[ron178]

Originally Posted by ashishk29

A car with no airbags pretty much certainly gets a zero star rating. For example Polo originally got a zero star because it did not provide airbags as standard.

The Polo scored zero stars because dummy readings of HIC and rib deflection showed an unacceptably high risk of injury (more than that allowed in the 56km/h UN regulation). Global NCAP sets this as a 'capping limit' and if crossed all points for the test are lost. An airbag is not a prerequisite for any star rating, it just happens to be the most commonly employed technology so the assessment criteria are designed around it. There exist separate criteria including headform impact tests on the steering wheel for assessing cars without airbags.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

So for example, the XUV3OO was first run through GNCAP in 2020. Its score is still valid. Because neither the car nor the criteria have changed.

I think the point SS-Traveller is trying to make is that a rating only has meaning when combined with a datestamp. You are correct in that the XUV300's 2020 rating is still valid. A car's rating can lose validity after a specific time interval but that is independent of how the car performs if assessed against newer criteria. For example, the Brazilian Toyota Yaris' 2019 3-star Latin NCAP rating is still valid although it also has a 2021 1-star rating. The 2019 rating expires in 2023.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

2. The case you are referring to did happen with the Nexon. They originally got a 4 star on their original model. They then upgraded the car, sent it back, and got a 5 star. Not that the GNCAP result specifically highlights this as:
"This result is valid for all Nexon units produced as from December 7th, 2018 (from VIN MAT627165JLP51255)". Meaning that we can have multiple safety ratings for the same car depending on a facelift, as long as it is run through the crash tests again.

The Nexon wasn't retested, it was only reassessed after addition of a passenger-side seatbelt reminder and additionally tested for side impact. Tata demonstrated using a series of sled tests that the knees of occupants of different sizes and those seated in different positions would be similarly protected, in which case the GNCAP removes knee penalties. The frontal impact wasn't repeated. That said, retesting is possible if the manufacturer requests it, like Renault did with the Kwid.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

5. Number of airbags or trim does not improve safety substantially.

'Does not improve the GNCAP rating' is not the same as 'does not improve safety'.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

They got 8 points in the tests. Carens with 6 airbags got 9 points. Still a 3 star. Structure was still rated as unstable, because it was.

The Carens' increase in score is mostly because it was not penalised for unstable head contact on the driver airbag, unlike the Seltos. The side airbags made no difference to the rating whatsoever.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

It replicates real life accidents and measures the real life impacts.

Only a handful. The offset deformable barrier test was designed to cover 50% of car-to-car crashes with serious injury in 1996 Europe (page 2447). That itself would be a small fraction because cars often crash into other partners. In India the fraction of crashes is even smaller (link). Please remember that Safer Cars for India is only a pilot project and the GNCAP haven't developed a local test from scratch for India, the offset deformable barrier test is an existing test that has been part of other consumer safety programmes for decades. Global NCAP doesn't (didn't) do other tests not because they're not important but because they have very tight resources. That's not to say the offset deformable barrier test is not important, but with any consumer safety test it's important to keep in mind that the reduction in risk of serious injury is quite small. Whether it's worth paying/sacrificing for is up to each consumer (I for one think it is) but overestimating the meaning of the test can be dangerous.

I hate using anecdotes, but there are abundant examples now. For example that Seltos which basically got torn in half. Literally. Fatalities. [url="https://www.cartoq.com/high-speed-multiple-rollover-crash-of-mahindra-xuv300-driver-walks-out-video/"]Meanwhile look at the state of this car, and the fact that the driver walked away.

We have no evidence that the two crashes happened under repeatable conditions so it would be unwise to make a comparison. There exist separate tests used by other consumer safety programmes for crashes like these, like Euro NCAP's side pole tests (the GNCAP has also introduced it this month) and the IIHS' roof strength test for rollover. If the offset deformable barrier test meant anything in these crashes I'm sure these programmes would have used their resources doing other work.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

So given the same structural strength, obviously side airbags would help. However our comparison here is cars that have strong shell and no side airbags, vs cars with weak shell and side airbags.

