[DrCar]

Voted for Depends

I buy cars based on the intended use:
- I have WagonR Automatic which is ALWAYS driven in city as it is helpful in manoeuvering high traffic and it is easy to park as well. It doesn't come with any safety features. My wife drives it for hardly 5 kilometers daily to reach her workplace.

- For highways, I always take out my Etios which comes with ABS and airbags and is structurally safe. As a matter of fact my Etios is only taken out during weekend drives and it has already covered more than 50000 kilometers within 4 years since the time we bought our WagonR which has covered only 18000 kilometers till now inspite of it being driven daily.

But now if I want to upgrade to a newer city car, I will definitely look at Tiago as the car is well sorted by now, safe and is fairly reliable and comes with an automatic option (which wasn't available when we bought WagonR). I can even take that car out on highways if needed. So in brief, my next cars will be the one which is safer even if it is driven in city limits only.

[Napalm]

Originally Posted by McLaren Rulez

two cars crashing together when both are travelling at 30kph is equivalent to a car crashing into a fixed barrier at 30kph, not 60kph.

What you have mentioned has no relation to what I have pointed out and is a completely different case. I did NOT mention that two cars hitting each other head-on, both at 30 Kmph is equivalent to one of them hitting a Fixed WALL at 60 Kmph, as mentioned in the video. (There couldn’t have been a better smiley for this. Pun intended. TeamBHP’s smileys too are awesome!)

I have mentioned that it is equivalent to a car hitting another stationary car(not a wall) at 60Kmph, which is what the GNCAP tests are trying to do.

Please note the difference between a fixed WALL barrier and a stationary/fixed structure that is equivalent to a stationary car’s front body structure. These GNCAP tests are standard tests that are also followed by every other NCAP in the world. This is the reason I have recommended to watch the full videos of GNCAP tests on Car&Bike YouTube channel. They explain these things in detail. There is no sentiment here, these are just cold hard facts based on physics. Hope this clarifies.

[shreyascashyap]

Originally Posted by shreyascashyap

I had booked a Kia Seltos last week. Once the crash test review came out, I cancelled my booking. I won't settle for anything that isn't 4 star or better.

In continuation with this, just booked a Mahindra XUV300 W8(O) variant my first car purchase!

[Quinn]

If you look at some of the good options out there in Hatchbacks that have confusing safety parameters, I hope members will help clear confusion on the following cars:

Baleno/swift - Great cars in terms of everything but highway worthy for safety? I would not advocate anything from MSIL except S-Cross, Brezza, and Ertiga.

I20 - Classy in terms of refinement and features - I would say its usable in highways considering its build and if driver is mindful of highway safety, probably its passable. I am speaking about new i20 here which was reviewed by BHPians and one can probably get an idea on its build.

Jazz - Jazz too is passable I think as its reliable with good build.

Figo/Freestyle - This is confusing to me as its build does not feel similar to previous generation. Hope members clear this as this is a great car.

Summing up these, I feel we should get more concrete idea about I20, Jazz, and Figo/Freestyle (probably same goes to their sedan versions too but I am talking about hatchbacks as most people to tend to buy these).

[vDragon3]

All the developed countries have excellent safety ratings as standard. It is high time Indian government realises that safety is not a choice for manufacturers to reduce cost and increase mileage. Just a wish as there would be more powerful people and companies to delay such enforcements just to protect their market share.

[McLaren Rulez]

Okay, let's do this properly.

Originally Posted by Napalm

What you have mentioned has no relation to what I have pointed out and is a completely different case.

A crash into a rigid barrier clarifies the physics and helps you understand why crashing a car into a barrier is not the same as a car crashing into another car. As you will see, this is a much closer approximation to what happens in an NCAP test than your assumptions. Let's move on to the actual NCAP tests. Your incorrect assumption is this

Originally Posted by Napalm

In these crash-test videos, if you see the structure that the test-cars are crashed into, they are designed to simulate another car hitting the test-car head-on. Those structures have front part that resembles the hood/crumple-zone of other cars.

