Several months ago driving along to work I heard a news story re 'Crash Ratings' for new cars and most, if not all car makers were allegedly fixing the results by ensuring that certain parts of the cars scored well.
EG: Comcentrating on parts of the car that scored the most points and not spending as much attention to the remanider of the car.
In the USA and you have demos at Walt Disney or one of the other them parks (can't remember which) where they show a crash bar fitted to the rear in addition to what we get in the uk.
Motor way crashes are leathal for those rear ended and its about time Euro Ncap was honest enough to start scoring points on these!!
Did anyone else see/read this story about car makers building cars to get the 5 stars but not concentrating on other possible accident scenarios?
(Edited your title, as I'm sure you didn't mean to shout. PG)
|
There may be a little tinkering to gain an extra point to go from 4 to 5 stars, but on the whole most people are killed by offset crashes at the front.,
Just like NCAP crash test in fact, where they look at the damage caused to the dummy.
I dont see a problem with that
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
tvm
after posting my thread, i've been searching the net, and agree with your statement.
|
I think it was the X5 that was promoted from 4 to 5 stars after BMW fitted a drivers seatbelt warning symbol and beep.
The whole thing is a bit of a farce IMO - the vast majority of accidents do not involve collisions with solid immovable objects at a 90 degree angle or a solid metal block smacking into the side at 90 degrees at a uniform rate of acceleration. It is also clear from the above that actual safety in an impact is only part of the story.
NCAP has become little more than a marketing ploy for manufacturers.
|
Thats fine quinny. I shall drive around in my 5*
How many does yours have?
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
4. I'd much rather drive my car into an offset metal block than a lot of cars smaller cars that get the coveted 5 stars. However, should I encounter a deformable trolley on the public highway hitting me at exactly 30mph and at 90 degrees I'll be fine - it scored 100% in that test.
|
4* - that's good,
and how well do you think your car would do in a crash if NCAP had not been around to provide some form of comparison and measurement? hmmmm
Sorry Of course I forgot NCAP is there purely to deceive and con you.,
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
|
|
|
ive always said the best place to see if cars can take a good hard smack is go to a recovery holding firms yard,it soon shows what type of car you want to stay clear of whether its an old mini where the roof used to go straight up or a beemer thats shows little body damage but is in fact a total wreck but the whole body has done its bit....the latest fords in my opinion are first class these days in the staying limb attached and alive stakes.
|
ive always said the best place to see if cars can take a good hard smack is go to a recovery holding firms yard,it soon shows what type of car you want to stay clear of whether its an old mini where the roof used to go straight up or a beemer thats shows little body damage but is in fact a total wreck but the whole body has done its bit....the latest fords in my opinion are first class these days in the staying limb attached and alive stakes.
In a few years I may buy the S Max - really good looking car and masses of safety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree AudiAudi on this being a form of manipulation. The car makers know how to score the points and so do... but does that make a safer car in the real world.
I also started a thread back in August relating to NCAP and rear impact (search for " Rear Crash Worthiness") and HJ said this was possibly on the way. Good.
Also most of the public (the majority?) would think a car with an NCAP rating of 5 is better than 4. But you can only compare within a vehicle category such as a super mini. A Fiesta sized car with a 4 rating would not be safer than a Vectra sized car with a 4 rating.
Having said that.. I keep bringing up my Fiesta hire car being rear-ended by an HGV near Milan. Considerable damage but "walked away" (well I lost consiousness actually and ripped my head open at the back) and thankfully no rear passengers. I have a poor quality b/w photo from Hertz of the car... tried taking a picture when collecting remains of luggage but got shouted at.
Rob
|
|
EuroNCAP ratings are a very good guide to crashworthiness for most crash scenarios. To talk of fraud and manipulation is a bit offensive to the people at EuroNCAP who are doing a good job IMHO and have done a lot for all of us in making motoring safer. It is worth noting that EuroNCAP ratings correlate well with crash safety ratings from other bodies (e.g. NHTSA in the US, Japanese DoT etc). Obviously they can look at other crash scenarios, but I guess that would take extra time, employees and a lot more money.
|
Same with the driving test, instructors tech you to pass the test, not how to drive in real world conditions.
Manufactures take safety seriously however they are clearly going to place emphasis on design elements that will have the most positive effect on crash test results, likewise economy as HJ says.
|
|
|
|
Excellent post!!!
Re the rear enders - people in the front normally manage to come away with hardly a scratch. However, people in the back of cars like the Ka, Fiesta, even the Galaxy that sit right up againt the window - the MB, A class rear, and all cars that have passengers in almost bootless car are at risk. Like I said earlier, last year at Dinsney as one waited to go round the track in one of those cars they were showing demos of cars with additional safety.
Your'e right - E/N -cap have been chatting sabout scoring on rear end crashes.
Importantly, and as you briefly mentioned - people get confused and think that a 3/4/5 star rating on a mini car is the same as the score given to a larger car.
The rating sytem is better than nothing and car makers are falling over themselves to score higher ponits unless the cars are from China/etc.
The Anericans have their own version of N Cap ratings and testing is much more stringent.
|
BTW: I may not totally trust the ratings but do believe in what they show on the net.