That is a very valid point. These are cars with side airbags with horrible structural performance in the side impact that have shown very high risk of serious chest injury (see: Latin NCAP 2019 Mercosur-made Sandero).

Originally Posted by ashishk29

If it fared poorly in the frontal, it's more than likely going to fair just as poorly in a side impact test.

Sorry I stand by my statement that structural side impact performance is independent of frontal impact performance.


2017 Ford Ka (Brazil) (also see: 2016 Peugeot 208)


2017 Chevrolet Aveo (Mexico)

Also worth noting that the XUV700's excellent side impact structure is possibly because it will be exported to Australia and has been developed for Australasian NCAP tests (=Euro NCAP) which use a much heavier (1300kg vs 950) barrier and higher speed (60km/h). Not to take anything away from Mahindra, it's commendable that they're not stripping down the car in the first place.

Originally Posted by RubberGuru1113

there is a sharp impact of the driver seat dummy's head on the driver's side window/B Pillar between 0.25~0.29.

If it was a 'hard contact' peak acceleration would have been >80g and protection would likely have been downrated, which was not the case. Euro NCAP (and consequently Global NCAP) award maximum points to the head if there is no hard contact (the IIHS penalises bad dummy movement nevertheless).

[Cresterk]

Originally Posted by akannath

A question to all the experts here:

Should I choose a car with ESP/Hill Hold/Hill Descent, etc. and upto say 6 airbags, but inferior safety rating or one with a higher safety rating, but none of the above safety features and only 2 airbags?

.

Always choose option 2. Higher safety rating with a proper body shell structure is more important than all those electronic gimmicks which need only some software tweaks to implement in any car with drive by wire. A company that is going to cut costs on the most important parts isn't going to actually spend much time implementing these gimmicks perfectly either with proper sensors. They are just looking for a few things to easily pad the feature list on the brochure.

A car with 6 airbags but an unstable body-structure is just a felted coffin. No airbag can protect you from the steering column/A-pillar/door/console going through your face/chest/legs as your car folds into you. ESP and all are useful on luxury barges and sports cars with enough power to spin its wheels out easily but useless in the usually underpowered FWD cars sold here. At most, it will interfere with your driving and annoy you.

[enj0y_ride]

Voted for car with higher safety rating. We have seen how the cars with 6 airbag as standard with cost cutting all over shell, fared during crash tests. Even the A pillar crumbled. The safety features may not help much with an unstable shell.

[ashishk29]

Originally Posted by ron178

The Polo scored zero stars because dummy readings of HIC and rib deflection showed an unacceptably high risk of injury (more than that allowed in the 56km/h UN regulation). Global NCAP sets this as a 'capping limit' and if crossed all points for the test are lost. An airbag is not a prerequisite for any star rating, it just happens to be the most commonly employed technology so the assessment criteria are designed around it. There exist separate criteria including headform impact tests on the steering wheel for assessing cars without airbags.

I was oversimplifying. The additional impact was as a result of not having airbags. Essentially, not having airbags will result in the dummies facing enough impact force as to lower the rating drastically. Quoting from the report:
"The protection offered to the driver head was poor due to the hard contact with the steering wheel and for this reason the star capping was applied."

That, combined with this excerpt from the assessment protocol:
"Exceeding a capping limit generally indicates unacceptable high risk at injury. In all cases, this leads to loss of all points related to the tests."

So yes, I shouldn't have oversimplified this circuit. My bad. My point however being that not having airbags as standard was the primary cause of Polo essentially failing with a zero star rating. So any car without front airbags can expect similar results.

Originally Posted by ron178

I think the point SS-Traveller is trying to make is that a rating only has meaning when combined with a datestamp. You are correct in that the XUV300's 2020 rating is still valid. A car's rating can lose validity after a specific time interval but that is independent of how the car performs if assessed against newer criteria. For example, the Brazilian Toyota Yaris' 2019 3-star Latin NCAP rating is still valid although it also has a 2021 1-star rating. The 2019 rating expires in 2023.

By the nature of the automobile industry, a car gets refreshed every few years. Except if you're VW. Polo stays the exact same for over a decade. What this means however is that, it's a given that a car safety rating is no longer valid if
a) The car changes.
b) The test criteria changes.

