[Vignesh Vee]

Originally Posted by ron178

Please go over the seatbelt reminder assessment protocol and you will see that there are performance criteria for the SBR too (audible and visual warning). Just having SBR and orange/yellow/green heads+necks+chests isn't enough for scoring SBR points, the SBR must meet performance requirements. If the SBR meets performance requirements it will be marked YES regardless of whether the points are included in the evaluation or not.

The 3rd gen Swift does have Audio and Visual warnings. In the base model it's just beep and an icon on the instrument cluster, In top models even the head unit shows warning (Same as Brezza).

Originally Posted by ron178

As much as I would love for this to be the case, it is not true. The Swift's SBR did not meet performance requirements.

In the first report, the adult occupant description reads as follows: The car offers standard SBR for driver but it does not meet the minimum requirements ABS.
They said that only the ABS did not meet their requirements.

In the second report, they purposefully removed the ABS from the description to hide their mistake. Now it says, The car offers standard SBR for driver but it does not meet the minimum requirements.

If SBR didn't meet their requirements, then they should say like this, The car offers standard SBR for driver but it does not meet Global NCAP requirements like on the Ignis's report. Both these statements are different.

I still believe facelift Swift will get 3 stars, because of passenger side SBR.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by Vignesh Vee

The 3rd gen Swift does have Audio and Visual warnings. In the base model it's just beep and an icon on the instrument cluster, In top models even the head unit shows warning (Same as Brezza).

Again, please go through the protocol I have linked in the previous post. It is not enough to have audio and visual warnings - they have to meet performance requirements for frequency of signals for different categories of signals et cetera, as well as steps to make sure the reminder is not so intrusive that it prompts the user to tamper with it. Please open the linked document and read Section 3 before commenting further on this because I do not have an actual detailed understanding of the SBR assessment protocol and the document should be able to help you better with this.

Originally Posted by Vignesh Vee

In the first report, the adult occupant description reads as follows: The car offers standard SBR for driver but it does not meet the minimum requirements ABS.

And, there we go again. Yet another incomplete, ambiguous sentence in the reports. Frustrating, really and yet another case of irresponsibility from whoever is typing these reports. A clear example of this (a point I stated under Goofs in Post #4:

Originally Posted by ron178

• There is an abundance of grammatical errors, including incomplete sentences, in the test reports.

It's hard for someone to figure out whether they're talking about the SBR or ABS, but:

The car offers standard SBR for driver but it does not meet the minimum requirements ABS.

I'm quite sure they are indeed talking about the SBR here. There are multiple other cases that show that when a seatbelt reminder does not meet performance requirements it is marked absent. For example:


Suzuki Ignis (ZA) (but brown chest, so does not conclusively prove my point)


Mahindra Marazzo - no brown/red/orange, had dual seatbelt reminders but only the driver side one met requirements.


Latin NCAP Chevrolet Malibu - no brown/red, had SBR but didn't meet requirements (2013-15 protocol for adult protection is the same as Global NCAP's)

I'm quite sure that 'ABS' that has been mistakenly printed was supposed to be part of a separate sentence or phrase indicating either absence or presence of the system. 'Did not meet minimum requirements for ABS" does not make any sense because to the best of my knowledge Global NCAP does not evaluate the performance of the system.

To summarise, here's what I have to say:

• It is clear that the seatbelt reminder that the Swift was equipped with at the time of the test did not meet performance requirements.
• Hence with the current seatbelt reminders the Swift would not get SBR points even if its driver chest was orange
• The Swift could score a higher star rating if:
  (i)its chest protection was improved AND
  (ii)its seatbelt reminders were updated to meet requirements (I don't know whether they changed the seatbelt reminders with the facelift, because their newer models seem to have improved SBR)
• There is a lack of transparency from Global NCAP about the driver's chest performance of the Swift (and the passenger's left femur/knees)

Just to be clear, I have nothing against the Swift and would, in fact, love to see it score higher because crash test performance aside, I think it's quite the perfect car in its segment in other parameters (which I will not discuss for the sake of being on-topic). It even gets ECE R129(i-Size)-approved ISOFIX anchorages (something very rare) and optional ESC! I understand where you're coming from, however, as much as I want to believe that it would score a higher star rating in Global NCAP's test, I don't think it would do so without updates and that's something I've had to regretfully accept.

