[ph03n!x]

Originally Posted by shibujp

...
Sure a loved one travelling in a car that is GNCAP rated negates the cause of death in an accident provided they are belted up only 10% of the time. But anytime they walk on the road or use a two wheeler there is a high chance they will end up in the 65% statistic of fatalities.

Sure give GNCAP the importance it deserves but not at the expense of the HUGE road safety question marks that it does not address.

Drive on,
Shibu

So true, completely agree with your POV.

But do you make all life decisions based on statistics? Or given a choice that - within your budget/ desired segment - there is a "safe" option vs. an "unsafe" or "unknown" option, you'll ignore the safety aspect?

We can choose to buy something that suits us the best - be it safety, features, etc. Like I said, free will.

The comparison with walking statistics, btw, made me laugh Heart diseases are statically the leading cause of death - and several times more than road accidents. What do we do about that? Same answer for your perspective pedestrian/ two-wheeler vs. a safe car.

We try to do what we can to be safe. Beyond that, crap happens. And we're hopefully with strong heart, ain't cancer prone, have a decent pair of lungs, don't binge on sugars... and of course are not unlucky victim as a pedestrian or two-wheeler rider, or had buckled up in a car that hopefully withstood whatever impact.

That's all that is in our control.

[gopalnt]

While Maruti may be a market leader, it's market share has come down from 50+ % points to around 40+ % points over the last 2 years or so. But this loss has not been Hyundai's gain but for TATA's and Mahindra's.

It shows that customers have gotten aware of safer cars but it's just that they are not preferring VAG over home-grown brands. Ironically, the after sales service of T&MM are as bad as VAG. May be the accessibility to parts or perception of service cost or resale value is making look T&MM better than VAG.

[fhdowntheline]

Originally Posted by Tom Sooraj

I don't know why people are bashing Maruti. I'm not supporting Maruti, but sharing what I really feel.

I feel Maruti has shown some improvement in the safety aspect when compared to Hyundai/Kia.

Leave the WagonR, but I'm quite impressed with the Alto K10 not only for the safety ratings (it may vary depending on the presence of other safety devices like 6 airbags, etc.), but also for the achievement of a stable bodyshell.

Even Tata Tiago/Tigor has an unstable bodyshell. And we also don't know what will be the GNCAP scores according to the updated GNCAP protocol for the Tiago/Tigor. So, cannot comment more on that.

And one more thing which is to be noted is, a car costing around 6 lakhs (Alto K10) has a stable bodyshell and a stable A-pillar after the crash at 64 kmph, whereas a car costing more than 12 lakhs (Kia Carens) has an unstable bodyshell and a collapsing A-pillar after the crash at 64 kmph.

This is like saying, Maruti has improved from Zero to 1 or 2, so give it some credit atleast. VAG 2.0 cars scored 5 stars- big deal ? They were expected to do any way. If Tiago/Tigor score below 4 stars -then, they will have fallen below standard. Let us not start from the lowest common denominator if we have to really swear by GNCAP. It should be 4/5 stars without exception. Maruti scoring a 2 star with stable bodyshell is not any creditable achievement.

[GeeTee TSI]

Discussions on relative affordability (two wheeler vs entry level car) as well as personal habits of (not) belting up distort the intent of these GNCAP tests.

Customers should KNOW which cars are relatively safer or not. But for these tests, this nugget of information will never surface beyond touchscreen, sunroof and the 'shiny' stuff OEMs highlight. I do not expect poor performing OEMs to be saints and nonchalantly flaunt their 2*/3* scores.

Furthermore, every segment deserves structurally safe (I even go the extent of saying 5* rated) cars, right from the smallest, lightest of hatchbacks. There is no need to expect a trade-off in safety in the same breadth as size or horsepower when going down the segments

[hitman30]

Originally Posted by ac 427

Because when you are the market leader, you have to behave like one.

Going back to my first point, when you are the market leader, it's your responsibility to introduce new ideas, new formats, new ways of doing things.. because the cost of failure for a market leader is far lower than for a number 7 or 8.
Ac

Umm, how exactly should a market leader behave? I guess by continuing being a leader.

• New ideas - So many products in the pipeline! So many offerings. Catering to every segment of the market they want to be in.
• New way of doing things - Why fix something that ain't broken?
• Cost of failure - IMHO, Maruti would be the last one standing. Nobody understands their customers as Maruti does. If you had to invest in the equity of any car manufacturer, who would you pick?

