[Chitta Pradhan]

Originally Posted by Nepster88

Looking to replace my beloved Honda Brio S MT 2014.


Only 2 differences that will matter here, cramped up footwell and milage. My usual run is 13-15k/year, so I was thinking if I like Diesel Manual, then I will buy that for better milage, but the footwell issue is putting me off. Please suggest your opinions.

I had terrible foot well issue in XUV 300 MT diesel when I took a TD last year. Please go for AT only where they provide a dead pedal. Please try AMT diesel and TC petrol, both.

Yesterday took a TD of AX5 L AT ( petrol). Quite liked the car.
Positives- Smooth TC, engine power, refinement, found turbo lag not a problem contray to many.

Negatives- Outside noise creeping in much more than usual ( has any one faced this issue, I had to check if any window is open, twice), weak AC.

Could not judge ride quality, as the TD route was smooth.

Thanks

[ashishk29]

Originally Posted by Sk8r

Am guessing that most of this is coming from a podcast that I heard recently as well. This is probably one off their podcasts that I don't completely agree with!

Originally Posted by Venks_144

Yep this point was an eye opener in terms of safety is actually interpreted by us common folks. Prior to this I have been also deep diving on online forums to differentiate whether car manufacturers are only aiming to make 5 star cars or actually putting efforts into making our cars safer

If this is from the motorinc podcast/video, Shumi is a hypocrite of the highest order.

Not so long ago, he would very openly and rather proudly state that he wasn't a car guy, and wouldn't give opinions on car related things. And now suddenly he's reviewing cars?

Also, if he has such faith in the person's capability, why does he ride a 24L bike, while wearing a 50k-70k helmet?

A 50k helmet which conforms to standards and tests very very similar to NCAPs?

Somehow, he has faith in SHARP, SNELL, ECE, but preaches against NCAPs and preaches about driver safety? I smell BS.

Originally Posted by Venks_144

I have myself owned 2018 i20 for a long period now which in NCAP per se has compromised safety but still had 6 airbags. And I was fortunate enough to be safe in most of accident like situations, the car for me was still built good with my style of driving. This again could be a different experience for different drivers.

Anecdotal experience != Evidence. My dad got into 2 accidents while in an Alto K10. Walked away without so much as a scratch. Does that make the alto a safe car? Would you take your chances in a K10?

There will of course be situations where even lower grade cars will keep a person safe. But it is exactly that. Situational.

Originally Posted by Venks_144

A 5 star car would not be my top priority. My priority would be how various variables like car reliability, build and various other parameters contribute to my holistic understanding of whether a particular car is safe.

I would rather prefer to be in a car with 3-4 NCAP rating which has better braking and better control of the car rather than be in a car that has 5 star safety with poor braking and electronics going bonkers randomly putting me or anyone who drives in panic mode.

Absolutely, imagine your car breaking down in the middle of nowhere or an error which you may not understand and panic. Also in remote areas there is also individual safety issue at nights etc. How would safety account to that then?

Well it's good to see you're comfortable with deprioritising safety. You question reliability, build, based on what?

Since the 3XO is essentially an XUV300, you should also browse that forum. And let me know how many incidences of "poor braking" or "electronics going bonkers randomly" you find.

For your information, the 300 is among the better handling cars in the segment, and even above the segment. It's the among a handful few cars which offer all 4 discs as standard equipment across their entire line-up.

Also, please check the headlines here: https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/offic...al-review.html (Mahindra XUV300 : Official Review)
What are the top Pros on the list?

Originally Posted by Aditya

What you'll like:

• A truly premium crossover. Nice build, quality & refinement levels
• Great looking! Smart design has none of the usual Mahindra quirkiness
• Cabin has enough space for 5. Quality-wise, the interior is more like a Hyundai
• Fantastic engines. The petrol & diesel, both, offer fast performance & good driveability
• A compliant ride with neutral road manners

There's 5 years worth of evidence that the 300 is a solid platform.

Apart from all this, I have 6 300s in my immediate circle. I have one, 2 of my teammates have one, and 3 people in my apartment building have one as well. None have reported any "build quality concerns" or "poor braking" or "electronics going bonkers randomly" either. I genuinely do not understand where you're spouting these ideas from.

Originally Posted by Sk8r

These points are valid assuming we're the best drivers out there, following each and every rule written. However, if we're not - it's safer to be in a 5 star rated car than any other !

