[saket77]

There seems to be some sort of contradictory views on the crash video posted by Sridhar. Honestly, just like many commentators on the video, even I could not spot the engine on the Volvo. Not to say that it was definitely the case, but I am in a little doubt.

By the way, thank Sridhar for the video.

Regards.

[Thad E Ginathom]

I noticed a Maruti newspaper ad today. The word "safety" was not used.

[Graven5]

This thread looks unsafe

Fact - Volkswagen holds a 19.9 % stake in Suzuki

Fiction - Volkswagen holds a controlling stake of 51 % in Suzuki and all Maruti Suzuki cars come equipped with dual airbags and ABS plus diesel powertrains from VW plus no R C Bhargava interview.

When a life is the talking point, Corporate Social Responsibility for Maruti should start from their cars.

[Su-47]

I have a 5-year old Ritz-Zxi, and the ownership experience has been good so far. I went for Zxi because it was the only version with all the safety gear, but, looking at GNCAP results for the swift, I'm wondering if I've been driving a tin can with ABS and Airbags.

Next year, I will looking to buy a new car, and Ciaz is on the shortlist. Though Maruti attributes Ciaz's light weight to high strength steel, absence of NCAP results makes one doubtful of such a claim. To top it up, the company chairman is saying something on the lines of "Ciaz is safer than your bicycle", and I wonder why shouldn't I drop Ciaz from my shortlist.

I request whoever is looking to buy a new car to test drive a Maruti and when you decide to not buy it, make it very clear to the sales guy that you are doing so because of their dismissive attitude towards safety. A feedback about prospective sales getting jeopardized will hopefully open the eyes of Maruti's management.

Originally Posted by Graven5

When a life is the talking point, Corporate Social Responsibility for Maruti should start from their cars.

I hope you are joking. Equating customers with beneficiaries of CSR reminds me of the license raaj era, when the auto-companies were doing us a favour by letting us own a piece of art they produced.

[Graven5]

Originally Posted by Su-47

I hope you are joking. Equating customers with beneficiaries of CSR reminds me of the license raaj era, when the auto-companies were doing us a favour by letting us own a piece of art they produced.

Any CSR model focuses on customers, employees and the community.The question of equating the customer never arises when he is a part of it.

Unfortunately, in the auto companies race of sale volumes, persuasion matters and safety takes a hit.

All I am saying is -
As part of road safety, first make the physical automobile safe.

[mallumowgli]

Originally Posted by autobahnjpr

Secondly coming to the vehicle, I personally feel that the sheet metal of cars should be much thicker than it is today.

Originally Posted by sridhar-v

It is not as simple as only section thickness. The Load carrying capacity of any structural member is depandent on many factors. Thickness is one of the minor factors. It comes into play more to provide vibration resistance across an unsupported area.

Just for clarity - autobahnjpr mentions sheet metal thickness, whereas what you (while quoting autobahn) are referring to is structural member thickness. Two different things. And that's why I used the analogy of civil structures - just to illustrate where the load acts (static or impact) and where it does not

[sridhar-v]

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

Just for clarity - autobahnjpr mentions sheet metal thickness, whereas what you (while quoting autobahn) are referring to is structural member thickness. Two different things. And that's why I used the analogy of civil structures - just to illustrate where the load acts (static or impact) and where it does not

The thickness of the sheet metal that is used to form a structural member has a limit beyond which it acts negatively to the deflection parameters. This is because the dead weight increases and the selfweight deflection becomes more of a problem!. The skin sheet metal thickness in most of the car panels contribute to stiffness and strength as they are spotwelded to other frames. Only front wing fender is structurally insignificant. But latest design ensure that the bolting of the fenders helps in absorbing some of the crash forces. The only advantage of thickness beyond a point is changing the vibration patterns & harmonic frequencies. And of course you need a certain weight to ensure proper traction.

Take a look at the new Safari Storme rear door hinges. They are a solid piece of metal. Can easily be replaced by a sheet metal part using proper section shape. But that will entail expenditure on dies & fixtures. So TML finds it more cheap to continue bending the solid plate on a press brake!

This debate is nothing new for me. I have been having long arguments with my clients, including Tata Motors, while designing toolings, sheet metal aggregates, machine tools and solving their problems. It is only after seeing the performance of my designs after 5-7 years of use that they are now accepting the ideas.

Originally Posted by saket77

There seems to be some sort of contradictory views on the crash video posted by Sridhar. Honestly, just like many commentators on the video, even I could not spot the engine on the Volvo. Not to say that it was definitely the case, but I am in a little doubt.

By the way, thank Sridhar for the video.

Regards.

As far as i recollect the old volvos did have breakaway mounts for their engine blocks. The engine does not offer any protection in crashes as it is a rigid object that will not absorb too much energy. So all engines are deigned that their mounts give way such that the engine moves down to towards the ground and dlightly to the rear.

