Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

World's Cheapest Car Goes On Sale In India

Posted by timothy on from the wish-it-had-a-monorail-socket-too dept.

Frankie70 writes "The Tata Nano — the car that caught the world's imagination as the cheapest ever — will finally be rolled out commercially on Monday in Mumbai in a mega event organised by Tata Motors. Ben Oliver, contributing editor, Car Magazine, London test drove the car in December, 08. These were his first impressions. This was his verdict: 'CAR's first ride in the Tata Nano felt far more significant and exciting than a first drive in a Ferrari or Lamborghini, because this car's importance is immeasurably greater. It won't compete on dynamics or quality with European or Japanese city cars, but it doesn't have to. What Tata has achieved at an unprecedented price is astonishing, although we'd guess it will cost Indian consumers closer to £1700 when it finally goes on sale, six months late, in March 2009.'"

50 of 571 comments (clear)

  1. And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The UK and Europe as well as the USA will never EVER see this car.
    And honestly, is it really a good idea to enable more people to buy cars?

    I could see it if a very low emissions small car was available to the poor to help get the nasty junk off the road...

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And honestly, is it really a good idea to enable more people to buy cars?

            No, it's not. So please hand over your car keys.

            (My point being - who the hell are you to decide who gets to drive and who doesn't?)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This car will never see the light of day in the US. You can thank heavy government regulation and lobbying.

      As for enabling more people to drive? Umm, why is it fair to prevent others from enjoying the same quality of life that you or I have? I mean, if people are going to start worrying about the environment, perhaps the solution is to nuke ourselves off this rock for "Urth Mother"?

      Look folks. The rest of the world wants to have the same same standard of living that US and Europe enjoys today. You can't stop or prevent its progression. What you can do however, is develop more efficient ways of achieving that goal.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by hobbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As for enabling more people to drive? Umm, why is it fair to prevent others from enjoying the same quality of life that you or I have?

      Quite. The solution is for you to give up your car, not for them to get one.

      I mean, if people are going to start worrying about the environment, perhaps the solution is to nuke ourselves off this rock for "Urth Mother"?

      You are welcome to commit suicide if you want, but don't presume to make the decision for the rest of us.

      Look folks. The rest of the world wants to have the same same standard of living that US and Europe enjoys today. You can't stop or prevent its progression.

      I may not be able to, but the fact is that the rest of the world simply cannot have the same standard of living that we have. Indeed, in part, we enjoy it because they work for us to have it.

      What you can do however, is develop more efficient ways of achieving that goal.

      That's a good idea, but I'm afraid it's rather too little too late. We're going to have to prepare ourselves for a severe cut in our standards of living.

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    4. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by Kokuyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which country would that be? Germany with BMW, Mercedes and Audi? Or rather a scandinacian one? Volvo comes to mind. And what about all the Japanese SUVs?

      Meanwhile, my 99 Century Buick V6 needs less gas than a Mitsubishi Galant V6 from approximately the same year.

      So what the hell is your point?

    5. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nano's emission would be far more benign than 2-cycle autorickshaws, not mention being far more safe.

      The irony being if pollution doesn't kill you having an accident in this car will, far more than other vehicles.

    6. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by macshit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And honestly, is it really a good idea to enable more people to buy cars?

      Of course not. But it's a sad cycle -- people in very poor countries like this see cars as being status symbols, a sign of wealth. Society (and the government) often treat increase car ownership the same way, as some indicator that they've "made it," and try to emphasize car-oriented development.

      By the time they come to the realization that having every poor schmuck in the city driving to work is a really dumb idea, and not very scalable, it may be too late...

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    7. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No problem. I'd gladly give up my wifes guzzler (29.9mpg) for a smart four-two, I already drive a 50mpg Geo Metro summer and a 38mpg Suzuki sidekick sport 4X4 for the winter.. we only get 84 inches of snow a year here and typically had 1 foot of snowfall per storm so I'm being a pussy for using a 4x4 in the winter..

      I wish I could buy a 50mpg small car here in the states for under $9500.00 but we have large numbers of really dumb people that think owning a canyonero is what you are supposed to do.

