[epiccross]

Originally Posted by digitalnirvana

And that's the crux of it, because it's your opinion, just like the member you quoted posted theirs.

Of course, we're all stating our opinion, I substantiated my counterpoint with arguments to support it. Isn't that what a discussion is all about?

Let's use Occam's razor and keep this simple. Have any of the manufacturers disputed any of the results till date? Yes? No? There is the answer.

Well, I can't speak for them, but it could be a PR nightmare. See how the statements by Bhargava was blown way out of proportion. The best thing about GNCAP is that people have started to increasingly discuss safety and in most cars across brands, lot of safety features have started to trickle down. Which is great!

As to the second part of selective testing - GNCAP sources vehicles in two ways. One, they buy outright. Two, manufacturers send them test vehicles so it's obvious that the results are skewed in favor of manufacturers who are confident of a good result.

This is probably true.

What's obvious is that no manufacturer has questioned their testing methodology which tells me all I need to know.

Again, we can't deduce this is the sole reason. It will blow up in their faces. Even if they have a bunch of cars with weaker platforms, this will open a can of worms. So for sure they will stay away from this. Again, this is complex - and I honestly feel the insane taxation plays a significant part in it so that we have to choose between reliability, safety, after sales, etc. But that might be off topic and I had elaborated on this in some other thread. Of course, I'm not defending any company here, needless to say.

Apologies if I was particularly harsh. Its just that sometimes it feels to me like we're a flat earth society here, trying to find solutions to problems that don't exist.

I absolutely think crash testing is important, and I don't have any gripe with the methods (which are consistent with Latin NCAP etc) - if anything it has to be more rigorous, no doubt (and good to see that they're improving on that). So count me out of the "crash testing itself is nonsense" squad.

My question is purely regarding what is discussed in the link I had provided - the discrepancies, sweeping things under the rug instead of actually being transparent, etc. I'll avoid repeating this again here. Nobody has satisfactorily addressed these. Manufacturers have turned this "stars" to a huge marketing tool by calling themselves "safest car" manufacturers (and their untested cars too are assumed to be safe). All the more reason for the organization to be more transparent and consistent, I would say. But again, I know I may be in the minority here, and all of this doesn't mean I don't value their test results. I really do. I'm just skeptical for good reasons and I feel it's important to raise these questions.

Anyway, none taken. Cheers!

[Carma2017]

Originally Posted by The Rationalist

What is the point of this thread? Forget GNCAP, if Maruti is confident about three safety of their cars, they should insist on BNCAP to be implemented soon. Once Government of India does crash testing, all those who are against GNCAP can come back and argue that crash testings aren't ideal thing, there are other factors, at least cars are safer than two wheelers etc. There are a bunch of naysayers for crash testing, for them no objective data will be enough. No point discussing with people having a prejudice. There is a saying in my language "you can awaken a sleeping person, but not someone who is pretending!".

BNCAP draft that is in circulation, as reported by my friends in the industry, is almost a carbon copy of the revised GNCAP norms. Hence, it will not give different results from GNCAP at all. One must remember, even our automotive regulations are derivatives of EU regulations. So, it will not be strange if BNCAP is inspired by GNCAP norms.

And why is every GNCAP discussion linked to Suzuki or Hyundai? It can be a generic discussion about the merits and demerits of a testing system that claims to be research backed and scientific. And yet they have different norms for different countries with more variants than Covid-19 itself. And the differences lie only not in tests conducted but also judgement criterion. For example, in some countries the head injury is judged only via Head Injury value whilst in others the deceleration value is also noted as a criteria for points. The science is confusing!! There are numerous such instances. Did you know that for child occupant safety points, you need to have specific child seat types as part of OEM accessory kitty? Those child seats as told to me by people in the know, hardly even sell in India and are mostly imported. The biggest selling child seats are available at 1/4 or 1/5 of the price of GNCAP compliant ones. So, is the child safety judgement criteria correct? In my opinion, these are the type of issues that should be debated.

Of course people will have their opinions. That is not prejudice.

[ron178]

Originally Posted by Carma2017

For example, in some countries the head injury is judged only via Head Injury value whilst in others the deceleration value is also noted as a criteria for points. The science is confusing!! There are numerous such instances.

Usually GNCAP, Latin NCAP, ASEAN NCAP and ANCAP (read: any programme where the FIA is involved) all use old Euro NCAP testing protocols. I take it you are citing the example of JNCAP here whose scoring systems are not comparable to most other NCAPs.

