[anoop.u]

Guys, we are all being mislead here. We should not be questioning Tata or Mahindra here. Rather, we should be focusing on the testing agency, Glocal NCAP as per the follows:

1. The are a UK based non profit who are focused on testing cars in India & Africa. But why? What does a UK based non-profit have anything to do with India? Why the exclusive interest with Indian cars? What happened to the rest of the countries? Does "Global" stand for "Desi"?

2. Their used to initially test the base models of cars buy buying it anonymously so that manufacturers would not rig the test cars. This has now evolved into them giving out ratings to cars before it has even been launched (Tata Punch).

3. Testing process: Harrier and Safari have not been tested, side impact testing for the XUV 300 was done on the passenger side, all others were tested on the driver side.

Source: Got this info from a malayalam YT video the other day.

[vigneshkumar31]

Originally Posted by avinash_m

Dont mean any offence but the thread title and your opening post (above) itself are contradictory! You say you dont intend any 'hate' but the thread is titled 'Tata pretends' - cmon buddy!

There is already a healthy discussion happening on the respective harrier and safari threads; so not really sure how this thread is adding value; happy to be proven wrong. Just hope this doesnt become another Tata bashing thread, with little or no takeaways.

The OP has made his intention clear and kudos to him for starting a common thread about the safety champion.
Tata bashing or otherwise, the thread is relevant to pull data from across the respective threads into a single thread of safety. People interested in particular models only drop in on those threads, while a common thread like this concerns all. Any debates regarding safety should be left open for healthy discussions if we are serious about promoting safety consciousness among the market. So if we can add any other value to the OPs theme we should, rather than bring up a shield for his sword and start the blind bash and defend spiral.

I'm not against Tata, I owned both their cheapest and costliest cars of the time, (see signature). I still drive around in an airbag-less Safari Storme but can't let go of it for a lack of a better option. So here's my 2 cents to add.

Firstly, Tata has morphed into a company that makes world class designs which are eye candies and gorgeous to look at. Kudos to the team and Impact Design Philosophy that has been done right, in every offering of theirs.

The Tatas have been a crucial tipping point in making safety talk mainstream and an advertisable feature. Praise where it's due. The disgrunt is because of their partial treatment of their flagships and casual extension/implication of lower car's safety performance all the way up to the flagship twins.

I've been test driving all their launches extensively and in my opinion I think Tata has two sub segments within its product line.

1. Nexon and Below Well engineered post extensive R&D, fresh products built well with- safety by design- as key differentiator to stand out from the crowded competition common in this price bracket.

2. Pedigree Twins. These were rushed to the market riding on pedigree talk and good looking designs, with single motivation of speed to market (launch well before XUV to cash in). In the flagship neighbourhood, Tata has been fumbling and dropping ball ever since the poor sales of the VFM Hexa, and then killing the Safari to the debated rename of the Gravitas. There has not been the kind of commitment and clear vision like the XUV7OO perhaps shows, to build a solid flagship with a sequential idea for future facelifts. Gold Edition with marble ? Really? What's next update a chandelier?

The FCA engine and its effect on crash test ratings is becoming apparent and Tata simply cannot ride on its safety halo unabashedly built on lower models' performance. And frankly, the 'accident paparazzi' is becoming annoying showing the twins pounding other cars on the road. I'd rather the accident did not occur in the first place.

[Hayek]

Think people seem really confused about the meaning of NCAP ratings.

What does GNCAP test? It tests a car crashing into a static barrier with a lateral offset at 64 kmph. This is the equivalent of two cars of similar weight crashing into each other at 32 kmph. Like any test, it is not perfect. On Indian highways, you are far more likely to crash either into a truck or bus, or a small car (sub 4 m). The outcomes will of course be very different.

Let’s say you are in your Punch with a kerb weight of 1000 kg. If you crash into a LCV with a GVW of 8000 kg while moving at 32 kmph, your Punch gets the same impact from the LCV moving at 11 kmph as it would crashing into another Punch moving at 32 kmph. On the other hand in an XUV 700 with a kerb weight of 2000 kg, the LCV would have to be moving at 16 kmph to deliver the GNCAP impact to you.

In short, as should be obvious, a car which weighs twice as much is twice as safe if they both have similar GNCAP results (or it can protect you at 40% higher speed). So while the Safari may not get a 5 star rating (and I will believe the sources that it is unlikely to get even 4 star - else Tata would have sent it for testing), it is still likely to be safer than a Punch in a head on collision. Further, the speed at which the collision takes place is very important - hence the importance of good brakes to both reduce the risk of the collision and reduce the relative velocity if it happens- which is why I always found the Fortuner (for example) which had terrible brakes to be an unsafe car.

