New MINI Earns 5 Star Euro NCAP Rating

[Paul]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tigger, Eeyore & Roo (original)

From a safety point of view it's undeniably an improvement on the original design, though I like their PR boast that "The overall test score achieved puts the MINI only just behind other larger, recently launched superminis such as the Peugeot 207, Renault Clio, Toyota Yaris and Fiat Punto" Interesting slant on coming last there

That's not MINIs words, they're mine. MINI (not surprisingly) didn't mention any competitors results. Their press release focused purely on the fact it's 5 star. I wanted to add a comparison (and without something to compare with, the results alone don't mean as much), and I thought you could make your own minds up as how good or bad it is that the MINI is ALMOST as high scoring as these other, larger, vehicles in the same segment.

Here's MINIs own press release:

Quote: Originally Posted by MINI

New MINI is a Five-Star NCAP Performer

The new MINI Cooper has received the highest-possible score of 5 stars in the Euro NCAP Crash Test. This latest achievement underlines superior safety, gutsy engines, razor-sharp steering and a finely-tuned chassis as key characteristics of the new MINI.

Outstanding results in head-on and side-on/pillar crash tests showed risk of injury to occupants to be minimal. The new MINI Cooper achieved 13 out of 16 points for deformation behaviour in a head-on collision, and 16 from 18 points in the side-on and pillar collision. Child safety testing also produced exemplary results.

In the offset frontal crash test, the structure of the passenger cell was maintained. 4,000 individual welding points in the body shell optimise the MINI Cooper’s structural safety.

The MINI Cooper is 60 mm longer than its predecessor to meet pedestrian impact regulations. The car also comes as standard with six airbags, three-point inertia-reel seat belts on all four seats and ISOFIX child seat fastening systems in the rear.

Active safety was identified as a priority in the development of the new MINI. Brake Assistant, Cornering Brake Control (CBC) and Electronic Brake Force Distribution (EBFD) in the new MINI Cooper may be supplemented as an option by on-demand traction control (ASC+T – standard on Cooper S models) and Dynamic Stability Control (DSC), complete with uphill start assistance.

News of MINI’s excellent performance in the NCAP test coincides with the launch of two new MINI variants. MINI One (£11,610 OTR) and MINI Cooper D (£14,175 OTR) went on sale from Saturday 14 April. Orders for the new models are already looking strong. The 1.4-litre, 95hp MINI One has achieved over 1600 sales in less than a week. BMW Group’s cleanest-ever car, the turbocharged 1.6-litre, diesel-powered MINI Cooper D, weighed in with more than 660 orders during the same period.
Customers keen to get behind the wheel of the all-new MINI One can take advantage of a competitive offer from MINI Financial Services. The entry-level newcomer is available from just £175 a month*, and with five years’ servicing included in the £150 MINI tlc package, the sensible money is with MINI.

[Tigger, Eeyore & Roo]

Quote: Originally Posted by ~Marcus~ (original)

If you look at the R50 crash test pictures the roof is buckled in a very similar fashion to that on the R56.

Agreed.

I think that you misunderstood this as criticism of the R56 over any other MINI; it wasn't meant to be.

This thread was intended for discussion, so it was simply an observation of an possible inconsistency between what BMW have been recently been reported as saying and the performance of one of their own designs. That's all.

The problem is with these tests is that, although they are meant to simulate the most frequently occuring accidents, they are necessarily limited in the kinds of accidents that they can afford to cover. There is, for instance, absolutely nothing to cover a roll over accident or a tail end crash.

Consequently, all any vehicle manufacturer needs to do, to get a good score, is to get their designs to perform their "party tricks" in the very limited circumstances of these simulated accidents. So a manufacturer can trade of protection in a 40 mph head on crash, or a roll over accident, for better protection in a 30 mph head on crash to get their full 5 star score. This is pretty much what BMW was, quite fairly, complaining about.

Here's another thing to bear in mind: As I understand it, the driver's seat position for the tests is set at half way between "fully forward" and "fully back". Seems fair enough on the face of it. But some manufacturers have, apparently, fitted longer seat rails to their production cars to enable a half way position to be further away from the steering wheel! (Has anyone else noticed car seats having more rearward travel then they used to?)

When looking at Euro NCAP results it's just worth being aware of the limitations of the results.

Even taking these tricks, dodges and limitations into account, Euro NCAP seems to have been the best thing to happen to car safety in decades; it is the only way we can check the manufacturer's claims in a controlled environment.

Tigger.

[Root Ginger]

I watched a program about the Euro NCAP tests and the testers were quite open in saying that some manufacturers had been cheating the figures. They appear good in the tests but at the expense of items that are not tested or don't carry as much weight in the final figures.

They are looking to change the test to counter this cheating as people are getting injured as a result of it. Change could take a long time though.

BMW are one of the companies that have complained that the tests don't cover a wide spectrum of conditions and speeds but instead cover a condition at one particular speed.

