[84.monsoon]

If I were Hyundai or Kia, I would quickly rush the next generation of Seltos and Creta (and their derivative cars) in. Make sure they use their own global standards of ultra high strength and high strength steel content, as in the cars they make in Australia etc. It is a simple swap of materials and should not take very long. Put a fresh nose in the front and call them the “All New 2022 Creta/Seltos”. And have them tested by GNCAP voluntarily before launch (As M&M did with the XUV700). They can charge 50K or 1 Lakh more to make up for the cost of additional high strength steel used in the body, nobody would mind.

The fact is, these cars will still sell lots and lots even if Hyundai/Kia do not do this. But how many lives will be lost and how many serious injuries will occur, due to the compromised build? Since the whole family of cars (Creta/Venue/Seltos/Sonet/Carens/i20) suffer from the same issues with compromised build quality, they are injecting roughly 30,000 - 40,000 unsafe cars a month (that is 3,50,000 - 5,00,000 cars a year) into the Indian roads, into a highly vulnerable segment. Why do I call this segment that?

Some may argue, how about all the other segments like sub-compacts where Maruti is flooding the market with unsafe cars? But such an argument misses the point squarely. Remember, such small cars are usually used by careful first time car buyers who tend to drive slowly and mostly within the city. They know, just looking around at the massive cars and SUVs all around them, that they are not going to be safe in a crash with such beasts. They are going to be constantly reminded of their vulnerability and therefore drive defensively.

When one is old enough and rich enough and experienced enough with cars, that is when they buy into the segment in question - to go for long distance trips, drive far and experience the exhilarating power of their cars in this upper segment. This is where the drivers let loose, go on those fast highway drives. In their minds they are confident that they can do so, because they have spent 20 lakhs plus to buy a big car, a powerful car, which claims to have lots of safety features. They see the tiny Altos and i10s all around and feel a sense of invincibility. And that is exactly the kind of situation where driver tends to take more risks and therefore, the safety and crash worthiness of the car will make a difference between life and death.

Another set of members here would use the somewhat stale argument of “How about the Harrier and Safari? They have not been tested and so we do not know if any of the competitors are safe or not, why are you singling out Hyundai and Kia?” But the point here is the Harrier and Safari hardly sell 5000 cars a month collectively. That is a 10th of the volume of cars in comparison. So from a Macro picture, even if the Harrier and Safari prove to be equally unsafe on testing (which is highly unlikely), the macro impact of lives lost or serious injuries due to poor vehicle safety in accident situations, would be a 10th of those in the case of the Hyundai/Kia family cars belonging to the segments in question.

So there is a disproportionate amount of lives that can be lost due to the stance Hyundai/Kia are taking. They sell in high volumes, provide a false sense of safety and put a lot of power into the hands of drivers. I really hope they realise their folly or at least the Government of India notices it and takes some aggressive action against them.

[IP_Man]

I see lot of post defending Hyundai.

How relevant is GNCAP safety rating in actual scenario? What will happen at highway legal speed crash? Let's keep that aside. Let's compare Hyundai and Kia with the competition that scored full five star rating.

Looking at technical capability of Hyundai, I'm damn sure they can make safe car but that cost more. Hyundai don't want to reduce their profit margin by making safe car in India. Hyundai is fully aware that people in India are not that safety conscious. As long as sales graph of Creta is climbing up, they don't have to worry. But the moment it will start declining, they will feel the heat and need for making safe car in India.

[ron178]

Alejandro Furas: “The car (Brezza/Urban Cruiser) is not far away from a 5 star, there’s not much they need to do to achieved this.”

via Autocar

I might be reading too much into this: but the last time they said something like this was the four-star Nexon: in November they said there could be a five star car before the end of the year, when Autocar Professional asked what car it could be they said "the cars we've already tested are very close to five stars" (then it was the Brezza and Nexon).

That begs the questions:
-When the Etioses scored lower than the Urban Cruiser Toyota was shouting it over the rooftops both in India and Africa. This time they've been completely silent. They aren't advertising it at all. They didn't even respond to requests for comments about the result (unlike even Honda).

-carandbike (who are very close to Global NCAP and know the stuff behind the embargoes) said the Urban Cruiser let down expectations from Toyota. At the same time, with other four star results like the Jazz they said it "lived up to expectations", despite the Altroz already scoring better. Now, the Urban Cruiser's four stars (less than half a point away from five) is a very creditable result, though competitors have achieved five stars. Is it hinting at a five star Urban Cruiser? I fully expect Toyota to pull off something like that. They have been very close with the Global NCAP team in Latin America and sponsor testing for every new model there.

