Offset Frontal Impact - In the frontal offset (as opposed to full frontal) impact test, a moving vehicle with dummies in the driver's and the front passenger seat hits an offset deformable barrier at 64 km/h (40 mph), in order to evaluate the impact on the head, chest, and legs - and (in contrast to the 1974 testing protocol) also to assess damage to the vehicle. This test represents a typical head-on collision of two vehicles of the same weight, travelling at 64 km/h (40 mph).   Because only part of the vehicle body sustains the impact, the impact on the dummy is less than in full-frontal collisions, but there is greater vehicle body deformation, making it suitable for the evaluation of the injury caused by intrusion to occupants.

Key To Frontal Impact Ratings

	Frontal Impact Result of 80-100%
	Frontal Impact Result of 60-79%
	Frontal Impact Result of 40-59%
	Frontal Impact Result of 20-39%
	Frontal Impact Result of 0-19%

In the offset frontal impact test, instead of hitting a solid block head-on, the test car crashes into a deformable structure (a crushable aluminum face), resembling the most important characteristics of the other car's front. Other cars do not behave like solid objects when hit: they 'give' at the front, hence the aluminium honeycomb block used in the test. The impact across 40 per cent of the test car's front represents a crash with a car of equivalent size and weight. Frontal car-to-car crashes are by far the most common sort of accident, and usually involve a collision across only part of the car's width. The offset test is always on the driver's side where there is more risk of injury from the steering wheel and pedals.  This is essential in ensuring that a car's front is designed to absorb the impact's energy in a realistic way.  This sort of test is actually tougher for a car to do well in than one involving a full-on collision with a solid block. The Euro-NCAP test is carried out at 64km/h (40mph).  

Although similar to the American IIHS testing regimen, there is considerable variation between IIHS and the Euro-NCAP chest compression criteria. In particular, more lenient standards in the US for chest compression resulted in discrepancies between IIHS and Euro-NCAP ratings.  This has led to some vehicles receiving a markedly different rating under Euro-NCAP compared with IIHS or previous Australian-NCAP procedures. This can undermine the credibility of the programs in the eyes of consumers - a point not lost on some NCAP-sceptical motoring journalists.

Side Impact - Side impacts rank behind only frontal crashes as the cause of front-seat occupant fatalities, accounting for 33% of all fatalities in any given year.  It is estimated that at least 50% of those fatalites are a direct result of head injuries. Euro-NCAP crash tests demonstrate the potential benefits of side airbags with head protection in side impact crashes.  

European NCAP Star Ratings

Upon publication of their first 1997 Mini Car test results, the Euro-NCAP decided to adopt the star rating system used by the US NHTSA.  Fortunately they instituted a new testing regimen that utilized a 4-category (Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Poor) rating system developed by the European Enhanced Vehicle Safety Committee (similar to the US IIHS), instead of the NHTSA's antiquated testing system.  The EEVS criteria measures damage to the vehicle in addition to the impact on the dummy.  (In contrast, current NHTSA tests do not take into account vehicle body deformation and intrusion, which can add substantially to injuries sustained by vehicle occupants.)  

Until recently the highest-rated Euro-NCAP tested vehicles could only get a 4-star rating.  There is now an additional side-impact pole test that can be conducted at the manufacturer's expense.  If a vehicle passes the pole test, a 5th star is shown in the Euro-NCAP overall rating.  Until the NHTSA adopts a more modern testing regimen, the Euro-NCAP tests are not directly comparable to the US NCAP/NHTSA tests.  So, a 4 or 5 star Euro-NCAP result has little correlation to a 4 or 5 star US-NCAP result. 

New car buyers can use the star ratings to compare at a glance how cars on their shopping list fared. But, because the combined star rating reflects both front and side-impact safety, serious flaws can be masked when a car does well in, say, the frontal test, and badly in the side impact test.

As a remedy, Euro-NCAP has kept the existing star ratings but has decided to publish the individual test scores, too. These are expressed as a percentage of the marks achievable for frontal and side performance.  Such changes also bring into focus instances where a top-scoring three-star car is almost as good as a low-end four-star car.

To avoid any further confusion, Crashtest.com has decided to use the Euro-NCAP percentage-based scoring system to rate the Euro-NCAP tested vehicles, instead of the confusing star system.  In this manner the tests of more international vehicles can be directly compared to each other using a similar rating system.  Until the international testing agencies agree on a single way of representing their data, we'll stick to this system.  It's not perfect, but we feel it's less confusing than the rating method currently in place.