Originally Posted by Carma2017

Did you know that for child occupant safety points, you need to have specific child seat types as part of OEM accessory kitty? Those child seats as told to me by people in the know, hardly even sell in India and are mostly imported. The biggest selling child seats are available at 1/4 or 1/5 of the price of GNCAP compliant ones. So, is the child safety judgement criteria correct?

They don't have to be an OEM accessory unless the child seat manufacturer doesn't sell the seat in India. But you are correct about these seats being expensive and rare to find, and hence relevant.

Credit where it is due, Maruti Suzuki usually selects accessible child seats for the test. However these generally perform very badly, eg. Luster. Look at what happened in the WagonR (at 0:43).

https://youtu.be/KDNkZY3aChc?t=43

[SuperGirl_Dad]

Meaning to ask this for long time. Not related to GNCAP alone but for any country NCAP assessment:

Why is the car engine not running during these tests?

As recently observed in cricketer Pant crash, the car most likely catch fire in the event of a crash. Is this the way of saying - "Dont worry you have completed level 1 and saved from the crash by the crumple zones, now you have the next level to play that is escape the firing inferno"

Why cant the engines be running at atleast 1500 rpm (64 kmphr translates atleast 1500 rpm to 2000 rpm in most cars) and see if the engine is shut off in both front offset and side impact crash test. The side impact is particularly intriguing because most SUVs and MUVs topple up on side impact. Will the fuel tank cut off fuel supply or add fuel to the fire.

I doubt even US NCAP sponsored by IIHS does crash testing with engine running? Would like to learn more on why this is not performed as standard. Unless this is not followed how close are NCAP testing to real world crash scenario?

[Carma2017]

Originally Posted by SuperGirl_Dad

Meaning to ask this for long time. Not related to GNCAP alone but for any country NCAP assessment:

Why is the car engine not running during these tests?

It is for the testing agency safety as the fire risk is high. You are right when you say that NCAP tests do not look in to fire safety angle during crash.

[gitartha]

I voted a strong NO
My opinion is either GNCAP's intentions are completely genuine or they are malicious, there can be no middle group when the topic in hand is so important both in terms of safety of people as well as business economics/profitability.
Since it has been evident beyond doubt that the guys running GNCAP aren't exactly saintly, who knows to what extent they can go to further their agenda. Let's take a very extreme scenerio - as there is no third party /government audit of their operations, what stops them from removing critical structural members/ components from the cars, before crash testing cars by companies who do not pay them and who in principle oppose GNCAP ratings ? Not saying it happens, but is there someone to check?

[tbppjpr]

Originally Posted by gitartha

what stops them from removing critical structural members/ components from the cars, before crash testing cars by companies who do not pay them and who in principle oppose GNCAP ratings ? Not saying it happens, but is there someone to check?

Okay, so who is there to check if the 'saint' car companies are installing appropriate grade structural components before selling the cars to the customers? How do we ensure if the structure design of a particular model sold by a company is crash worthy or not?

[gitartha]

Originally Posted by tbppjpr

Okay, so who is there to check if the 'saint' car companies are installing appropriate grade structural components before selling the cars to the customers? How do we ensure if the structure design of a particular model sold by a company is crash worthy or not?

I guess this is the job of a regulatory body like ARAI to ensure that the production models are of same exact specifications as the sample vehicle on basis of which the homologation of the model was done. And I think this is actually being done. Also a proper government regulatory will have the power to impose penalties on any violations, something that a privately owned corporate organisation like GNCAP can never dream of doing anywhere across the world. To make make an analogy, we need a stringent SEBI, not a short Selling profit oriented Hindenburg Research

[ron178]

Originally Posted by gitartha

what stops them from removing critical structural members/ components from the cars, before crash testing cars by companies who do not pay them and who in principle oppose GNCAP ratings ? Not saying it happens, but is there someone to check?

The manufacturer is invited to send a representative to witness the setup of the test and confirm its adherence to the published testing protocols. Dummy numbers & post-crash measurements, and results of subjective analysis like spot weld inspection and knee impact zones are also shared with the OEM so usually they know what the result is well in advance of the one-to-one meeting held a few weeks before publication. This is not some secret test performed behind the manufacturer’s back or obviously it would be ridiculous to expect consumers to trust the results of a private self governing body.

How meaningful the results are is another question entirely. I for one think a combination of exaggerated communication on the part of Global NCAP, misleading advertisements from manufacturers and the unchecked propagation of results by modern ‘influencers’ has led to consumers making incorrect inferences from the results to the point that the narrative on consumer safety ratings become very dangerous. It is important to keep in mind that scope of the tests is very narrow and sadly that is not very easy for GNCAP to change because balancing relevance and repeatability is a problem with any kind of laboratory testing.

