[laluks]

Originally Posted by autoholic

Note : I am a little disappointed in fellow BHPians not making the necessary observations

...

You should work in forensic department .

You failed to notice the damage was already done by 0:03, and the rest was towing with the bottom hook, which more or less took the stress, with a bend member to that effect.

If the designated tow point is on sheet metal and cant take a reasonable abuse, why provide it? If provided why was it badly engineered?

...

PEACE

[autoholic]

Originally Posted by laluks

You should work in forensic department .

You failed to notice the damage was already done by 0:03, and the rest was towing with the bottom hook, which more or less took the stress, with a bend member to that effect.

If the designated tow point is on sheet metal and cant take a reasonable abuse, why provide it? If provided why was it badly engineered?

...

PEACE

Firstly, I am extremely sorry for wrong choice of a word/s.

Secondly brother, I was apparently describing events that happened in the first 3 seconds only. The references to 21 seconds and 1 min 4 seconds merely affirmed the fact that the car was indeed being towed up a significant incline.

About towing point on sheet metal and why provide it, the car's body shell is made of stamped/formed sheet metal plates welded together, so where else do you suggest they should put it. Also its specifically designed for deforming during frontal impacts and what happened here is exactly the opposite.

About why it is provided, its there for "reasonable attempts" to recover the vehicle, preferably on level ground and without brakes. And, pulling a car, with brakes engaged, up a slope, using a towing eye does not come under the purview of reasonable attempt/abuse.

I am attaching a page from a 2015 Mercedes C Class Operating Manual. Just read the second and third warnings at the top left side. MB here warns that using towing eyes for recovery purposes can damage a vehicle. What you were attempting, was an extreme version of recovery.

About your suggestion of me working in a forensic department, I can only say that I like CSI & similar TV shows and receive similar comments from family and friends, when I dissect their junk videos on Whatsapp.

Finally, I once again apologise for my bad choice of words(moderated out) in the earlier post. But I still stand by the remaining good ones.

Lesson of the day(for me) - One bad word can really negate all the good/right you had said, in those preceding it.

[laluks]

Since you have called me brother, let me ask you a genuine question.

Your brother is stuck in a bad scene with a vehicle which is the best engineered car Suzuki/Maruti sells in India. It has a tow hook, to get him out of the mess. It fails.

Now do you state googled know how?

[autoholic]

Originally Posted by laluks

Since you have called me brother, let me ask you a genuine question.

Your brother is stuck in a bad scene with a vehicle which is the best engineered car Suzuki/Maruti sells in India. It has a tow hook, to get him out of the mess. It fails.

Now do you state googled know how?

You were stuck and had to use the towing eye, I get it but, your use/misuse took it beyond it's intended capabilities. Am I wrong, please share an alternate theory of what I see in the video(provided by you). You can share 5 mins of unedited dashcam footage upto the incident, so everyone here can assess what all happened and prove me wrong.

Googled know how, really? I feel kinda proud that you think what I have written is googled knowledge. Thanks.

But, believe me except the Mercedes Manual page which I took out of a downloaded complete manual, not even a single word comes from Google. I had downloaded the manual to see the views/suggestions of a reputed premium car manufacturer on the use of towing eye on their own vehicles. May be its there, but I am not aware or I have never searched for any website that critically evaluates a video like I did.

Now an observation I didn't mention earlier, you failed to keep the weight of the S-Cross to the minimum possible. I see a person coming up to the front of the S-Cross from the left/passenger side of the car. That means besides the driver there was at least one more person in the car, this excess weight was totally avoidable. Any more passengers/luggage, I dont know, you tell me.

[Rshrey22]

Originally Posted by autoholic

You were stuck and had to use the towing eye, I get it but, your use/misuse took it beyond it's intended capabilities. Am I wrong, please share an alternate theory of what I see in the video(provided by you). You can share 5 mins of unedited dashcam footage upto the incident, so everyone here can assess what all happened and prove me wrong.

Googled know how, really? I feel kinda proud that you think what I have written is googled knowledge. Thanks.

But, believe me except the Mercedes Manual page which I took out of a downloaded complete manual, not even a single word comes from Google. I had downloaded the manual to see the views/suggestions of a reputed premium car manufacturer on the use of towing eye on their own vehicles. May be its there, but I am not aware or I have never searched for any website that critically evaluates a video like I did.

Now an observation I didn't mention earlier, you failed to keep the weight of the S-Cross to the minimum possible. I see a person coming up to the front of the S-Cross from the left/passenger side of the car. That means besides the driver there was at least one more person in the car, this excess weight was totally avoidable. Any more passengers/luggage, I dont know, you tell me.

But, will you still agree that MS is not using the same chassis member that was there in the earlier model of the s cross?

There is a difference in the part which was mounted in the earlier model and this one.
As mentioned Dr.Naren, they are not the same and the earlier one is much more costly!

MS has surely tried to do some cost cutting on the front portion of the car and this has led to reduction in structural rigidity and strength.

If you don't agree, just watch any of the Moderator Anshuman's off roading videos on his youtube channel. The way they tow out stuck cars (including Duster which is a competitor to the S Cross and not just body on frame SUVs) from tricky situations will clear my point.

The tow points are meant to be used and are not there just for show!

Laluks did the right thing, otherwise the only thing he could have tried at that point would be classic pedal to the metal practice, which could have either made the situation worse or burnt the clutch or maybe both.

[laluks]

While we are hot at proving me and the help I got on the ground was a failure, let me put the discussion back to perspective.

Duster has a functional tow point, and the car is rugged, enough videos to prove the point.

Construction of tow point as described and posted by Anurag proves, Creta is better constructed, and engineered.

I am told Nexon too has better construction for the towing point.