However, never underestimate the safety blanket of a higher star rated car especially when we're not the best of the best drivers in the worst possible roads.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

All manufacturers will have QC issues or such. Just browsing the various threads here will give you a clearer picture.

You can't really rely entirely on the driver's capability either. You may have to share a car with someone, you might not be in the ideal condition to drive, and so on.

In such a situation, what protects you from the world? The car itself.

It's far easier to visit a workshop to get a squeaky hinge fixed, or a buggy infotainment system reset.

It's impossible to recover lives lost. It is impossible to be a 100% safe on roads while ignoring passive safety.

[Venks_144]

Originally Posted by ashishk29

GNCAP ratings and the methodology are quite transparent for all to see.

They have a PDF detailing what testing they do: https://www.globalncap.org/s/assessm...Adult-d87a.pdf

They have videos and photos of the results, and a result PDF describing their analysis.
What further explanation do you want?

These "controlled tests" are designed to mimic real world scenarios, based on the statistics collected about road accidents.
They aren't lab tests in that sense. They do actually fire a car at 64kmph straight at a barrier.
That is among the most common type of accident I can imagine.
If you think 64kmph is too low, again, that is a very baseline speed on most roads.
This does not mean that a 5 star car is going to suddenly become a tin can above 64kmph.
It takes a lot of design engineering to make sure that even at 64kmph the occupants suffer a very light impact.

However, cars that can't even manage to do that in a lab tests, are 100% a tin can. No two ways about it.

Thanks for an extensive post on this, not intending to write a long post for this but want to highlight some additional misconceptions here.

A 64 kmph and 100 kmph accidents are not same because:
1. We are talking about kinetic energy here. Kinetic energy increases exponentially and not linearly. So a 64 to 100 jump even though doesn't feel a lot but when it comes to physics things work very differently. Also, a relation between speed and severity of an injury is not linear. The reason they do not test it at 100 is not because of the baseline average speed, its because it would be impossible to build a 5 star rated car at that speed. If the collision is to happen at 100, the crumple zone required would be is of the distance of a bus. That's why please do not put your foot on the steering wheel and put the cruise control at 100+ just because you have been given features like ADAS.

2. In real life situations there are different types of collisions like head on collisions where variables like relative velocities also come into play. Secondly, protruding objects from a truck, pole etc. are also not accounted for in any of the NCAP systems. NCAP only considers crashes against immovable objects which is not even 10% of the crashes that happen in real life.

3. We are also talking about vehicles with different masses getting involved here. A collision between 1000 kg vehicle and 1500 kg vehicle with same safety rating would result in 1000kg vehicle suffering more damage. This also has severe implications depending on number of passengers in the vehicles and so on. Again something that is not tested in any of the NCAPs. Similarly on base trims tested with alloy wheels and not steel wheels (alloy wheels break, steel wheels don't)

4. 5 years down the line of the car ownership, rusting and other external factors will degrade the metals used in the car. Not taking care of these factors or use of low quality materials will also compromise the quality. The safety rating on a new car won't be same

Simply endorsing NCAP just because there is a scientific reasoning to this is fine. However most of the situations don't apply in India that's why a better system is required and NCAP needs to evolve to a level where we get a true NCAP system which mimics real life situations.

There are many more points that can be essentially added to the above list. However just want to highlight that there are many more variables that come into play that accounts to "how a car is made safe". The car occupants are equally responsible to make a car safe and have to be 'educated' to do so. Have seen people using ADAS and eating chai pakodas sleeping on the driver seat.

3XO is definitely a safe car, same is tata nexon. Not questioning its reliability or body stability. If 3XO is reliable, so is VW, Skoda, Hyundai, Kia etc. But car manufacturers should do enough to reinforce this by improvements. Simply adding new electronics and colorful seats doesn't make a car more safer.

For e.g. in the 3XO
1. Dead pedal is missing in 3xo. What if a driven mistakenly rests his or her foot on the clutch unknowingly?
2. The distance between the brake pedal and the accelerator pedal is less. I found this strange. I mistakenly ended up pressing the accelerator too along with the brake when I actually wanted to stop the vehicle.
3. I also noticed in manual variants the turbo kicks in suddenly at 2k+ RPM. A new driver may end up causing an accident because of lack of experience while working on such cars. We speak of vehicles that are underpowered, why don't we speak of vehicles that are overpowered or that have too much power output? Are we trying to build race cars on city roads and highways? There are other manufacturers providing turbo engines like Hyundai and the German twins. The turbo action is far more smoother in them.

