[ron178]

Originally Posted by Keeleri_Achu

A sincere request to everyone. Look at the following results of 64 kmph Frontal offset test; the only standard test between the protocols.

The test configuration for both frontal ODB tests for both NCAPs are identical but offset test scores cannot be compared between both NCAPs due to differences in performance limits. In either case this result is valid only for the Latin American market, in part due to the car being left hand-drive (LHD). The LHD Latin market Suzuki Baleno actually performed quite well (in my opinion) in the frontal test but crossed capping limits for the chest in the side impact which caused a zero star result.

The lower performance limit for chest compression for Latin NCAP tests has been revised to 42mm from the older 50mm limit according to revised EEVC directives. Global NCAP, however, still uses the older 50mm lower performance limit. Since the scoring for the body region is linearly interpolated, scores are affected for any value of chest compression less than 22mm. But is safe to assume that the LHD Baleno's driver and passenger chests will remain yellow under Global NCAP protocol but the score may slightly increase (if chest compression is the worse performing parameter and not VC).

Global NCAP:


Latin NCAP:


Another change is that in the case of recorded hard contact the assessment for head injury now uses HIC15 while Global NCAP continues to use HIC36. There is no way to convert HIC36 to HIC15 without access to the accelerometer graphs for the Suzuki Baleno from the driver/passenger HIII head. Most modern cars do not show hard contact but there is a chance this was recorded for the Baleno since is possible to score the full 4.000 points for the head even with hard contact recorded, if the corresponding HIC value is below the higher performance limit.

Global NCAP:


Latin NCAP:


The change was based on NHTSA data.

...AAMA also argued that HIC36 overestimates the risk of injury for long-duration head impacts with airbags. That organization cited a study where human volunteers who were restrained by airbags experienced HIC36 greater than 1000 and did not experience brain injury or skull fracture.
Based on a recent analysis of 295 NCAP tests, shown in Figure 2-1, the stringency of HIC15 of 700 and HIC36 of 1000 appear to be equivalent for long duration events because while HIC15
produces a lower numerical value for long duration events, its lower threshold, 700, compensates for this reduction. Of the 295 NCAP tests examined, 260 passed and 18 failed both criteria, 10 tests that failed HIC15 passed HIC36, while 7 tests that failed HIC36 passed HIC15. Thus, the two criteria and associated thresholds offer approximately the same stringency for long durations events. For short duration events, where either criteria would produce the same numerical value, HIC15 with its proposed 700 threshold is more stringent...
...Thus, the agency proposes to employ a 15 millisecond time interval whenever calculating the HIC function and limiting the maximum response of the adult dummies to a value of 700 and suitably scaling the performance limits for the child dummies.

Refer to page 2 of chapter 2 of the attached PDF for complete details about this change.
rev_criteria.pdf

Originally Posted by Keeleri_Achu

Choose a car you'd buy solely based on these pictures. Click on the image to find out which one it is.

These ratings are not valid for consumers in the Indian market.

If I may ask, how did you convert the colour-coded score visualisation for the Suzuki Baleno to the Global NCAP format? Latin NCAP seems to have presented them differently.

[DicKy]

Talking for the Yaris, the test got stricter, that's all. The same guys gave it four stars a couple of years ago, and it managed to get 5 stars in the ASEAN NCAP around the same time.

Most of our GNCAP 5 star rated cars may scrap though with 2/3 stars if tested by Euro NCAP.

[Keeleri_Achu]

Originally Posted by ron178

These ratings are not valid for consumers in the Indian market.

Very much aware of it. That's why I started with Latin NCAP != GNCAP.

I just wanted to let fellow members know that they're dealing with a double edged sword here. Setting a pictorial representation is IMHO better than writing entire paragraphs. Even in TeamBHP, some members would comment based on the title without going through the OP or the subsequent comments. The less said about social media/news articles, the better. If members are going to diss off Baleno for a Zero star rating in Latin NCAP, they'll have to do the same for the much lauded cars from India. Else they'll have to accept the fact that these results holds no value to Indian customers, for better or for worse. The same results are being discussed in 4 different threads as of now. No points for guessing the direction it's heading. Had the result been from GNCAP under their current standards, I would've joined them with pitch forks. But these sort of comparisons and marketing campaigns are nothing but mudslinging in my opinion.

