[HN Gopher] Renault Zoe NCAP crash rating: zero stars [pdf]
___________________________________________________________________
Renault Zoe NCAP crash rating: zero stars [pdf]
Author : Tomte
Score : 44 points
Date : 2021-12-08 15:43 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (cdn.euroncap.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (cdn.euroncap.com)
| s1k3s wrote:
| 0 star safety: Meeting type-approval standards so can legally be
| sold but lacking critical modern safety technology
|
| Wikipedia
| makeitdouble wrote:
| To note, Dacia Spring (also Renault group) got paned as well
|
| https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/dacia/spring/44197
| dm319 wrote:
| I've had a recent fascination with the NCAP tests, and a lot of
| people aren't aware that they change almost yearly.
|
| I saw this [1] recent video recently looking at some of the worst
| crash tests, and it really drills home that good safety is to do
| with a good design rather than the class of car. It's also a
| reminder of just how scary a 30mph collision is, especially at
| just the wrong angle. We had a death on the road I live on
| recently where a relatively modren Mercedes hit a tree. It
| happened in the early hours of the morning so I'm sure this was >
| 30mph collision, one dead and two in a critical state. It reminds
| you that at high speeds these tests don't mean that much.
|
| I wonder if they will start to look at the rear seats more,
| especially for children. There is a high rate of serious head
| injury for children in anything other than the middle seat, and I
| feel this is something that is only starting to be looked at. Not
| to mention the 3rd row of seats doesn't seem to tested at all.
|
| Another interesting point is that this testing is voluntary.
| There are some very expensive cars on the road that not tested!
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/uFQkRpeC294
| glintik wrote:
| Zero stars - car body from paper?
| soheil wrote:
| Is it possible to receive negative stars?
| sokoloff wrote:
| Maybe the Saturday Night Live Lexon Paradox? (This is difficult
| to find the video online, probably due to the close name of
| Lexon vs Lexus.)
|
| "another [team] designed it to shatter on impact, throwing
| passengers up to 300 yards."
|
| https://snltranscripts.jt.org/94/94bparadox.phtml
| gambiting wrote:
| No - zero stars is still legally allowed to be sold. If it were
| to get below 0 stars, as in - actively unsafe - then it would
| not receive certification at all and not be allowed for
| sale(and in fact there were some cars that have been refused
| certification in the EU, some chinese designs that basically
| offered zero crumple zones and folded on themselves in a crash,
| that kind of thing)
| tialaramex wrote:
| All of these programmes, NCAP, EuroNCAP, and others like them
| around the world, are entirely _advisory_.
|
| The government makes rules for what you can sell, but the
| safety standards involved are _much_ less stringent than you
| 'd see in these advisory programmes. In some cases the same
| test centres are used (since after all they have the
| equipment) but the tests done are way easier than for say
| EuroNCAP.
|
| For example it has been years since the point where you
| weren't going to get anywhere in the advisory tests without
| airbags, but most places they aren't a legal requirement for
| new cars (there is often a rule saying they must work _if
| they are fitted_ but no requirement to fit them).
|
| The funding is very different. For your car to be legal to
| sell new (at volume) you must pass the government tests,
| including in many countries a single destructive (ie writes
| off the car) test, and the government won't pay for that. If,
| say, Volvo, decided it wasn't interested in the UK market now
| that they're non-EU, it needn't submit new Volvo models, and
| then such new models just can't be sold in the UK no matter
| how safe they obviously are.
|
| In contrast the advisory tests are voluntary, often a
| manufacturer will pay for their products to be tested e.g.
| they might say to EuroNCAP, "We made a new mid-range family
| car, you can buy a basic model for about EUR40k so here's
| EUR40k" and then EuroNCAP buys a suitable model from a dealer
| (this avoid the scenario where a manufacturer ships the
| tester a specially hardened test vehicle) with their EUR40k
| and runs tests. But they don't have to pay, if Volvo decided
| they hate these tests, and won't pay for them, but they still
| provide cars for government tests, either the advisory test
| outfits buy the cars with their own funds or they don't test
| the Volvo models any more, but either way they are _still
| legal_ to buy.
|
| I mentioned above that volume matters because of destructive
| testing. If you build your own car, from scratch, in most
| places the government says OK, fine, nobody does that, and
| obviously it's probably a death trap, but clearly there's
| only one of these we can't very well destructively test that
| one, so long as you meet some _very_ basic requirements (e.g.
