[thiagust]

Mod Note : Please do NOT post messages that add little or no informational value to the thread. We need your co-operation to maintain the quality of this forum.

We advise you to read the Forum Rules before proceeding any further. Request to post ONLY when you have something substantial to add to a discussion.

[Nav-i-gator]

Originally Posted by Maverick1977

If your sole purpose of buying the Carens was to run your personal GNCAP (in short crash it) tests then you must stay away from it.

However, if you want to use it as a daily drive, enjoy the luxuries that the car offers, a DCT gearbox (which needs to be used correctly) which will bring a smile on your face, a 1.4L petrol engine which will pull well (don't expect to race a German though), 7 seats et al then please go ahead and book one and wait for your delivery.

This is precisely why these safety ratings do not matter to Hyundai/Kia - misplaced sense of luxury over safety by us (I am saying us, do not take it personally please).

If it for driving, better drive a safer car. Otherwise, there are lot of ifs to justify the shortcoming of every car out there.

Better buy a Maruti Eeco for 6 Lakh, spend another 5 lakhs on complete redesign of interiors by DC design labs and drive in luxury.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by CommitTran

I am sorry Sir but I disagree. IMHO all the airbags in the world can't replace a stronger stiffer stable body structure. Putting 6-8 air bags in unsafe cars won't make much difference.

The notion that a stable passenger compartment means a 'strong' structure is dangerous. Structural integrity in the frontal impact is not correlated with side impact protection, which would still benefit from the presence of effective side thorax and head-protection airbags.

Originally Posted by CommitTran

Intruding pedals can also be deadly, Imagine the blood loss they can cause which can result into fatality.

Usually they cause broken ankles or fractured tibias, but yes, they can also cause occupant entrapment. You might be correct there.

Originally Posted by CommitTran

There should be no excuse for poor performance and mediocrity should never be supported/celebrated.

I agree completely and what Hyundai-Kia have done is bad. I did not mean to celebrate the Carens' result, if I come across as having done that I apologise for it. I am not going to go around saying "it has good safety by modern standards because it meets regulations" because I genuinely don't think it has the safety levels we deserve. But nothing else in the segment does either. Mediocrity does not have to come in the form of a low GNCAP result. By making statements like 'stable structure is the most important' we're effectively letting global manufacturers get away with stripping models of other important life-saving tech and be rewarded just for a good result in one test, that is all I'm trying to say. They need to be called out too but aren't (eg. 4-star Honda Jazz is severely stripped down for India).

Originally Posted by lordrayden

Kia knows that the protocols will change soon and become much stricter. If a particular car got X stars with the old protocol, it will get (X - 1) or (X - 2) stars with the new protocol.

Not necessarily, I think the Carens might be able to retain three stars. Not too sure, we need the side impact scores, which I expect to be published soon because it is evident from the child seats in the back that the side impact on the Carens was the new side impact (for the new protocols) and not UN95 (probably a decision Global NCAP made after seeing it could not score five stars in the frontal impact anyway). In any case they often reuse old results to publish results under new protocols, because reusing old frontal impacts saves costs. With the Carens they already have both the front and *new* side impact data so it would be funny if they did not reassess the Carens. The test codes show a good two months between the front and side impacts, and ESC and pedestrian tests are nondestructive, they would only have to order replacement hoods and bumpers from India which could explain the delay, then they might have used the ESC/pedestrian car for the side impact.

Originally Posted by lordrayden

Hope and pray that GNCAP don't select a Carens for testing after the new protocols kick in. But given the poor track record of Hyundai/Kia cars in India, GNCAP might be INCLINED to actually do so. And IF they do, the Carens will get an absolutely disastrous star rating under the new system, maybe 2 or 1?.

If they hadn't tested the Carens I am quite sure the GNCAP would much rather redo the Seltos instead, because they would not have to spend on a new frontal impact car.

But seriously, I think this test is not a usual case of cost-cutting and something has gone seriously wrong here not in line with Kia's internal testing. Possibly a loss of production control. They claim to have made improvements, target 'minimum 4 stars', sponsor both front and side impact (indicating that they are considering the possibility of five stars), and it turns out bad. It just doesn't fit in.

I really wish I could ask Mr Alejandro Furas (of Global NCAP) about this, because it is a very curious case, but he is going through a difficult time and I wouldn't want to bother him.

