![]() | #31 | |
Distinguished - BHPian ![]() ![]() | ![]() Quote:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() I,as a visitor of this highly enlightening forum, have come to conclusion that sheet metal thickness is secondary, the chassis design takes the prime imortance when safety is concerned. Had it not been the case, Ambassador and Premier Padmini would have been the epitome of safety. I have personally been in an accident when my friend's Swift ZXi crashed head-on with an Amby and there were causalities in the Amby. I agree that our car was rendered useless and crumpled like an amoeba, and the amby was still very much in shape, but thanks to modern engineering and seatbelts, we came out unscratched!! Like someone aptly said in this thread, Outside body panels are like skin, and the chassis is like our skeleton. Thinner sheet metals might take bruises easily, but a car can be safe if structural design is sound enough. Having said that, hearing that reassuring thud surely gives a peace of mind. But still, I will prefer to be in an over-engineered car(even with a thinner sheet metal) than being in a Hump of Metal in case of an accident. Now please don't misunderstand me- I am not refering to the germans here. They surely make great cars, with some clever engineering. All I mean is-even if the germans start coming with wafer thin sheet metals, I will choose them if their chassis design is safe. Hence for me, Sheet metal thickness takes a secondary importance, with prime importance given to chassis design. Just my 2 cents....\ Regards, Shashi Last edited by Leoshashi : 28th September 2014 at 23:56. | |
![]() | ![]() |
|
![]() | #32 |
Senior - BHPian ![]() Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: AU
Posts: 2,030
Thanked: 3,686 Times
| ![]() It's a big deal for me. Every once in a while when I close the boot door of a swift Dzire taxi, I almost freak out. With a Ford being my daily ride, I cannot believe how light that damn boot door is. Maruti may very well have made it in plastic instead. And of course the lighter cars don't seem to hold up well in bad road conditions after some years. They are rattle snakes. |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #33 |
BHPian Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Mumbai
Posts: 37
Thanked: 60 Times
| ![]() http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/a-t...s-18-episode-5 No Europe vs Rest in this video, but there's a couple of good examples. "Lancia Engineers said the results were perfect... SAAB engineers... not good at all" "... pillars were so strong they did not _need_ roll bars ..." I do think the "Europeans" and the "Asians" could be from different worlds: I believe it is a philosophy issue somewhere, and the Europeans IMHO push the envelope more often. I think on an average the European asks and answers the question: How can we make this better - effectiveness, safer, stronger, faster? And the Asian asks in the same place, how can we make this more efficient - money, time, scale? Neither approach is complete solution. I believe in a weird sort of way, that boils down to how the people who buy and use these cars in the end. On a more directly related note, I have the following points: 1. The Ciaz is an extreme example, since the metallurgy and weight reduction was very deliberate. Without that the i20 Elite (also Asian) weighs more! I don't think the crux of the build choices that define European-ness or Asian-ness is "sheet metal thickness". It's how and where they put the metal, to a much greater extent. 2. The MQB and other similar efforts are looking at weight reduction from the chassis and then onto the rest of the car; and the reductions are significant without compromising on the other goals - the Polo is based on the same platform as the A1, weights about 7-8% less than the previous gen. and has a 5 star NCAP on the Euro-spec. So weight reduction is not directly in conflict with safety; and is a far more complex than metal thickness in the body panels - so you cannot ever compare apples and oranges. 3. In my investigation into buying a car, I found that the Polo HL is cheaper than the top end of Swift, i20 Elite, Etios Liva, Punto Evo by a significant amount. This was both when I was looking for a car in the family 5 months ago, and as recently as last week. All of this is OTR comparison. Am I missing something here? Everybody seems to think that German car is expensive. And also seem to be surprised that a "better built" car is cheaper. It sounds too dramatic to be true. |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #34 |
BANNED Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: bangalore
Posts: 560
Thanked: 659 Times
| ![]() We have had numerous such arguments in the past, and wonder how this thread escaped the axe of the mods until now. Perhaps the weekend. So before this thread gets deleted or closed let me... It is a big deal to me. Not because I believe that sheet metal thickness equals safety. But because, I believe, what is visible in the exterior is testimonial to what could be available inside. A car with "adequate" sheet metal thickness would give us only "adequate" of everything. And that includes the structure as well. I would any day pick a thick skinned car than take my chances with a thin skinned one. Secondly, I do not believe in the philosophy of lighter equals better. I might accept that philosophy for a smartphone, but in cars, I think heavier is more desirable. I would love cars that don't freak me out at 100kmph. At the end of the day, we are all free to choose what we want. I love handling, performance and safety. But that doesn't mean somebody shouldn't choose to want fuel efficiency over the above virtues. But I just wouldn't like it when somebody tries to justify his choice by arguing that other people's choices are no big deal. Last edited by blacksport : 29th September 2014 at 10:39. |
