There's one specific but significant clause which I think makes no sense. Some cars can improve their safety ratings by offering worse crash protection.

BHPian ron178 recently shared this with other enthusiasts.

Those of us who've been following Global NCAP's safety ratings for a while now know they overhauled their assessment protocols in July 2022, adding more crash and safety tests than before. (Related thread)

But this thread is about one specific but significant clause in Global NCAP's new criteria that I think makes no sense. Allow me to explain why.

(There are other threads to discuss the new tests as a whole or opinions about the organisation)

Caution:
- It might be tempting to quote parts of the post out of context and jump to conclusions in the broad sense
- But this is a very specific logical flaw manifested only when specific conditions are met, not a characteristic of GNCAP or the new tests just "broadly speaking".
- Please be patient and carefully understand the problem, the number-crunching is very elementary

To keep things simple, I'll maintain this order of posts:

• Preliminaries
  Just the parts of Global NCAP's scoring criteria you'll need to know beforehand
• The problematic clause
  The paragraph that causes the problem, and Global NCAP's intention behind adding it in the first place
• Problem #1
  How a car might be unfairly penalised
• The vulnerability
  How making a car less safe can get it +1 star

Useful external links

Global NCAP 2022-25 protocols
Latin NCAP: 2016-19 protocols
Global NCAP: 2022 Maruti Suzuki Swift
Global NCAP: 2024 Citroën ë-C3
Global NCAP: 2022 Maruti Suzuki S-Presso
Latin NCAP: 2018 Renault Sandero
Latin NCAP: 2018 Nissan March

Preliminary: GNCAP star rating calculation

Before understanding what's going on, one must be familiar with how GNCAP calculates star ratings at least at the superficial level. (For a more detailed explanation, see this).

If you already know this well enough, proceed to the next post.

Test score

The maximum test score is 34 points: 16 each for the front and side barrier crash tests and up to 2 for seatbelt reminders.

Qualifiers

In addition, there are simple "yes/no" qualifying criteria for fitment or test performance of electronic stability control, pedestrian protection, seatbelt reminders, curtain airbags and the side pole impact test. But they do not add to the score.

Star rating

For each star rating, there is a minimum total score as well as requirements for each qualifier category.

A car's star rating is most often simply the highest possible rating for which it meets ALL requirements. GNCAP have nicely summed it up in this table:

Exceptional cases

Sometimes there is a special "cap" on the star rating when a body part that's important to life (head/chest) shows a very high risk of serious injury in the front or side barrier crash tests.

If numbers from the dummy show an unacceptably high risk of serious injury, the result is zero stars no matter what.

Sometimes, the dummy numbers for a body part don't necessarily show an exceptionally high risk of serious injury, but Global NCAP nevertheless thinks other factors may compromise protection. In this case, if protection for the body part is rated poor after all extra penalties, the star rating is bounded by 1 star.

The clause we need to discuss

This thread revolves around this clause added by GNCAP in 2022:

What it says, basically, is that cars whose front and side impact scores differ by more than 5.6 points (35%) will have one star chopped off their star rating.

Sounds funny already? Hold your horses. Let's understand why they're doing this.

A quick look at past protocols of Latin NCAP shows that this clause was added a few months after their first big protocol change in 2016, on which GNCAP's new protocols are actually largely based.

Trivia: SUVs and the side impact test

You see, the side impact barrier uses sits quite low to the ground and represents a small car (950kg).

This means SUVs, pickups or other vehicles with high driver seats usually do exceptionally well in the test by virtue of their height, even if they're not in the least engineered for it.

For example, this really badly engineered Great Wall pickup truck still managed nearly full points in a side impact test.

SUVs, in fact, have such an advantage in the side impact test that European legislative side impact testing straight up exempts vehicles whose driver seats are higher than 70 cm. A while ago, even the Australasian NCAP used to just give high-riding vehicles full marks and save themselves the cost of another car.

The argument for the clause

To prevent badly engineered cars from scoring high ratings by unfairly racking up points in just one test, NCAPs employ different countermeasures.

