[ron178]

Originally Posted by ron178

Can anyone identify the model at the bottom left?

Originally Posted by volkman10

Honda Jazz ?... when it has been phased out in all markets, except India, and is doing triple digit numbers in monthly sales in India

Looks like they might've tested the Honda Old City too, which indicates a high probability of it being a sponsored test because it's otherwise rare to see two models from the same manufacturer in the same round unless they're very popular.

[Venkatesh]

Originally Posted by ron178

Not 100% sure but the new Global NCAP Safer Cars for India results could be published today.

They might include the Renault Kiger (likely voluntary), Kia Carens (likely voluntary) and the Honda Jazz (not sure whether voluntary or not).

Global NCAP to release crash tested results of some cars, Jazz/City, Magnite, i20?







Link

[Leoshashi]

The white car looks like Old 4th Gen City(going by rear alloys), while the car in between looks like Nissan Magnite. No idea about the 3rd Red car though(Amaze perhaps?).

[Venkatesh]

Global NCAP crash tests reach half century in India.



Four cars are included in this latest phase of the Safer Cars For India campaign, the Nissan Magnite, Renault Kiger, Honda Jazz & the Honda City (4th Gen).

Link (The Kiger, Magnite, 4th gen City and Jazz all have scored 4 stars in Global NCAP)

[Venkatesh]

Some Indian manufacturers have shown significant safety progress, but it’s disappointing to see global brands fall short in India whilst exceeding safety requirements in other global markets.



Link

[Turbokick]

I am bit confused about the overall output of the crash test results by GNCAP for Honda City.

Honda Mobilio gets 3* (9.85 out of 17 for Adult protection) has got the bodyshell integrity stable while Honda City gets 4* (12.03 out of 17 for Adult protection) has got the body shell integrity unstable (after the crash test). I understand the fact that Mobilio could have scored better had there been SBR as standard. It also loses out on 4 channel ABS & ISOFIX mounts (gets reflected in child protection scores) which are available in Honda City.

My question here is, which is a safer car in layman's terms? City gets better marks while Mobilio performs better as per the bodyshell integrity / adult occupant performance explanation is concerned.

[d3mon]

Originally Posted by Venkatesh

Some Indian manufacturers have shown significant safety progress, but it’s disappointing to see global brands fall short in India whilst exceeding safety requirements in other global markets.


Link

The infographic is a bit misleading. Manufacturers like VW did get a 0 star on models that have been updated with airbags, so that the 0 star is not valid any more. The Ford rating was for the old figo, again without airbags, which was discontinued a long time back as well.

Ideally they should have tried to only shame the manufacturers who are still selling 0-star cars today.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by Turbokick

Honda Mobilio gets 3* (9.85 out of 17 for Adult protection) has got the bodyshell integrity stable while Honda City gets 4* (12.03 out of 17 for Adult protection) has got the body shell integrity unstable (after the crash test). I understand the fact that Mobilio could have scored better had there been SBR as standard. It also loses out on 4 channel ABS & ISOFIX mounts (gets reflected in child protection scores) which are available in Honda City.

The Mobilio also had a bad footwell with significant rearward pedal intrusion. 4-channel ABS is only a requirement for five stars but I would definitely not recommend buying a car without ABS. Even with passenger-side SBR the Mobilio would have only been slightly better, still three stars (10.35).

Passenger compartment integrity is only a one-point penalty in the test. It is applied because the car shows symptoms which cause testers lose confidence that the performance is repeatable, i.e., if the test condition was even slightly more demanding (speed/mass/overlap) they fear that there would be a difference in performance. The symptoms are indicated by multiple load paths (door sill, door and roof, depending on the car) showing signs of reaching peak loading. It does not mean that the passenger compartment has collapsed.

The general public opinion is that unstable structure = bad result. This is mostly because many cars with bad results have had unstable structure. While this is partly a cause, it is usually not the major cause of a low star rating unless the passenger compartment collapse was really bad, in which case the A-pillar displacement penalty would also be applied for example presumably with the African Nissan NP300 (not the case with the City/Seltos/Tigor etc).

