'Tank-like car' does not = safety

[Maxxtotal]

Some of us may have heard that Skodas are built like tanks (due to links to past history)

 

but do not have false sense of security that when the car do crash with another, it is gonna suffer less damage. We often think that a heavier car is safer but the truth is that it is not how heavy or 'solid' the car is but how well the car's body 'behave' during accident.

 

was quite disappointed at this report http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_rat...p?id1=3&id2=150on the Superb's safety.

 

'The body was judged to be unstable and the driver risked chest injuries from hitting the steering wheel as well as knee injuries from hard points behind the fascia.'

 

Frontal Impact The driver

[King]

well, i like my false sense of security

[Chemz]

woo bmw 3series 5star rating.. and best part of it all is that it's built to kill pedestrians upon impact.

[Beei]

[Try_conti]

probably had something to do with the crumple zone. maybe in a minor accident, that's a plus point as the rigid body would minimise damage. A crumple zone could cause extensive damage & $$$ to repair.

 

But is a frontal collision environment like the NCAP test, the rigid body is definitely a negative trait. The kinetic energy of the car has to be absorbed by the structure and hence, I'm not suprise to see the deformation.

 

Moral of the story is DON'T GET INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT.

 

Drive safe, ya ?

[Koolaba]

In essence, you are comparing cars which are developed from different era in our automotive history.

 

The new Toyota Corolla (aka Axio) and the current Avensis are available since 2006 and 2003 respectively. Whilst the Superb is launched in 2002, its chassis is derived from the B5.x Volkswagen Passat which was developed prior to 1996. Likewise, the Octavia A4 chassis is derived from the Golf IV which was developed prior to 1996.

 

The current Corolla Axio and Avensis enjoy at least 4 years' advantage in assimilating the updated know-how in designing and building the chassis and bodywork. "Tin cans" as you may deem they to be, they are designed with the latest Euro NCAP requirements in mind. Undoubtedly this is a huge contributing factor to its current 5 star Euro NCAP results. The 5th star is accorded to vehicles which pass the pole test, introduced by Euro NCAP in 2000.

 

Allow me to cite a quote from: http://www.crashtest.com/explanations/fia/euroncap.htm

"Until recently the highest-rated Euro-NCAP tested vehicles could only get a 4-star rating. There is now an additional side-impact pole test that can be conducted at the manufacturer's expense. If a vehicle passes the pole test, a 5th star is shown in the Euro-NCAP overall rating."

 

Hence prior to year 2000 all Skoda "tanks" ranging from the Fabia, Octavia to the Superb achieved the highest 4 star rating possible during that era.

 

More information on the pole test.

http://www.euroncap.com/content/test_proce...s/pole_test.php

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/euroncap/pole_test.html

 

If we backtrack in time, it will be fairer to compare the Euro NCAP test results of the:

1997 Toyota Corolla - 3 stars

http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_rat...hp?id1=2&id2=43

1998 Toyota Avensis - 3 stars

http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_rat...p?id1=3&id2=110

 

Skoda's latest offering, the Roomster, is the first Skoda vehicle to achieve 5 star Euro NCAP rating. I would expect the Fabia II to have similar ratings as both models are built on the same chassis.

http://www.euroncap.com/images/results/min...20Datasheet.pdf

[Koolaba]

But to put into international perspective, Toyota 2.0l Avenis and the new Corolla both got 5 star saftey ratings despite the so call tin can jap tech.

 

The Toyota Avensis is designed in Europe with the European market in mind. If you have seen and sat in the latest Avensis before, it does not feel like any of the local Toyota offerings (be it from the PI or Borneo Motors).

 

As you will read from this site, the Avensis is made in Europe and exported to Japan for sale. I stand corrected that the Japanese DNA in chassis and bodywork R&D will be very minimal, if not zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Avensis

[Echelon]

Koolaba,

 

I always trust your invaluble insight and experience, you are indeed the guru!

 

Cheers!

Edited April 11, 2007 by Echelon

[Fluffy]

"tank" like car does not = safety?? says the Thread Heading....

 

4 stars is highest at that point in time, dude, and the superb has 4 stars.

 

4 stars = high safety, what!