The last car we bought about a year ago was bought because of the ratings.
I'd been an Audi man for years and decided to look at the net an X type Jag, Audi A4 and Merc C Class - The C class was the only one with the 5 star rating and several points higer than the others. The final decison was the handles on the car as I did not want cup type but pull type handles.
Another thing I have note and give you Vauxhall as an expample - the rust warrant used to be 12 years and now its down to 5/6? But 5 star ratings - is this becuse the way the car is built to cushion a crash impact but more pockets in the design that could rust earlier with water getting in there. If that is the case, would a 10 year old car be quite weak in a crash as they may be lots of hidden rust.
Finally, the other thing that won me over when buying the car last year was the Mers 30 year rust warranty.
|
Sometimes I wonder about the sanity of people on this forum. Survival rates in severe car crashes are at astonishing levels compared to to 10/20/30 years ago. Its all brought about by things like airbags, seatbelts and the NCAP means of comparison and continous improvement.
and people complain they are being conned.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
Are the manufacturers so worried as to distort engineering design because of these ratings? I am looking around at a possible change of car and one thing I do not give a hoot about is NCAP. I look to see if I would enjoy the car because then I would drive more alertly, and because better handling will give a better chance of avoiding accidents altogether.
|
|
|
Sometimes I wonder about the sanity of people on this forum. Survival rates in severe car crashes are at astonishing levels compared to to 10/20/30 years ago. Its all brought about by things like airbags, seatbelts and the NCAP means of comparison and continous improvement. and people complain they are being conned.
Silly me, I thought it was down to all the speed cameras, speed humps, offset roundabouts, pinch points, traffic lights on red for longer, strategically placed foliage, more road signs, variable speed limits, congestion, less drunks and more cycle ways.
|
>>It is worth noting that EuroNCAP ratings correlate well with crash safety ratings from other bodies (e.g. NHTSA in the US, Japanese DoT etc). <<
I started a thread recently that stated the VW Polo cannot be sold in North America and Canada because it is considered unsafe - i.e. it could not pass the US car safety standards.
In EURONCAP it achieves 4 stars - now I appreciate that this is 1 example but if it is the case how can the ratings correlate well ?
|
Also in support of the above I have checked my Accord (Acura TSX in the USA) against the new VW Passat.
EURONCAP scores the VW safer but NHTSA scores the Accord safer ?????
I think an independent international standard would be more appropriate with this topic.
There is no doubt that these tests are good for the consumer and drive the safety standard up but I do think there is a level of manipulation in achieving the results.
I believe there is a Swedish Insurance organisation that publishes results after investigating real accidents.
I would imagine that would be a better source of information.
I'll try and find it.
|
|
|
|
What I would like to see is an NCAP rating that IS comparable between different sizes/classes of car.
Which is the best (least worst) car to have an accident in? Is a 5* supermini more or less likely to kill or maim you that a 3* large car?
In a recent thread on this site we discussed and agreed (I may be paraphrasing ever so slightly when I say 'we agreed') that safety is a relative concept. So, ok, relatively speaking are you safer in a 10 year old S class Mercedes or a 2006 Nissan Micra.
That is what I would like to see crash tests doing, corner to corner tests between large cars, medium cars and small cars.
I believe that the larger crumple zones in a big car will be a life-saver every time.
|
|
IIRC, when the Peugeot 306 or 307 came out, its insurance group was a lot lower than comparable cars because Peugeot had cleverly manipulated the price of spare parts for minor front and rear end collisions to be much lower thus resulting in a lower ins grouping.
|
|
|
What I would like to see is an NCAP rating that IS comparable between different sizes/classes of car.
Yes, that would be good. In the meantime, "Which" gives crash ratings of which they say "Each score is directly comparable to every other score, regardless of the size or class of car - unlike EuroNCAP testing . . . ." (see March 2006 issue)
Which is the best (least worst) car to have an accident in? Is a 5* supermini more or less likely to kill or maim you that a 3* large car?
Well, take 2 cars NCAP classes as superminis - the Renault Modus and Peugeot 1007. Both get an NCAP score of 5*. "Which" awards them 10 and 10.5 points respectively.
Take Hyundai Elantra, classed by NCAP as a large family car, gets an NCAP score of 3*. "Which" gives it a score of 9 points.
"Which" gave the Mazda6 and Skoda Octavia (both NCAP 4*) a total of 10 points.
|
Everyone is assuming that the American tests are more stringent and safer. They are not. they are different.
I posted on here the crash test film of a Ford F150 truck, the efects were trully appaling and this meets current US standards.
To try and pretend a Hyundai Elantra is anywhere near as safe as a mazda 6 is a joke. Which has no expertise or facilities for independent crash testing.
Frankly I think some of you should be forced to drive metros around, then comment about ncap ratings from your wheelchairs after the crash. You might all have something to whinge about then.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
while i agree wholehearted with you tvm ,i thought the whole idea of the f150 type trucks was that they dont need any kind of safety testing as they are classed as commercial or am i missing something?
|
Eggsactly it knocks huge holes in the big vs small argument.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
