The World's Cheapest Car Set To Launch 418
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."
From an environmental perspective... (Score:2, Insightful)
The negative (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the Chinese? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Tatas (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]
The problem I see... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cheaper Cars - More Cars (Score:2, Insightful)
Just what the world needs..... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sounds interesting, but any hope of US? (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.
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.
Re:Sounds interesting, but any hope of US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Clearly these people spend little time IN traff (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sounds interesting, but any hope of US? (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.
Re:From an environmental perspective... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 and our turn to walk 10 miles to work.
Environment is a valid concern, but the way you ask the question seems to premise that the western world is the only part of the world allowed to have cars and pollution.
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.
Re:Just what the world needs..... (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.
Oh, and Citroën had the first production diesel car in 1935, when they offered the Rosalie with a diesel engine for use as taxis (and how many diesel Xantias and C5s do you see as taxis?). They didn't make very many, though, and the history books record the 1936 Mercedes 260D as the first production diesel car. Fair enough, since they made a lot more of those.
Wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cheaper than a Model T (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds interesting, but any hope of US? (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 than 5L/100km we can start to discuss things. As long as we (the developed countries) are living the way we do we should just STFU about how those who have less than us want to get their basic needs. WE have the technology. WE have the money. WE should do something. Not them. Not until WE've done all we can and helped them to be as green as they can are we allowed to complain.
So how about it fellow fat-cats. How about we do something other than pointing fingers at the have-nots.
Re:Sounds interesting, but any hope of US? (Score:3, Insightful)