I get where you are coming from and completely understand your sentiments. My next car will definitely not be a Maruti.

Safety is far below in the list of requirements of an average car buyer in India. Just see the sheer number of bike riders without helmets.

I think below would be the list of requirements in the order of importance:

1. Ticket price
2. Mileage
3. Body type - Longer and taller preferred
4. Lower cost of maintenance
5. Features! (Sunroof, Moonroof, no roof )
6. Safety(Or should I say perceived safety), build quality.

Maruti easily ticks the first 5 off the list. And so they are and will be the market leaders for a long long time.

[MotorDev]

Mod Note: There are several language, spelling & grammatical errors in your posts. This negatively affects the forum experience for other readers.

Kindly ensure that you proof-read your posts prior to submission. Also, it would be a good idea to use a spell-checker (Grammarly available as a browser extension and is highly recommended).

[fhdowntheline]

I mentioned in my earlier post, " if we have to swear by GNCAP". Unfortunately there is no minimum compliance standard for vehicle safety design. That is why we look at agencies like GNCAP for some structured model. It may not be perfect, but at least it gives some indicator of build quality. Its a shame that the 3rd/ 4th largest automobile market in the world is still awaiting the formal Bharat vehicle safety standard implementation.

[Karthik.guru]

Originally Posted by ron178

The manufacturer only has to sponsor the extra tests, not the entire assessment. But yes it appears at least partial sponsorship is required for anything above two stars.

As for the Wagon R it looks like it did not have ESC at the time it was selected for testing.

So…I might have to discard my theory that even if GNCAP buy a car with ESC they won’t test the system. We’ll never know until they actually buy a car with ESC themselves. But, nevertheless, if they’re allowing ESC as optional on any variant for three stars it only makes sense that they buy a car with ESC instead of assuming it won’t qualify.

Thanks for sharing the snippet from that document and the interview.

They interview does indicate the possibility that the Wagon R was procured by them before ESC was made standard by MS, which was sometime in early Feb 2023 (as per media reports). Even if it was offered on some variants during their time of procurement, GNCAP seems to have some specific criteria for what would qualify/ warrant their selection.

"100% of the best-selling variant (or same number of units as the best-selling variant across all the variants" - I read this a dozen times but could not comprehend it

But what puzzles me the most is the contradiction between procuring cars in complete secrecy, but also requiring manufacturers to sponsor certain tests.

Does this mean that the manufacturer receives an email out of the blue from GNCAP stating that one of their cars is being tested and they have to sponsor some tests? What happens if the manufacturer refuses?

Suppose a car has ESC as standard, and GNCAP procures a car with ESC, but the manufacturer refuses to sponsor the test, what happens then? No ESC test on a car that has ESC? Or do they just state in the Fact Sheet that the car has ESC but don't count it towards the ratings. I think TBHP also needs to do an interview with that chap from GNCAP.

Now that I think about it, maybe this is why MS made ESC as standard? Maybe they received that email from GNCAP and all hell broke loose in Vasant Kunj. So they made ESC standard across all variants hoping that idiots like us would pick up on it and question GNCAP's procedures. MS if you're reading this, its definitely working.

Originally Posted by shibujp

As you have rightly brought out this last line of defence that is getting 90% of the safety debate on forums like this hardly addresses 10% of the problem. the rest 90% of the problem lies in issues like not wearing seatbelts.

And you are absolutely correct my good sir, and I think most other people on the forum would also agree with you. Infact I'm sure that if we ask random people on the street on what makes a good driver, "following rules" would not be at the top of most lists. But all this should not be at the expense of discussions around making safer cars. Both these dimensions are integral in making roads safer and talking about one without the other is only half the solution.

[Pequod]

Let us for a moment hypothesize that GNCAP ratings are in fact only of academic interest, and shall not make any difference to the ground reality of the terrible traffic (and/or civic?) sense in our country. The question is, does the latter necessarily preempt the need for the former? That’s akin to saying we don’t need safe cars, since we are anyway probably going to be killed by chaotic traffic and inadequate infrastructure!

