Crash Test results

S

Stuey

Well-known member
1000+ Posts
Fellow Frogger
Joined
Jul 31, 2001
Messages
6,690
Location
Perth, Western Australia
You're probably all aware by now that the new Laguna got a five star Euro NCAP crash test result, the only car yet to do it. Apparently BMW and MB have admitted that their next models won't even achieve this. And then the Alfa 147 just tested crumpled so badly that it was 'one of the worst results recorded'. Excellent side impact results brought it artificially up to a three rating. Apparently the C5 and 307 got 'good scores' though.

Stuey
 
hehe,

I read somewhere, no one was more surprised by the results than Renault themselves! :)

Renault had been one of the many parties who opposed the new rating system.

Either way, it's good to see Renault doing good things, would seem they are on something of a roll at the moment.

Any reports on the Laguna?,
does it drive like a volvo with a Renault badge? :D
________
Live sex
 
Last edited:
There seems to be some controversy regarding the Renault NCAP scores. From the following article in Drive.com, the results are questioned as the vehicle tested was a LHD 1.8 litre version as opposed to the RHD 3 litre sold in AUS.

<a href="http://drive.fairfax.com.au/cgi-bin/drive2002/wrapper.cgi?article=..%2Fdocs%2Fcontent-new%2Fnews%2Fgeneral%2F2002%2F04%2F01%2FFFXU8IV7HZC.html&make=&family=&desc=&IsDealer=&search_" target="_blank">http://drive.fairfax.com.au/cgi-bin/drive2002/wrapper.cgi?article=..%2Fdocs%2Fcontent-new%2Fnews%2Fgeneral%2F2002%2F04%2F01%2FFFXU8IV7HZC.html&make=&family=&desc=&IsDealer=&search_</a> query=&result_query=&site_section=news&cat=findarticles&subCat=&pType=searchresults

New Laguna review here from Drive.com

<a href="http://drive.fairfax.com.au/cgi-bin/drive2002/wrapper.cgi?article=..%2Fdocs%2Fcontent-new%2Fnews%2Fgeneral%2F2002%2F04%2F05%2FFFXKQXMXMZC.html&make=&family=&desc=&IsDealer=&search_" target="_blank">http://drive.fairfax.com.au/cgi-bin/drive2002/wrapper.cgi?article=..%2Fdocs%2Fcontent-new%2Fnews%2Fgeneral%2F2002%2F04%2F05%2FFFXKQXMXMZC.html&make=&family=&desc=&IsDealer=&search_</a> query=&result_query=&site_section=news&cat=findarticles&subCat=&pType=searchresults
 
I wouldn't get too excited about anything on Drive dot com. They should rename it "Bribe dot con" Have a look at the Top Ten they came out with a couple of weeks ago :rolleyes:
It always appears that the review or rating that comes from them is proportionate to the amount of dollars being spent on advertising with them. How else could you rate a Holden Dunnydore over a bimmer or a Holden Barina over the swag of Jap & European cars in that category? clown
Whereabouts in the paper do they print this stuff? With the cartoons :D eek! kisses :D

Alan S
 
Simon,

Wouldn't you expect them to test a smaller engined LHD car for the Euro NCAP? I don't see where the controversy is. Unless you mean in reference to Ren Oz quoting the figures - but after all, most of the results stem from the cabin structural strength and the internal cabin architecture, which I would assume is reversed.

Interestingly the new Mondeo's cabin was close to having 'structural instability' whatever that means.

Whatever, the results are a good starting point, and it seems all the Renailts are getting good ratings, including the Clio.

Stuey
 
The 307 was 2 points away from a 5 star rating.

I'd only use NCAP as a rough guide - yes, I'd be worried if the car had 1 star, but I'm not sure whether a 5 star car is that much safer, or even safer than a 4 star car. The amount of cars that get 100% in the side impact tests is questionable though. US NCAP results also tend to produce different results to Euro NCAP.

I'd still have more faith in a Volvo than a Renault when it came to the crunch, becuase at least Volvo isn't all about computer simulations and running cars into lab walls. They probably investigate more real world accidents than anyone else in the world.

As for the whingeing in the local press, I really doubt that the fact that a 1.8 in the LHD Laguna is going to make a huge difference in safety. It's just rivals trying to dig dirt on Renault on a minor technicality.

Reports I've heard on the Laguna aren't bad. Smooth engine, not a rocket though. Good chassis, but biased towards ride. Some reports were complaining about the usefulness of the card start technology & the fact that you can't attach your keys to the card (otherwise you'll scratch the dash).

On the subject of keys, is it just me, but are cars these days meant to come with 3 keys? Peugeot says that the 307 only comes with two, one PLIP and one plain key (and the price of keys these days is ridiculous). Our Volvos have always come with two electronic keys & one plain key.
 
