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."
Heh.. you said "tatas".
God, I would love to have a tata to ride around in.. Of course people might say I looked like a boob inside that thing, but I wouldn't care.
No todo lo que es oro brilla
This sounds like a great thing, and I wonder if any imitation of it will ever see the shores of the U.S. Probably not any chance of that. I tried to find some specs, but the site is already slashdotted.
Here I thought KIAs were the cheapest form of crap I've ever seen in the automobile world.
The Germans came out with this people's car concept back in the 1930s,... Heck, that's pretty much a direct translation of the word, "Volkswagon!
My wallet only holds 500, I wonder if Golden Skulltulas are legal tender?
Maybe five of us could cut grass together and car pool.
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.
Considering how poorly the not-even-as-low-cost Chinese cars perform in crash-tests, you've got to wonder how on earth something that cheap could possibly be safe at anything faster than walking speed.
For now, I'll hold on to my Peel P50.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
...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.
From the summary (not even the article!):
The People's Car, slated to be unveiled January 10th at a New Delhi auto show, will carry a...
It's kind of hard for pictures to be available when it hasn't even been unveiled yet. Of course, I'm not even sure why an announcement of an announcement is news, but what can you do?
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
Having just got back from a 2 week business trip in India, where I got to ride around in Bangalore in traffic (in a Tata car no less), ... what the hell are these people thinking?
... yeah no conflict of interest here. Most of the guys I work with rode bikes to work, and stated their commutes would be about 33% longer if they took a car.
.... and build some more pedestrian bridges so the populace doesn't have to play human frogger all day long.
If you want to fix India traffic issues the solution is not to add MORE CARS. Infact, I would argue one should add more motorcycles to the traffic. The motorcycles are the only vehicles that get around easily in Indian traffic while the rest of the road is jammed up with giant trucks manufacturered by TATA
Real ideas for fixing Indian traffic issues and fatailities:
Purge the Indian traffic police and start over. From what I saw these guys are incredibly ineffective. They stand around and wave during rush hour. They have no power to change the flow of traffic or enforce laws due to the sheer mass and force of violations occuring. You don't get 1 guy running a red light in india, you get the whole damn contents of the Intersection.
Build a new agency from the ground up focused around safety and enforcement of laws, and start ENFORCING the traffic laws.
Increase traffic fines - now my judgement here may be skewed because the standard of living is lower in India and as a result these fines may be more to your average Indian, but check this out:
http://www.bcp.gov.in/english/trafficpolice/trafficdos/spotfines.htm
It's a list of "spot fines". Note that 40 rupees is about $1 USD.
Speeding? $7.50
Driving without a license? $7.50.
Running a red light? $2.50
Yeah - does anyone else wonder why these offenses continue to happen?
Study traffic calming techniques used in some european countries recently. The problem I see with the roads in India is they're built much like US roads - wide, big, with high curbs, and the sheer design of them encourages speeding. Parking problems in the city has made parking on lots of main roads illegal.
Get rid of the high curbs everywhere, put parked cars back onto the streets to provide a visual and mental barrier for pedestrian traffic, and make the roads "feel" dangerous (which really, if you dont think Indian traffic is dangerous already you dont have a pulse but whatetver...)
Get the giant ass Tata trucks off the roads. I don't know what the hell these Tata trucks do driving around all the time, but theyre huge flatbeds, bigger then everything else on the road, and look dangerous as hell.
Mass transit - finish the projects on time and ahead of schedule. Yeah, that means YOU Bangalore officials sitting on your asses getting kickbacks from the Metro project. Fix the shit.
Crosswalks/pedestrian bridges - Try painting some lines on the road once and a while
Get the wildlife off the roads - Now seriously, I respect the traditional farmers still left in the country and in the cities, but cows do NOT belong on roads, ok?!
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.
It's incredible how many people start wading into all kinds of issues with the intent of improving safety without the first notion of what risk really is and how we humans evaluate and cope with it.
Anybody who's work may impact public safety should be forced at gunpoint to at least read Risk by John Adams. It has much to say about the effects of public safety initiatives and their unintended consequences.
For instance, after the introduction of compulsory seatbelt legislation in the UK, the number of motorists who were killed or seriously injured decreased somewhat. Unfortunately more cyclists and pedestrians were killed or seriousy injured in collisions with motor vehicles, such that the overall number of road deaths increased. Adams attributes the increase to drivers' assessment of their own level of risk being reduced, hence they tended to drive more quickly and in a more dangerous fashion, until their personal risk threshold was restored.