[lordrayden]

Originally Posted by Maverick1977

Is the above analysis based on any facts or is a figment of one's imagination. I don't think GNCAP is some service centre where you just walk-in on any day, drop your car and expect them to crash it and give you the results in the evening.

You ARE aware that companies themselves can sponsor the GNCAP test right? This means the manufacturer can ask GNCAP to go test their cars, possibly even paying for the test cars themselves. How else do you think some Tatas/Mahindras have their GNCAP rating published just before or just around the car's launch.

Also, chill sir , it's just a vibrant discussion. That's the max number of smileys that Team-BHP will allow me to put in a post. Plus here's a cute puppy and kitten.

[thiagust]

Originally Posted by The Alchemist

The following statement from the Global NCAP SecretaryGeneral is thought-provoking!



It looks like the safety of the Indian people is not a concern to Hyundai and Kia even in 2022!

Pls can you share a link of this statement from NCAP Sec General?., thanks.

[MartinVirage]

I really love the way everyone likes to glorify crash test results. To a layman - Crash test results should matter a lot. Ok! 5 stars - Very safe and a zero star car - Well never should be purchased.

To me crash tests results are heavily situational. I mean we have a frontal crash - that is oriented to the driver side at 64 km/h and a side impact (now).
Any experts out there - What is an unstable body shell?
To me - A car that does not topple over with a low center of gravity. [i]Chalo sab Gallardo Khareedte hai or lets buy a SLR Mclaren so we can have a long bonnet to absorb the impact.

GNCAP is a benchmarking system, which is good to have no doubt. So out of a million ways you can crash your car, it tests for 2. Mind you! My opinion is not about if 'these' cars are safe. What if I tell you some manufacturers just want the layman to sell their on this benchmarking system and actually skimp on normal day to day requirements.
'Macha, an Ertiga with 2 airbags is safer than the Carens' - yes but only in this particular scenario.

Plot Twist: Now that I have the SOP - Lets design a car around these two criteria's. Its ok if my engine isn't potent or I have technology from 1947. If all the cars came with 5 stars - there would not be a NCAP system. So just bragging rights then.

There are lot of logical paradoxical statements that can be argued about and we need to remember that we as human beings have to be logical about our purchase decisions. User case scenarios of different buyers are different - you don't wear your speedos to the Himalayas . I support #safercarsforindia. But, being a Bhpian, I would not just trust a mere benchmarking system to tell me, if a car is safe. Also, Oscar (the dummy), is a 95 percentile guy and I don't fit in that criteria (FYI 6ft 2inches and 115 Kgs).

So, the Kia is a unsafe car then - a glorified Eeco! A light, fuel efficient people carrier, with a lot of features, a better engine, suspension, brakes a million features. All manufacturers have better products outside India - better safety, better feature and better warranty even. But, the cost of these products are very high. India is considered to be a developing market and lets face it - only a few of our citizens actually care about safety over efficiency. A a lightweight car aids to efficiency. Fiat made really heavy cars, where are they now?

PS: Safety is key to my purchase decision and so is the price point. Will I buy a hazmat suit to my office in Mumbai is a point I would think about.
Food for thought! I too believe no car manufacturer should make substandard cars, but I really don't just trust NCAP - for the safety perspective.

[VikramCS]

I had this gut feeling that this car will not exceed 3-stars, it just managed to scrape through. No surprises. However, i'm confident that this news will not dent its sales. Safety is often masked by features, comfort, practicality etc. Companies these days actively market ABS, EBD, ESC, Airbags etc. which brings a perception of safety - obviously, the general car buying public are convinced and put their hard-earned money.

A car that is structurally unstable can't be expected to safeguard its occupants as well compared to a structurally safer vehicle, not many understand this.

I fail to understand, why M&M let a capable Marrazzo down? Was it overpriced? Did it lack features? Was it due to lack of proper automatic? My senior colleague took us for a team outing near Bangalore outskirts, and, i thought - this car deserved more buyers. It was safe, felt comfortable and owner did not have any issues. Sadly, a higher priced Carens is more accepted by our public.
Dear M&M: didn't you ever think of improving Marrazzo? Sad, or rather Bad.

Had Ertiga and XL6 score 4-stars, things would turn interesting....however, when all are on-par, Kia happily laughs its way to the bank.

[The Alchemist]

Originally Posted by thiagust

Pls can you share a link of this statement from NCAP Sec General?., thanks.

Here you go! This is a link to official GlobalNCAP Twitter handle.

https://twitter.com/GlobalNCAP/statu...92434599088129

Or you can skim through below article from official Global NCAP website

https://www.globalncap.org/news/kia-...rd-for-xuv-700

[thanixravindran]

Originally Posted by Maverick1977

Yes GNCAP ratings are important but they can't be so critical that you change your car buying decision. Let's all remember that a crash in a real-world scenario will not be the same in which the cars are tested. Real World test results will be very different. We have seen threads of people (unfortunately) losing lives in Mercedes S class also.

I personally know a case where a friend had fallen off his bike at 40 kmph and broke his arm whereas another friend in the same biking group crashed at double the speed and walked away with minor bruises. If you anticipate the impact, you will automatically be prepared for it. I have many more examples but right now let's focus on bashing Kia for this poor performance.

If Kia was a person, right now, it will be that poor kid who only managed to score 60% marks whereas the neighbours kid scored a 100%. Does this sound familiar yo anyone? Sure does to me. Typical Indian problem?

Though I replied to your post, this is not directed against you. I have seen in multiple threads people debating on safety aspects with real life examples both for and against the brands. One common misconception in all of it is 'Safety is absolute' as unfortunately, we equate 5 star result as absolute safety and keep debating Safe Vs Unsafe cars. No, it is not and it is always relative. This is not a Pass/Fail test or a ranking system.

What these scores indicate is how well a product is engineered that is sold in a particular region on the safety aspect through crash tests in a controlled environment. You can consider this as one scenario in FMEA - Failure Mode Effect Analysis. But please remember crash tests are just one part of safety system to minimise the impact in case it occurs. There is lot of focus and innovation happening on the avoidance as well. Rate of occurrence is not much in the hands of product but mostly in the hands of operater (literally) as well the environment and other factors and let us keep it out of the debate as there are separate threads about safe driving. So your survival chances are slightly better with a higher rated car if the scenario happened.

In real life accidents, though it is absolutely not possible to predict the outcome, during car purchase, informed folks will take into account of these crash ratings amongst other things into buying decision so that their survival chances are better if that risk is realised. No one wishes for it to happen.

In several other threads, I see people mix up the sheet metal strength, build quality, door thud, built like tank as safety. No they are not, as stand alone parameter. Engineering and design is all about optimal use of different techniques for a defined set of operations to produce desired and verifiable results.

In this case, angst against Kia is justified because they have the safety knowledge to deploy in one of their fastest growing markets and the one that is most notorious for the road accident safety record. For the success that we gave, they ought to spearhead the safe India campaign by bringing the knowledge and technology but they have chosen to be contend with air bag package (not to discredit it as it can save lives too in specific scenarios). It is nevertheless a good step by offering to test voluntarily which few other manufacturers are still refusing and hope improvements will be made in the due course. So kindly do not brush this aside as typical Indian mindset problem of comparison.

[fhdowntheline]

A few points:
1) I would like GNCAP to publish the results of all the car's side impact tests including the 5 star rated ones, without airbags, and provide detailed explanation of what is the impact to the dummies with or without airbags. Just saying it is 5 stars in frontal collision for some and 3 stars as an overall test for others is not disclosing enough in my opinion.
2) That said, while I wish the brand well, I am genuinely intrigued that a Triber scores better than a Carens. Is it some metric that makes it fall into a 4 star vs 3 star, then again what about side impacts?
3) For Renaults own sake, get that 1.0 Turbo out on the Triber PRONTO. I will be in the queue !

[Rohan265]

Originally Posted by Maverick1977

Let's all remember that a crash in a real-world scenario will not be the same in which the cars are tested. Real World test results will be very different. We have seen threads of people (unfortunately) losing lives in Mercedes S class also.

If Kia was a person, right now, it will be that poor kid who only managed to score 60% marks whereas the neighbours kid scored a 100%.

