[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Lobogris

You keep disputing solid facts presented by reputed industry bodies like US National Highway Safety Administration, US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Euro NCAP and a well known car magazine, Car and Driver.

Unfortunately, you don't get my point at all. They are not solid facts, they are generic comments by reputable institutes, which is fair enough. Again, feel free to read into it, whatever you feel is appropriate. You only need to convince yourself.

Originally Posted by Lobogris

It is logical that a car with a 2 foot bonnet would be able to accommodate a smaller crumple zone than a car with a 4 foot bonnet. ]

There you go again, making very generic statements which would suggest a longer car is safer. You are correct in saying it "would be able to accommodate".

But unless it does, through design and engineering it won't be safer. It is only safer if that longer car was actually designed and engineered to accommodate a better crumple zone. Just because its longer is no guarantee whatsoever its safer.

To me that is very logical and needs no further facts. Unless you design and engineer something to a specific purpose it ain't going to happen by itself, because it's heavy, or because it has a long nose.

But again, feel free to go with the generic myths of the masses.
You look at safety your way, what your are being told by reputable institutes. I do it my way, what I can understand. No harm in that.
Lets just agree to differ, because they are widely different approaches.

Jeroen

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

While we are on the topic of weight-

Indian Swift-


Punto-


Till we prove lighter cars have the same structural rigidity in India as their international counterparts, I wouldn't take their ratings into consideration.

Source- http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian-car-scene/157204-maruti-swift-datsun-go-fail-global-ncap-tests-too-8.html

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Till we prove lighter cars have the same structural rigidity in India as their international counterparts, I wouldn't take their ratings into consideration.

Correct, its all down to the design and the engineering. Nothing else.

Jeroen

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Correct, its all down to the design and the engineering. Nothing else.



Jeroen

Buddy, quite frankly- just how many times have you repeated that point over the last few pages? We get it, ok? You have conveyed it well enough.

Design is the most important factor.

Now, if possible- please go through the above posts on how weights affects it- as a secondary factor to a good design as primary.

[RSR]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

While we are on the topic of weight-

Indian Swift

Even with airbags, the Indian Swift would have done nowhere near as well as the 5* Euro-NCAP (2010) rated Swift on sale in Europe. Maruti Suzuki seem to have compromised somewhere or somehow with the car's structure for India, resulting in the cabin deforming somewhat - in sharp contrast to the Euro version, whose passenger compartment seemed intact.

As bad as this already is, the Swift actually happens to be one of the (if not the) least compromised Maruti hatchback on sale in India, structurally speaking. Things may be worse with the JDM kei-car derived Maruti Suzuki cars that have had their bonnets elongated for India, in order to accommodate the larger K10 engine. These cars originally had very small engine bays because they only had to house those little 660cc kei-car engines back in Japan.

Looking at how nonchalantly Maruti Suzuki have compromised with the Indian Swift, I get the unpleasant feeling that those cars which they sell in India with elongated engine bays may have been compromised even more.

Compare the Indian Swift's front end with the bumper removed to a K10 engined Wagon R in the same condition:



This is very worrying, isn't it? The old Alto k10 (not sure about the new one), Zen Estilo, Wagon R and Stingray all have their original bonnets elongated in this manner to accommodate the larger engine. I don't believe Maruti Suzuki did a proper job of re-engineering them at all. We know what happened to the old Alto k10 and new Alto800 in the NCAP. The Estilo has been discontinued, but the Wagon R and Stingray are still on sale.

It's not just Maruti Suzuki, by the way. Hyundai India have also compromised with the Indian i10 as was obvious from the earlier G-NCAP test. And this despite the fact that both the Indian and European i10s rolled out of the same factory!

The big question is: Who else? And how many other cars? I bet there are more manufacturers in this list. We may never come to know the truth without an independent NCAP agency for India.

Image source: http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/offici...ml#post2887880

[freakmuzik]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Correct. Acceleration being a constant for such crash tests, force is proportional to mass.

So, for a heavy SUV to score a 5 star rating- it has to dissipate a lot more force with the help of its crumble zones as compared to a small hatchback. Remember, a crash test simulates a crash against an identical weight. So a 2 ton SUV has to crash against a 2 ton and still manage to protect its occupants for it to get a good star rating.

Hope that clear?

Now we take the same 5 star rated SUV and a 5 star rated hatchback on the road for a head on collision at the same speeds. The force experienced by the SUV will be a lot lesser than what it can handle while the hatch is subjected to more than it can take. If you see the test videos, the smaller car more often than not get thrown away towards the rear by the impact.

Great! I didn't know crash test was done against something of the same mass! So that confirms that in an eventuality of a crash, a well built SUV would be much safer than a well built hatch of a smaller size. But I do have a small, silly doubt. Since by default SUVs tend to have a bigger framework, doesn't the force have lot more matter to travel through? In that case, from the point of view of a manufacturer, is it easier to build safer SUVs than small cars?

