It's 10 years since EuroNCAP started

BrianD3

It's around 10 years since EuroNCAP published the results of its first batch of crash tests. I remember at the time it was a big deal that made the TV news headlines. There was little talk about car passive safety before that and there was an absence of independent, comparable, readily available information on car passive safety. So, 10 years later what's you opinion on NCAP ? Has it been a good thing or is it more about marketing hype than anything else?

IMO it has been a good thing. Cars have much more safety equipment now than they did before also the passenger compartments are generally a lot stronger. The downside is that cars have put on weight as a result.

The actual tests that NCAP do cannot perfectly simulate every real life crash but IMO they are pretty realistic considering that they have to be reproducible and considering that every possble scenario cannot be simulated for economic reasons. Also a lot of thought went into the design of the tests.

As regard marketing, it has been show that say a Toyota Avensis performs about as well as Mercedes C class. Before EuroNCAP certain makes (german and swedish) were marketed as being safe whereas other makes (Japanese French and Italian makes) were regarded by the general public as being flimsy deathtraps. There may have been some truth to this but in one of the first NCAP rounds Saab, BMW and Mercedes came away embarrassed as their mid size cars did poorly and lagged behind Volvo, Nissan, VW, Ford, Opel, Renault.

Even though Volvos have usually done well in the tests Volvo's days as the manufacturer that could brag about safety are over. If anything Renault is "the new Volvo". I believe this has hurt Volvo's image, what does Volvo stand for these days? The selling point that they used for years is gone and their biggest selling current model is heavily based on the Ford Focus.

It's possible that EuroNCAP contributed to the demise of Rover cars after the Rover 100 did so badly. Sales of the car were decimated after its NCAP result.

Thoughts?

mike65

Well NCAP has clearly raised the game of every manufacturer, its intersting how the French companies have gone so big on safety, its certainly a selling point wheras as 15 years ago French meant quick and nippy. The E36 BMW 3 series actually gets a very poor rating while the current model a 5 star so the Germans have raised there game too!

I dunno if any company has actually suffered cos the public thinks about brand X as being unsafe. The old Rover Metro/100 clearly was swiftly killed by Ncap but its demise was comming anyway.

Mike.

junkyard

I'd say Renault will retain that status of being safest car on the road too because they spend most of their time in the garage.:D Seriously though I for one am sorry to see the back of Volvo as I once knew them, tank like sturdy cars, which I loved them for. I suppose their demise started with the involvement of Renault (sorry Brian). The 300 range was a disaster from which they never recovered and the 400 and 800 and the S/V40 range were the nails in the coffin. As for Rover, they were on a slippery slope for years and were bailed out more times than they deserved. In fairness you can see how badly built British cars are in general just by comparing a British built and a Japanese built Toyota Avensis. The British built one will simply fall apart, as any owner of one of them will confirm, whereas the Japanese built one lasts for years longer.(I'm using the Avensis as an example but the same goes for Nissan and Peugeot.) Once the Germans see what is required by NCAP they'll lead the way have no doubt, I think Renault just saw an opportunity and jumped on board the safety aspect which appealed to family ownership because, lets face facts, Renault will never lead the way with any thing else. Its only a matter of time before they're left behind in the safety aspect of things too.

BrianD3

Well I completely disagree about Renault not leading the way in anything. A look at the history of the the motor industry will show that it just isn't true. Anyhow this thread isn't about Renault praising or bashing.

On Volvo - well I regard the "safe" Volvos of the 70s-early 90s as lumbering barges. They were solid and long lasting but they hadn't much else to recommend them. Poor ride and handling, unadventurous styling, relatively poor space (in the saloons anyway). They were sold on their safety and little else. Yet when independently tested a lot of Volvos safety marketing didn't stand up. I seem to recall a US crash test where the 240 did badly. Also in 1990 Auto Motor und Sport crashed a 740 and found it OK but not best in class and not much ahead of a "flimsy" Nissan Maxima. The 300 series was a horrid car and again it was marketed for its safety being shown driving off the top of a building into the ground. The 400 was another poor effort and hadn't even got the interesting quirks that the 300 had. All of these were Volvo designs with the odd Renault engine used but the structure of the cars were 100% Volvo.