Of course, I understand that a large number of our countrymen may not be in a position to afford a 5-star rated car as their first purchase, or that many of them might be ignorant of the need for safety first while being bedazzled by the array of features on modern cars. I would cite my case as example – our first car was the Hyundai i10 in 2010. Of course that was a different time, but then we looked at the Polo, the Figo and ended up buying the i10 because we had to get a car before the monsoons.

Once we started doing frequent highway drives between Chennai-Bangalore-Trivandrum in 2015, the shortcomings of the i10 became all too apparent. So in 2016 we bought the Ford Ecosport, our primary criteria being a heftier car with 2 airbags and ABS at the least. And come 2022, we were sure that nothing less than 6 airbags, ABS with ESC and the best build quality in our budget would do – and so ended up with a sunroof that we frankly don’t need in our VW Virtus!

Of course, if there is an inherent bias built in to the GNCAP methodology, I am all for criticizing it.

[suhaas307]

It is beyond appalling to see MSIL, the largest market-shareholder in the country, repeatedly manufacture unsafe and unroadworthy cars, and get away with it! Having lobbyists in their fold, to ensure the government panders to their petulant behaviour also helps, I suppose.

At this point, I am not sure what could be more appalling, MSIL manufacturing unsafe cars or MSIL justifying manufacturing unsafe cars at media press-conferences by deflecting and blaming infrastructure and what have you?!

It is also clear from MSIL's brazen and lackadaisical attitude that it stems from their desire to satisfy the bean-counters and not much else. Clearly, they do not believe they owe it to the country and its citizens who, thus far, have given them so much in return for nearly 40 years!

At first, we enthusiasts demanded that MSIL give us interesting products for a change, like the Swift Sport, the Ignis Allgrip or the 3-door Jimny. Now, all we want is a car that does not fold like paper when subjected to routine crash-tests!

Is it really such a large ask?

[ron178]

Originally Posted by Karthik.guru

"100% of the best-selling variant (or same number of units as the best-selling variant across all the variants" - I read this a dozen times but could not comprehend it

The best I can understand is, it needs to either be fit to all units of the best selling variant, or an equivalent number of units across the whole variant spread.

If there are three variants p<q<r that are produced in 600, 400 and 300 units a month respectively. Then the ESC criteria for 4 or five stars is:
Either
-p has ESC
OR
Of p+q+r together at least 600 units produced have ESC, so effectively only q and r could have ESC. But IIRC it gets more complicated than that because ESC has to be an independent option.

Originally Posted by Karthik.guru

Does this mean that the manufacturer receives an email out of the blue from GNCAP stating that one of their cars is being tested and they have to sponsor some tests? What happens if the manufacturer refuses?

From what I understand, when the sealed car arrives at the laboratory, the manufacturer is informed of the date of the test, asked to supply data and invited to attend.

Originally Posted by Karthik.guru

Suppose a car has ESC as standard, and GNCAP procures a car with ESC, but the manufacturer refuses to sponsor the test, what happens then? No ESC test on a car that has ESC? Or do they just state in the Fact Sheet that the car has ESC but don't count it towards the ratings.

This is what I said is a grey area. I don’t know if they will or will not do the ESC test. Earlier I thought they wouldn’t, but now I’m considering the possibility that it depends on if the car they have bought has ESC or not, so maybe if it’s standard they’ll do it. My concern is what if the model has ESC as optional? It’s a bit ridiculous if whether they do an ESC test or not depends on what variant they decide to buy.

Originally Posted by Karthik.guru

I think TBHP also needs to do an interview with that chap from GNCAP.

I did video chat with him once in late 2021 and he was very chatty and transparent about the issues pointed out and much preferred it to email. But multiple requests for comment on the Swift’s missing ESC test have gone unanswered.

Originally Posted by Karthik.guru

Now that I think about it, maybe this is why MS made ESC as standard? Maybe they received that email from GNCAP and all hell broke loose in Vasant Kunj. So they made ESC standard across all variants hoping that idiots like us would pick up on it and question GNCAP's procedures. MS if you're reading this, it’s definitely working.

Hmm, it’s a possibility, although far-fetched. They know GNCAP are tight on funds and wouldn’t be able to procure another car if the safety equipment were suddenly to change and hence they could use the opportunity to question GNCAP’s operating procedures, because technically GNCAP should be publishing results for whatever is on sale at the time of publication. But…it doesn’t explain the Swift, which had ESC long before the test.

