Safety last? Maruti Chairman Mr. R.C. Bhargava's ridiculous statements

[DReddy]

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

Thank you for the clarification DReddy, perhaps I missed seeing the earlier post about the Indian swift meeting the crash testing requirements. Now, tell me one thing, where can I see the crash testing reports for the Indian Swift and the other indian cars. Even for the crash at 40kmph, where can I see the report?

FYI - I tried getting the crash testing reports for the following cars from the respective dealers and I got no answer. Perhaps you being from ARAI can assist. Maruti Swift, Maruti Ciaz, Tata Zest, Hyundai Verna, Honda City, Fiat Linea, Volkswagon Vento.

I want to know if the passenger cabin structure is structurally safe in the event of a frontal crash (40kmph or 54kmph or 64kmph), or does it deform.

I also would like to know why these manufacturers do not publish such crash test reports on their website, especially since you say it is mandatory to conduct it in India. BTW, I also read a report in the newspaper that India does not even have an independent crash testing lab right now. However, ARAI seems to have one, as per its website. So much confusion, its making me dizzy. Please throw some light on this DReddy.

Another clarification Lalvaz, I have not worked at ARAI but did my M.tech course from there. I just want to you to know that am in no way representing ARAI here.
Every new car that is sold in the country has to be compliant with CMVR rules and IS/AIS standards applicable as per the class of the vehicle. This process is known as type approval/homologation. Independent authorities such as ARAI, ICAT, CIRT etc, provide testing and homologation facilities for manufacturers to get their vehicles type approved before launching in the market.
The following are tests related to passive safety that are performed as a part of the type approval process.
*Full frontal vehicle crash testing as per IS:11939/ECE-R-12
Offset frontal crash test as per ECE R94/AIS-98
*Side impact Test as per ECE R95/AIS 99**
Rear impact test as per ECE R32/AIS 101
These above standards can easily be found on the internet and are in line with European standards.
After the manufacturer gets the type approval certificates they send copies to MORTH(ministry of road transport) and regional RTAs before the sales begin. These documents/reports are confidential and the manufacturers don't have to disclose them in public since they already have the govt. approval.
We are able to get comparative performance of already homologated vehicles, when they are tested at a higher severity level by independent organizations such as Euro NCAP, global NCAP, ASEAN, Japan, China, etc. What is currently being proposed is that we should have an Indian NCAP to help consumers make decisions based on comparative safety levels of these homologated vehicles.
Until the Indian NCAP becomes a reality, one could probably explore the RTI route or even file a PIL. Not sure if someone has already tried it and how effective it might turn out to be.

[MaheshY1]

Originally Posted by DReddy

Did anyone ever wonder why even NCAP insists on testing at a puny 64 kmph when these cars are easily able to cruise above 120 kmph? Food for thought.
(P.S: I am an automobile engineer trained at ARAI and this was the first question I asked in my first passive safety class of M.tech)

Excellent question there.

The things that go into consideration are:
- The vehicle is highly unlikely to hit a stationary block of iron that can't be deformed. So some energy will be absorbed by the object. Usually it is the other car that absorbs some energy by deforming or the brick and mortar divider that breaks and decelerates the vehicle.
Think of it as being hit in the head by a thick iron rod and a wooden stick. Of same sizes and at same speeds, of course.
For the same reason of absorbing energy, the vehicles have 'collapsible steering columns' and 'crumble zones.'

- Second, it is highly unlikely that the the driver won't attempt to decelerate. So even if the driver was driving at 100 and applied brakes, the impact won't be at 100, but at a substantially lower speed.

I once had to apply front discs on P180 at 105 kmph and still ended up rear ending a truck. Do you think I hit the truck at 100?

Therefore, an average impact speed of 64 into a hard object (that doesn't deform) is more realistic to cover the bases well.

Please pour in your insights as well.


P.S.: That getting hit from behind thing is 'Backlash/Whiplash Protection,' which is a safety feature usually found in cars well above the 1 Million rupee mark.

[phynix123]

Originally Posted by saket77

I read somewhere that because with the current level of technology, it is not possible to make regular cars which can protect its occupants at 120kmph anyway. Now, this can give rise to some argument, but if technology is available for protection at 64kmph and regular cars like VW Polo, Punto, etc have come out with flying colours, then why can't a Maruti? Esp. a Swift which is offered at a similar price point to these cars? I will not be believing that Maruti is selling its A segment cars like Alto at front-up losses and covering them by selling the likes of Swift ; something like cross subsidization.

Totally agree to your point. However, there's one more thing I want to mention here.
The first thing a driver does in emergencies is applying brakes. So even if there's only a couple of seconds time to apply the brake, the speed will invariably be reduced by some 20/30 kmph from it's original speed. So it can be assumed that most of the collisions will occur only in the vicinity of 60-70 kmph. (even for the speeding cars)

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by DReddy

Another clarification Lalvaz, I have not worked at ARAI but did my M.tech course from there. I just want to you to know that am in no way representing ARAI here.
Every new car that is sold in the country has to be compliant with CMVR rules and IS/AIS standards applicable as per the class of the vehicle. This process is known as type approval/homologation. Independent authorities such as ARAI, ICAT, CIRT etc, provide testing and homologation facilities for manufacturers to get their vehicles type approved before launching in the market.
The following are tests related to passive safety that are performed as a part of the type approval process.
*Full frontal vehicle crash testing as per IS:11939/ECE-R-12
Offset frontal crash test as per ECE R94/AIS-98
*Side impact Test as per ECE R95/AIS 99**
Rear impact test as per ECE R32/AIS 101
These above standards can easily be found on the internet and are in line with European standards.

Thank you for your reply. Apologies for assuming that you were with ARAI, see there's so much confusion here on crash testing facilities in India itself, leave alone the crash testing results.

The link http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...w/38392217.cms states that currently there is no govt crash testing facility in India and two centres are being setup by December 2014 in Pune and Manesar. Another report on automotive testing says that the ARAI centres will be ready by Dec 2013, http://www.automotivetestingtechnolo...?ArticleID=200

It appears that the ARAI centre is the govt centre and a part of the NATRIP, but never knew ARAI is govt controlled. Anyways, let's assume ARAI conducts these crash tests as part of homologation activities. Are these tests performed on the Indian spec car or the imported spec car? For instance was the Indian swift tested and did it pass or fail? I guess since these results are not in the public domain, (although why should a passed result be hidden from the public), we will never know the answers, but surely any sane man will doubt the integrity of ARAI with the recently published crash results.

Ironically in a Tata motors report at the end of Fy 2011, they claim that they have the only certified crash testing facility in India, so I can only imagine what sort of crash testing took place for the Indian Swift. http://www.tatamotors.com/sustainabi...innovation.pdf

[DReddy]

Originally Posted by heavenlybull

@DrReddy, I too would like to know where and if ARAI publishes results of these crash tests, tests specifications, crash facility location etc. The best I could find on ARAI site is some Bumper crash test on https://www.araiindia.com/facilities_safety.asp

Are the crash tests done on all passenger cars? I am pleasantly surprised to know ARAI conducts crash tests at 40kh/hr. Thanks.

Here's the copied text from AIS-098 offset frontal crash test.
TEST SPEED
Vehicle speed at the moment of impact shall be 56 -0/+1 km/h.
However, if the test was performed at a higher impact speed and the
vehicle met the requirements, the test shall be considered satisfactory.

For more details you can download the published standards from ARAI website https://www.araiindia.com/Publish_AIS_Standards.asp

As I mentioned earlier, these crash test videos and reports are not available in the public domain and are solely used by the manufacturers and govt. authorities to certify the vehicle being tested, which is the same practice with any homologation/certification authority across the world.

It is only because, the various NCAP organizations perform their own crash tests and publish the results, that we are able to see them.

Originally Posted by phynix123

Totally agree to your point. However, there's one more thing I want to mention here.
The first thing a driver does in emergencies is applying brakes. So even if there's only a couple of seconds time to apply the brake, the speed will invariably be reduced by some 20/30 kmph from it's original speed. So it can be assumed that most of the collisions will occur only in the vicinity of 60-70 kmph. (even for the speeding cars)

Exactly, this was the very same answer I got from our faculty. You would be surprised to know that, most of the accident research shows it takes longer for the driver to assess a potential collision and to react, than for the mechanical systems like brakes, airbags etc to respond during crashes. The actual crash event itself lasts for about 40 ms. We would be in no better condition to react than the dummies we see in those videos.

Also, instead of assuming a particular speed, decades of on road accident research data is used to decide upon it. Research done on human cadavers involved in accidents was used to assess the damage to various body parts at different speeds to arrive at what is an acceptable impact force that the body can take without sustaining significant injuries.

[DReddy]

Originally Posted by MaheshY1

Excellent question there.

The things that go into consideration are:
- The vehicle is highly unlikely to hit a stationary block of iron that can't be deformed. So some energy will be absorbed by the object. Usually it is the other car that absorbs some energy by deforming or the brick and mortar divider that breaks and decelerates the vehicle.
Think of it as being hit in the head by a thick iron rod and a wooden stick. Of same sizes and at same speeds, of course.
For the same reason of absorbing energy, the vehicles have 'collapsible steering columns' and 'crumble zones.'

- Second, it is highly unlikely that the the driver won't attempt to decelerate. So even if the driver was driving at 100 and applied brakes, the impact won't be at 100, but at a substantially lower speed.

I once had to apply front discs on P180 at 105 kmph and still ended up rear ending a truck. Do you think I hit the truck at 100?

Therefore, an average impact speed of 64 into a hard object (that doesn't deform) is more realistic to cover the bases well.

Please pour in your insights as well.


P.S.: That getting hit from behind thing is 'Backlash/Whiplash Protection,' which is a safety feature usually found in cars well above the 1 Million rupee mark.

As mentioned in my previous posts, there are two types of frontal impact tests done in the homologation process
Full frontal vehicle crash testing as per IS:11939/ECE-R-12 and
Offset frontal crash test as per ECE R94/AIS-98

The IS:11939 specifies a rigid barrier of 3m thick concrete, weighing atleast 70 tons.
source:https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/...11939.1996.pdf. Was not able to copy the text!

This simulates a head on collision of two cars travelling in opposite direction at the same speed . I know it doesn't make since when you think about it, but it works on basic engineering mechanics. If the barrier is rigid enough to not get affected by the impact force, it gives the same amount of reaction force(similar to that of another car moving in opposite direction).

The AIS-98 specifies a deformable barrier with the following specifications

DEFINITION OF DEFORMABLE BARRIER
1. COMPONENT AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS
The dimensions of the barrier are illustrated in Figure 1 of this Annex.
The dimensions of the individual components of the barrier are listed
separately below.
1.1. Main Honeycomb Block
Dimensions
Height: 650 mm (in direction of honeycomb ribbon axis)
Width: 1000 mm
Depth: 450 mm (in direction of honeycomb cell axes)
All above dimensions should allow a tolerance of ± 2.5 mm
Material: Aluminium 3003 (ISO 209, Part 1)
Foil Thickness: 0.076 mm ± 15%
Cell Size: 19.1 mm ± 20%
Density: 28.6 kg/m3
± 20%
Crush Strength: 0.342 MPa +0% -10%

Source:https://araiindia.com/hmr/Control/AI...~PMAIS-098.pdf

Out of the above two tests, the offset frontal impact is considered to be more severe and also a realistic simulation of what happens in a real accident. We not only try to decelerate but also try to swerve to avoid a full frontal head on collision. The injury in this case is more due to intrusions caused due to the offset impact. I quote from the abstract of an SAE paper

Accident research has shown that intrusion into the passenger compartment is the major cause of fatal and serious injuries suffered by restrained car occupants in frontal impacts. Current frontal test procedures, which use rigid barriers impacting the full car width, generate high vehicle decelerations and seat belt loads but very low levels of intrusion.

Source: http://papers.sae.org/950501/

The AIS-101 only specifies the requirements of the fuel tank in case of rear impact. But we do have a very basic from of whiplash protection even in the humble NANO.
The head restraints'(or head rests as they are popularly known as) primary purpose is to prevent whiplash injuries in case of rear impact(pic attached).

[audioholic]

Originally Posted by DReddy

As mentioned in my previous posts, there are two types of frontal impact tests done in the homologation process
Full frontal vehicle crash testing as per IS:11939/ECE-R-12 and
Offset frontal crash test as per ECE R94/AIS-98

Thanks for all the details. Gives a clearer picture of the Indian scene rather than rants. So can I assume that suppose a car doesnt meet these requirements, it will not be allowed to go on sale in the market? I would be lot relieved if the government does have some crash safety requirements rather than having none.

[DReddy]

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

Thank you for your reply. Apologies for assuming that you were with ARAI, see there's so much confusion here on crash testing facilities in India itself, leave alone the crash testing results.

