[deetjohn]

The Kwid, Celerio, Eeco, Scorpio, and Eon getting ridiculed by global media with the crash results and very rightly so!

This Is What A Zero-Star Safety Rating Looks Like On Four Different Cars


And here is the top comment on that article as of now.

Originally Posted by jalopnik

Quick summary for the impatient:

Renault Kwid: Catastrophic A-pillar failure, front cabin structure completely compromised, driver side wheel pushed into cabin, driver strikes steering wheel, front passenger strikes dashboard.
Hyundai Eon: A-pillar failure, driver eats steering wheel.
Suzuki Maruti ECCO: Front cabin floorpan compromised, driver strikes steering wheel.
Suzuki Maruti Celero: Driver strikes steering wheel and is struck by pieces of dashboard

Seriously, that Renault is a complete piece of shit. You have to consciously decide to engineer a car that poorly.

Not sure why the 'mighty muscular' Scorpio was left out from the testing videos section.

[Tanmay K]

I don't understand why they most often test non-airbag models of Indian cars. The rating will obviously be zero due to lack of airbags.

Indian car buyers are relatively more aware about safety features than they were 10 years ago. Crash testing both types would be a good basis for comparison for them and might push them to buy airbag models.

I, for one, am more interested in seeing how the airbag models of these four cars would fare (Eeco doesn't have an airbag option iirc). Wasn't exactly impressed with how the Kwid airbag model performed.

[mxh]

Originally Posted by Tanmay K

I don't understand why they most often test non-airbag models of Indian cars. The rating will obviously be zero due to lack of airbags.

Indian car buyers are relatively more aware about safety features than they were 10 years ago. Crash testing both types would be a good basis for comparison for them and might push them to buy airbag models.

I, for one, am more interested in seeing how the airbag models of these four cars would fare (Eeco doesn't have an airbag option iirc). Wasn't exactly impressed with how the Kwid airbag model performed.

Logically, it makes sense to test the lowest model of every car, since safety is not a feature. However thinking about it a little more, I think they should test all models of all cars, and buy them as civilians from a random showroom in the country. There should be elaborate methods to ensure the manufacturer does not know which car is going to be crash tested and when. And the crash retesting should also be conducted in a similar random manner for each and every vehicle every year. I wouldn't put anything past cheap and evil manufacturers like Renault who try multiple times in crash tests, reinforce only certain parts of the car, and still fail and then release the same car 130 Kg heavier for Brazil which passes the crash tests. http://indianautosblog.com/2016/07/r...heavier-237155

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by Tanmay K

I don't understand why they most often test non-airbag models of Indian cars. The rating will obviously be zero due to lack of airbags.

Indian car buyers are relatively more aware about safety features than they were 10 years ago. Crash testing both types would be a good basis for comparison for them and might push them to buy airbag models.

I, for one, am more interested in seeing how the airbag models of these four cars would fare (Eeco doesn't have an airbag option iirc). Wasn't exactly impressed with how the Kwid airbag model performed.

Because otherwise manufacturers will use the rating for higher model and sell lower models to the public. As an international policy, they always pick the lowest variant for the ratings. Safety is not to be compromised, except in markets like India of course.

This also forced companies like Volkswagen, Toyota etc to make airbags standard in their cars. Else they would have happily sent the top end models only for testing too!

And I've been corrected by one gentleman earlier, there are cars that scored a one star rating without airbags.

Also, we can know about structural safety from lower variants as well. Cars like Kwid are useless even with airbags, the way they collapse under impact.

[SmartCat]

Meanwhile, I just learn't that Japanese Kei cars do not meet global safety regulations. But they still constitute 40% of overall car sales in Japan.
http://www.engineeringnewworld.com/?p=314

Kei cars are not planned for the US or Canada because small cars are not really popular here, nor would they meet the US or Canadian safety standards because of their small size and lightweight build. The safety of Kei cars is not much of a concern in Japan, because road traffic accidents are amongst the lowest in the world in Japan (about 1/3 the victim rate of the US), and continues to drop every year, even with so many Kei cars on the road. Japan has good road safety measures, good driver training, and Kei cars are more popular in the more rural areas where road speed tends to be lower (though Japan has the highest rate of elderly traffic deaths at 54% vs. the US at 17%).