Originally Posted by RSR

Even with airbags, the Indian Swift would have done nowhere near as well as the 5* Euro-NCAP (2010) rated Swift on sale in Europe. Maruti Suzuki seem to have compromised somewhere or somehow with the car's structure for India, resulting in the cabin deforming somewhat - in sharp contrast to the Euro version, whose passenger compartment seemed intact.

As bad as this already is, the Swift actually happens to be one of the (if not the) least compromised Maruti hatchback on sale in India, structurally speaking. Things may be worse with the JDM kei-car derived Maruti Suzuki cars that have had their bonnets elongated for India, in order to accommodate the larger K10 engine. These cars originally had very small engine bays because they only had to house those little 660cc kei-car engines back in Japan.

Looking at how nonchalantly Maruti Suzuki have compromised with the Indian Swift, I get the unpleasant feeling that those cars which they sell in India with elongated engine bays may have been compromised even more.

Compare the Indian Swift's front end with the bumper removed to a K10 engined Wagon R in the same condition:

Attachment 1305554

This is very worrying, isn't it? The old Alto k10 (not sure about the new one), Zen Estilo, Wagon R and Stingray all have their original bonnets elongated in this manner to accommodate the larger engine. I don't believe Maruti Suzuki did a proper job of re-engineering them at all. We know what happened to the old Alto k10 and new Alto800 in the NCAP. The Estilo has been discontinued, but the Wagon R and Stingray are still on sale.

It's not just Maruti Suzuki, by the way. Hyundai India have also compromised with the Indian i10 as was obvious from the earlier G-NCAP test. And this despite the fact that both the Indian and European i10s rolled out of the same factory!

The big question is: Who else? And how many other cars? I bet there are more manufacturers in this list. We may never come to know the truth without an independent NCAP agency for India.

Image source: http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/offici...ml#post2887880

You bet! That is so ture! I was damn shocked when I once saw my car's (W-R) bumper removed to see just a tiny little cross member jutting out to protect the entire car!! This goes to the i10 too. I do not know if anyone has heard this, but during the launch of the i10, there was lot of news running around that the Indian version has a much weaker front end and stuff. Since I had no clue how check it or validate it, all I could do was to keep quite. Seeing the front end of a Punto somewhere else in this thread, most other cars seem to look like they don't even have a cross-member!

[dark.knight]

Off-topic perhaps, but the following are reasonably reliable cars in the Indian context when it comes to safety+build quality. The weight/shape of the cars may differ but lets face it, in India where our small roads are advantageous to smaller vehicles, there will be demand for more hatchbacks than sedans. Also let it be duly noted that I'm aware that all European models are better built/heavier than Indian ones, even brands which swear of their consistent quality worldwide.

I'm not going to mention any entry level hatch. This is not to say they are unsafe, its just that true build-quality can be expected to begin only from super-hatches onwards. Its my request hence that we stop comparing entry hatches to a segment above in terms of safety. While weight is not to be considered as a true factor of safety, I shall nevertheless arrange them in descending order of weight. I have ignored diesel models as a huge increase in weight is due to the engine. Some cars may not be sold anymore but its safe to say all of these have good impact beams, frontal protection & welded together well apart from electronic safety devices. Minor differences in weight among them has more to do with extra length/engine specs/electronic devices across variants than with added structural safety.

Hatchbacks (Petrol SRS+ABS):
Fiat Punto Evo - 1095 kg
Hyundai Getz - 1075 kg
Ford Figo - 1075 kg
Hyundai i20 - 1066 kg
VW Polo - 1030 kg
Hyundai Ei20 - 1020 kg (no official info on weight)

Entry Sedans (Petrol 2 SRS+ABS):
Fiat Linea - 1160 kg
VW Vento/Rapid - 1120 kg
Hyundai Verna - 1060 kg + 6 Airbags best in segment.
Honda City - 1060 kg

Failed to make the cut : Amaze, Pulse, Micra, Swift, Gi10 & Etios Liva in hatchbacks. Sunny, Scala, Etios & Ciaz in sedans due to questionable structural frame rigidity for India only.

The latest iterations of Tata/Chevy vehicles aren't listed since any official NCAP test on them haven't been found, maybe if I missed it and if they made the cut they can be part of the list too. The rest have passed Euro/American NCAP tests with 4 or 5 stars (except Figo & City which passed other NCAP tests). I can only assume the Indian models should be almost as good.

[Lobogris]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Unfortunately, you don't get my point at all. They are not solid facts, they are generic comments by reputable institutes, which is fair enough. Again, feel free to read into it, whatever you feel is appropriate. You only need to convince yourself.



There you go again, making very generic statements which would suggest a longer car is safer. You are correct in saying it "would be able to accommodate".

