backtop

Print 149 comment(s) - last by LRonaldHubbs.. on Mar 25 at 10:38 AM

The Tata Nano has finally been released. At a mere $2,000 USD its the world's cheapest car. While lacking in safety, it gets 60 mpg and features low emissions.  (Source: Car Magazine UK)
Tata Motors' latest model has been released and is the world's cheapest car

DailyTech previously covered the announcement of Tata Motor's Nano car, the world's cheapest car.  Despite protests and delays, that car was finally released at a mega-event in Mumbai, India.  The car is set to rock developing markets like China and India thanks to an ultra-low price of 100,000 rupees ($2,000 USD).

The car is a small 4-door sedan, designed to seat five 6-foot passengers.  It weighs a mere 600 kg unladen thanks to its lightweight steel frame.  It is powered by a 2-cylinder 624cc, 33 BHP engine -- the kind you would normally find in a motorcycle or scooter.

Still, the engine does allow for top speeds of up to 65 MPH.  The car can reach 60 MPH in a rather long 17 seconds, but 0-30 mph and 0-40 mph are quite fast and responsive.  The car also gets 60 MPG and has engine emissions of only 100g/km.

The interior is sparse, but is reported to be sturdily constructed and the ride inside is reported to be rather smooth, with low noise and vibration levels even on bumpy surfaces.  Further, extra packages like air conditioning, a radio, or alloy wheels can also spice things up. 

Still, downsides for the vehicle are also many.  The vehicle is prone to rolling when cornering thanks to its tall height and narrow wheelbase.  And while admittedly safer than the scooters or bikes that most users will be upgrading from, the safety of the vehicle is also suspect.  While the steel frame should be relatively sturdy, the car features no airbags.

Among the planned safety-related upgrades are airbags, anti-lock brakes, power steering, more powerful three-cylinder petrol and diesel engines, along with five-speed and automatic gearboxes.  All of these upgrades may make the vehicle not only safer (and faster), but able to be legally sold in more markets around the world which have higher safety standards.

Among the other gripes about the vehicle include that the four-speed gear shift felt, according to reports, "long and lumpy."  Also, the car has a mere 100 liters (3.53 ft3) of cargo space and no hatch to access it.  The hatch was eliminated to cut costs and the cargo space is only accessible by folding down the back seat.

Still, despite its safety concerns and gripes, the Nano is looking to be an amazing car for its price.  By motorizing the developing world, it has the promise of transcending a normal car release and empowering entire societies.  Describes Car Magazine UK's Ben Oliver, "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."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
tiny car
By buzznut on 3/23/2009 10:26:59 AM , Rating: 5
These prolly could sell well in the US in the current economy. I'd even consider owning one, except I wouldn't be caught dead in one.

Or I might be, sounds like a real death trap...




RE: tiny car
By JasonMick (blog) on 3/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: tiny car
By strikeback03 on 3/23/2009 10:53:01 AM , Rating: 2
I don't mind a car without airbags, but I would be wary of any car with 33HP. Why not just get a license to keep building the original VW Beetle?


RE: tiny car
By theapparition on 3/23/2009 11:56:45 AM , Rating: 5
Ignoring the airbag issue, this car wouldn't meet the 400+ other requirements to be sold in the US, primarily among them......crash standards and pollution control.


RE: tiny car
By defter on 3/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: tiny car
By FITCamaro on 3/23/2009 1:02:00 PM , Rating: 3
Good fuel economy does not mean low pollution.

On the 2004 Pontiac GTO, the Australian model featured a "lean cruise" which increased the fuel economy while cruising on the highway. It was not enabled here in America (although some have enabled it themselves) because it did not meet our emissions standards (the nox output was too high).


RE: tiny car
By theapparition on 3/24/2009 7:27:54 AM , Rating: 2
Correction. It was enabled on the 2004 GTO, and all LS1 based vehicles. Only with the switch to the LS2 did they remove lean cruise, although as you pointed out it was still available in the Vauxhal and Holden variants that use LS2 engines.
When you get a chance, I suggest buying a copy of HPTuners (or EFILive). The amount of control over your GM PCM is amazing.


RE: tiny car
By Suntan on 3/23/2009 1:05:33 PM , Rating: 5
That would possibly be a funny quip if it weren't for the fact that the US has higher emissions standards than the EU.

...and no, CO2 is not a pollutant.

-Suntan


RE: tiny car
By FITCamaro on 3/23/2009 2:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone who believes it is needs to stop breathing.


RE: tiny car
By Steele on 3/23/2009 2:52:17 PM , Rating: 3
Right, right. CO2 isn't a pollutant because it's found naturally, right?

Of course, that means that ammonia, carbon monoxide, iodine, nitrogen dioxide, xenon, ozone, krypton, H2, methane, and argon are all not pollutants, either?

And, by extension, since lead, radium, mercury, hydrogen peroxide, arsenic, formaldehyde, and methyl bromide are also naturally occuring, they must not be pollutants? To say nothing of crude oil or the countless thousands of other compounds that exist naturally yet are also dumped into the environment like a dirty kitchen sponge.

CO2, specifically man-made CO2 is indeed a pollutant. It may or may not be causing global warming (or climate change, whichever), but it damn sure is a pollutant.


RE: tiny car
By whiskerwill on 3/23/2009 3:38:28 PM , Rating: 1
No its not a pollutant because its completely harmless and ESSENTIAL for all life on earth. No CO2 = all plants die and we all starve to death. What do you think makes the bubbles in your soft drink?

Anyone who calls CO2 a pollutant has to call rainwater (dihydrogen monoxide!) a dangerous pollutant as well.


RE: tiny car
By Steele on 3/23/2009 3:46:09 PM , Rating: 3
Harmless? Google "carbon dioxide poisoning," then tell me how harmless it is.

Man-made CO2 is indeed a pollutant. Just like steam. It's a compound or element that wasn't there before and is now released into the environment, where it alters, however imperceptibly, the composition of the atmosphere/hydrosphere/whateversphere. Rainwater, in your BS analogy, isn't a pollutant, because it's not man-made. Now, if you were to dump 5,000 gallons of clean water into the forest, you'd be polluting it.


RE: tiny car
By inighthawki on 3/23/2009 3:53:39 PM , Rating: 1
dumping 5000 gallons of clean water into the forest may be "polluting" it, but that doesn't make water pollution. CO2, as well as anything else is the same way, with enough of anything concentrated in one place, it can have harmful effects, but it doesn't make it pollution. carbon dioxide poisoning requires quite a bit of it, it is essential harmless under normal conditions.


RE: tiny car
By Steele on 3/23/2009 4:28:36 PM , Rating: 3
Water in general may not be a pollutant, but that 5,000 gallons sure as hell is. The water, just like CO2 from your tailpipe, alters ever so slightly, the composition of the environment, eg, polluting it.


RE: tiny car
By MrBungle123 on 3/23/2009 4:38:44 PM , Rating: 1
so maybe we should just bulldoze all the cities and have the entire human race crawl into an abandoned mine in nevada and poison themselves so that we will stop changing the composition of the environment.