As for Tata Motors, they have taken on the positioning based on safety - I think it is highly unlikely that having done that, they will go the Maruti way and design cars to be unsafe (or less safe). While it is highly likely that the Safari will not in current form get a 5 star rating, I won’t hold that against Tata Motors. For their volume products, they have done more than any other player to highlight the importance of safety. And that has induced folks like Mahindra to follow suit.

Do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

[Electromotive]

Tata Motors did a wonderful job educating the market about crash safety because that's the only USP they had when they started with the Nexon. Let them reap the benefits while they can.

[VW2010]

'll beg your pardon here. VW's decade old Polo and Toyota's now discontinued Etios Liva were India's first 4 star rated cars and both were not related to Tata.

Misleading and Volkswagen are like twins. The dieselgate is the best example of how customers were mislead and the fix was a gift hamper and detuned engine and performance.

Then I realize this is probably a tata bashing thread.

[400notout]

Asking the wrong questions again are we? Tata and Mahindra have done great in making safety a mainstream concern. And they are not the first one to attempt this. Toyota had earlier tried endorsing the Etios twins for its safety ratings. But those were different times and it sunk without a trace.

Tata and Mahindra didn't start on a great note with GNCAP. Remember the crumbling Scorpio and 0 star Zest and Nano??

But both these companies took an effort to understand the situation and modified their products accordingly.

The Nexon already has a "safe car" image why bother with the facelift and EV considering it is the same car?

The Tigor is a "flop" model so it needs as much attention as it can get. The EV also hasn't gained traction.

The Harrier/Safari debacle has been discussed enough in the Safari thread. Nothing other than a GNCAP test can settle that matter.

Mahindra has been going great guns on all its new launches post XUV 300. Hats off to them.

So more or less these companies have been doing something or the other.

Honda and Toyota enjoyed enough snob value early on. They didn't need a differentiator to sell their models. However their story today is altogether another issue. The Germans were always considered well built.

Coming to the main topic, Tata might be no Saint but definitely is not a sinner like MS. The top bosses publicly diss safety. No effort to improve low scoring models. And the shameless puke-inducing parading of the Wagon R as "dil se strong".

I'll side be with Tata on this one.

[McLaren Rulez]

Tata has done far far more for safety in India than any of these concern troll threads. The fact that they sell sturdy well-built cars and competitive prices has kick started safety consciousness in a big way.

[landcruiser123]

One thing to note is that these tests keep evolving and the requirements keep getting more strict. The same 2015 model which was rated 5* when new might get a lower rating by 2021 standards. While saying I don't trust Tata or GNCAP is strong statement, I'd say that I take all the ratings and manufacturer claims with a pinch of salt. i.e. Tata may not be the bosses as they claim and Maruti may not be as bad as the press portrays them to be.

The key is for India to start standardizing stringent crash testing requirements. We boast of world class highways (and road infrastructure); Adding world class car crash safety to that list should be top priority.

[nathanjdias]

Kudos to the OP. These are some important questions that need to be answered.

Cars like the Tata Safari and Tata Harrier which aren't crash tested do pose a serious question on their safety. If TaMo is scared to send its Pedigree Twins to GNCAP which has relatively easy standards, while it proudly sends it's Altroz and Punch via the sponsored route before launch, it proves to show that something is seriously wrong.

Even without crash test ratings I can confidently say that the twins will be safer than any run of the mill Maruti Suzuki, it still leads me to wonder what is the flaw in the twins holding Tata back.

I do appreciate TaMo's strive to make safer cars for India but selective transparency is not the way to go.

[Acid Burn]

Originally Posted by cryptarchy

I don't get what is the issue? They are not lying about safety rating of their cars. They only claim what is proven by third party tests.

I believe the OP has an issue with TATA showing Harrier and Safari in the safest car in India.
These have not been tested so it's a misleading ad.

Safari and Harrier may or may not be safe cars but till the time they have a proof of being safe they should not advertise them in the safest car ads.


It's like Maruti showing an ad with Brezza with 4 stars and all other untested Maruti cars in tow with an ad claiming 4 star safety cars.

