Compare this to a 80s Mercedes 190: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw1GNfA_AnU . The passenger cell remains solid though the crash dummies experience injuries. I often wonder how much better the automotive market would be if solid designs remained in circulation instead of these new-old mistakes re-entering the market every time.
In a lot of post-Soviet countries, rather than buying new, they import second-hand cars from Western European countries and keep them running. If you have skilled mechanics, and a steady stream of spare parts (from everyone else importing the same cars), it's quite easy to keep your car running up to 300,000km or beyond.
The other week I was in Armenia, and although the average wage is $400/mo, you see more BMWs and Mercedes on the road than you do in the U.K. Admitidely the climate helps, as you don't need to worry about rust in most of country.
This is a smart plan. A 20 year old MB has technology that is now finally trickling into modern pedestrian cars, such as electronic start key, 5 speed automatic, and side airbags.
You can occasionally see a car older than the driver even on the German highways.
In order to have a car in such a good condition, you have to take care of it. Not just mandatory service intervals, but really take care about every detail.
Those solid designs mean much higher impact forces on the passengers. Crumple zones are a significant part of why modern cars are more survivable in accidents.
You just don't want to make the passenger part of the crumple zone, which appears to be what Renault has done here.
True, that was my point. The front of the 190 collapses significantly while the passenger compartment remained stable, which is quite unlike the Renault. From my reads on the evolution of automotive safety, it seems that the core lesson that was learnt from the aviation industry was to make sure the passenger compartment integrity was maintained first and foremost.
The 1980s Mercedes crash test is a full frontal crash test, which simulates the car crashing into a wall. Those kinds of crashes are rare. The Kwid and Nano videos are offset crash tests, which simulate the car crashing into another car. I bet the Mercedes would also fare very poorly in an offset crash test.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOw-lgEG6Y0 at 0:53 and 2:17 is where they show an offset crash; not very comprehensive but it is clear to me that the shell remained pretty solid. I guess I am still in shock at the utter lack of integrity in the passenger compartment of the Kwid and the Nano - I really thought cars in this decade would be designed better than that. All of the safety comparisons with mopeds etc. sound a little ridiculous to me - I feel somewhat safe saying that none of us would ever knowingly buy the Kwid or Nano even if they were allowed in our respective countries; I definitely would prefer to walk over buying it. If it is not good enough for me, IMO it is not good enough for the folks in India.
That's not the point I was making. I am saying that the design principles of good design, especially for safety, should be well known now that decades have passed. Two additional points:
1. Can a 190 of that vintage be had for $4k now? IMO, that is a better investment than the Renault.
2. Could a car company license to build that 190 in India now at a low cost? That would have saved a lot of the design cost and provided folks a safe design.
Safer normally means heavier. I'm not sure of fuel costs in India, but this Renault has a 800cc engine
1 is true, but I assume the Renault will have a warranty, dealer support etc
2 I'd doubt it. Older Mercs were over engineered (the last of which was the w124) - it's not rare to still see them today, whereas other marques from the era are in scrapyards
As an alternative available in India for sale now, consider the VW Polo: https://www.cardekho.com/overview/Volkswagen_Polo/Volkswagen..., available for ~$7800 with dual airbags. True, that is nearly twice the price, but the safety results at http://www.globalncap.org/results/ (bottom, with airbags) speak for themselves. I know everyone has a different price on safety but buying one of these second hand, IMO, would be a better investment than buying the Renault new.
In the Global NCAP page above, it seems that the Kwid was re-tested and in subsequent tests, it looks like the passenger cell retained its integrity.
Yea, but if you made it safe, it would be too expensive for most of the target market to buy. This is the developing world.
The same thing happens everywhere, a country goes through a period of wild-west capitalism, then, if things go well, eventually it gets rich enough to be able to afford things like safe products, worker safety laws, a social safety net, and so on. I am not aware of any country that has gone straight from non-industrialized to safe industrialization.
If the issue is cars being status symbol being fancy but cheap won't help and won't make it desiderable nor a status symbol anymore than a dirt cheap rolex would
I have a hard time understanding why 60+ years of knowledge about safety cells is ignored in this design-to-cost. I don't know how much more the cost of this car would have been in materials if reasonable attention had been paid to maintaining the integrity of the passenger compartment.
I have a hard time imagining that 6k of the remaining cost (a basic car in the US can be had at $10k) would be because of a decent safety standard. I am curious to know how much more than $4k this Renault would be if they had spent a little time designing a safer passenger cell.
I don't think I ever asked that the car have airbags - with this car's atrociously weak passenger cell, an airbag would probably create more harm. All I am surprised by is the poor passenger cell that collapsed like it was made of pasta and everything in my comments has been directed to hoping they will redesign this thing to not collapse in a crash.
Safety requirements will easily hit that. Replacing airbags alone after an accident costs $3-5k. The crash test videos posted up-thread show there's a lot more than just airbags lacking, too.