Now the 800 series was a big improvement and for a few years pre EuroNCAP Volvo had a car that had a very good safety rep and was good in many other ways too. The S40 then did well early on in NCAP but after a while any advantage Volvo had was eroded by other companies started getting 4 or 5 stars for small and medium sized cars while the S60 and S80 got 4. About this time Volvo start criticising NCAP and saying it isn't representive.

bazz26

junkyard wrote:

In fairness you can see how badly built British cars are in general just by comparing a British built and a Japanese built Toyota Avensis. The British built one will simply fall apart, as any owner of one of them will confirm, whereas the Japanese built one lasts for years longer.(I'm using the Avensis as an example but the same goes for Nissan and Peugeot.)

Well the Avensis isn't actually built in Japan. It is still built in the UK and shipped back to Japan. Just to confirm my current one is a 2003 MkII and has almost 110k miles and nothing is falling off it. Corolla is also built in the UK and Turkey, the Yaris is built in France. Never heard of bits falling off them either and a bad reputation travels like wild fire in the motor industry. While they are definately not as well built as Japanese built cars they are still screwed together very well which is still probably better than some European cars.

junkyard wrote:

Once the Germans see what is required by NCAP they'll lead the way have no doubt.

Like the original MB A-Class?

Guy:Incognito

Were the volvos actually ever safe as opposed to just appearing safe because of the big tank like appearance and shear amount of metal?


As for differences between the uk built and jap built avensis, how exactly can the quality differ (im not doubting it does as I dont know anything about it, just genuinly dont know). I mean surely the only difference is one has a japanese guy opperating the scredriver (and all other machinery used to build) and the other a british guy. Are all the bits not the same? Is that not like saying 100 Irish guys and 100 spanish guys are each given an ikea table to build and the spanish guys ones doont break as often and are better built.

sk8board

Not sure why people think Volvo are starting to lag in the safety dept.

Volvo's have always been safe. And still are one of the class leaders in safety. The lists of Safety 'firsts' is HUGE for Volvo, (the seatbelt for god's sake ). They ran their own version of NCAP for decades, scrutinising themselves, and even investigating individual accidents anywhere worldwide to find preventative measures for the future.

I think that what happened is that the other Manufacturers have embraced the NCAP rating as being a mark of success for a new model, quite correctly, and so a lot of cars are now on an even keel with Volvo.
Remember only a few years ago, NCAP had to buy all the cars that they crash-tested. Now the Manufacturers provide them for free, but allow NCAP to pick any garage in Europe to pick them up (just in case the Manufacturer modified the car to get better marks).

These days Volvo have gone one step further by realising that Safety is almost 'commonplace' now, and they need to add some style to keep the loyal buyers. The S40 had to be testement that things are working in this regard. It may even be the 1st common-as-muck Volvo; they're everywhere, and well worth it.
The new S80 is still a bit bland, but thats what attacts the buyers; understated.

maidhc

sk8board wrote:

Not sure why people think Volvo are starting to lag in the safety dept.

Because their cars no longer look like they are built from solid granite!

colm_mcm

junkyard wrote:

In fairness you can see how badly built British cars are in general just by comparing a British built and a Japanese built Toyota Avensis. The British built one will simply fall apart, as any owner of one of them will confirm, whereas the Japanese built one lasts for years longer.

Where did you pull that from?

Also how do you explain the Carina E's reputation for reliability despite being built in the UK?

peasant

While a standardised test like the NCAP certainly is a good idea, it still is just a standarised test. Car, standard obstacle, standard speed, standard angle of impact. With a good software package for simulation and the willingness to do so, any car company these days should be able to build a car that does well in the NCAP.
But accidents are anything but standard.