There are similar issues with other cars too, but compromising and living with it is simply not acceptable just for a label of 5 stars. There are other options out there which may still be 4, 5 star rated car and still take care of the above points and similar aspects which makes the car safer. Simply putting gimmicky features and making 5 star rated cars wont solve all the problems. Also, wanting to raise eyebrow on whether 5 star cars are actually making us overconfident or actually making us more sensible drivers? But I guess that's a discussion for another day in another forum.

[ashishk29]

Originally Posted by Venks_144

Thanks for an extensive post on this, not intending to write a long post for this but want to highlight some additional misconceptions here.

A 64 kmph and 100 kmph accidents are not same because:
1. We are talking about kinetic energy here. Kinetic energy increases exponentially and not linearly. So a 64 to 100 jump even though doesn't feel a lot but when it comes to physics things work very differently. Also, a relation between speed and severity of an injury is not linear. The reason they do not test it at 100 is not because of the baseline average speed, its because it would be impossible to build a 5 star rated car at that speed. If the collision is to happen at 100, the crumple zone required would be is of the distance of a bus. That's why please do not put your foot on the steering wheel and put the cruise control at 100+ just because you have been given features like ADAS.

"The reason they do not test it at 100 is not because of the baseline average speed, its because it would be impossible to build a 5 star rated car at that speed."
Do you have a source for this? I'd like to see that.

I am well aware that kinetic energy increases exponentially. I am also well aware how physics works in such situations. But your assertion that 100kmph completely nullifies a 5 star GNCAP is also highly incorrect. It might be less effective at protecting the occupants, but it won't be totally incapable of protecting the occupants. It will still reduce the the force of the impact that gets transferred onto the occupants. That's how physics works.

If a 5 star shell reduces force of impact at 64kmph by say 80%, kinetic energy at 100kmph will be roughly double. So if the input energy doubles, let us assumes that the impact energy transferred onto the occupants also gets doubled. In which case, the car will lower the impact energy by 40%. Which is still plenty.

Or are you saying that physics somehow magically nullifies this impact attenuation at 100kmph?

Originally Posted by Venks_144

2. In real life situations there are different types of collisions like head on collisions where variables like relative velocities also come into play. Secondly, protruding objects from a truck, pole etc. are also not accounted for in any of the NCAP systems. NCAP only considers crashes against immovable objects which is not even 10% of the crashes that happen in real life.

NCAP cannot possibly test out every single type of accident that occurs. None of the NCAPs do.
But they are increasing their range. For example, GNCAP has now started covering side and pole impact tests as well.
However, that doesn't mean that the crash against immovable objects is irrelevant.

What NCAP measures is how much of the force is transferred onto the occupants. Are you implying that how the impact occurs makes for any difference in the impact being transferred onto the occupants?

Force is force. Getting hit from behind generates a certain magnitude of force that affects the occupants in the same way as getting hit from the front. The magnitude will certainly be different. But in essence, it is going to have a similar kind of impact on the occupants. This is exactly what NCAPs measure. How much of the force gets transferred onto the occupants. Does it really matter if the object impacting is movable or immovable? An immovable object would exert more impact force, as none of the force of the impact will act upon moving the object itself. Hence that force will also be transferred onto the vehicle.

So if at all anything, immovable object is a better way to test transfer of impact, since the object itself will not attentuate much of the force of the impact.

Originally Posted by Venks_144

3. We are also talking about vehicles with different masses getting involved here. A collision between 1000 kg vehicle and 1500 kg vehicle with same safety rating would result in 1000kg vehicle suffering more damage. This also has severe implications depending on number of passengers in the vehicles and so on. Again something that is not tested in any of the NCAPs. Similarly on base trims tested with alloy wheels and not steel wheels (alloy wheels break, steel wheels don't)

If you notice, most 5 star rated vehicles are heavier than their lower rating counterparts within the segment.
For example, the 3XO/300 weighs around 1400kg. The Nexon weighs around 1300kg. Sonet starts at just about 1100kg.

But, we aren't talking about the damage the vehicles take! NCAP ratings apply to the amount of force transferred to the occupants. So a vehicle weighing 1500kg, and a vehicle weighing 1000kg have shown that they can attentuate the amount of force onto the occupants to the same levels. Again, NCAP hits an immovable object. So from a collision perspective, all the impact force is transferred onto the car itself. Meaning, the rating is still valid because the occupants only received a certain threshold of impact force.

