[aaggoswami]

Originally Posted by Dose

1) Just because a car is newer or heavier does not mean it will automatically be superior.

2) Usually the onus is on the prosecution.

3) Your observations appear to be based on photos posted on this site and hearsay. To accuse companies of selling low quality versions to Indians without scientific evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt is not right.

4) This is your statement earlier in the thread: "The quality of cars sold in India are always a doubt."
Do you think it is fair to make a blanket insinuation about every single car sold in India today?

5) Imho, if we constantly assume that since we are a poor, corrupt India where every product we buy is inferior to its Euro counterpart because our system allows the big, bad companies to take advantage of us, then we will constantly have a defeatist attitude and an inferiority complex.

6) Determining chassis stiffness/torsional rigidity based on your personal, impression of driving dynamics may be sufficient for you, but it is not enough for me. I need reliable numbers and an established scientific protocol because not everyone's butt-o-meter is designed and calibrated to accurately and precisely measure chassis stiffness.

7) That is why we have science, maths, and scientific protocols. We present the scientific evidence and only then do we make conclusions. We are free to agree and disagree on the conclusions but the data needs to be of an acceptable standard.

8) If there is no evidence, then why make them? Baseless allegations can introduce bias into people's minds, affect sales, and cause Teambhp's reputation to decrease.

1) Here I was answering another members question and trying to put in logic with his own points. IMHO, if two cars are two generations apart as far as development goes, newer car is ofcourse safer.

2) Forget that for a moment, but can anybody please share some information that quality of cars is the same ?
Proof they are not the same : There are sufficient threads here on quality of cars being not good, plastics peeling off, rattles, etc.

3) Again there is no scientific evidence of either point, but I have a few words, drive a CBU ( I have done it once, the car was Camry ) and automatically you will come to know what is difference.

4) I expect you refer to my images in this very thread. The Honda city is sufficient proof. And dont come up with arguments like " they are meant to crumple ", etc. What when the same car collides with a GV ?

5) That is reality IMHO. Rubber, plastic parts are proof of that and also how manufacturers can act in India. Again there are threads on this too.

6) Nice kind and caring words. But there is something called observation and brain power. Drive any car which has done 60K kms. on bad roads, then drive a brand new car ( same model ). You will realize if that is butt-o-meter or brain power.

7) Show me one single fact where data is on acceptable standards. What is the amount of data any manufacturer provides ? I think if they are so sure about what they are upto, why not provide sufficient data themselves ?

8) I think I am also aware of TBHP reputation. What I have posted is my feelings based on what I have seen and experienced.
And I am not the first person to speak that quality of Indian cars is not as good as their developed market versions.

[aaggoswami]

The A-star tested had only two airbags. A-star's nearest competitor, i10 was tested with 4 airbags.
Definitely, the ratings for A-star would be better with 4 airbags.

Also I am attaching a picture of both i10 and A-star from EuroNcap. Here one can clearly see that A-star's A-pillar is not showing deformation as i10's A-pillar.

Again this is to prove the point that A-star is not unsafe as we have concluded in this thread. Most of the i10/A-star that are sold in India will be either without airbags or with just two airbags.

Here are the pictures:
A-star : Here you can that A-pillar is not showing much deformation.


I10: Here you can see how the A-pillar has deformed. Now as far as my knowledge goes, A-pillar is a critical member that is part of cabin that is not designed to crumple. Cabin is designed such that it does not deform and prevents intrusion. But here the A-pillar has deformed.

[Dose]

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

1)IMHO, if two cars are two generations apart as far as development goes, newer car is ofcourse safer.

No. One cannot say it is "of course safer." There is no proof and this kind of reasoning is flawed, imho. Instead, it is better to say that a newer car has a higher probability of being safer but not necessarily so. One car can be so advanced and costly in terms of safety that it takes more than one generation for another car to catch up to that level of safety, if ever.