[~Marcus~]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tigger, Eeyore & Roo (original)

Agreed.

I think that you misunderstood this as criticism of the R56 over any other MINI; it wasn't meant to be.

This thread was intended for discussion, so it was simply an observation of an apparent inconsistency between what BMW have been recently been reported as saying and the performance of one of their own designs. That's all.

Tigger.

It's really hard to gauge if that's whats happening though - there's no anecdotal evidence to say the MINI collapses at 41mph. And there have been some bad crashes posted on here, including some serious rollovers where people walked away.

BMW have had trouble in the past with these tests, and there's also been criticism that the test has meant newer cars now have massive pillars with blind spots so you're more likely to crash in the first place.

Though not perfect they at least offer some comparison for the consumer and have advanced safety in the last 10 years. As an extreme example, wouldn't you rather be in a MINI in a crash than a Metro!

[minicabrio]

Actually Marcus darling, that's a Rover 100

[~Marcus~]

Quote: Originally Posted by minicabrio (original)

Actually Marcus darling, that's a Rover 100

Details! Same thing innit? Actually it'a Rover 114

[Tigger, Eeyore & Roo]

Quote: Originally Posted by ~Marcus~ (original)

It's really hard to gauge if that's whats happening though - there's no anecdotal evidence to say the MINI collapses at 41mph. And there have been some bad crashes posted on here, including some serious rollovers where people walked away.

BMW have had trouble in the past with these tests, and there's also been criticism that the test has meant newer cars now have massive pillars with blind spots so you're more likely to crash in the first place.

Though not perfect they at least offer some comparison for the consumer and have advanced safety in the last 10 years. As an extreme example, wouldn't you rather be in a MINI in a crash than a Metro!

Marcus,

Please check out my extended post number 17.

You're quite right, the MINI has proven it self to be pretty tough in real life crashes that have been reported on here, so hopefully higher speed crashes shouldn't be too badly effected. I think the general complaint about the openness of the 40mph test to abuse, by all manufacturers, is still valid though.

Agree with you about the Metro / 100. From what I read at the time, the car was meant to carry on in production for 2-3 more years to cover the gap in the range until the MINI arrived. No one could have known how dangerous it was without Euro NCAP and when the results were published the orders dried up overnight and the car went out of production soon after.

The Metro is the lowest scoring car of all time, but the baby FIAT (whos name I can't spell!) and the Xantia run it pretty close for horror

Tigger.

[minirog]

I've never found out what the actual score of the Metro/Rover 100 was in the NCAP tests, anyone got any idea?

I'd be fascinated to also know how it compared to the classic Mini's score, which of course outlived the Metro/100 . I have an old used car guide somewhere and I recall it's around the same as the Nissan Micra (the version prior to the current one) for the late Rover Minis (those late models had side impact bars in the doors).

I'm presuming the classic Mini's score was better than the Metro which, for a 1959 desigs, says something really - probably most about how rubbish 80s cars like the Metro were,

Anyway, good on the R56 for the 5 stars, whatever the reservations may be - I guess as the anecdotal evidence comes in we'll get a more rounded picture of how safe it is as we did with the R50/53.

[FxK]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tigger, Eeyore & Roo (original)

From a safety point of view it's undeniably an improvement on the original design, though I like their PR boast that "The overall test score achieved puts the MINI only just behind other larger, recently launched superminis such as the Peugeot 207, Renault Clio, Toyota Yaris and Fiat Punto" Interesting slant on coming last there

You also have to take different markets into account. The Yaris they're selling in Canada is not the same you get in Europe. The North-American version has only two airbags and performs poorly in side impact tests. In my eyes car companies are saving at the wrong end here. OTOH they put stronger engines in their small cars here than are available in Europe. That's two reasons that made the Mini the ideal choice for me. You get the whole package here. Not some Franken-version with a pimped-up engine and crappy safety features, simply wrapped in a familiar package for a European-style small car.

So to summarize, I'm really happy about reading these crash test results as they confirm the choice of car I made and the reasoning behind it.

P.S.: I'm not denying that the Mini is a hell of a lot more fun to drive than a Yaris at the same time.

[Tigger, Eeyore & Roo]

Quote: Originally Posted by minirog (original)

I've never found out what the actual score of the Metro/Rover 100 was in the NCAP tests, anyone got any idea?

I'd be fascinated to also know how it compared to the classic Mini's score, which of course outlived the Metro/100 . I have an old used car guide somewhere and I recall it's around the same as the Nissan Micra (the version prior to the current one) for the late Rover Minis (those late models had side impact bars in the doors).

I'm presuming the classic Mini's score was better than the Metro which, for a 1959 desigs, says something really - probably most about how rubbish 80s cars like the Metro were,

Anyway, good on the R56 for the 5 stars, whatever the reservations may be - I guess as the anecdotal evidence comes in we'll get a more rounded picture of how safe it is as we did with the R50/53.