| no ludicrously over-size vehicles, nothing that 's obviously
| going to kill other road users) you can drive that, although
| you may not be allowed to _sell_ it to anybody as a car.
| twic wrote:
| Don't know why this is a link to the PDF, the web page has the
| same information (although hidden behind all sorts of tabs and
| toggles you have to click):
|
| https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/renault/zoe/44206
| tamcap wrote:
| I think you just answered your own question ;-) .
| pantulis wrote:
| I find interesting to compare these results with those of a
| 4-star car hailing from 1999, which could now be considered a
| coffin-on-wheels. (I happen to own one, maybe I should consider
| getting a Zoe!)
|
| https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/9749/euroncap_ford_focus_1999...
| Hamuko wrote:
| Well, part of that is that crashing a 1999 Ford Focus into a
| 2021 Chevrolet Movie Theater will probably not be in the Focus'
| favour.
| gambiting wrote:
| I don't think these ratings should be considered as absolutes,
| not can they be compared between years. Your car was a 4-star
| car when compared against other models introduced that year -
| if you were to replace it with another 1999 vehicle, you'd need
| to look for the same level of standards applied back then. But
| yeah, of course it's going to do worse against a 2022 model -
| but it doesn't automatically make it a coffin on wheels either.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Zero!? How!? Also I don't understand what it has to do with the
| fact that this is an electric propulsion car, 4-5 star NCAP
| rating had been basically standard for years IIUC.
| dm319 wrote:
| Have a look through recent NCAPs, there have been several 1-3
| star ratings even in the last few years.
| raxxorrax wrote:
| I guess this will hit all electric vehicles at first. Due to the
| higher weight you will have more energetic collisions compared to
| fuel powered cars. Of course there are still differences by
| model.
| janoc wrote:
| Not really, that's apples to oranges comparison comparing this
| to something like a Tesla, Ioniq or one of the large expensive
| electric SUVs. Something like Ioniq 5 is almost twice as big
| compared to a Zoe ...
|
| Zoe is an urban supermini, only slightly bigger than a Smart or
| Twingo. And with minimal equipment (no expensive assistive
| systems) to bring the price down because otherwise it wouldn't
| be possible to sell it.
|
| Zoe pricing _starts_ at 32500EUR (comparably or even larger
| sized Clio at about 15000EUR). It used to be possible to buy it
| cheaper - but then you needed to add monthly rent of the
| battery pack (battery pack was leased from the manufacturer,
| you don 't buy it with the Zoe - Renault specialty)
|
| So there simply isn't either physical or pricing space for any
| fancy equipment like extra airbags, electronic safety/assistive
| systems, etc. - and that's where Zoe was losing big time in the
| NCAP tests.
| gambiting wrote:
| I generally agree, except for this point:
|
| "because otherwise it wouldn't be possible to sell it."
|
| Like, Dacia is making their EV literally for 1/3rd of the
| cost of the Zoe[0], and yet they managed to get 1 star in
| ncap tests[1]. So no, I don't think it "wouldn't be possible"
| to include these better systems - it's just Renault being
| cheap and riding their brand recognition as Zoe is a pretty
| popular model.
|
| [0] https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/dacia-spring-
| ev-...
|
| [1] https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/dacia/spring/44197
| [deleted]
| p49k wrote:
| Tesla Model 3: 5 stars
|
| https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/55749/euroncap-2019-tesla-mod...
|
| BMW iX: 5 stars
|
| https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/67239/euroncap-2021-bmw-ix-da...
|
| Jaguar I-Pace: 5 stars
|
| https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/63559/euroncap-2018-jaguar-i-...
|
| Nissan Leaf: 5 stars
|
| https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/62961/euroncap-2018-nissan-le...
|
| VW ID3: 5 stars
|
| https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/64338/euroncap-2020-vw-id3-da...
|
| VW ID4: 5 stars
|
| https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/64335/euroncap-2021-vw-id4-da...
|
| Hyundai Ioniq 5: 5 stars
|
| https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/67127/euroncap-2021-hyundai-i...
|
| Ford Mustang Mach-e: 5 stars
|
| https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/65695/euroncap-2021-ford-must...
| Hamuko wrote:
| I guess this is just more proof that the Mach-E is not a true
| Mustang: the Ford Mustang got 2/5 stars in 2017 and even
| after Ford changed the specs, it only got a 3/5.
