dude.. wow thinking im stupid enough not knowing what is a crumple zone....a car when it's too soft it will kill its passengers in the event of an accident when engine is pushed through the firewall, airbags wil not save you.

What I mean tough chassis is - the cabin integrity is still intact if there's accident..the wrecked blue savvy is a fine example, people dismissed it as too soft but when looking at the pictures,the crumple zone works well, from inside and the cabin everything is still intact. i bet the driver walkwd away from the wreck alive.

Steering, braking, cornering, shifting, accelerating

[quote]I dont call recall good handling car saves lives. It is good defensive driving skills that saves lives.
[quote]

Maybe the feature is a wong word, defensive driving skill is part of active safety. Emergency braking, knowing what's happening infront of you first beofre making split second driving decisions is an active safety People tend to associate active safety features with electronic assistance lke EBD,ABS etc. Tough chassis, and good handling is part of active safety features also. Sharp handling wil enable inexpereinced drivers to counter excessive steers whne avoiding a road hazard. Savvy's good suspension ensures wheels are more likely to be in contact with the road surface and maintaining traction and contact all the time for greater control in steering, accelerting and braking.

Read more about handling and active safety.

of course if savvy got airbag it would be better

soft cars + airbags = ?
hard cars + w/o airbags = still better than above

The next thing u are gonna tell me Savvy gonna own a Volvo ?

So, Savvy have these keywords associated for safety:
1. Godly handling
2. Godly suspension
3. Godly tough chasis

Compare to the safety keywords other (eg Vios) cars have:
1. ABS
2. EBD
3. SRS (Dual) Air-bags.
4. Retention seat belts
5. Crumple zone
6. GOA

[quote=hypermount,May 19 2006, 06:49 PM]
dude.. wow thinking im stupid enough not knowing what is a crumple zone....a car when it's too soft it will kill its passengers in the event of an accident when engine is pushed through the firewall, airbags wil not save you.

What I mean tough chassis is - the cabin integrity is still intact if there's accident..the wrecked blue savvy is a fine example, people dismissed it as too soft but when looking at the pictures,the crumple zone works well, from inside and the cabin everything is still intact. i bet the driver walkwd away from the wreck alive.

Steering, braking, cornering, shifting, accelerating

[quote]I dont call recall good handling car saves lives. It is good defensive driving skills that saves lives.
[quote]

Maybe the feature is a wong word, defensive driving skill is part of active safety. Emergency braking, knowing what's happening infront of you first beofre making split second driving decisions is an active safety People tend to associate active safety features with electronic assistance lke EBD,ABS etc. Tough chassis, and good handling is part of active safety features also. Sharp handling wil enable inexpereinced drivers to counter excessive steers whne avoiding a road hazard. Savvy's good suspension ensures wheels are more likely to be in contact with the road surface and maintaining traction and contact all the time for greater control in steering, accelerting and braking.

Read more about handling and active safety.

of course if savvy got airbag it would be better

soft cars + airbags = ?
hard cars + w/o airbags = still better than above

[/quote]

proton assume this car can achieve 3 stars safety rating in NCAP crash test, tat's the same region as a picanto and decades old atos, 3 stars is still damn poor results judging more and more cars getting full 5 stars rating and NCAP have to add another benchmark of 6 stars to higher the standard.

proton say it all but never been to standardize testing, so it's only mouth,no action, expect us gonna take tat?

you whole day long shouting the same words "say" by proton, balik balik tough la,handling la....blue savvy crash case la...boring,y can't say something we dunno....the fact is accident have so many variable,can be heavy accident causing light damage and vice versa, only a standard testing would tell us the WHOLE story, understand?

I tell you...
he will say savvy will own a BMW or Volvo in handling and body toughness...

U just wait for more proton problem post to pile up here first...

I will believe what hypermount says about savvy's high class safety if the NCAP scores for the savvy is 5 stars.

Actually hypermount has a point. A car with a tough chassis with correct crumple zones along with safety features is a safer car any day than a softer car with all the above mentioned. However, about Savvy, the tough chassis is only a marketing term. How do we know how tough the Savvy is? Please understand that tough chassis for handling and tough chassis for safety is two very different thing - one is to hold the car together and prevent the least twsiting in the metals when cornering at speeds, keeping a level ride, while the other is having a tough, unyielding passenger cabin with soft front and/or rear that crumples in a way that does not kill the passenger. They are two differen areas of focus, and tested differently.

