[ron178]

Originally Posted by krishnakumar

Their same car has different chassis for different markets; the lower rated specifically designed for India.

Yes and no. I don't think the fact that there are two different structures explains the huge difference in case of the Seltos. The fact that there are two different designs for the Seltos appears to be because the US/AU Seltos is larger, has different powertrains. And those ultra-high tensile reinforcements in the door sill, hinge pillar and windscreen pillar appear to be for the IIHS' small overlap crash which relies heavily on the sill and wheel arch for energy absorption because the longitudinals are intentionally missed. That car also seems to have been developed to perform well in 40% offset crashes for both hands of drive though coincidentally even the Australian (RHD) one had issues with the driver's right tibia like the Creta and SP2i.

There are many other cars that will have those reinforcements missing outside of the US: Honda Civic 10th-gen (there's evidence), Volkswagen Jetta, Honda Jazz, Toyota Corolla, etc.

It would explain for example why the US Venue has those reinforcements in the door sill and the European (no small overlap test) i10 doesn't, though I reckon for both of those (produced on Hyundai's 'lower' production line) Hyundai might have cheapened out somewhere else (welding for example) for India.

Forget the reinforcements, the Seltos we get in India (SP2i) is a completely different car. It's smaller, cheaper and designed for sale in Latin American markets; essentially a short-wheelbase version of the Kia KX3 (SP2c). It appears to have been developed exclusively for left hand drive markets. The intrusion issues appear to be because of this, because the engine is transversely mounted on the right side and RHD cars need additional R&D to achieve the same standard of crashworthiness.

The Chinese KX3 for example, with the same 1.5L engine and a CVT, did well in the CNCAP's offset frontal impact (and no, don't go saying China NCAP is "duplicate", their test lab CATARC is co-accredited by Euro NCAP).

The old made-in-India LHD Creta which also doesn't have those reinforcements did extremely well in 2015 Latin NCAP, good enough for five stars if not for a missing seatbelt reminder.

My hunch is if Latin NCAP tests one of the Seltoses or Cretas we export to Mexico (LHD) it might do better in the frontal impact (might suffer elsewhere in Latin NCAP's now very demanding evaluation).

What is disappointing is that they thought it was okay to budget out on R&D for crashworthiness of the Indian car specifically. Regardless of the reason they should not have internally approved this for sale until they achieved a higher standard of crashworthiness performance.

It looks like the i20 had low enough foot area intrusion to be fixable with just changes to the driver's airbag. Not sure what exactly. Either geometry or timing or pressure. But if they can get the head green and the chest orange (and hence also be eligible for scoring seatbelt reminder points) a comfortable four star result should likely be possible. Like the Honda 4th-gen City or Tata Tigor. It was also really, really close to four stars for child protection: even with fitment of a three-point belt it could achieve that.

[RedMaw]

Originally Posted by RedMaw

Will higher end Creta might fare better in safety rating since it has 6 airbags and ESP? Can someone clarify this.

Can experts here clarify this?

[nitkel]

Originally Posted by RedMaw

Can experts here clarify this?

Not an expert, but it's simple physics that those extra 4 curtain and side airbags will definitely protect your head and body from a side impact or roll over compared to a car with just 2. Stable structure or not.
And ESP will help you to avoid a collision or save you from a sideslip into a deadly pole or tree.
Provided they indeed work as intended when needed.

[fhdowntheline]

Originally Posted by ron178

What is disappointing is that they thought it was okay to budget out on R&D for crashworthiness of the Indian car specifically. Regardless of the reason they should not have internally approved this for sale until they achieved a higher standard of crashworthiness performance.

This further reinforces my point that our BSVNCAP regulations need to be far more stringent for manufacturers to comply. Only that will force them to keep or improve the chassis and safety systems design.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by RedMaw

Will higher end Creta might fare better in safety rating since it has 6 airbags and ESP? Can someone clarify this.

