Repeated Case of Zero NCAP Crash Test Rating of Indian Cars

[generalmax]

When we talk about the said subject,do we really look in to what we get? Maruti is selling Altos that are banned by some countries. Datsun Go failed last year .Did they make any changes in the last 1 year?
Coming to the best seller,Swift,frame is so thin,that my engine mount broke of in a 4 inch crater at 15Kmph. We get what we ask for. Mileage,yes and that is it .
Ask for an ABS version of a car,the dealers say wait for 6 months.
It is high time, the customer's view point change.

 

[navnit013]

Just try hitting a old gen Maruti 800 or Ambassador in today's Honda or Hyundai and even without any safety the old 800/ Ambassador would be on a far better side.

Disagree on this part strongly. A modern car is better at protecting its occupants structurally. The sheer bulk of the vehicle has nothing to do with safety.

Yes the weight of the cars will increase with addition of extra structural members. BUT saying Ambassador is safer than swift is not right.

 

[1989rs500]

When we talk about the said subject,do we really look in to what we get? Maruti is selling Altos that are banned by some countries. Datsun Go failed last year .Did they make any changes in the last 1 year?
Coming to the best seller,Swift,frame is so thin,that my engine mount broke of in a 4 inch crater at 15Kmph. We get what we ask for. Mileage,yes and that is it .
Ask for an ABS version of a car,the dealers say wait for 6 months.
It is high time, the customer's view point change.

Again, its not customers who should change man, its the manufacturer who should change, in our country its more difficult to change people, but a manufacturer can change, but they wont change, Maruti,Hyundai etc because their strength lies in our weakness, not in their products like in the case of Tata,VW,Ford etc who survive because their products tell a tale that just mends a lot of minds,and inspire a lot and motivate people to take that path,

The government can do anything and is the prinary one responsible but as we all know they are too cirrupt and much bigger than even the brands for us to fight against,
So who s next ,the brands of course,
And we see who are the ones who show courage, ts just basically the small share holders like Tata,Ford,VW,
We must understand that VW,Ford, has so much budget that they can easily make a plastic tin can rival and put it against Kwid,Alto,etc but they dont do it, thats because they are commited to safe motoring,
Maruti and Hyundai still sells like 50k unproven cars every month,so if they have at least a slight intrest on ethics they wouldnt have done this, they even today are more concerned about market share more than individual customer, specially this customer is the one who serves them big time while in all other markets Maruti is on the verge of death, and they cheat us here to survive.
Thats why I say, I will never trust this brand despite its vast servicr network and reliability etc.

 

[Akash1886]

Disagree on this part strongly. A modern car is better at protecting its occupants structurally. The sheer bulk of the vehicle has nothing to do with safety.

Navnit hi, Allow me to say, How many times did a car equipped with best of the line safety features was able to avoid the deaths of 3rd party or occupants? All I am saying is the cars of today that are equipped with top passenger safety features does not necessarily make them safe. A strong and capable structure is also the need of the hour. There are instances where a strong body shell saved occupants when cars toppled and the safety devices did not react. Also, the models tested are those that are not "structurally stable" and that brings us to the fact that along with provisions of safety the body cage of the car has to be strong enough to save occupants. By giving a SRS airbag and ABS with weak structure does not make the car strong actually since it is all a secondary measure to hide the internal weak structure. You also would agree, airbags deploy at a certain level of impact only so during a mishap who actually cares whether the car hit at 50 or 90 km/h? Also the mass market cars in general in our market are not having top of the line safety. The cars on daily basis don't just meet a head-on hit, they are t-boned, rear-ended and many more ways so if in such a situation, then don't you agree a strong body shell will be wise enough? As Passenger safety is of paramount importance so if the occupants face a crash in which the intensity was high but not as high for airbag to deploy then everything depends on how well is the body shell designed to absorb the crash and impact and save the occupants. Agreed that an on-road accident depends on many factors other than just the fact that whether car is equipped with safety features and does it have a tank like structure. BUT with the excuse of a accident, the OEM does not get a opportunity to make flimsy built cars for us. VFM concept that is very popular, does not just mean that you give a tin-box loaded with 6 Airbags, A canon like AC Blower, 10 Speed transmission, 12 Inch screen and bum-heating upholstery. A stable structure which can hold this along with passenger is of main importance. Also, we as buyers are also equally responsible for giving the upper hand to OEMs because our priorities of car purchase are not sorted and awfully unique.

