[ramesh]

Hi Gandhar , Thanks for all your posts.
I have a few points I always wanted to discuss with someone -
1. Government should charge no or low taxes ( exciese etc ) on safety equipments in the vehicle. This will increase the acceptance of safety devices ( Airbags , ABS , LH ORVM etc ).
2. Govt. should create a new category for micro-cars ( like TATA nano ) which can deliver very high FE.This category then can have most tax sops if they pass the set targets for FE.
3. Why trucks and cars should not have same height for bumpers?. When a truck collides with a car invariably the occupants in car suffers more injuries as the truck bumper being higher than car's it runs over it.

[anandpadhye]

Originally Posted by ramesh

Why trucks and cars should not have same height for bumpers?

Because truck a truck.
Approach and departure angles must be high for a truck so that it can go off the road to bring and deliver stuff.

Of course, unless you are saying that cars should have high bumpers!

[SirAlec]

It is mandatory to have guard rails under the bumper for trucks now, both rear and front.

most don't follow. But if you check paramilitary's (CRPF etc) new trucks. It comes fitted with it.

[bblost]

Originally Posted by SirAlec

It is mandatory to have guard rails under the bumper for trucks now, both rear and front.

And if I am not mistaken on the sides as well. Between the tires.

[ramesh]

The guard bars , front, rear and side still are much higher than car bumpers.Isn't it logical that all vehicles , commercial or passenger should have same bumper height ? , human lives are more important than convenience of goods pick up or drop.

[amitwlele]

Originally Posted by ramesh

The guard bars , front, rear and side still are much higher than car bumpers.Isn't it logical that all vehicles , commercial or passenger should have same bumper height ? , human lives are more important than convenience of goods pick up or drop.

@Ramesh - I am confused by what you mean by same bumper height. Do you have any pics of what you mean? If guard rails are present then the possibiliy of smaller vehicles going under would be reduced.

[ramesh]

Bumpers and the structures thereunder are supposedly designed to absorb the impact, if all the vehicles made with same bumper heights obviously the vehicle to vehicle collision impact will be only on the bumpers. Presently we see that trucks hit the cars much above the bumper line ( even with the guards , as the guards are too high)

[BaCkSeAtDrIVeR]

^^ heh. The rules are already there. Problem is most vehicles on road ATM are custom built - at small "dad and son" shops, which take away the factory fitted FES (front end structure) and even instrument panels.

There are rules regarding front and side impact beams too. The rules are usually printed in black ink on good quality white paper. Enforcement too, is very good at drawing "salary". But not at enforcing the rules.

With implementation new "bus code" for heavy passenger vehicles and corresponding rules for goods vehicles, let us hope that the "mama - chela" body building shops down their shutters (I will not shed any tears for them - I have seen the kind of havoc such ill-structured vehicles cause when involved in accidents), and body building for heavy vehicles moves to organised sector.

[Rehaan]

Originally Posted by Gansbab

You may have guessed by now that I am an ex-ARAI engineer

Hi Gansbab,

Have a question for you regarding Tyres & fuel-efficiency tests.

Say that a vehicle is available with one engine, and 3 variants.

Lowest variant : 165-mm width tyres
Mid variant : 165-mm width tyres
Top variant : 185-mm width tyres

What tyres will the car be wearing during the fuel-efficiency tests?


Thanks,
R

[Gansbab]

Originally Posted by Rehaan

Hi Gansbab,

Have a question for you regarding Tyres & fuel-efficiency tests.

Say that a vehicle is available with one engine, and 3 variants.

Lowest variant : 165-mm width tyres
Mid variant : 165-mm width tyres
Top variant : 185-mm width tyres

What tyres will the car be wearing during the fuel-efficiency tests?


Thanks,
R

Hi Rehaan,

Thanks for waking me up from a long slumber from T-Bhp.

Usually a fuel-efficiency test is conjoined with an emission test (UN ECE R83, which is similar to the Indian Regs). The requirements say that the test be conducted on the widest one. If more than 3 options, the test is conducted at the widest minus one tyre.