It would not affect the rating but these systems are always recommended because if they function correctly they either help try to avoid the crash in the first place or provide protection in types of crashes that Global NCAP does not yet test for.

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

This further reinforces my point that our BSVNCAP regulations need to be far more stringent for manufacturers to comply. Only that will force them to keep or improve the chassis and safety systems design.

The IIHS small overlap test is not a regulation. The IIHS is an independent nonprofit just like Global NCAP. Hyundai did it just because it's a challenge every other competitor was taking up.
(It's also a very infrequent type of crash in India, much more infrequent than even the 40% offset deformable barrier type impact, so I'm going to excuse them for not developing Indian cars for it)

Bharat NCAP/BNVSAP will not a regulation either. It is not in force yet but when it is it will be a consumer rating program. The government regulation crash tests come under the AIS norms which are based on UN ECE standards.

Our regulations are just fine. They're similar to what's already applied even in Europe. In some areas they're tougher than what's applied in the US because they include offset testing and pedestrian impact which the US does not include yet. That does not mean our cars are safer, because manufacturers in the US strive not only to pass regulation but excel in consumer testing too. It's the consumer testing that's tougher, not the regulation.

Three stars is well above ECE regulation. It's just manufacturers who should consider trying harder in consumer testing. Yes, our consumer testing should get better too, but if the two leading manufacturers don't care about it it will be of limited use.

You don't make 95% the passing criterion to make the student study harder. You keep the passing criterion at whatever it is but find a way to motivate the student to achieve as high as possible.

[prajwalmr62]

After some thinking and dubious research, I see almost no overlap of 5 stars and 6 airbags (even optional) combination in any of the groups, except the large SUV segment, where most of the cars are untested.

I haven't considered ESP/HSA etc because most of the cases 6 airbags are only at top variant which comes loaded with these features anyway. I have listed down some which does not come with ESP even in top variant. Car without ESP is a big no-no for me, as it did save me (and my car) from an accident.

Hatchback segment
Altroz 5 stars, 2 airbags (No ESP)
Kiger 4 stars, 2/4 airbags (No ESP)
Jazz 4 stars, 2 airbags
i20 3 stars, 6 airbags (optional)

Hatchback/CSUV segment
Nexon, 5 stars, 2 airbags
Punch, 5 stars, 2 airbags (no ESP)
XUV300, 5 stars, 6 airbags(optional) - Only exception
Magnite, 4 stars, 2 airbags
Brezza/Urban Cruiser, 4 stars, 2 airbags (No ESP)
Venue/Sonet, 2/3(?) stars, 6 airbags (optional)

Sedan/Mid SUV Segment
Honda City, 4 stars, 2 airbags ( new model is not tested, which gets 6 airbags, also no ESP)
Creta/Seltos, 3 stars, 6 airbags (optional)
Taigun/Kushaq, untested, 6 airbags (optional)
Virtus/Slavia, untested, 6 airbags (optional)

SUV segment
XUV700, 5 stars, 6 airbags (optional) - Again the exception
Harrier/Safari, untested, 6 airbags (optional)
Hector/Hector+, untested, 6 airbags (optional)
Tuscon, untested, 6 airbags
Tiguan/Kodiaq, untested, 6 airbags

---

There are very very few options if you need a car with 5 star rating, 6 airbags and ESP.

Which combination would you choose?

• 5 star, 6 airbags, ESP (XUV300/700 top-ends only AFAIK)
• 5/4 star, 2 airbags, ESP
• 5/4 star, 2 airbags, No ESP
• 3 star, 6 airbags, ESP
• less than 3 star, 2 airbags, No ESP (and anything below it).

[ron178]

Originally Posted by prajwalmr62

Honda City, 4 stars, 2 airbags ( new model is not tested, which gets 6 airbags, also no ESP)

The new one gets ESC as standard.

The most affordable car to meet all three criteria: side and curtain airbags, ESC and a good (4+) Global NCAP adult protection rating is (correct me if I'm wrong) the Mahindra XUV300 with the optional safety pack.