Even if we ignore the need for safer road users/infrastructure, in the domain of vehicle safety itself, GNCAP ratings are causing many consumers to put all their eggs in one basket. Not only did the [old] ratings ignore crash prevention entirely, they also neglected a significant part of passive safety, with consumers left hoping that the passenger compartment remaining stable in the frontal offset test would help in other crashes. For example, it is very common on social media to find crashes between incompatible cars, or underrides, where the front longitudinal is fully intact (meaning the GNCAP’s ODB test provided no benefit) yet the car’s performance is incorrectly tied to its GNCAP rating.

I haven’t voted on the poll because I simply don’t think Global NCAP’s ratings are fudged or inconsistent with the protocols published. I just think they are way out of line with the expectation they have set with consumers. For now, the inability to correctly establish a link between the philosophical and technical aspects of GNCAP star ratings remains dangerous.

But consumers are often very insecure about car purchases, even more so in India where the market is a duopoly and the social importance of a car is very high, so when they make a unconventional purchase decision that goes against the herd, they feel the need to justify their decisions (understandably so, because buying a car is a big investment) and in the absence of much else, they use star ratings as a source of external validation, so attempts to fix the problem usually end up in hurt egos (as a VW-Skoda-Honda fanboy, I know). Unfortunately the longer it takes to fix the problem the more people it will kill, and the problem itself is incredibly complex.

[gitartha]

Originally Posted by ron178

the social importance of a car is very high, so when they make a unconventional purchase decision that goes against the herd, they feel the need to justify their decisions (understandably so, because buying a car is a big investment) and in the absence of much else, they use star ratings as a source of external validation,

You have hit the nail on the head. Very relevant and well put forward point in current times. Star Ratings also perhaps help to cushion the post purchase dissonance happening out of the ownership experience of a "tank" rather than a Car

[sidmumbai]

Voted Yes for the poll. In my opinion all cars that have good ratings are inherently safer than those untested/with poor ratings. This is only one of the aspects. There are lot of cars that come with ADAS features that would help the driver avoid accidents. Ideally they should also be considered if the overall safety of the car is being assesed. That, is beyond the scope of the GNCAP ratings. But in summary i trust the ratings as all the cars are tested in the same standards.

[epiccross]

Originally Posted by ron178

How meaningful the results are is another question entirely. I for one think a combination of exaggerated communication on the part of Global NCAP, misleading advertisements from manufacturers and the unchecked propagation of results by modern ‘influencers’ has led to consumers making incorrect inferences from the results to the point that the narrative on consumer safety ratings become very dangerous.

But consumers are often very insecure about car purchases, even more so in India where the market is a duopoly and the social importance of a car is very high, so when they make a unconventional purchase decision that goes against the herd, they feel the need to justify their decisions (understandably so, because buying a car is a big investment) and in the absence of much else, they use star ratings as a source of external validation, so attempts to fix the problem usually end up in hurt egos (as a VW-Skoda-Honda fanboy, I know). Unfortunately the longer it takes to fix the problem the more people it will kill, and the problem itself is incredibly complex.

I wish I could like this twice. This echoes what I have on my mind but couldn't put well in words so well. Personally, I had fallen for this narrative and had recommended Altroz strongly - and whenever I'd taken the car out, I absolutely did not like driving the car for several reasons. What you mentioned regarding external validation is so bang on, though - on multiple levels. Well articulated, ron! You constantly provide the most nuanced takes on GNCAP here and I really appreciate that.

[Tiago_Boy]

I came across this video from 2024 Global NCAP World Congress. In the video, presenter is displaying the commendable improvements done by Tata Motors in last 1 decade.

The video starts by showing test results of Nano Crash Test in 2014 and it quickly moves on to 5 Star Rated Altroz, which was launched a few years later.

The presenter concludes the video by highlighting the difference that can be made by car makers if they acknowledge safety concerns.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6LH6...wwMnI0ajhhc3hv

[ron178]

Taking this discussion here as it is inconveniencing people on the 3XO thread.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

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

I am an engineer, I saw it from an engineers perspective.

So after the lawyer's view and the engineer's view, please take the self-certified keyboard warrior's perhaps boring and inconclusive point of view.

The podcast does have some problematic claims, I've only speedrun it in fragments so far, and while I don't think it is motivated maliciously, there's a kind of disconnect between the problem and the solution they propose (and some factual errors).