This is not true. The deformable part of the barrier used in Euro NCAP tests is only 54cm deep and is much stiffer than the front of a car. The barrier used in GNCAP should be similar or the same but I haven't found its exact specifications. Hence, the barrier is far closer to a rigid barrier than the front of another identical car as you claim. Now, because the barrier is not completely rigid, it does take some of the energy of the collision away. Here is a link to a paper that analyzes Euro NCAP crash tests and quantifies precisely how much energy the barrier takes https://www.researchgate.net/publica...t_Video_Images.

Quoting from that paper (page 5)

The test at 64 km/h and 40% frontal offset corresponds to a car to car collision with each one travelling at 55 km/h and with 50% frontal offset. The difference in speed (64 to 55) is due to the deceleration caused by the deformable barrier.

In other words, this statement you made (and put in bold font for good measure) is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Napalm

GNCAP frontal-offset crash-tests are carried out at 63Kmph because: When your car hits another car head-on in an accident (god-forbid), the impact‘s effective speed/velocity is :
Your car’s speed + Other car’s speed.

Even in city, if you are driving at 30Kmph and hit another car travelling at 30Kmph, (both of which are very normal city speeds), these crash ratings matter. 30+30 = 60Kmph

The NCAP tests are equivalent to two cars with a closing speed of 110kph assuming 50% overlap, not 64kph.

This does not take anything away from the fact that safety is important, even at city speeds. However, it is important to base such an argument on facts.

[saikarthik]

Originally Posted by vDragon3

All the developed countries have excellent safety ratings as standard. It is high time Indian government realises that safety is not a choice for manufacturers to reduce cost and increase mileage. Just a wish as there would be more powerful people and companies to delay such enforcements just to protect their market share.

A good NCAP ratings for safety is not mandated by the governments to sell in Europe, and the basic safety is governed by the regulations themselves like for example, ESP is mandatory to sell a vehicle but not 3 stars. But the market in Europe is matured(people's priority and mindset) and if a company needs to sell its brand in developed country it needs to be safe because people are ready to spend a bit more for safer car.

But, I get your point. India usually follows Europe in regulations and implementation timeline lags too much. But we are catching up. In recent years, the government started enforcing a lot of changes in regulations(making Airbags, ABS, RPAS, speed limiter (CVs), speed limit warning, seat belt reminders mandatory) and keeping the OEMs busy.

Tragically, I am aware about few European companies which have planned for lower NCAP design targets for their future programs that their current platforms due to competition in sales figures. But be aware that undefined/reduced safety design target doesn't mean that it will get 0 stars, but it implies that the company is focusing on cost saving than safety.

[VaidhiR]

Originally Posted by vDragon3

All the developed countries have excellent safety ratings as standard. It is high time Indian government realises that safety is not a choice for manufacturers to reduce cost and increase mileage. Just a wish as there would be more powerful people and companies to delay such enforcements just to protect their market share.

I am sorry but I disagree wholeheartedly with your post.

A good measure of the safety regulation requirement is the car ownership density ie. no. of cars per 1000 inhabitants. Take Germany for example. The country has 82m population and has a density of 570 cars per 1000 population. Take USA. It has about 320m population and 880 cars per 1000 population. Australia? 25m population and 730 cars per 1000 people. See the average?

India? 1.36b and 28 cars per 1000 population.

Motorbike ownership? 47% of Indian households have a motorbike compared to 16% in Germany and 14% in USA. Translated, that means 650m households have some form of two wheeler mobility in India, compared to 13.2m households in Germany and 45m households in USA.

- 2014 statistic.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...le-by-country/

To put that into perspective.

- Total population of 27 member states of European Union is 740m.

- If every living person inside the mainland USA has two motorbikes each (New borns to old grandpas), we would still have 10m more motorcycles left.

We dont need safer cars. We need a safer form of mobility.

Not two wheelers. But four wheelers. People using two wheelers must move to four wheelers to a point that the density of car ownership rivals that of a developed nation. Until then, there is no point talking about safer cars that rivals that of a developed nation because it just wont make sense.

Originally Posted by saikarthik

Tragically, I am aware about few European companies which have planned for lower NCAP design targets for their future programs that their current platforms due to competition in sales figures.

Do you have a proof of this?

[saikarthik]

Originally Posted by VaidhiR

Do you have a proof of this?

I know the information first hand. But can't put anything other than that in public fora due to obvious reason of profesional responsibility.

