-
[QUOTE=Alastor;776081]They say 54 MPG...[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ferrer;776104]With 624cc it couldn't be especially thirsty...
Still for such a small engine an car it's not especially amazing.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=clutch-monkey;776106]it'd be pretty simple though, with that price, so it kinda figures..[/QUOTE]
That's what I thought. It could be more efficient, but then it would drive prices up.
-
[QUOTE=clutch-monkey;776106]it'd be pretty simple though, with that price, so it kinda figures..[/QUOTE]
It was specially designed by Bosch in Germany, so it is not third world technology, what some seem to imply.
-
[QUOTE=henk4;776659]It was specially designed by Bosch in Germany, so it is not third world technology, what some seem to imply.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I implied that.
I thought they just threw in a 2 cylinder engine from a current go kart or something.
Bad idea. I shouldn't go around leaping to conclusions.
-
i wasn't implying that so much as for the money you're not going to get the same efficency that, europeans especially, are now accustomed to in their cars.
-
[QUOTE=Ferrer;776263]Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a bike?[/QUOTE]
Correct.
-
[QUOTE=johnnynumfiv;775738]I wouldn't like to be in that in a crash. In a frontal crash, theres not much between the front and your legs, then in a rear crash not much between your back and the back of the vehicle. Sketchy. [/QUOTE]
How about the Smart cars? Everyone used to say they wouldn't be up to the safety requirements and yet they were strong and safe.
Safety is not a question size, like US seem to believe.
[QUOTE=johnnynumfiv;775738]Are india crash standards the same as the US standards?[/QUOTE]
Maybe higher but they crash slower and the cars are lighter. :)
[QUOTE=nota;775784]For those of us fortunate enough to live in the wealthy West its all to easy to mock and criticize. But I bet average Indian motorists who currently risk their family's life by ferrying them around on the back end of an unsafe, fume-spewing motorbike will feel more than a little grateful to Mr Tata and his amazing achievement[/QUOTE]
Indeed. And even on small and narrow european cities like Porto, a car like the Nano makes perfect sense. I wouldn't mind being seen driving something that sensible.
[QUOTE=nota;775792]Honestly, who needs power steering on an ultra-cheap 600cc micro-lite car anyway? :confused:[/QUOTE]
They are spoiled. They are from an era where a car without power-steering is rare.
I'd like to see them driving a Renault 18 with large tires and no PS. It was worse than a truck! :D
-
Good on em, but still, theres plenty of desert in india isnt there? Tap some oil before the states embargos you or worse comes and gets it!!!
I wouldnt have one, ever, simply for safety reasons but its a huge leap ahead of whats available at the moment.
-
[QUOTE=McReis;776986]How about the Smart cars? Everyone used to say they wouldn't be up to the safety requirements and yet they were strong and safe.
Safety is not a question size, like US seem to believe.
[/QUOTE]
Smart cars have airbags.;)
Vehicles sold in the US are required to have airbags, which this tin can does not have.
-
I think this vehicle is still safer than travelling in a Hindustan Ambassador.
and it's at least characterful.
-
Good read from a great writer:
[url=http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/309468]TheSpec.com - Opinions - Tata Nano and Western hypocrisy[/url]
It's pretty short too for you lazy ones...:p
-
[QUOTE=The_Canuck;777404]Good read from a great writer:
[url=http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/309468]TheSpec.com - Opinions - Tata Nano and Western hypocrisy[/url]
It's pretty short too for you lazy ones...:p[/QUOTE]
Good reading. Good point.
-
[QUOTE=The_Canuck;777404]Good read from a great writer:
[url=http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/309468]TheSpec.com - Opinions - Tata Nano and Western hypocrisy[/url]
It's pretty short too for you lazy ones...:p[/QUOTE]
Yes, definitely a good read.
Great points made. People will have to make do with less of everything in the future if we are to preserve this planet.
-
[QUOTE=NSXType-R;777537]Yes, definitely a good read.
Great points made. People will have to make do with less of everything in the future if we are to preserve this planet.[/QUOTE]
Tell americans to ditch their Hummers. :rolleyes:
-
* These late-nite musings are perilously Orwellian and it kinda creeps me out too :o but what the hell I'll post it anyway and cop the flack
[QUOTE=thespec.com]"Contraction and convergence" is the phrase they need to learn. It was coined almost 20 years ago by South African-born activist Aubrey Meyer, founder of the Global Commons Institute, and it is still the only plausible way that we might get global agreement on curbing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.
The notion is simply that we must agree on a figure for total global emissions that cannot be exceeded, rather as we set fishing quotas in order to preserve fish stocks.
Then we divide that amount by six and a half billion (the total population of the planet), and that gives us the per capita emission limit for everyone on Earth.[/QUOTE]
To expand on reaction to the Tata Nano, which broadened into the above proposed rationing and equalization of per capita emissions:
There is of course another dimension to the environmental debate, which is overpopulation, of which the world is vastly over-encumbered.
The world's population has and still is inexorably growing, far beyond sustainability. To quote [i]'I have seen the enemy, and he is us'[/i]
Curbs, restrictions and behaviour modification (social engineering) usually involve a tax. In relation to pollution, many countries already have a carbon tax scheme underway which is set to widen in both spread and significance. I'm guessing it will be measured and meted on a combination of both collective and individual consumption. As to the individual component, how personal should this be?
Does a person's obligations, both ethical and fiscal, towards a healthy planet stop at him/her assuming personal responsibility for their own individual consumption and pollution? Or in equity should this personal onus of liability extend further, not just of themselves, but to encompass certain other aspects of life choices. By this I mean to specifically include and incorporate the inevitable environmental impact of whatever number of offspring a person chooses to produce. Perhaps factoring in the almost inevitable grandchildren [i]ad infinitum[/i].
There is no escaping the fact that ever more people means more environmental destruction. So what I'm getting at is, should a person's decision to procreate (or to remain childless) affect their 'allowable quota to emit' in entitlements and taxable obligations thereof?
In the reality of today and our near tomorrow it seems to me that someone can comport themselves in as environmentally neutral fashion as could feasibly be, but if these noble actions also include imposing an ongoing tribe of yet more random 'future eaters' onto the planet they will in net terms still burden our (overly) shared Earth way beyond what a childless profligate ever possibly could
-
if I remember correctly, the "one child per family" policy of the Chinese was not met with great appreciation in the Western World. Suppose it had not taken place, imagine what energy demand growth we would have to witness on top of what is going on already.