[rselva]

Originally Posted by AutoNoob

Am I the only one smelling something foul ?? The scoring for Renault KWID for Adult Occupant Protection is 0.00 out of maximum possible 17.00 points. As per NCAP Rating system, the score becomes zero if chest compression on impact is severe. GNCAP noted the same for KWID : "the protection to the chest due to high chest compression was poor and the passenger’s chest received weak protection as well". Yet it is given1-star.

As per my limited understanding of NCAP system, no star should have been given (similar to Honda Mobilio without Airbags).

The reason for giving 1 star is that, in a Kwid there is good protection for the head (Green Color) against Mobilio's poor protection for the head (red color).

[AutoNoob]

Originally Posted by rselva

The reason for giving 1 star is that, in a Kwid there is good protection for the head (Green Color) against Mobilio's poor protection for the head (red color).

I humbly but strongly disagree with this statement.

Overall score for frontal impact (full / offset) is taken as the Worst score from : (Head contact with CRS + Head Excursion + Head Exposure) + Score from Neck Tension + Score from Chest.

As per Euro NCAP 2015 rating system, following minimum scores are needed (out of max. 17.00) for respective star ratings for Adult Occupant Protection :
***** - 80% (13.6)
**** - 70% (11.9)
*** - 50% (8.5)
** - 30% (5.1)
* - 20% (3.4)

Since, in KWID, high chest compression was observed, the Chest score was 0.00, therefore overall score was 0.00. In such a scenario, how it got 1-star, I can't understand.

For year 2016 & 2017, the score requirements have been made further stringent by Euro NCAP (GNCAP team might still have rated the cars based on earlier point system, as they are last year's models) :
***** - 80% (13.6)
**** - 70% (11.9)
*** - 60% (10.2)
** - 50% (8.5)
* - 40% (6.8)

References :

1.

Originally Posted by AutoNoob

Sharing the following document for everyone's reference. I hope this would be helpful.

Global Automotive Safety Regulations in Nutshell - January 2015
Source : http://www.wissenbaumllp.com/download.aspx
Direct PDF Link : Global Automotive Safety Regulations in Nutshell

Refer pages 32 to 39.

2. Euro NCAP - Assessment Protocol - Overall Rating Refer pages 5 to 8.

[rselva]

Originally Posted by AutoNoob

I humbly but strongly disagree with this statement.

Overall score for frontal impact (full / offset) is taken as the Worst score from : (Head contact with CRS + Head Excursion + Head Exposure) + Score from Neck Tension + Score from Chest.

As per Euro NCAP 2015 rating system, following minimum scores are needed (out of max. 17.00) for respective star ratings for Adult Occupant Protection :
***** - 80% (13.6)
**** - 70% (11.9)
*** - 50% (8.5)
** - 30% (5.1)
* - 20% (3.4)

Since, in KWID, high chest compression was observed, the Chest score was 0.00, therefore overall score was 0.00. In such a scenario, how it got 1-star, I can't understand. .......

How do you know the Chest compression score was zero? Have attached an excerpt from the excel sheet used for NCAP rating. As you can see there are lot of variables which would explain a score above zero. Unless you have access to these variables' scores, you can't suggest the rating is influenced by Renault ( I don't know what else your statement implies).


Source: From http://www.euroncap.com/en/for-engin...g-information/

[AutoNoob]

Originally Posted by rselva

How do you know the Chest compression score was zero?

I am aware of this excel sheet and its working. And I agree that I don't have any reference for the point you raised. However, I arrived at that conclusion as the injury pattern on rest of the body is better than chest and there is no other negative modifier specified for AOP.

Now, even if my conclusion on method to arrive at zero score was incorrect, the fact remains that the score is zero. In such a case, how 1-star can be assigned?? Minimum score of 3.4 (as per 2015 rating system) is required for that.

you can't suggest the rating is influenced by Renault ( I don't know what else your statement implies)

I might have inadvertently suggested something similar, but that was more out of astonishment based on two contradicting facts [0.00 score, 1-Star] and nothing else. I do not have any evidence to point finger at anyone.

