Sam D Housecat
New member
After the Panda was re-tested, I emailed Euro NCAP requesting details as to the rationale in again testing this model. Euro NCAP have not responded to two requests for comment.
Aside from the publicity for Euro NCAP, and adverse headlines for FIAT, what in reality was achieved in retesting the Punto and Panda?
As with every other manufacturer, FIAT design its cars to meet the safety standards as they apply at the time. When tested by Euro NCAP at launch in 2005, the 199 Punto achieved five stars. In 2011 the 319 Panda achieved four stars. One star was deducted from the Panda since stability control was not available as an option on all markets/models. In 2013 Euro NCAP recognised the Panda separately in respect of its low speed collision avoidance option.
Just as at launch, at the time of second testing by Euro NCAP both the Punto and Panda continued to conform to the statutory crash worthiness requirements as applied across the EU.
Because neither the Punto nor the Panda were new designs, or structurally revised models, Euro NCAP could have no expectation that a second crash test would yield different results from those already achieved. In terms of their research brief, there was therefore no logical reason for the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) to carry out further crash tests on these models.
With the pace of technological advance, and models today required to satisfy an ever changing and widening brief, no manufacturer can hope to future-proof their designs. Among this host of competing demands, and the rate of technological change, improvements in occupant safety would, merely to keep pace, require a ground-up redesign of both the platform and the technical systems every four or five years.
Many manufactures take the view that such an investment would be better spent in the development of an entirely new model. In the past, when the pace of change was slower and designs were less technically complex, such decisions would often coincide with declining sales as the model aged and neared the end of its seven to twelve-year production cycle.
Increasingly however, the development and production of lower margin cars like the Panda pose a particular difficulty. The economics of developing technically advanced designs, building them from high-strength materials and marketing them for a low price simply don’t stack up. In order to satisfy the design brief and bring new models in on budget, FIAT has for decades been pioneers of platform and component sharing.
From an ethical standpoint, the revised tests carried out by Euro NCAP could not be said to have been conducted in good faith. Only by using its altered testing criteria could Euro NCAP achieve the zero-star ratings. Even if we allow that Euro NCAP had a research goal to carry out a comparative study of its test criteria, this could have been achieved without unreasonably maligning a manufacturer’s reputation. Having now briefed against the same manufacturer twice, Euro NCAP’s actions might be regarded as being unreasonably vindictive.
Aside from the publicity for Euro NCAP, and adverse headlines for FIAT, what in reality was achieved in retesting the Punto and Panda?
As with every other manufacturer, FIAT design its cars to meet the safety standards as they apply at the time. When tested by Euro NCAP at launch in 2005, the 199 Punto achieved five stars. In 2011 the 319 Panda achieved four stars. One star was deducted from the Panda since stability control was not available as an option on all markets/models. In 2013 Euro NCAP recognised the Panda separately in respect of its low speed collision avoidance option.
Just as at launch, at the time of second testing by Euro NCAP both the Punto and Panda continued to conform to the statutory crash worthiness requirements as applied across the EU.
Because neither the Punto nor the Panda were new designs, or structurally revised models, Euro NCAP could have no expectation that a second crash test would yield different results from those already achieved. In terms of their research brief, there was therefore no logical reason for the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) to carry out further crash tests on these models.
With the pace of technological advance, and models today required to satisfy an ever changing and widening brief, no manufacturer can hope to future-proof their designs. Among this host of competing demands, and the rate of technological change, improvements in occupant safety would, merely to keep pace, require a ground-up redesign of both the platform and the technical systems every four or five years.
Many manufactures take the view that such an investment would be better spent in the development of an entirely new model. In the past, when the pace of change was slower and designs were less technically complex, such decisions would often coincide with declining sales as the model aged and neared the end of its seven to twelve-year production cycle.
Increasingly however, the development and production of lower margin cars like the Panda pose a particular difficulty. The economics of developing technically advanced designs, building them from high-strength materials and marketing them for a low price simply don’t stack up. In order to satisfy the design brief and bring new models in on budget, FIAT has for decades been pioneers of platform and component sharing.
From an ethical standpoint, the revised tests carried out by Euro NCAP could not be said to have been conducted in good faith. Only by using its altered testing criteria could Euro NCAP achieve the zero-star ratings. Even if we allow that Euro NCAP had a research goal to carry out a comparative study of its test criteria, this could have been achieved without unreasonably maligning a manufacturer’s reputation. Having now briefed against the same manufacturer twice, Euro NCAP’s actions might be regarded as being unreasonably vindictive.