RE: tiny car
By Nfarce on 3/23/2009 4:52:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
have the entire human race crawl into an abandoned mine in nevada and poison themselves


That's pretty much the gist of what the some people want in this nation. You will never hear them make the same requests of "developing" nations like India and China. They may not say it in those words, but you can read between the lines. If you want reinforcement of that, ask them why those two nations are still off the Kyoto list in emission reduction standards. I'm sure we can balance responsibility with living and enjoying the successes of being an advanced civilization without having to return to living in caves.


RE: tiny car
By Spuke on 3/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: tiny car
By Nfarce on 3/23/2009 7:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
others want us to give all of our money away until we're all "even".


Yup. And that includes equally miserable if that's where it leads. So long as everyone is "equal" is all that matters to some. Pathetic if you ask me, and goes against everything the freedoms to pursue success this nation was founded on and fought for. Sad.


RE: tiny car
By Nfarce on 3/23/2009 10:27:56 PM , Rating: 1
Of course, we get rated down for our comments. Go figure.


RE: tiny car
By MrBungle123 on 3/24/2009 10:56:07 AM , Rating: 2
Right you are, the founders would roll in their graves if they knew what was going on in this country right now.


RE: tiny car
By JediJeb on 3/23/2009 5:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
So I guess the CO2 that you exhale is a pollutant. I guess everyone needs to stop breathing so we dont pollute. If you believe in evolution then it is most likely that CO2 was present on Earth in large quantities before O2 was, since the first lifeforms were CO2 breathing.

Now CO ( carbon monoxide ) is much more poisonous and is not as common in nature. Maybe that is what you are calling CO2.


RE: tiny car
By TA152H on 3/23/2009 4:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
By your standard, do a search on floods, or drowning, etc... on Google, and you'll see a lot deaths. But, it doesn't make water a pollutant.

Pure oxygen is very destructive to humans as well. Does that make it a pollutant?


RE: tiny car
By Steele on 3/23/2009 4:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
Show me a man-made flood and I'll show you pollution.

It's apparently those two simple words you have trouble with. Man-made. If it happens naturally, I don't consider it to be pollution, and neither should anyone else. If we did it, then it's pollution. See the difference?

Pure oxygen, if released into the air en masse by a factory or whatever would indeed be pollution.


RE: tiny car
By whiskerwill on 3/23/2009 4:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Show me a man-made flood and I'll show you pollution.
I see. So if man causes a flood, its pollution, but if nature does the exact same thing, its not?

Your idiocy is showing, sir. Run and hide.


RE: tiny car
By Spuke on 3/23/2009 4:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
Man is a part of nature like everything else on this planet. Therefore, anything "man made" is natural.


RE: tiny car
By Jeffk464 on 3/23/2009 5:11:41 PM , Rating: 2
I kind of agree about CO2 not technically being a pollutant but the best evidence right now is that it is a problem. The ultimate goal for auto engineers for pollution is to have an engine that produced nothing out of the tailpipe besides CO2. CO2 has absolutely no harmful/toxic effects on the body so long as its not displacing oxygen. However if the Science on Greenhouse gases is correct, and don't think because you listen to Rush Limbaugh you are an expert, the effect on future generations might be huge. Is it really worth the risk?


RE: tiny car
By Spuke on 3/23/2009 5:59:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is it really worth the risk?
Since whether or not there's a danger is up in the air, how can one assume there's a risk? If you think there's a danger and an associated risk, then modify your lifestyle to mitigate the risk. Quit telling those that may want to wait and see or simply don't believe to join your way of thinking. I swear to God, Allah, Yahweh, Providence, Tao that some of you sound like Jehovah's Witnesses. I feel like turning the lights off and closing the blinds when you step on my front porch.


RE: tiny car
By Suntan on 3/23/2009 6:21:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However if the Science on Greenhouse gases is correct, and don't think because you listen to Rush Limbaugh you are an expert,


I don't claim to be an expert. However, as a mechanical engineer that has an advanced background in thermodynamics, thermal processes and spent the majority of his career dependent on the refrigeration industry (one of the industries most susceptible to the effects of bad legislation imposed due to knee jerk reactions from pandered politicians) I have spent a larger than average amount of time trying to get to the actual evidence behind the various claims thrown about by both sides.

After trying to cut thru the obviously biased articles, whitepapers and government reports (it's pretty easy to spot the biased ones if you have an appreciation for what an unbiased research article actually reads like.)

In the end, the one thing that continually comes back from all the available data is that nobody that is truly unbiased could come back with any answer other than "We, as a collective group, don't have the slightest clue what the F is going on in the atmosphere."

That's not Rush speaking, just a guy with a better than average appreciation for the science, that has taken a better than average look at the data available.

quote:
the effect on future generations might be huge.


This is the dangerous and simple minded thinking that continually slows us as a species. And the kind of thinking that the pro-AGW crowd are depending on.

The science is even clearer on this one: Meteorite Impacts.

A meteorite that makes it to the surface of the earth and hits you will cause catastrophic and certain death. Not only has this been proven by "scientific" theory and calculations, it has been confirmed by investigating the destruction that resulted from actual meteorite impacts.

As such, your yardstick (only worrying about the severity of a potential problem and disregarding the likelihood of the problem occurring) will tell you that you should be living your entire life at least 500 yards beneath the surface of the earth to protect against impacts...

-Suntan


RE: tiny car
By Nfarce on 3/23/2009 7:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and don't think because you listen to Rush Limbaugh you are an expert,


Hey Jeff: you know, people like you would sound much more intelligent if you would just stop your childish "so you listen to Rush Limbaugh" BS. Try it sometime. Really. I thought Rush was deemed irrelevant by people like you anyway. Why are ya'll still running your mouths over him then? (And no, I don't listen to Rush - in fact, I challenge you to quote a comment here from anyone where it was lifted from Rush). $500 says you can't .


RE: tiny car
By TA152H on 3/23/2009 6:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
It seems you are making up your own definitions, and not using standard ones, but that doesn't make it right.

For example, if I breathe, the Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant, but if my cat does, it's not? Seems kind of arbitrary to me, and I don't think it's a generally accepted definition.


RE: tiny car
By FITCamaro on 3/23/2009 7:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
The CO2 you exhale is manmade. I don't see you trying to not breathe.


RE: tiny car
By SilthDraeth on 3/23/2009 8:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
You can also die by oxygen. So oxygen is a pollutant now as well.

Stop spouting FUD.


RE: tiny car
By omnicronx on 3/23/2009 5:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
Someone has never heard of the stomata factor. Two much C02 combined with too much ground level ozone is a bad thing for plants.

Global warming is a myth, but that does not mean you can spew all the C02 into the air and everything will be hunky dory.


RE: tiny car
By Jeffk464 on 3/23/2009 5:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
How do you think you have the knowledge/evidence to know that Global Warming is a myth. It is an extremely complex issue that I'm sure you have not studied as much as scientists who study it. I'm not totally convinced myself, if you study past climates the one consistency is that climate changes and is not stable. It looks like its influenced from lots of factors a lot of which we have no control over. But I would still tend to listen more to the scientists that study it then talk show hosts with an interest in big business who make more profits with factories that don't have to meat any regulations.


RE: tiny car
By omnicronx on 3/23/2009 5:57:15 PM , Rating: 2
The global warming part was a mere footnote of my post.. mainly to keep someone from answering with a, 'you must believe in global warming' comment.. It has not been proved either way, lets just leave it at that.


