A research facility in Berkshire has named the new Fiat Punto as the poorest performer since tests began 20 years ago after it scored zero for safety standards.
www.itv.com/news/meridian/2017-12-18/fiat-punto-named-poorest-performing-car/
tinyurl.com/yaj4jefm - Daily Wail
|
"The low score for the Fiat Punto - a re-release of the 2005 model, was attributed to its crash performance and a lack of safety measures including no automatic brakes or lane support systems.
"At launch in 2005, Punto was the first B-segment car to obtain 5 stars rating Euro NCAP. Over the years the rating methods used by Euro NCAP have been updated to take into account new safety and technology developments."
Any car without auto braking (so front radar assisted braking) and lane departure assistance/warning will now score low in NCAP. Lane assist was an option on my car and I have it.
How safe are your cars if retested against the latest NCAP tests?
|
>> How safe are your cars if retested against the latest NCAP tests?
Obviously less than their original values, based upon the new tests that are now being conducted.
But it would seem that the new Punto hasn't hardly been updated since the 2005 model, if at all. Even for the adult occupant safety, child occupant safety, and pedestrian protection tests, it only scored a 2 star rating, and zero for the safety assist tests. Euro NCAP said the Punto only had a seatbelt reminder system as standard.
|
Auto braking and lane departure assistance warning?
The competence of any driver is the most reliable safety score.And luck in a bad crash.
|
I posted a thread linking to the Mail story about the crash test results for the Fiat yesterday or Sunday, but it seems to have disappeared.....:-)
tinyurl.com/yaj4jefm
The story was first published last Wednesday, December 13th.
|
I could not care a tuppenny toss that my 2002 banger would not meet today's criteria.
The NCAP rating, if I was buying new, would not be a deciding factor in the purchase decision.
Price, comfort, livability, practicality, ease of driving and low running costs matter more to me.
|
I am surprised they had to have it retested.
If anyone's car model does not have as standard the autonomous braking tech then it will end up scoring 0 in that test... and therefore will score 0 overall. That's what made the Punto's score 0.
And if the auto braking etc. is not standard on the base model then I'd imagine none of the cars will get a decent (if any) score in the revised Euro NCAP. Even a Golf does not come with radar based auto braking on the base models.
Lane departure warning (and possibly active assist) is usually only standard on top spec cars and then possibly only as an option. Zero's new BMW 540i SE does not have this tech and that's a brand new current model.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 19 Dec 17 at 15:41
|
>> I am surprised they had to have it retested.
>>
>> If anyone's car model does not have as standard the autonomous braking tech then it
>> will end up scoring 0 in that test... and therefore will score 0 overall. That's
>> what made the Punto's score 0.
I find that hard to believe, and if true then it will do more harm to EuroNCAP's reputation than the Punto's. Intuitively it is totally disproportionate to the benefit.
|
>> I am surprised they had to have it retested.
It's a newer model of the Punto, that's why. Same as when Ford bring out a new Focus, Vauxhall a new Corsa, etc.
>> If anyone's car model does not have as standard the autonomous braking tech then it
>> will end up scoring 0 in that test... and therefore will score 0 overall. That's
>> what made the Punto's score 0.
No, it only scored 0 for the safety assist tests. It scored 2 stars for the adult occupant safety, child occupant safety, and pedestrian protection tests. It didn't score 0 overall.
|
>> No, it only scored 0 for the safety assist tests
Correct and because of that gets 0 stars overall.
|
>> Correct and because of that gets 0 stars overall.
Eh? How so?
Both reports that I provided links to say that it scored zero ONLY for the safety standards test.
EDIT - ok, I get it now.
Here's the full NCAP report on the new Punto, which does show an overall score of zero.
www.euroncap.com/en/results/fiat/punto/29849
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 20 Dec 17 at 10:25
|
|
Until you are in crash with your grandchildren aboard.
|
|
Auto brakes could mean EBA which has been around for the best part of 20 years.
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Tue 19 Dec 17 at 20:15
|
>> Auto brakes could mean EBA which has been around for the best part of 20
>> years.
>>
It could in theory but that's not what Euro NCAP are testing. EBA also known as electronic brake force distribution I think - so the car applies maximum braking in an emergency.
www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-explained/safety-assist/
From that site:
- AEB Interurban stystems support the driver in avoiding a rear-end crash by warning and supporting adequate braking or ultimately stopping the vehicle by itself.