But unless it does, through design and engineering it won't be safer. It is only safer if that longer car was actually designed and engineered to accommodate a better crumple zone. Just because its longer is no guarantee whatsoever its safer.

To me that is very logical and needs no further facts. Unless you design and engineer something to a specific purpose it ain't going to happen by itself, because it's heavy, or because it has a long nose.

But again, feel free to go with the generic myths of the masses.
You look at safety your way, what your are being told by reputable institutes. I do it my way, what I can understand. No harm in that.
Lets just agree to differ, because they are widely different approaches.

Jeroen

It is not a "generic statement" but a fact which has been corroborated by several top industry bodies which specialise in this very field. By that logic your oft repeated statement that design is all that matters is also 'generic'. You haven't provided any validation or corroboration for countering the points raised by me except repeating that they are incorrect. Please prove it rather than challenging them without evidence. You have also skirted the question posed by me related to the IIHS video on the Toyota Camry vs. Toyota Yaris crash test. Both are well deigned, both received 5 stars, both are made by the same manufacturer. Why did the Yaris which is not that small disintegrate? IIHS explained that it is due to the heavier weight of the Camry and its larger size. That is it. This settles the argument unless you can present any overwhelmingly solid evidence to the contrary. Yes design matters and making a car larger is part of its design. A larger car can have a longer crumple zone and the added mass tilts the crash in its favour. That is a well known and scientifically demonstrated fact, not some "generic statement".

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

When we talk about safety, we only talk about the 64kmph tests conducted by NCAP, but what happens at lower speeds? I had argued earlier that thicker sheet metal defenitly helps at lower speeds and it seems there is test proof as well. Thanks to member tbppjpr for posting this in another thread, but I think it deserves a mention here as well (Pardon me if already posted).

Swift:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsQsqDb3HeY

Polo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aET2e8LKl6E

The above tests were conducted at 15 kmph and likely to imitate the small crashes that occur within City limits. The tests gauge the extent of damage and the difficulty of repair under such circumstances.

Safe to say that metal thickness matters at low speeds while design primarily matters at higher speeds?

[nakul0888]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Safe to say that metal thickness matters at low speeds while design primarily matters at higher speeds?

Everybody knows that a thicker sheet metalled car is going to fare better in a fender bender . No questions about it. If a polo where to crash into say a jeep/bolero at city speeds, the hatchback is likely to have more damage and repairs.

My thread would have made so much more sense if the morons at maruti made its swift at par with the European car. The European swift managed to score 4 stars ( or is it 5??), same as the polo while actually being 30-40 kilos lighter than the Indian swift. That means it's a least 100 kilos lighter than the Indian polo while being just as safe ( same ncap rating ). So you see if the swift had been properly made in India , there is no reason not to buy it.
As a VW owner, I will say this, if the Indian market had a competent bodied swift like the euro one with a cracking 1.6 petrol engine, I would have not even bothered to go to VW.
But as it stands maruti seems to be making substandard cars for india. So there is a valid reason not to buy it.

[zenren]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

When we talk about safety, we only talk about the 64kmph tests conducted by NCAP, but what happens at lower speeds? I had argued earlier that thicker sheet metal defenitly helps at lower speeds and it seems there is test proof as well. Thanks to member tbppjpr for posting this in another thread, but I think it deserves a mention here as well (Pardon me if already posted).

Swift:


Polo:


The above tests were conducted at 15 kmph and likely to imitate the small crashes that occur within City limits. The tests gauge the extent of damage and the difficulty of repair under such circumstances.

Safe to say that metal thickness matters at low speeds while design primarily matters at higher speeds?

I don't think the rear bumper is made of metal in case of Polo or any other modern car. Is it? In case of Swift, it is certainly not the case. So the rear bumper not able to prevent the shock to the corners of the other parts of the car has probably nothing to do with sheet metal thickness, it is probably better quality plastics in this case even if we go by that argument!

While I agree that the sheet metal in Swift is more appropriately compared to aluminium foil than a body panel, the extent of damage seen here might also be due to a few other factors like design and shape of the panels and how far back the frame is behind these panels. The rear bumper of Swift extends much less than Polo and the actual impact absorbing materials under the Swift might have been removed from the Indian Swift. We know for sure that it is certainly the case for front bumpers and I wouldn't be surprised if they skimped it from the rear too. The way I see it, the extent of damage shown there just means how and where the construction of the underlying structure is. All these panels (or covers) would crumple till it reaches the strong parts of the chassis.

Here is the video of Vento from the same post, where it suffers much more damage than Polo. Does that mean Vento has a much thinner sheet metal than Polo, considering how much damage the Vento suffered?