Does either of them suddenly make the car unsafe? No. It has still been certified using a set standard, which measures a set amount of force and impact parameters. Does this mean that once GNCAP criteria changes this year, it suddenly renders all Tata and Mahindra 5 star scoring cars unsafe? No. They would simply move from being a 5 star of the current era to maybe a 4 star of the next era. If tomorrow they say that any car without side airbags gets a zero, fine. But these results of the structural integrity results still hold true. Even the definitions for "meter" and "second" have changes over the years. Hardly renders them obsolete.

This is exactly what SS-Travellers comment completely undermines. That a new standard or a new variant doesn't suddenly make the old one garbage.

Originally Posted by ron178

The Nexon wasn't retested, it was only reassessed after addition of a passenger-side seatbelt reminder and additionally tested for side impact. Tata demonstrated using a series of sled tests that the knees of occupants of different sizes and those seated in different positions would be similarly protected, in which case the GNCAP removes knee penalties. The frontal impact wasn't repeated. That said, retesting is possible if the manufacturer requests it, like Renault did with the Kwid.

Can you please help me with a source for the Nexon thing? I have been searching for the last 5-10 minutes and couldn't find any.

Originally Posted by ron178

The Carens' increase in score is mostly because it was not penalised for unstable head contact on the driver airbag, unlike the Seltos. The side airbags made no difference to the rating whatsoever.

Agreed. I already maintain that side airbags have no bearing on the current GNCAP score as they test it. I simply meant that there indeed is force travelling along the side panels even in a frontal impact, and hence even the build there matters.

Originally Posted by ron178

Only a handful. The offset deformable barrier test was designed to cover 50% of car-to-car crashes with serious injury in 1996 Europe (page 2447). That itself would be a small fraction because cars often crash into other partners. In India the fraction of crashes is even smaller (link). Please remember that Safer Cars for India is only a pilot project and the GNCAP haven't developed a local test from scratch for India, the offset deformable barrier test is an existing test that has been part of other consumer safety programmes for decades. Global NCAP doesn't (didn't) do other tests not because they're not important but because they have very tight resources. That's not to say the offset deformable barrier test is not important, but with any consumer safety test it's important to keep in mind that the reduction in risk of serious injury is quite small. Whether it's worth paying/sacrificing for is up to each consumer (I for one think it is) but overestimating the meaning of the test can be dangerous.

It is physically, temporally, monetarily, practically, logically, and sensibly IMPOSSIBLE to test every single accident. So OBVIOUSLY they will try to replicate only a handful of very common scenarios. Which is why I had shared the road accident statistics of India specifically, which seem to indicate that you are more likely to have a head-on/hitting static object, which is what the offset deformable barrier test very well replicates. So I wouldn't really call it a "handful" in terms of real world stats.

Originally Posted by ron178

We have no evidence that the two crashes happened under repeatable conditions so it would be unwise to make a comparison.

.

Which is why I did say that I hate using anecdotes. These cars should certainly be put through more comprehensive tests like Euro NCAP or IIHS. No doubt.
But the point here was that structural integrity demonstrated by these tests WILL have a real world application. A car cannot score so high on structural integrity tests unless it has indeed been designed that strong all around.
I'll rephrase: There is a very high correlation between cars being strongly built and cars scoring high on GNCAP tests. Agreed?
And cars with strongly built bodies will tend to fair better in terms of occupant survivability in most accidents except for some incredibly corner cases.
So by extension, one can posit that there is indeed a correlation between good GNCAP scores and people surviving accidents?

Originally Posted by ron178

Sorry I stand by my statement that structural side impact performance is independent of frontal impact performance.

Not sure what context the images were supposed to provide. But a car that can't perform well in a frontal impact is obviously not going to be suddenly well built on the sides. I mean, what manufacturer would do this? Think of it that way. GNCAP scores very clearly highlight frontal impact performance. That is what gets published. And yet some manufacturer would choose to design a car, which fails in that test, but secretly has a very solid side body? Not really.

Originally Posted by ron178

Also worth noting that the XUV700's excellent side impact structure is possibly because it will be exported to Australia and has been developed for Australasian NCAP tests (=Euro NCAP) which use a much heavier (1300kg vs 950) barrier and higher speed (60km/h). Not to take anything away from Mahindra, it's commendable that they're not stripping down the car in the first place.

I'd say that is a bit speculative. Mahindra has been making 4 and 5 star so far (Marazzo, Thar, 3OO) in general. But it could be that they want to make it well for all markets. They could also have seen Tata's success with the Nexon, and decided to double down on the safety factor for the Indian market as well. I do not really care about the motivations and speculations of motivations of auto manufacturers giving safe cars really. For me this discussion is fairly technical.

[akannath]

Originally Posted by TechnoBloop

Nowadays, I guess almost all the cars come with ESP (except the ultra-budget cars)

Originally Posted by ashishk29

First off, these days you no longer have to pick one or the other.
There are a now a few cars that will give you both; High safety rating, as well as safety features.

Thanks for your comments guys. But I am afraid the reality is not so rosy.
As I mentioned earlier, Marazzo is a perfect example with a 4* rating but no ESP, not even in the top variants. A more recent example is Scorpio N where Z4 manual does not have ESP although it is likely to have a 4/5* rating when eventually tested. ESP starts with the Auto variant of Z4 and then all models upwards, but the Z4 AT may command a Rs.1.5L premium over the MT version. And this is where a buyer on a strict budget (aka me) starts to feel the pinch and is forced to pick and choose and compromise on various safety features.

As you can see, my predicament is to do with 7 seater options under Rs.15L ex, and sadly one will have to compromise on some safety related aspects to buy the vehicle. Scorpio N Z6 @ 14.99L will fit the bill, but only if one manages to be in the first 25K bookings.

It just exposes a big gaping hole in the market offerings at the moment: a safe (4/5* rated) 7 seater with minimum 2/4 airbags (not even asking for 6) plus ESP/ESC with just basic features/gizmos - all under Rs.15L. It doesn't exist. Why cant Mahindra add ESP to M6+ Marazzo?
Am I asking for too much - I don't think so. Or maybe I am!!

[ajayc123]

Very good thread. Has really brought the safety aspects to the forefront and compelled us to think about it. My take is, that we should go for maximum safety option, preferably with a good rating, esp, max airbags etc as the key. It may be a couple of lakhs higher than the target budget, but I would try to cut budget elsewhere (on bells n whistles or non car budget) or wait a bit longer, to save a bit more. I would compromise on other things but not safety. The price that you may end up paying by compromising on safety, could be something that cannot be measured in terms of money.

But, we must remember that having the highest safety features does not imply that we should lower our guard on good driving, We should still keep defensive driving our priority.

[Asoon]

Purpose of Safety features is to keep you safe and safety benchmarks are safety ratings
It is like Quad core Micromax phone vs iphone 6 dual core processor, success of engineered products are defined by how it delivers

You can also explore XL6/ Ertiga
- 2 Airbag version of Ertiga has similar crash test performance as 6 air bag Carens
- Top end has 4 airbags (I guess it will be better)
- Carens body shell is unstable you can see A pillar bending in crash test video

[ron178]

Originally Posted by ashishk29

they will try to replicate only a handful of very common scenarios.

...but they're not. At least not in India. Please see this study.

The basis on which the speed, offset and barrier for the test were chosen is that in a crash study by the UK transport research laboratory in 1996, 50% of all serious frontal car-to-car crashes occurred under 55km/h. The EU adopted 56km/h for the frontal impact directive (now a global UN regulation applied even in India) but Euro NCAP chose 64km/h for consumer-testing because it was found to approximately simulate both cars travelling at 55km/h, although they maintain there's no direct correlation. (Source)

The test became accepted as the industry standard and that's the reason other NCAPs started using it, not that they did any original research suggesting statistics would be similar in other geographies.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

structural integrity tests unless it has indeed been designed that strong all around.

It's not a structural integrity test, it's an occupant protection test. Of course, there is a relationship between the two, but the major focus of the test is occupant protection and not structure. It's based mostly on dummy readings and some other penalties (modifiers) to improve relevance, of which structure is just a small part.