      Honestly, I WISH these would come the the states. but they wont because of the ridiculous safety laws designed to keep small cheap cars out of the country.

      But, enabling 29,000,000,000 people to buy a car and drive around is not always a great idea. Everyone is already bitching about how cars are destroying the planet so would enabling more cars be a bad idea? Just going from the eco freaks that complain here. cars still = bad right? or was that last week.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by mcvos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nano's emission would be far more benign than 2-cycle autorickshaws, not mention being far more safe.

      And that's the real point here. Lots of people in countries like Indian and China are transporting themselves and their entire family on old and dangerous motorbikes not suited for that task. The Nano isn't to get more people on the road, it's to get road users to use a safer vehicle, more suited for their needs.

    9. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by furby076 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with the sentiment but it is not black and white. Most people in India have lived their entire lives without cars and didn't need it. Their family, work, friends, home were all (for the most part) in relative distances. This car is so cheap they will get it (even if just 1% that's 10 mil more drivers on a 1 billion pop) and eventually need it.

      Gas demand will go up, pollution will go up.

      This is not some miracle of technology -it is worse then good.

      To turn around to countries that have been using cars for years in a major way and say "well give up your car" - rememebr those countries' lifestyles have been based around cars for many years...in the US since the 40's-50's (really before then, but that was an insane boom time). The AVERAGE american commute is 30 minutes by car - not feasible by foot/bike...and 30 minutes by car usually means about 1-1.5 hours by train/bus each direction. Again, it's living standard. If you never had it you didn't build your life around it.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    10. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But, enabling 29,000,000,000 people to buy a car and drive around is not always a great idea.

            So when Henry Ford rolled out the Model T for under $800 or so, with the intention of selling it to the masses, he was "enabling" the destruction of the environment, etc? After all, before Ford came along, cars were an item only affordable by the 1% richest part of the population.

            So how come Americans can get mass produced cars for "the common man" (with all the environmental destruction involved) and Indians cannot? Suddenly it's a bad idea if Indians and Chinese wish to progress...

            Fundamentally I understand your point - if everyone has a straw sucking up the oil fields, then they will dry up much faster. But I say that you cannot stop the rest of the world from trying to progress - either physically or morally. After all, America showed the world that a life of materialism and luxury is desirable since most of your middle class has (until recently) attained it, and Hollywood keeps exporting and advertising it. Then you want to tell the world - "no, this is for US, it's not for YOU". A word of advice: watch your back.

            However if we don't find a viable, portable and economically feasible source of energy soon, there's going to be one hell of a fight for the last few billion barrels of oil - and I'm not even sure the US would win.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    11. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To turn around to countries that have been using cars for years in a major way and say "well give up your car" - rememebr those countries' lifestyles have been based around cars for many years...in the US since the 40's-50's (really before then, but that was an insane boom time). The AVERAGE american commute is 30 minutes by car - not feasible by foot/bike...and 30 minutes by car usually means about 1-1.5 hours by train/bus each direction. Again, it's living standard. If you never had it you didn't build your life around it.

            I agree that no one will willingly give up their lifestyle (which is characterized by unparalleled per capita WASTEFULNESS) in America and Europe. The key word here is WILLINGLY. However you need to realize that people in less developed countries will not willingly give up their right to strive for a better standard of living.

            Your argument is basically "we already have it, so you can't" is a non sequitur. Of course it's easy to argue for the position that favors yourself - you've grown comfortable in that position. I'm taking the other side of the argument - first it's not your decision to make - the last barrel of oil will go to the highest bidder. Supply and demand determine this, not pseudo-morality. Second - if you try to enforce a double standard on developing nations (it's ok for us but not for you), be prepared for a fight to the death - since after all a prohibition will be considered "death" by the developing nation anyway, therefore they have nothing to lose.

            Humans will only understand that the oil is gone after the oil is gone. We're not good at forward thinking on a collective basis - if you want examples just look at the US government.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    12. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by obarthelemy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The "I got it first ! now you DIE" argument.

      Or maybe, after taking care of the supply side by invading Iraq, the US should start taking care of the demand side by invading India and regressing them to the stone age ?