[fhdowntheline]

The fourth gen City which was 4 stars has 6 airbags in its top trim. Some notable additions could be

1) Renault Triber, which has 4 stars and 4 airbags as optional.
3) Jeep Compass which is untested and has 6 airbags as optional and ESP as standard.
3) Kia Carens which is untested, but has 6 airbags and ESP as standard.
4) Mahindra Thar- rated 4 stars and has ESP and 2 airbags as standard (albeit it is a niche product).

[prajwalmr62]

Originally Posted by ron178

The new one gets ESC as standard.

I meant no ESP for the tested 4th gen. I should have clarified it, edit window is over now.

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

The fourth Gen Honda City (rated 4 stars) also had 6 airbags in its top trim, so that is another one to the tally. Your hatchback list should also include the Renault Triber, which has 4 stars and 4 airbags as optional. You have also missed the Compass which is untested and has 6 airbags as optional and ESP as standard. Another important miss is the Kia Carens which is untested, but has 6 airbags and ESP as Standard.

It is impossible to add all the cars. I have listed the cars which cover most of the similar cases (Triber -> Kiger, 4stars, 4 airbags).

I have not considered any car which are not on sale right now. The focus is on the safety feature we are getting, not the brand or car model. Also, the question is not on the features which are standard, but available, even if it is optional. Even if you pay for top model, you cannot get ESP in some of the above cars.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

The fourth gen City which was 4 stars has 6 airbags in its top trim.

It used to, but side airbags are now reserved for the fifth generation. that one however has pretty good fitment: the thorax airbags are standard and the head airbags are fit to everything but the base.

Originally Posted by prajwalmr62

It is impossible to add all the cars. I have listed the cars which cover most of the similar cases (Triber -> Kiger, 4stars, 4 airbags).

Here these might help. These were for personal use so I might have got many segments/facts wrong, and I've had the model lists since 2019 or so, so I might have missed some changes. The side airbags are a bit more complicated because you have to count them as well as include their availability. Also the segments aren't exactly sorted by price. Global NCAP ratings are included only if standard equipment related to that section of the test hasn't changed. This is only for new cars.

ESC (Standard/Optional/Not available):


Global NCAP adult protection:


Global NCAP child protection (with specific child seats):


Also the Kiger could have been somewhat close if it had ESC like the African one. It owuld still not get side head airbags but at least it would get the torso airbags. But with the Duster gone no new Renault sold in India has ESC.

[rAijin_]

Originally Posted by varun.petro

At triple speeds, any accident is fatal. Safety ratings don't matter. However very few accidents happen at such speeds. Most of times driver applies break just before accident and speed is in range of 50s or 60s most probably. I hope NCAP must have done lots of study before deciding on speed of 64 km/hr for crash testing.

Cars of Creta class are stable at high speeds and without realizing you can be cruising at 60+ even in some portions of the city. A sharp collision even at 40+ km/hr can result in serious injuries. Safety ratings should matter very seriously.

I think you misunderstood my point and focused more on the triple digit speed.

I was trying to help @bwildrd#1 to decide on cancelling Creta booking. My suggestion was based on the driving style.
Creta is not an enthusiasts car (though you may drive it like one). And now, we can finally conclude that it is not safe either. The point was to suggest that if you are an enthusiast, cancel the Creta booking.
By no means is it safe to drive a Creta ( or even Seltos ) like an enthusiast. They are not engineered that way.

About the triple digit part, I agree at triple digit speeds any accident could prove to be fatal especially if you're driving a less safe car. But like you said, you apply brakes at that speed and reach lesser speeds before actually colliding. If you are at higher speed, you may reach speed of 70-80 while braking. But if you're driving at 70-80, you can reach 30-50.
So, driving Creta is safer if you drive at lower speeds.

Originally Posted by ron178

You cannot possibly know that.
...
Until they fix that, the rating isn't going anywhere.

