[sravankrishnan]

Originally Posted by AVIS

Wall collision at 64kmph is equivalent to two cars (same weight) crashing into each other at 64kmph

No, it's not two cars crashing into each other at 64kph each. In that case it would be a 128kph collision. It's the relative velocity that matters, and that's the sum of the velocities of the two cars.

The speed 64kph is relative to the stationary barrier. Imagine the barrier was also moving towards the car at 64kph relative to the ground. Then we would have a bigger impact since the relative speed would then be 128kph.

[asit.kulkarni93]

Every company tries to bank on a usp. This also is their connect with customers. Maruti Suzuki has the cheap service and tailored for india connect with clients. Fuel efficiency being another USP. Toyota = reliability and VW/Skoda = well built and fun to drive.

Tata tried a lot of other ways to connect with their customers and this safety thing worked. Now I understand what you have tried to raise. There is no reason to portray the Safari or Harrier under safety when the actual tests were only done for Tiago and the Nexon. But then remember. Polo MPI(3-pot) had a pace edition & SR edition . Manufacturers do it all the time. Take the example of the Koreans, they try to show how reliable their cars are how smooth the service centre experience is. Start a thread on Hyundai service experience & overall reliability, you will have the answer.

Unfortunately that is how the market functions.

[JJ1991]

IMHO people should talk more about certain manufacturers with products costing upwards from 20 lakhs with barely 2 or 3 stars and certain others with nil stars rather than bashing Tata or Mahindra with tested models with good safety ratings.

We own a Tata Nexon while I hate the TASS and the continues niggles (won't buy another Tata again), I can vouch for its safety aspect.

Tata motors are no saint but the hype they created by getting a 5* in GNCAP made many thousands to opt for safer cars and that in my opinion is greater than Tata Motors getting a 5* for Safari or the new Nexon.

[rpm]

Originally Posted by sravankrishnan

No, it's not two cars crashing into each other at 64kph each. In that case it would be a 128kph collision. It's the relative velocity that matters, and that's the sum of the velocities of the two cars……

This isn’t targeted at any member; I just wanted to clear the speed aspect of the ODB test.

This impact is intended to replicate the effect caused in the car when crashing 55km/h 50% offset frontal crash with a similar mass car.

Source

The test replicates a crash between two cars of the same weight, both travelling at a speed of 50km/h.

Source

So, it appears that we have another discrepancy about what the speed is supposed to be, but it should be somewhere between 50-55 km/h. The weight is rather unambiguous as it is supposed to replicate a collision with a car which has similar/identical mass. Both the cars in this case are supposed to have similar masses, and travel towards each other at a speed of 50-55 km/h, both offset towards the driver side by 50%.

[ron178]

Note: Off-topic post

Originally Posted by sravankrishnan

No, it's not two cars crashing into each other at 64kph each. In that case it would be a 128kph collision. It's the relative velocity that matters, and that's the sum of the velocities of the two cars.

Did you mean the difference of velocities?

Originally Posted by sravankrishnan

The speed 64kph is relative to the stationary barrier. Imagine the barrier was also moving towards the car at 64kph relative to the ground. Then we would have a bigger impact since the relative speed would then be 128kph.

You are right in that the magnitude of relative velocity ("closing speed") in such a case would be 128km/h, however you cannot simply consider a car-to-car test with a closing speed of 128km/h to be equivalent a static barrier test at 128km/h from a ground-reference. There is a lot more complexity because of the fact that treating a car as a rigid body is not considered a good approximation and the collision itself has varying degrees of elasticity throughout its course.

Originally Posted by AVIS

Not quite accurate. Wall collision at 64kmph is equivalent to two cars (same weight) crashing into each other at 64kmph

Originally Posted by Hayek

This is the equivalent of two cars of similar weight crashing into each other at 32 kmph.

Originally Posted by rpm

This isn’t targeted at any member; I just wanted to clear the speed aspect of the ODB test.
So it appears that we have another discrepancy about what the speed is supposed to be, but it should be somewhere between 50-55 km/h.

Thanks. The figure itself is questionable and Euro NCAP says (page 2441) it can't be determined but they're leaning towards 55 km/h for a "modern family size car" (I would assume something like a Mk4 Golf, for example, because the paper was published in 1998). It is not clear if they refer to the speed of each car or the closing speed.

Note: all the figures for fractions of crashes covered are based on European (presumably Swedish) data.