This is where the Swedes (Volvo and Saab) had a safety advantage for years. They analised real accidents for decades and constantly improved on their safety. In the days before NCAP, Volvo and Saab did have the safest cars around, as veryfied by the Folksam insurance accident investigation reports.

Saab for example still does an "elk test" where they simulate an elk (i.e. moose ..the biiiig yoke) being hurled against the windscreen by bashing a 300 kg bundle of cables into the upper windscreen frame.


I'm not so sure that a five-star-NCAP-engineered Laguna would pass this test.

So, personally, I certainly would not buy any new car that can only muster three NCAP stars, but I wouln't necessarily buy a Laguna over a Saab or Volvo only because it has five over their four stars. (Even though there are no elks in Ireland:D )

colm_mcm

There are loads of reasons not to buy a Laguna!

Guy:Incognito

peasant wrote:

So, personally, I certainly would not buy any new car that can only muster three NCAP stars, but I wouln't necessarily buy a Laguna over a Saab or Volvo only because it has five over their four stars. (Even though there are no elks in Ireland:D )

Dont rip up that cheque that might be goin gto saab/volvo. The elk might yet become the next designer pet for the rich and famous.:)

colm_mcm

Maybe we should have a heifer test for Ireland?

Guy:Incognito

With real cows. Nothing like a live test.

bags not testing the kia picanto in the heiffer test.

junkyard

Whatever about Elks in Ireland we do have to contend with camouflaged pedestrians walking on the wrong side of the road at night...its no wonder they're so many of them killed every year. In fact I think it would be a great idea to bring in on the spot fines for pedestrians and cyclists who don't wear bright or reflective clothing especially at night.

colm_mcm

yep, and on the spot fines for cyclists who disobey traffic lights and generally are a pain in the arse.

peasant

junkyard wrote:

In fact I think it would be a great idea to bring in on the spot fines for pedestrians and cyclists who don't wear bright or reflective clothing especially at night.

How about footpaths/ cyclelanes instead ?

colm_mcm

peasant wrote:

How about footpaths/ cyclelanes instead ?

nah, they cost money, fines are better cos they actually make the government money

deman

I was shopping for a used (2-3 year old) car last month and when I went round to the Volvo dealership, I found a very nice S40, low Kms, perfect nic but then noticed it didn't have a passenger airbag. (Now the reason that I was shopping for a car is because my Nissan Primera was totalled a couple of weeks beforehand so safety was of the essence). When I questioned the salesman about why it didn't have a passenger airbag, his reply was "It's a Volvo! It's safe enough without one." I explained to him that airbags saved the life of my wife and mine. So I bought a Renault Scenic Early 2003 so it's only NCAP 4 stars compared to the later model at 5 stars. But the Primera was also 4 stars and was safe enough to take a 160km/h headon collision.

Oh, and we have elks here 8(

Guy:Incognito

On the note of so many cars getting 5 stars nowadays, are they going to change/update the test, or make it a 7 star test? Otherwise theres no real gauge of anything above whats already around.

deman wrote:

. But the Primera was also 4 stars and was safe enough to take a 160km/h headon collision.

Bold boy speeding.

I hope I never have to test my any of my cars in those circumstances, must have been scarey.

BrianD3

In the days before NCAP, Volvo and Saab did have the safest cars around, as veryfied by the Folksam insurance accident investigation reports.

Well I wouldn't come to many conclusions about passive safety based on the Swedish Folksam reports as they're not very scientific. For instance the Volvo 240 might have a great rating but if most of them are driven by grannies at 20 mph then of course they're going to have a low number of deaths and injuries. Also in the Folksam reports old cars sometimes do better than newer cars from the same manufacturer even though the newer cars have had far more attention paid to passive (and active) safety in their design. For instance you might find a Mk1 Golf has a higher rating than a Mk3. This makes no sense!