Originally Posted by Venks_144

4. 5 years down the line of the car ownership, rusting and other external factors will degrade the metals used in the car. Not taking care of these factors or use of low quality materials will also compromise the quality. The safety rating on a new car won't be same

All the factors you mentioned here apply to all manufacturers, and all cars, be it 1 star or 5 star rated.
So if age makes a 5 year old car unsafe, I am afraid to even imagine what that would mean for a 1 star rated car!

Your argument here almost sounded like aging makes only the 5 star car weaker, and somehow doesn't affect the 1 star cars?

Originally Posted by Venks_144

Simply endorsing NCAP just because there is a scientific reasoning to this is fine. However most of the situations don't apply in India that's why a better system is required and NCAP needs to evolve to a level where we get a true NCAP system which mimics real life situations.

What situations don't apply in India? I am baffled by this. All accidents involve a car hitting something, or being hit by something. NCAP tests for frontal impact, which covers a car hitting something, and a case where someone hitting you from behind makes you hit something in front of you. This also covers a good chunk of scenarios like losing control and hitting something, skidding and hitting something. Why? Because cars tend to move in the forward direction for most of the time. And hence something that covers frontal impact covers a vast array of situations.

NCAP has also added side impact and side pole impact now, so situations where something hits the cars is also covered.

Originally Posted by Venks_144

However just want to highlight that there are many more variables that come into play that accounts to "how a car is made safe".

This is exactly where you are a bit mistaken. If a cars scores well in frontal impact test, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is only good for frontal impact. A very important aspect of controlling frontal impact is to strengthen the side pillars of the car, and the side panels of the car. Energy gets transmitted through all these parts in an impact. So to ensure that most of the energy is focused on these elements, they also have to be strengthened and reinforced.

Next up, GNCAP. Did you know that GNCAP also checks if the doors of a car were operational after the impact?
https://www.globalncap.org/s/assessm...Adult-2021.pdf
Check section 7.3.
For the doors to be functional, the sides also have to be reinforced in such a way that they are not rendered useless by an impact. So even in a frontal impact, the sides will not crumple enough to prevent door operation. Meaning, door panels are also reinforced from the insides.

You see, a LOT goes into making a car 5 star capable. One should really go through the details to understand that the entirety of the cars has to be reinforced even to attentuate enough impact in a frontal collision.
For example, this is how a Nexon chassis is reinforced:

Notice how it has elements running around the sides of the car as well? That is because you cannot achieve good energy attentuation without it flowing around the car.

Originally Posted by Venks_144

The car occupants are equally responsible to make a car safe and have to be 'educated' to do so. Have seen people using ADAS and eating chai pakodas sleeping on the driver seat.

Again, doesn't this apply to ALL cars? Let's say that out of a 100% of the safety, 50% is the occupants responsibility, and 50% is the cars. So if we keep the occupants safety rating a constant, what becomes the variable in ensuring maximum safety? The car.

You see, you can be stupid in a safe car, and get away with stuff that you would never in an unsafe car.
For example:

https://youtu.be/IrxXHlh1y2Q?si=khrTDKkwAQcnESPO

XUV300 driver loses control at 150kmph. Compresses an Indigo by 50%, wrecks a Corolla, and the driver was safe enough to run away.

Originally Posted by Venks_144

3XO is definitely a safe car, same is tata nexon. Not questioning its reliability or body stability. If 3XO is reliable, so is VW, Skoda, Hyundai, Kia etc. But car manufacturers should do enough to reinforce this by improvements. Simply adding new electronics and colorful seats doesn't make a car more safer.

So you mean car manufacturers who already have 5 star capable cars shouldn't add active safety features to their cars?

So far, it's only Suzuki group, and Hyundai group who are just giving features like ADAS and 360 cameras without a strong body shell.

With the 3XO and the 700, Mahindra is giving BOTH. Active safety, AND passive safety. Should they just drop it because some idiots used that to eat pakodas? I don't get your point here.

Originally Posted by Venks_144

For e.g. in the 3XO
1. Dead pedal is missing in 3xo. What if a driven mistakenly rests his or her foot on the clutch unknowingly?

Literally no experienced driver will ever do this.

Dead pedals aren't something that has been around for decades. It's a relatively new feature. What were people doing before that? Crashing all the time?

