Well RF, you have just cost me £6,299 for a new car for the wife (and little 'un)!
If it wasn't for your thread and the corresponding feature for buymynewcar.co.uk I would still be planning our first big holiday next year, GRRRRRRRRRRR!
Still it is interesting looking at the Euro Ncap website that a 4 star car still is very heavily criticiced (Nissan Almera - see seperate thread). I suppose all we can do is go on a grading system and it is massively different to our Fiesta.
My main car is an '05 plate Volvo S60 - a car it would be safe to assume would be a 5 starer.
It isn't, and Volvo state very strongly that they study accidents their cars are involved in in real life and think that their cars are designed better for real life accidents, not just staged Euro Ncap tests that are the same each year.
The latest models (mine included) have however had adjustments that take on board Euro NCAP recommendations (softer bumpers, plastic not glass headlamp lenses, etc).
Given their history and safety being the cornerstone of their philosopy (OK, Ford own them but do you really think they would give up their reputation and integrity for this?!).
I would have recommended one on the other thread running for your new car but it isn't down on the short list.
It just goes to show these things are of course subjective and no one can plan for the weird / odd / unexpected accident they might find themselves in.
All we can do is get a car that 'someone' says is really safe and drive carefully and defensively ..............Driver error causes more crashes that bad car design after all.
Safe driving every one........
|
SFR.
6 grand? for more piece of mind? Bargain me ole son.bv
|
Agreed.
Can't tempt you into an S60 then RF?
|
No. I'm thinking of getting one and RF couldn't possibly have the same car as me.
|
That S60 thing kinda proves my point. I'd rather drive a Volvo S60 than a Toyota Aygo from a safety point of view, yet they are both 4 star NCAP cars.
Even the NCAP website says you cannot compare scores with cars in different classes, so really, whats the point? We are not all going to hit another identical car at exactly 30mph in a lab. In the real world, I'll have the Volvo, thanks.
|
|
And if your going to crash it, make sure it's into another Volvo (though not mine please!)
|
|
|
|
No. I'm thinking of getting one
Hmm < rustle >
let me see
V, Vo , VOL, Volkswagen - no, Volvo - Ah yes ( replace 6 with 8)
|
A sobering thread.
After reflection, I basically agree with Michael. The real question is "What price transparent Ncap ratings?"
For Ncap ratings to be meaningful, they should not attempt to be general safety ratings and include features like visibility or whether your car warns you if you have not got a seat belt on or whatever - they should be about what happens if you are in a crash.
But more importantly, they should allow you to see at a glance, without reading the small print, which model can be expected to come out of a crash better - so that I can decide whether it is worth moving up from Supermini X to mid-size car Y, or can compare (directly) a repmobile, and MPV and a 4x4. The practice of making cars only comparable within a category is a complete nonsense from a consumer point of view.
|
A good idea would be a common standard;
i.e. Every car should be crashed with a, say, Ford Mondeo. And then every car should be rated on how it comes out in that accident. That would give a comparative rating which would actually be useful.
|
A TDCI no doubt.
The problem IS a standard. They are all crashed to the same standard. The same side impact machine, the same frontal concrete block and the same side pole.
SO your landbruiser is offset crashed into a concrete block, and your 107 or Aygo is crashed into he same concrete block. All you do is replace concrete block with Ford mondeo.
What does not happen is your Landbruiser crashed into an Aygo/107
They should all be crashed with a small/medium/big car.
|
But I don't know what a concrete block means in the real world.
If that means a Fourtwo, then I am not comforted. If it is more comparable to a truck, then I'm feeling positively confident.
If they used a Mondeo it would serve two purposes; 1) a meaningful and understandable standard 2) some way of getting back at the people who when asked to recommend a two seater, turbo charged, soft top, sports car immed. begin rattling on about how a Mondeo TDCi would be prefect.
|
No you Fewl, The Mondeo would become a Martyr. Students would have pictures of Mondeos with zapata moustaches on their walls, Mondeo graffiti would spring up, you really want it to be given iconic status?
|
But I don't know what a concrete block means in the real world.
A head on impact into a concrete wall is a reasonable approximation to hitting a mirror image of the car under test, both travelling at the same speed. A bit like a RHD car hitting an otherwise identical LHD car, so, for example, both steering boxes would meet up with each other in the plane of the impact.