If it's okay with you I would like to continue this discussion at a later time.

[Roy.S]

It doesn't matter if GNCAP is doing a hatchet job on MS. Those guys have gotten complacent and need to be shaken up. I have owned 3 Marutis in the last 2 decades and have seen the build quality go from good to terrible.
Now, I am aware that thicker body panels do not necessarily translate to a safer car but this kind of thing makes you wonder how many corners have been cut in less obvious areas.
Their cars are neither safe nor fun to drive these days and mileage cannot be the sole selling point.

[KVNair]

After reading through, I am still confused on the rating of the Swift 2014 model. Is it a 3 star and does that apply to India or not? If they tested the model with airbags, why did they not publish the report?

[Vignesh Vee]

Originally Posted by KVNair

After reading through, I am still confused on the rating of the Swift 2014 model. Is it a 3 star and does that apply to India or not? If they tested the model with airbags, why did they not publish the report?

Yes, the 2nd gen Maruti Suzuki Swift (2 airbag) is a 3 star car. Tested vehicle is Made in India and Made for India tested by Global NCAP.

Proof:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FzzM-uvxpI&t=187s

Of course, without Airbag version is 0star as expected same as Polo without airbags.

Then again, don't compare this report with the 3rd generation model. The Global NCAP updates their protocol every 3-4 years. The 3rd gen Swift tested under a different protocol, which came effect in 2018.

[fiat_tarun]

Great thread ron178. I have seen your posts in all crash / GNCAP related threads and it was clear you had an in depth knowledge in this field. Thank you for taking the effort to put it down so concisely .

I think GNCAP has awoken us from deep slumber on vehicle safety and from the first tests in 2014, we have come a long way. It even prompted the government to seriously look at legislation which is why we have atleast ABS & Airbags as standard now.

Thanks to this initiative, OEM's are now differentiating themselves with safety features and with market success.

Good to know that the there is a re-launch planned in 2022 to bring the program back on track, as apart from the sponsored tests, they haven't conducted any tests for a while now. The program also gets a much needed upgrade from next year adding relevant technologies like ESP and side airbags, which should make our 5 star cars more on par with the rest of the world.



Coming to the topic of the 2 market leaders performing badly in crash tests, I see both adapting a very different approach in handling this.

Maruti will publicly dismiss the rating, make statements about how more safety will make cars more expensive which prevents 2W owners from upgrading and hence make our roads less safe !
By this logic, the question I have for MSIL is - The 2W owner on a budget is buying Alto's, Celerio's and Wagon R's, then what is stopping you from offering additional safety such as ESP, 6 airbags, etc. as an option on your higher end vehicles ?

Hyundai/Kia on the other hand will not make any public statement, but are masters at managing the media with their PR budget. There is barely any coverage of the poor ratings by the main stream media after the initial headlines and the issue is forgotten . We even had a presenter from India's most popular magazine justify the Kia Seltos' rating as 'not too bad'.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by Roy.S

It doesn't matter if GNCAP is doing a hatchet job on MS. Those guys have gotten complacent and need to be shaken up.

I'm sorry, regardless of the manufacturer's history or anything of the sort the testing and evaluation has to be completely fair and adherent to protocol.

Originally Posted by KVNair

After reading through, I am still confused on the rating of the Swift 2014 model. Is it a 3 star and does that apply to India or not? If they tested the model with airbags, why did they not publish the report?

Not sure. Manufacturers are normally allowed to sponsor a test on a variant with optional safety equipment and the result is published together with a test on a variant with basic equipment. In this case Maruti Suzuki didn't sponsor the test. Nevertheless it is surprising that the result was not published for India but was published for Latin NCAP instead. In the video BHPian Vignesh Vee has linked above, it is clear that they intended to publish the result for Latin NCAP even before the test was conducted so why they chose an Indian market RHD car is not something I've been able to understand.