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    13. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your argument is basically "we already have it, so you can't" is a non sequitur.

      But that's not his argument. His argument is, here in north america, we made the huge mistake of designing communities such that a vehicle was a requirement for living. In particular, the suburban and ex-urban phenomenon has left your average American completely incapable of living without personal long-distance transportation. And this phenomenon is coupled with a truly massive underfunding of public transportation, meaning that even those within a reasonable distance of their place of work have no option but to drive.

      And so, the solution isn't to give Indians more cars, thus encouraging the very lifestyle north america has mistakenly committed themselves to. The solution is to build communities where cars *aren't necessary in the first place*. Not because "we already have it, so you can't", but because "we already have it, and trust me, you really don't want it".

    14. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by mcguiver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because it is the path that America went down doesn't mean that it is the best path for other nations to follow. We can now see the problems that have occurred because of our dependence on oil, both in terms of foreign wars and environmental impact. I think that the argument against giving them gas-powered cars is valid. With all of the environmental clean-up efforts going on that would be the complete opposite of helpful. However, that said, there are other technologies that would be useful to them. I think that India would be a perfect market for electric cars. Electric cars are not big in America because the average American's commute exceeds the range and speed requirements for the average electric car currently in production. However, in a country like India where most of the population hasn't had cars, electric cars could provide a good standard of living increase while still meeting all of their needs and not using more of the worlds oil and while not contributing to CO2 production.

    15. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But that's not his argument. His argument is, here in north america, we made the huge mistake of designing communities such that a vehicle was a requirement for living.

      then correct your mistake. you can't make others learn without them making the same mistake themselves.
      since the american people have for decades and continue to lead a life that has inherent wastefulness, they cannot advise others not to make the same mistake. you must correct yourself first, only then will you have a say in the matter.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    16. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by khanyisa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have to remember motorbikes and auto-rickshaws which are another common form of transport. Cheap low-emissions cars could well replace those, reducing the net pollution per person transported...

    17. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by oldhack · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Dude, at least give up one of your cars before whining about allowing others to have just one - typical Indian families have far more to go before catching up anywhere near your level of consumption.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    18. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      then correct your mistake. you can't make others learn without them making the same mistake themselves.

      Well that's simply ridiculous. You're saying an addict can't tell their child that drugs are bad? Or a heart patient can't tell their relatives to eat healthy?

      Should the US try and fix it's problems? Yes, of course. But that doesn't mean it can't speak from authority when it says that a culture dependent on cheap gas and personal transportation is a really *bad* idea.

    19. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Every time we see an article about economic development in China or technology coming to India, we get these discussions about whether the developments are right or prudent. Invariably people start arguing that it is only fair and just for people in the undeveloped world to go through the same industrial revolution that the developed world did. This is silly.

      I don't want cars to become as pervasive in India as they are in the US, but it is not because I want the oil fields to last longer or because I want to be the only cool kid with a car*. I am hoping that India will not follow in the US's footsteps, not because I want to exclude them from the developed world, but rather because I want them to learn from our mistakes.

      I am sick of people apologizing for horrible working conditions or extreme environmental degradation in India or China by saying it is just an essential part of progress. Why can't the developed and undeveloped worlds learn from the mistakes of the industrial revolution and bring India, China, et al to the developed world in a better way? Is it obvious how to do it? No, but we should still try. And we certainly cannot justify 100,000,000 new polluting cars in India with "But the US has lots of cars too! It's not fair!"

      P.S. Perhaps it isn't fair, but in that case perhaps our response should be to remove cars from the US rather than to add them to India.

      *I don't actually have a car, so maybe I am just jealous.

    20. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by patro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought it was the USA who were proponents of freedom and capitalism.

      Don't believe everything they say on TV. :)

      The USA is a proponent of free trade only as long as it serves its own interests.

    21. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah and it's not like driving a car is the only way it polutes.

      It costs energy and resources to make a car, you know.

      --

      ---
      "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
    22. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not even Americans who choose to rely on public transit? We exist, I assure you.