The Australasian NCAP used to require a minimum individual score in each test for a five-star rating, a move that received significant flak when reversed.

Global NCAP, instead, has introduced the 35% clause we're focussing on in this thread. To refresh your memory:

Problem #1

Let's try to understand the clause.

Remember this table?

Now look at the clause again:

Here's how I interpreted this when I first looked at the protocols:

If the difference in the front and side impact scores is >35%, then the maximum star rating that the total score can allow must be reduced by one.

That, IMO, would prevent cars from getting an undue advantage from doing well in just one test.

Global NCAP, however, doesn't think so.

To illustrate my point, I'll turn to the safety enthusiast's all-time favourite: the Maruti Swift.

Look at the table at the top of the post, and let's try to compute Swift's star rating.

Step 1: The Swift has a total crash test score of 19.19, which can allow a maximum of 3 stars

Step 2: However, the Swift has 12.9 points in the side impact, and only 6.3 in the frontal impact. That's a difference of 6.6 points (41%)!

Mm mm, the Swift is getting an unfair advantage by doing disproportionately well in the side impact, so we need to shave off a star: that makes it 2 stars.

Step 3: There are no other requirements (see table) for a 2-star rating, so that should be its final result.

Except it's not.

Clearly, there is something else making the Swift a 1-star car.

After a lot of discussion some of us had hypothesised last year that we might be interpreting the clause wrong. See discussion.

This is a little funny

Last year after scouring GNCAP's protocols for any alternate explanation, I wondered out loud if maybe - just maybe this is how GNCAP actually applied the penalty:

Step 1: The Swift has a total crash test score of 19.19 points, a maximum of 3 stars.

Step 2: The Swift didn't go through pedestrian or ESC testing (I'll ignore why, that can be a whole thread in itself), so it cannot score more than 2 stars no matter what its crash test score is.

Step 3: Because the side impact score is >35% more than the frontal impact score, deduct a star. Bingo: we finally arrive at one star.

Tell me I'm not the only one who sees the problem.

Let me break it down: Thanks to the "lack" of ESC/pedestrian protection, the Swift's good side impact score couldn't possibly have helped its star rating, which would be stuck at 2 stars no matter how well it scored. Yet the Swift was penalised, because its side impact score was...too good?

I thought I'd cope with the dissonance until there was more evidence.

GNCAP can't possibly be incompetent enough to overlook this. Right?

Proof

Thanks to Stellantis' Safety Shenanigans, all the evidence I was looking for came on a plate last week.

Look at the Citroën ë-C3's crash test result more closely:

Frontal impact: the protection offered to the driver’s and passenger’s head and neck was good. Driver’s chest showed weak protection while passenger’s chest showed poor protection limiting the result to one star. Driver’s knees showed marginal protection as they can impact with dangerous structures behind the fascia, passenger’s knees showed good protection. Driver’s tibias showed marginal and good protection and passenger’s tibias showed good protection. Footwell area was rated as unstable. The bodyshell was rated as stable and it is capable of withstanding further loadings.
Side impact: head showed marginal protection, chest showed adequate protection and abdomen and pelvis showed good protection. The difference between front and side impact made the car to lose one star in the overall result.

Let's get this straight. The ë-C3 had some 13.5ish points (out of 16) in the side impact, almost as good as it gets without side airbags.

But because of the 1-star cap because of high belt loads in the frontal impact, it wouldn't have mattered how well it scored in the side impact.

Yet GNCAP decided to penalise the ë-C3 because its side impact was so good it could be unfair (was it?).

See the problem?

The vulnerability

Unfortunately this is not just about penalising cars that are already at the bottom of the safety ladder.

Some cars can improve their star ratings by offering worse crash protection.

Outrageous claim, right? Let's turn to another Maruti, the Ignis.

It might be closely related to the Swift, but just look at the difference in side impact protection. High risks of serious skull and rib fracture, doors flying open: the Ignis' side impact protection is as bad as it can get without failing India's side impact legislation.