Originally Posted by Vignesh Vee

Then again, don't compare this report with the 3rd generation model. The Global NCAP updates their protocol every 3-4 years. The 3rd gen Swift tested under a different protocol, which came effect in 2018.

I believe we have discussed this before on another thread - Global NCAP protocol has been revised only once so far in August 2017, with the following changes:

• additional requirements for five stars for adult protection: 4-channel ABS, ECE R95 and scoring full 1.00-point for SBR required.
• child occupant protection dynamic test upgraded from P-series to Q-series (Q1.5 and Q3 developed by TNO) dummies

However, in this case, you could be right. While Latin NCAP's adult occupant protection protocol from 2013-15 is identical to the 2017-present Global NCAP protocol, they seem to have assessed the Swift to the older 2010-13 Latin NCAP protocol for reasons I can't quite comprehend. This is indicated by the fact that the maximum score has been printed as 16.00 and not 17.00, indicating absence of SBR points as was the case with the 2010-13 protocol. Unless this was an error (like with the Toyota Etios for India), it might be a different protocol.

Originally Posted by fiat_tarun

Great thread ron178. I have seen your posts in all crash / GNCAP related threads and it was clear you had an in depth knowledge in this field. Thank you for taking the effort to put it down so concisely .

Thank you very much!

Originally Posted by fiat_tarun

Good to know that the there is a re-launch planned in 2022 to bring the program back on track, as apart from the sponsored tests, they haven't conducted any tests for a while now. The program also gets a much needed upgrade from next year adding relevant technologies like ESP and side airbags, which should make our 5 star cars more on par with the rest of the world.

Non-voluntary testing under current protocols has not stopped and you can expect more results before the end of the year. I'm eagerly looking forward to the introduction of the new assessment protocol! Another important change which I'm particularly looking forward to besides more ESC and side protection fitment is that absence of three-point seatbelts in all forward-facing seating positions reduces the vehicle-based assessment score in child occupant protection to 0/13, which should hopefully encourage more manufacturers to fit this more effective system instead of the dangerous one present in the rear centre seat of many cars sold today.

Originally Posted by fiat_tarun

Maruti will publicly dismiss the rating, make statements about how more safety will make cars more expensive which prevents 2W owners from upgrading and hence make our roads less safe !

Let's avoid further discussion on that or the thread might get a little too heated up

Originally Posted by fiat_tarun

We even had a presenter from India's most popular magazine justify the Kia Seltos' rating as 'not too bad'.

I did find that surprising at the time, but in all fairness it's up to an individual to decide how to interpret the stars. While I certainly wouldn't personally call the result 'good' (like Mr Patankar did), I think it wasn't really too bad. But it did show a lack of ambition on the manufacturer's part and was quite disappointing compared to expectations. On an absolute scale I personally think it wasn't terrible.

[Reinhard]

Lovely and extremely informative + intriguing thread guys. Thanks for all the enlightening posts.

One thing I have kept in mind always is - the STARS DON'T MATTER. A lot of those are probably decided on paper, and not on how the dummy actually survived (or not) in the impact!

For a simple example -

KIA Seltos - 3 stars (adult) / 2 stars (child)
GNCAP Report Card - KIA Seltos
Adult protection score - 8.03
Child protection score - 15.00

DATSUN RediGO- 1 star (adult) / 2 stars (child)
GNCAP Report Card - Datsun RediGO
Adult protection score - 8.36
Child protection score - 15.63

While I understand that there is a lot that goes into the logic to define the "Stars" - for my layman's eyes, the cheap to buy RediGO actually has scored more than the costly Seltos, yet has less "stars" to show on the card. At the very least - the GNCAP needs to make this much easier and relatable.

Due to the 1 star - the RediGO got a lot of ill-fame and lost any chance of taking a fight to the other 1/0 star scoring cars (which continue to sell as they are from established reliable brands).

