Are ANCAP Ratings of Any Value?

GOFYS on 08/02/2021 - 08:56
Last edited 08/02/2021 - 12:45 by 1 other user

In late December, the driver and front passenger of a Holden Trax died, and a third person was airlifted to hospital in a road accident in Western Victoria. The driver of the other car, a Jeep Cherokee, suffered non-life threatening injuries. Both vehicles had ANCAP Rating 5, but the outcome was so tragically distorted between the small car and the bigger car.

Why would anyone ever consider buying a Trax, or any small car, for that matter, particularly if they plan to drive on highways and country roads? If people are buying baby SUV's because they think they are "safer", governments need to be held accountable, or at least distributors obliged to clearly advertise ANCAP speed ratings.

Automotive

Comments

  • AndyC1 on 08/02/2021 - 09:06
    +10

    Sounds like to need to have a read of how the ANCAP testing is done for the various tests and how they relate to real world crashes. While you are at it you may want to also cursorily have a read of the ANCAP testing changes over the years as there have been a number of changes since it started.

    Any car will stand NO chance against a semi or a train.
    Any car should be better off against a bicycle or most motorcycles.

  • brendanm on 08/02/2021 - 09:09
    +29

    governments need to be held accountable

    Why is this every whiners go to? The only thing they should be held responsible for, is not teaching people basic physics.

    • Seraphin7 on 08/02/2021 - 09:19
      +4

      Agree.

      This thought process seems to sit somewhere in the triangle of "I want compo" to "I want someone to do my thinking for me" to "If we just spend more, nothing bad will ever happen".

    • futureminime on 08/02/2021 - 10:34
      +2

      I think the implication is that for people who know basic physics, and don't have a degree in mechanical engineering, the system put in place that is supposed to rank the effectiveness of engineering solutions such as seat belts and crumple zones at dissipating the crash energy in as safe a way as possible (ie non lethal, least injuries) should maybe be retweaked if two vehicles with the same ratings have such vastly different outcomes.

      I do agree that whining that they should be held responsible is the wrong direction, but saying you can make an informed decision on all aspects based a persons individual understanding is a bit of a stretch

      • brendanm on 08/02/2021 - 10:49
        +6

        People who know basic physics know that if you have two objects travelling the same speed, but one is twice the mass of the other, the smaller object is getting obliterated when the two collide.

      • This Guy on 08/02/2021 - 12:29
        +1

        This is year 7 stience.

        A ramp, a cart, a solid object, n weights and n + 1 pieces of clay/blutack/play dough/etc.

        Students measure deformation for the weights, showing an increase with an increase in mass.

    • Chakko on 09/02/2021 - 08:46
      +1

      If anyone should be accountable it's manufacturers. They're the ones who design and manufacture your two tonne death machine/school run limousines. Why can't they do better? There are so many directions you could point your finger.

      But really, ANCAP and all the other CAPs are guides. Standardised tests and checklists of safety features. For shoppers with safety as a priority they're a way of comparing both across and within brands not to mention improvements made to a given model over the years.

      The alternative is to trust what car dealers or shiny sales brochures say about the safety of their cars.

      As an aside, I'm constantly amazed that the road death toll is accepted at all. Thousands of people die on the road or experience trauma, but it isn't considered an emergency. We set out on our journies and accept that some of us will not come home lol

      • brendanm on 09/02/2021 - 10:18
        +1

        As an aside, I'm constantly amazed that the road death toll is accepted at all.

        This is the same for absolutely anything. Waking up is a risk. Going to sleep is a risk. A lot of road trauma and death could be avoided through better driving training, and learning to pay attention to everything and drive defensively.

    • Leo Getz on 10/02/2021 - 01:20

      It's in the national curriculum, so they actually do teach everyone basic physics.

  • mini2 on 08/02/2021 - 09:11
    +2

    I remembered Fifth Gear have done a big car smashing into a small car real world test yonks ago and the results were quite telling. I think they've also done a crash test involving 2 cars of similar sizes but different bumper height and that also resulted in an interesting outcome.

    Remember ANCAP/EuroNCAP results doesn't overcome physics, I suppose it makes choosing between vehicle of the same category/sizes easier.

  • ESEMCE on 08/02/2021 - 09:18
    +7

    Relevant link.
    https://arstechnica.com/?p=1740226

    ANCAP crash ratings are based on colliding with a stationary object. (The equivalent of running head on into a vehicle with the same momentum)
    A Heavier vehicle has far more momentum (impact energy) than a light vehicle at the same speed.
    As a result, the light vehicle will absorb more energy of the impact.
    We all instinctively know this in the case of colliding a vehicle with a significantly larger vehicle like a truck, it's less instinctive when colliding with a bigger (heavier) vehicle.

    I can't see how ANCAP can test any other way though.
    At 100, you're going to be in trouble in a collision, pretty much no matter what vehicle you're in.

