[GrammarNazi]

Ofcourse, pressure groups supported by "Donations" could have ulterior motives, although its not like this is happening for the first time. But given that they've even tested models that aren't selling well, I guess there'll be nothing but benefit for the consumers.

We know most businesses (automakers or otherwise), how-so-ever big a "brand" they are, will care about customer safety only if Govt regulations are put in place.

Corporates have only 1 religion, MONEY. They'll brazen out the flak unless they're pinched where it hurts, SALES.

Consumers have lost half the battle given that Govt has taken a soft stand giving them AMPLE time (2015 + technicalities = 2017!). For any actual action, car makers need to see a dip in sales.

Looking at our country's past record, we've just gotten SO used to being under-changed, discriminated & ill-treated, that it looks unlikely that people would unitedly demand their rights.

Example : There's been no "Change.org" petition already. Atleast I've not come across any.

Atleast the first step would surely be to form & pen down a unanimous opinion & make a representation.

[nakul0888]

Originally Posted by BowMan

Not surprising considering how low Safety scores in an average Indian's purchase decision.

Should be an eye opener for Smart Aleck's who were arguing on this forum that the quality of sheet metal used in car construction has no bearing on the structural rigidity and passive safety.

I am not quoting these posts to get even but to remind members that they should be thoughtful with their views as this website is not just a forum of debate but also an instrument that molds public opinion.

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/techni...ml#post3551582

I never said it's okay to make a car with dangerously unsafe monocoque like datsun go and the Indian swift for the pursuit of lightness.

I just said some of the cars in our market has excessive weight thus blunting their certain potentials. I said it's high time those cars are updated with modern, lighter but just as safe/safer structures for their own betterment even if it means loss of that " vault" like feeling. That is all. And if such lighter but just as safe cars do exist in the present market, it is wrong to criticize them.

I never said we should compromise on the entire monocoque to get better fuel economy....shheez.

Besides I just saw on the pages of this forum the details of crash tests of both the european and Indian swift. Guess what the European car which got 4 stars was about 40 kilos lighter than the Indian car. I have no idea how to explain what any of that means. But it just goes to show you
a) how complex this car making malarkey is and it's much more than making stuff bigger and heavier.
b) how shitty a job maruti suzuki is doing at building a car for the Indian people

[S.MJet]

Originally Posted by kiku007

So much ado about a car which is almost non-existent on the roads. Wish the letter was addressed to Maruti instead of Nissan.

Exactly I was thinking, request should go to Maruti/Suzuki, if not for immediate withdrawal, atleast Indian Swift to be offered with same structural rigidity as is made for Europe.

[humyum]

As we might wonder, if the manufacturers decided that 'Okay fellas, we will sell our hatchback with ABS + Airbags to the customer without making any profit on the ABS module, sensors, airbag actuators and impact sensors' it would cost them an additional 20 thousand AT MAX. YES you read that right, JUST 20 GRAND to add ABS and twin airbags in the car. I am willing to pay this 20 grand, BUT I am not willing to pay 1 lakh over the mid version for:

1) Climate control (hey I have a finger and a skin that senses temperature, I can turn the AC SWITCH on and off when I feel cold/hot, don't need that sophistication)

2) Alloy wheels ( I'll buy them when my budget permits at later point in time and maybe from the company itself, right now just give me the GODDAMN CAR)

3)Electronically foldable mirrors and Electronically adjustable rear view mirrors with side indicators plastered on them (ALLOW THAT JAZZ DAN, this is INDIA)

4) Company fixed tinted glasses (Won't pay a pie for this, its a budget hatch)

5) Crap Music System (I can buy one for 15 grand from outside when my budget permits with brilliant headunit, JBL components in the front and JBL 947's behind which pump out Madonna like it was really Madonna and not Ila Arun like in the company fixed ones)

If I want to spend money on a hatchback, give me what which is essential and not what is extra. Let me decide on the extra's myself.

There should be a version in very car which has the basics like ABS, AIRBAG taken care of and rest the customer chooses what he wants in it.

[Hayek]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

This make me wander if there an ulterior motive. Why single out a single car. all this media coverage of this test has ensured that the Datsun Go is going to find it very difficult to survive in our country anymore. But aren't cars other than the GO equally unsafe, if not more?



What about the hundreds of Maruti Omni Vans plying on our road? I am sure they will also face the same results.