| lazyjones wrote:
| Renault Zoe 2013 model: 5 stars
|
| https://www.euroncap.com/de/results/renault/zoe/8889
| janoc wrote:
| Yes - and using fairly different criteria, with little
| emphasis on things like pedestrian protection or various
| safety systems (like automatic emergency braking). Which is
| where the current model lost big time as those are not
| available for it (due to cost reasons - the car is so
| expensive already that fitting some sophisticated
| automation would make it unsellable).
| is_true wrote:
| Renault is known for making coffins with wheels
| cbg0 wrote:
| This is a ridiculous statement, 3 different Renault models
| from 2019 each score 5 stars on Euro NCAP tests and the
| Kangoo tested in 2021 tested at 4/5.
| robertkrahn01 wrote:
| Dan Luu's "How do cars fare in crash tests they're not
| specifically optimized for?" comes to mind.
| https://danluu.com/car-safety/
| bmurray7jhu wrote:
| Testing video
|
| https://youtu.be/HiOs1mCMH4Q
| ericpauley wrote:
| There are certainly some weaknesses here, but from the commentary
| and initial skim of the results it seems odd to call this a
| 0-star safety rating. I'd be curious to see what a 1-, 2-, or
| 3-star safety rating looks like in comparison.
|
| Update: Looking at the Euro NCAP star rating criterea[0], the
| primary reason this car was capped at 0 stars was its minimal
| safety assist features (14%, minimum for 1-star is 30%. While
| this balancing may make sense in other cases it seems odd in the
| case of active safety features. Is it really fair to call an
| otherwise perfect (though not in this case) car a 0-star death
| trap because it doesn't include driver monitoring (?) and radar?
|
| [0] https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/67266/euro-ncap-assessment-
| pr...
| toast0 wrote:
| Crash testing organizations have always been about advocacy. If
| you don't do what they find important, you get fewer stars and
| the negative attention that attracts.
|
| There's always a balance in this approach. If the people buying
| the cars also want the things the advocacy group wants, the
| star ratings are relevant and useful; if they don't agree, the
| ratings aren't super useful and a 0-star rating doesn't kill
| sales. (Although, often a 8 year+ design tapers off in sales
| anyway)
| radu_floricica wrote:
| I wonder how much this is lobby by the car industry to raise
| entry barriers. Maybe against cheap chinese producers?
| vvillena wrote:
| A car that only cares about what happens during a crash is
| considered to have poor safety by the newest EuroNCAP
| standards. Cars that want to have good ratings must prevent
| crashes from happening. This includes things like lane
| departure assist and radar-assisted autobraking, but also
| systems like driver fatigue detection and after-crash
| autobraking.
| p49k wrote:
| Here's a 1-star electric vehicle for comparison:
|
| https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/66949/euroncap-2021-dacia-spr...
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| Also, effectively a Renault.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| terramex wrote:
| An article clearing it up a bit: https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-
| news/new-cars/renault-zoe-give...
|
| _Matthew Avery, Euro NCAP board member and chief research and
| strategy officer at Thatcham, told Autocar: "Every few years,
| Euro NCAP raises the bar by introducing new tests which either
| exploit new technologies or lift the hurdle to make manufacturers
| do better. If everyone is five-star, we need to lift the barrier.
| "_
|
| _As a result of these alterations, he explained: "When we first
| tested the Zoe, it did reasonably well and had all the elements
| you needed back then to get a reasonable score. But if you 've
| still got the same design 10 years later, you aren't going to
| score as well."_
|
| _" The Zoe was launched in 2013 and received 5 stars with Euro
| NCAP protocol at that time. The Euro NCAP protocol has since 2013
| undergone five changes. With the same equipment, a model can lose
| up to two stars in each protocol change._
|
| I was not aware how quickly and dramatically the tests change, it
| makes comparison between different models almost useless unless
| you read through entire test protocols.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| What's interesting is how the other makers still keep a decent
| score through the years. In Zoe's case it seems they really
| optimized for the 2013 tests and had nothing to show for the
| more challenging tests.
| yourusername wrote:
| Also consider that the new NCAP ratings aren't about real
| safety. You can only get a maximum of 3 starts if you don't
| include nanny systems like lane assist, front assist, side
| assist, auto braking. For me this makes the NCAP rating
| useless as i don't care about such systems and would prefer a
| car that doesn't have them. I'd happily drive a 0 star Zoe.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Lane assist can be seen as a quality of life improvement,
| but wouldn't auto braking be a purely safety feature, with
| 100% life saving potential ?
|
| Also 3 stars doesn't look bad to me if you meet the bare
| minimum standard. I mean, it's fine and people will look at
| the prices to compare anyway.
