[Arun Varma]

I believe car ownership is a multifactorial aggregate of experiences. No one attribute can be overwhelmingly determinative of this for everyone and nor should it be. I am seeing increasingly polarised views about what should be this determinative factor which is quite frankly, yet another instance of polarisation of opinions in the world around us.

No manufacturer (or businessman) is a saint, nor should they expected to be. In fact, we should appreciate them for their cut throat business acumen than the purity of intentions since we are paying hard earned money (mostly) in exchange for value and someone with a high business acumen is more likely to provide that than a saint!

Note that in many instances, as mentioned above, this value is perceived! It all boils down to what makes one feel good about what is largely a depreciating, superfluous expense which many of us overspend on! For some it is the safety rating, others it is the feature list, still others it is the fuel consumption and for some it may even be a particular colour or the chrome bling some models come with. I have even seen some driving what would be classified as junk by 'enthusiasts' because it has a very fancy number!

Lastly, just as ownership is an aggregate of experiences, accidents too are multifactorial. While safety of construction is of course a critical component, there are other elements which contribute to safety - brakes, headlights, horn, interiors, ergonomics, storage, warning lights and other more sophisticated electronic aids. Each of these adds an element of probabilistic nuance to outcomes which is hard to quantify. Last but not least, is the element of luck in accidents. How many of us have avoided accidents because of no cause of our own and how many have had accidents because of no fault of our own! In a country like ours, we cannot ignore the possibility of the unpredictable / uncontrollable, controlling our destiny.

Let's all enjoy the cars we choose and drive sanely and hope luck favours us!

[RMN]

As far as I see it, many of Tata's products rate well on the safety scale and whenever they have officially achieved it, they have advertised it. If they have not achieved it, they don't advertise it. Nothing wrong here.

In this case, its up to to the customer to cross check the spec sheet (for ratings) of the vehicle they are buying in order be sure if its safe.

[ZenMaster]

Tata is probably not sending the facelifted Nexon not because its any less safer, but probably because its no longer the one with the highest Numerical score in its class.

This way, crash testing it and publicizing it will not give them any particular advantage in marketing. The "Safest Car" tag has already been grabbed by another vehicle.

[COMMUTER]

Yeah, I agree, why not shamelessly parade the lack of saftey when most of the people don't give a nickel about zero safety in cars they buy anyway.

[Karthik.thm]

There are no saints in business.

Everyone out there who does business has their own USP to sustain there business. If we look at auto manufacturers, each one has their own USP for consumers.

Maruti Suzuki - Fuel efficiency, low maintenance, resale value etc.

Hyundai - Features

TATA - Safety

KIA - looks and features

Honda - iVtec

Mahindra - Robust SUV

Toyota - Reliability

MG - Big everything

Skoda/VW - Drivers car and affordable luxury

Every manufacturers are here to make money and they taught us many things over the years. Maruti taught us middle class family can afford a car, Hyundai/Kia made us experience few features that were once available in luxury cars etc.

TATA woke up our safety consciousness with their safety campaigns in a good way. People nowadays are considering safety while their buying cars, TATA might have little contribution in this.

So according to me there is nothing wrong in bragging about 5 star safety in ads of their 5 star rated cars and not mentioning about safety on few other models of their own. I appreciate TATA for planting a thought on us about safety just like Toyota planted a thought about reliability on our minds.

[pradeep_mvpa]

TATA is no safety saint. They simply realized that Safety is one USP they can bank upon to sell their cars.

But, I support TATA for selling safer cars at the same/cheaper price point than their direct competitors. An Altroz is significantly cheaper than Baleno/i20 variant to variant. Same is the case with Nexon to Brezza. Even the cheaper Tiago is 4 star rated.

I am curious to know what TATA plans to do for Harrier twins.

[sunilg33]

Originally Posted by ron178

Note: Off-topic post


Did you mean the difference of velocities?


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.

Yes, the static barrier test does not give the full picture. Also along with the velocity another important parameter is the vehicle's weight. The momentum of an object is directly proportional to its weight X speed.
So for example, if a 5 star ≈1000KG Altroz and a 5 star ≈2000KG XUV 700 crash with each other. Then chances of survival are higher in the XUV as it carries double the momentum, which would push the Altroz back adding a higher load on the crumple zones of Altroz.
However, the static barrier test still gives a basic idea of how well the car is put together relative to the car of its size.

