[giri1.8]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

Funny how heightened sentiments can change opinions. Let a fresh DSG failure or after sales horror story about a Skoda/VW brand start and see how people will start praising MSIL and the likes again.

I guess this is why people never get concerns on safety, there is always a choice to make. Safe, efficient, fun to drive,easy to maintain cars don't exist in our market as of now for lower segments, more crash testing might actually help, I never thought Figo would be safe since it is based on very old platform.

[igybeck]

Why are Indians being taken for granted. I am fuming inside looking at the manufacturers. who are gambling with our safety.
When the Euro Swift has a 5 rating, Why are they selling substandard cars in India.
Government has to do something about it.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Was the Swift the only option in the segment back then? No other diesel cars offered airbags as an option?

I say we change first before crying for the government to change.

Valid question Crazydriver. No! The Swift was not the only diesel hatchback in its segment. The Punto and Figo had airbags as an option, but then one does not evaluate a car only on the basis of one single feature. Fiat Punto was the best in handling, brakes, suspension, build quality, but the sales and service scared me off. I did not like the relatively sluggish Figo engine, so thats why did not opt for Figo. Ironically, I paid more for the Swift than the cost of the Figo or Punto, so cost was not the consideration either.

The reason I stress for a strong regulator is so that they can set the standards for safer modern automobiles in India. Currently, How do we evaluate a car, only on the basis of the driving experience, features, cost and feedback from friends on aftersales. We do not really know the crash worthiness of any of the Indian cars.

For instance I am now helping a relative purchase a sedan, and we are evaluating the Ciaz, Zest, City, Verna, Fiesta. Now please educate me on which one of them is the safest. I simply do not know. And I cannot even find out. None of the manufacturers mention the crash worthiness reports on their websites or on the brochures. The sales personnel do not know either. They just say that its safe due to the presence of airbags, ABS etc. But no one talks about the structural stability of the passenger cabin. And I am no expert in that area to be able to identify which one is better than the other. Thats why we need an independent crash testing report for indian cars.

I'm glad that NCAP has tested some of the indian models and come out with their reports which are an eye opener for me atleast. The fact that we are discussing this at such great length is in itself such a positive development, and I am sure that the automobile manufacturers will have to take note sooner or later. A regulator will just help speed things up and will also help bring errant manufacturers on track.

[Sankar]

Originally Posted by columbus

1. The crash test at 64 kmph is equivalent to a crash of two vehicles coming in opposite direction at 32 kmph. The relative velocity of a vehicle with respect to other is 32 + 32 = 64 kmph. Could someone please clear Mr Manohar's basic physics of relative velocity and apprise him that India does not has moonscape roads where their cars cannot even achieve speeds of 32 kmph.

32+32=64KPH
Sorry, this is not correct. The following is being quoted from their website which has the correct info.

Originally Posted by EuroNCAP

Why have you chosen such a high (64KPH) front impact test speed?
By carrying out frontal impact tests at 64km/h (about 40 mph) we are simulating a car impacting a similar sized car where both cars are travelling the same speed of 55 km/h. This speed has been shown by accident studies to address a high proportion of fatal and severe injury accidents.

The following is a question on everybody's minds. Why not a higher speed?

Originally Posted by EuroNCAP

Should this not be higher given driving speed limits are higher?
Accident research shows that carrying out frontal impacts at 64km/h speed covers a large proportion of the serious and fatal accidents which occur. Even if the maximum speed limit is 120 km/h, few accidents occur at such speeds and where they do, it is beyond current capabilities to provide protection for the car's occupants.

Src: http://www.euroncap.com/Content-Web-...8-d8e32202598d

[BowMan]

Originally Posted by Astleviz

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.

How do you then propose to explain the different ratings given to Maruti Swift for the version sold in India and Latin America. I would like to exclude the European version because has active safety measures as standard.

Please wake up to understand that when someone says sheet metal does not make a difference that statement is valid only when you are comparing two different cars. In this case the advantages of better steel in one car can be offset by better passive safety measures in another design

But if you have the same chassis and the car for one market is made using poorer quality steel that version is deemed to be inherently weaker in construction.

[saket77]

Test results are not very shocking. Though, I expected these 2 cars to fare slightly better, scoring at least 3 stars. But more than this, I am shocked and disappointed by MSIL's reply. They have very cleverly used words to regain confidence of an average Indian car buyer. I would say that they are misleading Indian customers. If at the price point of Swift, MSIL cannot offer airbags, then it is really appalling. I expected 'Go' to perform better since it is a newer design.

I would also take this opportunity to reply to the gentleman who posted previously on this thread about the sheet metal theory:

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.

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 will still standby my post, that sheet metal thickness has no significant bearing on structural rigidity & safety. Personally, I do not have facilities to test, but I will go with what NCAPs have to say about it. If you had taken the trouble of going through the link in the post, may be you would have held a different view. If you have data, or a personal tested result which points to something contradictory, please do share with us. Also, please do not construe that I am defending the cars/ manufacturers which failed in the test.

However, a heavier car will push the lighter car backwards more violently in a head on crash. Hence, the occupants of the lighter car will undergo forces higher than the heavier car occupants. That is certainly there, but structural integrity & design coupled with SRS is what makes a car actually safer.