-The Urban Cruiser has pretensioners, and it had a stable passenger compartment and no footwell rupture in the test. There's a possibility Toyota could present kneemapping data (like Tata did with the Nexon) and have some penalties removed to achieve a score of 15.52/17. That, if followed by a pass on the R95 side impact, is five stars.

-In 2015 Suzuki appears to have presented kneemapping data to Euro NCAP for the frontal offset test for the Vitara which is based on the same architecture.


-The carandbike host says the Urban Cruiser is 'yet to be tested for side impact'. That would normally make sense because under the new July protocols a side impact is standard. But there's likely to be a new Urban Cruiser coming soon then, so why would they test the old one again? So, could this 'side impact' be R95 like the Nexon/Altroz/Punch/XUVn00 and not the upcoming NCAP side impact?

-carandbike said more made-in-India cars would be crash-tested soon. I'm not sure of the New Scorpio's launch timeline but if it's after July that gives my speculation about the Urban Cruiser somewhat greater credibility.

This is purely speculation, but there suddenly seem to be a lot of signs that Toyota might be trying for a higher result for the CURRENT Urban Cruiser if not the next generation.

[volkman10]

Why was Toyota Urban Cruiser GNCAP tested ?

GNCAP secretary general, Alejandro Furas :

We wanted to know if there were any changes implemented in the car since our first test (of the Brezza) and we’re gladly surprised to see the car is the same as we tested with the Brezza”.

Though Furas added that he hoped there would have been a centre, three-point seat belt added by now.



Link

[Old_Salt]

Some interesting point of views, for and against the motion, if I may say.

We should also take into account that majority of non english speaking or understanding customers may not be aware of what a crash test would mean or care about the ratings.
And they are the ones who form a majority of the customer base, basis word of mouth purchases.

Companies understand this and know their target audience.
Voices will be raised every now and then, but as long as the benjamins keep coming, its all good, its business after all.

I do not see things moving in the right direction even at the speed of tectonic plates.
Does it mean we stop raising our voices? Hell No!
Everytime a popular car fares badly, we bash it on the group, advise a few close people to avoid that model and then wait for the next poor GNCAP result to start the bashing again. What more can we do is the question, to bring about that change?

But I am hopeful that every little effort,be it through this forum,will bring a change in the coming future, however, it should not be at the expense of lives of the near and dear ones.

I heard this quote many years ago on my first ship, and it still resonates, " If you think safety is expensive, try an accident!"

[fhdowntheline]

Originally Posted by Old_Salt

But I am hopeful that every little effort,be it through this forum,will bring a change in the coming future, however, it should not be at the expense of lives of the near and dear ones.

I heard this quote many years ago on my first ship, and it still resonates, " If you think safety is expensive, try an accident!"

Ideally, what needs to happen is a massive upgrade and rigour of government regulations in terms of meeting safety norms. Right now, there is a piecemeal approach. ABS first, dual airbags next and so on. Once the government dictated safety standards are revised, then all NCAP ratings will be taken care of.
Otherwise, let consumers dictate their choice, "sunroof vs structure stability".

[Kosfactor]

As with any discussion on GNCAP ratings , I don't think most car makers want to entertain them at all as their rating can influence car buying decisions, maybe not now but some time in the future.

Today someone who wants a compact SUV is most likely to buy a Creta / Seltos - there is no alternative at all.

[Emvi]

Originally Posted by 84.monsoon

The fact is, these cars will still sell lots and lots even if Hyundai/Kia do not do this. But how many lives will be lost and how many serious injuries will occur, due to the compromised build? Since the whole family of cars (Creta/Venue/Seltos/Sonet/Carens/i20) suffer from the same issues with compromised build quality, they are injecting roughly 30,000 - 40,000 unsafe cars a month (that is 3,50,000 - 5,00,000 cars a year) into the Indian roads, into a highly vulnerable segment. Why do I call this segment that?

Interesting thoughts and some serious numbers!
Since the whole 'family' is taken into discussion, I believe the sample size is in the ballpark figure of 1.5 million cars. It's a sizable sample size for a good analysis. It would be of immense help for the prospective buyers, fencesitters and all petrolheads if you can come up with logical/factual data on

1. Total number of major accidents involving Hyundai/Kia vehicles since 2015, the year Creta went on sale in India.
- Major injuries/fatalities primarily due to structural collapse and not due to any other reason(s).
2. Total number of major accidents involving top rated safe cars in the same time period.
- Major injuries/fatalities(if any).

Thanks in advance.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by Emvi

- Major injuries/fatalities primarily due to structural collapse and not due to any other reason(s).

