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

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

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.

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...

Dear fellow LYN member, I did mention that airbags and a tough chassis is part of passive safety features. Read back, there's a post there that says it. And, do you know what does it mean when a cabin is compromised? Have you ever read a crash test report before? Please do go and read a 1 star car's report, one that has airbag but the airbag does nothing to save the life of the driver. A cabin compromise means the cabin itself collapses, and tell me, how can an air bag possibly save your life when there are metal bars protruding into your body? Or, the steering column comes at your face, instead of staying put, slamming your face into the airbags, and then into the steering column, and then onto hard plastic and metal. How will you survive then? Airbags reduces the impact speed, but in the event that the chassis gives way, the airbag won't do any good. Is that so damn hard for you to understand? You can have a thousand airbag in the car as you wish, and you wont walk away from the car alive when the car is flattened from the impact.

And you said chassis strength is calculated to determine the car's safety too. Did you notice that I have already said that in my earlier posts? If a car has a soft chassis, will it do any good to help the car in the event of a crash? Again, if you have read any crash test reports, the majority of the discussion is placed upon the design of the chassis itself, and how the cabin is uncompromised after the event of a crash, leading to good results. So how does this contradicts my statement that in the event of a car's cabin is compromised, airbags do not saves lives? For your information no car that is submitted to the NCAP comes without airbags. And still there are cars that got 1 star ratings. How about this - you go be their test dummy, and sit in a 1 star car. Perhaps airbags will save your life then?

And yes, the MEASUREMENT for a car's safety. Dude, do you know that torsional strength is not the ONLY criteria for cabin strength? Do you know that different designs yield different behaviours during a crash? That is why I said there is no quantitative method of measuring the safety of a car. If there is such method, why do we actually need a crash test? This is ridiculous.

So far I've been civilized towards you, and your last 2 posts are extremely offensive. Have maturity been lost in the people of lowyat that we cannot discuss a matter civilly?

This post has been edited by soggie: May 21 2006, 06:01 AM

And finally, to address the original message that sparked this debate, I would like to show it in simple english for those who are so clouded by emotion to actually read more complex sentences.

WHat I agree with hypermount
A tough chassis along with safety features will fare better than a weak chassis with safety features.



What I DO NOT agree
Savvy's "tough" chassis makes it a safe car in the event of collision

Then you came at me with:



Now here's your first MISTAKE. I did NOT agree with him on what you claim. Rather, I agree to that statement that he made, in a general term, with crash test reports as my base of knowledge. I made a reply:



I then said that he is right on crumple zones on his CLAIM that the cabin of the Savvy was uncompromised after that, and explained how to examine the true strength of a car in the event of an accident. I guess you missed this paragraph:



And then you said:



And I explained that the reason I used the term soft car is to refer to the cabin's weakness in the event of the crash to retain their shape and integrity. Now on to your second point:



Of course the main point is always concentrated on the safety of teh driver. Please do quote me when did I say tha

My stance in this "debate" is that I do not think that Savvy has enough credibility and evidence to show that its claimed "tough" chassis makes it a safe car, regardless of any other safety feature that it markets to have.

Now to make it easy for you, just tell me if you agree to this statement or not. If you agree, then there's no point for us to continue this debate. If not, then state why, and we'll continue.

And oh, please keep this matured and civil.

This post has been edited by soggie: May 21 2006, 04:48 AM

Well, say as much as you want, the sales figure of Savvy still isn't doing it's "potential" any justice. So what's the real problem? Public perception/assumption? I'm guessing it's called Proton Reputation.

With the new management hopefully things will get better.