If I may ask, how did you convert the colour-coded score visualisation for the Suzuki Baleno to the Global NCAP format? Latin NCAP seems to have presented them differently.

It involved the use of a sophisticated program called Microsoft Paint

[volkman10]

The below are the things we should see as from the LATIN NCAP tests. All the rest are of academic interest only.

Frontal impact:
The protection offered to the driver and passenger head and neck was good.

Driver and Passenger chest showed adequate protection.

Driver and one passenger’s knees showed marginal protection as they can impact with dangerous structures behind the fascia, the other passenger knee showed good protection.

Driver tibias showed adequate protection, and passenger’s tibias showed good protection.

Footwell area was rated as stable.

The bodyshell was rated as stable and is capable of withstanding further loadings.

Side impact:

Head and pelvis protection was good; abdomen protection was adequate and chest protection was poor leading to zero points for this test.

Side Pole Impact: was not performed as the car does not offer side head protection as standards.

Whiplash: showed poor performance. the car can not prove the fillment of rear impact (R32) pre-requisites. AEB City: The car does not offer AEB City even as optional. Rescue sheet: not available.

Source: LATIN NCAP

[ohaak]

One of the issues that I see is that manufacturers like Suzuki have different standards for different markets on how they manufacture their cars. So this is of no significance to the cars sold in India. But given that Suzuki has always said that they meet the regulatory norms of the country, I wonder why they are not meeting the required ratings in Latin NCAP. It can be stringent, but they need to meet it.

[busydrive]

GNCAP is also updating its requirements and will get even stricter in coming years. Latin NCAP is anyways way more stringent. Many of our current GNCAP 5 star cars won't get 5 or 4 in Latin NCAP.

[saisree]

Originally Posted by theAutomaniac

Off Topic-

I really pity Indians who are so desperate to diss the top seller that they compare ratings of a Latin American product to products sold in India!

Well said!! We should pity ourselves for encouraging the market top seller to sell more pathetic cars unable to score in less stringent GNCAP, giving not one or two but, as many hoots they can towards safety.

Originally Posted by theAutomaniac

I'll bet a thousand bucks that all these Tata funded media firms (Motorbeam, Motoroctane etc) and many fanboys on social media (and on Team-BHP as well!) will conveniently ignore the Yaris's 1 star rating and will highlight the Baleno just like they ignored the Duster and highlighted the Swift when the Suzuki Swift and Renault Duster received a zero star rating because apparently, spreading misinformation about Maruti Suzuki has become the new cool on the internet because the people have developed a "herd mentality" that all Maruti cars are unsafe even though they aren't tested!

Come'On There is no need to be a fanboy here. We T-Bhpian's, voice out for every other car in the market. The top seller will be on fire because, the probability of it making into news is more due to sheer volume it has sold.

Go through this thread (2014-2020: Global NCAP's Safer Cars For India initiative - 8 out of 10 safest car brands are Indian!). We praise and disgrace equally with out fanboy'ism.

Originally Posted by theAutomaniac

Well, that Heartect chassis has scored consistent 3 and 4 star ratings in Europe and even the Ertiga has scored a 4 and 3 respectively in Indonesia and India (Child Protection was still better than the Tata Nexon!). Hence, I would disagree that the Heartect can't score well! It's just that Latin NCAP's protocols have been too stringent these days and hence every new budget car there is receiving a zero or 1 star rating!

Agreed.

But the cars from the same Heartect platform Swift & Wagon R scored mere 2 stars and Baleno was never sent/tested in GNCAP which is less stringent than the Latin NCAP.

[Shashwat.75]

Originally Posted by theAutomaniac

I'll bet a thousand bucks that all these Tata funded media firms (Motorbeam, Motoroctane etc) and many fanboys on social media (and on Team-BHP as well!) will conveniently ignore the Yaris's 1 star rating and will highlight the Baleno just like they ignored the Duster and highlighted the Swift when the Suzuki Swift and Renault Duster received a zero star rating because apparently, spreading misinformation about Maruti Suzuki has become the new cool on the internet because the people have developed a "herd mentality" that all Maruti cars are unsafe even though they aren't tested!

You've made some serious allegations .