Doc, I don't know if you have watched the YouTube videos of all the tests. Even the Alto and Nano did materially better than the Go, and the Alto is a decade old, while the Nano is an explicitly defined two wheeler substitute. For a brand new car, the Go's performance is shocking. Someone buying the Omni knows he is buying a 32 year old product, which was unsafe even by the late 1980s standards. But someone buying the Go would reasonably expect structural integrity in her car, given that it is a brand new model. Perhaps they should have realised what they were in for when Nissan revived a 30 year old dead brand instead of using its own name on the product. So I don't see ulterior motives here - just a recognition that a brand new product cannot be as substandard as the Go is.

That's also the issue I have with Maruti. By taking structural members OUT from the Swift, they are letting their customers down. In some senses it is worse than what Nissan has done. People who buy a Swift or Corolla or Accord in India reasonably expect it to be the same product as the one sold globally - with missing features appearing (or not appearing) on the brochure. Making a product that has been deliberately engineered to be less safe in a manner that a customer can't detect, and selling it under a global brand name is betraying the customer. Certainly a fit case for someone to file a complaint with the CCI in my view.

[Astleviz]

Originally Posted by BowMan

Should be an eye opener for Smart Aleck's who were arguing on this forum that the quality of sheet metal used in car construction has no bearing on the structural rigidity and passive safety.

You are drawing the wrong inference from these tests. The Swift didn't fail the tests because it uses lighter sheet metal but because it is poorly designed and engineered.

A monocoque is not a single piece of metal, it is made up of over 300 steel stampings which are then welded together. Spot Welding is an energy intensive process. In a small budget car, energy is one of the biggest costs. A manufacturer can save more money by compromising on the energy costs (like welding, painting, rust-proofing) than by reducing the sheet metal by a few mm. And this is what results in an unsafe structure. Badly designed crumple zones add to the lack of structural integrity.

Toyota Yaris or Mazda 2 weigh the same as a Swift but have a 5 star rating. So the weight of the car has got nothing to do with the structural integrity. It's design and engineering. Nothing else.

[tbppjpr]

Originally Posted by prakhar1998

This is pessimistic thinking. How does VW manage to sell the Polo that starts at 11880 GBP, i.e around 12 lakh rupees for ~6 lakh here in India. Plus, the engine in UK is a puny 1 litre, in comparison to our 1.2. And remember, this version is barebones, has no AC. Just has Airbags and ABS. Whereas the one in India has Airbags, ABS, Audio system, AC etc etc.

Despite this fact, we get a car that is equally safe (structurally, and safety feature wise).

Where is the VW bashing now?

True, Polo rather deserves price tag of Rs 15-18 lakh after seeing the hollow cars we are being offered by Maruti, Honda, Hyundai, Toyota etc on the name of premium hatchbacks.

Actually we are getting what we deserve from these popular Indian companies. Look at the sales numbers of the brands like VAG, why? Just because fuel filter cost feels day light robbery in comparison of Etios's life time fuel filter. One time yearly service bill of Rs 10K feels whopping compared to two service bills of 4-5K of Swift in the same period.

Maruti introduced another winner recently by launching Alto K10 claiming it can achieve FE of 35 km/l. Thats enough of reason for people to keep the Alto on priority. No body knows or bother what kind of internal structure that car has got.

It's not fault of the companies that we are not getting safer cars in the mass segments, rather we ourselves are responsible for that. We don't let the safer cars grow here, we just fall for higher FE or perceived reliability or low running costs. We can compromise anything just to save few buck in our own pockets.

First we need to change ourselves. Be it to make space for the safer cars or for the safer governments or for safer and better society for living. Cleaning is not that easy, we will have to educate our kids for the better so that they don't get what we are getting today, be it unsafe cars or dirty surroundings near us.

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by Hayek

Doc, I don't know if you have watched the YouTube videos of all the tests. Even the Alto and Nano did materially better than the Go, and the Alto is a decade old, while the Nano is an explicitly defined two wheeler substitute. For a brand new car, the Go's performance is shocking. Someone buying the Omni knows he is buying a 32 year old product, which was unsafe even by the late 1980s standards. But someone buying the Go would reasonably expect structural integrity in her car, given that it is a brand new model.

Sir I totally understand the sentiment. But why single out a single car? Whether the platform is based from 1980 or 2014, a person buying that car in 2014 is going to die in an event of an accident. So to label just one car as unsafe ( even if marginally more unsafe than others) is not fair IMO.
Also to add, both the cars got a 0 rating in the test. So what the NCAP people are doing is to further categorize the cars in 0 rating?

