[YC.BALENO.CHD]

A-star's immediate rival (in India), the Hyundai i10 has scored 4 stars in the similar tests. However, what was a bit worrisome was the fact that although the compartment was relatively safe in case of an impact, the driver's chest suffered quite some impact and this is the major reason why i10 lost the fifth star.
Also the A-star that was used for NCAP rating was the model that did not had the optional ESP and ESC (released after NCAP tests). Hence, terming the A-star unsafe is certainly exaggerating things a bit.

[anachronix]

Originally Posted by YC.BALENO.CHD

What is this now? You expect a M800 to have a safety rating similar to C class? How can anyone imagine that a car that costs one tenth of the other have a similar safety rating?

There is nothing surprising in it. A-star was never expected to be as safe as an Audi or a Jazz. Its a budget hatch and if had as much safety equipment as the other cars it would had surely faired a little better.

The Grande Punto has a 5-Star rating. Its no premium hatch in the Euro countries. Did it compromise safety?

Budget hatch doesnt mean it should take a big compromise on safety. This compromise we have in India towards safety is keeping us away from getting a safer car.

Originally Posted by YC.BALENO.CHD

As a matter of fact even the Euro A-star is manufactured in India. The nissan pixo (re-badged A star) too is manufactured here. They share the manufacturing lines with the 'Indian quality' A-star. Only differences are the '3 door variants', More airbags and different trim levels. The basic components such as chassis, etc. are of same quality. As are the engines and mechanicals.

Like i said. Euro-spec A-star is manufactured in India only.

I see no harm in manufactured in India, I see harm only in the manufactured for India versions!

Originally Posted by YC.BALENO.CHD

What makes you thing it doesn't have any crumple zones??!

I suggest you a take a look at the Alto which had an head-on collision in here

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian...ml#post1318237

Crumple zones, if it was present or it was present and not effective is evident.

Originally Posted by YC.BALENO.CHD

As for Accidents thread, there is more to those pics that meets the eye. If you have been a regular reader of the thread, you must have noticed Optras/NHCs/Pajeros totalled and in some cases occupants losing their lives. So? Are all those cars as unsafe as the alto?

So does it mean an Alto/A-Star crashing at 100KMPH will have the same impact as a Pajero crashing at 100KMPH?

[aaggoswami]

Originally Posted by d3mon

1) NCAP ratings are based on tests performed with a deformable crash barrier/pole crashing into the car etc.

An actual collision with another car is not done.
2) And it is a very big misconception that the more deformed the car is after an accident, the less safer it is.

3) While I haven't actually seen the pics of the NHC and the Accord, and I'm not attesting to the safety offered by these two cars, but in a collision, it is the job of the crash zones in a car to deform as much as possible and take away as much of the kinetic energy as possible from the passenger cabin.

4) In a crash, always look at the passenger cabin, starting from the A-pillar. If that is intact (not bent or maligned) , it means that the energy was successfully absorbed by the engine compartment and was not allowed to reach the passenger cell.

1) In EuroNCAP, the front head on collision test is an offset test. That is, it is 40% offset test at 40 mph, i.e. 64 kmph.
For example if Swift is 1690mm wide, then only 40% of its width i.e. 676mm goes into barrier at 64 kmph. Only 40% of area has to absorb the impact. This is not 100% head on collision test.

2) Yes, it a very very big misconception.

3) Exactly its job of crumple zones to crumple themselves and absorb the energy of the impact. But again, if in case of NHC/G2HC ramming into side of Wagon R, it was NHC/G2HC which is heavier and has 100% front area to absorb the impact.
In case of Accord, Accord is much heavier, so logically ( you mentioned in your post that always lighter vehicle is at disadvantage ) Esteem ( which is indeed a very old design ) must me damaged more. But it is not so.
I am bringing in this incident to prove that in general the cars sold in India are not upto international standards.

4) The crumple zones are there to get deformed and absorb the energy. They are designed for that. But the passenger cabin is made as rigid as possible to avoid any intrusion into the cabin. The passenger cabin must remain intact after the crash. The more intact it is, the better.