RE: tiny car
By MrBungle123 on 3/24/2009 10:54:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Global warming is a myth


If you don't believe the planet has undergone a warming trend all you need to do is get some pictures of Glacier National Park from back in the 20's and 30's and compare them to current photographs and it will become abundantly clear that the climate has warmed. What is up for debate is wheather or not the warming trend was because of man's industrialized society.

But since just about every climate model ignored the sun (or atleast considered solar output to be constant) and predicted that it would still be warming when in fact the last few years have acctually been cooler due to lesser solar activity, I think it's safe to say that all these so called "experts" and the people that blindly believe everything they say as if it were gosphel have no idea what is going on.

Not that I'm claiming to have a firm understanding either. It just seems crazy for us to have 50 or 60 years of halfway decent data on a system that has been running for 4.5 Billion years and think we can know as much as the alarmists would have you belive. All we have is a mere snapshot of how the climate functions. You could liken these claims to someone taking 3 mins worth of temperature readings in March and trying to tell us that they have half a clue what the weather will be like in August 50 years from now.


RE: tiny car
By Samus on 3/24/2009 4:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
Just thought I'd mention the Mercedes SLK500 has a smaller carbon envelope than a Prius because it burns its fuel cleaner. It's not about engine size, its about how its engineered and built.

If you port and polish intakes and exhausts alone, you allow fuel and air to atomize better, and the catalyst system to warm up and function faster. You also increase numerous efficiencies thus adding throttle response, power and fuel economy. But, only the expensive luxury cars have this done at factory, unfortunately.


RE: tiny car
By Googer on 3/23/2009 9:33:39 PM , Rating: 2
Due to a lack of ability to meet pollution standards, the last VW beetle to be sold in the USA was in 1978. But the original design Beetles were still produced in and sold throughout Mexico until 2003; where today you can easily pick on up on the used car market there.

(I rode in a brand new 1998 Original Deign Beetle)


RE: tiny car
By strikeback03 on 3/24/2009 10:01:09 AM , Rating: 2
Right, a friend in high school (late 90s) was trying to figure out a way to import and register one from Mexico. I was just pointing out that this Nano doesn't seem to be very advanced over that, other than the more modern styling.


RE: tiny car
By TA152H on 3/23/2009 11:12:41 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, I'd prefer a car without airbags.

They add weight, and they can deafen people, neither of which is good. I had a girlfriend who lost most of her hearing from a relatively minor accident that caused her airbags to go off. For me, no thanks.

I also think a lot of these overweight cars can cause accidents because they are harder to control. I don't have numbers, but I always have this argument with people who don't like my choices of cars because they are very light, and probably wouldn't win in a collision with a brick wall. My argument is, the car is much better handling, easier to control, and has less weight to prevent it from moving if it were hit. The big boats have more momentum, are harder to control, and take more impact before they move at all. So, maybe they're safer, or maybe not, but it's not as simple as driving around in a battleship and thinking you're invulnerable. You might absorb impacts better, but you'll probably have more too.


RE: tiny car
By LRonaldHubbs on 3/23/2009 12:16:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
My argument is, the car is much better handling, easier to control, and has less weight to prevent it from moving if it were hit.

That's good and well for saving you from hitting something on your own. The problem though is will that little lightweight car hold up if you do get nailed by something like a behemoth SUV? Modern cars with crumple zones have proven to be quite safe overall, but there definitely is something to be said for a rigid ladder-frame that you get with a truck or large SUV. How much crumple zone does a tiny car like this even have? I wouldn't feel safe at all inside it, not just due to the size, but also by the fact that an SUV could probably go over it in a head-on collision. I've seen it before, where the SUV front wheels and suspension rip off, and the bulk of it plows right through the top of the car. Not a pretty way to go. So for something like this car, I guess you could argue 'why bother with airbags when you're going to die regardless?'


RE: tiny car
By ebakke on 3/23/2009 12:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
So we all have to buy giant vehicles because other people chose to, and if we don't their choices can kill us? That's f'ed up.


RE: tiny car
By FITCamaro on 3/23/2009 1:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
No its the reality of a capitalist system. People can buy what they want. If you want to buy one of these cars fine. But know that you'll likely be killed if someone in a larger car hits you. But just because some people want to buy tiny cars, that shouldn't mean that the government should regulate larger vehicles out of existence.


RE: tiny car
By ebakke on 3/23/2009 1:46:18 PM , Rating: 3
I don't advocate the government regulating car options. I'm simply saying the choice of "death or large car" isn't much of a choice. And as a result we end up with consistently larger and larger vehicles on the road. Seriously, my 1992 Camry is the same size as my 2008 Civic. And the new Camry is a damn boat.


RE: tiny car
By FITCamaro on 3/23/2009 2:19:30 PM , Rating: 4
Cars though have largely gotten bigger due to increased safety standards. Both cars and SUVs. Those increased safety standards don't come from people in SUVs injuring or killing those in cars either. Many of them come from people being too damn lazy to properly maintain their vehicle or too stupid to drive properly.

Like everything else with the government though, their response was punish everyone for the actions of the few.


RE: tiny car
By JediJeb on 3/23/2009 5:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Many of them come from people being too damn lazy to properly maintain their vehicle or too stupid to drive properly .


Right there is the gist of all the problems. If the SUV or the tiny car neither ran the stop sign, then there probably wouldn't have been an accident to worry about. I wonder what the percentage of accidents every day are caused by people just plain not paying attention or purposefully ignoring the rules of the road. If everyone drove the speedlimit, obeyed the traffic sign and lights, and were patient and curtious, then we probably wouldnt even need airbags or seatbelts. Heck I remember as kids we even slept in the rear window of the family car when we went on trips, sure cant do that now.

Now days you have trucks and cars using the emergency lane to pass someone who is turning left, using the turning lanes to pass someone who slows to turn right, all because they cant be bothered to give up the 10 seconds it would take to slow down.

Driving has become just like everything else, we make pro moron laws to compensate for the people who are just too lazy to put some effort into doing it right.


RE: tiny car
By Keeir on 3/23/2009 6:12:03 PM , Rating: 2
Approx. 60% of all injury and death car accidents in the US are -Single Car- accidents.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Crashes/CrashesAlcoh...

I would believe a large percentage of these are people being stupid... certainly those having a BAC above .08 (a factor in 33% of crashes)

Some other good tidbits (these are seen in the above link at different locations)

Most common type of multiple vehicle crash is 1 SUV ("Light truck") to 1 Passenger Car. SUV ("Light Truck") are statistically just as likely to be involved in crashes, no more or less than passenger cars, but are more likely to be injured rather than be a fatality.


RE: tiny car
By mherlund on 3/23/2009 3:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
I think you should crash your Camry and Civic into each other and see which one gets the most damage.


RE: tiny car
By Spuke on 3/23/2009 4:53:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm simply saying the choice of "death or large car" isn't much of a choice.
I've been driving small cars for 20 years now. You'll be fine.


RE: tiny car
By ebakke on 3/23/2009 7:05:57 PM , Rating: 2
As evidenced by my two cars, I'm not that worried.


RE: tiny car
By omnicronx on 3/23/2009 5:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But just because some people want to buy tiny cars, that shouldn't mean that the government should regulate larger vehicles out of existence.
Yep, so much better than regulating smaller vehicles out of existence because people want to buy big cars..

It goes both ways you know..