And ok, let's say someone unknowingly presses the clutch. What then? The car will just rev harder for a bit. It's not a catastrophic failure.

Originally Posted by Venks_144

2. The distance between the brake pedal and the accelerator pedal is less. I found this strange. I mistakenly ended up pressing the accelerator too along with the brake when I actually wanted to stop the vehicle.

This depends very heavily on your foot size, what kind of footwear you're wearing, and muscle memory. It takes some time to get habituated to a new vehicle. This isn't a design flaw. I've been driving a 300 for the last 30,000kms. I have literally NEVER mistakenly pressed the accelerator instead of the break. This is a personal thing.

Originally Posted by Venks_144

3. I also noticed in manual variants the turbo kicks in suddenly at 2k+ RPM. A new driver may end up causing an accident because of lack of experience while working on such cars. We speak of vehicles that are underpowered, why don't we speak of vehicles that are overpowered or that have too much power output? Are we trying to build race cars on city roads and highways? There are other manufacturers providing turbo engines like Hyundai and the German twins. The turbo action is far more smoother in them.

All turbo-charged vehicles do this. These vehicles are not over-powered.

Again, this is a matter of habit. A new driver needs to LEARN how to drive a new car! Do you expect every single vehicle to drive the exact same way? That's not how the world works.

All the 3 points you have listed here are just basics of learning to drive a new car. Literally none of these are any concerns. All of it boils down to how well a person can drive a car. You just get used to it. It's a very very very very minor deal.

Originally Posted by Venks_144

but compromising and living with it is simply not acceptable just for a label of 5 stars.

I'm sorry, what exactly are we "compromising" on? None of the points you mentioned are anything beyond the unfamiliarity of driving a new car. Something that every vehicle owner gets used to within a matter of a few weeks.

I've had a colleague who went from a WagonR to a 300. He didn't crash his car anywhere. He didn't face any issues because of the "overpowered" engine, or the "turbo kicking in". He hasn't so much as scuffed his car to date!

Originally Posted by Venks_144

There are other options out there which may still be 4, 5 star rated car and still take care of the above points and similar aspects which makes the car safer.

Again, you need to get used to a car. Cribbing about pedal positioning being slightly different doesn't make a car unsafe.

Originally Posted by Venks_144

Simply putting gimmicky features and making 5 star rated cars wont solve all the problems.

I'm sorry, did you just call GNCAP rating a gimmick? A feature, that will likely save your life in 9 out of 10 accidents, a gimmick?
If so, I can't even. Please, enjoy your gimmick free life.

Originally Posted by Venks_144

Also, wanting to raise eyebrow on whether 5 star cars are actually making us overconfident or actually making us more sensible drivers?

So you mean one must deliberately choose unsafe cars, so that we stay under-confident enough that we don't crash?

How does this work out when a runaway bus hits me? How does this work out when another car losing control comes and hits me?

How does this work in the thousands of accidents where the driver wasn't at fault, but some other driver was?

[AProf]

Originally Posted by Venks_144

Thanks for an extensive post on this, not intending to write a long post for this but want to highlight some additional misconceptions here.

Well, if you trash NCAP ratings and made-up your mind to buy a car regardless of its NCAP rating, then:
1. You should buy a mobile phone / microwave oven without caring for its SAR value! FYI, till date, there is no credible scientific evidence of radio frequency radiation emission from mobile phones / oven causing health issues. The SAR values depend on the usage pattern and the user (as per you) and hence you should not car for SAR. Would you take chance by buying?
2. If you live in a cold country / place, you should not hesitate to consume an expired medicine. The expiry date mentioned does not take care of "local conditions" (as per you). Would you?
3. If you are building a commercial building, you should not follow fire safety standards. The fire safety standards of India have been copied from some other country, without caring for "local conditions" (as per you). Would you build without caring for safety standards?
4. All lifts / cars are designed for 67 kg mass / 5'10" height (average mass / height of Indians. If you do not match these values you should not enter a lift / drive a car (as per you, your local condition is different).
4. The polio, BCG etc vaccine's efficacy depends on a lot of parameters, So would you stop administering those to your kids saying that the reported efficacy of a given vaccine does not take care of local conditions?