Thank you for bringing up real-world scenarios. Please allow me to modify and expand on the student analogy you gave based on my minimal experience of studying road crashes.
To me, crash tests are similar to any aptitude or entrance tests with a set syllabus and parameters (grading criteria). Students (cars) get the respective marks (score) based on how they perform on the test. Crash tests also have a couple of advantages. One, the students know what questions are going to be asked. Two, no student technically "fails" the test or is asked to re-appear until a sufficient score is obtained. This test is just of many market-relevant tests the students appear for to be accepted in the market.
Each student approaches the test differently. Some model students (4/5-star rated cars) want to ace this test to get accepted in the market. However, they do make some sacrifices in other market-relevant tests (price, maintenance issues, service support, etc.). On the other hand, there are some students who either half-heartedly appear for the crash test or just dont care about it, because they are excelling in other market-relevant tests.

In an ideal scenario, the model student should do well in the real world as it has aced the crash test. However, through my experience, I can say that it is not the case. In most cases, the model student has performed just as badly as the student didnt care much for the crash test. The primary reason is that the real world has scenarios that are completely out of the syllabus. Crash test results matter in barely a fifth of real-world Indian crashes.
The problem here is the test syllabus itself. We are using a syllabus designed for western countries. There is barely any thought given to whether the syllabus applies to our country. So, no matter how well a student does on the test, the student is not ready to take on real-world problems without additional help.

The best way forward is to update the crash test syllabus using real-world challenges the student is going to face. Even better would be to create passing criteria for all students so that we dont have any slackers. However, if my understanding is correct, we are trying to import the same crash test syllabus from the western world, making minor additions, and are re-badging it with our name. Hopefully, we will learn in a decade or two.

Originally Posted by RaviCar

I had an unfortunate strike to back of a breaking car at slow to moderate speed (airbags were out). Luckily or due to solid quality (50/50? May be you can judge), by God's grace I came out smiling.

What speeds were you doing here? I am surprised that the airbags even deployed for that kind of damage. Or else, the bumper just retracted and is hiding the actual crush.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by thiagust

Pls can you share a link of this statement from NCAP Sec General?., thanks.

It is in the press release: Kia Carens rated 3 stars and Mahindra achieves ‘Safer Choice’ Award for XUV 700.

Alejandro Furas, Secretary General of Global NCAP said,

“Global NCAP welcomes Kia’s decision to make six airbags a standard fit in the Carens ahead of a regulatory requirement. However, we expected a better performance from this model. It remains a cause for concern that global car brands such as Kia, that normally achieve 5 star ratings in other markets, are still not reaching this level in India."

Originally Posted by MartinVirage

What is an unstable body shell?

Originally Posted by Global NCAP New Market Assessment Protocol

CONCEPT: When the passenger compartment becomes unstable, any additional load can result in unpredictable excessive further collapse of the passenger compartment. When the passenger compartment becomes unstable the repeatability of the car’s response in the test becomes poor and confidence in the car’s performance is reduced.

Originally Posted by MartinVirage

(the dummy), is a 95 percentile guy

Irrelevant and I understand your point but (just FYI) the GNCAP uses a 50th percentile Hybrid III in the full-scale frontal crash test. A 95th percentile (in special cases even a 5th) is only part of the optional kneemapping sled tests manufacturers can voluntarily present to demonstrate that there would be similar protection for occupants of different sizes/seated in different positions, failing which the GNCAP applies a penalty. Currently only the crop of five star cars have done this test with the 95th percentile dummy.

Originally Posted by MartinVirage

I really don't just trust NCAP - for the safety perspective.

Yes, you (not you per se) need to remember that NCAP tests are consumer tests, like what organisations like Consumer Reports (US) and Which? (UK) do in various product segments by developing repeatable laboratory procedures mimicking average day-to-day scenarios. They're still not a guarantee or a seal of approval, they just go beyond legal requirements to help the consumer make a better choice using meaningful criteria, and let's face it, the GNCAP is still better than people poking doors and fenders and deciding how crashworthy the car 'feels'. It is like an energy efficiency or fuel economy rating: a meaningful comparative tool.

To give you an idea of how much different the GNCAP is than Indian frontal offset crash test regulation, let's consider a small part of the test as an example: the driver's chest.
-To legally sell a car in India from 2019 you'd need to have chest compression readings that indicate less than a 50% risk of serious, severe or critical injury (severity≥3 on the abbreviated injury scale) in a 56km/h 40% offset crash against a deformable barrier.
-To score the maximum four points for the chest (green/good) in the GNCAP's test, chest compression in the 64km/h test must indicate less than a 5% risk of serious, severe or critical injury. In addition, A-pillar displacement would have to be <100mm, there should be no visible chest contact with the steering wheel, and the passenger compartment would need to remain stable, i.e., no symptoms of questionable structure.