Eg: Will you buy a house in a building which has utmost resident safety and security but whose roots and structure are weak? Same way, by sitting in a car with maximum safety features but a weak structure wont make you any safer.

Lastly, We as buyers should make the OEMs realize that safety in cars is indeed our prime concern only then this issue will be addressed. Bhai taali dono haathon se bajti hai. (We clap with both hands).

saying Ambassador is safer than swift is not right.

See, in a accident fate is a big role player. My idea of comparing the old cars with today's cars was just to show that with the ideologies of OEMs here changing over the time and the tastes and concerns of buyers changing as well, the present day products stand very low in many respects in comparison to old cars. Indeed Swift and Ambassador are not comparable today.

Regards

Akash

 

[acechip]

While I agree that there is much more emphasis on features by the consumers rather than "real" features of safety, I must point out:
1) The fact that so many deaths and accidents are happening as compared to the Ambassador/Padmini era is simply because there are so many more cars around!
2) The average speeds of the cars have increased. The road traffic density has increased hugely. Imagine the Mumbai-Pune expressway back in the 70s/early 80s. If you drove an Ambassador/Padmini, you would statistically have very few chances of fatal accidents, simply because there wasnt so much traffic. These days, you have to mind the opposite lane while controlling your car at 80-90 kph!
3) Purely in terms of technology, the Ambassador/Padmini were totally c-r-a-p. Suspect braking, poor power to weight ratio, ungainly gearshifts and totally uncomfortable (PAdmini).

While you may say old is gold, I think we are better off in modern cars to a great extent. All we need is legislation in place to uniformly implement stringent crash safety norms. It should be no different than any public safety norms in any industry. There will be a bit of a financial heartburn for a year or two, but things will be so much better thereon.

 

[Akash1886]

1) The fact that so many deaths and accidents are happening as compared to the Ambassador/Padmini era is simply because there are so many more cars around!

I agree that number of cars on road have increased thereby increasing accidents but the cars of today are not as much capable of withstanding an impact as the earlier ones used to be since there used to be more of metal and very less of fiber.

2) The average speeds of the cars have increased. The road traffic density has increased hugely. Imagine the Mumbai-Pune expressway back in the 70s/early 80s. If you drove an Ambassador/Padmini, you would statistically have very few chances of fatal accidents, simply because there wasnt so much traffic. These days, you have to mind the opposite lane while controlling your car at 80-90 kph!

Indeed average speed has increased too but the quality of product (read cars) has gone down and they are not really capable of handling high speed crashes or even moderate speed crashes with their weak structures.

3) Purely in terms of technology, the Ambassador/Padmini were totally c-r-a-p. Suspect braking, poor power to weight ratio, ungainly gearshifts and totally uncomfortable (PAdmini).

I agree those cars were not technically sound and much below in terms of technology but in-line with the topic buddy, those cars were structurally more competent than today's cars.

I think we are better off in modern cars to a great extent.

I would say in terms of technology and comfort today's cars are somewhat ahead of older gen cars but not in terms of structural safety.

All we need is legislation in place to uniformly implement stringent crash safety norms. It should be no different than any public safety norms in any industry. There will be a bit of a financial heartburn for a year or two, but things will be so much better thereon.

Absolutely agree to your view.

Regards

Akash

 

[navnit013]

those cars were structurally more competent than today's cars.


Akash

This is the part where I disagreed in the first instance.

Today cars are structurally better than the Ambassadors. They are good at dissipating the energy of the crash better than the old cars. The Old cars just transfer the energy straight into the passenger compartment. But the new cars just spread it around.

Yes the cars that fail the crash tests are structurally weak by todays standards (which is more stringent). Even with addition of passive/active safety features they'll not do better. NO DOUBTS ABOUT THAT.

 

[1989rs500]

This is the part where I disagreed in the first instance.