      Lucky you that you can, and good for you that you do. Point your finger at your neighbor in the Century Buick, or the Escalade, and convince them to change their ways before pointing your finger halfway around the world at a developing country making a cheap and really quite efficient vehicle. Because otherwise you still sound like a hypocrite.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    23. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by TheAmit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now i dont like to repeat myself but i posted this somewhere else. There is a cost of giving up gasoline. A cost which will mean it will take longer for these countries to get their people out of poverty if they use anything but proven technologies. The developed world has built up its infrastructure and its standard of living by accessing this cheap and readily accessible fuel. The developing has just reached a point where they have mastered the technology to use this fuel and they are being asked to cease and desist. The kyoto protocol which seeks to equalize this has been effectively blocked by the US and maybe their reasons make sense for the US but then stop talking about doing good for the world

    24. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by ghoul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And hippies!! Dont forget the hippies!! Before Ford came along America was basically an Agricultural nation with most of the population living on farms. Now most of the population lives in cities and thank god for that. Rural areas are the cess pit of the human condition and the faster India can get its people into cities the better and if it takes cheap cars to do it fine (though I would prefer mass transit) At least if we get the air polluted enough the hippies will stop backpacking here to shit on our streets !

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    25. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay the USA isn't mostly city, like people who never leave LA and NYC tend to think.

      USA is mostly open country, and large portions are well outside "city limits". Even here in Nor Cal, we are surrounded by mountains and such.

      LOL, yeah, cus stuck in Texas I had no idea that the US was mostly open country. Hey when crossing that open country I think having a fuel efficient vehicle is even more important, but what do I know? I only drive my subcompact across the country, through the mountains, and through the snow.

      SUVs are nothing but enclosed 4x4 trucks. They are big, heavy and get through all sorts of mud, snow and streams that I wouldn't dare take a subcompact even near.

      So quit harping on SUVs, they aren't the problem.

      Pfft. They used to be, but these days most of them are based on car chassis not truck chassis. Subcompacts are fine with most snow on roads. If you're driving through mud and streams all the time, or literally live in the mountains away from the highways where a steep snowy road can be dangerous without 4wd, then more power to you. Don't for a second pretend that this is the typical usage of SUVs. You're talking about people who actually require a certain class of vehicle, I'm talking about all the work-and-grocery-store commuters in sub-20mpg "trucks" that have never been off road or been used for an honest day's work and never will be. Guess who is talking about the common case? So yeah I will keep harping on SUVs for as long as I'm surrounded by far more than could possibly be needed.

      The problem is that not everyone fits in a Mini Cooper or even a midsize car. And if SUVs didn't exist, you'd be harping on people driving Crown Vics.

      You don't hear me harping on dump trucks, bulldozers, and semis do you? No. Unless 90% of them were used when absolutely not necessary, and then you would. Get it?

      "SUVs" existed for the people who needed them long before the term "SUV" existed, and they still will when the SUV problem -- and it sure as hell is a problem -- goes away.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    26. Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... by eth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But, enabling 29,000,000,000 people to buy a car and drive around is not always a great idea. Everyone is already bitching about how cars are destroying the planet so would enabling more cars be a bad idea? Just going from the eco freaks that complain here. cars still = bad right? or was that last week.

      I think the whole point is that these enable "the masses" to afford these *instead of* the pollution-belching death traps that have been their only option to this point.

  2. Re:I'm still waiting for the Tata Touch... by Feminist-Mom · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Seriosly, Indian industry will eventually come out with a tatabook, which might be the price that the negroponte thing was supposed to be.

  3. Re:Hyperbole much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    CAR's first ride in the Tata Nano felt far more significant and exciting than a first drive in a Ferrari or Lamborghini

    Wow, that's some hyperbole.

    That's not hyperbole. It's entirely plausible that the reviewer was more excited and saw more signicance in this particular test ride than in others of a sort that he does frequently. It doesn't say much at all. If he'd said something like "this car has more significance for the human race than the splitting of the atom" then that would be hyperbole. What he actually said was very little.