The Ignis is a 1-star car fair and square, because of the poorly protected chest in the side impact test.

But get this: Maruti must be thanking their lucky stars that the Ignis didn't do better in the frontal crash!

Had the Ignis scored more than 12.5 points in the frontal crash, not only would the result still be capped at 1 star because of the bad side impact, the huge difference in scores would make it a zero-star car. That is a very serious problem!

Don't believe me yet? Let's look at Global NCAP's blue-eyed boy the Maruti S-Presso.

Because of unacceptably high rib deflection in the frontal impact, it's also capped at 1 star fair and square, much like the ë-C3 is.

But thanks to its slightly worse side impact protection, its side test score is similar enough (3.77 pts or 24% difference) to its bad frontal impact, and it has escaped a 0-star rating just because its scores are consistent.

So did this Brazilian Renault Sandero that Latin NCAP tested in 2018. Bad news indeed!

For example

So, then, what's the easiest way for Stellantis to upgrade the ë-C3 to one star? (Notwithstanding the fact that they probably don't care enough to do so)

Add more safety features? Well, that could work but Stellantis has a cheaper option.

The ë-C3 has some 20 points out of which 13.5 are from the side impact. To score 1 star all that a car needs is a total of 4 points in both tests. So all the ë-C3 has to do now is escape the ridiculous penalty for inconsistency.

And the cheapest way to do that is by getting its side impact to be bad enough to match its frontal impact. Seriously, it just needs to lose some 0.6-ish points in the side test and it would score one star. It'll still be comfortably above the meagre 4.00-point (front+side) requirement for 1 star.

Surely automakers aren't petty enough to exploit a vulnerability like this, right? Of course not. They'd never do something like that.

Check out BHPian comments for more insights and information.

Are they sold off as new cars after getting repaired or do the companies keep them as a reference to make safer cars?

BHPian mgastor2022grey recently shared this with other enthusiasts.

Hey Friends,

We all know about the NCAP tests and star-rating provided to cars by them. But one thing has been racking up my mind for the past 2 days: What happens to these cars after they are tested?

I searched on Team-BHP - No answers. I searched on Google - No answers. So, I'm opening a new thread for this discussion.

My questions are:

• Will they be sold off as new cars after they are repaired?
• Will the non-damaged parts be used in future cars?
• Will the company have these cars as a reference to make safer cars?

Please throw some light on this, BHPians! Any response will be appreciated.

Here's what BHPian bijims had to say about the matter:

After a crash test, a car may be significantly damaged or even destroyed. The purpose of a crash test is to evaluate the safety of a vehicle in the event of a real-world collision, and the results are used to help improve the design and engineering of cars to make them safer for consumers. After the test, the cars are scrapped.

Even other test cars for that matter (like the camouflaged test mules you see on the road), are scrapped after the test runs are completed.

Here's what BHPian Turbohead had to say about the matter:

I don't know if they do, but the remains would be useful for the engineering team to compare how close their virtual crash model and analysis are compared to the real world.

There's no way manufacturers will bother fixing the car and selling it because that would require even more labour compared to what can be created in the factory.

Here's what BHPian Mr.Boss had to say about the matter:

Forget about NCAP testing, OEs build prototypes and production trial cars for several other testing and validation. Some are marked as saleable (when the car is made as per the final production spec, and used as a display vehicle or meeting certain protocols) and only those will be sold to market. These cars are just brand-new production cars that reach the dealership after a small detour (like display during launch events, journalist drives, etc).

Anything other than the saleable lot will be scrapped as per their internal policy and retention period.

Repairing or salvaging parts from these cars is not worthy for OEs for the below reasons.

• Not their nature of business (repair / resale)
• Performance couldn't be guaranteed (can't risk the brand image)
• Laborious job, consumes more time and cost than building and selling a new car

Here's what BHPian ron178 had to say about the matter:

Global NCAP once said it costs them more to ship Indian cars to the test lab in Germany than it does to buy and test them. There is no way they are shipped back to India and sold to customers.