 

so i don't understand what u mean......

 

and what's this "tank" thingy? the skoda is built like the rest of the VAG cars in the stable, in fact, my tody felt more "tank" like than the Supy and that wasn't even a skoda.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Fluffy

[Echelon]

Bro Fluffy, the 'tank' thingy is because Skodas' used to make light tanks in WWI and WWII.

[Silver_blade]

That's why, most modern cars are not as 'tough' as the old volvo or merc. Most have crumple zones but the main body cage will have to be as tough as a tank. Most major conti cars also have very strong side impact beam.

[Genie47]

The infamous Panzer 35(t) and Panzer 38(t) light tank when the Nazis adopted it into their panzer armies after annexing Czechoslovakia. Both are based on the Czech designed LT35 and LT38 tanks from Skoda Works then.

 

The (t) stands for tschechoslowakisch of Czechoslovakia.

[Elfenstar]

And koolaba failed to mention one more aspect.

 

The corolla is in the small car class while the superb is in the mid car class and ENCAP results are not comparable between the classes as different base standards are used. This means a 3star rating in a mid sized class may be as safe as a 5 star rating in a small car class and vice-versa.

 

Addenum:

Before spouting hearsay I would also suggest you start reading properly before you post. Take this for example:

 

from http://www.euroncap.com/content/answers/faqs.php

 

20.Are large cars safer than small cars?

 

In frontal impacts between cars, the occupants of the heavier car or the one with higher structures tend to fare better than those travelling in lighter lower cars. It should be noted though that higher vehicles tend to be less stable and consequently more likely to be involved in accidents, particularly those involving loss of control, where overturning or an impact with a roadside obstacle may occur. These effects are currently impossible to overcome. As most people decide on the size of the car to buy for other reasons, Euro NCAP only makes comparisons within size categories. The rating of a car within its size category is a function of the quality of its safety design.

 

21.Can results be compared between different categories of cars?

 

No. Results should only be compared within the same group. The frontal testing method mirrors a crash between two similar sized cars. The Euro NCAP tests cannot be used to predict the outcome of such crashes between cars of different heights and masses.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Elfenstar

[Fluffy]

they used to make motorcycles too......and bicycles....

[Koolaba]

Thanks for highlighting the point which I have missed.

 

Just to share a recent experience with you which exposes the general misconception which is mostly prevalent in our local car retail industry. I was checking out the Daihatsu Sirion with a colleague one fine day. The Sin Tien Seng SE who spotted us took notice of my Superb.

 

As he was explaining the safety features of the Sirion to my colleague, he mentioned,

 

"Our Sirion boasts an impressive list of safety features. It has also scored 4 stars in the NCAP Crash Test. Your colleague's Skoda also scored 4 stars. So, touch wood, in an accident, you will be as well protected as in a Skoda. Also, you will not be penalised with high fuel consumption arising from the heavy bodyweight that European cars are known for."

[Tashi]

hi bro

Don't forget they used to run an airline as well, plus locomotives and buses (still do today, with the Blue version of the same logo).

 

bless

tashi

[Liping24]

Hmm...makes sense as to WHY the insurance companies are losing monies!!

 

Now most cars are made to crumple easily to get the 5star ratings.

And instead of a simple $300 bumper replacement ten-twenty years ago, in a solidly built car.

NOW it can balloon to a new front grill, new headlights, new hood, new radiator, etc, when you made the same frontal impact.

Lately more entire car write-off when the front crumple zone is crusged and cannot be repaired!

 

I guess...the car manufactures are laughing to the bank while complying with ECAP ruling. More spare parts sale!

 

You change one rule..it affects another entity.

[Tashi]

hi dear bro

Frankly, the way I look at it is, we simply appreciate different things, and perhaps we have done our own due diligence to make specific decisions on WHY we bought our car or this brand of car. Buying a car is so personal and emotive an experience, no amount of technicality will persuade someone else hell bent on buying something else he or she likes. Much as we respect the others on their choices, we sure hope they respect ours too. As long as we are happy with our prudent fuel use of our cars and know that as fact. :-)

 

At the end, I am frankly very happy to be having this "hidden gem", a "dark stallion". :-)

 

keep blessed

tashi