From 2010,
Wheels’ Car of the Year award will not go to anything without a standard electronic stability program.
Our aim is to encourage car makers to speed adoption of this technology. Around the world, study after study has shown it brings a significant reduction in the likelihood of involvement in a crash causing death or serious injury. In mid-November the existing body of evidence was joined by the first research specific to Australia and New Zealand. The comprehensive study by the Monash University Accident Research Centre in Melbourne found that ESP is as effective a life-saver here as it is everywhere else in the world.
The MUARC work, commissioned by 13 state and federal road agencies and automotive clubs, analysed data from more than 200,000 crashes in a five-year period to 2005. By comparing the crash patterns of the 7700 ESP-equipped cars included in the sample to those without, the researchers reached conclusions that echo earlier overseas results.
According to MUARC, ESP brings a significant reduction in the risk of involvement in a single-vehicle crash causing injury. Single-vehicle crashes account for a large proportion of driver fatalities. In Victoria, for example, 43 percent of driver fatalities in 2006 and some 2000 serious injuries occurred in single-vehicle crashes. The study found ESP delivers a 30 percent across-the-board reduction in risk of involvement in a single-vehicle crash. Even more telling was the finding that in the case of SUVs and 4WDs, ESP cut risk by 66 percent. For cars the reduction was 28 percent.
The Australian study confirms
Wheels’ view that ESP is the most important and effective development in automotive safety since the invention and introduction of the three-point seatbelt.
Since German automotive component giant Bosch developed ESP in the mid 1990s, it has gradually become more and more common. These days it may be marketed as DSC, VDC, VSC or ASC, but all do the same thing, in the same way, as Bosch’s original ESP. The price of including ESP technology in a new car has steadily fallen as it’s been adopted by more and more car makers. Recent estimates are that ESP adds only a few hundred dollars to the manufacturing cost of a new car.
Yet some car makers still seek to gain a small price advantage over competitors by not making ESP standard. Everyone understands a pricetag, but there’s poor awareness of ESP’s life-saving effectiveness among new car customers.
This isn’t the place to debate why ESP is not being demanded by consumers or made mandatory by legislators, but it is the right time to send a strong message to car makers that failing to include it as standard equipment in cars sold in Australia is no longer acceptable.
Wheels recognises that the car industry cannot quickly change technical specification, especially in the case of imported models, and that the implementation of decisions takes time. For this reason we’ve chosen a 2010 introduction for our requirement. This timing means there simply will be no excuse for any car maker failing to meet our new COTY eligibility requirement.
Now, here are the existing
Wheels Car of the Year eligibility requirements and the cars that do -- and don't -- meet them…
Wheels Car of the Year Eligibility Rules
Dates?
Cars launched and on sale to the public in the 12 months before our deadline date of December 15, 2007 are eligible.
New?
While the marketing department may have written ads claiming a car is ‘All New!’, they’re not always truthful. There must be real substance to the claim. Sometimes it’s obvious that the car maker began with a completely blank sheet of paper. On the other hand, especially in the case of models that are spin-offs from an existing model or architecture, it’s sometimes hard to decide. That’s when we reach for the newness rulebook. If a car scores at least two ticks against our three definitions of what really constitutes automotive newness, it’s eligible. Here they are…
New design and purpose: Does the car have a different number of seats and doors from related models, or other major structural and design differences?
New dimensions: Are there significant differences from related models in important dimensions, like wheelbase, tracks, length, width or height?
New technology: New engine, transmission or additional drivetrain components, different suspension, brakes, steering or other major mechanical systems from related models?
These rules exclude facelifts and additional variants (like a new engine and/or transmission) of existing cars that have already had their COTY turn.
Sales?
New cars that are not selling at a monthly rate that is the equivalent of 250 a year are also ineligible. In the absence of official VFacts sales data, Wheels will request a written assurance from the concerned manufacturer regarding their sales volume projections.
This rule is the reason you won’t see the Audi R8, or any other super exotic model that sells in tiny numbers, competing for Wheels COTY. Other cars that didn’t make the volume cut in 2007 include the Volvo S80 and the Maserati GT.
While sales of the Lexus LS have never exceeded 250 in a calendar year, company executives are adamant the new-generation LS, will exceed the figure in its first 12 months on sale. The LS600hL long-wheelbase hybrid version makes the difference. Lexus Australia was holding 63 firm orders for the petrol-electric powerhouse even before it went on sale.
Seatbelts?
New cars that do not provide a lap-sash seatbelt in every seating position in every model in the range are ineligible.
Although this rule has been in place since 2001, there was one car launched in 2007 declared ineligible because of it. The offender was the Nissan Micra. This brand is becoming a serial seatbelt offender; the Tiida was ineligible in 2006 for the same reason.
Finally…
COTY is only open to … cars. Obvious really.
Back in the late 1990s, before they were classified as SUVs by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries in its monthly VFacts sales stats, Wheels decided to admit to COTY what were then classified as All Terrain Wagons. It was clear at that time, and has only become more obvious since, that the space and seating of many 4WDs and SUVs made them attractive passenger vehicles. To draw a line that excluded rough, tough 4WDs from COTY it was decided that anything with a truck-like rigid front axle would not be eligible. In 2007 this rarely invoked rule excludes the new Jeep Wrangler.
And commercial vehicles, including those based on cars, have never been eligible for COTY. The VE Commodore Ute may win someone’s Ute of the Year award, but it won’t be contesting COTY. The same rule has applied to every Ford and Holden ute released since the first COTY of 1963, plus a handful of other car-based utes like the Subaru Brumby and Proton Jumbuck.
Wheels 2007 COTY
ELIGIBLE
Audi A5/S5
BMW 3 Series CC
BMW M3
BMW X5
Chrysler Sebring
Citroen C4 Picasso
Dodge Avenger
Dodge Nitro
Ford Focus CC
Ford Mondeo
Holden Epica
Honda Civic Type R
Honda CR-V
Hummer H3
Hyundai i30
Jeep Compass
Jeep Patriot
Land Rover Freelander 2
Lexus LS
Mazda 2
Mercedes-Benz C-Class
Mini Cooper
Mitsubishi Lancer
Nissan Dualis
Nissan X-trail
Peugeot 207
Peugeot 207CC
Proton Satria
Skoda Roomster
Skoda Octavia
Ssangyong Actyon
Subaru Impreza
Suzuki SX4
Toyota Corolla
Toyota Kluger
Toyota LandCruiser
Volkswagen Eos
Volvo C30
INELIGIBLE
Audi R8 (sales volume)
Jeep Wrangler (technology)
Maserati GT (sales volume)
Nissan Micra (seatbelts)
Volvo S80 (sales volume)