Euro NCAP collects all post-test cars and presents them to industry representatives at an annual Manufacturers’ Viewing event in Brussels. Latin NCAP also sometimes joins them. After this, they are scrapped.

Here is a picture from their latest one:

Source

Here's a quote from an article on Autocar UK

"Twice a year, all cars crash tested at Euro NCAP facilities are delivered to the Brussels headquarters so that car makers can scrutinise them. “We encourage them to share their insights,” says Avery. “However, we do ask them not to bring tools. Some have been known to take away parts of the cars for inspection.” So the crashed cars can never be repaired and returned to the road (yes, this has happened, although not with Euro NCAP cars), all of the wrecks are then crushed. For millions of drivers around the world, that sacrifice has not been in vain."

Check out BHPian comments for more insights and information.

Raised eyebrows when a car sent by a manufacturer scored 4 stars, while a car procured by GNCAP got 3 stars or less.

BHPian 07CR recently shared this with other enthusiasts.

I just came across this video from Motorbeam, wherein they debate whether the NCAP ratings have any double standards.

I myself had many of such questions, and am glad that people (journos) are asking the right questions publicly.

Listing a few excerpts from the Motorbeam Podcast:

• GNCAP has tested the same car twice in a span of under two years which hasn't received any significant facelift or update. These are a couple of old Maruti cars. Instead of testing these, why not test something new which will sell a lot, like Hyryder, Grand Vitara, new Brezza etc?
• Nexon pre-facelift was tested and scored 5-star, no update on the updated Nexon rating yet Tata advertises it as a 5-star rated product.
• On The day Nexon, Tiago and Tigor were launched, the safety ratings of each car were announced by GNCAP. How could they time this?
• Kia Seltos base model was tested and received 3 stars. The Scorpio-N model which was tested wasn't a base model and scored 5 stars. Why not maintain uniformity while testing?
• GNCAP claims it's a non-profit organization. It tests cars in two ways:

1. Manufacturer sends the car for testing and costs are borne by the manufacturer.
2. When GNCAP tests a car, they test it randomly. How do they manage this being a non-profit organization? Are these tests sponsored by a rival manufacturer? If yes, is it ethical and reliable?

• All popular cars like Compass, Harrier, Safari, Hector and Hector Plus which have the 2.0-litre multijet diesel engine are not tested. There's a manufacturing flaw in this diesel engine wherein the oil filter assembly enters the cabin when a crash happens and will impact safety. GNCAP has ignored all these cars for tests till now!
• General observation - Most times a manufacturer themselves has sent a car for testing, and the car has got 4 or more stars. Most times the GNCAP themselves have tested the cars, and these have received 3 or fewer stars! Raised eyebrows!

Do share your thoughts on this.

Here's what BHPian audioholic had to say on the matter:

I want to sum it up in short:

1. GNCAP ratings are reliable. That's because they outsource the activities to the best facilities of ADAC, Applus Idiada and so and isn't done in-house. GNCAP is just an influencer/mediator/officially a charitable organization.
2. What I don't trust is their vehicle criteria and their overall intentions. They are no saints in that regard contrary to what they claim. Being a charitable organization they need money to run and also pay for all those expensive crash tests. So the money has to come from somewhere. That's the reason you see selective targeting.

While there is no doubt that the Marutis and Hyundais with their pathetic score are indeed poorly crash engineered, I am sure that there are cars which have been cleverly ignored and kept away from the same tests. Hence, until these tests are made mandatory on every new model being launched and at least a mandate made that the manufacturers must display them in every ad, there won't be any uniformity.

Here's what BHPian theAutomaniac had to say on the matter:

The answer to this question honestly cannot be a clear yes or no!

That said, I think that Global NCAP is not amongst the most ethical organizations and has its own set of strong biases for and against manufacturers who worship them and don't respect them a bit, both respectively!

