NCAP over the years
Discussion
There's not really any formal information on it, but there are some cars which have been retested and hence have two different scores form two different years.
One example is the Renault Zoe, which was awarded five stars in 2013 and then zero stars in 2021. I believe the only change in specification was that they had (somewhat bizarrely) replaced the "side" airbag in the seat with a "thorax only" airbag.
There have been other simialr examples, and whilst it's obviously an entirely non-linear thing, a general rule of thumb seems to be that rating deflation averages of the order of half a star per year. I doubt there's anything originally released a decade ago which would manage more than one star today unless it has been significantly updated over that time.
One example is the Renault Zoe, which was awarded five stars in 2013 and then zero stars in 2021. I believe the only change in specification was that they had (somewhat bizarrely) replaced the "side" airbag in the seat with a "thorax only" airbag.
There have been other simialr examples, and whilst it's obviously an entirely non-linear thing, a general rule of thumb seems to be that rating deflation averages of the order of half a star per year. I doubt there's anything originally released a decade ago which would manage more than one star today unless it has been significantly updated over that time.
Edited by kambites on Monday 9th December 09:26
The current ratings are heavily weighted to include the (generally so irritating it gets switched off) electronics which is supposed to stop you crashing in the first place.
Without the really bad elecronic back seat driver grabbing at the steering wheel the whole time, telling you you're breaking the wrong speed limit, and slamming the brakes on in a car park when a leaf blows past it's near impossible to get more than 2 or 3 stars.
Performance in a crash hasn't changed that much - your chances of surviving hitting a brick wall in a 10 year old 5 star car wouldn't be much different to having the same accident in a new car.
Without the really bad elecronic back seat driver grabbing at the steering wheel the whole time, telling you you're breaking the wrong speed limit, and slamming the brakes on in a car park when a leaf blows past it's near impossible to get more than 2 or 3 stars.
Performance in a crash hasn't changed that much - your chances of surviving hitting a brick wall in a 10 year old 5 star car wouldn't be much different to having the same accident in a new car.
You can't really as the tests and scoring have changed so much. Like comparing an apple to a house brick.
An interesting example is when the Grande Punto was tested in 2005 it was a 5 star car and the safest supermini on sale. When it was retested in 2017 it scored a big fat zero.
I think NCAP needs massive overhaul as for many the scores are confusing and very difficult to compare.
An interesting example is when the Grande Punto was tested in 2005 it was a 5 star car and the safest supermini on sale. When it was retested in 2017 it scored a big fat zero.
I think NCAP needs massive overhaul as for many the scores are confusing and very difficult to compare.
SkodaIan said:
Performance in a crash hasn't changed that much.
It very, very much has! If you look at the actual test results (rather than just the headline figure which as you say is influenced by electronic crash prevention), cars which were scoring 80% of frontal impact tests ten years ago are now scoring 20% on "the same test". Car crash safety (as in actual likelihood of being killed or injured in a crash, rather than avoiding it in the first place) is still improving at a ferocious rate.
Inertiatic said:
Cheers all
A method of comparing between testing years would make it so much more useful. I guess they only care about new cars, but even that is made difficult by not being able to see how standards improve
I believe they do provide documentation on how the test changes each year but it's obviously extremely technical because it has to include not only the nature of the crash tests themselves (which actually change relatively rarely) but also the continuously evolving scales of allowable forces on all the different parts of the dummies, etc. A method of comparing between testing years would make it so much more useful. I guess they only care about new cars, but even that is made difficult by not being able to see how standards improve
I think the only way they could really make the tests directly comparable all the time would be to keep retesting cars every time they update the tests, but that would be monumentally expensive!
I guess they could, rather than scaling down the value of the stars, scale up the maximum number of stars. So that for example if a car ten years ago got 5 stars, it would still get five stars today but a newer, safer can might get 10 stars instead.
Edited by kambites on Monday 9th December 10:14
The Fiat Grande Punto was a 5 star car when first launches but over the years it got downgraded to Zero.
Nothing changed on the car though and it still performed exactly the same in an accident but it had none of the aids such as automatic braking, tyre pressure warning system etc so not dangerous at all and yet the ncap shows it as a death trap.
The Dacia Jogger is very similar and gets a low NCAP due to not having the full range of electric aids but in actual tests its not too bad.