![]() |
![]() | #35 | |
BHPian ![]() Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: kochi
Posts: 468
Thanked: 1,428 Times
| ![]() Quote:
I am also surprised to see that you have failed to spot the trend in the international market nowadays. All the VAG group cars are moving to the lighter MQB platform, The range rover has shed 400 kilos of weight, The new bmw m cars are focussing more and more on lightness, the alfa romeo 4c weighs just 800 kilos. The examples just go on and on. Many of the people here have an opinion that lightweight cars are only good for better FE and nothing else and heavier cars like the punto and the polo are the ones that are better to drive. You all couldn't be more wrong. Weight is a negative trait in any good car. Remove the weight and everything improves not just FE, but performance, emissions, handling, ride quality, quite literally the whole car will become better. Manufacturers should be and most of them are including VAG group are trying to build cars that are lighter yet just as safe or even safer than before. Last edited by nakul0888 : 29th September 2014 at 10:50. | |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #36 | |
Distinguished - BHPian ![]() | ![]() Quote:
Here's an interesting movie comparing old versus a new car, but also actually heavy against light: http://www.streetfire.net/video/5th-...?__federated=1 | |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #37 |
BANNED Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: bangalore
Posts: 560
Thanked: 659 Times
| ![]() But then you should also be able to explain why the newer Marutis/Hyundais/Toyotas are heavier than the earlier versions. Also why Swift does not use the thinner sheet metal they use in the Alto/Wagon R. Does cars currently available here use the same material as the Alfa Romeo 4C? Here, sheet metal material remaining the same, the only variable is the thickness. Last edited by blacksport : 29th September 2014 at 11:02. |
![]() |
![]() | #38 |
Distinguished - BHPian ![]() ![]() Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Ranchi
Posts: 3,998
Thanked: 8,882 Times
| ![]() In my opinion, the thinner sheet metal are bad for minor fender bender incidents, but with good monocoque/ structure and with all safety kit in place, it is just as safe. If the thread is more about 'safety' (as the title does not talks specifically about safety), then I will choose a car based on the structure rating and one with safety kit in place rather than just knocking on the sheet metal and finding it thicker. Also, I am not sure if a thicker sheet will be of any use over thinner ones in major crashes. One more thing that I would like to ask - Is it that the Asian Honda City that was tested, which outscored the VW Vento, had sheets thicker than even the Vento? Was it more robust in terms of outer metals sheets used? If not, then we can be assured that the monocoque of the City is safer than that of VW Polo/Vento. Also, not to be missed is a point that the Honda City scored the maximum ever score by any car tested by ASEAN NCAP. I know of another Japanese car which has outscored many other cars in the International crash tests and that is the SX4. Last edited by saket77 : 29th September 2014 at 11:21. |
![]() | ![]() |
|
![]() | #39 | |
BHPian ![]() Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: kochi
Posts: 468
Thanked: 1,428 Times
| ![]() Quote:
The fact is straight line stability, handling, ride quality of a car depends on mostly on its suspension setup and tuning. Not just thick sheet metal. If Honda/Toyota wanted to build an outright driver's car they can easily match or even better the Europeans with exactly the current type of build that we are seeing now. IMHO they don't make driver's cars because they are here to make profit. And hence choose just about adequate & cheaper setup for their cars. This results in the shabbier dynamics. But most people won't give a damn and will buy their cars anyway. Only enthusiasts will complain. There is no use in catering to the demand of enthusiasts because there is simply not many of us in the market. So there is no need to waste money here. Last edited by nakul0888 : 29th September 2014 at 11:32. | |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #40 | ||||
BANNED Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: bangalore
Posts: 560
Thanked: 659 Times
| ![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
| ||||
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #41 | |||
Distinguished - BHPian ![]() ![]() Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Ranchi
Posts: 3,998
Thanked: 8,882 Times
| ![]() Dear Blacksport, Not pin-pointing your post, just trying to clear some misconceptions or you may say, forwarding my opinion on some general points that most people think about. ![]() Quote:
Lighter cars handle much better than heavier cars, catirus paribus. Quote:
Quote:
So, its not that a reliable, fuel efficient car needs to be boring. Just that the makers are finding it more profitable to cater the mass markets; and that what brings them money rather than enthusiasts. Last edited by saket77 : 29th September 2014 at 12:53. | |||
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #42 |
BHPian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Paradise City!!
