Slashdot Log In
The World's Cheapest Car Set To Launch
Posted by
Zonk
on Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:47 AM
from the be-nice-to-have-a-toolin-mobile dept.
from the be-nice-to-have-a-toolin-mobile dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
100-MPG Air-Powered Car Headed To US Next Year 449 comments
An anonymous reader sends us to Popular Mechanics for word on a New York automaker with plans to introduce a US version of the air-powered car, with which India's Tata Motors made a splash last year. Zero Pollution Motors plans a sub-$18,000, 6-passenger vehicle that can hit 96 mph and gets over 100 MPG, using an untried dual engine — the air-powered motor being supplemented by a second (unspecified) engine that would kick in above 35 MPH. The company estimates that "a vehicle with one tank of air and, say, 8 gallons of either conventional petrol, ethanol, or biofuel could hit between 800 and 1000 miles." The vehicle could be introduced to the market as early as 2009.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Tatas (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm also pretty sure it costs a damn site cheaper than the one from TFA.
http://forumpix.co.uk/i.php?I=1199081962 [forumpix.co.uk]
Sounds interesting, but any hope of US? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The specs are not out yet. It will be revealed at the auto show.
Re:Sounds interesting, but any hope of US? (Score:5, Insightful)
The vehicle is aimed at improving driving safety by getting India's masses off their motorbikes and into cars."
Hmm...the world's second most populous nation switching from motorcycles to cars. Yes, that should do wonders for gas prices / global warming.
Parent
Re:Sounds interesting, but any hope of US? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope you're some environmentally friendly eco-hippie living on $1 a day in some hut in africa or elsewhere because if you're an american or from some other developped country you should be ashamed of yourself. How dare you suggest that while we have all the luxuries that we want the people in india can't even even get a small car. When the US/EU motorpark use less t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds interesting, but any hope of US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds interesting, but any hope of US? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Sounds interesting, but any hope of US? (Score:5, Informative)
- 33 HP 660 cc gas engine. Also a 700 cc diesel option. (4)
- 80 mph top speed (4)
- single windshield wiper blade as a "cost-saving measure"(2)
- Four doors (4)
- 25 kilometers (15.5 miles) per liter. Call it 60 mpg using company supplied numbers(3)
- Picture here maybe with an scanned in article about it listing engine options [blogspot.com]
As for seeing it in the U.S., two things here: In India required safety standards do not currently include full-body crash testing, airbags or antilock braking systems (1). The cars would have to be upgraded to be U.S. street legal. Which brings us to this point: "Roland Berger [consulting group] estimates it would cost as much as $4,000 on top of Tata's $2,500 to engineer the car to meet U.S. safety and emissions regulations, transport it, pay tariffs, market it, pay lawyers and offer warranties. The same would hold true to meet European or Japanese standards. Meanwhile, the Tata would have to compete, too, with a used-car market that turns over 43 million cars a year. A quick Web search shows that $6,500 could buy a 1998 Cadillac Seville with a V-8 engine and a leather interior, or a 2002 Dodge Caravan that seats seven." References: 1 NY Times [nytimes.com] 2 Rediff [rediff.com] 3 Forbes [forbes.com] 4 Business Week [businessweek.com]Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a lot to be said for simple older cars that you can maintain and repair yourself. The funny thing is, they're often far better in terms of emissions and fuel economy if they're looked after properly than a lot of newer cars, simply because they're easier to keep reasonably well tuned and they're hauling around a lot less crap.
I didn't think it was possible to outcheap kia (Score:2, Funny)
This is not new . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is not new . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
2500 Rupees? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe five of us could cut grass together and car pool.
From an environmental perspective... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This sounds like a really nice idea for the people, but what about the environment when literally everybody affords a car?
Sheesh.. I feel rage building again (lucky I don't turn green and grow in size when that happens)... someone starts talking about the 3rd world masses finally being able to afford a car and someone from an industrialized world pulls the "what about the environment" card out of their ass.
If you're so worried about the environment, perhaps you should give up your car then and tell your friends to do the same. I mean, why should the people in India not get a car? If anything, it's their turn to have a car
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The negative (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A swiss study [sciencedaily.com] concluded 'motorcycles collectively emit 16 times more hydrocarbons, three times more carbon monoxide and a "disproportionately high" amount of other air pollutants compared to passenger cars' though it has also been disputed. [acembike.org]
Re:The negative (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
What about the Chinese? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about the Chinese? (Score:5, Insightful)
until you people understand this, you will continue to doom the 3rd world with your kindness.
Parent
Is it safe? (Score:5, Interesting)
For now, I'll hold on to my Peel P50 [youtube.com].
The problem I see... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The problem I see... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
To whoever tagged this "needs pics" (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Just what the world needs..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. Although front-wheel drive cars had been around before, the Citroën Traction Avant (the clue's in the name, folks) was the first mass-produced front-wheel drive car made in any quantity. It's amazing how "modern" cars haven't really advanced from the wishbone independent front suspension, trailing-arm beam axle rear suspension and monocoque bodyshell.
Clearly these people spend little time IN traffic (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [bcp.gov.in]
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?!
Re:Clearly these people spend little time IN traff (Score:3, Informative)
Unintended Consequences (Score:4, Informative)
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 [amazon.co.uk] 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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
such that the overall number of road deaths increased
Humans need some level of risk. My fear is that by wrapping our children in bubblewrap we are creating a generation that has no concept of realising the danger that they may be placing themselves in - because they have never learned those valuable lessons that come from hurting yourself. As they say, whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
Jeremy Clarkson said it best:-
Instead of having an airbag coming out of the steering wheel in an accident to save your head hitting the steering wheel, I favour having a large metal spike come out instead. If we knew that 0.3 seconds after an impact a large metal spike would stab us through the face then IMO driving standards would drastically improve immediately. Modern cars make us feel so safe that we feel we can drive like idiots and if we crash our cars safety features will save us, not so with my method. Simple psychology dictates that the survival instinct would kick in and make us all drive like Mary Poppins.
Cars may actually ease congestion (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
The potholes? (Score:3, Informative)
Some people are not so gung ho about it (Score:3, Informative)
Suzuki [financialexpress.com] thinks safety concerns would mount
People are also worried if our roads will be congested by these cars.
Something between a motorcycle and a car (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
you mean a Smart? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
It's for the scooter/rickshaw market in India (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Exactly What We Need (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Exactly What We Need (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Parent
Re:Exactly What We Need (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Future owner of the Jag (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the people who made them actually received a living wage, unlike most workers today
The people who make cars in the US today make much better than a "living wage." Part time workers at Ford make about $18.50 an hour, full time workers make $31. As for "most workers today", the median family income in 2006 here in the US was $48,201. 80% of US households made $23K or more and a large number of the homes in the lower end were single income families. "Most" people are doing just fine.