I would have thought to be totally transparent in quoting the crash results that you would have to state which model and configuration got what result. So a RHD 3 litre Laguna may infact perform better, worse or identical in a similar crash test to the 1.8 litre LHD Laguna. If the test isn't performed you can't really draw a proper comparison or conclusion.

Different spec cars may have more or less reinforcement in the body depending on the requirements for the market. The new Clio is an example, having an agricultural bar for attaching rear seat child restraints rather than the fixing points being properly designed for the ADR's in the first place. Or is it a case of the ADR's being out of step with Euro requirements which may in fact be better?

Audi and Renault did a similar thing in advertising their 100 and 25 respectively as the most aerodynamic cars at the time. However it was only the base models with skinny tyres and mirrors on drivers doors that were actually the most aerodynamic.

My worry about personal safety is quite academic though, when I enjoy driving around in the automotive equivalent of a shoebox and sit behind an equivalent of a javelin. That car being a Renault 4. :)

Simon
 
Simons right fella's, who give a sh*t whether a car gets 3, 4 or 5 stars, my Gordini's have similar performance to most new cars without and air bags and does that make me slow down, no way. I enjoy driving and I drive to enjoy and I think if we bought cars on there safety merits we'd all be driving Volvo's, but then again, I've driven lots of Volvo's and Simons Renault 4 would be a much better option. The piont is, what I'm trying to say is, we drive the best cars in the world anyway, and if Renault win the best safety awards today, Peugeot or Citroen will do it tomorrow, I've driven lots of different makes and believe me theres a French car thats better, a customer of mine bout a new car last week, what a bargin it was, he couldn't believe how cheap it was, it was only $68,000 for a fully optioned C5, exactly half the price of a similar Merc and with more options. So we already drive the best, lets stop annoying each other, if Renault are going well at the moment lets all support them, tomorrows another day.

David.
 
A Renault 4 better than a contemporary Volvo? Next thing you'll be telling me Volvo's still look like boxes and are slow :rolleyes: I suppose you can probably thank Volvo for making French cars both safe and fun to drive.

From what I've heard, the V6 Laguna could potential out perform the 1.8, because the engine provides more energy absorption potential. Secondly, isn't Renault planning to put a small disclaimer?

The notion that car makers have never pushed NCAP results is crap anyway. Sure you won't see it in the advertising, but go to a dealer & look at the literature...
 
Firstly, sorry Dave about posting this. :rolleyes: Thought it might be interesting - I certainly am, having a three and five year old it is one of my considerations for the wife's transport.

I didn't post this to say that I hang put my safety hat on Renaults vs. Volvos or anything else. I was actually angling at the bad performance of the 147, which I reckon is a fantstic looking beast. Oh, and no, Volvo's still look like boxes and are fast. :) (Joke JOKE - Yes, I've seen the full range)

In fact, the manufacturers have a gentleman's agreement that they don't refer to NCAP, however, the head of Renault Oz says 'but I'm no gentleman' (forget the guy's name - the ex-AFL club president?)

Stuey (Go EAGLES)
 
I feel I should clarify my point regarding my Renault 4. The 4 has the crumple zones of a damp shoebox being dropped from a great height, so it isn't really what you could call a safe car in the event of a crash. If I was totally concerned with safety I would prefer to own a Mercedes Benz, certain models of which have proven to demonstrate that in unexpected situations, and if you wear seatbelts, lives can be saved. A well designed and constructed modern car would be much safer in the event of a crash than any car over say 10-15 years old. NCAP tests are just one very small part of safety, in demonstrating the crashworthiness of a car. If the car is rubbish in terms of handling, comfort and performance, it really has to call upon its reserves of crashworthiness in the event of something going wrong.
 
I like the fact that Renault managed to get such a good rating for the Laguna, but it wouldn't be a decisive factor for me if I was considering purchasing one (although I would think twice about the Alfa!)

So 4 stars / 5 stars - both excellent and better than any car I've ever owned, especially the Europa in which the extremely thin fibreglass seems to be no more than a wind diverter/bug stopper!

I would say the Europa would probably get a 0 star rating from NCAP (do they go into the negative?) :rolleyes:

I suppose a negative star rating would be an instance when you get personally injured WITHOUT actually having an accident :D

Come to think of it, my left knee always twinges when driving it... :D
 
Hey Europa!

So you've got a Lotus? Didn't realise or make the link with the name - what's it like to drive? Assume it's the early one with the Renault 16 type engine?

Who cares about crashing when you've got a Lotus - the Elite or Elan being two of the most desirable cars ever made.

Stuey

<small>[ 12 April 2002, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: Stuey ]</small>
 
Yes, a 1968 S2, with Renault engine (of course)

Running a 17TL motor at the moment

Hmm, whats it like to drive? I guess a go-kart with a roof is the best description. Loads of fun :)

But, being a LOTUS - "Lot's Of Trouble, Usually Serious" means that there always is something to do to it...