The Kei cars in Japan are made by all the major Japanese auto manufacturers, and they are becoming increasingly loaded with high technology based on customer demand – turbochargers, infotainment systems, airbags, remote controlled doors, keyless start, collision avoidance systems, CVT, and four wheel drive.

Customers increasingly demanding airbags, in Japan? This is a 2014 article, not written 20 years ago.

I wonder if there is a truth in some Indian car bosses (Suzuki, Bajaj etc) claims that all that NCAP is doing is unnecessarily targeting them with not-so-noble intentions

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by smartcat

.......

I wonder if there is a truth in some Indian car bosses (Suzuki, Bajaj etc) claims that all that NCAP is doing is unnecessarily targeting them with not-so-noble intentions

Even IF true, it does nothing to change the basic premise that most cars for India - even those that have export models rolling off the same assembly lines - are built to different 'standards' (developing/emerging markets, if you want the PC term for it).

A badly built car is a badly built car, alleged selectively targeted criticism notwithstanding. The Indian customer (you and me included) stands to gain from it, so I welcome more of it, in spades.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

A badly built car is a badly built car, alleged selectively targeted criticism notwithstanding. The Indian customer (you and me included) stands to gain from it, so I welcome more of it, in spades.

You and me, yes. But not somebody who is forced to stick to a two wheeler (or worse), because of higher costs of a four wheeler. You are essentially saying - if you can't afford to pay Rs. 6 Lacs, well, tough luck.

What people like Rahul Bajaj are saying is that these regulations are "elitist", because it will not allow low cost safer-than-two-wheeler vehicles like Qute to be in the market. Kills innovation too - when you kill a product because of regulations, you cannot solve mobility issues of literally billions of people in South Asia and Africa.

I'm all for "transparency" though. Whether you are paying Rs. 5 Lacs or Rs. 15 Lacs, as a customer you ought to know what you are getting for it in safety terms. These NCAP ratings also should have better scoring system (instead of a big zero for cars with lower safety) - like a a score out of 100.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by smartcat

You and me, yes. But not somebody who is forced to stick to a two wheeler (or worse), because of higher costs of a four wheeler. You are essentially saying - if you can't afford to pay Rs. 6 Lacs, well, tough luck.......

Don't be so quick to presume what I meant.

Adding basic safety equipment to cars does NOT cost a significant amount (as a percent of the non-equipped, otherwise-identical car's sticker price), no matter how loud manufacturers complain about it.

Want examples?

The latest one came in just this week. The new i20 with FOUR extra airbags is dearer by only 15000 INR. That's 2.5% even assuming a 6 Lac sticker price (i20 is actually much costlier but that only adds to my argument). I'd love to believe Hyundai did it cheaply out of the goodness of their noble hearts but we both know better than that.

Want a poor man's example? Maruti's (O) models are offered at a difference of ~6000-20000 INR across variants (quoting BLR prices for the Alto K10, but other models are in the same ballpark too), which is about 5% assuming a 4 Lac sticker price (actual prices may be higher which again just adds to my argument).

Long story short, my point isn't that anyone unable to pay a certain amount for safety features is out of luck and should continue using (relatively) unsafe means of transport.

My point is manufacturers are pulling a fast one on customers by complaining about imaginary exorbitant higher costs that don't match with ground reality. The difference is in lower single digit percentages, at best.

This vicious cycle of 'it costs too much and you don't need it anyway' arguments needs to be broken because neither part of that argument is true, and it's costing real people real life/limbs even as I write this. The manufacturers know this already; teaching the people would be a longer, tougher journey but it won't even begin if we continue with the 'at least it's safer than a two-wheeler' mindset.

Offering basic safety from the very base model does not cost much (if we believe the manufacturers' own price-lists), and it's WAY BEYOND time such was offered as standard to EVERYONE. Hardly an 'Elitist' argument that, eh?

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

The latest one came in just this week. The new i20 with FOUR extra airbags is dearer by only 15000 INR.

Not a good example. Manufacturers routinely bring in facelifts, new dashboards and feature additions (touchscreen etc) with pretty much no change in prices. Doesn't exactly mean the cost of a touchscreen unit is zero.