Europe is the exact opposite if you have not noticed.


RE: tiny car
By FITCamaro on 3/23/2009 7:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
Im not saying regulate anything. I'm saying the government should stay out of it and let the car manufacturers build what people want. If that means everyone drives SUVs, so be it. Or if everyone drives small cars, so be it.


RE: tiny car
By matt0401 on 3/24/2009 1:06:55 AM , Rating: 1
That sounds fair. But in the end I really wish people in general, regardless of their vehicle, would stop being retards and causing harm to their non-retarded fellow drivers. People who want to drive a small car simply because they don't have a lot of shit to haul around (ie. commuting bachelor) shouldn't have any less of a right to safety on the shared, public roads than those who buy large vehicles because they do it fact need them (ie. christian soccermoms).

If everyone drove safely, there would be no need to discriminate either way.


RE: tiny car
By omnicronx on 3/24/2009 10:52:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Im not saying regulate anything. I'm saying the government should stay out of it and let the car manufacturers build what people want. If that means everyone drives SUVs, so be it. Or if everyone drives small cars, so be it.
Don't you ever get tired of listening to yourself whine about government regulations? Perhaps all vehicles should be unregulated and anyone can drive anything from vehicles powered by our feet ala Flintstones, to concrete blocks with a 900hp engine housed inside.

We have a right to be safe on our roads just as much as you have the right to pick your vehicle, obviously there has to be a compromise to make everyone happy.

The US has much larger cars, and a much higher death rate per million compared to say Europe which has much smaller cars.
In 2006 there were 95 per million road deaths in Europe, compared to 147 per million in 2004 in the USA. This is with lower safety standards in Europe, and mainly much smaller cars. You cannot discount these numbers, although not absolute proof, they do paint a nice picture.


RE: tiny car
By Spuke on 3/24/2009 11:46:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The US has much larger cars, and a much higher death rate per million compared to say Europe which has much smaller cars.
So you're trying to imply, without any evidence of course, that larger cars are the sole reason for our higher death rates? I won't say anything but post a link that someone else in this thread posted.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Crashes/CrashesAlcoh...


RE: tiny car
By omnicronx on 3/24/2009 12:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you're trying to imply, without any evidence of course, that larger cars are the sole reason for our higher death rates?
First off, I clearly never said this.
quote:
This is with lower safety standards in Europe, and mainly much smaller cars. You cannot discount these numbers, although not absolute proof , they do paint a nice picture.
And? People drink in europe too, unless you have some stat that shows that Americans drink more than Europeans, I don't see your point. Are you implying that Americans drink more, thus they get in more alcohol related accidents, and this is why the car related deaths are 50% higher in the US?

Furthermore, 147 people out of every 1 million is around 50 thousand deaths a year, your stats indicate that only 11 thousand of those were alcohol related. That leaves 80% non alcohol related.

I'm not saying there are not other factors including the high amounts of deaths in rural areas in the US, which account for a large portion of these deaths per year (mainly because of longer EMS response time), but I still do not see how this would offset numbers by as much as 50%.


RE: tiny car
By Spuke on 3/24/2009 12:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First off, I clearly never said this.
Nope. You simply implied it which is why I used the word imply.

quote:
And? People drink in europe too, unless you have some stat that shows that Americans drink more than Europeans, I don't see your point.
You obviously don't even see your own point.


RE: tiny car
By omnicronx on 3/24/2009 1:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You obviously don't even see your own point.
Do you think you are being clever?

I explained alcohol related vehicle deaths have absolutely no baring on the fact that there are more vehicle related deaths in the US than in Europe, in fact there were more reported alcohol related vehicle deaths in Europe than in the US per ca pita last year, with 1 in 3 fatalities being alcohol related vs a little more than 1 in 4 in the US.

You obviously have no rebuttal, so you took the low road, congrats..


RE: tiny car
By Spuke on 3/24/2009 3:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You obviously have no rebuttal, so you took the low road, congrats..
Why must I rebut when you fail to understand my original point? You haven't figured it out yet dude! Go back and read.


RE: tiny car
By Suntan on 3/24/2009 4:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, he’s pointing out that you are making a silly leap of logic. To imply that, per capita, Americans die more often because they happen to drive bigger cars is to completely ignore all other factors that figure into the death count. He pointed out alcoholism –not to say that it is the ONE explanation for the higher rate- but to point out that it is just one of umpteen million different contributing factors.

I’ll give you another one: Americans drive more miles per year than Europeans do…

-Suntan


RE: tiny car
By omnicronx on 3/24/2009 5:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
If you read my posts I never claimed there was absolute proof (in fact I said there was not), I just said it was something to think about.

I've already pointed out other reasons why it could be higher in the US, I mentioned rural driving, you mentioned more driving in general, both of which happens more in the US than in Europe. That being said there are probably countless other stats that you could swing the other way (such as more alcohol related deaths in Europe).

They have lower safety ratings, smaller cars, and less deaths. Perceive the data how you would like, but what I am saying is not beyond the realm of possibility. I've personally witnessed two automotive related deaths because the front of an SUV went directly through a cars windshield, skipping over the front of the car. This is not a common sight in Europe.


RE: tiny car
By omnicronx on 3/24/2009 5:34:58 PM , Rating: 2
For reference here was my exact quote:

'You cannot discount these numbers, although not absolute proof, they do paint a nice picture. '


RE: tiny car
By Kary on 3/24/2009 6:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
just because some people want to buy tiny cars, that shouldn't mean that the government should regulate larger vehicles out of existence.


Yeh, but it's ok that the government regulates small cars out of existence :)


RE: tiny car
By TA152H on 3/23/2009 12:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I think you answered your own question with regards to the context of air bags, since that type of collision would make them ineffective.

There's some truth to what you're saying, but there are also other things to consider. If my car weighs 2000 pounds, and I get hit, some of that kinetic energy will transfer to the movement of the car, since it's lighter, and less will have to be absorbed by the car itself. The heavier car would move much less, and therefore have to absorb much more impact. Would it be enough to compensate for the additional strength? Probably not, but it's definitely a mitigating factor.

Also, if you see one of those behemoths coming at you, the smaller, more nimble, car has a greater opportunity to avoid it. It doesn't apply to all possibilities, but it does to some. And also, even if you are stationary and unable to avoid a hit, if my car is 160 inches long, and yours is 200 inches long, the chances of her intersecting where your car is, is obviously greater since you occupy more space.

You bring up another issue with the behemoth - the damage you do to other vehicles. If I screw up and hit someone with my 2000 pound car, or an object, I'm much less likely to kill someone, or do massive damage, than if I were in a 3500 pound car. And, of course, I'm less likely to have that collision in the first place.

One last thing to consider is a behemoth in a situation where you roll off a cliff or a steep hill, particularly in wet or icy conditions. All that frame isn't going help much, especially since when you fall, you've got more impact because of the weight. Since those beasts have so much angular momentum, they are harder to control, and are considerably more likely to have this type of accident than a tiny car.

My main point is, there are examples of both. I personally feel very vulnerable in a big vehicle that doesn't move exactly as I expect. They scare the Hell out of me to drive. My little car, which is set up for autocrossing, does everything I want it to do, exactly the way I expect. I haven't been in an accident in 24 years, and that includes banging into a pole, or slipping in the winter. It's not my driving skill, it's the car, particularly since I added all sorts of real safety features like Quaife limited slip differential, strut bars, lowered springs, high performance struts, etc..., and I removed weight wherever possible like AC, rear seats, heavy rims, etc...