[ron178]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

Lovely and extremely informative + intriguing thread guys. Thanks for all the enlightening posts.

Thank you!

Originally Posted by Reinhard

One thing I have kept in mind always is - the STARS DON'T MATTER. A lot of those are probably decided on paper, and not on how the dummy actually survived (or not) in the impact!
KIA Seltos - 3 stars (adult)
Adult protection score - 8.03

DATSUN RediGO- 1 star (adult)
Adult protection score - 8.36

Thank you for your message.

The stars are not decided subjectively. While there is generally a score-star relationship, there are certain 'star caps' to prevent cars that show high risk of life-threatening injury from scoring higher star ratings. In general 'high risk of life-threatening injury' is when a critical body region, i.e., a head, neck or chest scores 0.000 out of 4.000.

Please see the second-to-last point in the following quoted section:

Originally Posted by ron178

Star rating for adult protection

To calculate the final star rating for adult protection:

• The injury measures are interpolated to determine an initial score for each body region
• Any modifiers that are deemed necessary are applied to each region
• Scores are taken for the worst performing body region in each group
• Scores for the groups are added and rounded down to two decimal places
• Seatbelt reminder points are added if all criteria for their inclusion are met
• It is checked whether any 'star caps' need to be applied:
  If one of the critical body regions (head, neck and chest) crosses a maximum injury value called a 'capping limit' (which for now is identical to the lower performance limit for each critical body region) then the test score is reduced to 0.00 and the car is awarded zero stars for adult protection
  If a critical body region (head, neck or chest) has a final score of 0.000 after application of modifiers, the star rating is capped at one star
• If there is no star cap, the star rating for adult protection is determined as follows:
  0 stars: 0.00 – 1.99 points (OR star cap)
  1 star: 2.00 – 4.99 points (OR star cap)
  2 stars: 5.00 – 7.99 points
  3 stars: 8.00 – 10.99 points
  4 stars: 11.00 - 13.99 points
  5 stars: 14.00 – 17.00 points (must include full 1 point for seatbelt reminders + car must have 4-channel ABS + manufacturer must sponsor UNECE Reg. 95 side impact test and the car should pass)

Datsun's redi-GO had weak driver chest protection based on dummy readings and after application of a -1.000 modifier to the chest for loss of integrity of the passenger compartment, the driver chest scored 0.000 (poor/red) hence the model's maximum star rating was capped to one star. The car did not directly cross EEVC capping limits* for any critical body region and hence 0-star capping was not applied.

The Kia Seltos did not score 0.000 for any critical body region (head, neck, chest). It lost most of its points due to modifiers like unstable head contact on the airbags, loss of integrity of the passenger compartment, variable knee contact/concentrated knee impactor loading and rupture of the footwell. It also did not have well-controlled tibia protection or pedal displacement.

To put it in a very crude way (it is also technically wrong but to explain it fundamentally) if the driver is likely to be dead from thorax injuries there is no use awarding stars for score gained due to acceptable foot protection.




*EEVC capping limits for offset frontal impact are the maximum permissible injury measures (head, neck, chest, femur and tibia (R94 section 5.2.1.1 to 5.1.1.9) as well as steering column displacement (R94 section 5.2.2)) for the car to pass the UN ECE's Regulation 94 test at 56km/h, which is the minimum offset frontal crash test standard for a car to be homologated in markets where it is applied (like the EU, some ASEAN countries etc). Incidentally the ARAI's AIS-098 frontal impact standard which has been in force since 2017 for new models and 2019 for existing models is quite similar. Global NCAP uses the EEVC limits as lower performance limits for the applicable body regions. For other body regions they use their own (technically old Euro NCAP's) limits. For the head, neck and chest these injury readings are considered 'capping limits', i.e., if these limits are crossed the frontal offset test score will be reduced to 0.00 and consequently the car will score zero stars.