Also, as fellow members of this esteemed forum, we should think twice before calling people names:

Originally Posted by BowMan

Should be an eye opener for Smart Aleck's who were arguing on this forum...

Regards,
Saket

[Astleviz]

Originally Posted by BowMan

Please wake up to understand that...

First of all, watch your language, if anything, it's you need to wake up to the fact that there is a flaw in your understanding of how safety features in modern cars work. It is not about the weight of the sheet metal but the quality of construction and engineering. The new Ford fiesta uses lighter but stronger steel. The new Range Rover is 420 kgs lighter, yet stronger. You can build safer cars with less steel or with lighter steel by incorporating sandwich panels of different metals and by incorporating advanced occupant systems.

In modern cars, stronger does not mean heavier. It means better engineered.

[Sankar]

Originally Posted by zenren

Why not a Ford? Figo actually did better than Polo in the first test without airbags and the dummy didn't actually hit the steering wheel even without the airbag. It was the only car that passed the test even without the airbag, though that is heavily downplayed by everyone. We hear that every car failed the test but Figo actually passed the test though a repeat test may or may not have given the same result!

Ford Figo passed despite not having a driver airbag when the dummy’s head narrowly avoided hitting the steering wheel directly.

The video of the Figo crash test shows the dummy's head hitting the steering wheel rim, but not as hard as the hit in the Polo.

Figo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLOo5g73284

Polo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaAQ1kk1q3c

Max Mosley has written to Renault-Nissan CEO in the past too regarding their practise of selling unsafe cars in developing markets, no wonder he's unhappy with Nissan and Datsun Go.

From The Guardian :
"Mosley is furious that Ghosn has failed to respond to two previous letters that he sent to the CEO outlining problems with cars it is selling in Latin America. When NCAP crash tested the Nissan Tsuru in 2013, the car came close to total collapse and is fitted only with two-point seatbelts instead of the conventional three-point seatbelts in the rear, making it impossible to fit a child seat properly."


Crash test of Nissan Tsuru which is mentioned in that article

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIEYT8GYHHg

"Global NCAP's Technical Director Alejandro Furas said that "body structures that collapse onto the people inside can have fatal or life-threatening consequences in real-world crashes."


Src: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainab...P=share_btn_tw

[srishiva]

So even cars with supposedly great build quality are not good without airbags?
Figo same as Alto is really very bad.

[Astleviz]

Originally Posted by tbppjpr

Don't know what are you saying but the detailed crash test report is conveying otherwise

I'm not sure, but I think what he is trying to say is that the Figo failed the test due to the lack of airbags and abs in the model that was tested, not beacuse the structure was weak. So if you buy the top end model with airbags and abs, you are good to go.

Here is what the test report says-
The Ford Figo had a structure that remained stable – and, therefore, with airbags fitted, protection for the driver and front passenger would be much improved. The vehicle structure was rated as stable, but without safety equipment such as airbags, too much of the crash energy was absorbed directly by the occupants.

So if you want to buy a safe car, you can consider a Figo provided it is the model which has airbags and abs.

[Sankar]

Originally Posted by srishiva

So even cars with supposedly great build quality are not good without airbags?
Figo same as Alto is really very bad.

Yes that is the fact, with no airbags all hatches score a big ZERO; Figo, Polo, Swift. With two airbags they score 3, 4 & 3 stars respectively. Zero star rating is a fail.

Of all the Indian cars tested the only exception is Datsun Go, which the NCAP says is futile to add airbags to because the body crumples around the passengers. It has the weakest cabin structure of all cars tested.

[zenren]

Originally Posted by tbppjpr

Don't know what are you saying but the detailed crash test report is conveying otherwise : http://www.globalncap.org/wp-content..._result_v2.pdf

Also the only car which received passing stars is the VW Polo with 2 airbags:

Thanks for the correction. Looks like I mistook the UN's basic safety test with the NCAP mentioned in the same page.

Difference is that Global NCAP test is at 64km/h while UN safety test is at 56km/h. Below are the results from the UN's basic safety test done by Global NCAP along with their crash test:

Originally Posted by Sankar

The video of the Figo crash test shows the dummy's head hitting the steering wheel rim, but not as hard as the hit in the Polo.

Apologies. Crash test videos we see are for the 64km/h crash. I got confused between the UN's basic safety test (at 56 km/h) and the Global NCAP (at 64km/h) since Global NCAP mentioned both in the same article. Figo passed the basic test since the driver didn't hit the steering at 56 km/h

[S_U_N]

Those who would like to reach out to the VP of marketing who has defined safe speeds for India, may do so via facebook https://www.facebook.com/manohar.bhat

Those who would like to vent their anger at Maruti, please do so here: https://twitter.com/Maruti_Corp

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by saket77

However, a heavier car will push the lighter car backwards more violently in a head on crash. Hence, the occupants of the lighter car will undergo forces higher than the heavier car occupants.

Doesn't one of those laws of physics say something about Equal and opposite?

[slamnos]

Hi Folks, I think we are missing on a key point here, NCAP is not the regulatory authority in India and this is not tested as per Indian standards.

All our vehicles fully pass the ARAI tests and the standards are set by Government.

And also if we benchmark NCAP, its not only Go & Swift but many Indian spec cars fail.