Originally Posted by anachronix

5) You cannot compare safety ratings based on the cost of a vehicle. Any vehicle should have a safety rating and I dont think we would make a good point if we want to compare the safety rating between different vehicles. Every vehicle has its own strengths and weakness.
The GV is in India as a CBU and I am sure that it would be built to international standards.
And the safety rating you have talked about here for SX4, Swift, Ritz(Splash) is all Suzuki products.
I am talking here about Maruti product.

6) Do you think the Indian Alto has crumple zones by any chance? Have been watching the "Accidents in India" thread and the most common car which has shown little sign of a crumple zone in action is Maruti.

5) Exactly, so how come you earlier came to conclusion that all Maruti vehicles are unsafe ?

6) Even Maruti 800 has crumple zones. Alto also has crumple zones. Do a head on collosion that is not at all offset with Santro with a combined speed of 100 kmph and see how the passenger compartment is. This is again common misconception that cheaper cars do not have crumple zones. This is the thinking rage since Maruti 800. But that is not true at all.

Unitary Construction/Monocoque construction :
Here each and every structural member supports the member adjacent to it. So in event of crash the entire body shell is affected as there is transfer of energy. And body is designed to absorb the energy through crumple zones and then direct the energy away from passenger compartment. In this manner entire body does get affected.
This is the reason why it is said that if a car whose construction is monocoque is involved in a reasonably high speed impact, the body shell loses its strength.
In India, IIRC, it was maruti 800 that started regular production of monocoque constructed cars. Internationally IIRC, it was Citroen that is pioneer of Unitary construction.

Recently i.e around 4-5 years ago, a new technology came up that is called Tailored blanks. With the use of this tech, the thickness can be varied over the entire car's bodyshell. So where it is absolutely necessary, like front end, the thickness could be more than other places where thickness is not necessary. Swift uses this, so the chassis not weak and at the same time weight can be kept in control.




EDIT :
I am taking the liberty to post some images from the thread :
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian...toughness.html

I sincerely suggest that those who have not gone through the thread about Honda City, please go through it before terming the A-star unsafe
The reason I am posting this here is to prove that the quality of Indian cars is always a concern.

[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by anachronix

I suggest you a take a look at the Alto which had an head-on collision in here

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian...ml#post1318237

Crumple zones, if it was present or it was present and not effective is evident.
?

That photograph clearly indicates that the car hit something high and that's the reason the A-pillar is damaged badly. It's not exactly a frontal collision and hence with that photograph you can't claim that the Alto's crumple zone didn't work as it supposed. Basically crumple zone won't even get a chance to crumple as the collision was on the top portion of the car. And I doubt any small car will survive such a collision on the passenger Cabin area, even a Palio. Imagine what would happen to any small car which hits the rear end of a Truck/lorry having no rear crash guard.

[equinox22]

A lot also depends on the minimum acceptable safety limit for a country. In most european countries and the US airbags, seat-belts, TPMS, daytime running lights are pretty much taken for granted in all cars, cheap or expensive. However we in India have still to implement the seatbelt law to a 100% on all vehicles. It is true that any car can have a catastrophic crash where everything goes up in smoke. But the line between life and death can be moved based on safety features. And the more our govt. and we demand from the auto manufacturers, the more they will be compelled to give. After all they need to sell cars too.

[YC.BALENO.CHD]

MOD NOTE: Do not post in BOLD for no valid reason

Originally Posted by anachronix

The Grande Punto has a 5-Star rating. Its no premium hatch in the Euro countries. Did it compromise safety?

Budget hatch doesnt mean it should take a big compromise on safety. This compromise we have in India towards safety is keeping us away from getting a safer car.

Grande Punto may not be a premium hatch, but tell me does not it retail for atlest 2 times the amount of an A-star?

I see no harm in manufactured in India, I see harm only in the manufactured for India versions!

