[im_srini]

Originally Posted by GTO

Hold the celebrations.
The Tata Zest on sale today - especially the non-airbag version - gets zero stars for safety.
Tata hasn't provided a timeline as to when they'll update the Zest.
Neither Toyota nor VW gave NCAP a one-off build for testing.
So your comparison is flawed.

Thanks for pointing out that the emperor had no clothes on

Sometimes the fanboyism makes me retch, the very same folks who like to point out 'tin-can' cars are all praise for Tata for having to put up a reworked frame ( which was also deemed unstable, I might add ).

I don't think we're car enthusiasts here, more like car-brand enthusiasts

[ashlil]

About the 64 kmph test: It is not as useless as we in the forum have come to think. We need to be aware of the following two points

1) In case of a frontal crash, most often, the driver tries to brake before the collison. So, even if the cars were travelling at 100 kmph each in the opposite direction before the collison, the speed of collison will be far less than 100 kmph each. 64kmph is actually a fairly good speed for the test.

2) As pointed out by many in other threads 64kmph crash test is not equivalent to two cars colliding at 32 kmph each. It is more like two cars colliding at 54 kmph each. Please search team-bhp posts on maruti chairman's comments and you will find more details.

[RSR]

I appreciate Tata for grabbing the opportunity provided by Global NCAP to improve the Zest structurally (just like Renault, Datsun etc.) and for the improved version of the Zest (with 2 airbags) scoring a creditable 4* rating (although the structure was rated as unstable and incapable of withstanding further loadings).

Tata have announced that the improvements made to the structure will be brought to the entire vehicle range, for both airbag and non-airbag versions.

This does raise the question - From when?

In case of the Kwid, each structural improvement made by Renault had a date from which the production models incorporated the same, and the improved cars' VINs were also provided:

The different versions of the Kwid are summarised below:

Kwid (I) tested without airbags achieved zero stars for adult protection

18,091 units produced
(until VIN No. VIN MEEBBA005G1323780)

-------

Kwid (II) not tested

Estimated 25,000 units produced from January 2016
(from VIN No. VIN MEEBBA005G1323781)

-------

Kwid (III) tested with driver airbag and without airbags, both versions achieved zero stars for adult protection

5,000 units produced from April 2nd, 2106
(from VIN No. VIN MEEBBA005G4350297)

-------

Kwid (IV) yet to be tested by Global NCAP

produced from May 9th 2016
(from VIN No. MEEBBA008G5362695)

The Kwid (IV) was eventually tested by Global NCAP and it made a marginal improvement with a 1* Global NCAP rating (for both AOP & COP).

I hope Tata makes the improvements (& also adds 2 airbags) across the range soon, and that Global NCAP releases the production date & starting VIN of the improved Zest.

Customers who purchased a Kwid would know exactly which version (I - IV) of the Kwid they have. All Kwids produced from 9th May, 2016 and from VIN MEEBBA008G5362695 carry the improvements, but only the driver airbag equipped RxT(O) variants are eligible for the improved rating.

Potential Zest customers too deserve to know the same!

And lest I forget, these improvements need to be made to the Bolt as well!

[ksameer1234]

Pardon my ignorance but there are few things which I find intriguing with this whole scenario playing out.

Star ratings are almost as objective evaluation as it gets. I would infer NCAP ratings as 5 star being safest while 0 star being most unsafe. If Zest has unstable body shell, why should it even score 4 star. Why should NCAP misguide people by rating a car 4 star and then mention body shell is unstable in fine print. This is like a restaurant being rated 4 out of 5 and then the detailed review says that the food isn't actually tasty.

NCAP says Tata did some improvements. I am very sure Tata won't come out in open to tell what improvements did they do and maybe didn't even tell NCAP. In such case, how do know the effect on improvements on the score. Would pre-improvement top variant of zest have scored 0 star as well? Even Polo without airbag scored 0 star.

P.S: In case it matters, I do own a Zest and deliberately chose top model because I didn't want to compromise on safety. However, all this confusion doesn't clear air about the safety credentials of the car.

[cingsman]

Originally Posted by GTO

Guys,

While I appreciate Tata for improving the car, this is akin to cheating. Give Maruti the chance and I'm sure they can reinforce the Maruti Baleno to get 5 stars in the NCAP. How come they weren't given the chance to go back and build a one-off car for the test?

Every OEM whose car gets tested gets a chance to improve. Period!

Some OEMs wake up and drink the coffee, some choose not to. It must be a cold, calculated business decision.

Maruti management may think, why the heck do I have to do anything about it? As it stands, people do not buy my cars for their safety. My USP is FE and Weight. Both will be impacted by this. Why don't I just send out Mr. R C Bhargava on the media and make statements about "meeting the government regulations" to quell this negative publicity.

Someone like Renault or Tata may think, heck, I need to wrest marketshare from Maruti. While I cannot match them on things like FE or even if I match them on FE, the brand connection to FE automatically favors Maruti; why don't I make safety a point of discussion in the decision making debate. That should favor my car in the customer's choice rankings.

That's that..

