Tata Motors unveils world’s cheapest car in India 16

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Wolverine Posted 5:45 am
   10 Jan 2008

   A Good Thing Turned EvilIf this car were substituted for more gas-guzzling ones, this would be a move in the right direction.  However, the goal of getting people into cars instead of out of them is very environmentally destructive, and this article is very bad news.

   Permalink

2. 

   dearjulia Posted 6:32 am
   10 Jan 2008

   Could it help phase out dirty two-stroke engines?The majority of vehicles in India are two and three wheelers having two-stroke engines. Two-stroke vehicles are major contributors of
   
   carbon monoxide, suspended particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons...
   By comparison a car would facilitate carpooling...
   Or am I being a hopeless optimist...

   Permalink

3. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 8:40 am
   10 Jan 2008

   Ta Ta For Now.
   
   This car is so "unsexy" that anyone driving one is never going to get any play.
   This will help decrease India's birth rate and solve global warming.

   Permalink

4. 

   Pathos Posted 8:46 am
   10 Jan 2008

   Tiny Giant, Vertical Horizon, black light..."Hopeless optimist."
   Kind of funny when you think about it, isn't it?
   My favorites have always been "legitimate bastard" and the phrasal verb "to butt heads."
   Fun rhetorical figures aside, I'm afraid you may be being overly optimistic, Julia. You see, the people of India are already in the habit of carpooling--on motor scooters. It is not uncommon in an Indian city to see a family of four piled on a scooter, with a young child on the handlebars, the father driving, and the mother behind him with a baby in her arms. It sounds ridiculously unsafe (I have no idea what the actual stats on accidents and injuries are), and it's certainly uncomfortable, but it's done, because in many cases, there's no other option. If the Tata catches on--and it certainly will--the days of this phenomenon will quickly become numbered.
   So, if you wish to remain hopelessly optimistic, you still can, and with good reason. Rejoice in the fact that for many Indian families, the standard of living is about to take a quantum leap. They won't have to worry about cold wind or rain in their faces as they drive to school and work each morning anymore. Their chances of surviving an accident will skyrocket. Those with older children will have the option of traveling as a family. But every silver lining has a cloud, and in this case, it's a cloud of greenhouse gas emissions.
   If the Tata is going to do anything to the environment besides hurt it, they're going to have to market it in places where lots of people already drive cars--and find a way to catch the interest of the large sedan and SUV cultures. But those places and those cultures aren't likely to be found in India.

   Permalink

5. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 12:19 pm
   10 Jan 2008

   Eh...By comparison a car would facilitate carpooling...
   Or am I being a hopeless optimist...
   Eh, most indians don'r really "commute", at least, not in the way that Americans do.  Many live fairly close to their work.
   Plus, most Indian cities have fairly extensive bus and rail systems, which are utilized more heavily than the private automobile (in comparison of total numbers of riders).  
   Increasing the number of indiviual autos may be a step back, even if it decreases scotter use, since it may also reduce bus and rail usage.
   Plus, the Tata is extremely lackin' in basic safety features.
   How this will work out remains to be seen.

   Permalink

6. 

   racc Posted 1:34 pm
   10 Jan 2008

   They are Way Ahead of UsIt is a step backwards because the cities in India are already jammed with traffic.
   Note, however, that many Indian cities are investing heavily in rail and public transit. I think these kinds of stories are covered a lot just to justify our continued overuse of the automobile.
   Unfortunately, even with their step backwards, they are still far ahead of us. We are so far behind India it is pathetic. It is time we ditched cars and roads and invested heavily in public transit and rail.  It is about we showed some leadership

   Permalink

7. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 3:14 pm
   10 Jan 2008

   Yes and no...Unfortunately, even with their step backwards, they are still far ahead of us. We are so far behind India it is pathetic. It is time we ditched cars and roads and invested heavily in public transit and rail.  It is about we showed some leadership
   They may lead is in the fact that more people use mass transit, but much of their infrastucture is generally very old and decayed.  It wouldn't meet most American safety standards.
   Likewise, India has almost no restrictions on air pollution.  They have less cars overall, but they pollute much more than our vehicles do.  Even our worst cities on our worst days don't compare to what many of their cities endure on a near-daily basis in relation to air pollution.
   
   

   Permalink

8. 

   ruttle Posted 11:38 pm
   10 Jan 2008

   Sorry to crush your illusions...Afaik this car does have a two-stroke engine, too.
   
   Correct me if I'm wrong.
   
   If you are an hopeless optimist just keep on hopin' that people will start acting reasonably one day.

   Permalink

9. 

   su Posted 11:53 pm
   10 Jan 2008

   no question.As is usually the case in India - "development" and sustainability could not be more pitted against each other. On the on hand we cannot deny millions of people the safety and comfort of what most people in developed nations take for granted. we must agree that a small enclosed car even without "standard" safety features is safer to carry a family of four, than a two wheeled scooty.
   