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by rselva

Unless you have access to these variables' scores, you can't suggest the rating is influenced by Renault ( I don't know what else your statement implies).

Either ways, a rating of zero AOP and a one star rating doesn't make much sense to me. It's like saying this is a better way to die than hitting the head on the steering. Isn't it?

By the way, quite surprised that Global NCAP give so many chances for a company to test one single car from their lineup again and again.

[RSR]

Originally Posted by AutoNoob

Am I the only one smelling something foul ?? The scoring for Renault KWID for Adult Occupant Protection is 0.00 out of maximum possible 17.00 points. As per NCAP Rating system, the score becomes zero if chest compression on impact is severe. GNCAP noted the same for KWID : "the protection to the chest due to high chest compression was poor and the passenger’s chest received weak protection as well". Yet it is given 1-star.

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Either ways, a rating of zero AOP and a one star rating doesn't make much sense to me. It's like saying this is a better way to die than hitting the head on the steering. Isn't it?

There was a mistake in the earlier pdf, I think. Global NCAP have uploaded an updated pdf with the correct points for AOP, and it explains why the Kwid (IV) with a driver airbag was given a 1* G-NCAP rating for AOP (by scoring 8.28 points out of 17):



Full report: http://www.globalncap.org/wp-content...ER-Airbags.pdf

By the way, quite surprised that Global NCAP give so many chances for a company to test one single car from their lineup again and again.

Not really that surprising, since Global NCAP's aim is to make cars safer for occupants. So any manufacturer who willingly carries out improvements would get additional chances (I believe the manufacturer partly funds subsequent tests i.e. reimburses the cost of purchase for the improved versions). The Polo got an additional chance after airbags were made standard, the Mobilio got a variant with dual airbags tested after the initial car got a 0* rating etc.

Although the 1* rating for a car with a driver airbag is still worrisome, Renault have indeed shown interest to make improvements. Even in the videos, the difference between the Kwid (I) and Kwid (IV) is very obvious. I still think Renault have not done enough! The reinforcements have been added only to the driver's side and the driver airbag is still optional only on the top variant.

I would have preferred a test of the Brio/Amaze by Global NCAP instead of the Mobilio. The Brio & Amaze have their top speeds electronically limited to 140 kmph (for both petrol & diesel versions), while the Mobilio & BR-V don't have such a restriction on top speed - something that's very strange indeed.

In fact, I'd love to see every car in India whose base variant costs below 1 million rupees (ex-showroom) being subjected to the Global NCAP treatment!

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by GTO

On a serious note though, the front end of the Mobilio is structurally identical to the Amaze & Brio. So it does tell us a little bit about the smaller cars.

Originally Posted by Rajeevraj

On the plus side, with a 3 star for a Mobilio with airbags, one can safely assume that the rest of the portfolio will score equal or better considering the Mobilio appears to have the most cost cutting involved with respect to build quality.

Originally Posted by RSR

I would have preferred a test of the Brio/Amaze by Global NCAP instead of the Mobilio. The Brio & Amaze have their top speeds electronically limited to 140 kmph (for both petrol & diesel versions), while the Mobilio & BR-V don't have such a restriction on top speed - something that's very strange indeed.

One point that was noticed very recently in the Jazz thread was that the petrol versions of the Jazz doesn't have pre-tensioners fitted on the vehicle. It is only present on the diesel variants and only for the driver seat, as clarified by Honda customer care.

Pre-tensioners are mentioned clearly for the Mobilio, but I don't see them mentioned for Amaze or Brio. And seeing the Jazz effect, makes me wonder if those have it. Would be difficult for these two products to achieve a 3 star rating without it, as we have already seen with the Kwid how much of a difference the pre-tensioner makes.

[heavenlybull]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Pre-tensioners are mentioned clearly for the Mobilio, but I don't see them mentioned for Amaze or Brio. And seeing the Jazz effect, makes me wonder if those have it.

The Amaze and Brio websites mention "Front Seat Belt Pretensioner with Load Limiter" in the top 2 variant of Brio and its optional in lower variants on the Amaze. Are we to assume then that they are present only on the driver side?