Again you are eating your own words sir. Initially you called swift as 'scrap'. Later you said all cars of Maruti are 'scrap'. Then you said European manufactured cars for europe are better than Indian manufactured ones for India. Now you are saying that there is no harm if its manufactured in India.

Also, Manufactured for India A-star shares the manufacturing lines with European A-star. And I repeat, only difference is in Trim Levels and 3 door versions.

I suggest you a take a look at the Alto which had an head-on collision in here

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian...ml#post1318237

Crumple zones, if it was present or it was present and not effective is evident.

Enough has been said about this alto by the members here and I will agree with all of them.
I request you to kindly read in detail about the Crumple Zones, Monocoque construction and also am requesting to have a re-look at the pic, the A-pillar was destroyed as it reportedly hit a high clearence vehicle such as a truck/lorry. Hence, the crumple zones can't be accounted for the damage and impact.

So does it mean an Alto/A-Star crashing at 100KMPH will have the same impact as a Pajero crashing at 100KMPH?

No, it simply means that all the Marutis can't be termed unsafe. Not all of its cars. If Honda Citys/optras/pajeros suffer so much damage due to crashes at highway speeds, often resulting in loss of life, its not surprising the amount of damage that an impact does to a little hatchback.




EDIT-PS- No offence but i will really appreciate if you may care to tell us all here how did the Ikon and Fiesta fare at the NCAP ratings. As far as I know both of these cars did not went thru these tests and so as per your logic the safety of these two cars is highly questionable. Atleast all the Suzukis (barring OMNI/800) went thru the NCAP tests and atleast are transparent when it comes to safety ratings. Hence, it will be really great if you may tell us how did you judge the fiestas/ikons (both "made for India in India" product) in terms of crash safety. Going by your logic as these are manufactured in India and for India, these should be one of the most unsafe cars present. Kindly shed some light.



Regards.

[Dose]

Originally Posted by Ram_NP

One question, are these ratings valid for the cars sold in India?

It depends. One has to compare the safety specifications (specs) and weight of the European (Euro) or American (IIHS results) version versus the Indian version. Comparisons can be done using the specs given in the NCAP or IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) crash test report versus those on the car's Euro website (U.K. website is easier due to same English language) and the Indian website. If all the safety specs and weight of the car match, and there is no evidence of the Indian version using inferior chassis and body specs, the ratings are valid to the highest degree.

For example, the 2009 Superb does not offer a driver knee airbag for Indians. So, the rating is more valid for the Euro version rather than the Indian version.

Originally Posted by theragingbull

the A-star never seemed to be a safe car to me. In fact, none of the Maruti hatchbacks (except for Swift may be) have a NCAP rating of more than 3.

@Ram-NP
These ratings do not matter to India, as we don't have any law which says about the minimum safety in Indian cars. Abroad, every car has to pass a crash test otherwise it cannot sell in that country.

Under the pre-2009 rating system, the Splash (Ritz) also has more than three stars.

I disagree. Abroad, not every car has to pass a crash test for selling purposes. For example, kit cars (imported in pieces) are exempt which is why the Noble and some other cars can be sold in the U.S.

Originally Posted by YC.BALENO.CHD

Just sticking to these 3 cars. . its not surprising that the car that costs less than half of the other doesnt fare as well in the safety test.

It will be better if we compare the i20 with say a ritz and/or a swift. Compariong A-star with i20 (even in safety) is like comparing the SX4 with a Civic.
I know safety should be paramount and it would not had been bad if A-star could score better but the NCAP scorecard should be treated more as test report then a comparo. Come on, no one ever expected teh A-star to be compared with a q5 or even the jazz.

After seeing how well the i20 did compared to the Jazz and Q5, I think the 2009 Alto/A-star has no excuse. I am not asking for perfect scores. All I ask is that the A-star have a better designed dashboard which does not damage the driver's lower right leg as much as it did during the test. Maruti is not on the verge of bankruptcy like GM so the A-star can definitely be better engineered and better value for money. After all, according to carwale.com ex-showroom Bombay price, the difference between the Zxi A-star and Zxi Ritz is only about 80k rupees versus the difference between i20 and Jazz or i20 and Q5. And repair and rehab of a broken leg will probably cost significantly more than 80k plus loss of time.