I'm sure the repair charges after this accident to get it back on the road would be the maximum for Vento, followed by Swift and then the Polo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRScp5S-5J4

[sourabhzen]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

When we talk about safety, we only talk about the 64kmph tests conducted by NCAP, but what happens at lower speeds? I had argued earlier that thicker sheet metal defenitly helps at lower speeds and it seems there is test proof as well. Thanks to member tbppjpr for posting this in another thread, but I think it deserves a mention here as well (Pardon me if already posted).

Swift:

https://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=NsQsqDb3HeY

Polo:

https://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=aET2e8LKl6E

The above tests were conducted at 15 kmph and likely to imitate the small crashes that occur within City limits. The tests gauge the extent of damage and the difficulty of repair under such circumstances.

Safe to say that metal thickness matters at low speeds while design primarily matters at higher speeds?

Sheet metal thickness at lower speeds does matters for the extent of damage on the panels. However, you are already safe in case of low speed collision and the SAFETY of passengers is not of concern

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by nakul0888

Their cars often come up with thicker sheet metal, seems to be more sturdy and overall feels like a vault, especially ze Germans.

The Asians on the other hand are thought to make flimsy cars with less protection focusing solely on fuel economy and making more profits.

1. Pardon me if I am wrong on this, but in this entire thread with enough squabbling and bickering, I have not seen anyone post the actual sheet metal thickness figures for any car. Therefore ALL the posts in this thread are actually pointless.

I am talking about numbers in mm or AWG.

All posts except this:

Originally Posted by dark.knight

To the best of what I know the scale of gauge normally used in cars today differ from 20-16, maybe the range is more but I'm not sure it can go lower than 20. The thickness & weight (per sq.ft) of each is as follows :

Gauge | Thickness | Weight per sq.ft
20- 1.01 mm- 1.465 lbs or .66 kg
19- 1.16 mm- 1.705 lbs or .77 kg
18- 1.31 mm- 1.950 lbs or .88 kg
17- 1.46 mm- 2.195 lbs or .99 kg
16- 1.61 mm- 2.440 lbs or1.10 kg


Therefore like I said before and in agreement with the overall conclusion of this room, sheet gauges were made thick before, but they are increasingly a thing of the past as vehicles aim to be quick to roll, dynamic, yet with a smaller engine to increase conservation of fossil fuels, be environment friendly yet fun to drive while being equally safe with the use of electronic safety assist devices like ABS, SRS, EBD, radar-braking etc.

2. Also who all (manufacturers) would be termed as Europeans?

3. Is it for certain that Honda City uses, say, AWG20 whereas Skoda Rapid uses, say, AWG16?

[ramzsys]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Punto-
Attachment 1305516

These 2 pictures speak a thousand words.


Maruti Swift and peace of mind !? My ....

[Astleviz]

Originally Posted by alpha1

1. Pardon me if I am wrong on this,

You're not wrong at all, most of the posts are a conflict of perceptions and assumptions with very little authentic data to substantiate those assumptions. My take on this "heavier is stronger/better" debate-

1. Why is it assumed that a heavier car uses heavier/better sheet metal?
I am not comparing a 1000 kg hatchback to a 2000 kg full size luxo-barge but cars within a segment. The Body in white (sum total of the sheet metal components) is only a fraction of the total weight of the car. In a small car it can be 50%, in a large sedan like the Jaguar XJ, it could be 20% or even less. Eg. the Jaguar XJL weighs approx. 1800 kgs but the Body in white weighs 329 kgs. The rest of the weight is the engine, transmission, suspension, radiator, dashboard, wheels, seats, interior & exterior fittings and a thousand other components that make up for the total weight of the car. If car "A" weighs 50-80 kgs more than car "B", it doesn't necessary mean that the body structure of car "A"is heavier/better, it could very well be attributed to the weight of other components.

2. Why is it assumed that heavier or thicker sheet metal is stronger and thus safer?
Steel is an alloy. Not all steel is equal in terms of strength. It depends on the composition of it's alloys and the manufacturing process. You can build a car structure using lighter/thinner steel (eg boron steel or high carbon steel) which is stronger than another structure which is made of heavier/thicker sheet of low-carbon steel.

3. Why do we ignore/ underestimate the engineering/ manufacturing process of a car structure?
A typical car body is made of over 300 different car stampings that are then welded together (or in case of aluminum bodies, bonded and riveted together). It is the number of the spot welds and the quality of these welds that hold those 300 odd steel stampings together. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. A lighter car body which is well engineered and welded to high specifications using modern technology can be stronger than a heavier car body with thicker sheet metal that is put together with older or inferior manufacturing process.

Modern manufacturing processes allow for larger pressings to be made as one piece which allow us to reduce the thickness of the sheet metal without a loss in stiffness. Almost all modern cars have a lighter Body in white and yet stronger/ stiffer than the models they replace. If some cars are heavier overall than the previous model, it is because they have grown in size (and therefore use more of sheet metal) and added a host of "Features", not because of the use of heavier sheet metal.