The impact speed of 64 km/h was chosen on the basis of accident analyses carried out for EEVC Working Group 11, which developed the European test procedure. An analysis of available frontal impact accident research concluded that a crash test, which replicated a car to car crash at 55 km/h, would address just under half of the serious and fatal casualties (AIS23). Reducing that speed to 50 km/h would address few such casualties, whereas, increasing the speed to 60 km/h would address about two thirds of them (Table 1). No direct comparison exists to relate the impact speed in an ODB test to its equivalent speed in a car to car crash, between similar cars. In the car to car impact, each car has to absorb its own impact energy. In an ODB test, the deformable barrier absorbs some of the impact energy. The amount of energy it absorbs depends upon how the car’s structure loads the honeycomb. In comparative tests using a modem family size car, a car to car crash at 55 km/h was more severe than an ODB test at 65 km/h. This car loaded the deformable barrier relatively uniformly, such that the barrier would be quite efficient in absorbing energy. Future car designs are likely to load the deformable barrier at least as well. In this way, the designer can minimise the amount of energy his car has to absorb. Based on the available data, it can be seen that the Euro NCAP frontal impact test speed of 64 km/h is equivalent to a car to car impact at a speed of about 55 km/h.

[Dry Ice]

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king!

They are here to make money selling cars. Without them (& possibly M&M), no way in hell *any* XCAP result would have made it to the drawing room conversation of an average Indian car buyer.

Tata is no saint, but do they need to be? They are still better than others in the market in terms of safety. I use the term “better” because they still have a lot to do. But does not mean we start pulling them down at the first opportunity.

[sravankrishnan]

Originally Posted by ron178

Did you mean the difference of velocities?

No, not necessarily. It's the difference of velocities only if the two cars are moving in the same direction. If they are moving opposite to one another then you add the velocities. I was replying to a post about frontal collisions which of course belongs to the latter. Or you could just say take the difference but then you need to add a minus sign to account for the difference in direction.

Originally Posted by ron178

You are right in that the magnitude of relative velocity ("closing speed") in such a case would be 128km/h, however you cannot simply consider a car-to-car test with a closing speed of 128km/h to be equivalent a static barrier test at 128km/h from a ground-reference. There is a lot more complexity because of the fact that treating a car as a rigid body is not considered a good approximation and the collision itself has varying degrees of elasticity throughout its course.

I know, I wasn't going into those details. Just pointing out how relative velocities should be taken, assuming I didn't misunderstand what @AVIS was trying to say. Now let me exercise my freedom to be pedantic and say that simple addition and subtraction of velocities is correct only for non-relativistic velocities i.e. the ones much less than the speed of light .
The momentum of the collision i.e. the masses involved and their deformability, angle of collision etc. are altogether different stories like you said.

[Sreejith V]

As somebody already commented, another thread to bash TATA. Lot of coincidences in the recent times. Lot of discussions on Global NCAP, TATA and Mahindra recently, on many auto journals and by YouTube auto journalists (I feel, atleast a few are paid). These discussions and videos have started precisely after XUV700 getting 5 star rating.

I really don't understand whether TATA said they are saints in safe cars. I don't think they have such claim. They have heavily advertised the crash test ratings done by Global NCAP. Global NCAP has set test standards same for all Indian cars. It is same for Marutis, Hyundais, TATAs, Mahindras and all. Why Marutis and Hyundais are not ready to test their cars based on the same standards TATA and Mahindra cars are tested, are they afraid? After testing let them advertise if Global NCAP has any bias to the Indian manufactures or let them file a case with court for biased testing and results, if they are confidant of such biased practices.

Instead of doing that, there is no point in bashing TATA and Mahindra for advertising their crash test results.

It is upto TATA and Mahindra to test their cars at their will. Let them test the cars whichever they feel like. If they claim crash test ratings for an untested car, we can complain. If not, I don't think they are doing something wrong at their part.

All automobile manufacturers advertise heavily their cars based on features. Let all of them test their cars for crash and publish results in bold letters along with other features. That will stop TATA and Mahindra advertising thier crash results in 'Bold'.

[Poitive]

IMHO, like most businesses, Tata is using the means at their disposal to get closer th their business objectives, including safety reports and PR teams.

Expecting saints in a cut-throat business environment is naive.

One really should look at all objective and subjective information and means while taking a call on a vehicle's safety.

Somewhat OT:

Safety goes way beyond crash reports. Being able to handle a car well in a dicey situation, to me, is a lot more important. While crash reports do add value, it has it's limitations. Something as simple as the right tyres in the right shape and pressure (very subjectively) might contribute more to one's safety.

[4by4]

Originally Posted by Candy$Cars

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.

Exactly. There seems to be a concerted campaign against Tata, be it on quality issues or now, on safety. Haven't seen so much of ranting on the Korean Twins on safety or for that matter on Maruti. As far as quality goes, I have seen enough examples of the Crysta having quality issues. I myself drove a Honda City with terrible quality - plastics, rubber, connectivity and paint issues. But not even 1/10 halla as Tata.

[enj0y_ride]

Saint or no, it's a good trend we all desire in India. If you remember Maruti considered left ORVM as luxury not so long ago. With Tata setting the trend in safety in india, other Indian manufacturers will have limited options but to follow suit.
The real point is, safety should be part of regulation , not a feature by any manufacturer.