For any post-2005 Maruti-Suzuki car, any injury below orange/marginal level for the legs is bad. In my book, that injury is a deal breaker for anyone considering buying an A-star vs. Splash/Ritz.

[greenhorn]

I guess the A star's designers subscribe to the Ford Pinto school of thought

[Dose]

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

1) Aveo rating is 2/5 with aribags. Euro NCAP - For safer cars | Chevrolet Aveo

If you look carefully, aaggoswami, the Aveo scored 1.5 stars not two.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

So I doubt the quality of Honda products.

Even in the Accidents in India thread, a user " lamborghini " posted what happens when an Esteem and latest gen Accord meet with head on collosion. The damage to Accord was too much.

The more a car crumples without affecting the passenger cell, the better its ability to protect its occupants. Therefore, the Accord should crumple more than the Esteem because it has better passive safety. Modern cars that sustain frame damage are designed to be thrown away after a crash, not repaired. They sacrifice themselves for the good of the passengers.

The ignorant belief of Indians that "a car with less damage is the winner"
is outdated and needs to change. Someone or something has to absorb the forces of the accident. Would you prefer almost no crumpling and dead passengers or vice versa? If the former, then buy an Ambassador. If the latter, then buy an i20 Asta-O.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

3) The quality of cars sold in India are always a doubt.

Without evidence, I doubt that.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

1) Audi Q7 scored 4/5 stars. Swift has 4/5 stars. i10 has 4/5 stars, Ritz ( Splash ) has 4/5 stars.

Does this mean that Audi Q7 is only as safe as Swift ?

Unlike the 2009 Euroncap star rating, the pre-2009 star rating is a good indicator of passive safety. The cars you mentioned were all tested pre-2009 so, yes, if you drive an improperly welded Q7 into an offset wall at 40 mph versus the same with a Swift, both cars should give comparable passive safety to the occupants. Drive a Q7 into a Swift at 40 mph and the weight difference will give the Q7 the advantage. One must remember that the Q7 tested by the Euroncap turned out to be weaker than designed due to the defective welding which was mentioned in the test result notes. If you want to see the true potential of the Q7, look at the IIHS test which tested a properly welded Q7.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

2) The only cars that are quite upto European standards as far as chassis standards are concerned are those from German Manufacturers and Toyota.

Where is the evidence that only the Germans and Toyota are up to the European chassis standard?

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

The point I am trying to make is simple. The cars sold in India, i.e. whose body-in-white is created in India are generally not upto the European quality or standards.

Do you have evidence that shows that a C-class, i20 Asta-O, Accord, Laura or some other relatively good quality car sold in India has a body-in-white monocoque that is significantly substandard in quality compared to the ones exported to or made in Europe?

I remember that a Teambhp member, who said they worked for an car company in India, made a similar allegation some time ago but was not able to provide proof.

The last thing we want this site to become is a place where allegations are carelessly thrown about without evidence.

[sandeep108]

I feel that in India using these ratings may or may not be appropriate. They are a reasonable indicator, but in India the road conditions, basic road/vehicle lighting, no driver testing norms and overall safety standards are so non-existent that it matters little.

An example would be completely non-uniform bumpers, especially for HCVs/LCVs. Obviously the NHC in this post has hit a truck without a normal bumper. So even if it meets a 4 / 5 star rating, what is the use?

None of the manufacturers, even Tata, engineer vehicles for Indian conditions. But on the other hand if they do, probably we would have vehicles with outsize springs / rubber bands on all sides and play bumper cars on daily basis.

[vasudeva]

Perhaps one should consider the costs of various cars before commenting upon the lower rating of A-star. Notwithstanding old comments by Maruti about 800 being as safe as a Merc, target markets dictate production costs and quality.