    • bigticket on 08/02/2021 - 15:26
      +3

      Please don't take this the wrong way, its not a personal attack.
      In your example of truck and a car, in my opinion, both vehicles absorb basically the same energy.
      The energy absorbed is proportional to the mass x the change in velocity squared. Since the truck has a large mass, the change in velocity is small. For a car its mass is small resulting in a change in velocity that is comparatively high. This results in large life threatening G forces in the smaller vehicle.

      • ESEMCE on 08/02/2021 - 15:48
        +1

        Yep, I'm wrong.
        Every action has an equal and opposite reaction therefore each vehicle absorbs the same amount of energy in the impact.

  • MS Paint on 08/02/2021 - 09:25
    +2

    Big car vs. Little car = ANCAP don't meant sh!t

    Truck vs. Jeep = ANCAP don't meant sh!t

  • Hithere on 08/02/2021 - 09:27
    +6

    governments need to be held accountable

    No, people should be accountable for their own actions. You can't be wrapped in cotton wool for all of your life.

    In buying, possibly the most expensive item most people buy outside a house, a new car, a few minutes Googling (or DuckDuckGo) will give you all the information required to make an educated purchase..

  • cruiserbruiser on 08/02/2021 - 09:47

    I think safety ratings or how well a car absorbs the forces in crash needs to be considered in addition to the weight/size of the vehicle. For example, if a small sized car with an advanced safety cell structure collided with a large SUV from the 1990's, the small car is likely to provide better protection for its occupants

    • ESEMCE on 08/02/2021 - 10:54

      Not necessarily.
      The physics is undeniable. In a head on, a Heavier vehicle will experience less deceleration than a small vehicle.
      At that point, safety ratings are almost irrelevant.

      The extreme example would be a 5 star subcompact from 2020 will not survive a head on with a 0 star truck from the 70's at Highway speeds.

      • cruiserbruiser on 08/02/2021 - 12:28
        +2

        Yes in that extreme where it's a truck, than yes the truck would be better off.

        https://youtu.be/qBDyeWofcLY

        This shows an older Volvo 940 estate that has a kerb weight of 1485kg crashing into a newer Renault Modus that has a kerb weight of 1090 kg. The Renault was better off as it was able to dissipate the forces better than the Volvo due to advancements in engineering/materials

        • ESEMCE on 08/02/2021 - 12:41

          Offset is a different story again to direct head on.
          Look how much the smaller car rotates versus the heavier car.
          The energy is going into rotation rather than into the occupant.

          The engineering of the capsule is absolutely impressive though.

          • Techie4066 on 09/02/2021 - 19:37

            @ESEMCE: The amount of energy being used in the rotation isn't what kills you. The dashboard crumpling into your legs and body does.

      • bhubb18 on 08/02/2021 - 14:25
        +1

        Not necesserily less deceleration for the larger vehicle. Newer cars are designed to absorb energy to reduce deceleration. The car will deform more, and be a lot more damaged, but the internal forces for the occupants will be lower

        Obviously you can't change physics though, your point is still correct.

  • Bignudge on 08/02/2021 - 10:34
    +1

    Inb4 the hate… get a Tesla model X if you're really after safety :P

    • mskeggs on 08/02/2021 - 10:42
      +3

      Amateur. My leopard tank would cream you in a head on.

  • abb on 08/02/2021 - 11:14
    +2

    Why would anyone ever consider buying a Trax, or any small car, for that matter, particularly if they plan to drive on highways and country roads

    Why would anyone consider buying any huge car, unless they explicitly plan to kill people in small cars?

    Simply going for a larger mass to improve your chances of survival (equivalently stated as: killing someone else) is a stupid zero-sum game. The end point is everyone driving around monster trucks with depleted uranium armour plating. Perhaps there should be a vehicle mass surcharge on CTP insurance?

    Note also that those big heavy cars often handle terribly and are more likely to cause a single vehicle accident in some cases (e.g. you suddenly swerve around a crate of bricks falling from a truck on the motorway and you roll over)

    • MS Paint on 08/02/2021 - 12:16
      +1

      e.g. you suddenly swerve around a crate of bricks falling from a truck on the motorway and you roll over)

      Why swerve? This is the most dangerous maneuver at motorway speeds. The falling crate of bricks still has forward momentum so you are better off braking and hitting the bricks. A large % of rural highway deaths is from drivers swerving. Don't swerve* people even though it is a humans first natural response.

      *every incident is different and in rare cases it may be best to swerve.

      • abb on 08/02/2021 - 13:19
        +4

        It was just an example. Imagine it was an immovable object that suddenly teleported in from an alternate dimension ;)

        People panic and swerve. People in giant SUVs who make panicked swerves sometimes roll. That's what I was getting at.

  • tsunamisurfer on 08/02/2021 - 11:29
    +4

    There is nothing wrong with driving an Excel, i30, Trax, Cherokee.