For example, Maruti is only now offering safety features which were offered on a Benz or Volvo generations ago. Is a Maruti always safer than a Benz? Is a Benz always safer than a Maruti? There is only one way to be sure. Crash them in a scientific manner inside a lab where many of the variables can be controlled and examine the data. We should not draw conclusions solely from real-world crashes because we do not know all the facts and variables of the accident. But in a crash test, we know most of the facts, and we can control many of the variables, so we are able to draw a more informed conclusion and make comparisions.

In the past, before crash test results were made public, we had to rely on the cars passing government standards and we also would make conclusions based on photos and hearsay. It was relatively unscientific but it was all we had so we had no choice. But today when we have access through the net to so much good, independent scientific information, I think it is better to adopt a newer, more logical, experienced, and educated way of thinking.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

2) Forget that for a moment, but can anybody please share some information that quality of cars is the same ?
Proof they are not the same : There are sufficient threads here on quality of cars being not good, plastics peeling off, rattles, etc.

aaggowami, do you mean to tell me that some of the best cars in the world do not have quality problems? There are examples of cars being driven in first world and third world countries from almost every price level that something or the other is peeling off or rattles, squeaks, etc. That does not mean that all manufacturers are conspiring to sell one country only with inferior parts and another country with superior parts. I have seen the same problems in cars in India and abroad.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

3) Again there is no scientific evidence of either point, but I have a few words, drive a CBU ( I have done it once, the car was Camry ) and automatically you will come to know what is difference.

I have examined and driven cars here and in America. Just because something is a CBU does not mean it is automatically a gift from the gods.
As I said above, I have found the same good/bad quality, the same problems in both countries from the exact same brand and model.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

4) I expect you refer to my images in this very thread. The Honda city is sufficient proof. And dont come up with arguments like " they are meant to crumple ", etc. What when the same car collides with a GV ?

I was not referring to the images. I was disagreeing with your stereotypical, blanket statement that insinuates that any car in India is automatically inferior because it is being assembled in India and the company is up to no good.

What argument should I make? That crumple zones are not meant to crumple? If the same car collides with a GV (I assume you mean Grand Vitara), there will be no difference. The crumple zones on both cars will do what they were meant to do. If you can show beyond reasonable doubt that the Indian Honda City crumples significantly differently from its Euro version, then you may have a case. Otherwise your case does not hold water.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

5) That is reality IMHO. Rubber, plastic parts are proof of that and also how manufacturers can act in India. Again there are threads on this too.

Do not think that rubber and plastic problems are confined only to Teambhp threads or to cars made in India. Please read the many forums on the net from other countries that highlight similar problems. That is reality.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

6) Nice kind and caring words. But there is something called observation and brain power. Drive any car which has done 60K kms. on bad roads, then drive a brand new car ( same model ). You will realize if that is butt-o-meter or brain power.

Observation and brain power are nice but are not enough to make a convincing case in front of people who want scientific facts, measurements and logical conclusions especially for an engineering topic like chassis stiffness.

I do not understand what your 60k km vs. new car example has to do with Euro vs. Jap chassis torsional rigidity. Again please provide some proper scientific data or white paper report or expert witness testimony.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

7) Show me one single fact where data is on acceptable standards. What is the amount of data any manufacturer provides ? I think if they are so sure about what they are upto, why not provide sufficient data themselves ?

Please be more clear. I do not understand what you are saying when you ask the question about manufacturer data. I also do not understand what you are saying about "provide sufficient data themselves."

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

8) I think I am also aware of TBHP reputation. What I have posted is my feelings based on what I have seen and experienced.
And I am not the first person to speak that quality of Indian cars is not as good as their developed market versions.

Feelings, personal experiences, observations are nice and remember that they are only the first step in the scientific method.
Take a look at this:

HowStuffWorks "Scientific Method Steps"

It appears you want to skip the middle steps of the scientific method and jump from your feelings and observations to stating your theories and then insisting your theories are valid without presenting clear, logical evidence.

Just because other members are making the same mistake does not mean you should do the same nor does it make the allegations against Indian cars any more or less valid.