The rigidity of the chassis for handling is tested on the tracks, while the safety toughness of the chassis is tested in the crash room. So far, Savvy has not won any NCAP stars yet, no testimony to its supposed safety toughness in any official tests.

So until that happens, Savvy is still an unproven car.

Wow, you sound like you are comparing Savvy to a VERY old car. Fyi, those old cars aint equip with airbags you know. Your airbags-will-not-save-you argument is rather weak imo, if you trying to pull off a stunt here. Airbags ARE pretty much safety standard among all other car manufacturers in the world, with exception with Protong of course.

You still dont get it,dont you. You were mentioning about prevention there. That's before an accident occur, while we are all here discussing about 2.

1. Before an accident
2. During an accident
3. After an accident

Now tell me, how does the "superior handling" helps during an accident? since you mention good handling matters the most.

And you mind to tell me which car in Malaysia offers airbag but with weak chasis. The way I see it, cars being imported here are fully equipped with airbags with acceptable level rigidity. None of them are "soft cars" as you claimed. Or you are really comparing Savvy to a VERY old car. Which is a bullshlt

edited* for bold tags.

This post has been edited by nexona: May 20 2006, 12:10 AM

Define soft car. How soft is soft and how tough is tough? soft car with airbags? He did not mention about the car specification, speed, situation and road condition yet I m suprised you agree with him even without proper example.

Actually, I think hypermount's got something wrong. Good handling and a tough chassis is NOT what active safety features mean.

Active Safety Features are features that prevents you from getting into an accident, which includes distance sensors on certain cruise controls, proximity sensors while driving, active suspensions, traction control, ABS, EBD, and the mercedes's brake force assist. Such features actively participate in helping the car avoid or reduce the possibility of accidents. Note that good handling is NOT considered a safety feature, nor is driver's skill a consideration when it comes to safety features.

Passive Safety Features are features that saves the driver's life when the car gets into an accident. Things like crumple zones, tough cabin chassis, airbags, collapsible steering mount, pretensioning seat belts, active headrests and so on activates upon collision, thus they are termed passive safety features.

Actually I think a better term to categorize safety equipments should be pre-peril safety features and post-peril safety features. This way the distinction is more clear.

Soft car as in cars that do not fare well in crash tests, like the Waja's cabin crumpling upon impact. And I believe I said he is right to an extend, then provided additional information on why he is wrong on his claims. Please read my post again properly.

And actually, he is right about crumple zones. The savvy in the picture featured showed that its crumple zones worked. The main thing that we should check in an accident to determine a car's safety prowess is to check the cabin itself, not the front or the rear. If the cabin's shape is compromised, or the firewall dented, then that's a proof that the car does not have an acceptably safe chassis design.

HOWEVER, this is where my agreement ends. Newer cars nowadays are often sent through crash tests to test the safety of a vehicle, and up until now Savvy has not shown any test results that proves its tough chassis is also capable of handling an accident situation. So this is where I disagree that Savvy's marketed tough body chassis should be associated with extra safety.

This post has been edited by soggie: May 20 2006, 12:22 AM

it suprises me that these features are getting mentioned within a savvy thread. let's face it, we stuck with proton for one and only one reason, cheap (ignoring the fact that with same money we can get a well built car from oversea, without tax). well it's okay if you cannot afford a better car, i, myself driving a proton as well. ignoring the flaw it has and arrogantly claimed that proton is rather superior (in any way) than a foreign car just plainly unacceptable. sounds like you can afford a better car but you prefer proton instead becasue it can do 170km/h, lotus suspension and etc. thats just painfully.. painfully stupid.

frustrated proton owners, here is american ideal of dealing with sh1tbox, shall we follow?

Well correction my friend. Its not that we buy proton because it is cheap, but because we have no f.ucking choice.

First of all, there's absolutely no point to use the term "soft cars". There is a standard measurement on overall structure rigidity of a car, use that measurement instead.

Second, every car has crumple zones on its own. The main point is always concentrated on the safety of the driver. Airbag acts as intermediary between the driver/passenger and the cabin. I quoted your post because you agree with his baseless statement.

"A car with a tough chassis with correct crumple zones along with safety features is a safer car any day than a softer car with all the above mentioned. "

End of story.

My friend, the term "soft car" is a relative comparison which I have already stated not once, but twice, that might or might not have to do with the final safety ratings given to a car in the event of a collision. And when I made taht statement you quoted in bold, my term "soft" refers to the general toughness of the entire chassis, in which a softer chassis will result in a compromised cabin regardless of any safety features that are employed upon the vehicle.