Well, that's the deal. In the test neither the Creta nor the i20 had collapse of the passenger compartment. They only became unstable, i.e, the structural performance in repeated tests would be unpredictable.

And I'll also say this, and say all you want about it but if saving lives is the concern here, side and curtain airbags are probably going to be more important than an NCAP frontal offset test rating, unless you're talking about zero or one star cars like the S-Presso or redi-GO).

But the frontal offset test does cover something important: disabling injuries to the lower legs and feet in car-to-car crashes. Ankle failures, tibia fractures, femur dislocations etc.

For some 8 years (1995-2003) IIHS also did only this single frontal offset test, and here's some reporting on Dateline NBC about the kinds of injuries the test was designed to prevent. Why did Global NCAP start with such a tough test before even regulations were applied? Well, why not? Instead of assign just a pass/fail, a star rating that helps consumers actually see differences in cars is more helpful.

https://youtu.be/pyC3rGoMXRQ

The kind of pedal intrusion you see in the Creta is exactly this.

Given a choice I think I would in fact recommend side and curtain airbags and an average Global NCAP rating over just two airbags and a good rating, only because I think life-threatening injury is more important than disabling injury. Though I must point out I'm finding it really hard to trust those optional airbags in the Hyundais to do their job.

What I ask Hyundai is, why choose? What's wrong with doing both? Mahindra could do it with the XUV300 which gets optional six airbags and ESC, the Urban Cruiser/Brezza will soon get six airbags and ESC, the Honda fourth-generation City at a time was available with six airbags. All have scored respectably for adult and child protection in Global NCAP tests too.

Originally Posted by volkman10

Why was Toyota Urban Cruiser GNCAP tested ?

Apparently there's a more detailed interview with Autocar coming.

[Emvi]

Thank you for the detailed explanation. Very informative as always!

Originally Posted by ron178

Well, that's the deal. In the test neither the Creta nor the i20 had collapse of the passenger compartment. They only became unstable, i.e, the structural performance in repeated tests would be unpredictable.

Right!
Unpredictable is the word. So what I infer from your points is that the structure(s) might not collapse or get severely damaged every single time even if subjected to multiple crash tests under controlled environment. Also, there is a big difference between unstable and poor structures. Cars having unstable structures are not as poor as they are generally perceived to be.

And I'll also say this, and say all you want about it but if saving lives is the concern here, side and curtain airbags are probably going to be more important than an NCAP frontal offset test rating, unless you're talking about zero or one star cars like the S-Presso or redi-GO).

-- + --

Given a choice I think I would in fact recommend side and curtain airbags and an average Global NCAP rating over just two airbags and a good rating, only because I think life-threatening injury is more important than disabling injury. Though I must point out I'm finding it really hard to trust those optional airbags in the Hyundais to do their job.

So, even if a car's structure is not of top notch build, additional airbags do help in enhancing safety of the car considerably.

https://Youtu.be/pyC3rGoMXRQ

The video shows different test results even for the best of cars when subjected to modified test conditions. When such is the case, the unpredictable real world scenarios can also give us surprising results.

Please correct me if I have wrongly assessed your points.

On a side note, for a better understanding, why is that the crash tests are always performed using a stationary crash barrier? Why can't the testing agencies perform tests using two similar cars going head-on against each other? I know testing involves a lot of cost, but atleast the second car can be a dummy weighing as much as the actual test car or even heavier in some cases.

P.S- I am just an Enthusiast, not an Expert in the field by any stretch of imagination. People often get confused with the two 'E's.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by Emvi

Thank you for the detailed explanation. Very informative as always!


Right!
Unpredictable is the word. So what I infer from your points is that the structure(s) might not collapse or get severely damaged every single time even if subjected to multiple crash tests under controlled environment

No, it means that the result has poor repeatability. Not that if you tested the post-crash car again it would collapse; that would happen to any car. By poor repeatability I mean if you bought x Cretas (yes that sounds wrong) and put them all to this same test under the same conditions, there are symptoms to show that some of them would have intrusion with considerable deviation from the mean, i.e., the result has poor repeatability. By intrusion I mean steering column and hinge pillar movement. So the result is 'not robust', so to speak, so a small penalty is applied. That's why I say that to consumers stable or unstable should hardly make a difference.

An unstable footwell area for example does not have to mean high intrusion.
In the Creta there was not only instability of the footwell but also high intrusion. This led to loss of all points for the feet.
In the Honda City there was instability of the footwell but the actual measurement in the test indicated intrusion was limited. But since there was rupture of the footwell area, this response was deemed to be unstable so a small penalty of only 1 point was applied.