[aaggoswami]

Originally Posted by Dose

1) I think it is better to adopt a newer, more logical, experienced, and educated way of thinking.

2) aaggowami, do you mean to tell me that some of the best cars in the world do not have quality problems? There are examples of cars being driven in first world and third world countries from almost every price level that something or the other is peeling off or rattles, squeaks, etc. That does not mean that all manufacturers are conspiring to sell one country only with inferior parts and another country with superior parts. I have seen the same problems in cars in India and abroad.

3) I have examined and driven cars here and in America. Just because something is a CBU does not mean it is automatically a gift from the gods.

4) Observation and brain power are nice but are not enough to make a convincing case in front of people who want scientific facts, measurements and logical conclusions especially for an engineering topic like chassis stiffness.

5) Please be more clear. I do not understand what you are saying when you ask the question about manufacturer data. I also do not understand what you are saying about "provide sufficient data themselves."

Both Civic and SX4 are scoring 4 stars in EuroNCAP. So both of them are equally safe as per your standards, right ? The weight difference is also not very significant, so can you say that SX4 is as safe as Civic ? I think yes.

Indica Vista has not even appeared for crashtest at EuroNCAP. With modifications Tata is aiming for three stars ( read this in autocar india ). But as no scientific data is available for Vista, can we say that Ritz, SX4, Swift and A-star is safer than Vista ?

A-star has 3 star rating, above Accent, Aveo, Lancer, so can we now say that A-star is safer than all the three midsizers ?


But then what about standards ? In case of Accent, Aveo and Lancer, they all had 2 airbags, and in case of A-star, it had two airbags, so definitely its safer, right ?

Now, as we have started comparing the car with i20 and jazz, they were tested with more than two aribags, so how can this be a levelling field ? If we access chassis strength, there is no way to conclude about this.

And a few rattles in Swift does not make it unsafe. Skoda Laura is also 4 star rated as is Swift, so I think we can say that A-star is just slightly more unsafe than Swift and Laura. And Swift and Laura are equally safe, right ? Because we have scientific data available.

Even mighty Q7 scored 4 stars, so does this mean Swift is as safe as Q7.

My point is clear:
If we are not having levelled ground specially when airbags are playing an important role, we cannot conclude that A-star is unsafe. And if we are so concerned about the quality of the forum, then I think we must first of all find out a way for determining the quality of chassis.

About manufacturer giving details, I mean to say why manufacturers dont give out chassis details and its tolerance limits.

[BMW-X5]

Whether it is safe or not A* strated selling like a hot cake at least in Kerala. When I was there in April I could hardly see any but this time the story is different in a month and half I could see a lot more A*s on the road. I could clearly say that it outsells I10 at least in noth Kerala(It doesnt mean that it is better than I10) may be the /Km done the trick for Maruti. Even in Bangalore it is slowly picking up these days.

[nurni76]

+ 1. I also have begun to see more A Stars these days in Blore but Ritz even more than A star.

Originally Posted by BMW-X5

Whether it is safe or not A* strated selling like a hot cake at least in Kerala. When I was there in April I could hardly see any but this time the story is different in a month and half I could see a lot more A*s on the road. I could clearly say that it outsells I10 at least in noth Kerala(It doesnt mean that it is better than I10) may be the /Km done the trick for Maruti. Even in Bangalore it is slowly picking up these days.

[Dose]

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

Both Civic and SX4 are scoring 4 stars in EuroNCAP. So both of them are equally safe as per your standards, right ? The weight difference is also not very significant, so can you say that SX4 is as safe as Civic ? I think yes.

Yes, I agree.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

Indica Vista has not even appeared for crashtest at EuroNCAP. With modifications Tata is aiming for three stars ( read this in autocar india ). But as no scientific data is available for Vista, can we say that Ritz, SX4, Swift and A-star is safer than Vista ?

No, not until the Vista has been tested. And until it is tested, it would be wiser to buy one of the other cars that has been tested.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

A-star has 3 star rating, above Accent, Aveo, Lancer, so can we now say that A-star is safer than all the three midsizers ?

