[racer_ash]

Originally Posted by bhpfaninblr

Do not want this to get into a Suzuki vs. Ford thread. Just wanted to make the point that while Japanese/Korean manufacturers are maligned, they make good safe cars as well and have shown serious commitment to safety standards in cars in India.

That's the irony of the situation. Serious commitment to safety standards in India. As if they existed. I am sure the current band of autorickshaws too will pass the current safety standards in India. And to your point. If you see across the various crash test threads, all manufacturers, irrespective of their caste and creed are maligned/appreciated for their respective performances in safety tests.

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Why weren't they serious when Swift and Alto failed spectaculary?

Agree with you. As discussed umpteen times before, it needs government intervention to make manufacturers fall in line. It is business after all and they don't give a dime about safety standards where none exist.

[H_Dogg72]

I'm quite surprised at this result.
During the first batch of testing the old Figo and polo had A stable structure.
The new Figo is watered down.
And damn, the Toyota Etios got 4 stars even though most of us, including me mocked it for its tinny built.
This is just sad.
Figo with 6 airbags is also just a marketing ploy now.
Very unfortunate.
Right now the safe choices include the VW / Skoda stable and the Toyota stable.
Maruti, well unless made in and for India models are tested you can't assume they'll pass.
Bad on ford especially with the 2 star Mustang rating as well.

[narayans80]

Originally Posted by bhpfaninblr

The 5 models of Suzuki cleared the NCAP tests in India already. So they are already in vogue

The article doesn't mention NCAP at all. The crash testing the article mentions is done Maruti's own facility, which I'd take with a pinch of salt, given the company chairman made sensational statements like this not too long back.

The tests have to be performed by a 3rd party like NCAP or BNVSAP and results be made available publicly for potential customers to decide

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by bhpfaninblr

Maruti's state of the art facility in India for crash testing at a cost of ~1900 Cr. They are genuinely serious about safety in India

Just because they claim to have spent Rs.1900 Crs. on a test facility means that they are genuinely serious about safety in India???

Firstly, lets put things in perspective here. Maruti Suzuki's 2016 annual income was over Rs.58000 Crs. Their net profit was over Rs.4500 Crs.

Even after such a huge income and net profit, the company did not feel the need to even offer airbags or ABS as optional features (forget about mandatory) for all these years. Their top honcho even went to the extent of disparaging the Crash test results and the effectiveness of Airbags and ABS in saving lives.

Secondly, they consciously produced cars for the Indian market which were different in re-inforcement from the same models which were exported. All this only because they did'nt need to adhere to the laws in India, since there were no laws in India, which was due to the fact that MSIL and SIAM lobbied for lax automobile safety laws in India.

Do not want this to get into a Suzuki vs. Ford thread. Just wanted to make the point that while Japanese/Korean manufacturers are maligned, they make good safe cars as well and have shown serious commitment to safety standards in cars in India.

I dont want to make this a Suzuki vs Ford thread either, because Ford has not been stellar in its safety record either, but please do not say that Maruti Suzuki is serious about automobile safety in India. None of their actions to date seem to indicate that.

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by Arjun Reddy

Do we know if the Indian crash test standards are on par with the Global NCAP or the ASEAN NCAP regulations ?

The biggest difference is in the speed. 56 km/h for India as against 64 km/h for most international tests.

That does make a big difference. However, this is still a good start compared to the earlier situation where the idol on the dashboard was the only measurable standard we had.

[ACM]

With ford I would have expected a minimum of 4 stars. The body shell of the new generation figo twins does not seem to have been as well built as in the earlier generation. But that just may be a perception issue.

Yes 3 stars and Airbags is good, but can be better. Ford is known for safety. Infact in the first generation of escorts that they go into India they had bumpers made of a Styrofoam kind of material than made one need to replace them when ever one had a minor impact and the side doors had side impact beams at the cost of the windows going down. The latest Aspire figo seems built to a cost and does not carry on the family tradition that Fords are known for. Decent safety and good road dynamics.

Back to the black days of American fords catching fire due to impact on the rear mounted fuel tank.

[Anand3553]

Originally Posted by arunphilip

If the base variant of a car does not come with airbags as standard, the star rating is immediately set to zero, irrespective of how it actually performs in a crash test.

Apologies in advance for my ignorance. If it is a guaranteed zero, why is the crash test being performed in the first place?

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by Anand3553

Apologies in advance for my ignorance. If it is a guaranteed zero, why is the crash test being performed in the first place?

It's not a guaranteed zero. But yes, most likely result would be a zero. Please see my post above -

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian...ml#post4158690

Why is it done?

To shake up people and systems. I doubt our government and market would have taken notice had it not been for the Global NCAP tests making the headlines.

Global NCAP might have their own commercial interests in mind, god knows. But as a market, we can be thankful for it.