    But when a person leaves their driveway in the morning they sign a contract with the Road Gods that anything can happen.

    It is certainly not the fault of the government.

    Even if all airbags deployed properly in the Trax, the occupants are still likely to come out second best when a 2T Cherokee meets a 1.3T Trax.

    This constant need to blame someone is horrible.

  • GOFYS on 08/02/2021 - 12:13
    -5

    Sorry, I didn't intend to do a post on the blame game.
    The message I am getting here is that a bigger car is safer than a smaller car.

    It is good to see that plenty of Ozb's know this, but do you rate your knowledge as typical or exceptional

    The probability is that people buying little cars know nothing about physics, and rely solely on the ANCAP safety ratings.

    And isn't this a fundamental misdirection on the decision tree, and therefore a more likely a zero-sum game?

    • ESEMCE on 08/02/2021 - 12:22

      What's the alternative for a standardised testing regime?
      Testing at the same kinetic energy could be an answer, but it's still not going to be "real world".

    • abb on 08/02/2021 - 13:25

      a more likely a zero-sum game?

      Ahh, so it was you who negged me.

      Can you expand on how the star ratings, being assessed against a standard criteria, results in a zero sum game? It appears to be positive-sum to me, as manufacturers constantly improve safety and the testing bar is progressively raised. All cars sold today are much safer than the safest car available in 1950.

  • This Guy on 08/02/2021 - 13:32
    +5

    You are comparing a 2013 test to a 2016 test. They don't compare. In 2015 ANCAP transitioned their testing to match Euro NCAP in 2015. ANCAP generally evolves every few years.

    So cars are continually getting 'safer'. But for the last 8 years, the death toll hasn't changed? 2020 was 6.7% down, but we also have had several major Covid lock downs, so not a normal year.

    The two most popular new cars are utes, selling over 85,000 for the last two years. Most ute's have been five stars for half a decade.

    Maybe the issue is the trend to heavier, more unstable vehicles is mitigating the advances in safety tech..

    Maybe the issue is ANCAP and Euro NCAP were designed to test cars, not the trucks many of us currently drive and how we drive them. Look at the 2020 - 2021 evolution. No roll over test. No rear impact test (pancaking). No swerve stability test. No loaded tow point test..

    You also didn't link to any description of the collision. The Trax's crumple zone probably wasn't fully utilised as welding the crash bar to the subframe to better distribute energy from a partial offset crash was not industry standard in 2013.

    ANCAP is an amazing tool. But if you didn't pay attention in science, it is not really their fault.

    (ANCAP is an industry group, not a government department)

    • abb on 08/02/2021 - 17:24

      This Guy gets it!

  • GOFYS on 08/02/2021 - 13:44
    -1

    Thanks This Guy. You know your subject, and your comments on Utes more or less confirms people are buying the stupidest Frankenstein vehicles ever created.
    But they have ANCAP 5, and that's the selling point.

    What if an Ozbargainer had encouraged his daughter to buy a small ANCAP 5 hatch for country commuting?

  • Euphemistic on 08/02/2021 - 19:12
    +1

    The ancap system is like pretty much any other govt rating system. It’s designed to give the consumer a benchmark for comparing stuff. It doesn’t tell the whole picture. Electrical goods star ratings, health info on foods etc.

    Eg large washing machine consumes more energy than a smaller one, but since you can fit more in the larger machine it effectively uses the same energy for a quantity of clothing and would probably have a similar star rating - as long as you use it the same way as they tested it.

  • brad1-8tsi on 08/02/2021 - 19:59

    As you can't use google

    https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings-explained

    https://www.ancap.com.au/frequently-asked-questions

    Take some responsibility

    • GOFYS on 08/02/2021 - 20:15
      -1

      Thanks for clearing that up

      Cause of death —failed to read ANCAP FAQ's

      • brad1-8tsi on 08/02/2021 - 20:57
        +1

        If you are going to choose a car based on ANCAP ratings then you'd probably wish to acquaint yourself with them. Alternatively, remain ignorant and hope the "government will be accountable".

        I guess you are shocked that a 5 star 2005 Corolla isn't as safe as a 5 star 2020 Corolla?

  • HelpMeiCantSee on 09/02/2021 - 08:21
    -1

    Yes and no. There are a lot of 2 star cars I’d much rather be in compared to some 5 star cars.

    • Euphemistic on 09/02/2021 - 19:15
      +1

      User name checks out.

  • Chandler on 09/02/2021 - 11:00
    +1

    When I was last researching for a car purchase, with the number of cars having 5-star ANCAP ratings, I just looked at it as "if it isn't 5 stars, probably not worth looking at".

    And as others have said, read up on what ANCAP is actually covering.

    • Techie4066 on 09/02/2021 - 19:43

      This is why people should avoid the MG 3. Cheap, but doesn't cut it safety-wise.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join