[prakhar1998]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

Sir I totally understand the sentiment. But why single out a single car? Whether the platform is based from 1980 or 2014, a person buying that car in 2014 is going to die in an event of an accident. So to label just one car as unsafe ( even if marginally more unsafe than others) is not fair IMO.
Also to add, both the cars got a 0 rating in the test. So what the NCAP people are doing is to further categorize the cars in 0 rating?

Your point makes complete sense.
This statement further explains the decision:

“Given Carlos Ghosn’s responsibilities as Chairman and CEO of Nissan and President of the European Car Manufacturers Association, he should now demonstrate leadership both in Nissan and on behalf of the vehicle industry generally that corresponds to the UN’s legitimate expectation that automobile safety should be improved during the Decade of Action.”

Another thing that is to be considered is that the Go plans to expand its sales internationally to Russia, Indonesia, South Africa etc. Which means an urgent response from GNCAP was required in order to avoid such a catastrophe.

However, the Alto 800 fared equally badly, but no recommendations were made by the GNCAP. Considering it is the highest selling car in India, a stern notice from the global body was expected.

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by prakhar1998

Another thing that is to be considered is that the Go plans to expand its sales internationally to Russia, Indonesia, South Africa etc. Which means an urgent response from GNCAP was required in order to avoid such a catastrophe.

But then I am told that those countries have much better regulations in place than us. So why can't Datsun do a Suzuki there with designing a better car for those markets?

However, the Alto 800 fared equally badly, but no recommendations were made by the GNCAP. Considering it is the highest selling car in India, a stern notice from the global body was expected.

Exactly. The Alto and the Swift ( not sure if these tests have been done on other MSIL offerings) sell in such huge numbers compared to the GO. So potentially the situation in MSIL's home is much more grievous as there are lakhs of these models running on our roads and putting lives at risks.

[Sankar]

Originally Posted by nim_peter

Sankar, I completely agree with all your points. The seatbelt pre-tensioners, was not aware of the term, is also what I was mentioning, do we know the quality of seat belts in India? I've noticed, in some cars the seat belt locks up with less effort and some requires heavy effort. Is it possible the seat belts don't lock quick enough during a slow speed crash but locks on a higher speed?

We don't, we hope they perform as intended. We leave it to manufacturers to put proper QC passed seatbelts in our car. The manufacturers might leave it to the seatbelt vendor's QC department to make sure that only proper QC passed item is dispatched to the factory. If the QC or manufacturing system fail at the seatbelt vendor then yes its possible that they malfunction. Takata Airbag incident is what comes to my mind when i write this. In India something like this is to happen it will never be detected.

[Astleviz]

Now that these test results are being mentioned in the mainstream media and a lot more people are aware of the lack of structural integrity of Swift, it would be interesting to observe the sales figures for the next 6 months for the Swift/Dzire that have dominated the respective segments. If these 2 cars still continue to sell like hot cakes, would that mean that the majority of Indian car buyers don't care much about safety?

[Sankar]

Originally Posted by GrammarNazi

Ofcourse, pressure groups supported by "Donations" could have ulterior motives, although its not like this is happening for the first time. But given that they've even tested models that aren't selling well, I guess there'll be nothing but benefit for the consumers.

This Global NCAP crash test saga is a good thing, but who's paying for all this? Is it NDTV? I guess not. Who's the richest automotive group in the world? VW. Is VW behind this?

They were ready with the answer that we will give airbags as standard from the base variant and on when the Polo failed the test. I'm sure its not because of VW's love for us Indians

Whatever be the motive even if its to undermine competitors its a good thing to make general public aware of crash safety. Keep it going!

[torquecurve]

On the topic of thicker vs thinner sheet metal, I was just thinking on these lines.
1 - A thicker sheet metal car is heavier (more mass) conversely a thinner sheet metal car is lighter.(less mass)
2 - Force = Mass X Acceleration.
Considering that Accelaration stays constant, a higher Mass will mean higher force and likewise lower mass is lower force.
Moreover, the impact forces are not on the panel alone but the structure and design plays a very important part to 'move' the force of impact 'away' from the passenger cabin.
The Swift 'Design' and Engineering is what failed.

[ritheshpaul]

The problem I see is that the safety features are only offered in the top-most variant of all cars sold in India. BUT, along with ABS/airbags/all round disc brakes, etc, the top variant will also come with the other stuff like sun/moon roof, maybe a SatNav and other expensive stuff which makes it much more expensive than if it only had the safe features on. This makes hard for anyone who has just safety in mind to buy this variant since it has all of this other stuff added on too...