Read an interesting post over at Australian Car Advice regarding ANCAP crash test results. Well what interested me most was not actually the post itself, which was basically a reproduction of the June 2007 results, rather some of the comments. Specifically, this comment caught my attention (you can read the full comment here, otherwise I've cut and pasted the highlights below):

Jason said

June 12 2007 @ 11:08 pm

Seriously who wrote this article? The author really has no clue regarding the testing proceedures of ANCAP, and therefore is drawing inaccurate conclusions!

A pole test is optional, where the vehicle travelling sideways at 29km/h strikes a round pole lined up with the driver’s head. This measures the effectiveness of head protecting side airbags and can result in extra points being scored.”

The last paragraph is the key here. The pole test is optional (and required to obtain 5 stars), and must be paid for by the manufacturer. Both Toyota and Holden have publicated stated they do not agree with the optional nature (and cost) of the pole test and refuse to take part. Hence the Aurion and Commodore fail to receive 5 stars.

It's frustrating to think that people are still willing to swallow the corporate PR spin of some of the major manufacturers when it comes to safety. Why would a car maker refuse to take part in an optional test that has the potential to hand them a considerable competitive advantage?

An Australian built car with a 5 star safety rating would be a highly attractive proposition for Australian fleet buyers, where safety is emerging as a higher priority than days gone by. The fleet market makes up a majority of new car sales in Australia. Cornering the fleet market would allow a maker to take a stranglehold on the market as a whole.

Now think, if you were a manufacturer, and you knew your car could achieve a 5 star safety rating, would you offer your car up for an optional test that would differentiate you from the rest of the market? or would you choose not to take part in the test because you don't agree with it being 'optional'?

Perhaps this might be better illustrated by taking a look at the actual test results themselves.
It's important to point out at this stage that all of this information, the test results, the test procedures and the scoring systems are publicly available. The results are released for public scrutiny. Check the ANCAP site for all the technical information.

So lets look at the two cars highlighted in the above comment, the Holden VE Commodore and the Toyota Aurion.

Both cars achieved a '4 star' ANCAP result. The star rating is assigned based on the point score calculated as a result of testing. Currently he maximum score achievable is 37. The specific point score for each vehicle is listed below:

Toyota Aurion: 30.03 out of 37
Holden VE Commodore: 27.45 out of 37

So, after I looked up the score, I read up on the Assessment Notes from the ANCAP website. Amongst other things, these notes illustrate the break points for the star ratings. As you can see from the Assessment Notes, the lowest minimum combined point score that can result in a 5 star rating is 32.5.

The maximum point score that is awarded for the 'optional' pole test is 2 points. What does this mean? If a car scored a perfect result in the pole test, it would score an additional 2 points.

Now look at the point scores for the Aurion and Commodore above, and add 2 points to each of the scores. Had both the Aurion and Commodore scored perfect pole test results, neither car would have have reached the 5 star rating mark.

In effect, this means that even had both Holden and Toyota opted in for the pole test, their final star rating would have still been the same.

It's at this point that I can understand why neither company would bother with the optional test.

Holden, for example, have repeatedly stated that they conduct extensive 'in-house' testing. Don't buy into the corporate spin, both companies would have conducted their own testing well before any of the ANCAP tests took place.

Call me cynical, but I'd suggest that if either company had thought that their product could have crossed the 5 star mark, then they would have been only too happy to opt in to the pole test and take the healthy competitive advantage that would have gone along with it.

Popularity: 19% [?]