In many cases of a weak result, though social media uses 'unstable structure' as a good punching bag, the loss of points may be because of other reasons like poor control of pedal movement etc. Eg. if the Maruti Swift had a perfect footwell it could have scored four stars even if it had an unstable structure, but it showed excessive pedal movement and footwell rupture). Similarly with the Kia Seltos, whose main flaw was high pedal movement and tibia protection.

That said, it's hard (not impossible) to get a five star result with an unstable structure or ruptured footwell.

This is because even if dummy readings indicate good knee protection, NCAPs apply two penalties to the knees if they see dangerous structures behind the dashboard that could concentrate forces on the knees, for example ignition barrels, steering column etc (it's another case for manufacturers moving to push start systems).

One point is reduced if there are structures deeper in the dash right behind the dummy knee's actual impact location which could cause knee injury in a more severe crash, and another is reduced if there are dangerous structures in a coverage area 50mm higher or lower than the actual knee impact location (because in case the occupant was larger or smaller than the test dummy, they could have significantly lower protection). That is why you will see the knee impact areas often rated marginal.

Manufacturers are given the opportunity to prove that the penalties are not justified. For this they are required to present a kneemapping verification sled test, where the car's body-in-white is placed on a sled and accelerated using a pulse that exactly represents the full-scale offset crash test. A large dummy with longer legs (95th percentile) to ensure higher penetration and a small female (5th percentile) are placed in the seats and if protection is good for these occupants then the penalties are removed.

Manufacturers typically use a double pretensioner (like the Tata Punch) or a knee airbag (Toyota) to pass this test.

Kneemapping verification test with a 95th percentile dummy.


When the passenger compartment becomes unstable or the footwell ruptures, the manufacturer is not allowed to perform this test. (The body-in-white is effectively a passenger compartment in perfect shape, and if the passenger compartment is geometrically distorted in the offset crash then the sled test cannot effectively replicate the full-scale test). So effectively, you're not only losing one point for unstable structure and one point for footwell rupture, you're also losing two more points for the knees. Hence it is hard to score five stars with an unstable structure or footwell.

It is very rare to see knees that do not face penalties despite the OEM not presenting kneemapping data, eg. African Mazda 2, which had footwell rupture but qualified for five stars anyway (the fact that Mazda asked them not to go ahead with side impact is a different story).



If you're wondering how the Indian Honda Jazz scored less (12.89/16) than the European one (14.6/16) in the frontal offset test despite having a stable structure:

Indian car (no pretensioners):


European car:


(The statement in italics refers to kneemapping verification)

[Turbokick]

Originally Posted by ron178

The general public opinion is that unstable structure = bad result. This is mostly because many cars with bad results have had unstable structure. While this is partly a cause, it is usually not the major cause of a low star rating unless the passenger compartment collapse was really bad, in which case the A-pillar displacement penalty would also be applied for example presumably with the African Nissan NP300 (not the case with the City/Seltos/Tigor etc).

In many cases of a weak result, though social media uses 'unstable structure' as a good punching bag, the loss of points may be because of other reasons like poor control of pedal movement etc.

Thank you for your detailed explanation. Your understanding of NCAP process is amazing.

From what I can comprehend from your explanation, the 'unstable structure' is one grey area that doesn't necessarily point out one particular thing. Especially when there is no definition of how the 'unstable structure' affects the overall safety of the passengers. Hopefully in the future changes in the rating system for gncap they have more illustrative way of positioning the structure stability parameter.

Basically a Kwid (unstable) getting 8.28/17 against a Seltos (unstable) getting 8.03/17 may have a very different interpretation in safety.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by Turbokick

Basically a Kwid (unstable) getting 8.28/17 against a Seltos (unstable) getting 8.03/17 may have a very different interpretation in safety.