- Lane Support Systems can assist and warn you when you unintentionally leave the road lane or when you change lane without indication.
So they do mean radar assisted auto braking. Hands up how many on here have that and lane support on their current car? And was it standard?
|
electronic brake force distribution is different from EBA = electronic brake assist, which attempts to detect emergency braking and applies maximum brake pressure. Drivers rarely apply full pedal pressure in the early phase of emergency braking.
It works on top of ABS - the way to get the shortest stopping distance with an ABS-equipped car is to apply full pedal pressure.
|
|
But to score well (at all) in Euro NCAP tests you need emergency auto braking, e.g. using a front RADAR.
|
NCAP is an indicator, no more. Even EuroNCAP themselves acknowledge that.
For sure it has driven improvement, but the bang per buck is, I suspect, pretty tiny. The tests are so limited in their representation of real life, and so subjective in their valuation of new technology, that anybody who thinks it is the be all and end all doesn't understand.
I might not go so far as Roger in not caring about NCAP, but I don't have it very high on the priority list either.
Which are you safer in, a brand new gazillion star small hatchback, or my old 1970 ish Chevy pick-up largely made of cast iron and steel girders? Well, if my Chevy and a new Citroen hatch should collide at speed, I know which I'd rather be in, whatever EuroNCAP say.
|
|
And let us not forget the same 5 * rating cannot be compared across sizes of cars. A 5* supermini was never tested exactly like say a BMW 5 series.
|
>> if my Chevy and a new Citroen hatch should collide at speed, I know which I'd rather
>> be in, whatever EuroNCAP say.
You would probably still die from having your internal organs ripped out because there are no crumple zones in your Chevy to absorb some of the impact and it would come to an abrupt halt rather than have some of the energy dissipated first.
IIRC, 5th Gear remotely drove a Smart Car into a concrete barrier a few years ago to demonstrate how solid the car was. Although the passenger cell remained pretty much intact, the occupants would have still died because little energy was dissipated during impact.
|
>> IIRC, 5th Gear remotely drove a Smart Car into a concrete barrier a few years
>> ago to demonstrate how solid the car was. Although the passenger cell remained pretty much
>> intact, the occupants would have still died because little energy was dissipated during impact.
>>
Loads of 5th Gear car crash videos here:-
tinyurl.com/ycelghqt
Why the bloke with the silly facial hair was so shocked, I don't know. What was he expecting to see?
I was actually looking for the motorway pile-up video, where a big old Jag? piles into the back of a lot of other cars. The doors on the Jag still open and close properly - presumably because of the large crumple zones front and rear, whereas a small car had its rear passenger compartment destroyed..
|
>>> was actually looking for the motorway pile-up video, where a big old Jag? piles into the back of a lot of other cars. The doors on the Jag still open and close properly - presumably because of the large crumple zones front and rear, whereas a small car had its rear passenger compartment destroyed..<<<
The owners of the other cars thoughtfully provided the crumple zone for the selfish owner of the old Jaguar. If it had been a concrete block, the Jaguar driver may not have been so lucky?
|
>> The owners of the other cars thoughtfully provided the crumple zone for the selfish owner
>> of the old Jaguar. If it had been a concrete block, the Jaguar driver may
>> not have been so lucky?
I am not sure why Jag man is selfish?
However the Jag still has a better crumple zone, both front and rear, so he would get away - all other things being equal - better in a concrete block crash than a driver of a typical small car.
QED?
|
'old' jag = before the concept of progressive crumple zones, passenger safety cell, steering column intrusion........... hence relying on the good will of others to provide a gentle de-acceleration.
QED failed.
|
Also the plastic in front of my car gives a pedestrian a little bit more change in a collision.
The old fashion steel bumpers killed my mate Harry.
|
>> 'old' jag = before the concept of progressive crumple zones, passenger safety cell, steering column
>> intrusion........... hence relying on the good will of others to provide a gentle de-acceleration.
>>
>> QED failed.
>>
depends what you mean by old
collapsible steering columns have been around since the 50s, on jaguars since the 60s, crumple zones similar. Not saying it's as safe as a modern one but safety is not just a 21st century thing.
|
Is this the motorway one? It's a Mercedes Benz.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSEl2ueCATs
|
>> Is this the motorway one? It's a Mercedes Benz.