  4. Re:Oh, Joy, Joy, more oil comsumers by ActusReus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The developed world has had DECADES to build up moral authority on this issue, and utterly blew it. Now, efforts on our part to shame the developing world for pollution or inefficient energy use sound spiteful and hypocritical.

    You may be right... but you're also wrong.

  5. Re:Oh, Joy, Joy, more oil comsumers by American+Terrorist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    OTOH, it's good if this drives up oil prices, then other people will drive fewer gas guzzlers. It will also increase the demand for renewable energy and possibly force the US's uberconsumers to reduce their lavish lifestyles.

    It's also good for Indian people who want cheap taxis and are sick of riding on top of buses to get around.

  6. Re:Oh, Joy, Joy, more oil comsumers by TheAmit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't understad why do drivers in the US who majorly drive big Ford trucks talk down to the developing world for driving small cars. Remember India with almost 4 times the population has a smaller carbon footprint than the US. Stop driving your gas guzzlers for the next 20 years before you get a right to talk about carbon footprints. After enjoying the economic benefits of gasoline you want the developing world to give it all up and stay poor is it ?

  7. Judgement already! by bogaboga · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It won't compete on dynamics or quality with European or Japanese city cars, but it doesn't have to.

    That is precisely how the Japanese "came from behind" in the late seventies and ended up capturing the American mindset when it comes to quality.

    I know what I am talking about because I was around at that time. No body would even think of touching a Japanese front wheel drive car! Guess what! It is second nature to most auto manufacturers now.

    I guess it's the time for the Indians this time round. Let's just watch out after all, Tata's direction on quality can only be up.

    1. Re:Judgement already! by American+Terrorist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I see where you're coming from, but Toyota didn't do what they did overnight. Sure, they were crappy at first, but they kept gaining market share due to their ever-improving quality.

  8. This is a good thing for the carbon footprint by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    India's carbon footprint will be going up no matter what we do. The Nano has a good MPG rating. Better than many hybrids. It's a good thing, not a pollution machine.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  9. Re:Oh, Joy, Joy, more oil comsumers by hobbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's no point being defeatist about it. Until fusion is sorted out (hopefully soon?) the rest of the world simply cannot enjoy such a high standard of living as the west has indulged itself in these past few decades. I mean "cannot" in a physical rather than a moral sense. The time for crying hypocrite is over. We all have to work together now.

    --
    "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
  10. Re:Cheap car already tried and failed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Don't know. What makes the cost of a modern car or why haven't cars done the same things as PC's? I am currently the proud owner of an Acer Aspire One. 269 euro and that includes the very high dutch taxes.

    What do I have for that? A more then capable laptop with build in Wifi, 3G, a SSD, 2x SD expansion slots. A very decent screen etc etc all powered by a DUAL core Atom and 1g of memory.

    No, it doesn't compete with a top of the line desktop, but just get your head around the fact that for about 250 euro, I got a highly decent laptop easily powerful enough to run anything I throw at it INCLUDING displaying hi-res movie rips. Not so long ago a desktop PC struggled with that.

    And it is not like cars are all that high-tech. The car industry doesn't re-invent the engine every couple of year, so why do we pay a premium on decades old technology? It would be the same as if blue led's still cost 10 bucks per item.

    How much of the 10.000 euro price ticket of a car (and Hyundi already delivers good cars for 7000 euro (including the insane dutch taxes)) is Apple/Coca-Cola style markup (you will pay for the logo) and how many thousands do you pay for that iPod connector?

    If this car comes with a basic engine (it does) no airbags, no powersteering, no abs then it is basically old (read no license fees, no R&D) produced with modern techonology and cheap labour subsidised by a country that wants to do to korea what japan did to the US what the US did to europe. If you are old you remember the days that japanese cars were thought of as crap on wheels and if you are of a civilized country you know that cheapo american sportscars could never compete with proper race cars from europe.

    Wrap your mind around this. Things change. If you had said just a few decades ago that a top of the line luxury car would be from japan, you would have been laughed at. Yet that is the truth, japan competes with mercedes. Who is to say Tata won't be the next Hyunadi or Toyota?

