city speed limit) since these cars would only be used in city/town limits and no one is legally allowed to exceed that speed in those conditions. Rules applied at the manufacturer level are the only ones that have some compliance since the offenders are typically left without a choice. If any owner tampers with the speed limiter mechanism, it can be dealt with in the same way that RTO does it for the heavy vehicles - seize the vehicle, cancel the registration, register a case against the owner etc.

[atlantis0965]

i guess the manufacturers are giving the people what they want .

i think it is the phenomenon in a country like ours where not just in cars ; in other products too; the companies are mainly targeting quantity over quality.

Personally I always feel that if you want something you have to pay the price it deserves or deserve what comes out of not paying the price.