If a critical region (head, neck or chest) shows high risk of life-threatening injury the result is limited to one star regardless of the total score. If this assessment is made based on dummy readings directly, all points for the test are lost and the car scores zero stars. If this assessment is based on a combination of dummy readings and other penalties, the result is limited to one star.

The Kwid was capped at one star despite a high total score because based on a combination of dummy readings and structural penalties, it showed a high risk of life-threatening injury to the driver's chest.

The Kia Seltos' issues were mostly related to other non-critical body regions like the feet and tibias (though even the critical regions could have been better: the airbags had insufficient pressure so the heads made unstable contact on them). A crash you could likely survive but perhaps not walk away from. Can't say the same about the Kwid: if your feet are ok but you aren't alive, walking away from the crash is out of the question.

Originally Posted by Turbokick

the 'unstable structure' is one grey area that doesn't necessarily point out one particular thing

You might even say that it's ridiculous to penalise the car for 'possibly' performing worse in a slightly more severe crash but that's exactly what's so good about NCAPs (compared to government/UN crash tests): they always go beyond dummy readings and question 'what if' the crash was more severe or 'what if' the occupant was seated differently etc. It's crazy but it is also what makes these tests foolproof (in government/UN tests you could employ a 'jugaad' solution that is not robust, eg. the old Figo passed the ECE R94 crash test without airbags)

[Turbokick]

Originally Posted by ron178

The Kia Seltos' issues were mostly related to other non-critical body regions like the feet and tibias (though even the critical regions could have been better: the airbags had insufficient pressure so the heads made unstable contact on them). A crash you could likely survive but perhaps not walk away from. Can't say the same about the Kwid: if your feet are ok but you aren't alive, walking away from the crash is out of the question.

Probably an eye opener for manufacturers like Kia (or Maruti as you mentioned about the Swift case) to make small but impactful changes validating a respectable crash test rating. and eventually win the confidence back.

You might even say that it's ridiculous to penalise the car for 'possibly' performing worse in a slightly more severe crash but that's exactly what's so good about NCAPs (compared to government/UN crash tests): they always go beyond dummy readings and question 'what if' the crash was more severe or 'what if' the occupant was seated differently etc. It's crazy but it is also what makes these tests foolproof (in government/UN tests you could employ a 'jugaad' solution that is not robust, eg. the old Figo passed the ECE R94 crash test without airbags)

I would still like to understand more about the Magnite vs Kiger situation where near identical cars ended up having different results. Especially related to structural stability. So is it more like there is some difference in terms of manufacturing process (both are manufactured in the same plant anyways) or something like Magnite falling into 'stable' category and Kiger in 'unstable' category is borderline in reality?

[ron178]

Originally Posted by Turbokick

I would still like to understand more about the Magnite vs Kiger situation where near identical cars ended up having different results. Especially related to structural stability. So is it more like there is some difference in terms of manufacturing process (both are manufactured in the same plant anyways) or something like Magnite falling into 'stable' category and Kiger in 'unstable' category is borderline in reality?

Might be differences in design or production control issues, even the Honda Jazz vs City confuses me. If it is a borderline case of instability (I am given to understand this means one of the load paths is still stable) they usually indicate so in the press release (Ertiga, Seltos, African Yaris) but they didn't in this case.

I might point out that there are multiple cases of this thing happening internationally, in some cases even in 'corporate twins' (i.e., Glanza-Baleno).

Latin NCAP: Renault Captur (B0, I believe, but C(K)aptur owners can clarify): stable passenger compartment

https://youtu.be/_F4DDwGd8ac

Latin NCAP: Nissan Kicks (B0): unstable passenger compartment

https://youtu.be/9EqZba33THs

Euro NCAP: Volkswagen Passat: stable passenger compartment

https://youtu.be/BRwnwnKMflc

Euro NCAP: Skoda Superb: unstable passenger compartment

https://youtu.be/8MPwh9bI-kA

[ron178]

Originally Posted by Turbokick

So is it more like there is some difference in terms of manufacturing process (both are manufactured in the same plant anyways) or something like Magnite falling into 'stable' category and Kiger in 'unstable' category is borderline in reality?