Thanks for the context on Bodyshell integrity: UNSTABLE. I had different understanding about it.

That's really not what a crash test result is for. ... In the case of Global NCAP it's very basic and only front crash protection.

I agree to most points you mentioned. However, I also believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that a car with better crash test result at GNCAP ( or other such standards ), will be safer in case of a crash even at higher speeds. Of course in a relative term. The damage done will be more ( depending on speed ), but a 5 star rated carill show less damage and reduce mortality chances compared to a 3 start rated car.

And yes I'm sorry I will continue to argue that the Compass hasn't been tested - it really hasn't and nothing changes that. I'm hopeful too of a good performance, both for the Compass and the new VWs, but it's impossible to say anything prematurely.

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

Agreed wholeheartedly, just as we are criticizing some make/models for their less-than-satisfactory scores, we must equally be wary of making any judgements on any untested brands and models, regardless of word-of-mouth reputation.

Originally Posted by McLaren Rulez

I'd hold off on such a comment. Neither the Compass nor the newer VAG cars have been tested. They are well-built but until they actually pass, it's still a gamble. Who'd have expected the Seltos and Creta to fail so badly a couple of years ago?

Actually, many of us expected it!
I was told to hold off on such comments for Creta when I raised the point that Creta would have low safety rating just like Seltos. It was argued that we should not say it since the tests are not done yet.
Well, now the test results are out.

It was always known that Creta and Seltos are not that safe and will not have good crash test rating (though we hoped otherwise since it comes with too much bling. Almost a perfect crossover.). Especially after the 3 star of Seltos, it was known that Creta's rating wouldn't be much different (though we still hoped for some miracle!). To prove my point, you can see a lot of fellow bhp-ians are Not surprised by the results in this thread.
Actually we all knew it. Majority of us just lived in denial. Hyundai's focus in India was never safety. It was always more on design and feature list. It's not that Hyundai doesn't know how to build safe cars! See their cars in West / Europe, they all fetch 4 - 5 stars.
We should also understand that this low rating is not a problem for Hyundai/Kia, Creta / Seltos will still be the most selling crossovers in this segment.

On the other hand, Jeep and VAG's major focus is on safety and dynamics of the car. And that's why I'm very confident that the new Jeep Compass will be 5 star.
But since VAG did some compromise on India 2.0 design, it may drop to 4 star. However, I don't think VAG twins will be 3 star.

[praveen_v]

Thanks for your detailed inputs on various nuances of understanding the results. The terms unstable/collapse are understood loosely by common folks to mean complete damage but your explanation clears up a lot of things.

Originally Posted by ron178

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.

On the topic of pedal intrusion, I am interested to understand how this would impact an automatic variant since it has only 2 pedals compared to 3 in manual and more importantly the clutch pedal being not available will help the left feet/ankle from crippling injuries, which is typically closer to the clutch? In the pictures it is the clutch and brake pedals which seem to be main cause of intrusion while the accelerator is not displaced much. Can you share your thoughts on this?

The international variants tested are Automatic or Manual transmissions? How much impact could this have on the overall star rating since a lot of points is allocated to the footwell/intrusion?

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.

Again thanks for highlighting the actual meaning of the terms used in the report to describe structure integrity.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by rAijin_

On the other hand, Jeep and VAG's major focus is on safety and dynamics of the car. And that's why I'm very confident that the new Jeep Compass will be 5 star.

Yes but you can have all the safety features you want and still have a bad performance. Latin NCAP once tested a USA-made Nissan Murano with 7 airbags and ESC that collapsed badly in the frontal impact because of bad production control. I'm not saying the Compass will be like that, but it's also wrong to imply that a car will score a certain rating just because it has an 'aura of safety around it' because if you understand how the test works you'll realise there exists nothing of the sort.

Originally Posted by rAijin_

But since VAG did some compromise on India 2.0 design, it may drop to 4 star. However, I don't think VAG twins will be 3 star.