   On the other hand this will most definitely increase emissions disastrously. There arent any details about the kind of fuels that the car supports and the fuel efficiency with alternative fuels.
   
   but look closer....the car is most certainly going to need more fuel that a scooter...fuel is not getting any cheaper in india either; so maybe they'll use CNG- very abundant. However, Zooming out some more . . . How is Tata turning out these cars so cheap? even missing a lot of features, theres a fair amount of externalization going on here. Who is paying for these cars?
   
   (for a simplified explanation of externalized costs go here; http://www.storyofstuff.com)
   The car is symbolic like most cheap consumer toys of economic oppression at on level, and greedy pockets on another.
   and oh- about population, i think its a basic enough observation, that population explodes in places with a high level of poverty and hence low levels of health, awareness, and CHOICE! keeping a large section of the worlds population in such a state is only going to worsen the problem, unless we want to start culling humans like rabbits and kangaroo.

   Permalink

10. 

    Matt G Posted 3:00 am
    11 Jan 2008

    My view based on a recent trip to IndiaI think this can really hurt the cities of India.  Most people walk, bike, or bus, so even though cities are very dense you can still get around - car/bus traffic is heavy, but not out of control.
    Add car-based commuters and the situation will change completely.  Roads will fill up, which will slow down busses.  With limited mobility downtown areas can become more dense (good) and sprawl will increase (very bad).  
    That being said, I think that's the future of India whether this car exists or not.  And believe it or not, I doubt vehicles are the major polluters in India right now.  You can't go more than a few blocks without walking by a garbage pile on fire in the street.
    Also, infrastructure is quite bad.  Between cities the streets are in very poor condition (often dirt or gravel) and on major routes the average travel speed is perhaps 30mph.  This will decrease with added traffic.  So as long as infrastructure doesn't change perhaps cars will be valued less as they become less useful.  

    Permalink

11. 

    Wolverine Posted 6:04 am
    11 Jan 2008

    A Word From The Rest Of The PlanetSome of the comments here are totally anthropocentric; that is, their logic assumes that only humans matter.  Statements made in support of getting people into cars, such as "we cannot deny millions of people the safety and comfort of what most people in developed nations take for granted," deny that there are any other forms of life on Earth worthy of respect.  How about, "it is ecologically and biologically undeniable that the use of oil and building & maintenance of roads is destroys entire ecosystems and causes massive species extinctions, and we therefore need to get people out of cars, not into them"?  The thinking has to change from a human-centered one to one where all life, including air, water, and land, is taken into account and given equal consideration.  Even for those who don't care about anything but humans, we can't live without everyone else.

    Permalink

12. 

    su Posted 8:25 am
    11 Jan 2008

    the point is......the environment, in which humans have a large part to play. Although we are not the only species on the planet we are the most destructive one and its precisely this anthropometric destruction that we are focusing on curbing. That sentence is indeed important to the argument because it represents the attitude of a very large number of the polluting population. to deal with it, we have to acknowledge it first- unfortunately most people do not have the far sight to see, like you do, that whether or not they should buy a car has a huge impact on the planet. These people cannot be ignored and the reasons that they do the things they do have to be addressed if the situation is to be addressed. the second part of the sentence pertaining to people who already follow a car dependant lifestyle, is also very pertinent, because it is just the marketing of this image, and just such a precedent of "safety" and "comfort" that urges all these "indians" to act as they might.

    Permalink

13. 

    su Posted 8:27 am
    11 Jan 2008

    yes it is anthropometric......because it is a problem created by humans.

    Permalink

14. 

    su Posted 8:29 am
    11 Jan 2008

    correction in last two posts; anthropocentric. ok?

    Permalink

15. 

    amarct Posted 9:23 am
    11 Jan 2008

    Tata and a car full of airA car moving thanks to compressed air: How much it cost to run? The cost of compressing air:
    
    http://www.theaircar.com/
    
    Tata signed an agreement with MDI to develop that car for the Indian market:
    
    http://www.theaircar.com/tata_agreement.html
    Then watch how it runs and much more about a similar project in Australia:
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4

    Permalink

16. 

    red green Posted 1:17 pm
    15 Jan 2008

    before we point fingers ...It's rather revealing that a diminutive Indian car is garnering such attention from Western environmentalists. (Full disclosure: I'm part of the latter group.)
    Let's review some basics:  The Nano is said to have a fuel economy rating of 54 miles per gallon (though, of course, we all know there are many different test cycles, and it remains to be seen whether this rating holds up). The 54 mpg is roughly double the current US CAFE average.
    Indians on average drive one-fourth the distance that Americans drive in a year.
    The Nano seats five and Indian motor vehicles are typically used to full capacity, and then some.  The average number of occupants per car in the US is something like 1.4.
    Put all of this together and you end up with a factor of about 29--the average US car is likely to consume 29 times the energy of a Nano.
    Yes, there is disturbing strength in numbers: assuming that millions of Nanos may ultimately be sold, they will have a major impact in terms of carbon emissions.  And Indian cities hardly need more vehicles on their roads (it's already enough traffic chaos and air pollution).
    But as Westerners, perhaps we ought to focus our energies on changing our own massively  destructive car habits (people in Western countries plus Japan own two thirds of the world's motor vehicles) before pointing a finger at Indians.

    Permalink