[Sanidhya mukund]

Thank you for the not only quick, but also comprehensive review! Was eagerly waiting for it.
One major point that could be a deal breaker is the boot space with all seats in place. What especially disappoints me is that Renault was able to provide the same, if not more boot space in the sub 4 metre Triber, while Tata had an entire 4.6 metres to play with.
Also noticed that the headrests of the third row are dangerously close to the rear windshield. In fact, when the tailgate is open, it almost seems like the headrests are protruding out of the body work! Attaching screenshots from the Cartoq review:





Reminds me of this 9 year old video that is still highly relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4nM...ature=youtu.be

[rbg]

Originally Posted by Sanidhya mukund

Thank you for the not only quick, but also comprehensive review! Was eagerly waiting for it.
One major point that could be a deal breaker is the boot space with all seats in place. What especially disappoints me is that Renault was able to provide the same, if not more boot space in the sub 4 metre Triber, while Tata had an entire 4.6 metres to play with.
Also noticed that the headrests of the third row are dangerously close to the rear windshield. In fact, when the tailgate is open, it almost seems like the headrests are protruding out of the body work! Attaching screenshots from the Cartoq review:

Attachment 2116399

Attachment 2116400

Reminds me of this 9 year old video that is still highly relevant:

https://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=a4nM...ature=Youtu.be

Thanks for the links.
This lack of crumple space between boot lid and 3rd row is actually causing me immense doubts and some anxiety. I didn't realise it was so close to the rear lid.
Dilemma over 7 seater suv and 3rd row rear impact safety.

Went through all the video reviews available till 3 pm, majority of the folks gave above average recommendations.
Is there a possibility of fitting a rear bull guard at the rear similar to what we do at the front?

Thanks again.

[Sanidhya mukund]

Originally Posted by rbg

Thanks for the links.
This lack of crumple space between boot lid and 3rd row is actually causing me immense doubts and some anxiety. I didn't realise it was so close to the rear lid.
Dilemma over 7 seater suv and 3rd row rear impact safety.

Went through all the video reviews available till 3 pm, majority of the folks gave above average recommendations.
Is there a possibility of fitting a rear bull guard at the rear similar to what we do at the front?

Thanks again.

Hello rbg,

When you say “bull guard”, I am assuming you are talking about this thing:



Many people get this fitted to avoid scratches from bikes, but if you ask me, it is absolutely useless. It doesn’t add to the safety at all, it gets bent very easily. It is just a tubular piece of metal, and is much weaker when compared to the chassis of the car. In fact it does more harm than good, because at the front, it messes up the functioning of the crumple zones, causes trouble with airbag deployment and makes the car lethal for pedestrians.
At the rear, the only purpose it can serve is that it protects your rear bumper from minor scratches from minor brushes in bumper to bumper traffic, that’s all.
But the most important thing to note is that it is ILLEGAL to fit a bull guard at all.

Now regarding your concern for safety, almost all 7 seater cars have this issue. Even in the Innova, there is merely a few inches between the head of the third row passenger and the rear windshield. But on the new Safari, it almost seems as if the headrest is nearly touching the rear windshield.
This problem also exists in some hatchbacks. If you really need a 7 seater, then this is something you would have to overlook. In case 7 seats isn’t an absolute requirement and this bothers you, I would suggest you to look at the Harrier instead. It’s pretty much the same car after all.
But in case you really must get a 7 seater, I would suggest you to get an Innova Crysta. It has 300 litres of boot space with all seats in place, which is more than thrice of what the Safari manages!

[shortbread]

Originally Posted by Sanidhya mukund

Reminds me of this 9 year old video that is still highly relevant:

https://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=a4nM...ature=Youtu.be

No it is not relevant because it is a very old video of a car that was designed back in the 90s has been discontinued since 2005! That is old, is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by rbg

Thanks for the links
This lack of crumple space between boot lid and 3rd row is actually causing me immense doubts and some anxiety. I didn't realise it was so close to the rear lid.
Dilemma over 7 seater suv and 3rd row rear impact safety.

Originally Posted by Sanidhya mukund

Hello rbg,



Now regarding your concern for safety, almost all 7 seater cars have this issue. Even in the Innova, there is merely a few inches between the head of the third row passenger and the rear windshield. But on the new Safari, it almost seems as if the headrest is nearly touching the rear windshield.

Attachment 2116506

Since 2008 NCAP started its first ever round of rear impact testing. If people wondered why modern tailgates are so heavy and rely on two struts this is why!

[Sanidhya mukund]

Originally Posted by shortbread

No it is not relevant because it is a very old video of a car that was designed back in the 90s has been discontinued since 2005! That is old, is irrelevant.

Since 2008 NCAP started its first ever round of rear impact testing. If people wondered why modern tailgates are so heavy and rely on two struts this is why!

Just because the video is of an old car, doesn’t mean that it is irrelevant. The fact that the rear windshield is just a few inches away from the head of a third row passenger in a 3 row car hasn’t changed and even today, if a truck hits a 3 row car from the rear, the result will be the same as it would have been 20 years back.