On a related note: I think I might've discovered another error, this time in the assessment protocol. The official EEVC performance limit for compressive axial femur force exceedence at ≥10ms printed in R94 is 7.58kN but Global NCAP says it's 7.56kN. I'm not sure if the EEVC recommendation has changed. This error is not just limited to Global NCAP, all the other NCAPs seem to say the same thing. I need to find out more about this before declaring it an error.


The limit in the ECE R94 test


The lower performance limit in NCAP tests

[Vignesh Vee]

Guys, let me clear this up, to avoid further confusion.

I made a mistake in the calculation by adding 1point for ABS, Like others, I also thought, ABS has points on seeing statements from some media's.

The absence of a four-channel anti-lock braking system (ABS) was also one of the key reasons for the poor rating

Bhpian ron178 is right, because they don't reserve any points for ABS. I apologize for that.

But, the SBR points are still a possibility. What I didn't understand is, When 2016 Brezza, 2019 WagonR and 2019 Ignis's SBR is eligible then why not 2018 Swift's?
Maruti Suzuki is a manufacturer that uses the same Ten-year-old window switches in their newer cars, Hence, I don't think that MS will provide different types of SBRs for different cars.

If the first report is the genuine one, then facelift Swift can be a 3 star rated (7.08+1.0 = 8.08)

Then again, I don't care about the scoring, the point is to show the manipulations happened in both reports. Need to know why they published the second report, instead of just typing YES on the ABS column, They altered dummy colours and descriptions of adult occupant, need to know the reason behind this.

What's funny is that, after changing the dummy colours, there has to be a variation in the total points, here in both reports it's 7.08/17.00

Originally Posted by ron178

In other news, I have emailed Mr Alejandro Furas (Secretary General) about this and he asked me to provide a source for the images, and thankfully, Autocar Professional (one of their publication channels) still has an image of the older report. I'm still awaiting further response but I have a gut feeling I won't get one, based on history.

Any update on that?

[rpm]

Originally Posted by fiat_tarun

Great thread ron178. I have seen your posts in all crash / GNCAP related threads and it was clear you had an in depth knowledge in this field. Thank you for taking the effort to put it down so concisely .

You have echoed my sentiments here, and I can attest to the fact that his knowledge in crash tests is second to none. It may just as well take an actual crash test engineer to one up him, because frankly, I’ve never met or talked to anyone who possesses such an ungodly amount of crash test knowledge and trivia while still being just an enthusiast.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by Vignesh Vee

What's funny is that, after changing the dummy colours, there has to be a variation in the total points, here in both reports it's 7.08/17.00

You're right, that's exactly what I find mysterious. Even if we put the SBR aside for now the chest going from brown to orange or vice-versa would definitely change the total score, though we can't say by how much. I'm not sure which report has a mistake but I can only hope that it is unintentional.

Originally Posted by Vignesh Vee

But, the SBR points are still a possibility. What I didn't understand is, When 2016 Brezza, 2019 WagonR and 2019 Ignis's SBR is eligible then why not 2018 Swift's?
Maruti Suzuki is a manufacturer that uses the same Ten-year-old window switches in their newer cars, Hence, I don't think that MS will provide different types of SBRs for different cars.

Just to clarify - the South African Suzuki Ignis' SBR was rated the same as the Indian Maruti Suzuki Swift's. They've put a NO in the SBR column next to SBR which would mean that the SBR itself didn't meet the requirements even disregarding the brown chest. For the Maruti Suzuki Wagon R and S-Presso they've put a YES despite the brown/red chest which means that the SBR meets requirements but the points were not included in the evaluation.

That said, it is surprising that the SBR doesn't meet requirements. While there's no necessity that the SBR must be the same, Maruti Suzuki obviously engineered the Swift to meet the AIS-145 seatbelt reminder norms (assessment protocol on page 6). Based on the fact that they want nothing to do with NCAPs, I don't know if Maruti Suzuki re-engineered the SBR for the Wagon R and S-Presso to further meet Global NCAP requirements. I don't think it would be too hard, though. Then again, there's no necessity that the SBRs must be the same. As for their Brezza, could it be something to do with the fact that it is supposedly based on a different architecture? Keep in mind that I do not have much knowledge about (Maruti) Suzuki's product range (which you obviously do) so please feel free to correct me. Also important to note that the SBR of the Suzuki Swift assessed by both Euro NCAP and ANCAP independently scored full marks. Then again, their SBR assessment protocols are different and we also don't know for sure that the driver SBRs are the same. Don't take what I've said above as something concrete, it's just a vague hypothesis on my part.