Nothing changed on the car though and it still performed exactly the same in an accident but it had none of the aids such as automatic braking, tyre pressure warning system etc so not dangerous at all and yet the ncap shows it as a death trap.
The Dacia Jogger is very similar and gets a low NCAP due to not having the full range of electric aids but in actual tests its not too bad.
blue_haddock said:
Nothing changed on the car though and it still performed exactly the same in an accident but it had none of the aids such as automatic braking, tyre pressure warning system etc so not dangerous at all and yet the ncap shows it as a death trap.
NCAP shows was a death trap in 2017 because, compared to other cars tested in 2017, it was a death trap. In the 2005 test it for 5 stars for adult occupancy, in 2017 it got 51% (which would give it one star were it the only test). That test has nothing to do with electronic safety aids, it is purely a reflection of how well the car protects its adult occupants in a crash compared to other cars on sale at the time. The Panto hadn't got less safe, but everything else on sale had got much more safe.
It is a bit frustrating that NCAP put so much emphasis on electronic nannies in their modern tests but it's also not really a problem for anyone willing to put the effort in to actual read the test results rather than looking at a dumbed down "star rating". The idea that that's all that's changed is simply not true. Whether a car which got 5 stars in 2005 is "safe enough" is obviously a very personal thing. Personally I daily a car which would have got zero stars when it was first released so clearly I'm not overly bothered. However for those who are bothered, claims that old cars only get bad scores because they lack electronic nannies is hugely misleading.
Edited by kambites on Monday 9th December 10:24
blue_haddock said:
The Fiat Grande Punto was a 5 star car when first launches but over the years it got downgraded to Zero.
Nothing changed on the car though and it still performed exactly the same in an accident but it had none of the aids such as automatic braking, tyre pressure warning system etc so not dangerous at all and yet the ncap shows it as a death trap.
The Dacia Jogger is very similar and gets a low NCAP due to not having the full range of electric aids but in actual tests its not too bad.
The Jogger is an interesting one. I don't believe it's been physically tested and they just used the crash performance scores of the Sandero, despite it having a longer wheelbase and not sharing any panels from the b pillar back. The low score for the car is then rounded down because there are no seatbelt alarms on the third row. Nothing changed on the car though and it still performed exactly the same in an accident but it had none of the aids such as automatic braking, tyre pressure warning system etc so not dangerous at all and yet the ncap shows it as a death trap.
The Dacia Jogger is very similar and gets a low NCAP due to not having the full range of electric aids but in actual tests its not too bad.
Dacia don't use boron steel as a cost saving measure. Whilst not unsafe (they use thicker sections of regular steel), their passive safety will never be as good as cars with safety cages engineered from these very high strength steels.
The Dacia CEO said in an interview, because of this, Dacia could never be a 5 star car. They aimed for 3 or 4 stars.
Personally, I wouldn't take this small risk with a young family, not when better engineered cars are affordable to me.
The Dacia CEO said in an interview, because of this, Dacia could never be a 5 star car. They aimed for 3 or 4 stars.
Personally, I wouldn't take this small risk with a young family, not when better engineered cars are affordable to me.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 9th December 10:28
wyson said:
Dacia don't use boron steel as a cost saving measure. Whilst not unsafe (they use thicker sections of regular steel), their passive safety will never be as good as cars with safety cages engineered from these very high strength steels.
The Dacia CEO said in an interview, because of this, Dacia could never be a 5 star car. They aimed for 3 or 4 stars.
Personally, I wouldn't take this small risk with a young family, not when better engineered cars are affordable to me.
How about a New Dacia Vs a 5 year old car? (5 years off top of head)The Dacia CEO said in an interview, because of this, Dacia could never be a 5 star car. They aimed for 3 or 4 stars.
Personally, I wouldn't take this small risk with a young family, not when better engineered cars are affordable to me.
Edited by wyson on Monday 9th December 10:28
I saw a good article once about the overall NCAP rating not being particularly useful as there were different ratings for different seats so you could have 5 for the front passenger but 1 for a rear passenger, often in MPVs which may explain the transition to SUV.
Can't say I take much notice. The Panda got relegated to zero which must make my 169s about Minus 5.
Can't say I take much notice. The Panda got relegated to zero which must make my 169s about Minus 5.