The structure-related criteria in the test are structural performance (intrusion measurements of the A-pillar, steering column and pedals) and structural integrity (stability of the passenger compartment and rupture of the footwell) which concerns repeatability of the structural performance. The test evaluates performance and not design, the manufacturer is free to use whatever they want to achieve the following: low intrusion measurements in the test and no symptoms of poor repeatability of those intrusion measurements, and that's all the test asks for. Nowhere will you find the test specifying what materials the car should be built with or that it should have good structural developments all-round, etc.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

I'll rephrase: There is a very high correlation between cars being strongly built and cars scoring high on GNCAP tests. Agreed?

I'll 're-rephrase' that, if you will. A car that has been designed and built to resist intrusion in the offset deformable barrier test will resist intrusion better in frontal car-to-car crashes. That I will agree with. The offset deformable barrier was a breakthrough because of just how well it could simulate other cars.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

And cars with strongly built bodies

There exists nothing of the sort. Crashworthiness comes from designing cars to prevent intrusion in certain crashes, and while that does require the use of stronger materials, it doesn't mean that it would inherently perform better in other crashes unless designed for them.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

So by extension, one can posit that there is indeed a correlation between good GNCAP scores and people surviving accidents?

Of course there is! It would be absolutely ridiculous if there wasn't. But it's a small number of crashes, and one needs to keep that in mind.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

Not sure what context the images were supposed to provide.

I meant to use the Aveo's result to demonstrate that this need not be true:

Originally Posted by ashishk29

But a car that can't perform well in a frontal impact is obviously not going to be suddenly well built on the sides.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

Think of it that way. GNCAP scores very clearly highlight frontal impact performance. That is what gets published. And yet some manufacturer would choose to design a car, which fails in that test, but secretly has a very solid side body? Not really.

Yes, philosophically speaking what you're saying makes sense. Someone who's trying to keep costs to a minimum won't develop for something 'out of syllabus' while skipping out on something they will be tested for. But there's nothing technical stopping manufacturers from engineering for the side impact and not the frontal impact.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

I mean, what manufacturer would do this?

GM and Nissan that I know of.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

I'd say that is a bit speculative.

I'm sorry, could you please be more specific? I didn't quite understand which part was speculative.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

But it could be that they want to make it well for all markets.

Yes, that's what I said, they should be congratulated for that. Considering what global OEMs, even safety pioneers, are up to, it's satisfying to see Mahindra at least maintain standards across different markets.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

My point however being that not having airbags as standard was the primary cause of Polo essentially failing with a zero star rating. So any car without front airbags can expect similar results.

Apologies, what I meant to convey is that not having airbags in the case of the Polo led to high head injury readings above the EEVC limit, which then led to zero-point capping. That does not imply the absence of airbags will lead to high head injury readings. Case in point, at least in the 56km/h UN Reg 94 test, the no-airbag Polo failed but even without an airbag the Figo could keep injury readings below EEVC limits and passed. (Source) I was implying that the test is technology-neutral: manufacturers are free to use whatever they want to keep head injury readings low, what matters is the performance and not the equipment. While the airbag is the most widely used technology for this, there's still a section dedicated to rating head protection in cars without airbags (see 3.1.1.2 in assessment protocol). For example the driver's head and chest in the Maruti Suzuki Eeco didn't cross capping limits despite not having an airbag (its total score was still in the zero-star band).

(Off-topic: The language in the Polo's report is somewhat incorrect because hard contact only means that the HIC values will be interpolated to generate a score rather than awarding maximum points. Excessive HIC values then lead to zero stars)

Originally Posted by ashishk29

Can you please help me with a source for the Nexon thing?

My bad. Please see 3.2.1.3 Removal of Knee Modifiers in the assessment protocols.

[PrideRed]

Safety is important factor but safer rating and safety features are just two aspects. There are much more that goes into buying a car- Engine/Gearbox, space on offer, intended use, price, manufacturer preference, design etc. Only a small percentage of buyers would have bought Marazzo for just 4 star safety or Carens for standard safety features.