This is what high pedal intrusion looks like (2014 Swift). It has a very big effect on the results, like in the Creta (which was worse than this). It can contribute to a high risk of ankle joint failure.

(AutoEsporte)

This is what only footwell rupture (unstable footwell) looks like (2022 i20). As you can see intrusion is not very high. Instability carries only one point and you can still have a reasonably good result with it, like the Honda City (the i20's loss of points was mainly driver chest protection). It need not mean high intrusion.

(carandbike)

Though the pedal intrusion in the test was limited and the i20 scored reasonably well for the feet, the rupturing of the footwell indicates that if you tested a few more i20s there's a pretty good chance that in some of them the footwell would give way and the pedals would intrude further rearwards than in this particular test car. So the footwell response has become unpredictable, i.e., unstable. So the car was slightly penalised despite the low pedal displacement.

Similarly with the passenger compartment: you had an unstable passenger compartment in both the Tata Nano and Tigor: obviously the Tigor's structural performance was much better with lower intrusion of the steering column and hinge pillar. Bad structural integrity does not necessarily mean bad structural performance during the test.

Originally Posted by Emvi

Also, there is a big difference between unstable and poor structures. Cars having unstable structures are not as poor as they are generally perceived to be.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Emvi

So, even if a car's structure is not of top notch build,

There is nothing called 'top-notch build'. Intrusion can be caused by a variety of factors. It's basically the engine pushing components into the passenger compartment. The reason I say there is nothing called 'top-notch build' is that you could have excellent structural performance in a frontal impact and terrible performance in, say, a side impact. There's nothing like 'building a stronger car'. It's purely good engineering, and yes, that does involve reinforcing the structure at certain points to resist intrusion in certain kinds of impact.

Originally Posted by Emvi

additional airbags do help in enhancing safety of the car considerably.

They could help in enhancing safety. You have cases like this Renault Sandero where despite having a combination chest-head airbag it showed life-threatening injury to the chest in a Latin NCAP side impact. Having extra airbags doesn't mean they're necessarily going to perform well.

Global NCAP doesn't yet test for side impact in India but they will starting this July.

Originally Posted by Emvi

The video shows different test results even for the best of cars when subjected to modified test conditions. When such is the case, the unpredictable real world scenarios can also give as surprising results.

Not really, this test configuration is very similar to Global NCAP's, it's just that it's from nearly 30 years ago when this test was very new.

My point was that good performance in this frontal offset crash helps reduce crippling injuries to the lower legs and feet. These are not critical body regions in that you can survive without them - but they are serious injuries nevertheless. A car that scores weakly could perhaps have acceptable protection to critical body regions like the head, neck and chest (like the Creta and Seltos) which is why it's not always right to say that these cars with weak results are killing people any more than a car with better results.

Originally Posted by Emvi

On a side note, for a better understanding, why is that the crash tests are always performed using a stationary crash barrier? Why can't the testing agencies perform tests using two similar cars going head-on against each other?

They did a series of experimental tests to show that results would be somewhat be comparable, though they still maintain that you can never draw an exact equivalence to a car-to-car crash. I'm not sure why exactly they decided to use a static barrier but it probably has to do with cost or infrastructure at the time.

Originally Posted by Emvi

I know testing involves a lot of cost, but atleast the second car can be a dummy weighing as much as the actual test car or even heavier in some cases.

Like this? Euro NCAP adopted a mobile barrier MPDB test in 2020. The main reason for the switch however is to assess how aggressive the test car is as a crash partner to other cars.

https://youtu.be/k4s2ux4xXMA

Originally Posted by Emvi

P.S- I am just an Enthusiast, not an Expert in the field by any stretch of imagination.

Me neither.

[karanddd]

Originally Posted by ron178

Me neither.

Be that as it may, your post elevates the level of discourse around crash tests and safety in this forum. I am getting tired of people talking about "solid build" and European thuds, or reading the "unstable structure" tag to mean that 3 star rated cars drive poorly or in a jittery, unstable manner, or would collapse in case of a crash. Your post also helps give the lie to a notion I have seen espoused one too many times here: What is the point of airbags if the car's structure is not stable?

The dualisms by means of which people commonly think about cars – strong vs. not strong, heavy vs. light, stable vs. unstable – do not correspond to anything in reality. There is nothing that says one car is "stronger" than another car, and one may easily offer better protection to its occupant than another and vice versa in different situations. And that also has very little to do with how much a car weighs.