[avinash_m]

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.

As I already mentioned in my post, am all for a healthy discussion, as long as it is factual and does not turn into bash/defend spiral. But the opening post and title just didnt seem to set that tone. Have to say though, most of the posts so far have been real value add.

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.

Tell me about it! Except for the fact that my Storme thankfully has 2 airbags, am in the same boat. The kind of features (safety included) todays cars are coming with, it is honestly a tough ask to not get bitten by the upgrade bug. But then, one test drive of such a new offering is all that it takes to find myself right where I started - none are worthy enough, at least not yet!

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.

Agree; the twins were just not handled well. Aside from the design, which they did get bang on, most other aspects have just not been upto the mark; and some were royal goof ups - most prominent being the FCA engine! It is just beyond me as to how does a conglomerate like Tata, takes the decision of paying up for a new engine, paying through their nose (and after having acquired JLR as well!), in stead of trying to adapt the existing 2.2L mill to the new platform and emission norms, and most crucially, save money! Ok, am no expert here but from the information shared so far by ram87 and bhpian gurus, it was not even an impossible feat, given the kind of resources they'd access to; Mahindra did it for the new XUV and the THAR! Unfortunately, all this is just adding up to the theory that by the time the safety limitation due to the engine came to light, they were already at a point of no return, or even any possibilty of course correction.

With each passing day now, the safety question mark on the twins is only going to get stronger and louder. Unless Tata is able to find a way out, to get around the oil filter limitation of the FCA engine, or possibly even adapt the 2.2L mill to fit in the twins' engine bay, no amount of 'Gold'/'marble' gimicks is going to help them gain ground with the twins! I am still hopeful they can find a solution but they better be quick..

[igemini]

Well, I might sounds like a crazy individual here. However, I strongly believe that the NCAP ratings shall not be the sole measure to rate a car's safety. The reason people wanted safe cars, mainly because our roads are filled with idiotic drivers and chaos.

Especially driving in India is literally a gamble, you shall not only rely on your driving skills but also on your luck. It's like you must be thankful every single time when you reach home without any damages to you as well as to your vehicle. It's a reality. And personally I have strong suspicion about the GNCAP testings and I may be a minority here.

Also, I felt that GNCAP is unnecessarily targeting some specific cars like Swift or Espresso. I am not saying they are superbly built or anything, but I don't know. Maybe I am thinking too much.

In the event of a real crash, a zero star rated Espresso and Zero rated Punto will provide same results?

Whatever it maybe, the cars from Tata are safer compared to many other cars in India, especially in the lower price bracket.

But these days some people, if not a lot of those so called SAFE car drivers aka owners, started driving like absolute fools and even bullying the rest of the vehicles on road. Assuming they are driving the SAFEST cars and nothing will happen to them. They even compare it with Volvo, BMW, etc.

The trend is to crash the safe cars somewhere and then the next moment post it to the social media. Car crashed but nothing happened to me and 5 star safety saved me. Encouraging more and more people to drive recklessly.

People tend to forget that unlike the NCAP ratings which are in a controlled environment, a real life accident can be fatal even if you have the safest car in the world. But who will understand that. No doubt we need strong and safe cars, but it must be coupled with mature driving etiquette.

Now coming to the fact whether Tata is a saint or otherwise. The answer is they aren't and they shouldn't be as well. At the end of the day it's all business and like every other car company there will have unique selling points as well. Like mileage is for Maruti and Safety is for Tata. Also the vocal for local sentiment made Tata to increase the sales. I am 100% sure the smaller cars from Tata are definitely safe, especially for what we pay. As I have owned one, I can say that with confidence.

But when it comes to the bigger cars from Tata, like Harrier / Safari, I believe something is not right. Perhaps when they test, they might not get 5 stars. That's why probably Tata isn't testing them as I'm not sure the public won't accept anything below 5 stars from those so called Vocal for Local cars from Tata. How many parts were from China is another story for a debate.

[mygodbole]

The only loose nut is behind the wheel.
We look at all these numbers, ignore the 'fact' that many of us, including me, are people often who drive rashly and recklessly.
The safety rating is for the vehicle in case something unexpected happens.
In India, the 'something unexpected' in the loose nut behind the wheel.

[amay1283]

I believe Tata is in the business of selling cars not sainthood. Like any other business vertical they are advertising a compliance, regulations or framework they adhere to. They are not unique in doing this.

I agree with questioning them on their products and highlighting where they project things in a different light provided it is done in a positive manner. But we need to do it fairly for all manufacturers. Tata and Mahindra have set a trend here which is beneficial for us as consumers. They have proved that safe cars can also be affordable while balancing with decent fuel efficiency.