Slashdot Mirror
The World's Cheapest Car Set To Launch
theodp writes "Ready for one-automobile-per-child (OAPC)? India's giant Tata Group is on the verge of launching the world's cheapest car. The People's Car, slated to be unveiled January 10th at a New Delhi auto show, will carry a sticker price of 100,000 rupees ($2,500), which some analysts say could revolutionize automobile costs worldwide. The Tata is a pet project of Cornell-trained architect Ratan Tata, who helped design it. The vehicle is aimed at improving driving safety by getting India's masses off their motorbikes and into cars."
This sounds like a really nice idea for the people, but what about the environment when literally everybody affords a car?
:(){
I can't help but think of the negative effect this will have. Getting people off of their bikes (motor or otherwise) can't be good for fuel consumption, polution during and after the life of the vehicle, and roadway congestion to name a few.
I thought the Chinese would beat India on this important issue. One thing I know is that they (the Chinese), are not very far behind, and they will beat the Indians. Already, they own a bigger chunk of our electronics market as compared to the Indians.
I doubt it will ever arrive in the U.S., at least not at that price.
The vehicle is aimed at improving driving safety by getting India's masses off their motorbikes and into cars."
Hmm...the world's second most populous nation switching from motorcycles to cars. Yes, that should do wonders for gas prices / global warming.
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
Here's the real people's car! This is something we would all love to drive round in yet keep quiet through fear of embarrassment.
I'm also pretty sure it costs a damn site cheaper than the one from TFA.
http://forumpix.co.uk/i.php?I=1199081962
...is that all of those motorbikes are still going to be on the road, and now there's going to be a bunch of cheap cars as well. I think it likely that this will increase accidents and congestion, not to mention the increase in pollution (why wasn't that a factor in the vehicle's design?!).
Well, that depends on if the motorcycles they are replacing are more polluting than they are, then this would be helping to reduce pollution.
Launchy.net changed my world.
With $100 barrel oil and global warming, that's just what the world needs is to get a couple billion more people sitting in traffic jams burning up the dwindling supply of fossil fuels and polluting the air.
@de_machina
This is what I keep wondering about the US insistence that we do nothing about the environment until China takes action first - even though our per capita CO2 emissions are still 400% of theirs! We might be willing to freeze our emissions at current levels if they freeze theirs at what are (to us) levels from the 1930's? Please.
Yes, I do understand. As an American I find the prospect of equal access to natural resources for everybody on earth very frightening, because I am accustomed to our position of privilege. But I won't try to rationalize that selfish and irrational sentiment.
Does it pass California smog certification? If it doesn't, it better run Linux. :P
Why should the rich have any greater right to jeopardize human and environmental health and safety? Especially when comparing the wealth of people in different parts of the world; you can't say that the comparative net worth of a particular American vs. a particular Indian have anything to do with individual merit.
/takes off tinfoil hat
From what I've observed, the USA equates rich and privilege - if you're rich, you fscking well earned it and deserve the right to plunder more. If that $PERSON_FROM_OTHER_COUNTRY were worth anything, they'd have enough money/influence/power to compete, nevermind the huge disparity in resources.
Yes, I do understand. As an American I find the prospect of equal access to natural resources for everybody on earth very frightening, because I am accustomed to our position of privilege. But I won't try to rationalize that selfish and irrational sentiment.
As a Canadian, (where we produce more CO2 per capita than the US - no lily-green condescension here) I fear that situation more. We're in no position to defend ourselves if we become "hostile to American interests", especially if those interests are Big Oil, since we have what they want in spades. Granted, it seems that a less hostile approach *cough*Stephen Harper*COUGH* is being taken, but we are a different lot up here - eventually, we _will_ have a conflict where the US wants our water or oil or trees or whatever, and will take it in whatever means they determine necessary against our will or better judgement. Just so you know - I don't think it will be the majority of Americans who will want to do that, just the moneyed few who will lose control unless they do so, and so will sell it to the American public as "The Right Thing".