>>
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSEl2ueCATs
>>
I was relying on memory of some time ago. I did type 'Jag?'
I think the principle holds good. A big car with big front and rear overhang/crumple zone, gives one a better chance of walking away from the crash. Would anyone seriously dispute that? Considering cars of similar vintage of course, with similar safety features etc.
|
You know crumple zones absorb energy, right? So your crumple zones will work for me as well.
Anyway, I'd still rather be in an impact in a large old chevy than a small little plastic thing, and the deceleration will be less sudden if you're small with crumple zones.
|
Problem is that if there is enough crumple zone to absorb the kinetic energy of a 1 tonne car at 40mph, and it meets a 2 tonne Chevy doing the same speed, there will be a crumple zone deficiency of 67%. Bad for the occupants of the smaller car, less so for the occupants of the Chevy which will push the little car backwards.
If you meet another Chevy doing 40mph, you won't be so well off.
This could be a another moral dilemma for self-driving cars when they have to decide what to crash into. Most self driving cars will of course be very light.
|
>> If you meet another Chevy doing 40mph, you won't be so well off
Absolutely correct. But there are fewer of those. If you're in a little titchy hatchback then hitting anything except another little titchy hatchback is going to be bad.
One of the major failings of NCAP in my opinion.
|
>> One of the major failings of NCAP in my opinion.
Agreed. They only say that ratings are only comparable between similar sized cars. What they don't say for example is whether medium sized four star is better than a little five star (or a large three star).
A good big 'un will beat a good little 'un.
|
|
Partly why I have a modern big car - been in an accident in a good (at the time) little one and the roof creased in the middle of the car and cut my head open.
|
The problem with NCAP is that they keep moving the goalposts.
Perhaps it would have been better to establish a standard collision scenario, a standard avoidance scenario and a standard pedestrian scenario 20 years ago and set the goal as 0% chance of injuries sustained in each case. So at the time a car might be awarded, say, 40% chance of injuries in a collision whereas today a contemporary car might be awarded, say, 25% - and therefore would demonstrate an improvement - based on the same target so incremental progress can be seen.
|
>> The problem with NCAP is that they keep moving the goalposts.
Its called continual improvement. Had NCAP been around in the 50s and a Ford Consol got 5 stars and the NCAp standards not continually evolved, we wouldn't now have seat belts, crumple zones, airbags, etc etc.
|
They would have had to have added more stars
If a Ford Consul had been 5 stars, I wonder how many a Mondeo would have now?
|
>> Had NCAP been around in the 50s and a Ford Consol got 5 stars >>
>> They would have had to have added more stars
>>
>> If a Ford Consul had been 5 stars, I wonder how many a Mondeo would
>> have now?
>>
No, that's not the point I was making, rather that start at five stars and have to move the goalposts perhaps they should have started at 0% chance of injury and rated the cars of the day accordingly, cars today would be an improvement though the 0% would still be the goal.
|
>> No, that's not the point I was making, rather that start at five stars and
>> have to move the goalposts perhaps they should have started at 0% chance of injury
>> and rated the cars of the day accordingly, cars today would be an improvement though
>> the 0% would still be the goal.
Does not act as an enabler of technology nor widen the scope of who is safe. 30 years ago pedestrians were not considered. Nor was standardised child seat fixing points.
5 stars is simple to understand for punters
|
>> 5 stars is simple to understand for punters
Do the Greeks make any cars? They'd have 9 stars.
|
>>
>> >> 5 stars is simple to understand for punters
>>
>> Do the Greeks make any cars? They'd have 9 stars.
No so its not a problem.
|
>>Does not act as an enabler of technology nor widen the scope of who is safe. 30 years ago pedestrians were not considered. Nor was standardised child seat fixing points. >>
I said above "a standard collision scenario, a standard avoidance scenario and a standard pedestrian scenario 20 years ago and set the goal as 0% chance of injuries sustained in each case." There could be others added though on the main criteria there would be a perceivable progressive improvement.
>> 5 stars is simple to understand for punters
>>
Not when a five star car 10 years ago would get zero stars today.
|
Serious perfomance figures though. Just look at that 0 to 60 time!
www.gbclassiccars.co.uk/ford_consulmk1.html
|
|
I was thinking of the MkII actually, but I see that is only 3mph faster and slower to 60mph.
|
FIAT - Punto - Scores zero in 2017 Euro NCAP tests - rtj70