[gvvictor]

i beleive its unfare to compare cars of different class. Also see the specification of the tested i10 here http://www.euroncap.com/tests/hyundai_i10_2008/323.aspx. It sports side body airbags that’s why it scores higher rating. But the Indian i10 doesn’t have this feature. The european i10 is different from Indian i10 but Maruti Suzuki offers the same A-star here.

[aaggoswami]

Originally Posted by Dose

1) If you look carefully, aaggoswami, the Aveo scored 1.5 stars not two.

2) The more a car crumples without affecting the passenger cell, the better its ability to protect its occupants. Therefore, the Accord should crumple more than the Esteem because it has better passive safety. Modern cars that sustain frame damage are designed to be thrown away after a crash, not repaired. They sacrifice themselves for the good of the passengers.

The ignorant belief of Indians that "a car with less damage is the winner"
is outdated and needs to change. Someone or something has to absorb the forces of the accident. Would you prefer almost no crumpling and dead passengers or vice versa? If the former, then buy an Ambassador. If the latter, then buy an i20 Asta-O.

3) Without evidence, I doubt that.

4) Unlike the 2009 Euroncap star rating, the pre-2009 star rating is a good indicator of passive safety. The cars you mentioned were all tested pre-2009 so, yes, if you drive an improperly welded Q7 into an offset wall at 40 mph versus the same with a Swift, both cars should give comparable passive safety to the occupants. Drive a Q7 into a Swift at 40 mph and the weight difference will give the Q7 the advantage. One must remember that the Q7 tested by the Euroncap turned out to be weaker than designed due to the defective welding which was mentioned in the test result notes. If you want to see the true potential of the Q7, look at the IIHS test which tested a properly welded Q7.


5) Where is the evidence that only the Germans and Toyota are up to the European chassis standard?

6) Do you have evidence that shows that a C-class, i20 Asta-O, Accord, Laura or some other relatively good quality car sold in India has a body-in-white monocoque that is significantly substandard in quality compared to the ones exported to or made in Europe?

7) I remember that a Teambhp member, who said they worked for an car company in India, made a similar allegation some time ago but was not able to provide proof.

8) The last thing we want this site to become is a place where allegations are carelessly thrown about without evidence.

1) The second star was cut through. Yes, good observation.

2 and 4) Sir, exactly that is what I am trying to tell by the following post :

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

Exactly its job of crumple zones to crumple themselves and absorb the energy of the impact. But again, if in case of NHC/G2HC ramming into side of Wagon R, it was NHC/G2HC which is heavier and has 100% front area to absorb the impact.
In case of Accord, Accord is much heavier, so logically ( you mentioned in your post that always lighter vehicle is at disadvantage ) Esteem ( which is indeed a very old design ) must me damaged more. But it is not so.
I am bringing in this incident to prove that in general the cars sold in India are not upto international standards.

The crumple zones are there to get deformed and absorb the energy. They are designed for that. But the passenger cabin is made as rigid as possible to avoid any intrusion into the cabin. The passenger cabin must remain intact after the crash. The more intact it is, the better.

Unitary Construction/Monocoque construction :
Here each and every structural member supports the member adjacent to it. So in event of crash the entire body shell is affected as there is transfer of energy. And body is designed to absorb the energy through crumple zones and then direct the energy away from passenger compartment. In this manner entire body does get affected.
This is the reason why it is said that if a car whose construction is monocoque is involved in a reasonably high speed impact, the body shell loses its strength.
In India, IIRC, it was maruti 800 that started regular production of monocoque constructed cars. Internationally IIRC, it was Citroen that is pioneer of Unitary construction.

Recently i.e around 4-5 years ago, a new technology came up that is called Tailored blanks. With the use of this tech, the thickness can be varied over the entire car's bodyshell. So where it is absolutely necessary, like front end, the thickness could be more than other places where thickness is not necessary. Swift uses this, so the chassis not weak and at the same time weight can be kept in control.

So you see, I am always talking about what job crumple zones have to do. But also remember that in case of accord, it is newer and it has weight advantage as compared to Esteem ( same is your logic in Point no. 4 of your post's quote ) still it suffered massive damage.
This made me conclude that the international quality is not being maintained.

