[rkv_2401]

Originally Posted by ron178

The major reason for the Carens' loss of points still remains excessive movement of the pedals, much like the Ertiga for example, which can cause disabling injuries. In both cars parts of the body critical to life were reasonably well-protected, which is something to keep in mind before believing statements like 'x manufacturer is playing with the lives of Indians' (frequently seen on Twitter for example). Both cars have optional Electronic Stability Control not available on the Triber and Marazzo, which is a very important technology that can help avoid crashes. The Triber and new Ertiga have optional side body airbags, and the Carens even head airbags. Both of these are life-saving technologies, and not having them is probably a more serious problem that some pedal intrusion in the GNCAP's test.

I understand, but I still feel a bit mislead by Kia's advertising around this being the "safest car in the class" and presenting it as a "world that offers supreme safety", when neither statement is factually correct. What are your thoughts on that?

[ron178]

Originally Posted by rkv_2401

I understand, but I still feel a bit misled by Kia's advertising around this being the "safest car in the class"

Absolutely, I remember getting quite mad while watching the launch. There is no single accepted way to put safety in numbers and classify one car as safer than the other. Renault advertises the Triber as India's safest seven seater at the same time, because of its Global NCAP result (also wrong because ratings cannot be compared across different sizes). Kia claimed to be 'safest' because of its safety equipment. Next you could have someone saying a car is the 'safest in its class' because it has the best visibility.

There are just too many factors that are a part of safety and it goes beyond just the GNCAP or number of airbags or number of safety assist features. All of them are important, and unfortunately as long as very few are willing to offer all of them at once, the buyer is still confused: which is the primary sign that we need better safety ratings. They're still not going to be 'correct', but having a repeatable way to have a compare cars using a weighted sum of some areas of safety can help the consumer make a better choice. Until you have that, every (irresponsible) manufacturer will claim they're the safest.

That said, Kia knows consumers use the GNCAP to quantify safety, which is why I'm sticking to my theory of why they sponsored the test, i.e., that they were aiming higher.

[SaiSW]

Originally Posted by Maverick1977

If your sole purpose of buying the Carens was to run your personal GNCAP (in short crash it) tests then you must stay away from it.a

Nobody buys cars to run their personal ncap test on it. That is a downright offensive argument, one that belittles the person you were quote replying to.

Just like a member mentioned the case about buying insurance. Nobody buys cars to crash test it, but we still go ahead with insuring our vehicles, why?

Originally Posted by Maverick1977

Yes GNCAP ratings are important but they can't be so critical that you change your car buying decision.

Why can't they be so critical that they change one's car buying decision? Is safety some kind of a joke? I certainly wouldn't buy a car that barely made it past 2 stars no matter how big its sunroof is or how many inches the touchscreen is. If crash testing norms weren't a critical issue then why do agencies even bother spending all the money to setup crash test environments, build expensive dummies and all of that. They should all just shut shop and we can go back to judging cars by their mileage and touchscreen size.

Originally Posted by Maverick1977

Let's all remember that a crash in a real-world scenario will not be the same in which the cars are tested. Real World test results will be very different. We have seen threads of people (unfortunately) losing lives in Mercedes S class also.

Sure, real world crashes might not be exactly identical to the scenarios for which the car is tested for, but the question you have to ask yourself is, in the event of a crash (let's pray we never encounter one in our lives) would you rather your family be in a 5 star rated vehicle or a 3 star one? I know I'd rather my family be in the former. The sheer unpredictable nature of real world crashes should give you even more reason to opt for a car that has good crash test ratings. I know if I had to pick my next car, it would be a 5 star rated one, safety comes before everything as far as I'm concerned. And the good thing about the Indian car scene is, unlike maybe one or two decades ago, we don't actually have to sacrifice a lot in the pursuit of safety. There are cars which are well built and feature packed.

Originally Posted by Maverick1977

If Kia was a person, right now, it will be that poor kid who only managed to score 60% marks whereas the neighbours kid scored a 100%. Does this sound familiar yo anyone? Sure does to me. Typical Indian problem?

Oh no, not at all. Kia is in no way that kid.

[neeravnaik]

Disappointing and this would definitely have a big impact on my decision making. Highlighting poor safety rating will definitely be good in long run as Car makers will be forced to take action. Safety was not even in conversation few years back. Using expressway on a daily basis I am definitely looking for the extra edge in safety.

Unfortunately this leaves us with lot of imperfect options in the markets. It comes down to what kind of pain you are willing to live by. Bugs and poor service (Tata), unreliable gearbox (VW/SKoda), Middling Safety (Hyundai/KIA). Choose your poison.

[theabstractmind]

I think any discussion on crash ratings should be banned on this forum. I guess there are enough debates following the same line of innovative arguments for and against. But the market reality doesn't change much.