Currently it's languishing at my Dad's place whilst I try to fix my R25 and R17TS...
 
It's interesting to note that any kind of test means very little statistically unless it has been performed many times (like 50 to 100 times or more). Car manufacturers usually crash test their cars about 60 times or so during the design process. These other organisations (like NICAP) only test one or two cars, which is meaningless. How do they know that that car or that test was statisically representative of the average? The fact is they don't. They're just witch doctors maskerading as scientists. It's just another example of the poor science that's practised by many.

I understand that these organisations don't have the money to do extensive testing, but that just means that they shouldn't test at all. Bad and missleading data is worse than no data at all. They're not doing anyone any favours.

Dave
 
I agree with the fact that you dont buy a car for its 'safeness' but unlike some ppl on here, i would like my car to be as safe as possible. Im sure everyone of us would, if we were ever involved in a heavy collision....The first person to roll a Laguna on the freeway and survive without a scratch will be grateful for his decision to purchase a Laguna instead of a Commodore etc!!!
 
I'm not sure that you can simply write off the NCAP tests as "bad data" that simply.

A quick viewing of <a href="http://www.euroncap.com" target="_blank">www.euroncap.com</a> shows some testing documents and real life comparisons that seem to stand up reasonably well to the tests that are performed. The methods described do seem to be quite scientific. For example:

"The basis for the statistical analysis method is the paired comparison technique, where two car accidents are used to create relative risks. The method was initially developed by Evans, but has been developed further for car to car collisions by Hägg et al. (Evans 1986, Hägg et al. 1992)."

So instead of performing dozens of crashes, a statistical method is used to take the results of two crashes to determine the ratings.

I would say that you would find manufacturers testing and subsequent NCAP rating to be quite similar.

Interestingly, with reference to the earlier postings regarding the Laguna V6 / 4cyl versions, according to the research paper presented on the website:

"The importance of weight should not be underestimated, and while this factor is not taken into account in crash tests into fixed barriers, 100kg more weight in a car to car impact will generate a 7% lower risk of injury. In single vehicle crashes, which account for a high proportion of crashes, the mass should not have any significant influence on safety."

Maybe it is possible for the V6 to score similar results simply as it is a heavier car?

I guess this doesn't include other complications regarding engine intrustions/crush rates etc. etc.
 
Dave, if they did no testing at all, cars would generally be less safe in an impact. Period. At least there is some effort by the manufacturers to obtain a good rating, and this must increase safety on the whole.

I can't believe that you seriously think the testing is meaningless for the reasons you state. Do you test drive 50 identical models of a new car to make an accurate assessment, just in case one isn't statistically representative? :confused:

Stuey.
 
Stuey
[QB]Dave, if they did no testing at all, cars would generally be less safe in an impact. Period. At least there is some effort by the manufacturers to obtain a good rating, and this must increase safety on the whole.
QB]
Click to expand...
Stuey,

You misunderstand me. Of course cars should be crash tested, and of course manufacturers should have to meet standards, but maybe the independent organisations would be better sitting in on and working with the manufacturers in their original 50 or 60 tests that they perform when they design a car. This way they could verify that the manufacturers aren't inventing their figures.

The independant tests they perform at the moment, might be stastically representive of an average crash most of the time, but the fact is that sometimes it will not be. This is the limitation of this kind of testing. How do you know when you've had a bad test? Yes they do heaps of measurements during the crash, but I know that the vast majority of the scientific community would be horrified by the idea that somebody would claim to have authoritive data based on one or two tests.

Yes the manufacturers should be held accountable, but so should people who claim to have accurate data based on such few tests. I'm sure the scientific minded members of this message board remember the famous Pons and Fleischman experimental stuff up of the late 1980s. They performed a few tests and thought they'd found cold fusion. When the test was reproduced many more times by others around the world, it was found that their data was non-typical.

I just get a little sick of the pseudo-science that is starting to pervade our society. The philosophy of science should be a core subject at university for all scientists and engineers. One of the fundamental strengths of science has always been that experiments are questioned and questioned again until the results have been proven time and time again, often in hundreds or thousands of tests. Many many more experiments, though have failed to stand up under extensive questioning and testing.

My question is: who questions and tests the independent crash testers?

Feel free to question and discuss this with me more. That's what it's all about.

Dave
 
I'm surprised that no one else has thought to question these tests?

Stuey, regarding test driving many cars to get an accurate assessment of a particular model. It does happen sometimes that you will drive one bad example of a model (it's happened to me), but atleast when this happens you're the only one who gets mislead, the results aren't being presented to millions as the definitive guide.

Maybe these organisations should do their own tests, but they should be very careful not to present their data as the definitive judgement on a car, just a rough guide.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top