In principle, pretty much the same thing is followed for most body regions in NCAP tests: the limit for 0 points is set at the government's/UN's limit which usually indicates a moderate risk of >serious injury, the limit for maximum points is set at <5% risk of ≥serious injury, and there are other penalties to prevent engineering for the test. The scores for body regions are summed up and a star rating is generated, with special provisions for limiting the result to one star for poor protection of a critical body region and zero stars for dummy readings that indicate unacceptably high risk of injury to a critical body region.

So overall, it's a much more robust assessment than Indian legislation and the extra subjective criteria or 'modifiers' (which are always avoided in regulations) make it much harder to 'pull off a Dieselgate', if you will, but it's still not zero risk, not to mention, as you said, this is one crash and it would be a huge mistake to think it is an overall indicator of safety.

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

A few points:
1) I would like GNCAP to publish the results of all the car's side impact tests including the 5 star rated ones

The side impact requirements under the old GNCAP protocols are not a consumer-testing protocol but a regulatory UN test so there is no way to grade or publish results: either you pass all requirements defined by the UN or you fail the test and that is pretty much all the information you can get from that test. You could check how much better than the UN limits the injury values are and grade them - essentially what Latin NCAP does - but the assessment remains incomplete without other measurements (eg. forces transferred through parts of the dummy not present in humans).

The Carens' three star rating was based on the frontal impact alone: passing the UN side impact only makes a difference if the car is otherwise capable of reaching five stars.

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

Is it some metric that makes it fall into a 4 star vs 3 star, then again what about side impacts?

Heavier cars are harder to design for a crash against a static barrier. Yet ratings can only be compared across cars of similar sizes: I would not compare the Triber to the Carens. Both cars performed very similarly for critical body regions, but in the Carens there was too much pedal movement while in the Triber the footwell remained stable. It's worth noting that the Triber was barely in the 4-star band.

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

For Renaults own sake, get that 1.0 Turbo out on the Triber PRONTO. I will be in the queue !

And a CVT!

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

But then dont you think that some qualitative assessment of the side impact is necessary just like the front impacts?

It is! It will be included in the assessment from next month. Look at this result for reference. The point I was trying to make is that fresh tests would have to performed even on the cars that had five stars under the previous protocols: you would not be able to get the required information from the UN tests performed on the Nexon, Altroz, XUV300 etc.

Originally Posted by Rohan265

The primary reason is that the real world has scenarios that are completely out of the syllabus.

Recent news indicates even the 'localised' exams are geared more towards students travelling overseas for further studies.

[fhdowntheline]

Originally Posted by ron178

The side impact requirements under the old GNCAP protocols are not a consumer-testing protocol but a regulatory UN test so there is no way to grade or publish results: either you pass all requirements defined by the UN or you fail the test and that is all the information you can get from that test.

The Carens' three star rating was based on the frontal impact alone: passing the UN side impact only makes a difference if the car is otherwise capable of reaching five stars.

But then dont you think that some qualitative assessment of the side impact is necessary just like the front impacts? With this current situation, the consumer is not sure if the side impact beams and airbags make any difference.

[SR7]

I didn’t even go into the details of the test results. Just saw one thing & was put off - the coverage & size of the curtain airbags is pathetic! I hope this doesn’t become the 6 airbag norm (sadly it will in ‘budget cars). The curtain airbags should meet the front passenger airbags to prevent the head from slipping through and striking the A pillar in case of an offset impact - this has been seen in many IIHS & Euro NCAP tests! It doesn’t even cover the side windows fully! Sad

I hope the CKD models (Elantra, Tucson, Kona & Carnival) from the Korean duo come equipped with the properly sized airbags seen in international markets! I’m a bit worried about my 2017 Elantra now!

[Lobogris]

Originally Posted by Raghu M

Just like the Sonet set a record, the Carens will set one too in terms of sales. I don't see many people cancelling their bookings just because of these crash test results. On the contrary, there will be few takers for vehicles manufactured by TATA, M&M in the segment. All people care about right now, is the features on the MID, the size of the screen, the styling components..

So how difficult is it for Tata or Mahindra to add a larger infotainment screen? The additional cost won't be more than 2 to 5 thousand rupees. So why not give customers good safety as well as good features? Sprucing up the interior is not that expensive either.