Does this give you a comfortable feeling?
Using a concrete block halves the number of vehicles required for destructive testing.
Crash testing as it stands is hugely expensive. The instrumentation to withstand high shock levels is particularly expensive (especially if you use on-board acquisition rather than an umbelical cable bundle), s uch that manufacturers use so called hy-ge facilities, which are non-destructive, to tune the timing of airbags, the tension of pre-tensioners, etc before the full scale certification test.
One of the odd problems in design for crashworthiness is getting hold of reliable specifications for the steel. As most steel is used structurally in static applications, the steel suppliers work to exceed minimum specifications. So, a steel that has a specified yield strength of 300MPa, may actually yield anywhere between 300 and 350MPa. Most users of the steel are happy, because they have a little bit of extra design margin that they don't declare; but, if you are designing a "crumple" zone, you want to know where the yield stress really is! To this end, during a rail vehicle project I was involved in, we had to commision a series of tests to find out the yield stress for the batch of steel we were using.
Number_Cruncher
|
The trouble is that its unlikely you will ever hit the same car as your own.
And as for halving the cost, then perhaps they should consider retrictions similar, although not as stringent, as apply to drugs - i.e. you're not putting it on the road until you tell us how safe it is or is not. Surely the cost of safety testing woule pale when compared to the overall budget for new model development.
|
You are right, the chances of us having a crash, exactly head on, at exactly the same speed, into a mirror image vehicle are negligibly small.
The long term goal is to be designing vehicles that are safe, straight off the CAD screen, and for testing to be simply a formality.
However, in broad terms, current crash tests ensure minimum standards for intrusion and head injury criteria are met for a head on crash into a "similar" vehicle. While it isn't perfect, this approach has led directly to engineering improvements which have made cars safer places to be.
One problem with crash testing of cars (the problem of rail vehicles crashing is simplified a bit by the rails making head on crashes much more likely) is that the number of variables is truly immense.
I'm not sure that complex interactions like this can be sensibly reduced to a value (or a number of stars!), although this is what is needed to allow Joe and Jane Public to understand.
Instead of more expensive mandatory testing, I would like to see more use made of real crash data, as a feedback mechanism for vehicle design.
One example of this, which I saw a colleague working on, was that there was a higher incidence of pelvic injury in a facelifted car model than in the original form. The metalwork in the door and sill was unchanged, but the interior trim panel was much changed, particularly in the area adjacent to the driver's pelvis. This was before side impact testing was a big thing. I suspect there are other cases like this that can highlight real life problems without the need for more legislation, and costly testing.
Number_Cruncher
|
The fatc that this current safety testing is not perfect, or even that it is incomplete is not really the issue. Clearly it will add, or cause to be added, increasing considerations of safety.
The issue is how that testing is represented [sold by the manufacturer]. Even in here you can see signs of people regarding it as the be all and end all.
Even RF as a usually intelligent and knowledgable driver, and I accept that this was at a moment of stress, had an initial reaction of "I survived becasue my car is 5*" and that simply is not true. Or at least even if true one is not a reasonable or reliable extrapolation of the other.
The difference between 4* and 5* is unlikely ever to make a difference between life and death in an accident.
A 5* micro-mini hit by a 1* SUV will be destroyed.
etc. etc. etc.
So either we need to improve the saftey testing to actually be what it is sold as and perceived to be, or we should be correctly stating what it means and ensure that erroneous perceptions are addressed.
|
Even RF and I accept that this was at a moment of stress, had an initial reaction of "I survived becasue my car is 5*" and that simply is not true.
Thats true, I did. I later however qualified it.
5* is a good indication of overall vehicle structural quality. So is 4*. As I said further up the page, the important thing in my book is to read the comments, and look at the body diagrams.
I could live with a 4* car with good green upper parts and yellow foot as opposed to a 5* car with a green foot as well. But not the other way round.
The goona is particularly good in side impacts due to the comprehensive side airbags.
You dont have a choice about what size vehicle hits you.
So for my next car, safety is a serious consideration. a 4 or 5 star car will do, but I shall be guided by the comments on NCAP not the stars. Also size and height matters in your choice. Bigger and higher is safer in my book.