The link http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...w/38392217.cms states that currently there is no govt crash testing facility in India and two centres are being setup by December 2014 in Pune and Manesar. Another report on automotive testing says that the ARAI centres will be ready by Dec 2013, http://www.automotivetestingtechnolo...?ArticleID=200

It appears that the ARAI centre is the govt centre and a part of the NATRIP, but never knew ARAI is govt controlled. Anyways, let's assume ARAI conducts these crash tests as part of homologation activities. Are these tests performed on the Indian spec car or the imported spec car? For instance was the Indian swift tested and did it pass or fail? I guess since these results are not in the public domain, (although why should a passed result be hidden from the public), we will never know the answers, but surely any sane man will doubt the integrity of ARAI with the recently published crash results.

Ironically in a Tata motors report at the end of Fy 2011, they claim that they have the only certified crash testing facility in India, so I can only imagine what sort of crash testing took place for the Indian Swift. http://www.tatamotors.com/sustainabi...innovation.pdf

This copied text is from Automotive testing international magazine article
Source: http://www.automotivetestingtechnolo...?ArticleID=200
The Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) is building the testing equipment and facilities needed for compliance of the new regulations of the ‘Road map of Passive Safety’ to be implemented in India by 2013. It will be an upgrade of its existing testing facilities and will include a fully equipped crash track with electric drive, a facility for pedestrian testing, as well as high-speed cameras and test dummies, among other technologies. The facility will come under the National Automotive Testing, Research and Development Project (NATRiP).

“ARAI is building a fully-fledged crash test facility at Chakan in Pune (Maharashtra) to cater the Western auto hub with NATRiP, while NATRiP is building its own crash testing facilities at the International Centre for Automotive Technology (iCAT) Manesar (Haryana) in North and G-ARC (Global Automotive Research Centre) in down South in Chennai,” informed Mr Mannikar, deputy director of ARAI in Pune.

As the article mentions they are 'upgrading' their existing facilities. The information age has reduced our attention spans, and I am pretty sure that the times article could have been an 'innocent misinterpretation' on part of the article writer.

The Automotive research association of India was set up in 1960s in pune as a nodal centre where Automotive manufacturers could share research and testing facilities, thus making it accessible to all manufacturers. The initiative was taken by TELCO(Erstwhile Tata Motors) and currently has 72 member companies.
https://www.araiindia.com/member_company.aspx.

Although it does come under the purview of MoRTH(ministry of road transport) it is not 'controlled' by the government per se. ARAI is an autonomous organization which serves in an advisory role to the govt. Independent research activities in areas such as Powertrain, Structural dynamics, passive safety, emissions etc. is done for various automotive manufacturers. ARAI has played a key role in the adaptation and introduction of various safety regulations based on UNECE. If anything they have advised the govt. as well as manufacturers to upgrade to and make our safety norms inline with international standards. It is a member of WP29 working committee which works towards Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations across the world

In existence for more than 50 years, and with participants coming from all over the world, especially the main motor vehicle producing countries, the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP 29) offers a unique framework for globally harmonized regulations on vehicles. The benefits of such harmonized regulations are tangible in road safety, environmental protection and trade.
Source:http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29...docs_wp29.html

The car that is intended to be sold in India is only sent for homologation irrespective of whether it is an internationally available model or not. Be rest assured that the Swift would not have been allowed to be sold if it had not cleared the specified norms. If you are still doubtful, you could always file an RTI.

The news of "Already homologated" cars getting 0 stars when tested by agencies such as Global NCAP is being termed as 'failed to meet norms' which is not true. As mentioned earlier in this same thread by other Bhpians too, the NCAP testing is of higher severity when compared to the regulatory requirements(which are inline with 'phoren' regulations). You should probably go through this very well written thread on the forum to understand what NCAP is all about.
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian...r-picture.html

The lack of an independent advisory agency which publishes results in public domain like the NCAP, is being interpreted as a complete lack of testing facilities in the country. By the way, this is also being addressed and we will soon have our own Bharat New Vehicle Safety Assessment Program
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharat_...ssment_Program

The Tata motors article could also have been an 'innocent typo'. My guess is they might have written it as 'the only crash testing facility in India' instead of the 'only in house crash testing(at a manufacturer's premises) facility in India'. I say this because I saw a lot of BIWs which were tested and discarded behind the passive safety lab at ARAI in 2011-12. We used to play 'carIQ' whenever a new BIW was spotted. Although we did not get to watch a live crash test, we got to see some videos during our lab training.