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| Only if the auto-braking works perfectly. If it ever
| auto-brakes when it shouldn't have there's a good chance
| of it causing more risk than if it hadn't been there at
| all.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| I suspect that's what happened to my mother. She was
| caught in a pile-up when a car suddenly braked hard for
| no reason: straight line, no obstacles, full visibility.
| The front driver said (honestly or not) that he didn't
| understand why his car did that.
|
| The good news is that her passive safety systems worked
| fine and she came out unharmed except for minor burns and
| bruises caused by the airbag.
|
| I've also experienced unwanted braking in cars with an
| auto-brake system. Nether in a situation where it could
| be dangerous, thankfully, but it is clear that the system
| is not 100% reliable.
| merb wrote:
| btw. aeb systems are basically working perfectly that
| they are mandatory in new cars in europe starting in
| 2022? (btw. lane-keeping assistance and warning of driver
| drowsiness are mandatory as well in 2022)
| yourusername wrote:
| My car has lane assist but it makes life worse because it
| doesn't recognize how lanes are used in this country. In
| the countryside on certain roads you are supposed to
| cross over the dashed line so it just keeps dinging at
| you until you disable the system. Side assist flashes
| bright leds in your eyes whenever a car is in your
| deadspot which is all the time on the motorway. The car
| needs to tell you whenever the temperature crosses over
| 4c. It likes to warn you that the tire pressure has
| changed when it is absolutely fine when you test it. I
| suppose auto braking is the only one actually useful.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>For me this makes the NCAP rating useless
|
| That's fine, and fortunately for you, you can still buy and
| operate that vehicle legally, it's fine. However you might
| and should expect the insurance on it to be appropriately
| higher than a 5-star rated vehicle.
|
| >>Also consider that the new NCAP ratings aren't about real
| safety.
|
| That's exactly what they are about, just because you don't
| care about those systems doesn't mean they are not about
| safety. If you didn't care about airbags that wouldn't
| suddenly make the test that requires them "not about
| safety".
| mk3 wrote:
| Lane assist, gives false sense of security for some
| people. So these assistance systems can be a double edged
| sword.
| gambiting wrote:
| That's like saying that ABS gives you a false sense of
| security because you can stop in situations you wouldn't
| be able to otherwise - but obviously the solution isn't
| to get rid of ABS, it's to learn where the limit of the
| system is.
| Swizec wrote:
| Passive safety (after you crash) can only go so far. Active
| safety (not crashing) can protect you far better.
|
| You'll never make a consumer vehicle that can protect its
| occupants in a 100mph head-on collision with a semi truck.
| But you _can_ make a vehicle that turns that crash into a
| 40mph collision with minor injuries or even avoids it
| completely.
|
| I rented a car recently that would steer back into the lane
| if you went over the line. It was great. Would definitely
| save my life if I fell asleep on a long roadtrip and
| started drifting.
| mk3 wrote:
| How falling asleep while driving is even possibility. If
| you feel tired stop and rest.
| Swizec wrote:
| Yeah and if you need to text, stop. But people don't.
| vvillena wrote:
| It makes sense if you consider that EuroNCAP cares about
| safety for everyone, not just the people inside the car. I
| also drive a car lacking all the auto assists common in new
| cars, I'm confident in my own skills and I have a nice
| track record of no crashes ever, but at any time, I'm just
| one distraction away from an incident. Cars with crash
| prevention features are much safer on the road, for its
| occupants and for everyone around them.
| jorvi wrote:
| I wish there was some mechanism the EuroNCAP together
| with the EU could use to make SUVs semi-banned. I've
| heard so many people who buy those kinds of cars say
| "well at least if I get into a crash _I will be okay
| since I have the bigger car_ ", which is a disgusting
| attitude since it implies that they expect the other car
| to be smaller and are okay with hurting that other person
| as long as they have an X% more chance to get through it
| with minor injuries only.
| philjohn wrote:
| Not only that, since they're heavier a crash into a
| person at the same speed will be more devastating even
| ignoring the higher impact position.