I can assure you that, a few good people and myself did our part to highlight it to concerned people..

[VaidhiR]

Originally Posted by saikarthik

I know the information first hand. But can't put anything other than that in public fora due to obvious reason of profesional responsibility.

I can assure you that, a few good people and myself did our part to influence against it to the decision making level.

Not to be pedantic, but evaluating active and passive safety for various protocols (rating and homologation) around the world is my job now and has been so for 8 years now. And I have never heard of anything even close to that.

The 2022 edition of the EU-NCAP is being made more stringent. The US-NCAP is going to be made more stringent. Consultations are going on to prepone it from 2026 to 2024. The C-NCAP is undergoing an yearly transformation and at its current pace of evolution, it will rival (if not better) EU-NCAP within a decade. The J-NCAP and K-NCAP are stringent as it is and there are major revisions coming up within the next two years.

And because Europe is the main focus, I say this. Europe's vision is to reduce road deaths to almost zero by 2050.

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_.../what-we-do_en

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/media...istics-2019_en

They are going to focus on technology, traffic control, driving education, infrastructure and safer cars (active and passive safety). Their first phase of evaluation ends in 2030 where they intend on reducing road deaths by half. So dont mistake me when I say I dont believe that European OEMs are trying to reduce their NCAP evaluation targets. This was not their target, is not their target, nor will it be their target.

The idea is to provide people with a safe form of mobility. People need to move around safely first and this is not possible in a two wheeler. For all intents and purposes, standalone, a soap box car is still safer than a two wheeler and this is what companies in India need to focus on.

Do we want a safety rating? Yes.
But do we need it right now? No.
What do we need right now? As I said earlier, Safer mobility.

BTW, did you mean an European OEM selling in India? Or Europe? Because if its the first one, I am not the right person to comment on that right now. One of my future projects will focus on that. But until then, I cant say anything.

[saikarthik]

Originally Posted by VaidhiR

The 2022 edition of the EU-NCAP is being made more stringent. The US-NCAP is going to be made more stringent. Consultations are going on to prepone it from 2026 to 2024. The C-NCAP is undergoing an yearly transformation and at its current pace of evolution, it will rival (if not better) EU-NCAP within a decade. The J-NCAP and K-NCAP are stringent as it is and there are major revisions coming up within the next two years.

They are going to focus on technology, traffic control, driving education, infrastructure and safer cars (active and passive safety). Their first phase of evaluation ends in 2030 where they intend on reducing road deaths by half. So dont mistake me when I say I dont believe that European OEMs are trying to reduce their NCAP evaluation targets. This was not their target, is not their target, nor will it be their target.

BTW, did you mean an European OEM selling in India? Or Europe? Because if its the first one, I am not the right person to comment on that right now. One of my future projects will focus on that. But until then, I cant say anything.

Nice to get to know and discuss with fellow professional from similar field. I worked in similar profile for some time (not as long as you in active and passive safety), but was actively involved and interested in homologation requirements analysis and study from past few years.

Putting my points below for corresponding paragraph numbers in the quote above.

1. Yes, agreed that the ENCAP road map is quite good and also regulations are coming into force with slight delay for both new types and new vehicles following the ENCAP safety assist and VRU scenarios. Also I recollect Asean NCAP has different scoring with additional points(like bonus) for some really practical scenarios which I haven't seen in ENCAP ( example -rear camera covering the IRVM field of view for a use case where the luggage blocks IRVM view) much more relevant use case in developing countries.

2. On the regulatory framework and working parties they have good targets and so many companies are pledging towards the vision. But it doesn't mean 100% of the companies are going to be forerunners due to some reasons related to their financial performance and priority.
I will quote an analogy - Same was with emission regulations. Done in good sense and most companies compiled, some driven by vision and set benchmarks but still we saw Dieselgate.

3. Global product

[ramnaresh_2000]

Originally Posted by ramnaresh_2000

I really feel surprised and sorry for the people who think 3* or below rated cars are fine for city driving. Please bear in mind that city accidents are also fatal and life threating.

Imagine a drunk person ramming his BMW to the 0 rated car at a speed within city limits. The drunkard would come out of the car in scratch less condition, where as the person driving city beater car may get injured or may even break a bone.