I disagree with that Schumi guy when he says something like "it is kowtow to manufacturers' requirements, it should be challenging for them". Actually Global NCAP even takes pride in that and makes it very hard for manufacturers to get their way (which is desirable) but I take issue with the fact that that alone is their motivation, when being "challenging" really should be a by-product of deploying new tests motivated by original research, not something for the sake of being challenging.

I do think Global NCAP's assessment protocols are created keeping in mind "how much will this encourage the industry to change" before "how will this help a shopper considering this car". Perfect example = fitment rates. Gradually increasing the % of production that needs to have say 6 airbags or ESC to get 5 stars does, in fact, encourage manufacturers to fit them, and in the long term, that's good for consumers. But it makes very little sense for a shopper looking to buy that car, as the rating for a base variant they are buying could depend hugely on a top variant they are not.

There are a couple of factual errors in whatever part of the video I watched:
- a dummy reading does not itself indicate the "seriousness" of the injury. There is a standard scale for that, ranging from mild-moderate-serious-severe-critical (see: AIS). What the dummy reading predicts confidently is the probability that the injury is serious or fatal on that scale.
- new dummies like THOR (that Global NCAP does not use) do have instrumented abdomens and pelvises.

But what deeply concerns me, even more than the video, is your claim that there's a lot you can get away with in a 5 star car when there is plenty of evidence to show how sensitive ODB test results can be to minor geometric changes.

As for speed and offset, I'll leave IIHS to do the talking.

Originally Posted by ashishk29

With some margin of error, yes. The structure of the vehicle remains the same. So there is all the likelihood that the car will behave in the same away.

https://youtu.be/tZChyjaqNBI?si=yf8mQkXEFmKp3gEq

Why offset matters:

https://youtu.be/ByPAhoeU6UQ?si=jBLiYEMcrn3Vz2Gk

There is another less known issue with the offset deformable barrier test: it provides a very vertically homogeneous structure while actual car-to-car crashes can be INCREDIBLY sensitive to interaction of the car's longitudinals with the crash partner.


Please see Wykes, N. et al's presentation at the 1998 ESV conference where identical cars with good structural performance in Euro NCAP's 64km/h ODB test, were put through a car-to-car crash with one raised by 100mm and it led to significant collapse in both cars.

For a more qualitative explanation, here is the abstract of a 2002 paper from TRL, a founding member of Euro NCAP and their first test lab.

In rigid block crash tests, the block totally controls the way the impact deformation is distributed across the car’s front. Cars designed for such tests have obtained good test performance, with limited numbers of frontal load paths having small frontal areas interacting with the block. When such cars impact each other, the chances that their stiff structures interact is very limited. The offset deformable frontal impact test was intended to encourage manufacturers to increase the number of load paths being effective in car-to-car impacts. Unfortunately, so far, few manufacturers have taken advantage of the weight-saving opportunities of this approach. Most have simply increased the stiffness of the car’s main longitudinals, although some have had to weaken very stiff engine subframes. For load spreading, all cars now have substantial crossbeams between the main longitudinals but few other frontal connections have been improved. No cars currently have effective lateral connections, at the bonnet latch platform level, and few have any significant vertical connections between the lower load path and any upper load path. Consequently, when two cars collide, there is little to prevent the lateral fork effect, where the stiff members of one vehicle penetrate the soft areas of the other.

So excuse me if I think it is hugely irresponsible to claim based on cherry-picked examples that...

An absolute idiot could trash a 5 star rated car in an absolutely horrific way. destroy 2 other cars in the process, and still survive

...when researchers in a controlled environment could make minor changes in at least three different ways (speed, offset and ride height) and get catastrophically different outcomes.

How to deal with this? I don't think unnecessarily trashing Global NCAP, blaming everything on driver behaviour or ignoring the role of vehicles in Vision Zero, is the solution. Instead I find that doing some soul-searching helps. Why are crash test ratings such an emotional topic in the first place? Maybe it's because in a unique society like India that is among the handful moving from collectivism to individualism, it is socially unacceptable to use our disposition for self-presentation so we tend to use external factors like our cars and their crash test ratings. Or maybe it's because the very idea of spending on/sacrificing for/promoting five star cars and not believing they will save your life if one crashes, introduces some very uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

And there I think lies the solution: accepting that it is perfectly okay to buy a car with a good crash test rating without professing (or even internally accepting) that it will save you if you crash. I pushed my parents hard to get a Polo instead of a Baleno in 2018 and for the next few months spent time getting excited by threads here of VWs saving people's lives while conveniently ignoring the times they did not.

Don't get me wrong, I still love the car to bits, but I don't need a psychologist to tell me that having visions of getting into a crash and being saved by my Polo was unhealthy.

