[ron178]

Originally Posted by ashishk29

The previous assertions on the thread were that a 5 star rating is meaningless/useless/pointless at anything above 64kmph.

But you claimed a lot more than that. Not paraphrasing:

A 5 star rated car will definitely be safe even at 100kmph

Originally Posted by ashishk29

It will still reduce the the force of the impact that gets transferred onto the occupants. That's how physics works.

But is it? If the crumple zone is equally engaged in both crashes, then whatever energy had to be spent in plastic deformation of load paths in the crumple zone, was spent in equal amounts in both cases. Ideally, the remaining kinetic energy should travel rearward as elastic potential energy as load paths in the crumple zone exert forces on "higher tensile" load paths in the passenger compartment.

Unfortunately, steels do not behave as kindly, linearly or even smoothly as you seem to think they do. Even higher tensile steels have a well-defined "elastic" limit where they will start to undergo sudden plastic deformation without warning. It is signs of reaching this limit that make NCAPs classify a passenger-cell load path as having failed or not, and specifically in Global NCAP and Latin NCAP the passenger compartment is rated stable only if at least two load paths have not failed (this is a heuristic you will not find in black-and-white in the protocols). Plastic deformation in the passenger compartment is undesirable because a small increase in force could cause great further deformation of the passenger cell, making the deformation measurements unreliable. That is the idea behind the -1 modifier for an unstable passenger compartment.

The point is: you have not accounted for the possibility that that very increase in force transferred to the passenger cell load paths could cause them to breach their elastic limit, beyond which they behave very differently. Yet you confidently use simple linear equations in the name of 'science' to determine force transferred to the passenger cell in an above-64km/h crash (and remember, we're being very kind to the car in assuming it's offset deformable barrier in the first place)?

Forget the IIHS, take it from ADAC, the very lab where your XUV300 was tested. Mind the German subtitles.

https://youtu.be/Zjzh8Gar2Lo?si=WlSBJMZLy7Ebf1rk

I reiterate, if small changes in the lab cause such high deviation in outcomes, don't expect me to infer from the bizarre crashes you've shown that stars can predict the outcomes of crashes with high confidence. You have most likely obtained a spurious correlation because your sample is not representative. I could very easily pick examples from the many gory pictures of five star cars with serious or fatal injury and zero-star cars people have walked away from, and show you a strong negative correlation between stars and protection against serious or fatal injury but there would be nothing 'scientific' or ethical about that either.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the point you are trying to get across and frustrated at being unable to, is that even with all reasonable driver training, crashes will happen, so the argument of five stars being useless if the driver is bad, is futile, because five stars is for when drivers are bad. If that is the case, I get your point. Changing the human is not a very practical solution, which is exactly why other parties involved need to take responsibility for what is in their control. That is the underlying principle of the Safe Systems approach (someone had made a thread here recently as well, I believe) which is what NCAPs, iRAPs etc. are fulfilling. But I argue that there's too little in carmakers' control for us to be telling idiots that their car is idiot-proof (excuse my language).

----

I honestly don't know MotorInc or Schumi well enough to comment on your claims about his background. I am not into bikes, so I did not know him before, and I have seen only a handful of videos from them. I stand by what I've said regardless of what the video might say.

[ashishk29]

Originally Posted by ron178

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the point you are trying to get across and frustrated at being unable to, is that even with all reasonable driver training, crashes will happen, so the argument of five stars being useless if the driver is bad, is futile, because five stars is for when drivers are bad. If that is the case, I get your point. Changing the human is not a very practical solution, which is exactly why other parties involved need to take responsibility for what is in their control.

Thank you! That is exactly my point.
People are always gonna be people. You can't "fix" the human element ever.

Even if you are a perfect driver, the thousands upon thousands other people on the road aren't.

And that is why I cannot bear people trivialising the very basic criteria that is *NCAP.
I am not even saying that GNCAP is the be-all end-all of tests. It's a very basic test to give you some semblance of a survival probability. It's like an introductory course.

And here we have people refuting even that. It frustrates me to no end.

P.S. please ignore the attached image. I was actually going through the elasticity of HSS to improve my knowledge of it. (Which, BTW is quite predictable up until a very extreme point)
I wanted to talk about it, but seeing as you get exactly the point I was trying to make, that is no longer needed.

[SuperGirl_Dad]

Originally Posted by ashishk29

P.S. please ignore the attached image. I was actually going through the elasticity of HSS to improve my knowledge of it. (Which, BTW is quite predictable up until a very extreme point)
I wanted to talk about it, but seeing as you get exactly the point I was trying to make, that is no longer needed.

OT: Sorry for quoting this, but what exactly is the change in elasticity here? If you mean plasticity is changing then it should be fine.

[CARDEEP]

Originally Posted by theAutomaniac

3. The whole 2.0L MJD Fiasco-
The 2.0L MJD equipped cars from Tata, MG and Jeep sell almost 8-9k cars every month and yet, the whole allegations regarding driver safety are being ignored. Isn't this engine an obstacle in attaining the targets for "Safer Cars for India"? The ignorance is concerning!