However, I will go in a bit detail with regards to when you say variant. (Variant is a completely different meaning in type approval, but will not go there). The emission test is conducted on basis of reference weight (Unladen + 100kg). The test is conducted on the vehicle with the highest reference mass. Hence, in your examples, I would assume your top variant would have the highest reference mass (as it would be loaded with goodies). Thus the top version would automatically be selected for the emission test, and thus the fuel-efficiency figures would be quoted from it.

But that would not be the best figure for the manufacturer to quote, so he may want to perform additional test on lighter version to enable him the best figures to quote.

Hope this cleared your doubt..

Regards,

Gandhar.

Originally Posted by ramesh

Hi Gandhar , Thanks for all your posts.
I have a few points I always wanted to discuss with someone -
1. Government should charge no or low taxes ( exciese etc ) on safety equipments in the vehicle. This will increase the acceptance of safety devices ( Airbags , ABS , LH ORVM etc ).
2. Govt. should create a new category for micro-cars ( like TATA nano ) which can deliver very high FE.This category then can have most tax sops if they pass the set targets for FE.
3. Why trucks and cars should not have same height for bumpers?. When a truck collides with a car invariably the occupants in car suffers more injuries as the truck bumper being higher than car's it runs over it.

Sorry for a late reply, Ramesh.

1) Charging low excise / tax would help, but it would be really difficult to identify which safety device would pass the criteria (active devices or passive devices). Also the regulations cannot be design specific. Thats the reason ABS / Airbags are not mandatory.

2) Such a category would deliver high FE but one needs to be careful that safety is not compromised (which is usually the case, hence you see no abs/airbags/ebd/esc on lower variants)

3) As some have explained, that trucks already have to have a front underrun protection, but sadly it doesnt stay on it.

Cheers,

Gandhar.

[ritz3645]

Sir,
I was an able body seaman many years back, and we have 'Safety Of Life At Sea' as a mandate for all materials used on any ship.

My question is of materials used in a car/vehicle, do they have any fire retarding capabilities as a mandate

[Gansbab]

Originally Posted by ritz3645

Sir,
I was an able body seaman many years back, and we have 'Safety Of Life At Sea' as a mandate for all materials used on any ship.

My question is of materials used in a car/vehicle, do they have any fire retarding capabilities as a mandate

Hi ritz3645,

The flammability requirement is applicable for bigger public service vehicles (Buses) under the bus body code. I am not sure whether it is yet applicable in India (was on the cards the last time I spoke to someone at ARAI).

In Europe, it is mandatory for M2, M3 vehicles.

Just as you asked, for Hybrid vehicles / Electric Vehicles, there is definitely a safety standard (ECE R100, here in Europe) for electrical safety but also in India (I am not sure of the exact AIS no, but it exists)

Cheers,

Gandhar.

[ramesh]

Hi Gandhar ,
It seems making regulations should not be so difficult , I have been reading out of own interest many UN-ECE documents , they are meticulously drafted even for complex components and systems. Why it should be so difficult to draft standards on how the ABS or airbag should function in the event of crisis ?
- Ramesh

[Gansbab]

Originally Posted by ramesh

Hi Gandhar ,
It seems making regulations should not be so difficult , I have been reading out of own interest many UN-ECE documents , they are meticulously drafted even for complex components and systems. Why it should be so difficult to draft standards on how the ABS or airbag should function in the event of crisis ?
- Ramesh

Hi Ramesh,

You probably read the ones which are the least used ones then...

Jokes apart, the drafting is challenging as they need to consider various aspects to define what is to be tested and how..

Just as an example, at what speeds the crash needs to be conducted, what shall be the ABS system compatibility to Electro magnetic radiation.

Often years of data collection, analysis (cost as well as technical) and finally lobbying go in before a legislation is drafted due to its legal nature and implications.

-Gandhar