The reality of the market is most customers want to feel pampered, no matter whether they are being fleeced by the dealer. No matter whether those cars acquire dings and dents at the fall of a needle, or rattle within a few months of ownership, or if their cars despite having the safety jargons and all 4 disk brakes take longer distance to stop or fail altogether. They are willing to ignore the niggles and shortcomings because they are pampered. And why not? I would eat in a restaurant which serves me faster, offers great variety, satisfies my taste bud and welcomes me notwithstanding their food not being made of the best grade ingredients. It may cause an stomach upset now and then. No problem, Sir! At that price I can expect the upset stomach but it's not a deal breaker. I could fo to the doctor for medicine and he serves me with a smile. Why should I eat in a place where I am likely to be judged by the clothes I wear and may yet get the same stomach upset even after paying a higher price but have lower menu options? You know what I mean?

Note to Mods: please delete this post. It's a rant filled with sarcasm.

[varun.petro]

Every time any super popular model receives low NCAP ratings, we have heated debates on whether these scores mean anything in real world. They may only cover one scenario but give a clear cut insight into the overall build quality of the vehicle and more importantly well being of our family.

Manufacturer will mostly use similar material throughout the car so even a frontal test gives a good insight on overall build. Most of severe car accidents I have seen have frontal impact. I say any data is better than no data at all.

Atleast majority Hyundai and Kia cars are tested and we know that they offer features over safety. I wonder why no Skodas have been tested in recent times? Many brag about superior build of Skodas and VW but most of their products remain untested.

And if one analyses correctly its mostly the uber educated, metro city dwelling informed class that purchases loaded to the brim Seltos and Cretas. Its a conscious decision to flaunt all the new gizmos over safety. People in less developed places put reliability above all and hence choose Marutis.

People have to choose from options available and there aren't many safe options available. In my case, Nexon had the worst automatic of all and XUV 700 with unrealistic wait times is unattainable.

So I choose Kushaq over Koreans and now I happily spend weekends in Service centers .

[IamGetz]

Originally Posted by varun.petro

So I choose Kushaq over Koreans and now I happily spend weekends in Service centers .

The last sentence from Varun sums it all.

When a majority of car buyers place higher value on features for personal transportation versus safety and build quality, we should not be surprised at the consequences.

Car manufacturers have used such buyer behaviour to their advantage in their bid to maximise unit margins using the fig cover of India localisation.

With increased user awareness amongst young car buyers and positive government intervention, hopefully the tide should turn for the better sooner than later.

[RaviCar]

Originally Posted by Rohan265

What speeds were you doing here? I am surprised that the airbags even deployed for that kind of damage. Or else, the bumper just retracted and is hiding the actual crush.

I was a little distracted over some thoughts, (the reason behind this incident) so can't tell exact speed. I believe I was 40 and pressing gas before the hit. But it had slight downward gradient and I could have pressed the pedal so may be I sped up, my estimate is 40-60. If I exaggerate it was a 70. And I couldn't press the brakes.

The damage was 1.1 covered by my insurance. The coolant leaked and airbags broke my wind shield (is this common? )

I immediately apologized to the person in front. And paid his damages of actual repairs (outside 0.3) too despite he not even having a third party insurance because I believed it to be my fault.

Drive safe!

RaviCar

[ron178]

Originally Posted by varun.petro

Every time any super popular model receives low NCAP ratings, we have heated debates on whether these scores mean anything in real world. They may only cover one scenario but give a clear cut insight into the overall build quality of the vehicle and more importantly well being of our family.

Manufacturer will mostly use similar material throughout the car so even a frontal test gives a good insight on overall build.

It doesn't, that's the problem. Thinking a manufacturer 'designs a stronger car' and that inherently results in a better score in the test would be wrong. This exact front offset deformable barrier test has been around since 1997 (and a similar IIHS test since 1995) and manufacturers keep it in mind while designing cars, running simulations and internal physical pre-tests of this very test because it is common across most consumer safety programmes worldwide. Of course, airbags and restraints are programmed to work in other crashes but very few manufacturers actually focus on crashes beyond homologation/consumer-testing.

The good thing, and the reason 'engineering for an NCAP test' is unlikely to result in a Dieselgate, is NCAP tests have some additional subjective criteria compared to legislative crash tests, which improve the relevance of the result to real-world crashes of similar configurations. A car with a better GNCAP result would protect better than similarly sized rivals in frontal, moderate offset, car-to-car crashes at speeds that are equivalent to the effects of 55km/h-to-55km/h. The result cannot tell us anything more than that. Look at this result for example: 2017 Ford Ka (Latin NCAP) or even 2012 news reports from the start of the IIHS small overlap test (very different performances from cars that all did well in this 40% deformable barrier test: Volvo and Honda at the top and Mercedes and Toyota at the bottom). It's also worth noting that, as @shancz mentioned in an above post, stars do not imply strength but better protection, of which good structural performance and integrity is just a part.