Originally Posted by Venks_144

A 64 kmph and 100 kmph accidents are not same because:
1. We are talking about kinetic energy here. Kinetic energy increases exponentially and not linearly. So a 64 to 100 jump even though doesn't feel a lot but when it comes to physics things work very differently. Also, a relation between speed and severity of an injury is not linear. The reason they do not test it at 100 is not because of the baseline average speed, its because it would be impossible to build a 5 star rated car at that speed. If the collision is to happen at 100, the crumple zone required would be is of the distance of a bus.

The kinetic energy (KE) = (mass*velocity^2)/2. For a 1,400 kg car, at 64 km/h the KE is 221.2 kJ (kilo Joules) and at 100 km/h it is 540.1 kJ (2.44 times). The car has to be designed to absorb a particular amount of energy (design parameter, dictated by NCAP), regardless of speed. If a car is designed absorb say 300 kJ (based on design parameter), the frame would absorb a large percentage of 300 kJ (say 80%). New materials / structures / technologies are being developed by scientific community and hence when you say "If the collision is to happen at 100, the crumple zone required would be is of the distance of a bus", it is factually incorrect.
You say "Similarly on base trims tested with alloy wheels and not steel wheels (alloy wheels break, steel wheels don't)". You seem not to understand the purpose. Alloy wheels are used in the crash test to have a conservative estimate / worst-case scenario. If steel wheels are used on the same car, it will lead to enhanced marks and ratings!

Originally Posted by Venks_144

5 years down the line of the car ownership, rusting and other external factors will degrade the metals used in the car. Not taking care of these factors or use of low quality materials will also compromise the quality. The safety rating on a new car won't be same
Simply adding new electronics and colorful seats doesn't make a car more safer.
We speak of vehicles that are underpowered, why don't we speak of vehicles that are overpowered or that have too much power output? Are we trying to build race cars on city roads and highways?
Simply putting gimmicky features and making 5 star rated cars wont solve all the problems.

We have NCAP (New Car Assessment Program), not OCAP! That is why we have a shelf life for cars, i.e., 15 years. Beyond 15 years, you have to get fitness certificate if you want to further use the same car.
Please choose a car based on power/mass ratio, no one has forced you to buy powerful car.
Other things are addressed by

Originally Posted by ashishk29

So you mean one must deliberately choose unsafe cars, so that we stay under-confident enough that we don't crash?

How does this work out when a runaway bus hits me? How does this work out when another car losing control comes and hits me?

How does this work in the thousands of accidents where the driver wasn't at fault, but some other driver was?

The bottom-line is that there is no universal code of safety standards for anything in the world. Countries adopt what is mostly applicable under common scenarios. For any safety standard, always there are exceptions. That doesn't mean that we should not care for safety standards. You please go ahead and buy the car of your choice, Sonet, it is okay. But please do not trash NCAP with your limited understanding by calling it as a gimmick (my understanding too is limited, I am not blaming you).

[wolf_lone]

https://youtu.be/KtUq0AqQbso?t=79

[BSASLR]

Even though the Cost is Higher Tata and Mahindra are Giving us Safer Cars at a Price Lower than Hyundai and Kia.
(E.g. Compare Price of 3XO vs Sonet, Venue)

This requires our appreciation!

An Example to set the Context and do note numbers may not be exact:

Use of Alloys: Higher strength steels require additional alloying elements such as manganese, chromium, nickel etc.
Advanced Techniques: Production of higher strength steel types involves sophisticated manufacturing techniques Increasing cost.

Example with Approximate Cost:
Mild Steel: ₹40,000 per ton
High Strength Steel (HSS): ₹50,000 per ton
Ultra High Strength Steel (UHSS): ₹85,000 per ton

Additional Costs
The tools and equipment needed to work with higher strength steel are also more expensive, contributing to overall manufacturing costs.

The Only Question I had is all the above Steel types have similar weight since steel density is the same.

You do not need weight to get 5 Stars! You only need Strength

Nexon I cannot understand why it has to be so heavy.
However, 3xo May be because the platform is Creta class (Tivoli) hence the high weight

If they had reduced 'Fat' fuel efficiency also would have been better!

Taigun gets a higher 5 star (29.64/34) and Kerb weight is 1,208!

[Stormbringer]

Originally Posted by srivatchsan

I changed the tires to Conti UC 6 with the same factory profile. But as always, we got a pretty deal from Sai Iyengars (SLD) in Indiranagar and closed it today.