I wish there was some way we could at least spot the differences between the SBRs of the Swift and the Wagon R/S-Presso but unfortunately testing seatbelt reminders on a public road also implies putting someone's life in danger.

Originally Posted by Vignesh Vee

Any update on that?

Unfortunately no, not from Mr Furas, at least. The latest I've received (from someone else) is:

We will be back in touch in due course.

If I was able to direct-message you I would send further information about the communication but for now I can confirm there has been nothing of any significance yet and I will definitely give you an update if there is.

Originally Posted by rpm

I can attest to the fact that his knowledge in crash tests is second to none.

Thank you for your comment, however that is simply not true. There is a long, long way ahead before I could even come remotely close to someone you could call a crash test engineer. And for the record, I probably wouldn't have even bothered finding out more had it not been for the lengthy conversation we had on the Tata Nexon's result thread.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by ron178

Seatbelt Reminders

The seatbelt reminders in the front seating positions are assessed in accordance with the seatbelt reminder section of Euro NCAP Safety Assist Protocol - version 5.6. Points are awarded for every front seating position on a pass/fail basis. If there are n front seating positions then every position carries 1.00/n point. For example, a 5-seater Toyota Etios would carry 0.5 points for every front seating position but a 6-seater Mahindra KUV100 would carry 1/3 point for every front seating position.

Correction:
The seatbelt reminders carry 0.5 point for the driver's seating position and 0.5/n for each front passenger seating position where n is the number of front passenger seating positions.

Hence, a 6-seater Mahindra KUV100 (say) would have 0.5 point for the driver and 0.25 point for each of the two front passengers.

I apologise for the error.

[rpm]

Originally Posted by ron178

Thank you for your comment, however that is simply not true. There is a long, long way ahead before I could even come remotely close to someone you could call a crash test engineer. And for the record, I probably wouldn't have even bothered finding out more had it not been for the lengthy conversation we had on the Tata Nexon's result thread.

I do realise that this particular line is rather problematic when read in isolation, but when you assess it in context of the lines that follow, it (hopefully) becomes more palatable. Of course, a person assessing crash tests in professional capacity will have a definite leg up on someone who studies them purely because of personal interest, however, what I intended to say was that for someone who studies crash tests just out of personal curiosity, your knowledge on the subject is rather remarkable, especially when I consider the fact that you are not involved in crash tests in any professional capacity. Perhaps I exaggerated a little, but being objective wasn’t my intent to begin with; it was supposed to be a compliment after all.

PS: Even Mr Furas mistook you for someone who works for an OEM, or a supplier because your questions were too specific and accurate, so you will have to pardon me (no other choice) in case you feel that I went a little overboard in my previous post.

[Bibendum90949]

I was watching this on the malayalam you tube channel - Talking cars, apparently run by two bhpians and they've just been brilliant. Unfortunately it's only in Malayalam and hence can't reach a wider audience.

https://youtu.be/gm_SwWegHz8

They were discussing on XUV 300 GNCAP crash tests among other discrepancies in GNCAP tests and reporting.

I'm not sure if the below point regarding the side impact test of XUV 300 was earlier discussed on this or any other thread. The side impact was made on the passenger side door where as generally it's done on the driver side. And during the impact, there was no dummy in the driver seat. This is quite interesting.



Looking forward to Ron178 to throw some light on this. Truly appreciate your efforts to make a thread as extensive and deep as this one. This thread has been a real eye opener, it exposed the anomalies that's creeped into their testing and test reports. Now there clearly is a big question mark hanging on the credibility of GNCAP as an organisation. That is the crux of the matter discussed in the video too.