Posts: 64
Thanked: 17 Times
| ![]() Sheet Metal thickness, although is a parameter, to increase strength, is not the only criteria. Various steel used in cars have different properties. For example, a skin panel should have a dent resisting properties. While inner or structural steel should have high yield strength. One way to increase strength is use of higher grade (read thickness) steels. While this is a cost effective solution. But many companies resort to use of high strength steels like TRIP, Dual Phase, Martensite Steel etc, which for the same thickness has thrice or more the yield strength. But they are costly. Hence cheap cars just about suffice regulatory norms of crash and other performance requirements. While costlier cars perform better in crash. A light car can be designed to be much better than a heavier car. You just have to play with material properties, like section inertia, stiffness, strength etc. The Pillar reinforcements of Polo are made of hot stamped steel, which is very innovative and was previously unheard of in India. Most of the older cars in India, like the old 800 or Omni, or even gypsy didnt had sufficient reinforcements, so that they would not clear the proposed crash norms. In India only full frontal is a regulation, while in developed markets, offset frontal, small overlap front crash, side crash, pole crash etc are regulatory requirements. So in the end, No. Thicker steel doesnt imply stronger cars. Stronger cars are better designed. They have a much better way of dissipating/absorbing the crash energy, more ways to channel them out of the passenger compartment. Its all in the beauty of the BIW (Body in White) design. Hope this helps. Last edited by GTO : 29th September 2014 at 21:49. Reason: Typos |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #43 | |
BHPian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Bangalore
Posts: 772
Thanked: 398 Times
| ![]() Quote:
Cheers, | |
![]() |
![]() | #44 | |||
Team-BHP Support ![]() ![]() | ![]() Quote:
Can we say the same about the lighter cars in the Indian market? MQB platform uses aluminium along with steel to reduce weight, be it chasis or engines. The higher costs arising out of this is cancelled off by the fact the the architecture is modular and the company does not need to invest heavily on the research and development of each product off the platform, across brands. Nice that you had to bring it up! Yes, a good example of weight saving. The new Ranger Rover uses an all aluminium chasis coupled with body panels made of alumium, boron steel and magnesium cross members to increase torsional rigidity. By using Carbon Fibre for the roof panels, aluminium for the body panels and bonnet and even experimenting with thermoplastic these days. Quote:
![]() The point is - International cars are not getting lighter, they are getting smarter.
Quote:
Fully agree with you, even though I am in disagreement with the context in which you stated the above point. Lets take the Indian context -
Lets get it straight - All these cars discussed here are being made on a big budget here in India. A City/ Ciaz/ Etios that has almost the same dimensions as a Civic not so long ago cannot be ultra light weight and be more rigid at the same time without using some higher grade materials, which the accountants wont approve of! So, there's obviously more to this weight reduction that meets the eye. As long as the Indian market doesn't make crash tests and measure safety standards of cars with strict guidelines, we shouldn't be expecting them to deliver them either, unless the cars are made just as they are made for the international markets. Suggest we dont conclude on this - My 'made for India' Asian/ European car car is just as safe as the international car discussion just yet - till we have conclusive data from the Indian market (be it crash tests or proper study about weight saving measures used). Till then - those who 'feel' good with their heavily built cars can continue to do so, while sacrificing a bit of perfomance and economy. Others who have lighter cars, but just NOT 'made for India' extra light - can enjoy their superior machines with more power, performance and mileage while knowing they are just as safe. ![]() Last edited by CrAzY dRiVeR : 29th September 2014 at 16:03. | |||
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #45 | |
Senior - BHPian ![]() | ![]() Quote:
However, an older car with thick sheet metal doors is still probably less safe than a car with thinner sheet metal and properly designed side impact beams. There are 2 things in the current discussion that needs to be separated out -
#1 is happening in Europe/US and #2 is happening in India for most part. Lets not confuse between the two. Reduction in steel can be achieved by reducing the thickness of sheet metal or by doing away with some of the cross members that are "redundant" to the frame except for the crash worthiness aspect. | |
![]() | ![]() |