My car has Apollo Alnac tyres. Delivery is on Monday. I am thinking of swapping out the Apollos for Conti as well but I’ve never swapped out new OE tyres before. How much did you get for your MRFs? Trying to see what is a good deal for new OE tyres that could have done 100 to 150km.

[Col Mehta]

While I'm not particularly fond of the "obsession" with the star ratings, it's amusing to see folks who own or plan to own a 3-star rated cars trashing NCAP and downplaying safer structure. There's no denying that your chances of survival in a crash are higher in a solid, well-built vehicle. Other elements like electronics, brakes etc are equally vital; they must function properly to prevent accidents. But how is a safer structure no longer considered crucial? I'm truly puzzled to see its importance being downplayed here in the forum.

OT: Unfortunately, I see a trend where members go gaga over the vehicle or brand they own and run down the rest. Some even write lengthy posts or start new threads just to satisfy and reassure themselves they bought a "better" car. Yikes! We really need to do better as members of this esteemed forum.

[BrakeDancer]

The honest truth is this- GNCAP is a marketing tool, and selling us 5 star rated cars is all good, but it makes no difference at all if the person driving is inherently unsafe and callous. I mean, the moment you're above 60 and the nature of the thing you're crashing with changes, all of these numbers go out of the window- like the passenger. It's all well and good demanding structurally sound cars, but those who fixate on this at the expense of actual safe, driving deserve exactly this from manufacturers.

I've skimmed through the GNCAP regulations and methodology, and as a lawyer I can tell you this- it's drafted completely keeping the manufacturer in mind. Not the end user. I'm glad that MotorInc episode threw some light on this.

I'd rather we put speed limits in cars.

[srivatchsan]

Originally Posted by Stormbringer

My car has Apollo Alnac tires. Delivery is on Monday. I also think of swapping out the Apollos for Conti, but I’ve never swapped out new OE tires. How much did you get for your MRFs? I'm trying to see what a good deal is for new OE tires that could have done 100 to 150km.

Since the OEM tire has no GST, the guy gave 4k for each 260 driven for MRF.
New one for conti7.4 each

[ringsoftime]

Originally Posted by BrakeDancer

The honest truth is this- GNCAP is a marketing tool, and selling us 5 star rated cars is all good, but it makes no difference at all if the person driving is inherently unsafe and callous.

I've skimmed through the GNCAP regulations and methodology, and as a lawyer I can tell you this- it's drafted completely keeping the manufacturer in mind. Not the end user.

I agree with both these assessments, still would prefer a better rated car than a lower rated car. Also going through the actual test report is helpful since the star rating is pure BS. As it has been mentioned elsewhere in the forum, number of stars awarded can some times be skewed. I have no idea how and why Verna gets 5 star with an unstable body shell, since IMO unstable body shell should always deduct one star.

And about the differences between the crash tests and real world scenarios, I am also of the opinion that GNCAP is not doing a comprehensive testing on these and goes for the low hanging fruit. But on account of my own safety, I will buy a well rated car, but then try to forget it and drive it as if it was a tin can. In other words, on Tiago vs Swift scenario, even if I buy Tiago, I should be driving it like a Swift, not a Volvo.

[ashishk29]

Originally Posted by BrakeDancer

The honest truth is this- GNCAP is a marketing tool, and selling us 5 star rated cars is all good, but it makes no difference at all if the person driving is inherently unsafe and callous. I mean, the moment you're above 60 and the nature of the thing you're crashing with changes, all of these numbers go out of the window- like the passenger. It's all well and good demanding structurally sound cars, but those who fixate on this at the expense of actual safe, driving deserve exactly this from manufacturers.

My brother in Mahindra, have a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrxXHlh1y2Q

An absolute idiot could trash a 5 star rated car in an absolutely horrific way. destroy 2 other cars in the process, and still survive. So your assertion that unsafe and callous driving negates safety, is categorically untrue.