I'm not saying this is practical for everyone, I'm just trying to point out that low weight can have some very practical safety repercussions as well. Big and heavy has some negative aspects.

Ideally, cars would be made out of titanium. They'd be a bit pricey (OK, grotesquely expensive), but they'd be really light, and they have no problem with the behemoths. I'm pretty sure the UAW wouldn't be too fond of working with it though, even if we could find enough of it :-P .


RE: tiny car
By kyp275 on 3/23/2009 2:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My argument is, the car is much better handling, easier to control, and has less weight to prevent it from moving if it were hit. The big boats have more momentum, are harder to control, and take more impact before they move at all.


While less weight in general certainly helps with a vehicle's handling characteristic, it is far from the only factor. Chassis/suspension design, weight distribution, brakes, tires are all major factors in determining how a vehicle behaves.

quote:
If my car weighs 2000 pounds, and I get hit, some of that kinetic energy will transfer to the movement of the car, since it's lighter, and less will have to be absorbed by the car itself. The heavier car would move much less, and therefore have to absorb much more impact.


I think you're placing way to much emphasis on the light weight thing. Just because the vehicle can get bounced further doesn't mean it's a good thing, there are just as many, if not more scenarios where that would actually be a bad thing.

quote:
Also, if you see one of those behemoths coming at you, the smaller, more nimble, car has a greater opportunity to avoid it.


Unless you're driving on a circuit/rally race, chances are you'll be able to see avoidable collisions coming if you were paying attention. It's the sudden/unforeseen/unavoidable events that gets you, at that point it's usually too late, regardless of your choice of vehicle. Remember, human reaction time is the slowest moving part here, it doesn't matter what the vehicle can do if the human operator can't react fast enough to do it.

quote:
One last thing to consider is a behemoth in a situation where you roll off a cliff or a steep hill, particularly in wet or icy conditions. All that frame isn't going help much, especially since when you fall, you've got more impact because of the weight


Personally I think if you roll off a cliff, you're already SOL :P On the other points, extra weight helps you gain more traction out of your tires, although it's a double-edged sword in that you'd also need more traction to control the extra weight :P

and no, extra weight doesn't mean extra impact(for the one in the vehicle)when falling. In a free-fall everything accelerates at the same speed regardless of weight, if everything else is equal :)

quote:
My little car, which is set up for autocrossing, does everything I want it to do, exactly the way I expect.


wtf, you should already know the stuff I talked about if you auto-x :/ All that LSD/suspension mod you have on your car are not safety features, they simply change the handling characteristic of your car, nothing more and nothing less. It may be a safer car for your driving style(I certainly hope so), but it may not be for other drivers.


RE: tiny car
By TA152H on 3/23/2009 4:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
With regards to weight, other things certainly do matter, but trying adding even 100 pounds in your vehicle and you can notice a difference in just about every discipline. You can get cute all you want, but one thing is for sure, you can't out-engineer weight. Look at how well a Lotus does. It's got 1.8 liter engine, and really low weight, and there's nothing like it for tossability. Weight is really important.

You'd have to elaborate on why they would be worse in most situations. It could be certainly, but I think it would be less. Outside of being hit off of a cliff, or something, or I guess you can get hit into a car coming from the opposite direction (but why would someone hit you from a direction in the first place?), but most of the time, the car moving will defray some of the force that's directly being trasmitted to the car.

Human reaction time is not the slowest thing in this case. People can react in less than a second, and most cars take quite some time to accelerate, or turn quickly out of situation, or brake.

With regards to the cliff, I should have been more clear. Yes, I agree, if you roll off a cliff, you've got problems either way, but it's a lot easier to avoid with a better handling car. Besides, those big monsters can go over the guard rails, whereas a small car certainly will not.

The impact would of course be greater for the heavier vehicle. The speed would be the same, but the weight is what makes the momentum more substantial. The force needed to stop something going 30 mph that weighs one pound is a Hell of a lot less than that needed to stop something weighing 30 pounds going the same speed.

To put it another way that would be a good example, if I shot you with a BB and you had a bullet proof vest on, you wouldn't feel much of anything. If I hit you a brick going the same speed, you would not be able to stay upright. Mass does figure into the energy of the impact.


RE: tiny car
By Spuke on 3/23/2009 5:38:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Look at how well a Lotus does. It's got 1.8 liter engine, and really low weight, and there's nothing like it for tossability.
Is that why it got smoked by 3 seconds a lap by a 3000 lb Cobalt? I like Lotus, mind you, but it's not the be all end all of sports or even sporty cars. And there's more to a performance car than simply lightweight.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high...


RE: tiny car
By omnicronx on 3/23/2009 5:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
Read your article:

That earlier Elise was equipped with wider and stickier tires, which offset the SC’s extra punch. And we experienced gear-selection drama with the vague engagements of the six-speed manual gearbox, which also held this car back.

Sounds like a bad test to me.. considering it did the test 3 seconds faster than the 2008 cobolt in 2006.


RE: tiny car
By Spuke on 3/23/2009 6:04:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sounds like a bad test to me.. considering it did the test 3 seconds faster than the 2008 cobolt in 2006.
Actually read my post this time.


RE: tiny car
By omnicronx on 3/24/2009 10:33:27 AM , Rating: 2
Please read mine, as I definitely read yours.
quote:
The naturally aspirated Elise (190 horsepower) that ran at VIR in 2006 scampered around the 4.2-mile course in 3:09.2 versus 3:16.6 for the supercharged version.

That earlier Elise was equipped with wider and stickier tires, which offset the SC’s extra punch.

Thats 3 seconds faster than the 2008 cobolt that ran the test in 3:12. Seems to me they were not using the optimal setup, not to mention the track in question is also not a straight away, you can bet the elise would smoke the cobolt in that situation. (elise does 0-60 in 4.4 seconds, about the same as an audi R8, the cobolt is around 5.7.

Although much more expensive, the elise is faster at lower HP than the cobolt, and yes, its weight is a big influence on this.


RE: tiny car
By omnicronx on 3/24/2009 10:54:32 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the cobolt has a larger engine 2L for 1.8L. The lotus is more efficient with a smaller engine at a lower HP, which was the point the original poster was trying to make.


RE: tiny car
By Spuke on 3/24/2009 11:52:23 AM , Rating: 2
Engine size has jack to do with efficiency. Design intent has everything do with it. And the Cobalt SS with its larger, less efficient engine (according to you) gets better gas mileage than the Lotus' smaller, more efficient engine. Once again, Omni, I'll post a link and let you read for yourself.

Cobalt SS
http://www.chevrolet.com/cobalt/

Lotus Elise SC
http://www.lotuscars.com/eliseSC.html


RE: tiny car
By omnicronx on 3/24/2009 12:24:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Engine size has jack to do with efficiency.
Really?
quote:
Engine efficiency of thermal engines is the relationship between the total energy contained in the fuel, and the amount of energy used to perform useful work.
quote:
Once again, Omni, I'll post a link and let you read for yourself.
Which shows me what 22/30 mpg vs 20/26, when the elise goes 0-60 over a second faster? The lighter car with the smaller engine is faster, thus proving the original posters point about heavy vs light cars. Fuel efficiency has nothing to do with this argument.