Today cars are structurally better than the Ambassadors. They are good at dissipating the energy of the crash better than the old cars. The Old cars just transfer the energy straight into the passenger compartment. But the new cars just spread it around.

Yes the cars that fail the crash tests are structurally weak by todays standards (which is more stringent). Even with addition of passive/active safety features they'll not do better. NO DOUBTS ABOUT THAT.

See a Maruti Alto of today is built cheaper than the Alto of the early 2000s, and since its a Maruti there is no structural engineering done it it as well, whereas the old cars at least had some metal to act as a pseudo crumble zone
The new Swifts are lighter than old ones as well and the old one at least had the better steel structure whereas new one compromised both on structure and its not engineered for crash test as well
Thats why we can say some old cars are safer than new ones

 

[navnit013]

whereas the old cars at least had some metal to act as a pseudo crumble zone

Well, for starters crumple zone is not a strong structure. Its a weak structure strategically designed (and placed) in the vehicle chassis to deform on collision so that the energy of the crash is absorbed. In simple words, crumple zone is a weak area of the cars chassis not 'strong'.

I am not saying that Alto is a safe car. Or a Swift is. BUT Ambassador sure is not.

 

[1989rs500]

Well, for starters crumple zone is not a strong structure. Its a weak structure strategically designed (and placed) in the vehicle chassis it deform on collision so that the energy of the crash is absorbed. In simple words, crumple zone is a weak area of the cars chassis not 'strong'.

I am not saying that Alto is a safe car. Or a Swift is. BUT Ambassador sure is not.

Crumble zone is weak, in what manner, it absorbs the crash upto the chassis
Yes the previous Marutis,had some metal in front to absorb a lot of the impact, metal is metal unlike fiber in modern cars specially Altos,celerios etc,
That makes a huge difference, when it comes to head on collisions
Not just Marutis but even new gen Hyundais,Fords,VWs all use fiber
But the chassis strength is great in VW,Ford,tata etc whereas Marutis,Hyundais etc still use weak chassis and weak fiber parts, so there is less safety from both angles
The Scorpio is a classic example of weak engineering with lot of strong metal
I am not sure of Ambassador and Padmini, as I too think they are as weak as new gen Marutis,Hyundais despite lot of metal usage

 

[Akash1886]

Today cars are structurally better than the Ambassadors. They are good at dissipating the energy of the crash better than the old cars. The Old cars just transfer the energy straight into the passenger compartment. But the new cars just spread it around.

Buddy, May be the design of body shell of Ambassador did not have the impact beams etc like today's cars but even today's "structurally advanced" cars are still aerodynamically flawed as they are unstable at high speeds and even at moderate speed and i.e because their body structure is not properly designed. If an old gen car did not have virtue of being a sleek performer that could be understood and acceptable because of lack of resources, technology and knowledge but if today's cars are lacking the virtue of being safe even with best of technology being employed to build them then surely it is matter of concern. Also, If on a simple note we see, the sheer amount of metal that is being used now and what was being used 2 decades back then it becomes a matter of shame for both i.e buyers and manufacturers.

Regards

Akash

 

[adityakvs14]

Renault Kwid global NCAP crash test report is very shocking, Crash test comducted on their three different versions, including one with airbags, but all variants scored zero rating in adult safety, however company had made all the promises for safety at the time of Renault Kwid launching.

 

[Crazy cat]

These tests doesn't serve its purpose. Almost all base models don't get airbags. So all cars will fail. It would be really interesting if they simultaneously test both base and top variant and show us the difference.

Right now we only know how safe polo and old figo alone or how weak kwid is. As other cars weren't tested with airbag.

 

[maximas007]

These tests doesn't serve its purpose. Almost all base models don't get airbags. So all cars will fail. It would be really interesting if they simultaneously test both base and top variant and show us the difference.

Right now we only know how safe polo and old figo alone or how weak kwid is. As other cars weren't tested with airbag.

Your are correct 100%
Atleast they should do it for base and top end at the same time .

 

[Naveen_1983]

TRUE, Baleno is like Tin CAN and I understood now after there was dent on bumper on my car