[arunphilip]

Originally Posted by Anand3553

If it is a guaranteed zero, why is the crash test being performed in the first place?

My statement was slightly incorrect, and was clarifed by crazy driver's post quoted below - it depends on whether the dummy's head strikes the steering wheel (i.e. a fatal injury) or misses it.

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Small correction. The car would MOST LIKELY score a zero if airbags are not standard. This is because of a fatal impact on the head in most cases. However, nothing is 'set to zero' and a car can get better ratings IF it manages to avoid a fatal injury to the head with just the seat belt pretensioners.

[Vigkey]

Originally Posted by Anand3553

Apologies in advance for my ignorance. If it is a guaranteed zero, why is the crash test being performed in the first place?

Well, it is a guaranteed 0 in terms of rating if the car has 0 airbags.

But there are other factors measured as well - like Adult Occupant protection, Child protection, Structural Integrity of the car, Body shell stability and capability of withstanding any further loading.

This will give a fairly good idea of the safety of the car and how the car might fare if it has supplementary restraint systems like Airbags and other safety features like ABS, ESC, etc. That is how the first GNCAP test of Polo gave good confidence to buyers - in spite of the 0 star rating, the car had a stable body shell and structural integrity was intact.

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

To shake up people and systems. I doubt our government and market would have taken notice had it not been for the Global NCAP tests making the headlines.

Global NCAP might have their own commercial interests in mind, god knows. But as a market, we can be thankful for it.

And it worked, right? Toyota and VW gave dual airbags as default in all models and variants. Many other manufacturers followed suit. Even Maruti which defended its stand with respect to airbags are now giving it as default in all NEXA cars and even in some Maruti offerings.

I am sure GNCAP has their own interests. With India having no official and impartial crash testing facilities, many manufacturers might approach GNCAP to test their cars so that they can publish the ratings as a marketing strategy - only if the cars clear the test.

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by theredliner

Also, the crash tests in India are set for 56 km/h and are a lot more watered down than Global NCAP's 64 km/h test.

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

The biggest difference is in the speed. 56 km/h for India as against 64 km/h for most international tests.

The current proposal is to test cars at both 56kmph and 64kmph. 56kmph test is mandatory while the 64kmph test is voluntary. Only those cars that pass 64kmph test will be given 5 stars by Bharat NCAP. Even though SIAM is opposed to this, GoI is supporting the proposal.

This is a good proposal imo, as a starting point for future stringent tests. Anyway, the 64kmph Euro NCAP too is not mandatory.

[carmayogi]

Originally Posted by arunphilip

I've not found any specific reference to how the NCAP teams specifically declare a bodyshell as unstable or stable; so any guesses on our part will be driven only by the words used.

Originally Posted by arunphilip

• Does the statement "can withstand further loading" mean it can take a secondary impact, or does it have something to do with the primary impact itself?
• Given that cars with an unstable body shell still receive non-zero star ratings, does it mean that an airbag equipped car without a stable bodyshell is safer than a car without airbags but with a stable bodyshell? (For clarity's sake, "safer than" in this question should be interpreted as an objective "transfers lesser energy into the crash test dummies" instead of a subjective "I'd rather be in car X with no airbags than car Y with airbags").

These may have been answered before, but here I go.

1. A car without airbags = 0 stars regardless
2. Unstable structure means that a) it can't take much more load, if any. Essentially saying that this is the max speed a crash can occur without fatality. b) Unstable also means that there's no prediction as to where the crumpling might happen in higher speed/stress impacts - meaning that the crumple zones have done their entire job and have nothing less to offer in terms of protection.
3. Can withstand additional load is explained above - if it can, it may be survivable at 80 km/h for example.
4. The diagram of the injuries sustained by the dummies are meant to explain which parts of the body are protected best. One might see a car with knee airbags showing green or orange for the lower extremities for example. This should answer the question of stable car without bags vs unstable with bags. One must always look at the image to judge the vulnerable areas for each car.
5. At the end of the day, buy a car WITH airbags and WITH a stable structure! It's up to us to stop buying unsafe cars so that money-crunching companies stop serving us these unsuitable products. We need to help ourselves, ain't no government assistance as of now.
6. We must respect NCAP for the work they do. Although IIHS may have better explanation, it should also be realised that NCAP 5 star from the early 2000's would be a 2 or 3 star now. Their safety ratings have been moving ahead with the times as well.

side note: did anyone notice the loose role of tape flying off the roof of the Ford during the test. Someone must have been nervous for their jobs when reviewing the footage!