Want a poor man's example? Maruti's (O) models are offered at a difference of ~6000-20000 INR across variants (quoting BLR prices for the Alto K10, but other models are in the same ballpark too),

As you know, adding airbags to Alto K10 will only help improve its score from Zero to Zero.

My point is manufacturers are pulling a fast one on customers by complaining about imaginary exorbitant higher costs that don't match with ground reality. The difference is in lower single digit percentages, at best.

This is the key unknown - how much it costs to build a structurally safe car, ground up. It probably involves multiple crash tests to develop a chassis that is capable of surviving a 64 kmph crast test with flying colors. It probably adds so much weight to the car that it requires expensive engine too (has to give good fuel economy and be powerful enough at the same time).

[audioholic]

Originally Posted by smartcat

As you know, adding airbags to Alto K10 will only help improve its score from Zero to Zero.
.

Pardon my ignorance, but has the Alto with airbag been tested to get a zero star?

[amalji]

Originally Posted by smartcat

It probably adds so much weight to the car that it requires expensive engine too (has to give good fuel economy and be powerful enough at the same time).

Not always the case. The Baleno's kerb weight is 865 kgs. It still scores a healthy 3 star in Euro NCAP.
You need to also keep in mind that the Baleno has a 10% bigger volume than the Swift.

And keep in mind that a much smaller car ( the Alto ) still weighs 700 kgs! So, it's not like it's going to take another 100 kgs to make the car safe.

On the contrary, the Mahindra Scorpio's kerb weight is around 2000 kgs. What's the excuse that Mahindra has to explain the kind of structural instability ?

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by smartcat

Not a good example. Manufacturers routinely bring in facelifts, new dashboards and feature additions (touchscreen etc) with pretty much no change in prices. Doesn't exactly mean the cost of a touchscreen unit is zero.

This will just derail the argument, but they absorb cost only because they can, either to shore up a non-performing model or due to competitors' pressure. If the cost of the new equipment was more than their built-in cost buffer, they'd hike prices.

That's an argument for price competition methodologies, not the topic of debate here so I'll leave it at that.

As you know, adding airbags to Alto K10 will only help improve its score from Zero to Zero.

Exactly my point. A bad car is a bad car, and the manufacturer should fix both the feature deficit and the underlying structural issues, no argument there. Safety equipment is a low-hanging fruit (agreed it won't fix the base issues), but doing nothing because it won't fix everything will only maintain status quo, which the manufacturers are happy to do. We need comprehensive reform, but we need to start somewhere.

This is the key unknown - how much it costs to build a structurally safe car, ground up. It probably involves multiple crash tests to develop a chassis that is capable of surviving a 64 kmph crast test with flying colors. It probably adds so much weight to the car that it requires expensive engine too (has to give good fuel economy and be powerful enough at the same time).

Exactly! Instead of revealing the true cost of manufacturing a good car - manufacturers know because they export some of their Made-in-India models which score better than their sold-in-India siblings - all we get is vague 'too costly' arguments that neither reveal nor prove anything.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by audioholic

Pardon my ignorance, but has the Alto with airbag been tested to get a zero star?

Airbags don't help score NCAP points, if the structure is unsafe (collapses).

[heavenlybull]

Indian Swift, Polo, old Figo and i10 were already tested by NCAP. Out of these only Polo and Figo's structural integrity was deemed as stable.

Since these cars are in the same segment and priced more or less the same, I am inclined to believe that it doesn't cost a bomb to offer a stable structure. In the absence of any laws here, companies are making merry with cost cuttings, if it saves them some cash.

[teemus]

Originally Posted by heavenlybull

Indian Swift, Polo, old Figo and i10 were already tested by NCAP. Out of these only Polo and Figo's structural integrity was deemed as stable.

Since these cars are in the same segment and priced more or less the same, I am inclined to believe that it doesn't cost a bomb to offer a stable structure. In the absence of any laws here, companies are making merry with cost cuttings, if it saves them some cash.

You will not believe how exhaustively companies work to reduce the costs. Even if something saves them Rs. 5/- and does not hamper the homologation, they will do it. Yes, you read that right, Rs. 5/-, it's a fact!