Some of the observations that make me believe so:

1. Retesting of Brezza but not of Nexon: Now, with its 2020 facelift, the Brezza had only received a new grill and a new headlamp design and yet, Global NCAP decided to retest to check Maruti (and maybe to find another opportunity to bash them). On the other hand, the Nexon which had received a new and flatter front end was ignored. And even though Tata itself stopped using the 5-star rating in Nexon ads, Global NCAP has not bothered to check the safety of India's bestselling SUV.
2. Global NCAP's obsession with ignoring cars (Bolero, Bolero Neo, Scorpio Classic, Nexon EV, Safari, Harrier, New Brezza, New Baleno, Grand Vitara and the allegedly 3-star rated 2nd gen Swift): Now, GNCAP constantly sings praises of Tata and Mahindra whenever the cars (sponsored) score high in their tests. However, the same people have ignored the 7-8k selling Bolero Duo and 4-5k selling Scorpio for years since these cars are not expected to score well. And the lesser said about the Tata twins, the better! On the other hand, Latin NCAP had awarded the 2nd gen Swift (Dual airbags) with a 3-star rating in their tests and as per the Latin NCAP video, this car had Maruti badges and was allegedly the same as the India-spec Swift. Why was the same rating not shown along with the non-airbag 0-star car? Now I agree that 2nd gen Swift never got dual airbags as standard in India, but since those were optional right from the LXI trim, I think displaying the 3-star score would've been apt to promote "Safer Cars For India". In the recent Maruti trio and ScorpioN crash test, GNCAP retested the old and non-updated Ignis, Swift and S-Presso but ignored the recently and heavily updated Brezza, Baleno and the all-new Grand Vitara, even though these three outsell at least one of the 3 retested hatchbacks. Coincidentally, these are the only Maruti cars which are eligible for a 4-5 star rating under the new Global NCAP norms. Coincidence much? Maybe or maybe not!
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"? Ignorance is concerning!
4. Titles of Youtube videos of crash tests of some cars just feel like they carry a propaganda: Where disappointment was only expressed in crash tests of the cars of the manufacturer who openly opposes them but not in the videos of the ones who comply with them or stay silent.

• "Maruti Suzuki" used in the 3-star S-Presso crash test for Africa (There's no Maruti in Africa!)
• Swift dilutes NCAP's expectations in 2018 but the lower scoring i10 Nios did not, as per the titles.
• Unsurprisingly, even the 0-star rated Tata Zest had a simpler title not depicting any disappointment!

The rest

These discrepancies and the fact that Global NCAP crash tests are extremely limited make me think that while Global NCAP norms might not be tailored for specific manufacturers, they desperately need to cover a wider range of crash test types.

Now even if that happens and GNCAP magically starts testing for a wider range of crashes, some of our fellow countrymen just don't know how to read and interpret the test reports!
For instance, I've seen people and automotive vloggers confidently claiming that the 4-star Tiago is safer than a 3-star Carens and a 5-star Punch is safer than a XUV7OO since these smaller cars score higher than the bigger and heavier SUVs!

My other complaint would be that the owners of these higher-rated cars, treat the higher score as a ticket for doing stupid lane changes, overspeeding etc, not understanding the risks associated! And when you try to confront these people, their go-to response is "It's a tank bro, it is safe than the tins and will save me". Spoiler alert, it won't!

Summarizing my post

Global NCAP has its fair share of discrepancies and limitations, but even if NCAP sorts out everything, 95% of us are way too ignorant to understand the reports correctly, thus nullifying the entire purpose behind these crash tests.

Also, everything aside, we cannot complain much against Global NCAP due to the lack of options. Let's hope the government-funded Bharat NCAP comes soon to make things better for everyone.

Here's what BHPian aravind.anand had to say on the matter:

If you vote No here in the poll, then you probably should not trust - the ARAI rating for fuel efficiency, that energy consumption rating on electrical appliances, that rating which helped you decide your hotel room & the Swiggy or Zomato star rating that you saw before trying a new restaurant!