This reminds me what Hyundai and Kia allegedly did in Latin America which led to the old Tucson/Sportage’s results being delayed for nearly an year, until the new generations started to arrive, making Latin NCAP look bad for testing the old out-of-production cars of which only a few units were left in stock. They allegedly blocked delivery of replacement hoods and bumpers to the mystery shoppers making it impossible for Latin NCAP to perform pedestrian impact tests (in Latin NCAP the test is standard for all cars and no longer a special requirement).

[Mechanto]

Glad to see more and more cars in India are focusing on safety. I wish the government mandates every automaker to adhere to minimum safety standards.

[anjan_c2007]

MSIL is too happy and contented with its mass selling or best selling cars getting one and two stars, endangering the lives of hundreds of thousands of passengers. That appears to be a vast improvement from the ZERO all these earned just a few years back.

And they brag about some of their Nexa cars getting four to five stars that are very proudly portrayed on the front pages of newspapers and also supplemented by rooftop shouting advertisements on the electronic media.

Only hope that the gullible buyers see through the game and realise that they are on their own endangering the lives of themselves and their loved ones.

[SaiSW]

It's been ages since I saw articles about the implementation of BNVSAP. Has it been scrapped since or perhaps put on hold due to the lobbying powers from some corporations which would have adverse effects if such a nation wide govt supported scheme is rolled out?

[SaiSW]

Originally Posted by shibujp

There are only three car makers that benefit from the GNCAP marketing blitz - VAG, TATA and Mahindra which incidently are quite alike when it comes to after sales service. And getting after sales to levels fo Maruti and Hyundai is going to cost them way more (next to impossible) than sponsoring a few cars for GNCAP or even designing a platform.

If making well built cars is going to cost way less than maintaining standards of after sales service, then doesn't that show how little Suzuki cares about the citizens in one of it's biggest markets? If making well built cars is such a miniscule effort resource wise relative to maintaining after sales service standards, then a person wouldn't be wrong to make a safe assumption that a corporation with such a huge market share and such huge cash reserves should have no problem doing just that?!

Originally Posted by shibujp

VW is using 10 year old bodyshells that were tested for EURO-NCAP and have not brought any safety enhancements or improved platforms sold in the EU, preferring to bask in the light of the GNCAP ratings. So how they are better in terms for wanting to provide world class safety for India beats me. It is pure business sense for them.

If a brand such as VW with their miniscule market share is able to provide well built cars with quote "10 year old bodyshells", then what does that show for Maruti not being able to do the same considering they pump out new cars every 10 microseconds? It again goes to show the absolute worth that Suzuki places for the life of one of their customers.

Originally Posted by shibujp

Safety and security are the same. Defense should be in layers not the last line.

Agreed. Defense should be an all round effort, and right now neither does our country have stringent road safety procedures to combat fatalities and thus make up the "layers" nor does the market leader place enough value on a life to make up the "last line". So what do we do about it, do nothing and let things stay the same? Or do we make an effort to improve on both fronts?

Originally Posted by shibujp

I never said that doing 100kmph renders GNCAP useless. What I said is that ignoring a fundamental road safety parameter and then toting GNCAP as the end all of safety issues is ridiculous. As the statistics reveal the importance of GNCAP to the topic of safety in India is quite miniscule. Perhaps in the world of BHPians it is a big deal but not otherwise.

They do not have to be mutually exclusive of the other. You can have well built cars and safe driving habits. It is a lie fed to us by these very same corporations that making well built cars will result in the lower sections of society not being able to afford a car anymore. It will result in something surely, and that is going to be a few red coloured rows with downward arrows in their quarterly/annual reports. Are those rows worth making a well built car, that is upto the corporation to decide.

Originally Posted by shibujp

Sure a loved one travelling in a car that is GNCAP rated negates the cause of death in an accident provided they are belted up only 10% of the time. But anytime they walk on the road or use a two wheeler there is a high chance they will end up in the 65% statistic of fatalities.

I think fellow member AYP put it better than I could:

Originally Posted by AYP

There is no doubt that a safer car does not guarantee the survival of the occupants(especially if you don't follow basics like not wearing seatbelt), but it does increase your chance of staying alive in case things go South. You give the example of Mistry incident and say that the GNCAP doesn't matter if you are doing 100 kmph, well this is like a soldier saying give me an inferior armour because a superior armour does not necessarily guarantee my safety while missing the point that a better armour does increase his chance of survival.