[Candy$Cars]

Originally Posted by 400notout

Coming to the main topic, Tata might be no Saint but definitely is not a sinner like MS. The top bosses publicly diss safety. No effort to improve low scoring models. And the shameless puke-inducing parading of the Wagon R as "dil se strong".

I'll side be with Tata on this one.

What you said is definitely true. Tata has put in effort, done lots of homework to reach where they are today.
For a good part of the last decade, very few people even considered their cars, there was too much stigma attached to buying a TATA, cabbies were more interested and private owners rarely visited the showrooms.
However, even then, their cars were on point being extremely spacious, superb ride on broken roads, sturdily built and priced competitively, they just lacked in design.

Doing so many things right and still not being able to sell your cars must have been harrowing for them.

However, I don't agree with you that the biggest sinner is Maruti Suzuki. They never tried to deceive customers by portraying their cars as safe - heck, their senior officials diss safety at every opportunity they get. They have always portrayed their cars as the most fuel efficient and they have been truthful about it. Moreover, there expensive cars like the Brezza, Ertiga etc. have performed decently at crash tests.

When you buy a MS, you know what you are getting into.
The biggest sinners, IMO, are the Koreans. They make their cars to give you a feeling of good build, stuff them with airbags and all the electronic wizardry, price them high (to confirm with the belief - good things cost a premium) and then cheap out on the structure of the car which a customer cannot see nor would come to his mind either.

They are like a friend who appears loyal to you when the time is good and then stabs you when you are low. They are the Brutus of the Julius Caesar!
Imagine a layman buying a 20 lakh crossover - it has good heft in the doors, has all the safety gadgets, the same model has scored 5 stars in other countries, this car is safe that is what he must have thought only to get stabbed in the back!
The reality is - the Korean cars have failed crash tests across the price spectrum and at the same time none of their cars will give you a feeling of poor build, like the MS cars do.

So, the Koreans are the biggest sinners.

[rpm]

Originally Posted by anoop.u

Guys, we are all being mislead here. We should not be questioning Tata or Mahindra here. Rather, we should be focusing on the testing agency, Glocal NCAP as per the follows……

Source: Got this info from a malayalam YT video the other day.

Please allow me the liberty to rearrange the order of your questions.

Originally Posted by anoop.u

3. Testing process: Harrier and Safari have not been tested, side impact testing for the XUV 300 was done on the passenger side, all others were tested on the driver side.

BHPian Bibendum90949 also asked a similar question after presumably watching the same video a few days ago. Check out this (Global NCAP crash tests | Broken down & explained) discussion where fellow BHPian ron178 has answered your 3rd question in detail. I’ll quote the relevant excerpts.

Originally Posted by ron178

This has been discussed before on this thread (Tata Nexon: Global NCAP’s first 5-Star Indian car). To sum up, they seem to have tested the car for side impact on both the driver and passenger side, possibly as an audit (I can't think of any other reason). The press release for the XUV300's result says this:

This is evident in the test code pasted on the car since the last digit is 2 (MD0320MXU2), indicating that it has been the second side impact test on the XUV300 in the test lab in that week, hence confirming the statement printed in the press release.

Even Latin NCAP seems to pick a random side to test. The Toyota Yaris, GM New Onix and most others were tested on the passenger side, the Nissan Murano and the Ford Ranger on the driver side (and possibly more, but I haven't found any). (The last one was conducted at a different laboratory (BASt FTVA, also in Germany), though, so I'm not sure if that had a role to play).

Nevertheless I don't think of it as much of a goof, really, though I mentioned it as part of one.

As for your first two questions, BHPian ron178 answered them a few days back on his Global NCAP thread. You can check this (Global NCAP crash tests | Broken down & explained) post out for more information.

Originally Posted by anoop.u

1. The are a UK based non profit who are focused on testing cars in India & Africa. But why? What does a UK based non-profit have anything to do with India? Why the exclusive interest with Indian cars? What happened to the rest of the countries? Does "Global" stand for "Desi"?

Originally Posted by ron178

Global NCAP is a project of the Towards Zero Foundation (a UK-registered charity).
This might sound funny, but initially, it was not an NCAP at all. It was primarily founded to serve as a platform for cooperation among all NCAPs (and the IIHS) and to provide support for new NCAPs in emerging markets, like ASEAN NCAP and Latin NCAP.