On a separate point, I agree with you that the Zest 4-star compliant production details should be made public.

[im_srini]

Originally Posted by cingsman

Every OEM whose car gets tested gets a chance to improve.
Some OEMs wake up and drink the coffee, some choose not to.

The question is, why would TATA even have to "wake up" & "drink the coffee ?"
After all, hasn't it been touted that TATA had the very first "crash-test facility" in India ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XjyqatV8OU

Are we to think that after all this time TATA does not know how to engineer a car to withstand a crash-test ?

Originally Posted by cingsman

It must be a cold, calculated business decision.

Do you remember this ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahw7-KarkWw

And then this happened...

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

And this !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBA15SfO0AI

In the end, every manufacturer makes cold, calculated, business decisions, whether it's Maruti or TATA
If only people could take off their <insert your favorite car brand here>-tinted glasses & choose to see the cold, hard, truth.
No OEM is looking out for us, not a single one !
.

[RavenAvi]

Take a look at the weights of the two test cars.

Zero stars:



Four stars:



A difference of 85 kilos!

There's no way that 2 airbags, seat-belt pretensioners, etc., which were added to the latter test model would add up to that much extra weight.

From the official brochure:



Even taking the 35-40 kilos difference between the variants into account, it still doesn't add up. Where did the extra 45-50 kilos come from?


I wonder what all Tata added to the second car to make it that much heavier. Better, bigger frontal/side impact beams? Thicker sheet metal?

Or was it a case similar to the Renault Kwid - boosting particular sections of the car to get a better score in the NCAP tests?

[sathish81]

Originally Posted by McLaren Rulez

It's funny, the bar has been set so low by the others that Tata actually comes off looking good when selling a car with a patch solution for an unstable structure that gets rolled out to only part of the range. What's more, that "fix" still won't work if you crash it at speeds any higher than 64 kph.

If the fix intends to "fix" a defect found in a defined test that is well accepted, such a fix should be fair game.

Of course such a fix will earn the car 0 rating if the test parameters change ( for example crash test at 100 kph).

Most things are tested this way ( including tolerance values of lot of day to day materials).

[landcruiser123]

Originally Posted by RavenAvi

Take a look at the weights of the two test cars.

Just a clarification: Is the 1310 Kg figure stated in the report (of the model that scored 0 star) inclusive of the dummies involved in the test?

If not, something is really fishy here- because the heaviest model is 1170 kg and the tested one is 1310 kg, which is a difference of 140 kg.

Otherwise, I think it's fair for 3 crash dummies to weigh 140 Kg.

Regarding the 85 kg difference- I think about 75 kg went into additional beams, cross members and what not.

Just shows that Tata has the design for a safe car and knows which structural members can enhance safety. Hope they put the model with the structural improvements in production soon.

[Prithwitheraj]

Originally Posted by RavenAvi

Even taking the 35-40 kilos difference between the variants into account, it still doesn't add up. Where did the extra 45-50 kilos come from?

Good point, and something to really ponder upon.
But another question I had is the tested Toyota etios also had higher weight that it's kerb weight 1131 kg


, where as the kerb weight of etios is 1005kg

A difference of 126 kgs again

In our zest manual we see that gross weight can go even higher that what NCAP reported.





Think it's the gross weight they report in the PDF?

Off topic -when this weight difference happens for Toyota it's accepted and for Tata all kinds of eyebrows

[sachinayak]

Originally Posted by im_srini

Thanks for pointing out that the emperor had no clothes on ...

Sometimes the fanboyism makes me retch, the very same folks who like to point out 'tin-can' cars are all praise for Tata for having to put up a reworked frame ( which was also deemed unstable, I might add ).

A slightly different perspective to this

1. Yes, Tata put a reworked frame to get their rating. But they did not "hide" it like how Renault did with their Kwid.

2. Tata is not selling ZEST currently claiming it has a 4 star rating. They perhaps may when the strengthened frame comes into production.

3. At least TATA is moving in the right direction, without any hoopla, rather than some other "reputed" manufacturers who openly have claimed safety is not priority (unless mandated by law).

4. Yes, their frame may not be stronger to withstand greater forces, but if they are sticking to the specs why not. If a different manufacturer can reduce the ground clearance by adding a dummy skid plate (or something similar) and we call it great business acumen, why have a different scale for Tata.

5. You may occasionally find a Tata Motors fan, but for every such fan, you will find tens of critics. They get beaten up for valid and invalid reasons. So if they get an occasional accolade for a small step in the right direction, why not.

Yes, the emperor is in no clothes, but he is not parading around.

[srvm]

Originally Posted by GTO

Guys,
Hold the celebrations. The Tata Zest on sale today - especially the non-airbag version - gets zero stars for safety. Tata hasn't provided a timeline as to when they'll update the Zest......
.......
When Tata updates the production version Zest exactly as per the 4 star car, that's when they'll hear my applause.
.........

Well, i Found this ad in the news​paper today.
Hope Tata has updated the production version to the 4-star car. If yes, then .

Anyways Good to see an advert which highlights safety...we don't get to see enough of them