[Highh5]

Made in Brazil Renault Kwid scored Three-Star Rating in Latin NCAP.

The hatchback showed adequate frontal protection and marginal side impact protection, though with weak protection to the chest of the adult, resulting in three stars.Child occupant safety was also deemed adequate thanks to the child seat mounted on the Isofix seat mounts and Top Tether anchorage. However the lack of an airbag disconnection switch in the front passenger area and lack of 3-point seat belts brought the rating to a three out of five. Kwid in India misses out on the Brazilian versions’ passenger side front airbag and side airbags, along with the Isofix child seat mounts.

link

[ron178]

I'm more than five years too late to this thread, but I have recently developed some queries about the Honda Mobilio's crash test that I'll ask anyway, knowing full well that the chance of someone viewing this, let alone my chance at getting a satisfactory answer, is very low.

This is in regard to the subpar footwell performance of the airbag-equipped variant of the Mobilio when compared to the basic trim level with no airbags. I couldn't help but notice that the airbag-equipped variant showed more intrusion of the footwell (either pedal intrusion or rupture of the footwell itself - it looks like Global NCAP didn't specify whether Footwell Rupture was applied before 2017), and I have been wondering whether this could be caused by a difference in engines in both tested variants.


Lower body performance of variant with no airbags


Lower body performance of the variant with double airbags.

One thing to note is that the star rating for the airbag-equipped variant tested would likely not change even if lower body protection was similar to the no-airbag variant, since the score for the Leg and Foot region (the last 4.00 points out of 16.00) is the score of the worst performing body part in the region. For the no-airbag variant this is the driver's right tibia, which received marginal (orange) protection (between 1.33 and 2.66 points) and for the airbag-equipped variant, while this part received acceptable protection, some other regions (which scored acceptably in the no-airbag variant) scored marginally, like the driver's feet which suffered greater rearward pedal displacement (which is why I think the engine may have something to do with it) and the front passenger's right tibia, which also received marginal protection. Since the worst performing body part for the Leg and Foot region is orange in both cases, the maximum difference in the scores for this region could be 1.33, and it's very unlikely that this is the actual difference.

Now, I'm not sure if the variants tested were really of different fuel types. I wonder whether the airbag equipped variant was a diesel-powered car, which is partly what I need help determining.

As has been pointed out on this thread, the variant whose test was sponsored by Honda had a black roof and wing mirrors, and no one seems to be able to figure out what trim level this is. At first, I thought it could be an RS variant, which would also mean that the manufacturer-sponsored variant had Honda's 1.5L diesel engine, which could explain the difference in footwell performance when compared to the base petrol variant (which I assume was the fuel type of the car whose test was sponsored by Global NCAP's sponsors) especially keeping in mind that the diesel engine was(is) market-specific. But I found that the Mobilio RS does not seem to have a black roof or ORVMs (I assumed it did because RS sounds like a sporty variant, and those normally have blacked-out bits). Could it be some sort of a special edition?

I can find no other potential reason for the differences in performance and any opinions, ideas, or facts would be greatly appreciated.

Originally Posted by AutoNoob

Since, in KWID, high chest compression was observed, the Chest score was 0.00, therefore overall score was 0.00. In such a scenario, how it got 1-star, I can't understand.

If a body region scores 0.000 points because of direct biomechanical values (capping limits being crossed) then the test score is reduced to 0.00 and the star rating for adult protection is zero. If a body region scores 0.000 points only after application of modifiers, that is, if capping limits are not crossed (for example, if the chest scored between 0.001 and 1.000 based on the worst performing parameter among chest compression and viscous criterion, but after -1.000 was applied for the Unstable Structure Modifier it scored 0.000 (since score is constrained to be non-negative)) then the star rating is limited to one. The current assessment protocol leaves a lot of room for ambiguity about these star caps but the 2022 Global NCAP assessment protocol has mentioned this more clearly, and it is consistent with observations in current tests.

Capping can be reached by biomechanical value reading (in this case the result is capped to zero stars) or when one critical body region scores zero after modifiers are applied (in this case the result is capped to one star).

Source