Yes , Tata is no Volvo . Safari / Harrier might not be able to score 5 star rating in GNCAP and many of their cars may not have some safety features as standard. But that doesn't change the fact that -

Nexon is safer than Vitara Brezza
Altroz is safer than baleno
Punch is safer than swift
Tiago is safer than WagonR.
Tigor is safer than dzire ( a bit unsure on this one)

And these are enough reasons for me to applaud Tata and lambast Maruti Suzuki.

[DonHyd]

I will prefer a 0 star rated car with a stable bodyshell to a 3/4 star rated car with an unstable bodyshell.

When Yaris can score 1 star, what is the insult in baleno scoring 0? Time to move on. No point lambasting Maruti. They will not change 1 bit.

[Sids85]

No wonder Toyota are selling rebadged Maruti cars in India. The NCAP scores are unsurprising for both the OEMs. Last month the Swift had scored Zero. Maruti keeps the flag of Zero flying high. What a shame.

[Pam81]

Heartect platform....? Lighter and stronger...!

No offence to Baleno owners, but this is well accepted by many buyers and they are fine with that risk.

No surprise that Baleno scored "0" and MSIL won't change a bit because they never designed it for # of stars in safety testing. They are good in making affordable, functional cars, safety is not advertised and it is at the sole discretion of the buyer & their acceptance of risk.

TOYOTA, of late, got into very greed mode. They know, they can make hell lot of money in bigger vehicles but they somehow faring poor in light vehicles and so is the partnership in India with MSIL on rebadging. It was a learning (for me at least) that TOYOTA, in other parts of the world also started to follow the inspiration of Suzuki in making thin and light cars to return awesome FE numbers. What a history destroying effort!!!!

[DDIS_RE650]

Nitin Gadkari, please launch India's own NCAP and make it mandatory for any new car sold here. The rating must be engraved on dash-board. Customers get statutory warning on label of cigarette and alcohol then why not NCAP rating on car which is more lethal if it has zero rating.

[rpm]

To the BHPians suggesting that this did not deserve a new thread, I think that even if it was posted in the older Latin NCAP thread, the mods would probably have moved it out for better visibility, or merged this post with a newer thread someone else might have created. I think that the title sufficiently brings attention to the fact that these are LATIN NCAP results, and the thread starter duly notes that these should not be applied to Indian cars or be compared to GNCAP results, with a pretty detailed explanation about the 'why' in another post on the very same thread.

[sravankrishnan]

Originally Posted by DonHyd

I will prefer a 0 star rated car with a stable bodyshell to a 3/4 star rated car with an unstable bodyshell.

Pardon my ignorance, but could you explain why? From NCAP's own definition, a stable bodyshell means it is able to 'withstand further loading'. I always thought they meant the car was able to withstand further loading post the crash test itself. If anyone with enough expertise clarifies this, it will be highly appreciated.

Of course it can also mean that the bodyshell can survive an impact at a speed higher than 64kph, but how do they determine that? Do they also crash test another unit at a higher speed? I've never heard of something like that and NCAP hasn't published anything of the like as far as I know. Happy to be educated on the matter.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by sravankrishnan

Of course it can also mean that the bodyshell can survive an impact at a speed higher than 64kph, but how do they determine that? Do they also crash test another unit at a higher speed? I've never heard of something like that and NCAP hasn't published anything of the like as far as I know. Happy to be educated on the matter.

"The bodyshell was rated unstable and incapable of withstanding further loadings" is a statement which implies that the Integrity of the Passenger Compartment modifier (-1.00 point) defined in the assessment protocol has been applied to the chest. This means that the testers at the laboratory found symptoms that the structure of the car will not behave similarly under slightly more demanding test conditions, like higher speed, higher mass or less overlap. It does not mean that the occupant compartment has collapsed during the test (that is covered separately by the A-pillar Rearward Displacement modifier which uses a sliding scale system to determine penalty).

The modifier is one of the few subjective parts of the assessment and is applied based on symptoms defined in the assessment protocol:

INTEGRITY OF THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT
Where the structural integrity of the passenger compartment is deemed to have been compromised, a penalty of one point is applied. The loss of structural integrity may be indicated by characteristics such as:
- Door latch or hinge failure, unless the door is adequately retained by the door frame.
- Buckling or other failure of the door resulting in severe loss of fore/aft compressive strength.
- Separation or near separation of the cross facia rail to A pillar joint.
- Severe loss of strength of the door aperture.
When this modifier is applied, knee mapping data will not be accepted.

