In a fairly well-known and reputable German club ADAC rating went cheap (10,000 euros) cars. Let it very private and uninteresting question, but the Krauts were so spontaneous and inventive, that I did not help myself to add this gem to your hit parade of stupid ratings.
The fact that our rating involved Lada Kalina. Which of course certainly the worst, anyway. Even worse, the Romanian version of the Logan. Everyone knows that.
But Fritz because it needed something to show in the ranking, and there's not that simple. Their rating — this is the sum of scores from 0 to 5 according to several private performance (safety, comfort, price, environmental friendliness, etc.). Well, they put down Lada worst scores wherever they could. But the two-parameter method is pumped up — for capacity and price Lada had to put the top marks. After all, their German readers are not quite as complete idiots, they are able to see that every great Lada any Western minicars for the money. Price tag again anyone can see anywhere.
And so it was that Lada scored 15 points in the same amount that is not less than the same Matiz with the Panda.
How can that be?
— Did not lose the descendants of Goebbels! They just arbitrarily deprived of the final grade Frets 5 points that came out 10. That much is worse than any other brand.
After all, no one there will not be a reader to sit with folded calculator, check the label.
And in case there is a meticulous — the total set Ladovsky put snosochku — is supposedly for poor security. But sorry, ladies and gentlemen! After all, you already and so it took into account the and put "0" in the table for this option …?
In short, the sixth in the hit parade of stupid ratings obvious.
And found these tricksters and detail painted http://realcorwin.livejournal.com/207869.html
With all the heavy hand of someone's last days on LJ goes a typical example kvaziekspertnyh Arts, through a misunderstanding nicknamed rating. On the website of the German Automobile Club showed up table cheaper cars 10,000 euros.
The table presents estimates from 0 to 5 (in Russian: 5 — the best, 0 — the worst). In the last column, all the estimates are summarized. The columns: the purchase price, maintenance costs, environmental friendliness, safety, capacity, finish.
Why have selected these criteria and that so many of them, chosen as the weights — or rather, why they scored — questions have been basically rhetorical. Environmentally sopryagli with the price, safety — with finishing … capacity, comfort, decoration … and why has not added ergonomics, or the number of colors to choose from? How to earn points under each criterion? How many euros is one point difference in the criteria for prices? How then is one point in the criteria for comfort? What all this comfort was considered? Or ecology — many of her nachhat with a high steeple. And other nachhat anything else.
In general, all these "complex" indexes are not worth a damn. It makes sense to look at the specific characteristics of the data and make personal conclusion (each, I suppose, their priorities). And then pile up: bulldog crossed with a rhinoceros, having received "rating" that if something is good and shows that only the level of love for the authors of the study sites, no more. Rating model is taken from the oven. Something similar can draw as much as necessary, and the results are always different.
But even draw really could not: the Russian car was estimated not in last place. Well, it was sent there in the manual mode, selecting "arbitrary decision" third points. For a low security. So after "security" has once felt appreciated zero points. A minus five points in the rating model no. Professionals …
It is curious that the same Lada Kalina on the results of European crash tests (EURONCAP) got quite decent for its class 3 stars. And with the ecological okay — Euro-3 (at the new Kaliny with engine 125 hp — Euro-4). And with the other cars of questions, no less. In general, it would not hurt to find out where the firewood. Click on the names of cars in the table. Do you think that the links will open the details of the test? Not at all. No details of the test is really open, but other details, and another test. With estimates to the nearest tenth and the German system: the smaller, the better. With a completely different selection criteria, "body / trunk", "beauty", "comfort", "engine / transmission", "ride quality", "security", "flow / ecological", "economy". And sometimes some superhuman math: cost estimate, for example, the Citroen C1 (0,6!) Has developed estimates of operating costs (2.8), the cost of maintenance and tires (0.6), the stability of prices with the age of the vehicle (2.3), the cost of the newly acquired (2.3) and fixed costs (1,2).
Of course, this results in different rating models:
Toyota Aygo — 3,0
Citroen C1 — 3,0
VW Fox — 2,5
Daihatsu Cuore — 2,7
KIA Picanto — 2,8
Dacia Logan — 3,0
Renault Twingo — 2,8
Chevrolet Matiz — 3,4
Fiat Panda — 3,0
Lada Kalina — 3,3
Former leaders shared 5-8 places. Fiat Panda, Car of the Year 2004 has been freed from a last-place ranking authors only voluntarism, sank back Lada, now also in the foursome.
But that's not all. Hire carefully read the data: the information given by Lada Kalina on November 2006. In 2006, at Kalina, say, there was no ABS and air conditioning. Now, of course, ABS is, of course with EBD. And the air conditioner is. But the authors of the test all that decided not to bother. Data for Fiat Panda are as of May 2004! Renault Twingo was luckier — September 2007. Even more — KIA Picanto (April 2008), Daihatsu Cuore (January 2008) and VW Fox (June 2008). At Toyota Aygo opposite — June 2005. How is it possible to compare all — mind is not understandable.
A terrible trash. Wish someone to discredit the idea of any kind has been ranking the best example would be hard to find. And how many were screaming about the "objective assessment from a reputable auto club." Ugh …