Clearly avoiding a crash in the first place is preferable, but to my mind the NCAP rating should be if you crash how good is it? Presumably it's theoretically possible to have a car that has loads of active safety aids but if you crash it you will die perform better than something with fewer active safety aids but if you crash it you get to see your family again?
I also wonder if RHD and LHD versions of each car should be tested.
I also wonder if RHD and LHD versions of each car should be tested.
Edited by Triumph Man on Monday 9th December 12:20
kambites said:
NCAP shows was a death trap in 2017 because, compared to other cars tested in 2017, it was a death trap.
In the 2005 test it for 5 stars for adult occupancy, in 2017 it got 51% (which would give it one star were it the only test). That test has nothing to do with electronic safety aids, it is purely a reflection of how well the car protects its adult occupants in a crash compared to other cars on sale at the time. The Panto hadn't got less safe, but everything else on sale had got much more safe.
It is a bit frustrating that NCAP put so much emphasis on electronic nannies in their modern tests but it's also not really a problem for anyone willing to put the effort in to actual read the test results rather than looking at a dumbed down "star rating". The idea that that's all that's changed is simply not true. Whether a car which got 5 stars in 2005 is "safe enough" is obviously a very personal thing. Personally I daily a car which would have got zero stars when it was first released so clearly I'm not overly bothered. However for those who are bothered, claims that old cars only get bad scores because they lack electronic nannies is hugely misleading.
Surely it just shows that the NCAP ratings are pretty pointless as it was the first in its class to be awarded 5 stars so at one point it was classed as ok.In the 2005 test it for 5 stars for adult occupancy, in 2017 it got 51% (which would give it one star were it the only test). That test has nothing to do with electronic safety aids, it is purely a reflection of how well the car protects its adult occupants in a crash compared to other cars on sale at the time. The Panto hadn't got less safe, but everything else on sale had got much more safe.
It is a bit frustrating that NCAP put so much emphasis on electronic nannies in their modern tests but it's also not really a problem for anyone willing to put the effort in to actual read the test results rather than looking at a dumbed down "star rating". The idea that that's all that's changed is simply not true. Whether a car which got 5 stars in 2005 is "safe enough" is obviously a very personal thing. Personally I daily a car which would have got zero stars when it was first released so clearly I'm not overly bothered. However for those who are bothered, claims that old cars only get bad scores because they lack electronic nannies is hugely misleading.
Edited by kambites on Monday 9th December 10:24
And the very fact the jogger is given a score without being tested also shows how daft the system is.
blue_haddock said:
Surely it just shows that the NCAP ratings are pretty pointless as it was the first in its class to be awarded 5 stars so at one point it was classed as ok.
As with almost anything, you need to understand what you're reading. It's not meant to be a "this car is good enough, this one isn't" result, it's meant to be a way to compare cars produced at roughly the same time which are in roughly the same market. Trying to come up with a single "safety score" for a car is always going to be rather... imprecise! Overall over its history I'd say organisations like NCAP have probably been a net positive for car safety, although I think the current focus on electronics is very poorly thought out.
Edited by kambites on Monday 9th December 12:27
kambites said:
blue_haddock said:
Surely it just shows that the NCAP ratings are pretty pointless as it was the first in its class to be awarded 5 stars so at one point it was classed as ok.
, although I think the current focus on electronics is very poorly thought out. Edited by kambites on Monday 9th December 12:27
Why bother checking your blind spot when your mirror will say if its safe to change lanes?
blue_haddock said:
I actually think all these 'aids' are actually counter productive as people become too reliant on them and think the car will sort everything out for them.
Why bother checking your blind spot when your mirror will say if its safe to change lanes?
Perhaps, but people have made that argument, or arguments like it, every since the introduction of the first electronic driver aids such as ABS. Why learn to judge the level of adhesion you have available properly when you know you can just mash the pedal? Overall I don't think anyone would argue that ABS hasn't made cars much safer overall. Why bother checking your blind spot when your mirror will say if its safe to change lanes?
The big problem with the way NCAP test the current crop of driver aids is that they only test that the systems work in the conditions they are designed to work in; they do not test that they don't kick in at other times. Hence manufacturers are encouraged to make them overly intrusive in their tuning to get the best results on the test, which in turn means people just switch the things off in real-world driving, negating any benefit they might actually provide.
For things like AEB, they desperately need to put the car through a set of tests where a poorly tuned system might kick in erroneously and then mark the car down if it does.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff