Just sent this to Euro NCAP... will be interesting to see if they reply and with what...
Ah the Up........ loaded with diver "aids" so its HIV positive, "Highly Inept Vehicle" in my view. Lots of bare metal inside, jack it up and see the body flex, side impact deforms worse than the Panda, just look at the clips and also look how far the front wheels intrude into the the sill area. The Panda windscreen remains intact on the frontal impact where the Up doesn'tI think they've started reassessing a lot of cars now. And of course the balls-Up! will do well: its loaded with driver aids...
I think they've started reassessing a lot of cars now. And of course the balls-Up! will do well: its loaded with driver aids...
just look at the clips and also look how far the front wheels intrude into the the sill area. The Panda windscreen remains intact on the frontal impact where the Up doesn't https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYZ2ALnQqO4
The Wheel on the up intrudes no further into the sill area than it does on the panda, If you watch both videos objectively you'll see the tyre in both cases pops and the wheel itself does not intrude at all into the sill on either car.
The windscreen remaining intact is not an indication of improved safety between one car and another, In NCAP tests for the Punto and the 500 the windscreen shatters as did it with the Panda cross, which in the same essential test, is supposedly safer despite being the same basic car underpinnings
Also many cars might be equiped with lane assist and autobraking systems but are they all created equal and does Euro NCAP take the quality of these systems in account when the points are awarded?.
Yes, they do, watch the video for the i30 for example and you will see a number of tests.
They publish their findings in all areas so a customer can tell what is good or bad and act accordingly. It is a shame that the wider public don't educate themselves with such details, nor seem to care. That's why journalists can be so lazy or sweeping in their reports, and how marketing people can get away with the same.
I woud be surprised to see a decent score for any of them, with the new test standards.
Can't imagine that the Panda is so much worse then other A-segment cars.
Hi.
Thanks for your comments. Body stiffness is integral with bonded windscreens and the Fiat 128 was the first to have a bonded screen. If the screen shatters or cracks its a good indication that the body has flexed in the test, the frontal crumple zones should hopefully absorb as much of the inertia as possible leaving the passenger compartment as intact as is feasible. A screen that breaks or displays multiple cracks usually means something untoward has happened to the shell.
Hi.The windscreen is just as much a part of the structure of the car as the metal its made out of, all the metal at the front of the car caved it but you're not complaining about that. The glass is designed to be able to shatter and not collapse in on the occupants, that's the whole point in laminated glass. If it shatters its no big deal, it just means that the glass absorbed some of the energy of the accident.
A windscreen can shatter on any car by doing something as stupid as hitting a big pot hole, My neighbour managed this in his car, hit a pot hole which was harsh enough to pop the tyre, and the windscreen cracked on a week old car, he'd not had it long enough to pick up any stone chips.
NCAP do not pay any attention at all to the windscreen cracking, and as I have already pointed out the Panda Cross in the exact same tests did shatter its own windscreen, with the same body shell, but by your reckoning the panda cross has a compromised body shell because the windscreen broke?
I wonder if putting the driver out in the front in a transparent, and flimsy, plastic bubble would make people rethink their driving priorities.