  11. Re:Cheap car already tried and failed! by spisska · · Score: 4, Insightful

    there is no way in hell they are going to get much better quality than the Yugo. (Wrap your mind around that!)

    Remember though that the Yugo was essentially Warsaw Pact manufacturing quality with Fiat parts. The Tata was engineered from the ground up.

    Remember also that the Yugo was designed for Western markets, the Tata is not.

    I'm not sure about all the concern around this thing selling in the US or EU. It's a car designed for Asian cities, and that in itself means a much larger potential market than the US.

  12. Re:I thought the British Empire was dead. by grodzix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Man, I hope you're not being serious right now. You can see that it's co.uk web site so it is designed for British population. It kinda makes sense to put price in pounds rather than in rupees as most of British people (or at least many of them) don't know how much rupee is, right?

    --
    My Windows is NOT slow, it's special!
  13. The year of cheap stuff. by oftenwrongsoong · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is the year of the netbook, the cheap car, and next thing you know, they'll be selling houses made out of cardboard for dirt cheap, too.

  14. Re:Cheap car already tried and failed! by mcvos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Failed?

    The Yugo sold quite a lot of cars, and according to the wikipedia article you link to, they're still being sold. Not in the US, but the Tata Nano isn't aimed at the US either. Lots of stuff isn't. Just because something won't succeed in the US, that doesn't automatically make it a failure.

  15. Re:Infrastructure will not handle this by Laxitive · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So the smaller cities will become like Delhi or Mumbai, with pollution, dirt, and garbage piling up everywhere.

    If you don't think there will be too many people buying this thing as a status symbol, then you don't know Indians. If there's one thing I know about Indians, Northern and Southern, Rich and Poor, High Caste and Low Caste.. it's that status is everything, wealth is status, and cars are wealth. Sure, so is jewelry, and being able to pay for ridiculously overpriced weddings, and a whole bunch of other things.. but the car as a status symbol in India is across the board.

    Tata is lying. This is all about making money on top of the Indian desire to keep up with the joneses.

    Now, I'm not saying that's a bad desire. Ambition is good. Wanting to have a better life with better conveniences is a good thing. It's what makes India so vibrant and exciting a place. But there is always a cost for this kind of progress, and in a place like India where we really haven't gotten our largest problems sorted out, where we haven't, as a culture, figured out that throwing our garbage onto the streets and shitting in our own water supply is not sustainable in the long term, where we haven't learned that it is unwise spending your entire family fortune on lavish and gaudy weddings and jewellry when it could have been invested in the young couple's livelyhood to far better effect.. I don't think the country as a whole knows what it is getting into.

    India may well be careening at breakneck pace towards a brick wall if it doesn't fix the more fundamental issues it faces. And no, cheap cars are not one of those fundamental issues.

  16. Re:Cheap car already tried and failed! by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Also we've learned since then that people don't really want an exhaust pipe that will survive for twenty years if they have to clean the thing out. People also don't care if they can't change from top gear directly into reverse. There were a lot of things that got the cost down, mainly deciding what was important - for instance a lighter weight exhaust system that doesn't last as long and a lighter and cheaper transmission. As roads improved you didn't need something as tough as a 4x4 either.

    The model T was a pretty amazing bit of technology even though it was the cheapest car. Even a Hummer would come close to being a better vehicle now but for the time it was quite spectacular.

  17. Re:I'm still waiting for the Tata Touch... by quenda · · Score: 5, Insightful
    US is the most polluting county per capita?

    Parent is deliberately confusing greenhouse emissions with pollution. The US is an awful lot cleaner than India, be it air, water or land.

  18. Re:I'm still waiting for the Tata Touch... by MrNaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US is the most polluting country in the world, both in absolute terms and per capita.

    Environmental damage that happens in other countries counts as US caused if it's done by US corporations. E.g., the Union Carbide disaster may have happened in India, but it was a US corporation that caused it.

    Come now, take responsibility for your (collective) actions.