Originally Posted by 1.2TSI7DSG

IIRC this is a manufacturer's choice. Crash rating is not a mandatory requirement. It costs to test.

Joke of the decade it is. Tata decided to say that Harrier is safe because it didn't suffer damage when multiple harriers crashed into Spressos. Seems like Harriers have problems (not joking) in seeing tiny cars due to the blind spot by the high bonnet and the low seat. And Bhargava doesn't joke when Maruti invests into Maruti Driving school which will reduce the number of accidents rather than safe cars for india. "Safe drivers for India" is the need of the hour

I have a Tata Safari XZA (2021 variant) & I did manage to drive the car in a road side drain due to extreme fog. There was much damage to bumper & gearbox was also damaged, but there was no so called intrusion in cabin as claimed in this forum & my limbs & that of my co-passenger are intact.

Then the new Safari & Harrier manage 5-star ratings. Not sure why Tata always ends up being bashed up for no reason except that that version was not tested.

[ashishk29]

Originally Posted by SuperGirl_Dad

OT: Sorry for quoting this, but what exactly is the change in elasticity here? If you mean plasticity is changing then it should be fine.

Yeah, both. I was going through details of it to understand what regions of the curve cover plastic vs elastic behaviour.

Originally Posted by CARDEEP

I have a Tata Safari XZA (2021 variant) & I did manage to drive the car in a road side drain due to extreme fog. There was much damage to bumper & gearbox was also damaged, but there was no so called intrusion in cabin as claimed in this forum & my limbs & that of my co-passenger are intact.

Then the new Safari & Harrier manage 5-star ratings. Not sure why Tata always ends up being bashed up for no reason except that that version was not tested.

I am glad you guys turned up okay.

Engine intrusion doesn't occur in all the cases, and would certainly not occur in the petrol version.

Tata always ends up being bashed, same as Mahindra, for simply being Indian brands. People generally do not tend to go beyond reels and shorts as their source of information. And there, I have seen a very strong bias against Indian brands, even when said Indian brands have received awards from JD Power for good initial quality for 2 years in a row.

The original commentator also claimed that Maruti was doing more for road safety through their driving school program, what a joke. I guess nobody will take this seriously until it's their own self behind the steering vehicle of a car that is about to face an accident.

I have personally been rear ended by a minibus on the highway through no fault of my own. I had indicated, i was switching lanes slowly. And the bus driver was simply not paying attention. What use is a driving school program in such a situation? My mom was sitting on the rear seat, and didn't receive so much as a scratch, even though most of the rear quarter panel, the boot lid was destroyed. That was a 4 star GNCAP shell (Jazz).

This "safe drivers" crowd conveniently ignore that it is nigh impossible to correct the driving skill of every person on the road. There will always be cases like the recent Porsche accident in Pune where you could literally be just minding your own business and get run over by a drunk teenager at the helm of an EV costing millions.

I have personally found it pointless to argue with such people. They will never be convinced. I wonder how many of the people making this argument are safe drivers to begin with. But that's another story.

[Mortis]

Originally Posted by ashishk29

And here we have people refuting even that. It frustrates me to no end.

.

I agree wholeheartedly. I had the same view on another similar thread to this.
There are billions or trillions of possible combinations and scenarios for how an accident takes place. There is no way of testing all of them other than a couple of common or likely scenarios and angles.

However flawed the GNCAP testing system may be, we the customers are benefitted from safer cars or atleast an idea of the current safety levels of the vehicle we own.

I fail to see how this is a bad thing as long as GNCAP isn't fudging results after getting a bribe from a manufacturer to give an unsafe car a higher safety rating.

It just seems like a bit of brand loyalty or some sort of extension buyers remorse where people try to justify their car purchased for XYZ reason. Don't worry about it guys we all have different criteria for buying a car and there aren't any cars out there that tick ALL the boxes, we have to settle for one that ticks MOST of them.

[Venks_144]

Toyota found guilty in fudging crash tests leaves a bigger question on how these regulatory bodies are actually portraying cars as "safe"

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/inter...luxury%20brand (Vehicle test fraud found at Toyota, 4 other makers in Japan).

[ashishk29]

Originally Posted by Venks_144

Toyota found guilty in fudging crash tests leaves a bigger question on how these regulatory bodies are actually portraying cars as "safe"
[/url].

Right. So because some Japanese auto manufacturers submitted falsified data to the Japan authorities in the process of vehicle certification, we should doubt every single NCAP?

https://www.reuters.com/business/aut...es-2024-06-03/

Please go through the actual details.

This isn't related to any NCAP. This is related to the manufacturer submitting falsified data to the government.
This wasn't NCAP putting out wrong information.

NCAPs do their own testing. The photos and videos are out for everyone to see.

How is new car certification data comparable to any other "regulatory authority" ?

See here, it was a literal case of manufacturer bamboozling/fooling the government!

Yes, in theory any regulatory authority can fail. Including FSSAI, BIS, ISI, and so on. What is a common person supposed to do? Give up on buying all products?