There is no sliding scale system that has been developed for assessing the structure: the modifier is completely subject to the judgment of the testers at the laboratory, much like the knee modifiers for concentrated loads and variable contact on the fascia. There are no intrusion measurements or limits required for the modifier to be applied.

It does not have to do with post-crash behaviour of the vehicle structure, though a compromised passenger compartment increases the risk of occupant entrapment which can hinder first responders during occupant extrication. For occupant rescue, the testers measure forces required to open the doors after the crash but this is not currently used in the assessment though it may be in the future.

CONCEPTS BEHIND THE ASSESSMENTS
Chest
CONCEPT: When the passenger compartment becomes unstable, any additional load can result in unpredictable excessive further collapse of the passenger compartment. When the passenger compartment becomes unstable the repeatability of the car’s response in the test becomes poor and confidence in the car’s performance is reduced.

Key things to note here: 'any additional load' does not mean additional loads after the crash. It refers to additional gross mass of the test car, or higher speed, or less overlap, as mentioned above. Also, 'repeatability' does not refer to the car being involved in a secondary collision, but rather, it means that they are not confident that the same test conditions will necessarily result in the same output. Hence a 1.00 point penalty is applied.

Global New Car Assessment Program - Adult Occupant Protection Assessment Protocol v1.0 2017 - June 2022

Originally Posted by sravankrishnan

Do they also crash test another unit at a higher speed?

Not at present, but starting next year there will be a provision for rating the structure as 'borderline unstable' in which case the manufacturer will be able to sponsor a 68km/h ODB test with 30% overlap and 150kg extra test mass, and some conditions have to be met for the modifier to be removed.

TECHNICAL ANNEX 1
Adult Occupant Protection Protocol
Borderline case for unstable structural modifier ODB
In the case of Structural stability, footwell area or chest contact modifiers are applied in the ODB test, and where a borderline case is in consideration, evidence should be shown to Global NCAP inspectors that in a more stringent test scenario the reasons for those modifiers to be introduced are the same or close to the evidence recorded during the test.
The modifiers should show close performance to the same car in an ODB test with the same version as tested but at 68km/h with 30% overlap (assure the longitudinal is contained in barrier impact) and 150kg extra load. Under these conditions the deformation of the structure must be the same as tested, within a 10% tolerance in the 3D measurement and no added spot weld full or partial detachment, hinges or trans-facia tube failures as well as
no chest contact detected in order to remove the modifiers. No CAD data will be accepted, only full scale test with driver and passenger HIII 50th percentile, Q3 and Q1.5 as per the official test. Complete data, videos, pictures, 3D measurement and structure stripping driver side must be shared with less than 24 hours after the test.

It may interest some to know that this modifier featured in a 1997 Euro NCAP publication under Criticism of Euro NCAP (which, then, was in its early days). The subjectivity of the modifier was criticised, and this is what Euro NCAP had to say.

There has been some concern over the subjective assessment used in the generation of some of the modifiers. In particular, those for passenger compartment integrity and the knee impact areas. Wherever possible, a clear objective definition has been given for each modifier. Where this has not been possible, a list of the aspects considered has been detailed. In most cases, the assessment is clear and unquestioned. In borderline cases,the manufacturer would be given the benefit of the doubt.

Source (Page 2448)

Personally, I would not take this modifier as seriously as it usually is on the Internet. It is definitely not a good thing when the modifier has been applied, and modern cars should have structures designed to comfortably withstand impact under the standard NCAP ODB test conditions. But people miss out on a lot by just using this modifier to determine performance. The injury measures for the head, neck, chest, upper legs and tibias (and pedal displacement for the feet) are the crux of the frontal ODB test. If the passenger compartment collapses so much as to cause further injury during the test, this naturally manifests itself in the form of increased injury values, like with the Nissan NP300 for South Africa, and Global NCAP penalises the car further for A-pillar displacement.

The reason Global NCAP and Latin NCAP highlight the modifier in particular is that structural failure and excessive collapse of the occupant compartment used to be a major cause for poor frontal impact ratings, besides the lack of front airbags. Today, cars show reasonable structural performance that is not good enough for the modifier to be removed. This does not mean that the structure has performed just as poorly as those of cars whose occupant compartments used to catastrophically collapse in the tests not too long ago.