    --
    I hate printers.
  19. Idiot by ghoul · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who's the idiot who modded parent insightful. The inbred redneck does not even know that telling lies is not the same as being Insightful Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding. Indian pollution standards are stricter than America's and California's.They match European standards and the Nano meets the future Euro V standard which even Europe has not shifted to yet. Car insurance is compulsory and everyone has at least 3rd party insurance. Every car has to go through a pollution check after every year and cars older than 15 years are mandatorily junked. Seat belts are compulsory. Air Bags are not as most Indian traffic is inside cities and at lower speed collisions Air bags cause more injuries than they prevent. People who plan to do cross country drives buy larger more expensive cars with air bags. The so called American way of life is just 80 years old and based on cheap Texas and Alaska oil and industrial farming on empty farmland(grabbed through genocide). I dont see Americans as any superior/innovative/industrious than the Sheikhs who traded in their camels for BMWs when they found oil. The American century has been built on a resource boom. Whatever innovation has happened has been done by first generation immigrants. Now that the cheap resources are running out , the smart people will stop immigrating and the center of the world is bound to shift back to India-China which have for 99% of history been the biggest economies of the world. As for gas prices India already has high gas taxes to encourage fuel conservation. Gas costs around 5 dollar a gallon currently and people drive accordingly with no wasted trips.

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
  20. Re:I'm still waiting for the Tata Touch... by phulegart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The US is the most polluting country in the world, both in absolute terms and per capita."
    {citation needed}

    Incorrect.
    http://carma.org/dig/show/world+country
    Actually, the US is second to China.... India is ranked third.

    As far as your moralizing goes as well, how can you discount the responsibility of the Indian Government in the Union Carbide disaster? They allowed the plant. They allowed the regulations and standards that the plant was built and maintained by. I am not saying that Union Carbide (which is NOT the US, it is a corporation.) was not responsible. But I am saying that the US was NOT responsible for the pollution caused by that disaster.

    However, the Union Carbide disaster does not contribute to why India is CURRENTLY the third highest polluting nation on the planet. It is not "polluted" it is "Polluting"... meaning generating pollution. One of the things that the Tato Nano is supposed to do, is make a car affordable to most Indians. In a country where streets are already densely packed with walking people, people packed on two wheeled traffic, and older vehicles... do we really need to add a few million MORE internal combustion engines virtually overnight? I would not be surprised to see little India surpass the US in pollution production once this car settles in.

    --
    "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
  21. Re:I'm still waiting for the Tata Touch... by phulegart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh, and a further note...
    "According to CARMA's massive database, which contains information on the carbon emissions of over 50,000 power plants and 4,000 power companies worldwide, Australia is the world's worst polluter per capita, producing five times as much carbon from generating power as China."
    http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/20071203/carbon-emission-global-warming-power-plant-pollution-greenhouse-gas-climate-change-kyoto-protocol-ca.htm

    There you go. Nothing like being informed, eh? What a wonderful friend we have in Google.

    --
    "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
  22. Too cheap...? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, there is a reason we make it expensive, only few people should have a car...
    if we all had cars, it would be 1 billion in India helping the pollution problem along.
    Do these cars run on electricity atleast??? That would be worth the while, as well, by having such a big volume of sales helps push the price of the car even lower, thereby making the electric car technology that much cheaper....but unfortunately I am sure this is a gas car as well.

  23. Re:Unthinking racism by Zackbass · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm a Real Engineer with a good bit of auto industry experience (though not a Chartered Engineer or PE as we tend to call them in the US, that's more for the civil engineering types), and I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that engineers aren't just 'jumped up mechanics'. Most of the best engineers I've worked with are captivated with experimentation, elegant design, and high performance applications. The best mechanics work with the same drive. The best engineers I know ARE jumped up mechanics. Just because someone learned how to analyze stresses and work with Navier-Stokes doesn't make them some zombie with a calculator.

    As an engineer I'm not amazed by the fact that someone spent a year trying to find the cheapest plastic to mold a barely adequate oil pan from. We have a pretty good idea of what is cheap and what works. Tata worked with a different set of specifications than automotive designers in other countries and something different came out. I'm not ready to make a judgment whether the specs are wise or not, we'll see that over the next few years.

    --
    You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car