Since 2014, Global NCAP’s Safer Cars for India project has functioned as an NCAP by itself. They have a small team and their PR is handled by a UK company called Advocacy Impact. While I trust that the data provided by the test lab is accurate, Global NCAP's PR team does make quite a few mistakes in their publications and press releases, which creates some confusion for consumers and reviewers. The most recent effect is that the integrity of the tests has come under question, which is definitely something unacceptable for the very organisation that gives us an important part of information about the safety of the cars we buy.

Next year, Global NCAP will be relaunched as a partnership instead of a project.

As for the latter half, I think you may be missing out on the fact that a lot of other NCAPs other than Global NCAP exist too, and they aren’t concerned with India at all. In developing markets, NCAPs have been instrumental in popularising safety and creating a market for it. Thanks to that, we can now see some 5-star cars that aren’t exorbitantly priced. Their push for stricter and tighter regulations is why we are seeing 5-star cars in India today, otherwise even the 0-star cars comply with the homologation rules set by the law of the land. We may also have GNCAP to thank in part for the safety regulations you now see coming into effect (2-airbags as standard soon). I’m not saying we would never have seen such safety regulations, but that GNCAP may have hastened their adoption.

Originally Posted by anoop.u

2. Their used to initially test the base models of cars buy buying it anonymously so that manufacturers would not rig the test cars. This has now evolved into them giving out ratings to cars before it has even been launched (Tata Punch).

GNCAP has a limited amount of funds to buy cars and test them. Naturally, with limited funds, it stands to reason that they can’t purchase every car on the market for testing, so manufacturers are free to sponsor their production ready cars before launch, as well as after launch. That isn’t exclusive to GNCAP or Tata/Mahindra. Maruti/Hyundai or any other manufacturer could sponsor their next new car before it launches, provided that the concerned NCAP gets to pick the car as per the protocol they use. If the manufacturer does not wish to sponsor any tests, NCAP may decide to pick the car up with their own funding, as per protocol, or it may go untested until it is discontinued. Here is the CSSTR protocol NCAPs around the world generally use, as outlined by BHPian ron178. Global NCAP may also be using something along these lines.

Originally Posted by ron178

How the cars are selected, purchased and tested
There is some ambiguity in this regard because Global NCAP has not published its Car Sponsorship, Selection, Testing and Retesting (CSSTR) Protocol for consumers to view, so I’m going to pen down my observations based on usual NCAP CSSTR protocols and Global NCAP's statements.

Non-voluntary testing

• An annual selection of a few cars is made from the market, from cars that are very popular or cars that are not deemed likely to be sponsored by manufacturers or cars that are expected to perform poorly (based on a lack of equipment or an international test on the same model, for example). Tests for these models are funded by Global NCAP’s sponsors, namely the FIA Foundation, Bloomberg Philantropies, the ICRT and the UN Road Safety Fund.
• A tentative date and time for announcing results is pre-decided
• A secret shopper purchases the cars from dealers like a regular customer would
• The cars are sealed and shipped to ADAC Technik Zentrum’s crash test facility in Landsberg am Lech, Germany
• The manufacturers are informed that their cars have been selected for testing and their representatives are invited to witness the test and to provide any necessary information (recommended child restraints, whether or not deployment of curtain airbags is expected so that alternative high-speed camera mounting positions may be used, and many more)
• The seatbelt reminders (if equipped) are assessed and the frontal crash test is conducted according to a test protocol (which defines the configuration to be used for the test and is detailed below) and dummy data is analysed, the car and high-speed recordings are inspected and an assessment is made based on a protocol
• Manufacturers are informed of the date of the one-to-one meeting so that they may present any additional data that may be required, like knee mapping sled tests, or an offer so sponsor the UNECE Reg. 95 side impact test in case the car qualifies for five adult stars
• The final score and star rating is determined
• The result is published, and results of any extra sponsored tests that were not used in the result are published separately

Sponsored testing

• The manufacturer makes a sponsorship offer for a model, including any other tests (than the frontal offset test) that they deem necessary for determining the final score, like side impact or ESC
• A tentative date and time for announcing results is pre-decided
• If the model is already on sale: A secret shopper purchases the cars from dealers like a regular customer would
  If the model has started production but is not on sale, and the manufacturer wishes to use the result in the market launch: Global NCAP representatives select a car with basic safety equipment at random from the plant's distribution area
• The manufacturer's representatives are invited to witness the test(s) and to provide any necessary information (recommended child restraints, whether or not deployment of curtain airbags is expected so that alternative high-speed camera mounting positions may be used, and many more)
• Additional data that may be required is provided at the one-to-one meeting
• The final score and star rating is determined
• The result is published, and results of any extra sponsored tests that were not used in the result are published separately (for example, the Mahindra Thar, whose side impact test could not be used in the result because the frontal offset test score didn't meet minimum requirements for five stars)
• The manufacturer is invoiced for all costs related to the vehicle purchase, transportation, test lab fees et cetera.