[yuvmudapa]

Originally Posted by akannath

A question to all the experts here:

Should I choose a car with ESP/Hill Hold/Hill Descent, etc. and upto say 6 airbags, but inferior safety rating or one with a higher safety rating, but none of the above safety features and only 2 airbags?

I know the 2 aren't the same in the sense that the features are meant to avoid an accident/collision, whereas the latter comes into play only after a collision has occurred. Nevertheless, where would you put your money assuming an ideal scenario where a car with both safety features and safety rating does not exist?

An add on question: What would happen to cars that do not have 6 airbags come October, when the new 6 airbag legislation comes into effect? Or is this not going to be mandatory and just a govt advisory?

Thanks.

A car with a higher safety rating is the better option of the 2. In the case of an electronic failure as well, if the airbags do not deploy, the strong build quality of the vehicle itself will help protect the passengers.

[On4Wheels]

Car manufactures coin the term 'Safety' in their advertisement with different meaning to confuse the buyer. Some use this term as build quality, some use it as reliability, while others use it as a feature to satisfy the customer's need which is quite diverse. Consider my case: I own Tata Altroz Diesel because I was impressed about the 5 star GNCAP rating and its performance. It ticks most of the boxes in the safety column. However, the ownership of this car taught me a big lesson that the reliability is the most important factor to measure the safety of the car. With that lesson, I have added Maruti Suzuki Ignis to my garage. There is no doubt about the reliability of its engine and other mechanical components even though it got just 3 star in GNCAP. Similarly, features like rear fog lamp, ISOFIX etc. also add extra points to the overall safety. In nutshell, every manufacture conveniently distorts the term 'Safety' to fool us due to various reasons. It may be engineering, geographical or economics. Every member in this forum wants a safe car, unfortunately we are forced to make some compromises due to the constraints we have. We know this. Despite of this, why do we need to classify the safety into two classes? Aren't we trying to stand with our car here as we love them? Who will be the benefiting if we stand divided on safety?

[SS-Traveller]

Originally Posted by ron178

The only equipment that could make a difference to Global NCAP's 2014 - July '17 ratings is:
-frontal airbags
-retractor pretensioners
-lap pretensioners
-front seatbelt reminders (adds to score)

For August 2017 - June '22 the only equipment that could make a difference is:
-frontal airbags
-retractor pretensioners
-lap pretensioners
-front seatbelt reminders (adds to score and is qualifier for five stars)
-four-channel ABS (qualifier for five stars)
-side airbags provided the car cannot pass the minimum ECE Reg 95 side impact (qualifier for five stars) without them but can with them fitted (no such case until now & since 2019 a similar test has been adopted for all new models sold in India). For 0-4 stars side airbags would make no difference and it is not uncommon for cars to pass R95 without side airbags.

Child occupant protection ratings for 2014-22 could be affected by
-three-point seatbelts for all seats
-ISOFIX anchorages
-front passenger airbag deactivation
-integrated child restraint

Equipment that could affect Global NCAP's 'Safer Choice' Award is:
-electronic stability control
-pedestrian protection technologies like active pop-up hoods

Unlike other NCAPs who update protocols ~biennially, July 2022 is the first major update to Global NCAP's SaferCarsForIndia project since it started. Other NCAPs' ratings are usually not valid for India.

Could you kindly provide a source / document / link for the above information?

[ron178]

Originally Posted by SS-Traveller

Could you kindly provide a source / document / link for the above information?

Sorry there is no single source I can provide but I suppose you could infer most of it from the GNCAP's 2017 adult occupant protection assessment protocols (page 10) and the child occupant protection assessment protocols (index). Requirements for the Safer Choice Award are detailed in this press release.

Lap pretensioners have a role in knee mapping tests (optional manufacturer data) whose protocols are available here (see 2.2) (Global NCAP references this document in 3.2.1.3 'Removal of Knee Modifiers').

Indian legislative side impact requirements are here.

The GNCAP's updated July 2022 protocols can be found here: adult and child.

[ashishk29]

Originally Posted by akannath

Am I asking for too much - I don't think so. Or maybe I am!!

I can agree that Mahindra did Marazzo dirty. They completely discontinued the top M8 variants which I believe had all these features.
Maybe in the near future we will see these features percolate. As of right now, personally, I would pick safety rating over ESP. But that's just me.

Originally Posted by ron178

...but they're not. At least not in India. Please see this study.

The basis on which the speed, offset and barrier for the test were chosen is that in a crash study by the UK transport research laboratory in 1996, 50% of all serious frontal car-to-car crashes occurred under 55km/h. The EU adopted 56km/h for the frontal impact directive (now a global UN regulation applied even in India) but Euro NCAP chose 64km/h for consumer-testing because it was found to approximately simulate both cars travelling at 55km/h, although they maintain there's no direct correlation. (Source)

The test became accepted as the industry standard and that's the reason other NCAPs started using it, not that they did any original research suggesting statistics would be similar in other geographies.

Excerpt from the above study (which seems to have been performed in 2017, and uses crash data from up to 2016)
"Percentage*distribution*of*917*cars*by*impact*loc ation:
The*impact*location*was*analysed*by*considering*th e*third*character*of*the*CDC*[5].
The*third*character*denotes*the*General*Area*of*Da mage*(or*direct*impact*location)*for*the*impact,*a nd*64%*of*the*cars*analysed*had*their*impact*locat ion*as*“F‐Front”."

So even this study agrees that 64% of all crashes were frontal impacts of some variant.

However it also says that
"The*probability*of*a*car*impacting*a*truck/bus,*a*motorised*two-wheeler*or*a*fixed*object*is*far*greater*in*India* than*the*probability*of*a*car*impacting*another*ca r."

This has since changed. If you check my original post for the MoRTH stats from 2019, to quote myself,
"16% of all accidents involve cars/taxis/lmv, and of that 43% are caused by another car/taxis/lmv."

The percentage has changed vastly since then. About half of the accidents are now cars impacting other cars. So this finding from the 2017 study does not hold entirely true.

Originally Posted by ron178

The test evaluates performance and not design

But can a car perform without being designed well? These two are also directly correlated. Cars that are well designed/designed with better materials will perform better.

Originally Posted by ron178

I'll 're-rephrase' that, if you will. A car that has been designed and built to resist intrusion in the offset deformable barrier test will resist intrusion better in frontal car-to-car crashes. That I will agree with. The offset deformable barrier was a breakthrough because of just how well it could simulate other cars.

There exists nothing of the sort. Crashworthiness comes from designing cars to prevent intrusion in certain crashes, and while that does require the use of stronger materials, it doesn't mean that it would inherently perform better in other crashes unless designed for them.

Are you suggesting that the stronger materials here are somehow cognizant of how they're being impacted? No. Strong materials will be strong no matter how the crash is. If it's designed to take a certain amount of impact, and the body is designed to distribute the force in a certain way, it always will. Which means that the standards will work even in other varieties of crashes. It's not binary that if a car is does well in frontal impact tests it will no do well in other tests at all. Materials and chassis design don't work that way.

Originally Posted by ron178

Of course there is! It would be absolutely ridiculous if there wasn't. But it's a small number of crashes, and one needs to keep that in mind.

I chose an anecdote, but that wasn't the only case where people in a safe car walked out alive. One could scour the internet for all such news, and find thousands and thousands of such cases. These aren't "small number of crashes".

Originally Posted by ron178

I meant to use the Aveo's result to demonstrate that this need not be true:

Yes, philosophically speaking what you're saying makes sense. Someone who's trying to keep costs to a minimum won't develop for something 'out of syllabus' while skipping out on something they will be tested for. But there's nothing technical stopping manufacturers from engineering for the side impact and not the frontal impact.

GM and Nissan that I know of.

Interesting point to note that their report does have a specific point for "Side impact structural protection", meaning that is something Latin NCAP explicitly tests. It would be good to have that here. That could have some impact on how manufacturers design their cars. Although I'm still confused how Aveo could do so bad in frontal tests and yet so well in side impact.

(Mildly off-topic)
Also I see a discrepancy(?) with the report on the Aveo:


The comments highlight that the footwell and the body shell both were rated unstable. Yet the overall summary above says bodyshell integrity as stable? How?

Originally Posted by ron178

I'm sorry, could you please be more specific? I didn't quite understand which part was speculative.

I meant speculation about Mahindra's intentions behind the safety of the car.

Originally Posted by ron178

Apologies, what I meant to convey is that not having airbags in the case of the Polo led to high head injury readings above the EEVC limit, which then led to zero-point capping. That does not imply the absence of airbags will lead to high head injury readings. Case in point, at least in the 56km/h UN Reg 94 test, the no-airbag Polo failed but even without an airbag the Figo could keep injury readings below EEVC limits and passed. (Source) I was implying that the test is technology-neutral: manufacturers are free to use whatever they want to keep head injury readings low, what matters is the performance and not the equipment. While the airbag is the most widely used technology for this, there's still a section dedicated to rating head protection in cars without airbags (see 3.1.1.2 in assessment protocol). For example the driver's head and chest in the Maruti Suzuki Eeco didn't cross capping limits despite not having an airbag (its total score was still in the zero-star band).

Fair point. It's kind of impressive Eeco did something that Polo originally hadn't. Even though in the bigger picture that doesn't mean much.

Originally Posted by ron178

My bad. Please see 3.2.1.3 Removal of Knee Modifiers in the assessment protocols.
Attachment 2335763

That is a fascinating find! Kudos.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by ashishk29

"16% of all accidents involve cars/taxis/lmv, and of that 43% are caused by another car/taxis/lmv."

Very interesting. I'm no scientist or engineer (yet) and if I tried to look through the data I'd only be fooling myself, so I'll choose to trust you on this one.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

But can a car perform without being designed well? These two are also directly correlated. Cars that are well designed/designed with better materials will perform better.

That is correct, but it is designed for the test and not to be "stronger overall".

Originally Posted by ashishk29

Which means that the standards will work even in other varieties of crashes.

A major limitation of this test is that energy dissipation takes place via the right front longitudinal (steel beam behind the bumper) which is engaged by the protruding 'bumper element' on the barrier as it would by a partner car in a car-to-car crash. By extension the test could help in other crashes where the longitudinal is engaged, that is why underride prevention devices for example are positioned so low to the ground. But crashes where the longitudinals are not engaged have to be accounted for separately. This happens in unprotected underrides and the IIHS' small overlap test. In underrides there is little a car can do. In the IIHS' small overlap test manufacturers use an upper frame rail above the wheel arch use the door sill for energy dissipation.[source] There are many cases of cars that performed equally well in the IIHS' moderate overlap (offset deformable barrier) test but performed very differently in the small overlap test just because they weren't designed for it. (see Camry vs Accord)

Originally Posted by ashishk29

Interesting point to note that their report does have a specific point for "Side impact structural protection", meaning that is something Latin NCAP explicitly tests.

They used to look for it after stripping the car after the test but it's not part of the score directly.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

Although I'm still confused how Aveo could do so bad in frontal tests and yet so well in side impact.

It was the case with its 2006 Euro NCAP test too and it's kind of shocking. It also did well in the pole test.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

The comments highlight that the footwell and the body shell both were rated unstable. Yet the overall summary above says bodyshell integrity as stable? How?

They're a small team, they make mistakes sometimes. Even the GNCAP (same team). There are quite a few more. They've made the same mistake with the Indian first-gen i10 for example.

In fact, there seems to be a mistake in the 2017 Ka too: the report reads 'yes' against 'side impact protection (structural)' but the text reads:

the car does not have side airbags, it does not have side impact structural reinforcements in the doors and no pelvis energy absorption elements in the door or inner door panel

Originally Posted by ashishk29

I meant speculation about Mahindra's intentions behind the safety of the car.

I didn't mean to portray that as a bad thing, I'm sorry if it came out that way. This is something not limited to the XUV700: even for the XUV300, to quote the GNCAP's secretary-general, "you could replace the door skins and drive the car as new" in reference to the structural side impact performance. They even used the ESC/pedestrian car to rerun the side impact on the passenger-side to look for asymmetrical performance (seen in some Latin NCAP tests) and the XUV300 performed similarly. Regardless of the reason, I can only applaud that.