The most egregious thing that I see here is people recommending untested cars over 3 star cars, or considering 3 star cars to be equivalent to death traps. My sense is that one is almost always better off purchasing a car that has been crash tested, as you have at least some idea of what happens to it in a particular kind of collision (as opposed to knowing absolutely nothing about the car that hasn't been tested at all). And it seems intuitively true that one is better off purchasing cars with as many active safety features and airbags as possible.

[Emvi]

Originally Posted by ron178

Me neither.

I must say you are being very modest here. Period

No, it means that the result has poor repeatability. Not that if you tested the post-crash car again it would collapse; that would happen to any car. By poor repeatability I mean if you bought x Cretas (yes that sounds wrong) and put them all to this same test under the same conditions, there are symptoms to show that some of them would have intrusion with considerable deviation from the mean, i.e., the result has poor By intrusion I mean steering column and hinge pillar movement. So the result is 'not robust', so to speak, so a small penalty is applied. That's why I say that to consumers stable or unstable should hardly make a difference.

This is exactly what I meant, my words were probably not well put.

Similarly with the passenger compartment: you had an unstable passenger compartment in both the Tata Nano and Tigor: obviously the Tigor's structural performance was much better with lower intrusion of the steering column and hinge pillar. Bad structural integrity does not necessarily mean bad structural performance during the test.
There is nothing called 'top-notch build'. Intrusion can be caused by a variety of factors. It's basically the engine pushing components into the passenger compartment. The reason I say there is nothing called 'top-notch build' is that you could have excellent structural performance in a frontal impact and terrible performance in, say, a side impact. There's nothing like 'building a stronger car'. It's purely good engineering, and yes, that does involve reinforcing the structure at certain points to resist intrusion in certain kinds of impact.

Got it!
Perfection is a goal, but rarely achieved.

My point was that good performance in this frontal offset crash helps reduce crippling injuries to the lower legs and feet. These are not critical body regions in that you can survive without them - but they are serious injuries nevertheless. A car that scores weakly could perhaps have acceptable protection to critical body regions like the head, neck and chest (like the Creta and Seltos) which is why it's not always right to say that these cars with weak results are killing people any more than a car with better results.

Good to hear this straight from the horse's mouth!

Like this? Euro NCAP adopted a mobile barrier MPDB test in 2020. The main reason for the switch however is to assess how aggressive the test car is as a crash partner to other cars.
https://Youtu.be/k4s2ux4xXMA

Yes. This is probably the closest one can get to the real life scenarios.

Thank you once again for the excellent insight that you have provided!

[ron178]

Originally Posted by karanddd

3 star rated cars drive poorly or in a jittery, unstable manner

That's the first I'm hearing of it.

Originally Posted by karanddd

The most egregious thing that I see here is people recommending untested cars over 3 star cars

I'm sorry but I'll beg to differ there. In the case of the Creltos even their non-test-related standard safety equipment is (was) significantly lower than competition. For example all Volkswagens, MGs and Skodas today (and the Honda New City) have the following fitted as standard which Hyundai couldn't commit to fitting even in such an expensive car:
-ESC
-ISOFIX anchorages
-three-point belts for all seats

I'd still rather recommend one of these while warning the buyer to hope for a good result but expect anything in the actual test.

Originally Posted by karanddd

or considering 3 star cars to be equivalent to death traps.

The disappointment with three stars is, to quote Global NCAP's Alejandro Furas, "more philosophical than technical". Hyundai should have achieved five stars by now, because currently it's really not that hard, and if they had taken it up as a challenge today there's a good chance they would have continued to strive for it in the future, when five stars is going to mean a lot more.

It would be different if it was something like a Force Gurkha etc. scoring three stars. This is Hyundai we're talking about. They have huge R&D budgets for safety for so many markets but cannot seem to commit to it for one that's probably one of their most important.

Originally Posted by Emvi

Good to hear this straight from the horse's mouth!

Let me make one thing very clear: I am not the horse's mouth. Global NCAP is the horse's mouth. I'm just interested in these things, goodness knows why.

[krishnakumar]

Originally Posted by ron178

The disappointment with three stars is, to quote Global NCAP's Alejandro Furas, "more philosophical than technical". Hyundai should have achieved five stars by now, because currently it's really not that hard, and if they had taken it up as a challenge today there's a good chance they would have continued to strive for it in the future, when five stars is going to mean a lot more.

What I find more disappointing is the open double standard position they take. Their same car has different chassis for different markets; the lower rated specifically designed for India. It's almost as if saying, "oh the Indians are only worth this much".

Maybe it's not this way and it's just my projection, but I can't get over the fact that they would choose to do this with one of the biggest car markets in the world.

My opinion is, being such a large player, a brand that the country has supported so much, they should have a moral obligation to lead the right way. Not by setting double standards.