"as a usually intelligent and knowledgable driver"
Thats a statement too far,
|
>>"as a usually intelligent and knowledgable driver"
>
>Thats a statement too far,
We may differ on the minimum criteria for the use of the word "usually".
For me it means "once said something half-smart and likely to whinge if I'm too rude".
>>Thats true, I did. I later however qualified it.
I know, but I'm not really talking of your opinions since you are hardly a run-of-the-mill user. Its rather the vast majority of people who are quite likely to do the first, without ever bothering with the later qualification, even in understanding never mind in the statement.
|
>>"as a usually intelligent and knowledgable driver"
As a statement too far, I meant "intelligent and knowledgable" is unproven to date.
|
They should all be crashed with a small/medium/big car.
So that they get three different ratings for different circumstances? We already have that situation, and the press mostly ignores it.
Take a peep, for example, at the NCAP test on the new FIAT Croma - www.euroncap.com/images/results/large_family_cars/...f
Separate figures for adult, child and pedestrian -- but who will quote them all? Most journalists won't look beyond the 5 stars for adult occupants (HJ is usually a lone exception in separately noting the pedestrian result, which in the Croma's case is an abysmal 1 star)
|
|
A good idea would be a common standard; i.e. Every car should be crashed with a, say, Ford Mondeo.
Wouldn't mind being the dealer who sells NCAP the Mondeos.
|
At least NCAP provides a useful guide, additionally at least there is no evidence that drivers of, for instance, 5* car drivers driving more recklessly, i.e. feeling less vunerable when on the road. The converse was true when ABS first became accessible to the average driver via the 1985 Granada, there were a number of cases of drivers braking much later than they previously did and getting into trouble, i.e. being over reliant on the ABS system.
|
.... an area that NCAP does not cover though is accident avoidance, the whole aspect of how a car holds the road and responds to violent manouvers etc. this encompases the effectiveness of systems such as ABD, EBD, ESP etc though also the fundemental dynamics of the car, it's mechanical grip, lateral G capability etc etc.
|
"an area that NCAP does not cover though is accident avoidance"
They are starting to.
www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/recommenda...p
|
They are starting to.
Though it is not a factor in their ratings.
|
there were a number of cases of drivers braking much later than they previously did and getting into trouble, i.e. being over reliant on the ABS system.
BMW's manuals specifically warn that if you keep seeing the little yellow stability control light, you need to re-assess your driving style.
But then, who reads the [flippin] manual. Or, indeed, who has one to read?
|
Right. That is it. The final straw.
Mods - why the hell are you letting him get away with such bad jokes/wordplay?
Stop him.
Please!!! ;-)
|
That's it? I wade through this lot to see "Pots. Kettles."
Would never have happened in my day......
;o)
|
|
That's it? I wade through this lot to see "Would never have happened in my day...... "
|
Glad you're OK!!
Be interesting to follow thru' with how the insurance company deal with things - if they know you're a Broomer, you'll get 1st class service!!
VB
|
Confirmed today
Written off. I feel quite tearful.
|
Is a new one definitely out of the question?
|
I presume you're talking about the car ;-)
Looking at the damage, I don't think there would have been any chance of it seeing tarmac again. Useful for some spares though.
|
Just seen the thread RF; was away when it happened. Sorry to hear about it and glad that you are OK. Are you staying with Renault for the next motor?
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
|
Why not stay with a Laguna, it served you well, perhaps a Sport Tourer this time, better looking, more practical, better rear visibility than the hatch.
|
Alas the lease deals on Lagunas are not good at the moment. The goona is still on the shortlist but alas only a 1.9 dci130 expression. Sport tourer too dear.
Anyway I thought i had to have a Mondeo 2.0TDCI to be a member on this board?
|
|
Out of interest what engine and spec Mondeo can you get for same monthly cost as 1.9 130 Expression Laguna?
|
2.0 tdci 115bhp ghia. Both the Zetec and LX 2.0tdci 130bhp are cheaper.
|
|
The 2005 models are weel equipped, I would go for a Zetec 130 over a Ghia 115 any day though I would miss the 6 CD changer unless it could be speced as an option. Not sure you are even thinking of a Mondeo though?
|
I know this wouldn't swing your decision either way but you can add a CD changer to a Ford Head Unit very easily.
