do euro ncap crash test ratings actually mean much?

[puntonew]

i ask because -

with all due respect to the mk2 fiat punto (2002 and after revisions), the build quality feels a lot flimsier than the mk4 astra, and the punto gives away around 250kg, (i know it is a smaller unit, but some of this lighter weight translates into build quality as well eg. thinner metal body panels made of the same type of metal), yet both achieved 4 star euro ncap crash test rating.
similarly, renault clio mk2b also got 4 stars, yet has PLASTIC wings

a mk3 astra and a 88-95 cavalier achieved 1-2 stars max, yet are somewhat solidly built cars.

so all this leaves me wondering if these crash test ratings mean much at all

i mean a vectra B gets 3 stars, yet is 400kg heavier than the mk2 punto, and does feel like a sturdier car. so am i supposed to believe i am safer in a head on collision with say - a range rover - in the punto?

i get the impression these euro ncap crash test ratings give a lot of weight to the number of airbags (2+) in a car?

also, a lot of the bumpers and trim and even wings on modern cars are plastic, whereas 30+ years ago this was all metal. Am i seriously supposed to believe plastic is stronger in a crash than metal?

i mean i know henry t ford made a car made out of hemp plastic that was super strong, but is it not just standard plastic on modern cars.

maybe my hunches are unfounded.

whats your view?

thanks.

 

[AndyRKett]

I think its safe to say you have completely missed the mark.

You've made the assumption that bigger and heavier is some how safer, but the weight of materials do not directly relate to the safety of the car. The more weight you have the more you have to slow down the more energy you need to disperse.
Go and watch the ncap videos on YouTube you'll see the punto, Astra, vectra all respond in much the Same way then watch something like the freelander or Nissan nivaro both of which are much bigger heavier but perform badly in exactly the same tests

 

[MrMurray20]

As part of my apprenticeship I had to learn about this sort of thing, nothing to do with my work but thats another story. The heavier the object the bigger the force is when the impact occurs. It's all about the momentum at which the two impact points are travelling. Manufacturers use crumple zones to aid dispersing the force and to protect the passenger's in the car. Chelsea tractors are so big and safe for the family after all...... Hmmm

Sam

 

[Andy Monty]

I think the USA Ntsb tests are better now than ncap. Ncap IMO have watered down their tests by moving the goal posts. From occupant and pedestrian protection To including / derating cars due to the fitment or not of electronic aids like esp and if isofix points are clearly marked... Making it impossible to compare slightly older cars .....

Its interesting to see a new small car vs old big car (youtube search fifth gear modus vs Volvo crash test). Then compare new small vs New big. (yt fiat 500 vs Audi q7 crash test )

 

[puntonew]

No, i made the assumption that the heavier it is, in this case accompanied with stronger feeling bonnet doors wings etc. etc. the likelier it is to withstand impact better.

i have also seen some crash tests of astras vectras etc. on youtube. i can see how the 3 star vectras cabin remains less structurally in tact than the 4 star astra.

i am aware of crumple zones, and on moderner cars the engine/front end is built to absorb most of the impact and then disintegrate, leaving the cabin in tact.



OK, so my question for me is - punto mk2 and astra mk4 both have 4 stars, both have two front airbags (how much use air bags are is debatable), the astra is 250kg heavier and the wings, doors, bonnet feel heavier and sturdier.
Which of these two cars would i be better of crashing head on into a range rover at (at the same speed)?
my hunch says the astra, as it feels stronger. but if they both got 4 stars by euro ncap, the results should be exactly the same right?

or lets say any four star vehicle, be it a punto, astra, or 4WD. Would a 4 star 4WD vehicle be safer to crash head on into a range rover in, than a punto, even though both vehicles have 4 stars? if yes, why? if yes, does this make the euro ncap crash test safety rating system of limited value?

 

[RuSZ]

Both would react the same.

The safety ratings for the driver are how the car disapates energy around the driver.

Strong hard panels are worse as the pass energy along to the next panel.

Soft panels absorb energy and convert it into heat, noises and kinetic by crumpling meaning less energy is transferred into your body.

But personally I would try driving anything into a land rover as it's a taller car, meaning most of the Ebert is higher up the colliding car.

For the perfect crash it needs to be two identical vehicles colliding to have the crash zones perfectly places.

 

[AndyRKett]

Which range rover? Classic, P38, L322, L405?

An older range rover is no where near as safe as the newer cars.

In crash tests done for TV older 4x4s have faired a lot worse against newer smaller safer cars

If you are going to crash any car at speed head long into a large 4x4 then its probably best you have your affaires in order however in essence the punto and Astra should perform as any 4 star car would if the tests were conducted accurately. Each time.

You have to remember ncap is a scientific test of recreated real world situations, (they don't do head on testing as cars generally don't crash flat head on) so you can't 100% predict the outcome of any accident with any other car based on ncap results.

