I can't find it now, but at one point there was a web site which had safety test data and 'real life' accident data together. Maybe Swedish data. I think I got it from a Saab website - the point being that Saab models at the time didn't have the highest safety rating when tested, but in real life accidents they came out better than others with higher ratings.
I will post it if I can find it. The one thing that worries me about the i10 is that it is so small and short that any rear impact at speed will be serious. On the other hand, I drove a 1979 Fiesta all over the country for a few years and that was a right old tin can.
|
I think this is what you're after:
How safe is your car? -- 2007 Report
tinyurl.com/mt8w5r
(Warning 80mb download, and it's quite slow...)
That's Folksam of Sweden, their biggest insurer who also compile data on real world accidents.
|
Age of car is a factor and many focuses (focii?) will be getting older, rusting a little, and getting weaker.
The EuroNcap test is performed on a NEW car.
|
NCAP only test at a low (arguably unrealistic) speed too. Most people who die in car crashes are doing much more than an NCAP testing speed.
|
|
|
|
For those that don't want to download it all, here's the highlights:
Data gained from research on 105,000 accidents between 1995 and 2008, involving 29,000 injured people. Only two car accidents covered, not SVAs. Ratings are weighted depending on the where the injuries were and how severe they are.
Folksam break their ratings down as follows: Safest - at least 30% safer than the average, Good - at least 20% safer than the average, Average and Avoid - less safe than average.
Their average is over all cars, with size NOT taken into account. So the results here are comparable from small cars to large cars, unlike the NCAP results.
Some common cars on British roads:
Peugeot 206 98-07 - 4* NCAP, but Folksam say "Avoid"
Vauxhall/Opel Corsa 93-99 - 2* NCAP but Folksam say "Average"
The ONLY supermini to get a "Safe" rating was the Hyundai Accent 95-99, which only has a 2* NCAP rating.
Ford Focus 99-05 - 4* NCAP, but Folksam say "Average"
Skoda Octavia 97-04 - only 4* NCAP, but Folksam say "Safe"
No small family cars got the "Safest" rating.
Ford Mondeo 01-07 - 4* NCAP but only rating "Average", so no safer in the real world than a Corsa!
Vauxhall/Opel Vectra 02-08 - 4* NCAP, but Folksam say "Safe"
Quite a few at this size rated at "Safest": old Mazda 626, Mitsubishi Gallant and Toyota Avensis.
Unsurprisingly, lots of Volvos and Saabs (even really old ones) with Safe or Safest rating, even when only 4* NCAP. Shame there's not yet data for later Renaults with their class leading (at the time) 5* NCAP ratings.
One interesting result, the Chrysler Voyager, much derided by NCAP, gets a "Safest" rating! Probably something to do with the physics advantage in weighing so much.
VWs Sharan only managed a 3* NCAP rating, but Folksam say it's Safe. Weight, again, probably helps.
Few results for 4x4s, but the old Nissan Terrano is rated as "Avoid", whilst the original Rav4, despite being so old manages a "Safe" rating.
|
Thanks, Oil Burner, I think that's what I was looking for. Also, I am sure I read somewhere that one Saab model went from 4 star NCAP to 5 star just by adding a 'fasten seat belt' sign/noise. Gets an extra star but doesn't add anything in terms of safety to my mind.
I am a bit wary of the NCAP ratings as I'm not sure how realistic they are. But on the other hand when I read reviews I can't help but find myself being swayed by them and discounting cars with low stars.
|
On the Corsa B the chasis was improved quite a lot in 1997 and as a result for post 97 ones got 3 star Euro Ncap and not two.
But yes I have noticed that too Folksam results always differ from Ncap.
All these things are just a guide but cars like the Rover 100 always do badly.
|
I prefer the findings of the US NHSA crash tests to those of NCAP, with HIC (Head Injury Criteria ) ratings for driver and passenger. Although mostly US models, there are several Japanese and European vehicles listed too. One European manufacturer's largest model performed particularly poorly in tests, the B pillar buckling at the seat belt mounting.
People carriers or "Minivans" tend to have a high driver HIC rating due to the angle of the steering column, in some cases rotating into the path of the driver's head.
SUVs are no guarantee of safety in an impact either. They may withstand an impact extremely well, but the forces of the impact are far more severe for the occupants.
IIRC, in Sweden Volvo send a team of crash investigators to RTAs for safety research.
|
The more stars the better the outcome of an average accident for the average occupants.
However if 2 cars doing 60/70/80mph meet head on then the number of NCAP stars whether it is 3/4/5 becomes less relevant because i the huge energy impacts survival is down to luck as well as engineering.
I'd rather be in a large NCAP 5* car than a small one.
|
The more stars the better the outcome of an average accident for the average occupants.
Not always so clear cut, check out the 206 above. Lots of stars, but rated as Avoid.
the huge energy impacts survival is down to luck as well as engineering.
Partly, yes. But Folksams data is over so many accidents that luck can be ruled out from their results. If a car is unsafe, it'll soon show when crashed over and over again.
I'd rather be in a large NCAP 5* car than a small one.
Totally agree. Folksams results show that larger cars are safer than average, no doubt about that.
|
|
It appears that Folksam is what we should be listening to. So does NCAP have any real use, apart from giving a guide to new cars before there is any accident data available? Personally, I have always been suspicious of NCAP, as it only tests in very specific crash situations, for which manufacturers can probably engineer the car to do well, to the detriment of other situations. And when the results are only meaningful in comparing cars of the same size, they seem of very limited use. I even begin to wonder if NCAP is one big con!
|
I think NCAP is OK, as long as one accepts their limitations. It's not perfect, but it's the best guide to new cars we've got.
There is likely to be an element of designing to meet the test standards and nothing else. I suspect Renault have been guilty of this, but I can't prove it. And I also suspect Volvo and Saab pay little attention to NCAP testing and far more to real world style of accidents, based on what I've read of their sales spiel.
I do think that it's interesting how NCAP have changed their test procedures this year. Some manufacturers continue to do well, others have been shown up. That probably gives a good indication about who had NCAP stars in mind rather than real safety measures.
Either way, it has to be said, since NCAP was introduced, safety in cars has come on in leaps and bounds.
|
Not sure if it still the case anymore but didn't manufacturers get awarded an NCAP star simply by having a fasten seat belt warning noise?
IMO if true, it makes a bit of a mockery of the NCAP system.
|
Not sure if it still the case anymore but didn't manufacturers get awarded an NCAP star simply by having a fasten seat belt warning noise?
No, it's not true, or at least not exactly. What is true is that additional points are awarded for fitting seat belt reminders, which can be the *difference* between getting 4* and 5*.
A good example of this is the Vectra-C and current Saab 9-3. Both on the same platform with same airbags etc, 9-3 just gets 5* because of the seatbelt reminder, whilst the Vectra gets 4* because it didn't have one as standard.
The number of stars awarded is based on points scored overall...
|
|
|
|
