Slashdot Mirror
World's Cheapest Car Goes On Sale In India
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.'"
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
Parent is deliberately confusing greenhouse emissions with pollution. The US is an awful lot cleaner than India, be it air, water or land.
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.
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.
"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