RE: tiny car
By Spuke on 3/24/2009 12:28:55 PM , Rating: 2
Really. The lighter car that's faster has jack to do with the engine's efficiency. LOL! Quit changing the subject. My point stands.


RE: tiny car
By Spuke on 3/24/2009 12:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Although much more expensive, the elise is faster at lower HP than the cobolt, and yes, its weight is a big influence on this.
So since the Lotus lost the handling department to a rental FWD car you move the argument to straight line speed. LOL! Ok dude. You do realize that a FWD eco car is within 3 seconds of a damn near, purpose built racer for the street. Like I said, lightweight isn't everything.


RE: tiny car
By omnicronx on 3/24/2009 12:40:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Like I said, lightweight isn't everything.
Nobody ever said it was, but it plays a huge role, far more than just about anything else.

Or else, why have a lightweight frame for f1/indy cars, why are corvettes made from fiberglass? Why do smaller sports cars generally perform better with less HP and smaller engines than their larger counterparts?

Using the cobolt as an example proves nothing, it is an outlier compared to just about everything else. Furthermore, IT IS A SMALL LIGHTWEIGHT CAR! In fact lets use your cobolt as an example, how does it compare vs say a 315hp 4.6litre mustang that is much heavier with a bigger engine and more HP.

I bet it would smoke a mustang around corners, and it is only slightly behind it from 0-60.


RE: tiny car
By Spuke on 3/24/2009 12:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nobody ever said it was, but it plays a huge role, far more than just about anything else.
FINALLY!!! You now see my point! My job is done here.


RE: tiny car
By TA152H on 3/23/2009 6:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
That's an interesting link, and that test, to use your own phrase, is not the be all or end all of tests.

And, in reality, it proved my point. The lighter, normally aspirated Elise beat the supercharged one. Actually, it beat the Cobalt, despite huge inferiority in engine performance. A 260 horsepower car couldn't beat a 190 horsepower car. Not only that, the powerband on the Cobalt is broader. Yes, it performed slower than the Elise without the supercharger.

I'm not saying the Elise or Exige are the be all and end all of sports cars, but I am saying that the only way they are even competitive is because they are so light. They beat cars with much larger engines. More than that, the course you are talking about doesn't take into account handling even close to exclusively, and that's what I was referring to mainly when I said "tossability". The Elise is a real killer on the slaloms.


RE: tiny car
By Spuke on 3/24/2009 12:27:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's an interesting link, and that test, to use your own phrase, is not the be all or end all of tests.
I didn't say it was the be all end all of tests. I said that lightweight isn't the be all end all of performance. If you read that link, you'll see a big, "heavy", inefficient (Omni's word) engined car besting a lightweight, supposedly more efficient engined purpose built racer. The fact that FWD eco car came within 3 seconds of such a monster machine as the Lotus shows my point exactly. Lightweight isn't everything.


RE: tiny car
By omnicronx on 3/24/2009 12:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fact that FWD eco car came within 3 seconds of such a monster machine as the Lotus shows my point exactly. Lightweight isn't everything.
How does one car that is also lightweight (if you didnt notice all the cars in your link are pretty much lightweight) prove anything?

The cobolt is a very well designed car, there is no debating that, but if you told an engineer what you are telling us, he would laugh in your face. As a general rule, lighter is better. Its not 100% true all the time, but it surely is a general rule. You can debate it all you want, but you do not have science on your side.


RE: tiny car
By Spuke on 3/24/2009 12:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
Read the test dude!!!!! I picked that one car to make a point but it's not the only car that bests the Lotus while wieghing more (in some cases MUCH more). Regardless, you saw my point in a previous post so I'm done typing.


RE: tiny car
By Reclaimer77 on 3/23/2009 9:48:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With regards to the cliff, I should have been more clear. Yes, I agree, if you roll off a cliff, you've got problems either way, but it's a lot easier to avoid with a better handling car. Besides, those big monsters can go over the guard rails, whereas a small car certainly will not. The impact would of course be greater for the heavier vehicle. The speed would be the same, but the weight is what makes the momentum more substantial. The force needed to stop something going 30 mph that weighs one pound is a Hell of a lot less than that needed to stop something weighing 30 pounds going the same speed.


You are dead in BOTH vehicles because what usually happens when a car goes off a cliff is that it lands upside down, and you are crushed by the roof. Or you land nose first and you get turned into hamburger when your body tries to go from 60 to 0 in a split second.

But honestly, are you guys REALLY using this silly 'off a cliff' scenario seriously ?


RE: tiny car
By Keeir on 3/23/2009 6:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
I think you have a basic mis-understanding the the concept of momentum.

Momentum is mass times velocity

Driver Safety is going to be based in large part on the DRIVER'S own personal change in momentum. Change in momentum between two (rigid) cars running into each other will be exactly equal. Since the mass of the driver is relatively equal in the smaller and larger car, only the change in driver velocity matters.

A driver is much more likely to get pulped in a collison where his automobile rebounds forcefully than one where the overall car has small change in velocity.

Furthermore, its Force that affects Driver health the most. Force is equal to mass times acceleration. Crumple zone cars are effective not only because they alter the changes in momentum of a crash (which they do by absorbing energy in deformation), but because they change the time period of the change of momentum and thus significantly lower the force of the collusion on the driver. It is good to note that crumple zones on one car reduce the force of collusion on -both- cars and a collusion between two crumple zones cars even more so...

Your example of a car falling off a cliff.. at the end, the change in driver momentum will be same regardless of Auto (Terminal Velocity --> 0). Safety will be determined non intrusion and time of impact at the bottom. Auto design plays a bigger role here that auto wieght.


RE: tiny car
By TA152H on 3/23/2009 9:49:30 PM , Rating: 2
Have someone hold a piece of paper for you, and then punch it. Your hand will go through. Now hit a piece of paper without anyone holding it. It won't.

If a car moves, that's less crushing the metal will take, because the energy is used to move car, instead of crumple.

The crumple zones is obvious, but it doesn't disprove anything. If you have a car that were cemented to the ground, and hit it at 50 mph with a car, and then looked at the structural damage to it, and then compared it with a car that was sitting there and could roll easily, you'd find the second would take considerably less damage. Some of the energy would be used to accelerate the car forward, whereas the former case all of it would have to be absorbed by the car. In something like a drivers side collision, or a head on, this could be very dangerous indeed.


RE: tiny car
By LRonaldHubbs on 3/25/2009 10:10:31 AM , Rating: 2
You missed the point. What he is saying is that when two vehicles collide, the vehicle with the larger change in velocity experiences the larger impulse (basic physics). Your car doesn't have to crush you in order for you to die. If your car collides with another, you do NOT want to be the one who changes speed suddenly because the impulse of a collision is enough to critically damage your internal organs. That's precisely what crumple zones accomlish, reducing the impulse. That's also what having a heavy vehicle accomplishes, assuming that you hit someone with a lighter vehicle.


RE: tiny car
By LRonaldHubbs on 3/25/2009 10:28:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If my car weighs 2000 pounds, and I get hit, some of that kinetic energy will transfer to the movement of the car, since it's lighter, and less will have to be absorbed by the car itself. The heavier car would move much less, and therefore have to absorb much more impact.