All these are indicators to help give consumers a fair idea of the product or service or performance. Despite all the doubts that we have regarding the test procedures and ratings, today there is no other better way to understand the safety of the vehicle I am about to purchase.

Voted for Yes.

Here's what BHPian Hayek had to say on the matter:

Find this thread and the general carping about GNCAP ratings that many do quite strange.

GNCAP follows a clearly laid out protocol while testing cars. That is true for both cars they test independently (such as the Marutis) and cars they test when a manufacturer requests for the same (such as the Tatas). If their testing process was inadequate, you could be sure Maruti and Hyundai would be suing the pants off them. So the rating you get for any car that is tested is certain to be correct. In fact, you can also bet that the ratings are NOT a surprise to any manufacturer- these cars are designed and tested extensively, and the manufacturer surely knows what level of crash protection they are aiming for. For players like Suzuki and Hyundai who sell cars elsewhere and “value engineer” the same for India, they know what level of risk they are introducing and probably can also calculate how many people will die because of the changes they are introducing relative to selling their global product here.

Now on the choice of cars that are tested, the fact is that any manufacturer whose cars are likely to get good results will pay for the cars to be tested. Consequently, it is cars from players like Maruti and Hyundai which are likely to fail tests that will get picked up for suo-moto testing. That is not a surprise either. Should GNCAP go and pick up the Safari for testing? The fact is that I have not seen them pick any ₹20 l car for random testing but perhaps I am wrong. And when Tata is supporting them through tests for various other products, I am not surprised they don’t go out and spend their own money on making a Tata the first ₹20 lakh car they test.

Finally, asking for the Bolero or Ambassador to be tested is a joke - these are old platforms, and clearly won’t meet modern standards. If Maruti were still selling the 800, I don’t think anyone would expect it to meet crash standards - it is the failure of brand-new cars which is a cause for concern.

Check out BHPian comments for more insights and information.

For city usage, I'd go for a 3-star car with more safety features over a 5-star car with just front airbags.

BHPian akannath recently shared this with other enthusiasts.

A question to all the experts here:

Should I choose a car with ESP/Hill Hold/Hill Descent, etc. and up to 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 a 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.

Here's what GTO had to say on the matter:

For highway runs & road trips, I would absolutely want both. No compromise. If I have a limited budget, I'd go the pre-worshipped route and pick up a 5-star safety car with all safety features from the used market.

On the other hand, for city usage, I'd go for a 3-star car with more safety features over a 5-star car with just front airbags. For example, if I'm T-boned by an SUV, I want those side airbags. People don't realise that T-bone accidents are sometimes more dangerous than frontal crashes or being rear-ended.

Here's what BHPian krishnakumar had to say on the matter:

I'm by no means an expert, but, why do you want to make a decision out of hypothetical scenarios when we can clearly compare cars for their merits based on actual facts.

Safety is ONE of the many aspects and they'd rank differently for different people. For me, it ranked quite high and I ended up with an XUV300, sacrificing the boot space (because I could afford to sacrifice that). There could be many cars that would fit as an option for one's budget, so it's really about stack ranking what's important and then getting down to the real-world details.

But if you want me to brute force a logic to a hypothetical scenario like this, where there are two identical cars from the same segment, same price, same convenience and other features and the only difference is what you have put in the scenario, then I'd pick the one where a safety rating exists and has a crashworthy body shell. Why?ESP is probably the most important of all active safety systems. But even then, the ESP only kicks in when the car loses stability for some reason (Overspeed, road conditions etc.). I've driven countless cars without ESP and have managed to drive them safely because knowing the car's limits is important (with or without ESP). Agreed that there could be scenarios where you want to do an evasive manoeuvre to avoid a jaywalker or a dog darting across; in these cases, yes ESP will be life-saving but it is still possible to control the car just by knowing the limits and how to handle situations.

Features like Hill Hold, and Hill Descent, really in my opinion are just convenience more than safety. The Hill Hold holds the car for 3 seconds. It's a basic skill to learn as a driver, the first thing I learned was when my dad taught me how to drive a car. Similarly with Hill Descent as well, using engine braking, planning ahead, being aware etc. goes a long way in controlling the car on a downhill.