True, there are no standard measurement, but there is relative comparison. This is what the NCAP is about.

Secondly, its true that airbags act as intermediary, but in the event of a cabin compromise, air bags do not save lives. For your information, EVERY single car that is submitted to the Euro NCAP comes equipped with full airbags, yet some cars score below the three star mark too, with indications of serious injuuries to the driver and passenger. Therefore, a strengtened chassis is imperative for airbags to work properly.

Thirdly, I did not say I agree with him, I merely say his post is correct to a certain extend, and needs better detail because what he said is too generalized and can be either absolutely wrong or right depending on what he is referring to.

Finally, I'm not siding him, but rather, pointing out facts that everybody might have missed in their excitement to bash Proton without getting their facts right first.

There is a measurement for it. If you dont know,it doesnt mean it does not exist. (Read the technical papers, if you want to pull out anything) Again, I standby on my statement that "soft car" is too general to put into argument therefore it is pointless to acknowledge his statement .

Second, you jump into conclusion by saying airbag will not save lives if the cabin has been compromised. What will save lives if not airbag? You contradicted yourself by saying "airbag does not save lives" yet " a strengtened chassis is imperative for airbags to work properly". Work properly? for what, if not for life saving? to cushion the blow away from drivers/passengers. Perhaps you would want to crash test a car with a proper dummy without airbag. How about that?

Third, of course,I wouldnt need to find the word "agree" on your post to know that you acknowledged his statement. Fine,I ll pull out a dictionary for you.

a·gree Audio pronunciation of "agree" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-gr)
v. a·greed, a·gree·ing, a·grees
v. intr.

3. To come to an understanding or to terms:
4. To be compatible or consistent; correspond:
5. To be suitable, appropriate, pleasing, or healthful:

Finally, I bash whoever I want, whenever I want, anti-Proton or pro-Proton.

Dude, no need to get hostile here. I believe you have completely misunderstood my point.

About the airbags, please read properly. I said, when the cabin is compromised, the airbags does not save lives. How does that contradict my statement that a tough chassis is imperative for airbags to function properly? I believe it is you who needs to read properly:

So how does this contradicts myself? Please my friend, read properly before jumping into conclusions.

Now for the Savvy part, I appreciate that you took the time to show the strength of the chassis as well as the crash test rating, but seriously I do not see 3 star as a good indication for a "car that is safe". Therefore your data only reinforces my suspicion that even with all teh "strengthened chassis" hoo-haa with the Savvy, fact remains that its strengthened chassis does nothing to improve its passenger's survivability in an event of a collision.

For the soft car part, I believe I have made my point for the third time, on my definition of what I meant when I mention the word "soft". If you still do not get it, then I do not think I need to reiterate my points if you're hitting the wrong place for the wrong reasons.

Finally, nobody cares if you bash whoever you want. But you'll bring humiliation to yourself if you bash for the wrong reason without the correct backings. And also, my last statement was not directed to you. So if you take any offense from it, well...

Wanna see what happens when ur car have airbag, yet had a very soft body? Watch the link here, here and here.

Scary.

Chinese made cars sucks!!!

lol, another Joke of Day?

Strengthened chassis AND airbags ARE PART of Passive Safety Features. Why the hell you put airbags does not save lives if cabin has been compromised? my friend, do you understand that airbag reduces impact too? Airbag is a part of passive safely feature.. yo,wake up. Crash tests are compared, torsion strength and bending strength are calculated to determine the strength of a car, which is vital for LIFE SAVING. No?

For the Savvy part, I didnt focus on NCAP crash test instead of bending, torsion strength. The measurement remember? you said it does not exist right? in which you are totally wrong. (Did I not bold the text?) According to NCAP's website, Savvy has not been in an official crash test by the European automobile safety organization.

The soft part, again. Re-read my post again. It is pointless to compare Savvy to a "soft car" (lol,what a stupid term) with no specification/measurement whatsover and other factors into consideration. You are the one jumping into conclusion by agreeing with his baseless post.


Finally the bashing part, helloo.. we are on the Internet. and this is just text. Will text brings humiliation? talking about correct backings, I dont think you got one except for the active and passive safety features you pull out from the Internet and other than that,they are just pure gibberish. gosh,I didnt put my reputation on the line, unlike you for sure.