No. Because the Alto/A-star was tested under the post-2009 rating system of the Euroncap while the others were tested under the pre-2009 system. One should not compare the star ratings but one should compare the injuries received by the dummies since the Euroncap has not changed the test protocols, unless I am mistaken. The latest generation Lancer was tested using the post-2009 system but that car is not sold in India yet.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

But then what about standards ? In case of Accent, Aveo and Lancer, they all had 2 airbags, and in case of A-star, it had two airbags, so definitely its safer, right ?

No. More or less airbags does not automatically make a car more or less safe, which is why we have crash tests to help us decide if the quantity of airbags makes a difference in passive safety for a particular car. And please note that the Alto/A-star had four, not two airbags when it was tested.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

Now, as we have started comparing the car with i20 and jazz, they were tested with more than two aribags, so how can this be a levelling field ? If we access chassis strength, there is no way to conclude about this.

Having an equal number of airbags does not necessarily mean the field is level. It is better to compare cars made during the same year in order to ensure that they have a level playing field.

I do not understand what you mean about chassis strength access and conclusions. Please explain.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

And a few rattles in Swift does not make it unsafe. Skoda Laura is also 4 star rated as is Swift, so I think we can say that A-star is just slightly more unsafe than Swift and Laura. And Swift and Laura are equally safe, right ? Because we have scientific data available.

Correct. Rattles is not a good indicator of whether a car is relatively safe or not. Once again, please note that we should not compare post-2009 star ratings with pre-2009 star ratings. The Swift and Laura were tested pre-2009. We are only allowed to compare the severities of the injuries sustained by the crash dummies.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

Even mighty Q7 scored 4 stars, so does this mean Swift is as safe as Q7.

In a single vehicle frontal crash or in a frontal crash with a vehicle in the same weight category, yes, the Swift, equipped with dual front airbags, is as safe as a defective Q7. If the Q7 has been properly welded, it will probably outperform the Swift in a frontal crash test.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

My point is clear:
If we are not having levelled ground specially when airbags are playing an important role, we cannot conclude that A-star is unsafe. And if we are so concerned about the quality of the forum, then I think we must first of all find out a way for determining the quality of chassis.

About manufacturer giving details, I mean to say why manufacturers dont give out chassis details and its tolerance limits.

No, your point is not clear unfortunately. The number of airbags in one car versus another does not necessarily level the field. The independent crash tests done by the EuroNCAP, IIHS, safercar.gov, etc. are a good way of assessing not only the chassis but also the restraint systems (seatbelts, airbags, etc.) in a fair manner. Consumers do not need technical chassis details and tolerance limits to compare crash test results and make an informed decision on a car's overall safety.

[aaggoswami]

1) Any modern car with airbags will be safer than the one without it. In EuroNCAP, they dont register the stiffness or energy absorbing capacity of the entire structure. They give maximum stress on the what forces are directed on to dummy. So here IMHO, airbags do make a difference.

2) So can we conclude that Swift and Laura structure are equally safe if we are to go by rating. You may respond that my points 1 and 2 are contradictory, but indeed they are not. What I am trying to prove is that airbags make a difference in rating and these rating are not the one very strictly applicable for cars that are sold in India.

3) Have a look at the images I have posted above. The i10's A-pillar shows deformation, where as it must not show any deformation. A-star's A-pillar is not showing any deformity, so I think we cannot conclude that A-star is unsafe or less safer than i10 and the likes.

[Dose]

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

1) Any modern car with airbags will be safer than the one without it. In EuroNCAP, they dont register the stiffness or energy absorbing capacity of the entire structure. They give maximum stress on the what forces are directed on to dummy. So here IMHO, airbags do make a difference.

I agree if you are comparing a well designed car with an airbag versus the same car without the optional airbag. If we are not sure whether the structure is well designed or not then we need to ask whether the addition of the airbag makes a significant difference or not. I remember seeing IIHS tests where a car was tested with and without optional side airbags. If the car's structure was good, the airbag made a significant difference. But if the car's structure was bad, there was no significant difference, imho, which meant customers were wasting money by paying for the optional airbags.