6 airbags are great to have but these are again passive safety systems.

If you see all of these features, these are built with driver error (coupled with road conditions, exceptional scenarios etc.) in mind. But most of them can be overcome by improving defensive driving techniques. These active safety systems are there to complement a skilful driver, not replace them.

It is great to have and by no means I'm downplaying them. In fact, having an ESP was an important factor for me. But it was only one of the many factors for choosing XUV300 (if you're interested you can read about it here.

But there is no replacement for crashworthiness and discipline for safety (wearing seat belts, following rules etc.). These along with a skilled driver on defensive driving will likely save the occupants even in a situation where it is someone else's error.

Here's what BHPian ron178 had to say on the matter:

The two are no longer mutually exclusive because a side head protection technology and ESC are now (since July) both part of the GNCAP's rating criteria.

The GNCAP's old ratings are based on a single frontal offset crash test. The GNCAP's criteria for speed, injury risk and modifiers (criteria for the robustness of the result) are tougher but now we do have minimum legislation in place for offset frontal impact and it's worth noting that three stars are comfortably above legal requirements worldwide, not to mention in the Carens parts of the body critical to life were protected quite well (not the case with all three-star cars).

An unstable passenger compartment in the test does not mean that the car has performed badly structurally. The GNCAP does penalise structural performance by measuring intrusion of the steering wheel and hinge pillar to determine how well the passenger compartment has held its shape. Instability of the passenger compartment ('unstable bodyshell') is separate and concerns repeatability rather than intrusion itself, it doesn't mean intrusion measurements were high but that they could deviate if another Carens unit was on a test or test conditions were slightly different. Hence it is penalised: you don't have to account for it separately along with the star rating.

The big reason the Carens is a three-star car was not the unstable passenger compartment but the complete collapse of the footwell with the excessive rearward movement of the pedals. It's undesirable and can cause disabling injuries and even hamper extrication, but the feet are still not as critical as your head or thorax, which side airbags can help protect in other crashes. It's fascinating to see the details of the test but it's still important to keep in mind that it's impossible for one single test to accurately compare the safety of vehicles. The GNCAP's old tests were also a very basic research project on a tight budget to introduce safety ratings to emerging markets, based on a very old Latin NCAP protocol. It's one factor you could consider, but crashes like that makeup only a handful of real-world crashes, especially in India, and it would be a mistake to think one test can determine crashworthiness in other scenarios.

About the curtain airbags: we have legislation for a side impact representing a small car striking the driver's door, but absolutely no legislation for side pole impact, and it wasn't included in the GNCAP's old tests either, which explains why cars are still sold without side head airbags. They're still important and can greatly reduce the risk of serious head, chest or pelvic injury in side impacts with vehicles with tall front ends.

We also don't have legislation for ESC. This is an extremely important safety system I would not recommend buying a car without it given a choice.

I will say this about Kia: if their quality control is so bad that they a car that's internally 'at least four stars' turns to three in practice, I sincerely doubt the effectiveness of the other safety systems. I still don't see a long-term commitment to safety.

If it's possible get a car that has all three. The Innova hasn't been tested yet but I reckon it should do well in the test considering Toyota's usually highly standardised production processes, plus you can get older examples of top-spec cars with seven airbags (head curtains for all rows unlike the Carens), ESC, three-point belts for all seats and i-Size anchorages.

Here's what BHPian BHPjunkie had to say on the matter:

I voted for choosing a safer car, however, I completely agree with GTO here. I would never compromise on the safety for cars I am using on highways and on road trips. In-city would pick one with more features.

Eg. I recently was looking to purchase a ride for highway runs as my Ameo was getting short on space with kids. I set a budget of 15-18 lacs and was considering Nexon ahead of the Seltos, despite Seltos having more features. However, I ended up with a pre-owned Hexa for much less than my budget and I do not regret the decision to date.

Check out BHPian comments for more insights and information.