[bhpfaninblr]

1900 CR investment is significant and does imply seriouness on safety. From your own #s below, they are spending almost 42% of their net profit for the test facility. Non-seriousness about safety would not have resulted in such a huge amount of investment. Let us give it to them for making substantial investments in safety
On a secondary note, this is not the way balance sheets work. The 1900 CR will be depreciated over several years as it is an investment. So it is not like they moved money from the profits of the year. This is for your knowledge. The money would have been taken from the Free cash on the balance sheet and treated as a depreciating asset

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

Just because they claim to have spent Rs.1900 Crs. on a test facility means that they are genuinely serious about safety in India???

Firstly, lets put things in perspective here. Maruti Suzuki's 2016 annual income was over Rs.58000 Crs. Their net profit was over Rs.4500 Crs.

Agree. I was disappointed as well. 3 stars is fine but the fact that the A-pillar caved in and the body structure was unstable was the key issue for me

Originally Posted by ACM

With ford I would have expected a minimum of 4 stars. The body shell of the new generation figo twins does not seem to have been as well built as in the earlier generation. But that just may be a perception issue.

Agree.
You are right that this is about their own facility certifying the standards. With the new platform, they are using the same metal sheet world-wide as in India cars and that is truly good development

Originally Posted by narayans80

The article doesn't mention NCAP at all. The crash testing the article mentions is done Maruti's own facility, which I'd take with a pinch of salt, given the company chairman made sensational statements like this not too long back.

The tests have to be performed by a 3rd party like NCAP or BNVSAP and results be made available publicly for potential customers to decide

Yes, the new Figo's body structure not being stable is an eye-opener for many of us who blindly trust Ford/Fiat make cars
Toyota Etios got a stable 4 stars and that is a Japanese manufacturer. Not talking American vs. Korean vs. European vs. Japanese here. Just that we have to view objectively and not just by reputation

Originally Posted by H_Dogg72

I'm quite surprised at this result.
During the first batch of testing the old Figo and polo had A stable structure.
The new Figo is watered down.
And damn, the Toyota Etios got 4 stars even though most of us, including me mocked it for its tinny built.
This is just sad.
Figo with 6 airbags is also just a marketing ploy now.
Very unfortunate.

Agree that govt regulation will make for safer cars. What better way than regulation to ensure safety - because unsafe cars cannot be sold!
However autorickshaws would not pass the safety standards at 56 km/hour in India. That example might have been inappropriate

Originally Posted by racer_ash

That's the irony of the situation. Serious commitment to safety standards in India. As if they existed. I am sure the current band of autorickshaws too will pass the current safety standards in India. And to your point. If you see across the various crash test threads, all manufacturers, irrespective of their caste and creed are maligned/appreciated for their respective performances in safety tests.



Agree with you. As discussed umpteen times before, it needs government intervention to make manufacturers fall in line. It is business after all and they don't give a dime about safety standards where none exist.

Agree. Govt regulation will lead the move to safer cars in India. Many models like Omni, Honda Mobilio, Chevrolet Enjoy could be discontinued in cases where the cost of making a safer car > continuing with the sales of the car.
Like I said it was not about Ford vs. Suzuki. I was saying that let us not keep Ford on a pedestal just because they are non Japan/non Korea brand. Ford and other manufacturers need to do a lot to make safer cars in India and just not rely on their reputation

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Why weren't they serious when Swift and Alto failed spectaculary?

Simple. It's becoming a rule soon, and they can't sell their cars without the safety aspect meeting the requirements. It is just good business sense to make the models compliant to the norms now. They still sell the Omni, for all their seriousness.

That said, they claim that their cars have been upgraded to meet the required norms coming as part of the Bharat New Vehicle Assessment program, but have they ever mentioned the build is same as international ones? That is just our assumption. And going by their past, such an assumption can't be made without even an iota of doubt.

I would wait and watch till these models for the Indian market are tested.

Originally Posted by deerhunter

The current proposal is to test cars at both 56kmph and 64kmph. 56kmph test is mandatory while the 64kmph test is voluntary. Only those cars that pass 64kmph test will be given 5 stars by Bharat NCAP. Even though SIAM is opposed to this, GoI is supporting the proposal.

This is a good proposal imo, as a starting point for future stringent tests. Anyway, the 64kmph Euro NCAP too is not mandatory.

[jetti]

Originally Posted by bhpfaninblr

I think the Korean and Japanese manufacturers are mocked at for build quality but they make pretty safe cars

Lets not generalize this. Datsun is Japanese, which doesn't have a great safety record in India. Toyota is Japanese, yet even its lowest offering gets 4 stars cars. Renault is European, yet see the crash test video of the first version of Kwid.

Then you have Suzuki and Hyundai whose offerings fare different from region to region - as in EU vs ASEAN/LATAM.

Cars even from the same manufacturer can fare very different. Lets discuss only cars that have been tested. Other aspects will be

[deerhunter]

Found this comparison of various NCAPs. This is from 2015, some test criteria might have changed.



Source: Link