3) May I have evidence that the quality is maintained ?

5,6 and 7) a) I have seen many Innova crashes and they do hold up well.
b) The driving dynamics of European cars are sufficient proof that the chassis is stiff. Also if you look at the thread " Accidents in India " you will see how well the European cars take the impact. Normal driving over bad roads and high speed driving on highway is sufficient to prove how a chassis is. Drive Accord after driving Passat or drive Civic after driving Laura and you will come to know how I have concluded.

Again can somebody provide proof that cars manufactured in India are as good as the international models ?

8) There are no evidence for either allegations. What is here on the site is from practical experience and observation.

Originally Posted by sandeep108

Obviously the NHC in this post has hit a truck without a normal bumper. So even if it meets a 4 / 5 star rating, what is the use?

If you are talking about the NHC picture I have posted, in one case the car hit cyclist and in other case the car hit motorcycle. None of the pictures I have posted are cars hit by HCV.

Originally Posted by vasudeva

target markets dictate production costs and quality.

Perfect way to summarize Indian car safety standards or rather compromises.

Originally Posted by gvvictor

i Also see the specification of the tested i10 here http://www.euroncap.com/tests/hyundai_i10_2008/323.aspx. It sports side body airbags that’s why it scores higher rating. But the Indian i10 doesn’t have this feature. The european i10 is different from Indian i10 but Maruti Suzuki offers the same A-star here.

Again good observation. A-star is loosely based on Swift platform and so is Splash. Both Swift and Splash scored 4/5 with side airbags. A-star did not have them.

[Volt]

AFAIK, the ratings of i10/ Punto are the pre 2009 ratings, so the comparison is not really fair. What we could compare is the i20 or Jazz but then those have been tested with curtain airbags, ESP and a whole lot of other safety equipment.

OT: Its really good to see a debate on safety ratings, hope this becomes more widespread and prods the manufacturers to give more safety kit as standard equipment.

[Dose]

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

So you see, I am always talking about what job crumple zones have to do. But also remember that in case of accord, it is newer and it has weight advantage as compared to Esteem ( same is your logic in Point no. 4 of your post's quote ) still it suffered massive damage.
This made me conclude that the international quality is not being maintained.

Just because a car is newer or heavier does not mean it will automatically be superior. Drawing conclusions based on one incident is unwise especially when we have no facts on the case such as the injuries sustained by the occupants and if they were wearing their seatbelts.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

3) May I have evidence that the quality is maintained ?

Usually the onus is on the prosecution.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

5,6 and 7) a) I have seen many Innova crashes and they do hold up well.

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.

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? Is every one of them sold with inferior specifications compared to their European versions? Are companies going out of their way to make sure that every single car is inferior in every single way to the Euro version? Does an Accord sold in India crumple like paper in an accident while the Euro version crumples like steel? Please reconsider your statement.

Instead of saying the quality is "always" in doubt, you could say the quality "may be" or "might be" or "sometimes is" in doubt and I would agree with you.

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. Instead, we should keep an open mind, insist on equal quality and price, practice caveat emptor, give the company the benefit of the doubt and hope we are receiving good quality products. Only when we have clear evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a product we are receiving is significantly inferior to its Euro version yet is marketed as if it's similar, does it give us enough cause to chastise the company and its product.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

b) The driving dynamics of European cars are sufficient proof that the chassis is stiff. Also if you look at the thread " Accidents in India " you will see how well the European cars take the impact. Normal driving over bad roads and high speed driving on highway is sufficient to prove how a chassis is. Drive Accord after driving Passat or drive Civic after driving Laura and you will come to know how I have concluded.

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.

Imagine if some of our members saw the remains of a crashed car and thought it "looked" weak while others thought the opposite. All these members used their vaunted practical experience and observation but how can a potential buyer or inexperienced car enthusiast gauge which one of these members' observations is accurate? 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.

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

8) There are no evidence for either allegations. What is here on the site is from practical experience and observation.

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.