Also, boasts from manufacturers about how their cars are the safest because they do x and y cannot be trusted. After all, manufactuers are in the business of selling cars and the likes of Volvo have been using safety as their main marketing point for many years. The great thing about NCAP is it's a standarised, pretty representative, reproducible INDEPENDENT test. This a big change from years ago when all consumers had to rely on for passive safety information were manufacturer boasts, flawed Folksam reports and the occasional independent crash test carried out by the likes of Auto Motor und Sport magazine. Given that the majority of consumers have never heard of Folksam or Auto Motor und Sport all they had to go on was the manufactuer boasts.

NCAP can't simulate exactly every real world crash but a lot of research went into the design of the NCAP tests based on what tends to happen in real life. Personally based on what I've seen of real life crashes there is no comparsion between cars of today and even those of 10-15 years ago let alone ones before that. Massive leaps have been made in terms of passenger compartment strength and safety features since NCAP came about. There may be little difference in real life between a brand new 4 and 5 star car but the important thing is that all manufacturers have now been forced to pay more attention to safety. Even 3 star cars are likely to be significantly safer than anything in the same class from 15 years ago.

edit: the above would apply mainly to head on crashes. While improvments have been made in terms of safety in side impacts, modern cars are still very vulnerable when hit from the side.

If anyone wants to do some online "rubbernecking" there are hundreds of pics of real life crashes on www.langlovagok.hu which is the website of the Hungarian fire service. Also the test between various cars carried out by 5th gear programme are interesting - i'd pay particular attention to Land Rover Discovery vs current Renault Espace test and old Espace vs current Espace tests. And here they are
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIKu1UDoa6s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l4YBf2tjag

deman

Stekelly wrote:

Bold boy speeding.

I was doing 80 km/h and so was the other car

Biro

deman wrote:

I was doing 80 km/h and so was the other car

I'm sure ye both applied a hefty amount of brakes a few mili-seconds before the impact though... as I seriously doubt a full 160kmph impact will let anyone walk from it, airbag or not!
Volvo invented a device for shooting cars down a channel at each other to simulate any accident involving 2 cars that they wanted. It's a machine that looks like the arms of a clock and can be changed to any angle relative to each other. They also made sure the XC90 wouldn't override a car in a frontal impact, so that it wouldn't kill occupants in the car, rather than just driving it at a wall to see how it was on it's own. This is positive moves towards real safety. I don't know if any accident is exactly perpendicular to a concrete wall.
Pedestrians should be heavily fined for walking with no reflective clothes or a torch, and whats more, the onus should not be on the driver in the event of them being hit if they weren't properly lit.

Anan1

Biro wrote:

I'm sure ye both applied a hefty amount of brakes a few mili-seconds before the impact though... as I seriously doubt a full 160kmph impact will let anyone walk from it, airbag or not!

Two equal cars colliding head-on at a closing speed of 160km/h is the same as either car hitting an immovable object at 80km/ - ie I wouldn't like to do it myself but i'd imagine it's survivable!

Biro

Anan1 wrote:

Two equal cars colliding head-on at a closing speed of 160km/h is the same as either car hitting an immovable object at 80km/ - ie I wouldn't like to do it myself but i'd imagine it's survivable!

True, 80kph - 0kph in the distance of a bonnet crumpling! Painful.

BrianD3

If two identical 5 star cars were in a 50% offset head on crash both doing 80 km/h I believe that everyone could survive but there would be serious injuries and the drivers would not walk away. EuroNCAP test at 64 km/h so 80 km/h is a significant step up. However if you look at the passenger compartments of cars that do best in EuroNCAP they have little or no damage after the 64 km/h impact so could probably take quite a bit more before collapsing completely and crushing the occupants.

15 years ago when cars were far weaker and very few had airbags you'd be lucky to survive a 55 km/h offset impact. This was the speed that Auto Motor und Sport used to test at and many cars did really badly and would have killed their drivers had it been a real crash. The ADAC used to test at 50 km/h and again many cars did very badly. The barriers used in these tests were solid barrier as opposed to the deformable NCAP barrier - AFAIK the NCAP barrier is actually tougher on the car than a solid barrier.