The weight of the tailgate has absolutely nothing to do with safety in a rear ended collision. Do you actually think a 3-5 inch thick metal panel will be able to do anything in case a 10 tonne plus truck dashes into it from behind?
If a car is safer in a rear end impact, it is only because of the rear crumple zones built into the monocoque.
Also, as far as I know, cars have had two gas struts to hold the tailgate ever since the 1980s. In fact, the ‘irrelevant’ old car in question also seems to have two gas struts to hold the tailgate up.

Image source: Google images.

[shortbread]

Originally Posted by Sanidhya mukund

Just because the video is of an old car, doesn’t mean that it is irrelevant. The fact that the rear windshield is just a few inches away from the head of a third row passenger in a 3 row car hasn’t changed and even today, if a truck hits a 3 row car from the rear, the result will be the same as it would have been 20 years back.

Using your theory, how do cars survive side impacts without the said crumple zone?! For eg. the Innova base variants have no curtain airbags, so what should one do? One's head is still a few inches away from the window!

At least in modern third rows, behind your head is a whiplash tested head rest and one is secured using a three point seat belt.

Because apart from a UFO, it's hard to think of a vehicle with 360 degree crumple zones!

[Sanidhya mukund]

Originally Posted by shortbread

Using your theory, how do cars survive side impacts without the said crumple zone?! For eg. the Innova base variants have no curtain airbags, so what should one do? One's head is still a few inches away from the window!

At least in modern third rows, behind your head is a whiplash tested head rest and one is secured using a three point seat belt.

Because apart from a UFO, it's hard to think of a vehicle with 360 degree crumple zones!

Let’s not try to drag this thread so far from the topic. It is possible to argue endlessly over this, and yet we might not agree with each other. Let’s agree to disagree.

Now, this isn’t my theory. It is a fact that panels on a cars body have nothing to do with safety. The safety is provided by the Body in White (BIW) or the monocoque that is the structure of the car.

Scenarios 1: A car gets hit either in the rear or the side by another car of similar height:

In this case, the other cars front bumper will come in contact with the cars rear crumple zones. This will not lead to any serious injuries. If the impact is from the side, the impact will be directly on the doors, Here, the SIDE IMPACT BEAMS and the strong B pillar will save the passengers. If the car has side airbags, then added bonus, as the passengers head doesn’t come into contact with the side windows.

Scenario 2: A 15 tonne truck travelling at 40 KM/H strikes a passenger car either from the side or the rear:

Here, since the heavy vehicle is much taller, it directly comes into contact with the rear windshield/ tailgate in case of a rear end collision, which is just inches away from the third row occupants head.
In case of a side impact, side airbags (if present) will deploy, again protecting the passengers. In case there are no side airbags, the passengers are likely to suffer serious injuries.

[07CR]

Originally Posted by PrasannaDhana

Exactly, my Storme gets me 600 km to a full tank. I think that's more than enough range.

IMO it should have been better. Even a Ecosport gets a 52 litre fuel tank. Atleast a 60 litre one?

Originally Posted by shortbread

Using your theory, how do cars survive side impacts without the said crumple zone?! For eg. the Innova base variants have no curtain airbags, so what should one do? One's head is still a few inches away from the window!

I believe, an impact from rear end is more likely, compared to impacts from sides. That's why the headrests being just a few millimeters away from the glass is a worry and a genuine concern.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by ebonho

To me they look like identical twins dressed in slightly different clothes.

Unless you mean all cars are identical twins as they have body on top of 4 tyres, i dont see any similarity, not one crease. While XUV500 may be Mahindra’s best effort at styling, its got absolutely nothing on the Safari.

Originally Posted by Sanidhya mukund

Scenario 2: A 15 tonne truck travelling at 40 KM/H strikes a passenger car either from the side or the rear:

So if your argument is that truck is going to go over the crumple zone and hit the rear door or in other words, there is nothing between the rear passengers and the truck except the door, a heavier door should be safer no? How is Innova or any other car is more safer given its got a lighter door and the truck is going to miss its crumple zone?

I also want to know which crash test organisation tests for rear end collisions with trucks and then awards ratings accordingly.

[Sanidhya mukund]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

So if your argument is that truck is going to go over the crumple zone and hit the rear door or in other words, there is nothing between the rear passengers and the truck except the door, a heavier door should be safer no? How is Innova or any other car is more safer given its got a lighter door and the truck is going to miss its crumple zone?

I also want to know which crash test organisation tests for rear end collisions with trucks and then awards ratings accordingly.

This discussion is going too far from the topic.
In my original post about this, I had simply mentioned that I am concerned about the fact that the third row headrests are a bit too close to the rear windshield. I was simply stating a fact.