|
| They are also more prone to roll, which dispenses with
| the "well I'm safer!", and have been shown to cause far
| more fatalities and life-changing injuries when involved
| in multi-car pile ups.
|
| That's before we even get to the ecological cost (initial
| construction and then keeping it running), European
| infrastructure that wasn't designed for cars of that size
| etc. etc. etc.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| The 2020 design is actually less safe than their 2013 design.
|
| > a new seat-mounted side airbag that protects just the
| occupant's thorax, rather than the head and thorax as it did
| previously.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>I was not aware how quickly and dramatically the tests
| change, it makes comparison between different models almost
| useless unless you read through entire test protocols.
|
| Not really, you just need to make sure you compare a 2022 model
| with another 2022 model, not a 2022 model with a 2015 one for
| instance.
|
| Similar thing was done recently with energy efficiency
| labelling in the EU - since the label was introduced almost
| every appliance on the market has managed to meet the most
| stringent label(A grade) so it was common to see say,
| dishwashers all rated A++++ or A++++++ or something equally
| stupid. So last year the labels got significantly revised, and
| the old A label became the new F or whatever, which led to
| quite a shock from some consumers who were unaware - normally
| you wouldn't buy say a tumble dryer with an F rating, but under
| the new system that's only as bad as the old A label.
| gpderetta wrote:
| Right, just bought a new TV and it came with an energy
| efficiency rating of F. Now it makes sense.
| peregren wrote:
| Bough appliances this summer and there was a mix between the
| old and the new system all over the appliance stores!
| sokoloff wrote:
| This seems like it's designed to incentivize manufacturers
| to keep making (or overstock on) the old, higher-scoring
| (perhaps worse performing) model.
| gambiting wrote:
| That's not how it works - if the model is currently being
| made, then it has to be re-labeled with the new system.
| The only instance when the stores are allowed to use the
| old label is if they literally still have old stock, but
| it should disappear from shelves pretty quickly.
| sokoloff wrote:
| As the label deadline is approaching, it would seem a
| large advantage to make an extra year's worth of product
| and stuff the channel. Retailers would be happy to
| participate as they'd now have a higher margin "A rated"
| appliance to offer.
| unionpivo wrote:
| Nobody wants too keep stock. Everybody just builds the
| smallest warehouse that can get away with, and some
| places don't even have that.
|
| That's part of the reason for all the supply issues right
| now.
| Someone wrote:
| The labels are slightly different. Consumers who pay
| attention can see that. The easiest way is to look for a
| QR code. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_en
| ergy_label)
| makomk wrote:
| The changes to EU energy efficiency labelling were a little
| different in that it was an active, stated goal that it
| should not be possible for manufacturers to achieve the top A
| rating in the near future and the criteria were set with the
| aim of achieving that. That is, the top rating is by design
| currently unattainable. I think changes to crash ratings
| generally target specific perceived deficiencies of current
| car safety that the testing organisations think manfacturers
| can and should fix.
| gambiting wrote:
| Yeah that makes sense - it's the same in fuel efficiency
| actually. The new goal for 2022 is for manufacturers
| selling in the EU to have an overal fleet average of 50g of
| CO2/km, and that's just physically not possible with just a
| pure ICE car. Manufacturers have to transition either to
| full EVs or plug in hybrids at the very least, or they have
| to pay absolutely draconian fines for every gram of CO2/km
| over the limit. In that sense the norm is also higher than
| anything currently possible with existing technology(in
| terms of what a pure ICE car can do).
| bellyfullofbac wrote:
| There was a picture I saw on Twitter a while ago. The UK has
| apparently/obviously not adopted the new EU standard, so
| there was a photo of product packaging with 2 energy labels,
| one that says "valid for the UK", and the gadget had a B
| rating, and one valid for the EU, with a E rating...
| gambiting wrote:
| I live in the UK, the new rating is definitely already
| here, seen it in shops and online.
|
| As a simplest example - Bosch dishwasher, not long ago this
| was A+ rated, now it's E rated, at one of the biggest UK
| DYI stores:
|
| https://www.diy.com/departments/bosch-
| smv2itx18g-integrated-...
| h1fra wrote:
| Rating system should always contain the year of the rating. It
| would help keep the context, basically if you show "5 stars 2013"
| -> "0 stars 2021", you understand that the tests has changed not
| the rating.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-08 23:02 UTC)