[ashishk29]

Originally Posted by ron178

But what deeply concerns me, even more than the video, is your claim that there's a lot you can get away with in a 5 star car when there is plenty of evidence to show how sensitive ODB test results can be to minor geometric changes.
.

I want to clarify something.

When I said that you can get away with more idiocy in a 5 star car, I was not encouraging idiotic driving. I was not saying that a 5 star car will negate the human factor.

The previous assertions on the thread were that a 5 star rating is meaningless/useless/pointless at anything above 64kmph. The previous assertion was that if you're an idiot even in a 5 star rated car, it means you're going to die.

I was merely countering that 5 star rated cars can at times save you from stuff well outside of the test parameters. I have provided umpteen examples of 5 star rated cars saving occupants in the most unorthodox of accidents. Including one where a shipping container fell on top of a 700, which AFAIK no testing lab in the world simulates.

That example of a person trashing 2 cars was meant to highlight the other end of the spectrum, where the driver was a complete and total maniac, probably should've been charged with attempted murders irrespective of the cars being empty, and still walked away.

If we subtract the malice from that example, and substitute that with, say, a novice driver who has made an error in judgement and flogged their car too hard, and is now at a speed they cannot safely control!

Substitute that with a case where some car simply has had a mechanical malfunction (A la' bollywood) where somehow all 4 brakes have failed.

My point was that even in such situations, a 5 star rated shell will bolster your chances of survival. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this very basic assertion.

My point was merely a counter to the previous person very strongly claiming that 5 star rated cars will not save you at anything above 64kmph. You can go through those responses and see if I'm exaggerating.

I simply do not agree with that premise. In fact, that premise is so thoroughly unscientific that it really rubbed me the wrong way.

Furthermore, I want to add something.

There was already no dearth of people claiming that crash test ratings are meaningless.
This recent podcast from Shumi has suddenly brought a new wave of life to way too many people.
Way too many people taking the word of a person who used to proudly claim to have NOTHING to do with cars.
Way too many people taking the word of a person who personally does not use even a single product that is not the highest safety rating based on third party tests similar to GNCAP (SHARP, SNELL, CE etc.)

In fact, look at this: https://www.overdrive.in/news-cars-a...en-make-sense/

Some quotes:

• "I have worn the absolute best helmet I can afford for every single day ever since I started riding professionally. That means the best materials go into every single component of the helmet."
• "And they did the right thing by sticking very close to the best helmet standard available at the time, the ECE 22.03, the European helmet standard at the time."
• "It also means that all ECE 22.05 helmets will, almost automatically, exceed the BIS standard. However, today, the Indian standard lags behind the global standard. It is widely accepted that Europe has not only the best standard but also the most stringent testing and certification program."
• "I do have a solution. In the car and motorcycle market, vehicles that exceed a certain set of conditions - usually connected to the engine size - are allowed to present a global vehicle certification instead of having to be homologated for Indian roads."

So it is quite clear that he does care about safety standards and ratings when it comes to his personal usage. Just not when it comes to cars, a product that he neither owns nor uses.

This whole situation invokes a feeling of fear and despair in me.

I fear that this will eventually deflate the safer cars for India movement.
I fear that one day, when I want to switch my car for a new one, nobody will be bothering about making safe vehicles anymore.
I fear that I will be left with no choice but to buy a poorly built car, for there is nothing else to buy.
I will spend every single kilometer on the road in nerve-wracking fear, for I know just HOW irresponsible the drivers on our roads are.

This is a "but I did not speak up" moment for me. I am afraid for my future.

EDIT2:

We take so many standards for granted today, without questioning.

For example, we take ISI at face value, but did you know that helmet manufacturers do not have to send their products to ARAI or ISI for testing? No.
They can certify helmets in house! Where is the skepticism about ISI?

The weight limits they had set for helmets would restrict anything that was not made of carbon fibre! They had set a limit of 1200gm for helmets. In reality, even safe certified carbon fibre helmets aren't that light!
This was very clearly a poor standard, and yet we were ok with that?

We take FSSAI at face value, even when there are several examples of tests LATER finding out that products were in fact dangerous? E.g. Patanjali, MDH, and so on. We are ok with those.

We take our BIS standards at face value as well, and are ok with buying all electronic devices.

So why this skepticism only for GNCAP? Why are only they being scrutinised?

And why has Shumi, who rejected to even respond to questions about cars even in a single line, making videos about it suddenly? And that too as if he's an authority on it?
Brother hasn't reviewed a single car in his career!