"...The vehicle is aimed at improving driving safety by getting India's masses off their motorbikes and into cars..."
In light of what I said previously, look out for a rise in the overall number of people KSI on India's roads...
T&K.
Political language
A lot of people seem to belief that having cars on the roads instead of bikes will actually worsen the congestion problems in India. However, I think it may actually improve it, and also reduce traffic violations.
I think the mobility of a motorbike might actually be a double-edged sword. When you feel mobile, you are more likely to dart across lanes and perhaps even run a red light. With a car, you're much larger, and you're not as agile and less likely to make risky moves, and bumping into someone would mean denting or scratching your car. Bumping into someone when you're on these moped-like bikes at slower speeds is not a big deal, so there's not much of an incentive to be extra cautious.
I'd also like to think that these cars may be more fuel efficient than a typical two stroke motorbike engine, and could presumably seat 4 (albeit cramped) instead of at most two adults safely on a bike.
I think it's also interesting how some people cry outrage when the use of fossil fuels may increase when a few minutes later they hop into their SUV. Apparently it's OK for the first world nations to have big cars, but when the Indians want to have a few small ones, it's a bad thing?
First they would have to fix the potholes on the roads. When I was in Bangalore, there were numerous holes in the middle of a wide boulevard. You can't use the word "potholes" because these holes can easily swallow a Honda Civic. Plus, they're usually marked and blocked off by only one single traffic cone. So if Bangalore, being a world class tech city, was like this - I can only imagine the less-endowed cities throughout India. You see a lot less of this in China. Not even the third-tier cities away from the coastline.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
R K Pachauri thinks this will facilitate more gas guzzling on the roads, though Tatas are quick to reject it.
Suzuki thinks safety concerns would mount
People are also worried if our roads will be congested by these cars.
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
The world needs something between:
a motorcycle, which has limited cargo capacity, limited passenger capacity, and a very limited safety profile when it gets in a wreck
and
a full, up-to-US-safety-specs car, which typically has a trunk, room for 4 or 5 people, and a good safety factor.
In America, this will require a change in the law. However, once the law allows less-safe vehicles, a whole market will open up for 2-seater, lightweight mini-cars that run rings around regular cars in fuel economy.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
So basically, you accuse America of acting selfishly to protect our position of "privilege". Do you have any idea, though, how arrogant it sounds to compare a country of more than a billion people to us in the 1930s? Get over it!
There's a big difference between ignorantly pushing technology forward when you don't know the consequences as opposed to pushing forward when you're well aware of what will happen. The BRIC nations can have a much more detrimental effect on the environment than America has ever had. It may not be fair, but guess what - that's life. It ain't fair. Deal.
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..
We've had TATA pickup trucks in the UK for a few years now. They're pretty good. They're surprisingly well-built, if a bit plasticky. The 4WD box seems to be derived from Steyr-Puch running gear, and the engine is a licence-built Peugeot XUD 2-litre diesel, with or without a turbocharger. This means that engine spares and consumables aren't a problem (because about a quarter of the diesel cars and vans on the road in the UK use Peugeot engines in one form or another) and it will run quite happily on veg oil.
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.
Well, it hasn't worked in Delhi, where I lived for three years, or in Bangalore, where I've just moved. All it means is that instead of a bunch of people who can't ride bikes causing accidents, it'll now be a bunch of people who can't drive causing bigger and better accidents.
The only thing that might drop the accident rate is the near-gridlock in Bangalore will extend to total gridlock, preventing any motorized movement at all.
Yeah, maybe someone should submit that as a story.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
In India scooters outsell cars 6:1. For any family, getting to an outing requires several trips if they own a scooter. Even if they're crazy and put 2 adults and 2 kids on it. The Tata car is built to infuse that market with a cheap car that can compete on price with getting another scooter and all the troubles associated with being out in the open.
See in India you can already buy a Bajaj 3-wheeler aka motor rickshaw that seats 4 or 5 or more. But they're fairly expensive and they're not really cars per se - they're rickshaws. I may get one myself if gas gets expensive enough. They're registered as motorcycles in the US. And with an 8.5hp engine, max speed about 45mph it's a great around town vehicle.