It seems that you don't understand the physical concept of impulse. I recommend looking it up. Simply put, you don't want your vehicle to change speed suddenly in a collision. I commented on this similarly in response to one of your other comments below.

quote:
You bring up another issue with the behemoth - the damage you do to other vehicles. If I screw up and hit someone with my 2000 pound car, or an object, I'm much less likely to kill someone, or do massive damage, than if I were in a 3500 pound car.

Call me selfish or callous, but I'm far more interested in my own wellbeing.

quote:
And, of course, I'm less likely to have that collision in the first place.

Not necessarily, and I challenge you to prove that claim. If you're maintaining a safe following distance, obeying the speed limit, and actually focusing on driving, then you are hard pressed to cause an accident regardless of what vehicle you are in. Also, being in a smaller, better-performing car tends to give you a false sense of security, which detracts from those three items that I listed.


RE: tiny car
By wordsworm on 3/23/2009 1:33:40 PM , Rating: 3
I saw a semi tractor go throw a car and full sized pickup. Really, no damage to the semi, but shy of a miracle, I'm pretty certain all occupants in the other vehicles were massacred. So, if you want to drive really safe, buy a semi tractor.


RE: tiny car
By MrBungle123 on 3/23/2009 4:34:39 PM , Rating: 3


I saw the same thing happen to a semi when it stalled out at a rail crossing and got hit by a freight train, which is why I'm going to be trading in my Ford Ranger for a General Electric AC4400 Locomotive when the lease is up in November.


RE: tiny car
By matt0401 on 3/24/2009 1:09:07 AM , Rating: 2
Why not just take the plunge and get a Deathstar? I mean I know all of the negative stereotyping because the make, but still, you can't beat the size!


RE: tiny car
By MrBungle123 on 3/25/2009 2:47:25 AM , Rating: 2
well you have to find a vehicle that offers the happy medium between being able to take a hit from most other man made vehicle and having its own gravitational field that makes it more suceptable to asteroid strikes.


RE: tiny car
By wordsworm on 3/25/2009 9:45:03 AM , Rating: 2
I won't be getting a Death Star at least until they plug up that thermal exhaust port fire walled. Lucky for Luke they didn't have a router to block it. Next thing you know it'll be a Tata that gets through to destroy the Death Star.


RE: tiny car
By LRonaldHubbs on 3/25/2009 10:38:52 AM , Rating: 2
I responded to a call once where an old lady in a Buick hit a big rig head on, they were each moving at about 40mph. Her dashboard was pressed right up to the seat, both legs were severed and crushed, quite messy. Fortunately they determined that she died before the collision, because that would have sucked otherwise.


RE: tiny car
By ebakke on 3/23/2009 12:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...but it's not as simple as driving around in a battleship and thinking you're invulnerable...
Ok, ok, but seriously... driving around in a battleship would be sweet!!


RE: tiny car
By MrBungle123 on 3/24/2009 10:59:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ok, ok, but seriously... driving around in a battleship would be sweet!!


until you had to buy 50,000 gallons of diesel fuel to fill it back up! Give me a nuclear powered carrier any day!


RE: tiny car
By marvdmartian on 3/23/2009 11:37:06 AM , Rating: 2
Jason, I noticed your article mentions a 0 to 60 time of 17 seconds, and a mileage estimate of 60mpg.

While reading a time article this morning, they mentioned a mileage estimate of 47mpg, and a 0 to 60 time of closer to 23 seconds, here:
quote:
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1887...


Interesting disparity, and I wonder if your quoted numbers are company hype, versus the Time's numbers being closer to reality? Hmmmmm......

Doesn't matter. I won't be impressed with this until someone gets it hopped up and it appears in a future James Bond 007 film!! ;)


RE: tiny car
By legoman666 on 3/23/2009 12:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps it's the difference between the automatic and the manual transmission?


RE: tiny car
By wordsworm on 3/23/2009 1:20:55 PM , Rating: 2
"Not that the car isn't cool, but I'd say regardless of the economy, U.S. consumers would be wary of a car without airbags..."

Motorcycles are often chosen for economy, and they don't come with airbags. As the article mentions, it is still safer than a motorcycle.

If it's good for a relatively easy 110kph, I could very well see it as an incredibly popular vehicle. But in all seriousness, they're going to do everything in their power to stop this car from coming to NA and Europe.


RE: tiny car
By acase on 3/23/2009 1:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, there are a lot of types of wrecks that I would much rather be on a motorcycle for then in this little thing. At least you have the option of bailing or to be thrown out of harms way instead of turned into a sardine.


RE: tiny car
By Keeir on 3/23/2009 6:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But in all seriousness, they're going to do everything in their power to stop this car from coming to NA and Europe.


Whoose this Shadowy "They"? I think it may come to the US if it can pass the same safety requirements as the "SmartCar" or Zenn Electric cars. If it can't, it won't and it will not be because someone doesn't want it to come...


RE: tiny car
By wordsworm on 3/25/2009 9:48:19 AM , Rating: 2
Who are 'they'? The auto manufacturers in the US. Is that not obvious? If this car was for sale at $2,500-3,000 each, it would devastate US automakers. They've got powerful lobbyists who will do everything they can politically to make sure there's no way for Tata's Nano to get its foot in the door.


RE: tiny car
By bhieb on 3/23/2009 2:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And while admittedly safer than the scooters or bikes that most users will be upgrading from


At first I thought what a deathtrap. But then as stated if your options are a cheap motorcycle/scooter or this, then I would definitely choose this. Given the target market I think it is genius. I've seen pics of whole families (3 possibly 4 people) piled onto a scooter in developing countries (China/India). If they can sell them for about the same as a scooter, they should be a major boost to safety in that regard.


RE: tiny car
By Moishe on 3/23/2009 10:54:29 AM , Rating: 2
The only way I'd buy one would be as a lifeboat to my regular car or as a "backup" car.

Airbags are important, especially when the next guy over drives an F350 and could kill you without realizing it. Also I like driving speedily and the rolling thing sucks.


RE: tiny car
By inighthawki on 3/23/2009 10:59:09 AM , Rating: 2
While it's true that it may look like a nice option, I also think that people in the US aren't exactly broke. Add a few more features and improvements, bring the price to about $5k, and you might sell even more.


RE: tiny car
By samoak54 on 3/23/2009 11:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
You forget that India's driving system is totally different. Huge mega-highways are almost non-existent and a large proportion of time spent on the road is time spent navigating traffic locked roads in the city or smaller roads outside the city.


great idea
By inperfectdarkness on 3/23/2009 10:27:32 AM , Rating: 2
i think america needs this car. this could be the model-t for the 21st century; cheap, plentiful...and allows a revolution in personal transportation.

i can think of plenty of low-income individuals who could benefit from a car like this.




RE: great idea
By Spuke on 3/23/2009 12:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
America doesn't need this car. We don't even buy sub compacts. Why would this car be any different?


RE: great idea
By wordsworm on 3/23/2009 1:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
At $2,500, millions of people would buy them. Even at 3-5 thousand they're likely to sell like hotcakes on the fourth of July.


RE: great idea
By FITCamaro on 3/23/2009 2:22:44 PM , Rating: 2
You could give me one. But short of taking the body off and throwing a Hyabusa motor in it like people have done with the Smart car, I'd sell it.