The Rover Metro/100 was a 1 star car:

European New Car Assessment Programme: Safety Rating Details

Just as disasterous were:

European New Car Assessment Programme: Safety Rating Details

and

European New Car Assessment Programme: Safety Rating Details

The Metro/100 was tested in 1996 and, being one of their early tests, has a much more limited report that for the R56 MINI.

The Classic Mini was never tested, though it is likely that the results would have been dire.

I would quote like to see them test a few cars from 20 years ago just to see how far things have come on in that time.

Tigger.

[~Marcus~]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tigger, Eeyore & Roo (original)

Agreed.

I think that you misunderstood this as criticism of the R56 over any other MINI; it wasn't meant to be.

This thread was intended for discussion, so it was simply an observation of an possible inconsistency between what BMW have been recently been reported as saying and the performance of one of their own designs. That's all.

The problem is with these tests is that, although they are meant to simulate the most frequently occuring accidents, they are necessarily limited in the kinds of accidents that they can afford to cover. There is, for instance, absolutely nothing to cover a roll over accident or a tail end crash.

Consequently, all any vehicle manufacturer needs to do, to get a good score, is to get their designs to perform their "party tricks" in the very limited circumstances of these simulated accidents. So a manufacturer can trade of protection in a 40 mph head on crash, or a roll over accident, for better protection in a 30 mph head on crash to get their full 5 star score. This is pretty much what BMW was, quite fairly, complaining about.

Here's another thing to bear in mind: As I understand it, the driver's seat position for the tests is set at half way between "fully forward" and "fully back". Seems fair enough on the face of it. But some manufacturers have, apparently, fitted longer seat rails to their production cars to enable a half way position to be further away from the steering wheel! (Has anyone else noticed car seats having more rearward travel then they used to?)

When looking at Euro NCAP results it's just worth being aware of the limitations of the results.

Even taking these tricks, dodges and limitations into account, Euro NCAP seems to have been the best thing to happen to car safety in decades; it is the only way we can check the manufacturer's claims in a controlled environment.

Tigger.

I agree with all this - as you say it's all we have to compare, the worrying thing is that without NCAP we'd have to rely on the legislation, which stops far short of Euro NCAP and allowed the Chinese Landwind SUV to be sold in Europe. See the horror here!

YouTube - Landwind Crash Test - Outside

Quote: Originally Posted by Tigger

I would like to see them test a few cars from 20 years ago just to see how far things have come on in that time.

I remember reading a report where they put a Ford Sierra through the EuroNCAP regime and the result was certain death for the driver, whereas in three generations the Mondeo has gone from three to four to (predicted) five stars.Which in real terms is like going from death to disabling to minor injuries - can't argue with that progress. The progress of the BMW 3 series from two to four to five stars makes interesting reading too.

The Mk2 Golf was a safe car for its time but wouldn't like to have been the driver in this:

YouTube - crash test volkswagen golf mk2

[Root Ginger]

Here's a couple of vids of the 1st Gen MINI in crash tests

YouTube - BMW- Mini Crash Test

YouTube - Crash test Mini Cooper

[minicabrio]

Quote: Originally Posted by Root Ginger (original)

Here's a couple of vids of the 1st Gen MINI in crash tests

YouTube - BMW- Mini Crash Test

YouTube - Crash test Mini Cooper

Interesting they are - two different crash tests, but the car behaves exactly the same way - at least shows a level of consistency.

[Guran]

NCAP is clearly an important feature in car safety. The current tests have a maximum of 5 stars so it's good to see that MINI has improved from 4 stars to 5 stars ... as most other cars have done in the same timeframe. Pedestrian safety is a bit disappointing for the new MINI though, considering the huge changes in design that went into the R56 which were supposed to deal with this. On the plus side, I suppose it's better to break the legs of a pedestrian rather than kill them!

Another important thing to keep in mind, is that NCAP only assesses how the car reacts in the event of a crash. Wouldn't it be better to avoid a crash in the first place? That's where grip, braking distance, etc come into play. ESC / DSC was already available on the first model and is still here ... still only as an option (Aus$840!!!). ESC is a critical active safety feature that should be provided on all new cars. It is disappointing that BMW still expect consumers to pay extra for DSC.

Bottom line ... there are much better small car options out there if active and passive safety is a critical requirement in your new car purchase. MINI has most of the bases covered, but it's certainly not a class leader.

[Goonery]

The tests that NCAP do are consistent evaluations of the same circumstances for all cars regardless of size or value, they cannot possibly replicate every single potential angle and speed of impact with the variety of objects both vehicular and otherwise that a vehicle may encounter in an accident so if nothing else they give a 'score' for a known and repeatble impact. Most manufacturers however test more thoroughly then NCAP in more rigorous and arduous conditions as it's in their interest to do so. So basically NCAP provides a consistent measure in a standard form but does not take into account every eventuality.

My view I'd be happier in a MINI than a lot of other cars