In summation - we live in a global plutocracy, where being a USasian or Canoodian or Belizian matters not a whit, only how much money you have and what you can do to further the cause of the privileged few. The trick is to turn (a) green technology(ies) into something they need to hold on to power - then it'll be invested in and promoted like nothing else.
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
According to the specs, fuel consumption is 4L/100km. That's better than my sport touring motorcycle and only 10% worse than a modern Yamaha BWS scooter with a 49cc two stroke engine. Compared to ancient or cheaply hacked together motorcycles, the car would win hands down, even on the CO2 front.
Why do you think a cheap car is being made to solve the traffic problem? The whole purpose is different and it is to bring the simple joy of car ownership that most westerners are used to for generations now to more Indians.. who are used to car ownership as something very special that only the lucky few can think of.. The traffic problem is different and if it is aggravated by this then solution is not to deprive people of the ability to buy and use cars but perhaps to build better network of roads and encourage traffic to decentralize etc..
I'd take my old Audi 80 back any day....
There's a lot to be said for simple older cars that you can maintain and repair yourself. The funny thing is, they're often far better in terms of emissions and fuel economy if they're looked after properly than a lot of newer cars, simply because they're easier to keep reasonably well tuned and they're hauling around a lot less crap.
The original/ForTwo, that is (though if I had cash laying around, I'd get a ForFour and a Sportster to go with it); it's already legal in the U.S. and should be officially offered (rather than 'grey market import') Q1 2008.
Or perhaps a Ford Ka, if you do need the 4/5 seats; though at that point, you almost might as well get a regular sedan/hatchback/whatever-as-long-as-it-isn't-an-SUV, imho.
There's many, many cars that are very safe, have a trunk, are cheap, economical, etc. The problem isn't that there aren't such cars; the problem is that people - at least in the U.S. - aren't buying them. Things like...
- top speed being lower than 140mph (which is legal, where? oh, right, you were trying to get away from the crazed axe murderer)
- acceleration from 0-60 not being lower than 4 seconds (which you need to do, when? ah yes, to accelerate out of the way of the runaway semi)
- range being less than 100 miles (because gas stations are so hard to find? Oh right, you like taking your economical car to the Alaskan planes or Utah salt beds; I forgot)
- because an SUV would crush you (good luck trying to crush a Smart, though I'm sure the people in the SUV will have a lesser headache - but let's face it.. chicken&egg problem? Makes me wonder why SUV drivers don't just all have MACK trucks by now; lest their explorer gets crushed by an expedition which gets crushed by an excursion and so forth and so on.)
- looks. Yes, the typical reason why any economical car - especially electrics - are shot down in the U.S. And when one does look good - hey, fall back to the other 'reasons'.
It's funny watching Americans coming to live here (NL).. some of them are keen to hold on to their big cars. Why's that funny? Stand around in Amsterdam, The Hague, Groningen, Utrecht, etc. and watch one of them try to navigate the streets, or find a parking space. It's extra-hilarious when somebody in a 45km/h car (don't need a driver's license, just a 'moped/scooter' certificate; but obviously you can't go on highways with it) snags a spot that the engine compartment of their SUV wouldn't even fit in.
The Model-T Ford was the first mass-produced car meant to be affordable to everyone. Hitler wanted a car like that for Germany, which became the Volkswagen.
I hope you're some environmentally friendly eco-hippie living on $1 a day in some hut in africa or elsewhere because if you're an american or from some other developped country you should be ashamed of yourself. How dare you suggest that while we have all the luxuries that we want the people in india can't even even get a small car. When the US/EU motorpark use less than 5L/100km we can start to discuss things. As long as we (the developed countries) are living the way we do we should just STFU about how those who have less than us want to get their basic needs. WE have the technology. WE have the money. WE should do something. Not them. Not until WE've done all we can and helped them to be as green as they can are we allowed to complain.
So how about it fellow fat-cats. How about we do something other than pointing fingers at the have-nots.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
And suddenly the hypocrisy of our lifestyle becomes clear...