What you can do is say that car A performs better than Car B in ncap testing so in an identical accident in the real world car A would be safer.

The wings and bonnet as previously pointed out are not structural elements on any car so it doesn't matter how sturdy you think they may feel

I worked in the motor trade at a time when both these cars were very popular and I've driven dozens of examples of both over the years and I can't say I agree that the Astra is built any better or stronger than a punto, I always found it to be a cheap and nasty thing. Its also bigger which will account for a fair proportion of the weight difference as will the engines as the puntos tend to be all 1.2s the astras are mostly 1.6 and 1.7 diesels which will also add a great deal of weight.

Ncap for the punto also only covers the 2000 model car and many of the points the test picked up on were addressed in the 2003 mk2b variant.

A 4 star punto crashing into a 4 star range rover is probably no different in safety terms than a 4 star range rover crashing into another 4 star range rover at the same speeds purely because the RR carries 2500kg kerb weight so would mean a much higher energy crash if two hit each other

 

[puntonew]

Both would react the same.

The safety ratings for the driver are how the car disapates energy around the driver.

Strong hard panels are worse as the pass energy along to the next panel.

Soft panels absorb energy and convert it into heat, noises and kinetic by crumpling meaning less energy is transferred into your body.

But personally I would try driving anything into a land rover as it's a taller car, meaning most of the Ebert is higher up the colliding car.

For the perfect crash it needs to be two identical vehicles colliding to have the crash zones perfectly places.

good point, being higher off the ground seems important too - as it often comes down to which car mounts over the other.

OK - 2 identical crash test rating of 4 stars -

fiat punto mk2 2002
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/fiat/punto/hatchback-1999/safety-reliability/

range rover 2002-2012 http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/land-rover/range-rover/estate-2002/safety-reliability/

which would you be better off being in, in a head on collision with the same but for here - an unnamed yet identical object or vehicle????

 

[Andy Monty]

Ok saying wings are not structural see the new Ntsb 20% offset test......
It has been muted that eec manufacturers have designed the cars to pass ncap at the sacrifice of protection at higher / lower speeds

 

[Andy Monty]

Ps search BBC I player bbc4 think it was Monday night history of the crash test dummy

 

[portland_bill]

As said above, the outer panels are cosmetic, so how they feel will not change the crash rating.
Our bodies are not good at stopping abruptly, but can cope with very fast deceleration. If we stop too quickly, our internal organs keep moving and make a mess of themselves inside us.
In the 1920s, cars were built on rigid chassis. Collisions often resulted in deaths of occupants, even at low speeds, because all the crash force was transmitted to the occupants. This is also why older 4x4s are not good. The driver feels safe, but is more likely to die than you in your very squashed Punto, so using them for the school run is a farce.
Modern cars deform to dissipate the energy, so that we, inside do not absorb it. This is one of the reasons why our annual death toll is reducing, despite collision numbers increasing.
Airbags have saved thousands of lives, but need to be respected. In Europe,they are designed to be used with seat belts and can be fatal if the seatbelt is not worn. You are decelerated by the stretching seatbelt and the airbag should be fully inflated before you connect with it. If it is still inflating as you hit it it can do you a lot of harm, even snapping your neck.
A recent collision in North Oxfordshire involved a van hitting a stationary bus at 13mph. Van driver was not wearing his seatbelt and the airbag killed him.

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

OP do some research. There is loads of info out there and you don't seem to be grasping it (no disrespect intended).

NCAP ratings between different vehicle classes. Mass comes into it a lot. The only time you can compare vehicles in different classes against each other is it hitting something like a tree, an immovable object, where all the car has to dissipate its own energy only.

 

[Didge3]

I have always been a bit thrown off by NCAP testing, when I was 9 my Mum had an accident with me and my sister in the car. We hit a petrol tanker head on with a closing speed of roughly 35mph in our Citroen Xantia which has an NCAP rating of 2 stars. My Mum and sister who were sitting in the front suffered minor whiplash and due to the car not having air bags my Mum cracked her sternum.
I was sitting in the back in the middle seat, with only a lap-belt and therefore suffered a fractured spine. This all sounds about right for a 2 star car but to be honest the big French car performed quite admirably in my eyes, all the doors remained openable, the cabin hadn't deformed in any way to make it hard to get out of the car, the bonnet had crumpled to about half its original length and had therefore absorbed the majority of the impact whilst leaving the cabin fairly rigid.

I therefore think the reason the Xantia we had at the time has such a low rating is due to its lack of airbags and only the lap-belt in the rear, rather than its crumple zones etc. I wouldn't think any modern car should perform better than our Xantia did in terms of absorbing the impact however if our car had had more airbags (or any) and better seat belts we might have all come out without injury.

 

[AndyRKett]

good point, being higher off the ground seems important too - as it often comes down to which car mounts over the other.