If I can do it...
Not sure I could look at you in the same way though RF...
|
|
Ok so if the 130 Zetec is cheaper than a 115 Ghia you can afford a few options such as CD or Sat Nav, in fact there is a model called Zetec Nav IIRC though I am not sure what engine options it has. Also the 2005 models have a lot of option packs that allow a very personalised car to be speced. One other thought, if the 115 Ghia is more than the 130 Zetec, where does a 155 2.2 Zetec fit in budget wise?
|
|
The Zetec Nav does not come with the same 7" touch screen LCD DVD navigation unit. It comes with a cheaper one with only a smaller screen and is probably CD based. But a lot cheaper.
|
I'd be very careful before considering a Zetec Nav.
If you read the brochure carefully you'll notice that the Zetec Nav does not come with rear electric windows, cruise control or the sportier suspension. That's quite a lot of equipment sacrifices in order to get a black and white Sat Nav that isn't as good as a Tom Tom Go.
I would be struggling to choose between a Zetec and a Ghia though. I really prefer the interior of the Ghia, the seats are even more comfortable than the Zetec, there's a few nice touches like the footwell lighting and I think folding mirrors as well, and I'm sad enough to actually quite like the wood trim too.
However, there's no doubt about it that the difference in the engine powers makes it a very difficult choice.
Blue
|
WOoo wooo Hold on people. This is not the RF is getting s mondeo what one shall he have thread. Blimey mention mondeo and they all go car-azy
|
Or the 2.5 V6 Ghia X? They're good them.
|
Or the 2.5 V6 Ghia X? They're good them.
Silly, the 2.5 was discontinued in 2003.
It's now a 3.0 Ghia X, hmmmmm, 3 litres... :-)
Blue
|
3.0 whole litres? The stuff of dreams Blue.
|
Lol, Just making sure that if you look at one you don't look at the wrong one mate... :-)
How long will it be before you have something ordered anyway? I think if I were in your situation I'd be down the dealership the first day I was up and about again, but that's because I'm impatient and I LOVE car shopping...
Blue
|
Have you considered the ST220 for that boy racer in you?
|
Have you considered the ST220 for that boy racer in you?
Stop right there, I've got my sights set on one of those as a weekend play thing for when I graduate, this board ain't big enough for two ST220 drivers! :-)
Blue
|
Lol.
I was hooked on the Performance Blue or whatever Ford call it now but I've seen a black saloon with red seats and I like.
I like a lot.
|
I'm still hooked on Performance Blue, but I think mine will have black leather, the red never really appealed and neither did the very light grey leather.
Anyway, sorry RF, I've just realised that we've done the only thing worse than cluttering up your thread with discussion about which Mondy you should buy...... by cluttering it up with discussion of which one we would like to buy :-)
I'm undecided whether mine should be the hatch or saloon.
ST220 or STTDCi???
Decisions decisions...
Blue
|
|
RF, are Scenics still part of your short list? I am convinced now that I see more Grand Scenics on the road than normal Scenics? I wonder what the real on the road price differential between them is working out at now ( dealer not manufacturer prices)
|
Yes scenic is on the list, and the lease price of the Grand is very similar to scenic ordinaire.
|
|
Purely out of interest of course ...... if the 115 Ghia is more than the 130 Zetec, where does a 155 2.2 Zetec fit in budget wise?
|
|
It never fails to amaze me how so many threads transform into discussions on the merits of a Mondeo or Focus, and which one to choose.
|
|
And still they keep coming!
|
RF hint - check the quotes system for accurate prices, the sample list wasn't entirely accurate on the ones I looked at in the last few months.
|
quotes system >> ?
Company car system RF & I (and several other backroomers) use>> >>
|
Ok, thanks. When I had a company car I simply had a budget to purchase with.
Regards.
|
Ok, thanks. When I had a company car I simply had a budget to purchase with.
We have the joys of a spreadsheet with 2/3/4 year lease figures for 4100+ models and when you actually come to order or find an accurate price, the leasing company has a web based quotes system to give you a quote you can order fom including extras.
does have some advantages, they arrange test drives in a number of cars for a weekend at a time which does give you the chance to see the good and bad in cars that look so similar on paper (and it's a bit of fun if you like driving different cars).
|
|
|
|
|
|