4 stars can be for a number of reasons. For example in Africa the Honda Amaze was four stars and not five because it had a missing seatbelt reminder. In Africa the Mazda 2 was four stars and not five because Mazda said they didn't want to proceed with the optional side impact. The Polo, Jazz, Vitara Brezza and Urban Cruiser are not five stars because the OEMs haven't been able to present additional data proving that a similar level of protection would be provided to the knees of occupants of different sizes or those sat in different positions (in the Polo and Jazz it's because they don't have lower anchorage pretensioners). In none of those cases does it have anything to do with construction or even structural performance.

In any case if the MQB-A0-IN cars do have deficiencies in the frontal impact I reckon it would be because they are RHD and not because of the 'IN' because India now exports some of the MQB-A0-IN cars to Latin America where VW usually does not settle for less than five Latin NCAP stars for new models (although with their new protocols four or even three would be very creditable).

Originally Posted by rAijin_

I agree to most points you mentioned. However, I also believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that a car with better crash test result at GNCAP ( or other such standards ), will be safer in case of a crash even at higher speeds

At higher speeds your only hope is to have interurban safety assist technologies to help alert the driver or intervene to increase the probability of avoiding the crash or reduce its severity. Even then they are safety technologies and are not engineered to work every time, and if misunderstood as assisted or automated driving they can do more harm than good. And considering how a lot of us here like to show off our cars' features to the extent of overestimating them to prove we got the best value, I expect to see that happening a lot. Manufacturers won't stop either: until now Honda is the only manufacturer I've seen advertising it correctly as a safety technology and not as some autonomous driving technology from the future.

First of all even 64km/h is a misleading speed because one thing you need to note is that the barrier is deformable and has a crush strength that simulates another car and not a fixed object. The test has been designed to simulate in the laboratory the approximate effects of two cars of similar size crashing into each other head-on at around 50-55km/h (cannot be determined accurately) each with both their fronts overlapping.

Here's what happens if you put a good-performing car against a static barrier in a lab at these speeds (lower in real-world car-to-car crashes) (courtesy IIHS):

64km/h:




80km/h:




90km/h:




These speeds are against a static barrier. In a real-world car-to-car crash this effect is likely to be achieved at even lower speeds.

It's important to note that better rating = better protection in urban crashes. Not better rating = protection at higher speed.

Half the score for Global NCAP's frontal offset crash comes from noncritical body regions (knee, femur, pelvis, tibia, foot). You can have two cars both with maximum points for protection of the head, neck and chest (parts critical to life) but one could be a three star car (4+4+0+0+1=9 points) because of bad leg protection, and one could be a five star car (4+4+4+4+1=17 points) because of protection to all body regions. Of course it is a wise decision to get a five star car and in no way do I want to imply that the rating is useless. A region that scores 4 points (green) has a <5% risk of serious or critical injury in the test and also shows robustness of that response in slightly different crashes. The score can be reduced either if dummy readings indicate higher risk of serious or critical injury, or for lack of repeatability (eg. intrusion, instability, airbag deployment issues etc.), i.e., if the dummy response is good but there are signs that it could be worse in a real-world crash of that kind.

It's not like the test doesn't have flaws: for example it also doesn't cover the abdomen (no assessment criteria developed) and the assessment for the feet is not very scientific and they did not improve it though they intended to.

Honestly, I think as long as it's not a zero or one star result (0 or 1 means high risk of life-threatening injury to a critical body part regardless of total score) passive safety-wise I'd still put side thorax+head airbags (which are intended to protect critical body regions in other types of crashes) first, then a higher Global NCAP rating. Having both is ideal. But to put it crudely (I hope I don't offend anyone) a leg injury is less severe than death. Nevertheless, if you got into a crash that cars are not designed for (they're more common in India), even at an urban speed (an underride for example) you could still die in a five star car with six airbags, but that's an excuse to drive carefully, not one to say vehicle safety is useless.