In fact your exact words "all of these numbers go out of the window" is what there has been much discourse about in above comments, but I guess you "skimmed" through those? I request you take a further look at the points above.
Also, if you're so much in disbelief of "ratings" and certifications, AProf summarised it quite well up in his comment:

Originally Posted by AProf

Well, if you trash NCAP ratings and made-up your mind to buy a car regardless of its NCAP rating, then:
1. You should buy a mobile phone / microwave oven without caring for its SAR value! FYI, till date, there is no credible scientific evidence of radio frequency radiation emission from mobile phones / oven causing health issues. The SAR values depend on the usage pattern and the user (as per you) and hence you should not car for SAR. Would you take chance by buying?
2. If you live in a cold country / place, you should not hesitate to consume an expired medicine. The expiry date mentioned does not take care of "local conditions" (as per you). Would you?
3. If you are building a commercial building, you should not follow fire safety standards. The fire safety standards of India have been copied from some other country, without caring for "local conditions" (as per you). Would you build without caring for safety standards?
4. All lifts / cars are designed for 67 kg mass / 5'10" height (average mass / height of Indians. If you do not match these values you should not enter a lift / drive a car (as per you, your local condition is different).
4. The polio, BCG etc vaccine's efficacy depends on a lot of parameters, So would you stop administering those to your kids saying that the reported efficacy of a given vaccine does not take care of local conditions?

Originally Posted by BrakeDancer

I've skimmed through the GNCAP regulations and methodology, and as a lawyer I can tell you this- it's drafted completely keeping the manufacturer in mind. Not the end user. I'm glad that MotorInc episode threw some light on this.
I'd rather we put speed limits in cars.

You are a lawyer, so you saw it from a lawyers perspective.

I am an engineer, I saw it from an engineers perspective. I have sat down with 2 of my mechanical engineer friends, and gone through the document, and reached my understanding of it.
I sincerely cannot understand how you could read that and think that it is for the manufacturers benefit.

If that were the case, there would be no zero or 1 star rated cars at all? But there are. Dozens of them, in fact.

MotorInc, as I previously mentioned, are hypocrites of the highest order.

Like I said, when it comes to personal safety, Shumi does not abide by this ideology of "standards/passive safety not being important".

That guy uses a 24L bike which has ADAS in it.

Then, his gear.


His helmet alone is worth 70-80k, which also goes through crash tests similar to what GNCAP does. That helmet is SHARP, SNELL, and FIM homologated. Meaning it has been rated not once, not twice, but by 3 separate and independent organisations. Why does he not use simple ISI marked helmets if ratings are not as important as operator skill?

The neck-brace he has listed itself costs 80k: https://superbikestore.in/products/l...-rr-neck-brace

His old Dainese jacket costed 20-25k back in 2015.
The riding jacket he now uses, Klim, starts at around 30,000Rs. Again, the material used in the jacket, the protectors used there are also of high safety ratings, certified by other different organisations (e.g. CE).

ViaTerra grid gloves cost around 5-6k. They are also CE certified.

Those riding pants cost about 400$, so again around 30K. CE certified as well!

So he comfortably preaches against safety ratings, against passive safety, while personally using products that have the highest proven safety ratings.

Also, not to forget, but up until a year or two back or so, Shumi used to very smugly reject any questions about cars in his Q&A citing that he is not a car person, and he doesn't drive cars at all.



So to summarise, he doesn't own any cars, he doesn't drive, he has never been a fan of cars(And he has said all this very publicly. Go through his insta stories). But when he rides, he uses the highest quality of passive protection available.

I do not understand how you cannot see through this obvious layer of BS. Or maybe you didn't know what Shumi personally uses and believes in?

See, I have been following Shumi ever since he worked overdrive, and rode a Duke 390. I have known his philosophy for a very long time. And so have all the true automotive enthusiasts in my circle. We have all collectively lost all respect for him ever since he started downplaying passive safety while personally not driving cars, and while using the highest level of passive safety on his bikes.

Don't look up to him. Don't idolise him. He has become the very thing he used to hate. An influencer.

[07CR]

Originally Posted by BrakeDancer

I've skimmed through the GNCAP regulations and methodology, and as a lawyer I can tell you this- it's drafted completely keeping the manufacturer in mind. Not the end user. I'm glad that MotorInc episode threw some light on this.

100% agree.
Not just motorinc even gagan and ICN have repeatedly highlighted the hypocrisy of GNCAP and its ratings.

I hope things improve with BNCAP and NCAP genuinely works for improving safety rather than being a marketing tool for manufacturers.

I rather appreciate Mahindra to provide adaptive cruise control and some other added adas features missing in other segment cars than the NCAP ratings.

[Sebring]

For every single diesel car, Mahindra should sell 10 petrol cars. Not sure if this is Govt mandated or Company dictat but I got this from an insider

Originally Posted by Sohail_91

Our dealer contacted us today with some disappointing news: the AX7 Diesel Automatic will take at least 2-3 months for delivery