Now coming to the tailgate- A 15 tonne truck travelling at 40 KM/H will have immense momentum, and will be able to obliterate the tailgate irrespective of the fact that it is heavy or light.
The point that I made about the Innova was that since the boot is larger, the distance between the third row headrests and the rear windshield is greater, so in case a lorry directly hits it from behind and the windshield shatters, then there will be lesser chance of direct contact between the lorry’s front end and the headrests.
In the Safari, the headrests are so close to the windshield that if the windshield gets shattered, then the next direct point of contact with the lorry will be the rear headrests, just like what happened in the video I had attached.
This is what I had said, “ Now regarding your concern for safety, almost all 7 seater cars have this issue.
Even in the Innova, there is merely a few inches between the head of the third row passenger and the rear windshield. But on the new Safari, it almost seems as if the headrest is nearly touching the rear windshield. ”

As you can see, I never mentioned about any crash test organisation certifying cars in this manner. Neither did I say that the Innova is absolutely safe.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by Sanidhya mukund

This discussion is going too far from the topic.
In my original post about this, I had simply mentioned that I am concerned about the fact that the third row headrests are a bit too close to the rear windshield. I was simply stating a fact.

The same is true of almost all 7 seaters, even one's much bigger than Safari. Here's LandRover Discovery
https://www.autocar.co.uk/sites/auto...?itok=LXpyjAtl

Originally Posted by Sanidhya mukund

Now coming to the tailgate- A 15 tonne truck travelling at 40 KM/H will have immense momentum, and will be able to obliterate the tailgate irrespective of the fact that it is heavy or light.

All supercars have very low roof height so much so that your head is almost touching the ceiling. What if a massive rock was to fall on the roof? Just stating a fact.

Also, if this was such an important safety use case, why is this not a part of the standard crash safety test suite?

Originally Posted by Sanidhya mukund

The point that I made about the Innova was that since the boot is larger, the distance between the third row headrests and the rear windshield is greater, so in case a lorry directly hits it from behind and the windshield shatters, then there will be lesser chance of direct contact between the lorry’s front end and the headrests.

One hand you say that the said lorry is going to obliterate the rear door irrespective of its thickness/strength and then you also say that couple more inches would be safer. I dont know really know how you can say that by just looking at pictures? The headrests are not built of steel, they are padded and they are designed for whiplash meaning they are designed to absorb any impact if it was to occur.

The rest of your post is more of the same.

[Sanidhya mukund]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

The same is true of almost all 7 seaters, even one's much bigger than Safari. Here's LandRover Discovery
https://www.autocar.co.uk/sites/auto...?itok=LXpyjAtl

That’s exactly what I said, “Almost all 7 seater cars have this issue.”

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

All supercars have very low roof height so much so that your head is almost touching the ceiling. What if a massive rock was to fall on the roof? Just stating a fact.

Also, if this was such an important safety use case, why is this not a part of the standard crash safety test suite?

That’s not a reasonable crash scenario. A lorry rear ending a car? Happens all the time.
It may not be part of standard crash testing as of now, but it is definitely a topic many people are wondering about.


https://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/...20110427-1dxau

https://www.torque.com.sg/advice/saf...cupants-crash/


https://www.autoevolution.com/news/3...ow-101525.html

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

One hand you say that the said lorry is going to obliterate the rear door irrespective of its thickness/strength and then you also say that couple more inches would be safer. I dont know really know how you can say that by just looking at pictures? The headrests are not built of steel, they are padded and they are designed for whiplash meaning they are designed to absorb any impact if it was to occur.

The rest of your post is more of the same.

I have already explained my point in detail, but you seem to have missed the same. To understand what I mean to say, please go through the links I have attached in this post. As I said earlier, there’s no point discussing this, we are not likely to agree on this, so let’s agree to disagree. This is going too far from the topic of discussion here.

[Sanjunair5]

For all the people discussing the rear impact use case, the frontal and frontal offset collisions are more likely to happen and more dangerous. The dangers of a rear end collision are far less and far less dangerous. It is the fear of a hammer falling on the back of our head that causes that eerie uncomfortable feeling.

In case of a collision, everything else considered equal, the net energy transferred is a factor of the net change in speed. Energy transferred is what causes the damage. Consider a head on collision between two identical vehicles travelling in the opposite direction at 40KMPH. The net energy transferred is 40 + 40 = 80X (X considered as a constant for comparison purposes). The same in case of a vehicle travelling at 40KMPH rear ending an identical stationary vehicle is 40-0=40X. And in the case of a vehicle doing 50KMPH rear ending an identical vehicle doing 40KMPH it is 50-40=10X.

But, I am not denying that a rear end collision is a danger and that manufacturers should not be considering it.

[ebonho]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

The headrests are not built of steel, they are padded and they are designed for whiplash meaning they are designed to absorb any impact if it was to occur.

Headrests are designed to stabilize the head and prevent whiplash of the head moving suddenly and violently in a backward direction.

Not to protect in any way the head from a vehicle smashing in from behind with the impact in the forward direction.

This was the second time I read about these headrests as an argument for a barrier protector, so having actually studied whiplash among other things professionally, thought I'd provide a bit of perspective.

Cheers, Doc

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by ebonho

Headrests are designed to stabilize the head and prevent whiplash of the head moving suddenly and violently in a backward direction.

Not to protect in any way the head from a vehicle smashing in from behind with the impact in the forward direction.

You are missing the context. Since all 7 seaters are unsafe, as per to the OP, owing to the head being too close to the rear windscreen in the last bench, the impact even if were to happen wont be straight to the head, the headrests will be in the way as well. They arent designed for rear impact apart from whiplash so its incidental, not intentional.