[jungleroars]

Originally Posted by careind

The original post seems to be nitpicking, interpreting and shadow fighting - on what is NOT told or done. What is NOT told or done is open to any number of interpretations. Shouldn’t we be more interested about what has been done?
Tata has surely set the cat amongst the pigeons asking ‘kitna Deta hai’. And they did it after putting in the time and effort of manufacturing such cars.
Now, I can’t think of a reason why Volkswagen/ Ford did not think of this aspect when they came in to the market as they were already there. Or they disposed it off as not worthwhile at that time. I don’t remember any ads extolling the safety of their cars in the Indian market though they would have been the pioneers with global exposure.

Exactly my feelings. Looks like a post created to bash Tata. Nobody questioned non-indian manufactures so many years for many of their false claims but people are not able to absorb the fact yet that players like Tata and Mahindra (our very home grown) can take such aspects like security to next level. They have all rights to market (and even a kid understands that marketing is always bit exaggerated) something which they started.

Did anyone actually check real world mileage of 'Kitna Deti Hai' car and objected to their figures ? Did anyone complain about so called gimmicks in the name of luxury from few Koreans ?

[Neversaygbye]

Tata does not pretend to be anything, least of all a saint - other than one ad on India's safest cars which features an untested Harrier but does not mention any ratings, I have also not seen anything that we can call pretense or misrepresentation. Their PCBU is one of their many businesses and they market it just like they do their other businesses (actually, they market their other businesses better). Like every other company, they are in business to make money, and not preach. Therefore they are fully justified in sticking to their strength, which is build quality, just like Maruti can stick to kitna deti hai which is their USP.

From the tone, this looks like a Tata bashing post which does not take into account the immense strides taken by Tata's PCBU in the last few years. Forget about making safety a talking point, Tata has also helped in mainstream EV adoption which is something that Mahindra could not do despite having a headstart.

Tata cars were always robustly built and reliable (else they would not have been so popular with fleet operators) but were earlier coarse and had horrible fit and finish. That has changed for the better in recent times though consistency in QC still remains a weak area. Rather than cast aspersions on Tata for making safety their USP, we should hold accountable the other OEMs who either have double standards or justify their tin cans by comparing their safety with that of two wheelers, or do both.

I have friends and relatives who have purchased Maruti cars in the recent past and sold them within 2-3 years because of the sheer amount of effort it takes to keep them looking good, as every small incident results in huge body shop bills. They have all shifted from Maruti and sworn off the brand. Someone who used to drive a Swift now drives a Venue. A Baleno owner has shifted to Altroz. So build quality and safety have started to matter even to Maruti loyalists and we can thank the Tatas and Mahindras for that rather than bash them through these kind of threads.

[Asish_VK]

In my opinion, this thread itself exists because of the safety awareness created by Tata & Mahindra.

I also would like Tata to send their flagships for crash test voluntarily and score 5*. But it doesn't make me look down on their achievement on safety and GNCAP till now.

[nitin_knw]

I would rather Appreciate Tata, Mahindra for building safe cars, Do India ever cared about safety before 'NO' Do India care about safety now ' YES' this is possible only because of our homegrown brand giving more priority to safety and I do not see this wrong advertising it , if all this would not had happened I would be currently driving a 'Tin Can' thanks god you saved me

And yes no one is 'Saint' its a highly competitive market and its consumer wish to choose 'X' brand over 'Y'.

[BigB]

Irrespective of whatever is mentioned in the first post of the thread, this thread was started to bash TATA. However, after reading all the posts till time of this posting, it can be safely concurred that it has backfired on the thread creator.

[Sreejith V]

Every one agrees to the fact that safety is first.

What test is available in India to compare cars performances in a crash? Currently it is only Global NCAP.

Whether they will test all manufacture's cars? Answer is yes.

Will they have different test standards for different manufactures? Answer is no.

Knowing all these, this thread is for bashing a manufacturer who has tested all their cars except two models. I feel the thread should have been for discussing, why maruti and hyundai (since they are leading in India now) are not sending their models for crash testing.

I think those who are bashing TATA for advertising their crash test rating, want TATA to advertise their structures similar to what Hyundai has done for their Creta steel structure.



https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/attac...99-lakhs-1.jpg

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/india...-lakhs-15.html (2nd-Gen Hyundai Creta @ Auto Expo 2020. Edit: Launched at 9.99 lakhs)

[sunilkm]

Not able to understand the questions in the first post. All these questions should be raised to other manufactures. We can be proud that Tata has tested the cars from all the segments other than Harrier and Safari. Isn't it better than what Hyundai, Maruti, Kia is doing to Indian consumers?

[sourabhzen]

Originally Posted by theAutomaniac

What I'd say is, there are quite a few manufacturers who make safe cars, but it is only Tata who markets safety aggressively.

Is TATA stopping those other car manufacturers to market their safe cars aggressively?