Some more relevant excerpts.

Originally Posted by ron178

Which trim level is tested?
When Global NCAP tests a model, they pick a variant that is specified with the basic safety equipment available for the model at the time of the test. In addition, the manufacturer may sponsor a test on a model equipped with optional safety equipment to demonstrate its benefits, like the Volkswagen Polo, Renault Duster and Kwid, and the Honda Mobilio. 'Basic safety equipment' does not necessarily imply 'base variant' (another probable goof by their PR team).

Originally Posted by ron178

Is there monetary influence in the testing? Can manufacturers monetarily influence the rating?
Manufacturers may volunteer to pay for a test on their model. In addition, in some cases, some extra tests must be sponsored by the manufacturer regardless of whether the test is voluntary or not, like the R95 side impact test and the knee mapping sled tests for removing knee modifiers. Hence it is not likely that a car will score a full rating without some of the testing being paid for by the manufacturer. The manufacturer is informed of this well in advance of publication and data for the additional tests may be presented at the one-to-one meeting which is held regardless of who sponsors the test. In addition, as can be seen in the test protocol (Post #2), some adjustments that are different for different cars must be recommended by the manufacturer, without which a default case will be considered. The child restraints to be used are also at the discretion of the manufacturer, and if the manufacturer refuses to recommend child restraints, the dynamic testing portion of the child protection score is zero and Global NCAP does not publish performance of the compatible child restraints they have selected. Every manufacturer is informed of the test before it happens and is invited to witness it.

That said, they do make errors occasionally, which have been documented in the goofs section of this post (Global NCAP crash tests | Broken down & explained) by BHPian ron178. If you do wish to discredit all their efforts based on a few occasional errors, and doubt the authenticity of their tests altogether, then fair enough. It is you who ultimately gets to decide whether GNCAP ratings should be a factor in your car buying decision. Your notion of safety may not be synonymous with GNCAP’s, and that choice is yours to make.


If anyone reading this post found the relevant excerpts I have quoted here helpful, please do thank BHPian ron178 on his original posts instead of hitting the thanks button on this post.

[Electromotive]

Originally Posted by Candy$Cars

So, the Koreans are the biggest sinners.

Wrong! Please stop getting baited by these brand X vs brand Y comparison threads/posts. Every brand that sells well has an USP that draws in a segment of the market.

-The Koreans brought latest feature and design at affordable prices.

-MSIL provides fill-it, forget-it fuss free ownership for the average customer.

-Toyota have rugged and reliable going for them.

-Mahindra peddles utility and lifestyle.

-Ford and GM couldn't provide anything unique and had to shut shop.

-TaMo had nothing going for them so they latched onto safety (and edgy design) now the market is safety conscious and the other players are beginning to see value in marketing safety. Thanks TaMo for that.

-Soon MG is going to capture a significant percentage of the market share (~10%) given their focus on features, design and affordability.

Instead of engaging in these mindless threads we should rejoice that qualified competition is increasing. I want MSIL market share to go down, MG's to increase and that might just happen. Enjoy the fact that even sub 15Lakh cars now have a 7-8 inch touch screen, digital cockpit and panoramic sunroof.

Thank competition and encourage competition.

[Candy$Cars]

Originally Posted by Electromotive

-The Koreans brought latest feature and design at affordable prices.

-[/b]

I recognise their USP and appreciate them for their contributions, but
It still doesn't prove that what I said was wrong.

[furyrider]

Instead of bashing Tata and Mahindra, can we discuss about the habitual offenders instead?

Maruti and Hyundai have almost 70% market share in our country and all they do is dilute their international offerings under the disguise of localisation.

Is Tata a saint? Absolutely not. Can we expect them to act like one? Nope. They are just like all the other automotive manufacturers who are in this for profits. Right now, safety sells in this market and they are cashing on it. Credit where it is due - the 2 manufacturers which are being bashed right left and centre are the ones who are at least providing relatively safe cars in this market.

Instead of questioning a specific manufacturer, I think the discussion should instead focus on dearth of safe cars in our market.