Quoting myself from my previous post to give recent example of an accident which happened in Tamilnadu just today. Please watch from 0:10 second mark.

https://youtu.be/zdeXX2FR71c

These are the drunkards I was talking about. This happened within city limits and looks like a colony, imagine this car falling on a 0 rated car.

For those who all think 0 star rated vehicles are fine for city driving as daily beater, please think again.

Also below is the video of drunk son of AP minister ramming his Mercedes to metro pillar. Even 5* rated cars are not life savers if you drive like a maniac.

https://youtu.be/rca9TBJ4yqw

[aniksanwal]

I have always, since the time I got involved in the decision making, had a bias towards safer cars, and it has been the first filter to shortlist cars ever since.
Bought a skoda in 2011 because it felt like a tank in the pool of Swifts, i20s and the likes. And the only available benchmark of the time was 'feel'. With the crash test reports now being readily available for quite a lot of cars in the market, I'd never even consider a car with crash rating of less than 4.
Quite a coincidence that my car lineup after Skoda, City'11-Altis'15-Amaze'18, have all scored 4 stars. In India, getting 5 stars in a chocolate is easier than with cars.

[Napalm]

Originally Posted by McLaren Rulez

Let's move on to the actual NCAP tests. Your incorrect assumption is this

Below statement of mine was not incorrect.
"In these crash-test videos, if you see the structure that the test-cars are crashed into, they are designed to simulate another car hitting the test-car head-on. Those structures have front part that resembles the hood/crumple-zone of other cars."

ODB (Offset Deformable Barrier) :

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

Quote from http://www.globalncap.org/trl-award/ : "The aim was to replicate the modes of energy absorption of real world car-to-car crashes at an impact speed of 60 km/h or higher. ... The project confirmed that a 40% offset deformable barrier (ODB) gave a very good reproduction of car to car impacts."

The ODB was indeed developed to better replicate the car-to-car crashes.

Quote from http://www.globalncap.org/crashing-c...l-life-savers/ : "the barrier was faced with a honeycomb layer to represent the soft easily deformable structure of the impacted vehicle."

So, the honeycomb part of the ODB does indeed resemble the hood/crumple-zone of the impacted vehicle.

Originally Posted by McLaren Rulez

Hence, the barrier is far closer to a rigid barrier than the front of another identical car as you claim.

I stand corrected with the data that you have provided. The actual rigid barrier behind the honeycomb part of the ODB, does not exactly mimic the stronger parts(engine & cabin-body-shell) of the impacted vehicle correctly and is much stronger than them. Many thanks for pointing this out. But please do note that I did not mention crashes between "identical" cars since that is variable. Example : A Nexon/Seltos could get hit by an alto as well as a Fortuner. It is also not clear if the rigid part of ODB is different for every vehicle's test.

Originally Posted by McLaren Rulez

In other words, this statement you made (and put in bold font for good measure) is incorrect. ... The NCAP tests are equivalent to two cars with a closing speed of 110kph assuming 50% overlap, not 64kph.

Yes, I stand corrected here. The highly rigid nature of the fixed part of the ODB does increase the effective impact-speed of both cars to 55 Kph for 50% overlap. Although GNCAP is done at 40% overlap, so 50 Kph is the more accurate number.

There is not much clear information on the web about which one is correct. Like Autocar says here https://www.autocarindia.com/car-new...sh-test-410355 : "A front offset crash test is designed to simulate a head-on collision between two cars. In the Global NCAP test, the car is driven at 64kph and with 40 percent overlap into a deformable barrier which is the equivalent of a crash between two cars of the same weight, both moving at 50kph."

Originally Posted by McLaren Rulez

This does not take anything away from the fact that safety is important, even at city speeds.

Yes. Because a car travelling at 30Kph in city may get hit by another car travelling at 60Kph or higher. We also need to consider side impact.

[ayankm]

Voted for 5 stars, although I already have a 5 star safety rated car.
I think the poll would have made more sense if it had tracked the safety rating of your present car.
Nonetheless, I feel the way the poll has been posted on FB is grossly misleading and undermines the subject of security greatly.
Tbhp as a forum should encourage people to look into safety rating of a car rather than saying that anything is safer when compared to a 2-wheeler!