|
Search Forums |
Advanced Search |
Go to Page... |
Search this Thread | 28,800 views |
28th May 2009, 17:29 | #31 |
Senior - BHPian | 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. |
() Thanks |
|
28th May 2009, 17:36 | #32 | |||
Senior - BHPian | Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
| |||
() Thanks |
28th May 2009, 17:42 | #33 | ||
Senior - BHPian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Vadodara
Posts: 4,986
Thanked: 2,955 Times
| Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Last edited by aaggoswami : 28th May 2009 at 17:50. | ||
() Thanks |
28th May 2009, 17:50 | #34 | |
Senior - BHPian | Quote:
| |
() Thanks |
28th May 2009, 18:55 | #35 |
BHPian | 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. |
() Thanks |
28th May 2009, 20:47 | #36 | ||||
Senior - BHPian | MOD NOTE: Do not post in BOLD for no valid reason Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Last edited by Mpower : 28th May 2009 at 21:04. | ||||
() Thanks |
29th May 2009, 06:56 | #37 | |||
BHPian Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Karnataka, India
Posts: 221
Thanked: 2 Times
| Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. | |||
() Thanks |
29th May 2009, 07:08 | #38 |
Senior - BHPian | I guess the A star's designers subscribe to the Ford Pinto school of thought Last edited by greenhorn : 29th May 2009 at 07:09. |
() Thanks |
8th June 2009, 09:56 | #39 | |||||
BHPian Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Karnataka, India
Posts: 221
Thanked: 2 Times
| Quote:
Quote:
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. Without evidence, I doubt that. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. | |||||
() Thanks |
8th June 2009, 11:50 | #40 |
Senior - BHPian Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Bombay
Posts: 1,050
Thanked: 302 Times
| 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. |
() Thanks |
8th June 2009, 11:57 | #41 |
Senior - BHPian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Delhi
Posts: 2,223
Thanked: 212 Times
| 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. |
() Thanks |
|
9th June 2009, 12:53 | #42 |
BHPian Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: trichi
Posts: 33
Thanked: 0 Times
| 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. |
() Thanks |
9th June 2009, 17:38 | #43 | ||||
Senior - BHPian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Vadodara
Posts: 4,986
Thanked: 2,955 Times
| Quote:
2 and 4) Sir, exactly that is what I am trying to tell by the following post : Quote:
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. Quote:
Perfect way to summarize Indian car safety standards or rather compromises. Quote:
| ||||
() Thanks |
9th June 2009, 21:47 | #44 |
BHPian Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Mumbai
Posts: 183
Thanked: 5 Times
| 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. |
() Thanks |
21st June 2009, 07:12 | #45 | |||
BHPian Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Karnataka, India
Posts: 221
Thanked: 2 Times
| Quote:
Usually the onus is on the prosecution. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. 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. | |||
() Thanks |