I disagree if you are comparing two different cars, one with and one without an airbag. In this case, only a crash test will determine which one is safer. One should not assume that just because a car has an airbag it will automatically be safer. If that was the case, we would not need crash testing and Honda would not be recalling about half a million 2001-2003 model year cars due to faulty airbag inflators.

Why do you need to know the energy aborbing capacity of the entire structure? These kinds of in-depth details are of no practical use to consumers.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

2) So can we conclude that Swift and Laura structure are equally safe if we are to go by rating. You may respond that my points 1 and 2 are contradictory, but indeed they are not. What I am trying to prove is that airbags make a difference in rating and these rating are not the one very strictly applicable for cars that are sold in India.

Yes, the Swift and Laura were tested under the pre-2009 rating system and have similar overall safety according to the test results. But we should keep in mind that the rear crumple zone and roof strength were not tested.
And, in India, the Swift and some Laura trim levels are not available with a rear centre 3-point seatbelt and stability control.

Airbags can make a significant positive difference if the structure is well designed. If the structure is badly designed or if the quality control is bad, the presence of airbags will not make a significant difference. So, how do we assess whether a car has a good structure and good airbags? We crash test it and see what injuries the dummies sustain.

The more safety features the India and Euro-market cars share, the more applicable the ratings will be. If an India-market Laura has no side airbags, then the Euroncap side impact ratings do not apply completely but they do apply partially. If the same car has front airbags and 3-point seatbelts for the front passengers, the front impact ratings are completely applicable.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

3) Have a look at the images I have posted above. The i10's A-pillar shows deformation, where as it must not show any deformation. A-star's A-pillar is not showing any deformity, so I think we cannot conclude that A-star is unsafe or less safer than i10 and the likes.

It is unwise to make conclusions based on A-pillar deformation. I think it's wiser to compare the type of injuries sustained by the crash dummies. If the i10's dummies had less injuries than the A-star, the A-pillar deformation was not significant enough to affect the severity of the injuries.

There is more than one way to reach a goal. No single way is right or wrong as long as the goal is reached. Similarly, it is not right or wrong for an A-pillar to show deformation as long as the occupants are protected. First, look at the injuries sustained. Second, look at deformation. If no injuries are present, few people care about the amount of or type of deformation.

Also, you have not mentioned the differences in deformation going on inside the cabin regarding the dash, the pedals, firewall, floorboard, etc. All these types of deformation cannot be seen or measured simply by looking at the images you posted. And even if they are seen and measured, the ultimate question will always be:

"What kind of injuries did the dummies sustain; and based on these injuries, is it wise to buy this car or not; and am I getting the same active and passive safety features on the India-market version vs. the Euro-market vs. the USA-market?"

[Sankar]

Never knew this thread existed!

Looking at the following data it seems that A Star offers better chest protection for driver and front passenger than i10. Upper body protection is critical.

A Star


The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal impact. Structures in the dashboard presented a risk of injury to the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger. Dummy readings indicated marginal protection of the driver's lower legs.

i10


The passenger compartment remained stable in the impact. Protection of the driver's chest was rated as weak owing to the extent to which it was compressed during the test. Structures in the dashboard presented a risk of injury to the knees and femurs of the front seat passengers.

[mxx]

Before I start let me tell you my comments is based on the NCAP ratings and not head on collisions with other vehicles because we dont have any data regarding the later.

Many argue that A-star should not be compared to other cars because it is cheap hatch.
See there is a reason why countries with safety regulations or safety rating agencies/programs like NCAP do not have different standards for different segments.
This is because a car needs to be safe no matter how big small it is. The manufacturer has to do everything from their side to make cars safe. And a person with 4lakhs has as much right to live as one with 8lakhs.
Now let me for a moment accept your argument. Then tell me why is punto, jazz, i20 as much safe as q5, c/3/a4 , e/5/a6 etc??