You have to remember that SaferCarsForIndia is a pilot project by Global NCAP to introduce India to the concept of a safety rating. As you said, it still conveys some meaningful information. But the reason they don't test more configurations is that they have limited resources, not that other configurations are not necessary or the frontal test is enough to give a fair idea of the overall crashworthiness of a vehicle.

About the 'family' part it's worth noting that adult rear passengers are not included in the test but 1.5 year-old and 3 year-old children in child seats selected by the manufacturer. Yes, technically the test does represent a family travelling in the car, but the limitations of what kind of family it is are very important. In Euro NCAP's test with 6 and 10 year-old dummies, for example, cars are often marked down for bad dynamics if they don't have pretensioners in the rear: something not even most of the five star cars on sale in India have. The GNCAP's adult rating is currently only for driver and front passenger protection.

[Raghu M]

Originally Posted by Lobogris

So how difficult is it for Tata or Mahindra to add a larger infotainment screen? The additional cost won't be more than 2 to 5 thousand rupees. So why not give customers good safety as well as good features? Sprucing up the interior is not that expensive either.

Good point. I think what TATA and M&M are providing is adequate. But if customers compare size of screens and features on infotainment (putting safety completely aside), I don't think the Indian manufacturers will chase that. Their priority has been safety and that for me is more important than a 10.5 inch screen compared to a 7 inch screen on my 3OO. The bigger point to ponder over is, how come Kia/Hyundai find it difficult to give safety a priority when they can come up with all such gizmos and features that cost not more than 2 to 5 thousand and still price their cars above the Indian manufacturers.

[ajayc123]

Somebody help me understand the desire and use case for bigger screens. The driver should be looking at the road most of the time, the co-passenger needs to anyway turn there neck continuously if they have some use case for trying to look at the screen in a moving car. The passengers in the back seat are too far from the screen anyway. So what’s the bigger deal with the big screen?

[Rohan265]

Originally Posted by ron178

Recent news indicates even the 'localised' exams are geared more towards students travelling overseas for further studies.

This is interesting. So, a student traveling overseas is expected to clear the exam in both India and the respective country? The parents sending their children to any of the developed/ASEAN/Latin countries must be sweating.

Originally Posted by RaviCar

I was a little distracted over some thoughts, (the reason behind this incident) so can't tell exact speed. I believe I was 40 and pressing gas before the hit. But it had slight downward gradient and I could have pressed the pedal so may be I sped up, my estimate is 40-60. If I exaggerate it was a 70. And I couldn't press the brakes.

The damage was 1.1 covered by my insurance. The coolant leaked and airbags broke my wind shield (is this common? )

Yes. Airbags cracking the windshield is common. In fact, windshields act as a guide for proper airbag deployment to ensure that the airbag faces the occupant. If the windshield is damaged or has lost structural integrity, the airbag can also explode outwards, away from the occupant.
In some cases, the size and depth of the crack can also be used to determine if an unbelted occupant loaded the airbag as it was deploying.

If the stated speed is true, it seems the bumper has hidden the real damage, especially to the cross-member. Thank you for sharing the additional information.
If you don't mind answering a further question, was the seat belt hanging loosely after the crash? i.e. the seat belt would not retract.

[sreejithkk]

Originally Posted by varun.petro

So I choose Kushaq over Koreans and now I happily spend weekends in Service centers .

As you correctly mentioned, not a single Skoda car sold in India is ever tested by GNCAP. Till date only the VW Polo is tested by GNCAP. So the crash worthiness of current Indian made skoda cars are still unknown similar to that of Tata harrier and Safari.

[lordrayden]

Originally Posted by theabstractmind

I think any discussion on crash ratings should be banned on this forum.

Absolutely disagree.

If any topic concerns the automotive scene, it must NOT be banned. This is not a sensitive topic like religion or politics (and we should make it like that). Safety is ONE of the most important aspects of this domain and it MUST be discussed. Discussion increases awareness. The more we (customers) are aware of safety, the more car makers (whose customers we are) will prioritize it. In the long run, we are better off today than we were 10 years ago and will certainly be better off 10 years from now.

As long as the discussion is not malignant, it MUST be allowed.

Discussion is the engine that drives change. Pardon the automotive puns .

I know this post is off-topic, but I couldn't let it go without a reply. @mods, please feel free to delete this post if not appropriate.

[Raghu M]

Originally Posted by ajayc123

Somebody help me understand the desire and use case for bigger screens. The driver should be looking at the road most of the time, the co-passenger needs to anyway turn there neck continuously if they have some use case for trying to look at the screen in a moving car. The passengers in the back seat are too far from the screen anyway. So what’s the bigger deal with the big screen?

I have no clue as to why manufacturers are providing larger screens. Nowadays, I am seeing some cars with screens all through the dashboards length. It's just a fancy feeling. We have a mobile that we already squeeze for everything and nothing. Why such big screens for cars?