A test comapro of crashing into a concrete wall vs head on crash:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8E5dUnLmh4

(pls. note this is some american blokes and cannot be verified but the logic seems irrefutible)

Another 60mph head on test:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOFY2kT5LqA

What happens to a crash into a wall at 120:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7dG9UlzeFM

And small cars can be safe. look at this Smart car crash test:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUcmCTQKoJA

Nearer home the Ford Ecosport is one of the safest small cars. Look at the windscreen glass in fromtal & side impacts. Not even a crack. Only in the side pole impact is there cracking of the glass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eUusPP5zJM

There was a comparo of some collission avoidance systems and shockingly the Mercedes system did not work, whereas the elcheapo cars performed. So for me basic structural safety is always first priority. All electronic aids come next.

[alpha1]

So today Pune wakes up to this idiotic advertisement by a Maruti Dealer.
I think, on the contrary, Maruti should advise its dealers to discourage people from buying vehicles till it comes with safer versions which will be slightly more expensive!

Personally I feel the man has a point. Being a bike / scooter rider for many years, I have always felt safer in a car. Bus drivers of state run services scare me, they have no accountability, they are covered by the state machinery and therefore very rash.

For people who use a 2-wheeler for the daily commute, the odds of accidents happening get narrower with every ride. The fatalities on road of two wheeler riders is very high, and if they can afford a car I am sure no family would want the father/husband/son to venture out in a two-wheeler.

I was witness to a horrific incident a few years ago, when, a taxi driver full of road rage, drove a two-wheeler rider off the road into a ditch and sped off before anyone could react. Now that is how low the value of human life is in this country. And our driver commented that the poor guy should have been in a 4-wheeler.

A basic small car is a boon in this country, and is perfect for the city.

[tbppjpr]

Originally Posted by sridhar-v

Nearer home the Ford Ecosport is one of the safest small cars. Look at the windscreen glass in fromtal & side impacts. Not even a crack. Only in the side pole impact is there cracking of the glass.

That crash test and the results you are referring to don't hold any value in the Indian context.

The crash test is Euro NCAP and Ford had to add 300+ new parts in the Ecosport before launching it in European market. 150+ parts were added in the structure alone to increase the structure sturdiness. Such massive modification in the structure alone puts a BIG question mark on crash worthiness of Indian Ecosport.

India-made Ford EcoSport gets 300 different parts & stronger structure for Europe

[Gannu_1]

From MS’ True Value link:



What an irony! True Value insists the customers to opt for cars with airbags. And that driver and co-driver side airbags are mandatory for all new cars (which clearly isn’t!).

[wilful]

I came across an article (Economic Times) quoting a JD Power study that claims 90% of Indian small car buyers want safety features like airbags and abs. Unfortunately only a much smaller percentage of cars have them.
And the article mentions a huge demand for automatics here vs a minuscule percentage of availability.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/45575745.cms

[Aditya]

Maruti Suzuki is now considering equipping its small cars with safety features such as ABS and airbags.

To join the discussion, click here.

[reverse_gear]

The latest comments from the R.C. Bhargava locker.

Anil Sasi: There are some apprehensions about the safety of cars being manufactured in India. Alto failed the test and Swift too didn’t fare too well at the New Car Assessment Program tests. What are manufacturers doing about the crash test facilities being mandated as necessary in the new law?
Manufacturers comply with whatever law the government fixes for both safety and emissions. No manufacturer can adopt standards different from the national standards. The government has now mandated that certain crash tests are needed from 2017. So we will comply with those. But it’s for the government to fix the standards taking into account the traffic requirements, the costs of bringing in higher safety levels and what people can afford to pay. If we talk about safety, it’s not just cars, look at so many things in this country compared to what they are in the world. Are we at the same level?

Later in the same interview:

The government needs to take the question of road safety more seriously. To say put airbags in the cars and the roads will become safer is rubbish.

Effectively, he is saying that he will do all within his powers to delay progress on safety, emission, etc.

Source

[Acharya]

Well, I might face a lot of fire for this comment but I tend to agree that mandatory airbags are NOT going to help road accidents or fatalities in significant manner in India.
There are many other things which require first attention, such as -
1. Safety bars on side/ back of all trucks, which can withhold at least 40km hit.
2. Standardize width of commercial vehicles
3. Safety for padestrians and two wheelers on roads
4. .....
The list is long and airbags do not appear in top 10 safety mechanism to reduce fatalities.

Simply increasing seat belt usage could make huge difference in car fatalities.

I dont say that airbags concept is a scam but in Indian context it is not really relavant where your front bumper will remain intact while iron rod pierce thru unopened airbags and rest of the car/ passanger.