[skotha]

Its pathetic how safety is the least of the concerns for Indian players. I still remember in 2007 when I was on the lookout to upgrade from my old Maruti 800, there were very few options in the market that offered Air Bags and ABS. Luckily SX4 was released around the same time which offered these features and I was probably the first customer in Hyderabad to have booked an ZXI then.

I feel that the realization should also come from the consumers also. I have seen many people not willing to spend that extra money and get models which offer these safety features even though they can afford it. I will never buy a car if it does not have these features. Period. No compromise on that at all.

In Maruti's defense, I think that they dont price the high end variants way too high and that is the reason you tend to notice far more high end variants from Maruti on the roads when compared to any other manufacturer. At lease from my observation, this has been an increasing trend lately and we should encourage it.

[DReddy]

The following document published in 1997 by the US NHTSA talks about harmonization of frontal impact testing standards worldwide. There is a part that I thought might be relevant in the Indian perspective.

NHTSA has continued to engage its counterparts in the European community in discussions regarding frontal impact protection. As early as 1979, NHTSA researchers outlined the NHTSA's research findings and regulatory requirements at international meetings and conferences. However, with belt use rates at 95 percent, there was little incentive for Europeans to adopt the U.S. unrestrained test requirement or begin a research program, prior to 1990.

Source:http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/cras...rt.html#offrt7

The FMVSS rule no. 208 describes the requirements for frontal impact testing in the USA. It also includes one test at a lower speed where seat belts are not used and the resulting impact force on occupants is assessed. Given the very low usage of seat belts in our country, don't you think we should also be demanding such a requirement to be fulfilled by our manufacturers along with the other safety features.

Every country has different requirements, more so in our case. I feel we can only truly address the issue of road fatalities in our country when we take up full fledged accident research and come up with exhaustive data to assess what kind of safety features are needed for our cars. This was started by the western world as early as the 70s, something like this should be started right now when the vehicle penetration in our country is low. Imagine the situation of our roads when more than one fourth of our population moves into the car buying bracket!

[SS-Traveller]

Originally Posted by DReddy

Imagine the situation of our roads when more than one fourth of our population moves into the car buying bracket!

I suppose we can safely do away with safety devices like seat belts, ABS and airbags then. We should be securely positioned in our cars' seats by a phenomenon called gridlock.

[ajaypjayaraj]

Wait a minute, so people were assuming till now that our country did not have any kind of approvals for launching a car? I would be surprised if someone in senses believed so.

Obviously those standards of testing and approvals prove comparatively insufficient when tests conducted by other organisations among the same cars being sold here shows huge difference in safety between those cars and some seem to be sub standard. Just like how roads in many parts of the country seem like what it should have been 20 years ago and totally insufficient for today, this seems to be an issue which needs to be revised or which should have been revised a long time ago. If not, this topic would not even have come up for anyone to make such statements.

[DReddy]

Originally Posted by SS-Traveller

I We should be securely positioned in our cars' seats by a phenomenon called gridlock.

I guess the auto wallahs will be having their last laugh then. They would happily be zipping around scraping paint off cars, while we are left to do a new urban phenomenon termed as SOYBATT (Sit-on-your-bum-and-twiddle-thumbs --- All credit to the people who coined it)

Originally Posted by gthang

Interesting the pace of the thread changed when the nitty gritty started.

Cheers

I guess I've managed to bore people so much that they moved on to other interesting discussions.

[ajaypjayaraj]

Originally Posted by DReddy

I guess I've managed to bore people so much that they moved on to other interesting discussions.

No, your contribution is very valid to this thread. Interesting thing is that the thread gets carried away very easily. Like when some one says India needs testing centres, some take it as India had none. And when some one says India has it already, some would think of it this way like, then what is the problem.

Problem is, high time these things are revised to meet higher standards. And basic safety kit made mandatory across the range of cars by the regulatory bodies so that makers not only provide it but also think about cost effectiveness of providing it (without charging a much higher premium) like how it is in countries where these things are mandatory.

[civic-sense]

So a Swift passing our "stringent" crash test at 40kmph is good enough, and VW is really stupid for making a car that would pass the test even at 64kmph.

Means we can all be contented that our cars "pass" the stringent India test. But is that what we want/need? That it passes some lousy third world test, or whether the car is indeed safe?