Originally Posted by ron178

I might point out that there are multiple cases of this thing happening internationally

For reference, here are the other cases:

Latin NCAP: 2015 Peugeot 208: stable passenger cell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvlpIWMYC-A

Latin NCAP: 2015 Citroën C3: unstable passenger cell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9AFA2kgr7c

Originally Posted by Autoblog Uruguay

Autoblog: Could you explain why a product like C3 that has a structure that you say is "unstable" achieved four stars in adult protection?

Alejandro Furas: It should be remembered that the four stars achieved by the C3 were "barely." The limit between four and three is 11 points. The C3 surpassed that by only 0.19 more points. Anyway, beyond the mathematical, there is a calculation topic that is very clear. If 80% of the score is the injuries recorded in the occupants, the rest are technical penalties for high geometric movements, and elements that expand the scenario of the analysis. In the case of the structure of the C3, we saw that in any case suffering an impact at a slightly higher speed, or some incident external to the vehicle as the greater weight of it, it would already modify - for the worse - the condition of the structure, and therefore the protection of the occupants. Obviously in the conditions of the impact we made, that deformation of the body reached the limit that allows to avoid pronounced deformations of, for example, pedal steering columns, etc. that cause greater injuries. We could say that it is designed to reach the "limit" of what is a stable structure without compromising column or pedal movements that increase injuries. That is why the report reads that "the structure would not bear greater burdens." When we have tested other vehicles that have a structure that yields beyond the maximum, points were removed (same as the C3) but there were also movements of the steering column pedals etc that brought for example greater compressions to the chest, or tibia impacts with pedals, all this is in protocol. The C3 has not shown these high variations in the position of the steering column or pedals. If we look at the graphics, dummies look relatively well protected by seeing the colors, which mostly range from "good" to "marginal" (see report). However, the same cannot be said of the structure, which would not withstand a greater impact than the evaluated. This is the first time we have seen this at LatinNCAP.

Latin NCAP: 2012 Toyota Etios hatchback: stable passenger cell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC_eHLG-RBI

Latin NCAP: 2019 Toyota Etios sedan: unstable passenger cell

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

[ron178]

Originally Posted by jalex77

This was a personal view and this matter was debated to death here already in another thread. I don't intend to drag it here anymore.

That is perfectly reasonable, and I should apologise for probably going a little overboard with that last post.

But I'm still going to present my side about one statement. You're free to ignore it but I'll go anyway:

Originally Posted by jalex77

"Global NCAP", how they manipulate things like even the ending of test videos to cover up a "5 star" rated car rolling while being tested

Fair enough, they should be more transparent about things like this. They cut it out because consumers cry foul if a car scores well after rolling over (it has happened in Euro NCAP and Latin NCAP a number of times) but it's ironic how things turn out.

The side impact test that Global NCAP currently requires for five stars is an ECE regulation that's been applied in Europe since 1998. In the entire text of the regulation you won't find a clause that the car should not tilt about its roll axis. And dummy readings are unlikely to be affected because there's no dummy on the non-struck side which strikes the ground.

Originally Posted by jalex77

to cover up a "5 star" rated

It's not about 'five stars' as much as not wanting consumers to mix a side impact test with rollover risk.

https://youtu.be/CTBW814j3c4

https://youtu.be/cDaXCPyYWqI

[5252rpm]

Hello ron178,

How has the testing procedures evolved at GNCAP? Just recently, they released the rating for Urban Cruiser and it is different from Maruti Suzuki Vitara Brezza's specifics which was tested in 2018. Does it means that stars granted has validity until it has been in use and should be retested? What's your observation?

If it is due to change in engines (1.3MJD vs 1.5K15B) , should GNCAP be ideally released for each powertrain on offer?