OK - 2 identical crash test rating of 4 stars -

fiat punto mk2 2002
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/fiat/punto/hatchback-1999/safety-reliability/

range rover 2002-2012 http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/land-rover/range-rover/estate-2002/safety-reliability/

which would you be better off being in, in a head on collision with the same but for here - an unnamed yet identical object or vehicle????

why are you posting parkers guide information, which is about as accurate as me at pin the tail on the donkey after 3 to-many beers, when the links to the actual NCAP results are on those pages, first and foremost the punto that got 4 stars was a 2000 model its also worth mentioning it was the most basic model without a passenger airbag

compare the 1 airbag bottom of the range punto with a newer two and a half ton range rover with 8 airbags which in the same tests scored as well as the little punto, it says a lot about the build and safety of that little fiat

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

I have always been a bit thrown off by NCAP testing, when I was 9 my Mum had an accident with me and my sister in the car. We hit a petrol tanker head on with a closing speed of roughly 35mph in our Citroen Xantia which has an NCAP rating of 2 stars. My Mum and sister who were sitting in the front suffered minor whiplash and due to the car not having air bags my Mum cracked her sternum.
I was sitting in the back in the middle seat, with only a lap-belt and therefore suffered a fractured spine. This all sounds about right for a 2 star car but to be honest the big French car performed quite admirably in my eyes, all the doors remained openable, the cabin hadn't deformed in any way to make it hard to get out of the car, the bonnet had crumpled to about half its original length and had therefore absorbed the majority of the impact whilst leaving the cabin fairly rigid.

I therefore think the reason the Xantia we had at the time has such a low rating is due to its lack of airbags and only the lap-belt in the rear, rather than its crumple zones etc. I wouldn't think any modern car should perform better than our Xantia did in terms of absorbing the impact however if our car had had more airbags (or any) and better seat belts we might have all come out without injury.

Can't say I agree.

Dad and sister survived a 30mph head on (they were doing 30, and no braking, other car was similar) in a Classic panda no designed crumple zones as they are these days, doesn't mean it's as good as moderns cars. Areas of the car that are designed to crumple and airbags etc all slow down your rate of deceleration. May not make a different in a 3mph rear ender but it does at higher speeds.

Dad and sister had to be cut of of their car and dads been left if injuries which will affect him for life. It's not guarantee but I'm fairly certain this wouldn't be the case would have have been in a mk3 Panda etc. Woman in the Tigra was walking about fine as the smash scene - and it was her fault!

 

[puntonew]

As said above, the outer panels are cosmetic, so how they feel will not change the crash rating.
Our bodies are not good at stopping abruptly, but can cope with very fast deceleration. If we stop too quickly, our internal organs keep moving and make a mess of themselves inside us.
In the 1920s, cars were built on rigid chassis. Collisions often resulted in deaths of occupants, even at low speeds, because all the crash force was transmitted to the occupants. This is also why older 4x4s are not good. The driver feels safe, but is more likely to die than you in your very squashed Punto, so using them for the school run is a farce.
Modern cars deform to dissipate the energy, so that we, inside do not absorb it. This is one of the reasons why our annual death toll is reducing, despite collision numbers increasing.
Airbags have saved thousands of lives, but need to be respected. In Europe,they are designed to be used with seat belts and can be fatal if the seatbelt is not worn. You are decelerated by the stretching seatbelt and the airbag should be fully inflated before you connect with it. If it is still inflating as you hit it it can do you a lot of harm, even snapping your neck.
A recent collision in North Oxfordshire involved a van hitting a stationary bus at 13mph. Van driver was not wearing his seatbelt and the airbag killed him.

Great info thanks bill et al, i am learning lots here.

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

Great info thanks bill et al, i am learning lots here.

get on BBC iPlayer, was agood programme on BBC4 earlier this week about crash test dummies and crash testing, facinating stuff.

EDIT: Found it http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b039dyl5/Crash_Test_Dummies_A_Smashing_History/

 

[Andy Monty]

This is why i think wings are going to become more structural as if the USA Tests are adopted by NCAP.. Its ok them been thin and flimsey but they dont offer any protection... Older cars had inner wings which added to the cars structure.......

take the 500 in the new test see how the interior comes away and gets shoved back into the driver As with many cars the front impact beam doesnt fully cover the full frontal width of the car so the only remaining protection is the wing / suspension turret area




see
http://youtu.be/3cMhOzLxv28?t=2m10s

vs the ever safe volvos...

http://youtu.be/cMCWE57mnLg?t=1m39s


bit more about NCAP

 

[306maxi]

To the op, the material the wings are made out of is irrelevant, they're not part of the crash structure.

 

[MJG]

I think the stats speak for themselves.

I saw some stats today following the isle of sheppey accident that the average number of road deaths annually in the UK is something like 1700 pa.

In the seventies it was in the region of 8000 pa.

So yes NCAP matters.