• Previous UN R95 (side-impact with movable barrier) issue with Toyota Vios and Perodua Axia is already cleared, sales has resumed in Thailand after brief suspension, no impact to Malaysia
• Sales of Daihatsu Rocky hybrid / Toyota Raize hybrid suspended in Japan following issues with UN R135 certification for pole side-impact
• UN certification for the Perodua Ativa remain intact, Malaysians want to know why

On 19-May, Daihatsu admitted that it had improperly conducted a mandatory safety certification for hybrid variants of the Daihatsu Rocky and Toyota Raize. Specifically, it relates to the United Nations Regulations No. 135 (UN R135) concerning pole side-impact testing.

The UN standard required tests to be conducted on both sides of the car. Daihatsu however, had submitted the left passenger’s side data as result for the right driver’s side.

Sales and deliveries of the Daihatsu Rocky Hybrid and Toyota Raize Hybrid were suspended immediately in Japan.

The matter was uncovered in a Toyota-Daihatsu company-wide audit ordered by Chairman Akio Toyoda following the April-28 admission by Daihatsu, related to wrongdoings for a different UN R95 (side impact with movable barrier) test for the Toyota Vios (Yaris Ativ) and Perodua Axia.

The UN R95 issue has since been cleared following an independent witness re-test done by Belgian agency Vincotte.

Although sales of the Rocky Hybrid and Raize Hybrid remain suspended in Japan - pending a re-test conducted with Japan certification authorities as witnesses - sales of the Perodua Ativa in Malaysia are proceeding as normal.

As expected by anyone familiar with the cesspool of public opion called Facebook, netizens were quick to criticize Perodua, dragging the Ministry of Transport down for a keyboard-driven lynching too.

Insinuations were made against Perodua, implying that the company is given special protection by Putrajaya, and that safety of Malaysians is given a low priority – which is odd when you consider that rear seatbelt usage among Malaysians is just 11 percent, as of 2021.

Why was sales suspended in Japan but not Malaysia?

First, it is important to note that only hybrid variants of the Rocky and Raize were affected. Sales of the regular 1.0-litre turbocharged variant – the same car our Perodua Ativa is based on, are continuing as normal in Japan.

But don’t we already have 300 units of Perodua Ativa Hybrid in Malaysia?

Correct, but Perodua didn't sell even a single unit of the Ativa Hybrid. So how does one stop sales of a model that was never put on sale? Also, the Perodua Ativa Hybrid is a lease-only vehicle. Even if you want one, you can't lease one anymore as all 300 cars have already been signed up.

Since Japanese authorities will need to witness the re-test before concluding on whether recall is necessary or not, existing units of Rocky Hybrid / Raize Hybrid on Japanese roads can continue to be used – the same applies with Perodua Ativa Hybrids on our local roads.

Also, to do a recall first you need to identify what part to replace, and have the new and improved part delivered to service centres. At this point, what do netizens expect Perodua to change when nobody, not even Japanese authorities have identified any faulty design / part that needs changing.

Until a re-test shows the car failed to meet UN standards, this remains a paperwork-only issue.

The 1.2L hybrid variants have the same chassis as our 1.0T Ativa, why is it not affected?

While the 1.2-litre hybrid variants of the Rocky / Raize look almost identical to our 1.0-litre turbocharged Perodua Ativa, UN regulations treat them as separate cars, requiring separate certification.

The protocols governing crash safety standards are quite complicated. A car may look identical to you but the UN requires separate certification if a variant has a significantly different engine, seats, door linings, and interior fittings.

Sometimes, exemptions are allowed but the manufacturer has to prove that it still meets the required standards.

Part of UN R135 assessment is post-crash integrity of the fuel tank. UN R135 states the following requirement for fuel tanks post-crash:

• No more than 142g of fuel leaked within 5 minutes of impact
• No more than 28g of fuel leaked in each subsequent minute after the 5th minute post-impact, until 30 minutes.

The hybrid variants have a different tank, at 33 litres versus the turbocharged Perodua Ativa’s 36-litre.

This is why Perodua (and Malaysian authorities) need not bother about this UN R135 issue. No safety authority is doubting the UN certification for Rocky / Raize / Ativa cars fitted with a 36-litre fuel tank. The certification issue only affects cars with 33-litre fuel tank.

Of course, Daihatsu will still need to prove its innocence but the UN R135 debacle will likely turn out to be a lapse in paperwork submission procedures, rather than genuinely malaise attempt to cheat, like Volkswagen’s Dieselgate, or in the latest development - Tesla actively hiding thousands of complaints related to its semi-autonomous driving feature.

How did the oversight happen?

Daihatsu didn't say how did the oversight happened but in the previous UN R95 issue with the Toyota Vios / Perodua Ativa, Toyota said that pressure to keep tight development schedules is one reason.

Vehicle certification papers are quite complicated - full of legal and technical terminologies, where tests and vehicle models are identified with alphanumeric codes, because a model’s marketing name may change from market to another. If one is not careful, it is very possible to mix up one data sets with another.

Somewhere along the way, a wrong data set - all identified only by alphanumeric codes - may have been submitted for hybrid variants of the Raize / Rocky. By the time a staff realizes the error, they would’ve asked themselves if they should alert the authorities or keep quiet.

Knowing very well that this is just a procedural lapse rather than a genuine technical fault, it is very tempting for the team to keep quiet and carry on with whatever they are doing.

But doing so goes against Chairman Akio Toyoda’s principles. It’s probably because Chairman Toyoda carries with him very bitter memories of his first year as President, where he had to defend the company bearing his family name against accusations by the US Congress in the 2009 sudden acceleration scandal - which after all the lynching by the media, confirmed driver error to be the cause and that Toyota was innocent. Accelerator pedals were stuck due to customers using after-market or improper floor mats.

Still, in Akio's eyes the 2011 judgement came too late and Toyota had already died then.

At the grounds of his grandfather's Kiichiro Toyoda's memorial home in Aichi, Akio planted a cherry tree to commemorate the rebirth of Toyota. The cherry tree, which symbolizes Japan, is surrounded by wild orchids and thistles, representing employees from around the world.

After he passes on, Akio wants the tree to remind the next generations that Toyota had once died because it wasn't transparent enough in managing a crisis.

These past experiences made Akio rage when he hears of another attempt to cover-up missteps. Even if this misstep is made by Daihatsu, it affects cars bearing the Toyota name, and Daihatsu is part of the Toyota Motor group.

Just like the UN R95 hoo-ha over the sales suspension of the Toyota Vios (Yaris Ativ) in Thailand, which has since been lifted, sales of the Daihatsu Rocky Hybrid and Toyota Raize Hybrid will likely resume in Japan soon once the formalities of a witness re-test is completed.

But you can certain that this won't appease the Netizens. Facts are an incovenient truth, Netizens will still choose their own narrative, that Perodua needs to stop sales of the Ativa. The problem for them, and most of them don't even know how vehicle homologation works, is that neither Japan's MLIT nor any certification authority agree with their silly position, so they will continue to rant and ignore the facts presented, before moving on to another target next week.

Also read: After re-test, Thailand confirms no fault, no recalls needed for Toyota Vios, deliveries resumed

Also, when we refer to United Nations, it is important to note that this is not an international standard, despite it being a UN effort. Not all countries adopt UN standards. USA and Canada for example, does not recognize UN standards, likewise China and even Korea. 

North America has its own FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards). China has the China Compulsory Certification (CCC). When you are the biggest car markets in the world, you dictate your own rules. Any manufacturer that doesn't comply have to option to not do business in your country.