ncap = crap (Type 44/5000 safety rating)

[Dave Eaton]

ncap = crap.

there are severe reservations within car safety engineering circles about
ncap.

however, due to the ncap insistence on only 2 tests (offset and side), and
the public's addiction to the "star" scoring system, they virtually obligate
engineers to build cars focused on the magic 5-star metric, at the penalty
of other, arguably more important, safety measures.  for instance, the
heavier the vehicle, the more difficult it is to get good ratings on the
offset test, so engineers are increasingly making their large vehicles very
"stiff" to get the good scores.  this is causing considerable concern
because, in an impact with a lighter vehicle, this will almost certainly
result in greater chance of injury in the other vehicle, where a "softer"
impact structure wouldn't..

ncap also has no rear-impact test, roll-over or full frontal impact test,
whereas most manufacturers will test and design for these as a matter of
course.

dave.
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q
'95 s6

-----Original Message-----
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:05:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Deis <rdeis at io.com>
To: Efraim Gavrilovich <egav at wireless2000.com>
Subject: Re: Type 44/5000 safety rating


Perhaps you can use the 100's 5 star rating along with some literature
that describes the changes (practicly none) between those years?

On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Efraim Gavrilovich wrote:

> As much as I don't believe it, I did find the information your buyer's
wife
> might have referred to. It's here:
> http://www.crashtest.com/explanations/archive/crash.htm#anchor232806
> It shows one star driver side and five star passenger side ratings at
> frontal impact for 1985 5000. The rating for 1989 for 100 shows big
> improvement - five stars both sides. I am sure something was wrong with
the
> testing in 1985, but it's there, black on white. Too bad this poor woman
> believed these so called "facts".
> Efraim Gavrilovich
> 1988 5KTQ 345,000km (216K mi), 1.8 Bar
> 1990 90 123,000km (77K mi)
> Vancouver, Canada
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ben Swann" <bswann at worldnet.att.net>
> To: <quattro at audifans.com>
> Cc: "SWANN (E-mail)" <bswann at worldnet.att.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 7:30 PM
> Subject: Type 44/5000 safety rating
>
>
> > OK - Listers, I'd appreciate some help with this one.  I had always been
> > under the impression that out Type 44's were rather safe.  Please help
me
> > refute this.  I thought I saw some testimonials awhile back proclaiming
> > that in this very type of drivers side accident the occupants came out
> > miraculously unscathed, while the other vehicle disintegrated on impact,
> or
> > something to that effect.
> >
> > I personally con't see how this can be knowing something of the
> > construction of these cars.  The only thing I can see is these safety
> > rating are making a comparison to the newer luxury cars with side impact
> > air bags, and even then, I question this rating.
> >
> > Here is what happened - the potential buyer of my '87 5000 turbo quattro
> > avant backed out due to the following email:
> >
> > Joe Buyer here.  I've run into a bit of a snag with my wife regarding
the
> > purchase of your avant.  She's a firm believer in safety ratings and
when
> > she looked up the stuff on the 87 5000's was not amused at their 1 star
> > drivers side rating in the 83-88 range.  Unless I can find something in
> > print somewhere to convince here otherwise I'm afraid I'm going to have
to
> > pass on the car.
> >
> > Sorry,
> >
> > Joe Buyer
> >
> > Name changed to protect the identity of the buyer.
> >
> > Doesn't change my opinion of these cars, but this really bothers me, in
> > addition to not selling the car.
> >
> > TIA,
> >
> > Ben