Originally Posted by praveen_v

On the topic of pedal intrusion, I am interested to understand how this would impact an automatic variant since it has only 2 pedals compared to 3 in manual and more importantly the clutch pedal being not available will help the left feet/ankle from crippling injuries, which is typically closer to the clutch? In the pictures it is the clutch and brake pedals which seem to be main cause of intrusion while the accelerator is not displaced much. Can you share your thoughts on this?

I have thought of this but the answer is concerning. Initially only the brake was used in the Euro NCAP assessment because it's the pedal you'd likely be slamming on before a crash, but now the worst performing pedal is used. I remember a Dateline NBC segment in which some OEM (Saab IIRC) fit a collapsible brake pedal but a regular accelerator, and they pointed this out to consumers when the IIHS penalised the car for accelerator intrusion.

About the automatic thing, NCAPs are rather vague. I had looked this up after looking at the Swift's images, but here's what the Euro NCAP variant policy says.

Then again there are a lot of 'approximations' in their policies for transferring ratings across variants because they are nonprofits and cannot afford to test all variants. This is not the only such issue.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by romeomidhun

"The bodyshell was rated as unstable and it was not capable of withstanding further loadings"!

Originally Posted by Raghu M

Thank you! I hope people understand that a poor bodyshell cannot be covered up in the guise of 6 or 8 airbags. The frame is weak and that is a fact.

Originally Posted by Mannu

When crash ratings are published, one should look at the finer points about bodyshell and other gadgetry's performance.

I'm sorry, if you're reading beyond the stars, do it right. There's a lot to the test beyond stable/unstable, even in terms of structural performance. Structurally speaking what matters most is intrusion (hinge-pillar and steering column movement), then stability of that response. The cars lost only one point for symptoms of structural instability, which is different from bad structural performance (intrusion). But their footwells collapsed (high pedal displacement). That is not desirable, but the legs are a less important body region than the head and chest so I would prioritise side and curtain airbags even if they don't affect the frontal impact score (which is all Global NCAP assesses).

Originally Posted by fuel_addict

It is pretty evident to everyone by now that Honda uses sheet metal that equals or is marginally better than Maruti.

It is also pretty evident to everyone by now that crashworthiness-wise it does not matter (though it does feel satisfying). Unless you're implying that the Magnite or Etios or Jazz have better skin panels than an i20 (quite sure they don't).

[amalji]

A hypothetical conversation.

Engineer: - Safety + Reliability + Performance + Features for a mid Size SUV = 13 Lakhs
Add different taxes on top of it and it becomes 25 Lakhs inclusive of taxes.

Product team: That's over prized. The car will be ruthlessly tagged as over prized. And it will be a bummer. Don't you know what happened to the All new Ford Fiesta which was otherwise a well built car?

Engineer: OK, Maybe, we'll cut down on the panoramic sunroof and Bose speakers.

Product team: That's stupid! The consumer in India rates the car by the Sunroof and Bose speakers than anything else! Don't you know what happened to Ford India as they kept cutting on features instead of safety to stay profitable ?

Engineer: Shall we reduce the airbags ?

Product team: Nonsense! The market judges the safety of a vehicle by the number of airbags. Even though, people who worry about safety is a minority, most people who care can be fooled with the number of airbags that we have in the car. Is there anything that doesn't come up in a spec sheet which can be cut ?

Engineer: The only thing we can do is on the steel quality. Maybe, we can save around 1 Lakh with it. Add tax on top of it and it is worth 2 Lakhs of savings. What do you think?

Product team: Excellent idea! Let's go for it.

Engineer: Great! And we can engineer the sound with which the door closes and they will feel that the car is safe based on the "thud sound".

Product team: Genius!

Moral of the Story: We get what we deserve. What we prioritize as a market is what we get. End of the story. Quality and safety doesn't happen by chance. It's a conscious effort and a company culture that cannot be just "copied". And it comes at a cost. If we think that all brands have to price the car at the same level with the same features, this is what we get!