I have posted the towing points of my Civic in the opening posts, it will withstand this scenario without a doubt. That was serious engineering.

Maruti's own Swift/Ritz, has a better towing point, which I have seen in multiple cross country drives and rescue.

In SCross it is not justified in providing the tow point on a 2MM thick Sheet metal, which mainly functions as a bumper support. That member costs just 1300 INR. It never should have been designated as the tow point ever. Competition has a tow point in front. #MeToo says SCross to join in. SCross had two tow points at the bottom which was relatively stronger, but still not better engineered as I have mentioned in my opening post.

In SCross, Maruti definitely has done some cost cutting, to reduce weight and to satisfy a mileage crazy country, and such experiences tend to show the weakness of the build.

I rest my case.

[Sheel]

Originally Posted by autoholic

The references to 21 seconds and 1 min 4 seconds merely affirmed the fact that the car was indeed being towed up a significant incline.

So people up in the hills should not be towing their vehicles even if the need arises?

[Traveler]

Granted that the Scross does not have tow hooks and what it offers is only a tie down hook.

Even then I would say that it is a bad design decision by Maruti. When you market a product as a soft roader type of vehicle and show off its capability by participating in rallies. It is implied that it is a tough car. By no means it is a stretch of imagination to assume that the hooks would not be able to withstand towing. Maruti should have provided enough strength in that tow hook to function as such.

This is like projecting one thing and selling something else under the garb of mentioning this in some corner of the owner manual.

My point is really simple, when you sell something that claims to be a premium SUV then it bloody well have the minimum requirements to be classified as an SUV. In my humble opinion a tow hook is one such minimum requirement.

[AMG Power]

This situation cannot be blamed on the owner as he has used a tow hook for what it is intended for - towing. In situations that warrant towing, precautions would be overlooked and manufacturers would provide an additional margin of safety to cater to lapses and situations that would certainly happen - jerks, bad driving, hills, descents, getting stuck again and more.

Given the obvious "not fit for purpose" nature of the tow hook and its "not so obvious purpose" mentioned in a vague corner of the owners handbook, Maruti should have affixed a warning message in a visible location - something similar to the ones on ORVM's, Fuel lids, or as they had on the dashboard in some cases about their MPFI engines.

Back in the day, I was in a jeep that was towing a Maruti 800 with a tow rope fixed onto the hooks that were there on its chassis cross members. That car was towed for more than 50 kms over very hilly terrain with fairly steep climbs and descents but with good roads. Absolutely nothing happened to the 800 even though the tow distance was more than 50 kms and the driver of the jeep certainly wasn't using the best of practices.

Goes to show the substantial slip ups by MSIL with the S Cross on

(a) the strength of the tow hooks

(b) misleading owners by affixing a tow hook in the usual location of tow hooks but not intending it for towing and

(c) not giving a adequate warning on potential damage in a more visible location other than a mention in the owners manual.

Looking at the owners manual while one is in a situation such as this is probably the last thing on most owner's minds.

[sheldon4888]

Really sad to see what you have gone through. But after looking at the video it's obvious its not an issue with the build quality of S-cross any other car would have also faced a similar or maybe slightly lesser damage.

Also what exactly was the reason for towing the car?

The Jerk from the scorpio in the initial part of the video clears much of the doubts which I initially had.

[vishnurp99]

Hi laluks,

It's really heart breaking to see what has happened to your once beloved kungfu panda. Your thread was a prominent influence on my decision to buy scross.

At the same time, many thanks for sharing this since this opened my eyes to this possibility. Obviously the car is not meant to be towed.

I have a few questions for you.

1. What was Maruti's response?
2. The new scross is around 35 kgs more than the old one. Even if we consider the svhs, the new one should at least weigh the same as old one. So it doesn't seem to be weight reducing exercise. It may be a bad design.
3. For forum members, will it be possible to share an actual picture of an undamaged frame for scross so that we understand how it looks?

Finally I am just thinking what force would have been really applied on the tow hook structure in case it was on an inclined road and the scross brakes were applied at the precise moment the Scorpio accelerated?

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by autoholic

About your suggestion of me working in a forensic department, I can only say that I like CSI & similar TV shows and receive similar comments from family and friends, when I dissect their junk videos on Whatsapp.

The video clearly shows that the damage was done inspite of being towed correctly. The brakes were applied post damage.

Request to be more observant before expressing your opinions.

[naikameya]

This is scary. I am sorry if I missed it but, how was the car pulled?

What I know about towing, the pulling car has to move gradually and there should not be any sudden jerk to the pulling cable.

Having said that the structural members should not tear apart.

[Edit] Okay, I see there is already a video posted. I think what went wrong with the towing was the jerk and most of the vehicles will face this issue when jerked. Also, there are purpose-built Kinetic Recovery ropes which are elastic (also, other benefits) which reduce the jerk.

[Thad E Ginathom]

I don't know that it is any comfort to know that Mercedes can be as bad as Maruti!

Whatever the name, elite or lowly, a tow hook should be good for towing. And it should be good for taking at least punishment too, because who knows what jerk it may have to put up with .

[Kosfactor]

Since Mercedes says not to Tow the vehicle using towing eyelet, it becomes a standard practice!

That is the message I am getting here unfortunately. Thankfully other brands have not read this manual except Maruti and they seem to have copy pasted it.

Ah, I get it. Bhpians know that flatbed trucks are around only to transport German cars carefully when they eventually brake down. So Maruti forgot this while copy pasting the text.

There is NO user error here at all Mr Owner of Scross.

it is a bad design and just because the user manual says Towing eyelet cannot be used for what it's there for in the first place, it does not make the company not liable for this stupid design. Make them pay for it.

Let's assume they give you an ash tray, and then provide a warning that it's made of plastic and can melt if used for cigarettes.