8 ms·

An article clearing it up a bit: https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/renault-zoe-given-zero-stars-euro-ncap-safety-tests https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-n

An article clearing it up a bit: https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/renault-zoe-given-zero-stars-euro-ncap-safety-tests 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 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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.
    - yourusername 5y ago
      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.
    - 0xffff2 5y ago
      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.
      - merb 5y ago
        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)
      - GuB-42 5y ago
        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.
        avianlyric 5y ago
        Auto-braking systems only operate a low speeds (below 15mph I think). There’s also the emergency brake assist systems that do operate a speed. They use front facing radar to detect objects you might be about to collide with, and increase the brake pressure assistance, so you still need to physically press the brake. But if the car thinks you won’t stop in time, then it’ll multiply your break input to try and bring the car to a holt fast enough. But, you need to provide the initial brake input, they won’t fire alone.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    >>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 5y ago
      Lane assist, gives false sense of security for some people. So these assistance systems can be a double edged sword.
      - gambiting 5y ago
        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.
      - avianlyric 5y ago
        Lane assist isn’t lane centering, it doesn’t keep your car in the middle of the lane, and just applies a small steering input if you drift out of lane. The systems tend to be quite noisy and annoying, and also won’t keep you in lane by themselves, and they normally result in the car “ping-ponging” between the lane markers until the system gives up and stops applying input. There is nothing about these systems that would cause to actual rely on them, they’re simply too annoying and uncomfortable.
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      Unsafe things are frequently cheaper to insure. Ever insured a motorcycle or an older car? The size of the typical claim might have something to do with it.
  - Swizec 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      How falling asleep while driving is even possibility. If you feel tired stop and rest.
      - Swizec 5y ago
        Yeah and if you need to text, stop. But people don't.
      - viraptor 5y ago
        Because you can't enforce every rule in practice. There's a chance it will creep up on up on a long drive and you don't notice. There's a chance you pass out suddenly or something else happens that prevents you from steering - same system should kick in. And finally, even if you behave perfectly, it's in your interest that the person coming from the other side does have such system.
  - vvillena 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      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 5y ago
        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.
        bscphil 5y ago
        Is any car small enough that the ratio of car-weight to human-weight becomes low enough to protect a human in the event of a crash? By the time a human body has managed to significantly change the momentum of the car, I would expect the damage to be done. The real question, I would think, is whether a larger car takes longer to brake to a stop than a smaller car, or do the quality of the brakes go up linearly with the weight of the car.
  - MomoXenosaga 5y ago
    Interesting, doesn't that penalize cheaper cars? I mean let's face it not everyone can afford a 50k Volvo or Tesla. And those systems are still very premium. Gonna take 10 years for it to trickle down.
bryanlarsen 5y ago
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 5y ago
>>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.
- peregren 5y ago
  Bough appliances this summer and there was a mix between the old and the new system all over the appliance stores!
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    This seems like it’s designed to incentivize manufacturers to keep making (or overstock on) the old, higher-scoring (perhaps worse performing) model.
    - gambiting 5y ago
      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 5y ago
        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.
rsynnott 5y ago
I assume they're copying the EU's energy performance rankings, which were recently amended such that the IKEA LED spotlights that I have in my kitchen, which were A+ when I bought them, are now F. Very confusing.

makeitdouble 5y ago

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 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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.
  - yourusername 5y ago
    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.
  - 0xffff2 5y ago
    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.
    - merb 5y ago
      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)
    - GuB-42 5y ago
      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.
      - avianlyric 5y ago
        Auto-braking systems only operate a low speeds (below 15mph I think). There’s also the emergency brake assist systems that do operate a speed. They use front facing radar to detect objects you might be about to collide with, and increase the brake pressure assistance, so you still need to physically press the brake. But if the car thinks you won’t stop in time, then it’ll multiply your break input to try and bring the car to a holt fast enough. But, you need to provide the initial brake input, they won’t fire alone.
- gambiting 5y ago
  >>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 5y ago
    Lane assist, gives false sense of security for some people. So these assistance systems can be a double edged sword.
    - gambiting 5y ago
      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.
    - avianlyric 5y ago
      Lane assist isn’t lane centering, it doesn’t keep your car in the middle of the lane, and just applies a small steering input if you drift out of lane. The systems tend to be quite noisy and annoying, and also won’t keep you in lane by themselves, and they normally result in the car “ping-ponging” between the lane markers until the system gives up and stops applying input. There is nothing about these systems that would cause to actual rely on them, they’re simply too annoying and uncomfortable.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    Unsafe things are frequently cheaper to insure. Ever insured a motorcycle or an older car? The size of the typical claim might have something to do with it.
- Swizec 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    How falling asleep while driving is even possibility. If you feel tired stop and rest.
    - Swizec 5y ago
      Yeah and if you need to text, stop. But people don't.
    - viraptor 5y ago
      Because you can't enforce every rule in practice. There's a chance it will creep up on up on a long drive and you don't notice. There's a chance you pass out suddenly or something else happens that prevents you from steering - same system should kick in. And finally, even if you behave perfectly, it's in your interest that the person coming from the other side does have such system.
- vvillena 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      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.
      - bscphil 5y ago
        Is any car small enough that the ratio of car-weight to human-weight becomes low enough to protect a human in the event of a crash? By the time a human body has managed to significantly change the momentum of the car, I would expect the damage to be done. The real question, I would think, is whether a larger car takes longer to brake to a stop than a smaller car, or do the quality of the brakes go up linearly with the weight of the car.
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  Interesting, doesn't that penalize cheaper cars? I mean let's face it not everyone can afford a 50k Volvo or Tesla. And those systems are still very premium. Gonna take 10 years for it to trickle down.

bryanlarsen 5y ago

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 5y ago

>>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.

peregren 5y ago
Bough appliances this summer and there was a mix between the old and the new system all over the appliance stores!
- sokoloff 5y ago
  This seems like it’s designed to incentivize manufacturers to keep making (or overstock on) the old, higher-scoring (perhaps worse performing) model.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      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.

rsynnott 5y ago

I assume they're copying the EU's energy performance rankings, which were recently amended such that the IKEA LED spotlights that I have in my kitchen, which were A+ when I bought them, are now F. Very confusing.