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.'"
... or maybe a Tata Shuffle, with the steering controls obnoxiously embedded in some earbuds?
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.
It will be available in Europe in 2011. Link.
Those of us old enough to remember the 1980s remember the Yugo, which was touted then as the cheapest car ever: $3990 when they debuted in the U.S. in 1987 (bear in mind that the U.S. has much tougher safety and emissions standards than India).
It was tried here and failed miserably, especially after the general consensus among the consumer rags, especially Consumer Reports, was that you were better of with a used car than a new Yugo.
My blog
"And honestly, is it really a good idea to enable more people to buy cars?"
I assume you don't own one, yes?
"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..."
Nano's emission would be far more benign than 2-cycle autorickshaws, not mention being far more safe.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
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 think Indian infrastructure is going to have a hard time coping with this.
Tried getting anywhere in New Delhi recently? A 10km ride can take HOURS. I'm not exaggerating or kidding. You will literally stand in one spot for half an hour. Nobody obeys traffic rules and gridlock is the norm.
The Indian middle class is looking to copy the west, and they want their SUVs and their tall lattes too.
In late afternoon in New Delhi (about 6:00pm or so), you can STARE AT THE SUN without feeling any queasiness in your eyes. That's how bad the pollution is.
Instead of looking to other cultures and trying to NOT make the same mistakes, India is eager to copycat them. Heh... you think Americans go a little bit overboard with the bling and the super-size-me? Just wait.. just wait.
-Laxitive
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.
Can't wait to see The Stig powersliding this baby around the Top Gear test track.
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
Tatas are very sexy though.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
The driving exam is a joke here. If you correctly answer 6 out of 10 multiple choice questions (mostly "guess the taffic sign" ones) you get a learners licence. Curiously, 9 out of 36 failed that in my class. 1 month later you get the full licence, provided that you can drive 100m without incident.
The traffic here is very chaotic already, but it's mostly motorbikes and 3-wheelers. Add more cars to the mix and you're asking for trouble. On the other hand the Tata Nano seems to be a scaled-up rickshaw rather than a scaled-down car.
TFA is 4 months old, and the price is way off. The base price is 100.000 rupees, or about $2000/£1350. You can still get 2 high-end scooters for that price, not one for £1700 like the article says.
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.
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?
Yeah, and where are all the SUVs from those foreign car companies sold? You don't think Toyota started making SUVs to take advantage of the lucrative large-truck-in-Tokyo market, do you?
Oh sure they do sell in other markets, but the point is that nobody has latched onto the gas-guzzling needlessly-oversized truck and SUV like in America. And therefore nobody from there, including those driving Century Buicks, should be pointing fingers at Indians buying the cheapest car ever and saying "Hey you shouldn't do that!"
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
Switzerland is overrun with SUVs as well, as is Germany. The trend may have been started in the US but Europe was quick to pick it up and give it momentum.
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".
I understand the point you are intending, but consider whether your bashing 300,000,000 people with such a broad bat isn't the moral equivalent of those who "talk down" to the developing world.
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.
Just because it is the path that America went down doesn't mean that it is the best path for other nations to follow.
Yes, and if India decides that they should follow a different path, then more power to them.
I think that the argument against giving them gas-powered cars is valid.
We aren't giving them anything, and thus it is not our choice to not give them. We are not the Greek gods, and Tata Motors is not Prometheus, okay?
It's the whole attitude here that pisses me off. I'd have no problem if people were saying "Hey India, look at what heavy adoption of cars at the expense of public transportation did to our country. You might want to think before making the same mistake we did." Instead, all I hear is this air of superior judgement, all "India shouldn't be given cars because they're going to fuck up the environment". It's the combination of the hypocrisy of ignoring or downplaying our own effect as polluter, with the sense of superiority where of course nobody can tell us what to do but we can decide whether India should be allowed to have cars that just reeks of hypocrisy and arrogance.
India already has the gift of fire-in-a-cylinder-with-a-piston. That djinni has been out of the bottle for a long time. And I don't see much to complain about with this particular incarnation. Compared to the fuel economy and emissions of the top gas and hybrid cars, it's competitive on fuel economy and emissions. Compared to the average car in the North American fleet, it's very good. Compared to the two-stroke engines running scooters and auto-rickshaws in the cities of India already, and which the Nano is priced to compete against, it is insanely great on emissions.
I think that India would be a perfect market for electric cars. 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.
Except an electric with enough juice for even a short commute is going to cost a hell of a lot more than the Nano. Yes, ICEs are not the ideal solution going forward. In the meantime, electrics serve some few needs, and hopefully will serve more in the future. In the meantime, if they want to improve their standard of living in a way that will be both affordable and get them halfway across the city and back or to the next town and back, and which will actually reduce emissions when it replaces the currently highly emissive vehicles that clog New Delhi, then who are you or I to say no? It's not like we're setting a better example, now are we? There's nothing wrong with discussing the issues, there is something wrong with riding a high horse while doing so.
The enemies of Democracy are