I'm not dying in that thing for trying to do 45 mph down a curving road because its too damn top heavy.


RE: great idea
By Spuke on 3/23/2009 5:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At $2,500, millions of people would buy them. Even at 3-5 thousand they're likely to sell like hotcakes on the fourth of July.
It's not because of cost that people don't buy sub-compacts in the US. The most popular car in the US is the Camry with a starting price of $19k. Americans generally don't like small cars for whatever the reason. This is not up for dispute as decades of sales figures speak for themselves. Why would a person that refuses to pay the much cheaper $16k for a sub compact all of a sudden buy an even smaller car regardless of price? People are paying $19,0000 PLUS dollars for the Camry's and Accord's. It's definitely NOT the price.


RE: great idea
By Spuke on 3/23/2009 5:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
$19,000


RE: great idea
By wordsworm on 3/24/2009 4:52:17 PM , Rating: 2
There's a big difference between a 3k difference and a 16k difference. Like I said, millions of these would sell. Think of it like the netbook.


RE: great idea
By Suntan on 3/23/2009 1:12:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
i can think of plenty of low-income individuals who could benefit from a car like this.


I think *I* could benefit from a lot of low income individuals driving in a car like this...

-Suntan


RE: great idea
By FITCamaro on 3/23/2009 2:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
So you're an ambulance chasing attorney huh? :)

j/k


RE: great idea
By Suntan on 3/23/2009 6:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
nope, just a guy wishing someone else will do something about the rabble sucking on the government entitlement tits.

-Suntan


RE: great idea
By wordsworm on 3/24/2009 5:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
Bankers drive Mercedes, BMWs and the other nice cars. They'll never drive a car like that. Maybe you mean the pharmacists who get billions from the government and trillions from their products. But, again, they won't be driving the Tata.

In any case, you're disgusting.


RE: great idea
By wordsworm on 3/24/2009 4:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
Are you insinuating that you'd like to kill low income earners?


RE: great idea
By Exedore on 3/24/2009 12:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
America already has cars for this category. They are called "Used" cars. They seem to be quite plentiful, and probably are safer than the Nano.


RE: great idea
By Spuke on 3/24/2009 3:01:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
America already has cars for this category. They are called "Used" cars.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Why are Americans so opposed to used cars?


RE: great idea
By Suntan on 3/24/2009 4:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
I agree to some extent, but you are not going to get a warranty on a $2000 used car.

To some purchasers, a warranty on a car is something they desire very much.

-Suntan


I cant wait...
By Proteusza on 3/23/2009 10:39:44 AM , Rating: 3
For someone to spend $2000 on a car and then $5000 pimping it.

This is a good idea for developing countries, I cant see it working elsewhere though.




RE: I cant wait...
By 67STANG on 3/23/2009 11:26:51 AM , Rating: 2
On the same note.... if they built this car in the U.S., it would cost $7,500 after Tata had to pad in pensions, health insurance and taxes... Pretty sad.


RE: I cant wait...
By Spuke on 3/23/2009 12:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
It would cost more because of US safety and emissions regulations which I'm sure this car does not meet.


RE: I cant wait...
By FITCamaro on 3/23/2009 1:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
He was talking about union labor. But yes all the safety equipment adds not only weight but cost. I think its ridiculous that tire pressure monitoring systems are now required on vehicles because people are too freakin lazy to check their tire pressure once a month. Hell even once every 3 months. Some people never check their tire pressure and it never gets checked until the car goes in for service.


RE: I cant wait...
By Spivonious on 3/23/2009 1:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
They're required? When did this happen? Last I knew they were a niche feature on luxury models.


RE: I cant wait...
By FITCamaro on 3/23/2009 2:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
2007.


RE: I cant wait...
By Spivonious on 3/23/2009 2:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, I see it's part of the TREAD Act of 2000. More proof that hasty legislation in response to public anger (in that case over the whole Ford/Firestone issues) is never a good idea.


RE: I cant wait...
By Keeir on 3/23/2009 6:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I always found it odd that we have the Tire Pressure Monitoring system (someone Humans could take care off by being proactice), but things like Stability/Traction control software get left in the "options" category. Based on accidents statistics, the control software is more likely to overt a significant number of accidents each year.


RE: I cant wait...
By bhieb on 3/23/2009 2:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think they have to tell you the psi though, just warn you if it is below a certain level usually by throwing a check engine light. "luxury" models opt to also display that to the driver.


RE: I cant wait...
By Nfarce on 3/23/2009 2:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
Correct as FIT says. Every car I've rented since 2007 has had a "low tire pressure warning" lamp on the dashboard. I first noticed one on a 2007 Camry I rented (I could see it etched in the panel unlit), but my former 2006 G35 already had one. Basically, it looks like this: (_) with a ! in the middle. Remember we're not talking about reading actual tire pressure figures here like on a Corvette - this is more of another idiot light (or as I like to say, woman driver light).

[ducks and runs...........]


Revolution
By CityZen on 3/23/2009 10:49:24 AM , Rating: 2
Jokes aside, this is truly impressive
Please consider that for most people in the target markets this will be a replacement for a motorcycle or a 30-year-old car, how's that for an upgrade?

However:
quote:
It is powered by a 2-cylinder 624cc, 33 BHP engine

quote:
The car can reach 60 MPH in a rather long 17 seconds


Hmmm, no way it can get to 60 MPH in 17 seconds with that kind of power. Maybe downhill, and not even




RE: Revolution
By piroroadkill on 3/23/2009 10:59:17 AM , Rating: 2
Unless it weighs nothing, I guess.


RE: Revolution
By Jeffk464 on 3/23/2009 4:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
Upgrade from a motorcycle. I wouldn't consider this an upgrade from a Kawasaki Ninja 650R(sweet bike).


RE: Revolution
By tjr508 on 3/24/2009 10:03:01 AM , Rating: 2
ATVs with that kind of power go 0-60 in five seconds.


Death trap
By DigitalFreak on 3/23/2009 10:41:59 AM , Rating: 5
Sounds like India's attempt at population control.




RE: Death trap
By FITCamaro on 3/23/2009 2:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
Who needs abortion when you can just kill everyone for driving? And think of all the road cleanup jobs!


City vs highway
By Uncle on 3/23/2009 1:11:02 PM , Rating: 2
You guys are all joking right. This car is for the city, not freeway. Increased parking space,for every two you'll get three etc. I drive a Taurus and when I get next to a semi or logging truck I worry also. This business about gas mileage is a total joke. If the oil companies start to lose market share because of loss of consumption sales, they jack up the price.Dah. I just laugh at the Adds that brag about hybrids getting 40 mpg, when in Europe you can get vehicles getting over 60 or more. The oil companies, with the auto industries in hand, have North America by the b*lls.




RE: City vs highway
By Suntan on 3/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: City vs highway
By Uncle on 3/23/2009 2:09:23 PM , Rating: 2
Alright ya got me. I try not to show favoritism. In my drive way, my family uses Chev 1500 pickup, Honda accord, VW Cabriolet, 2 ford Tauruses(2 numbers apart on the assembly line) I was hoping for twins. and 1 ford Tempo.


RE: City vs highway
By Spuke on 3/23/2009 6:08:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Europe you can get vehicles getting over 60 or more.
The way they calculate mpg in Europe is not the same as the US. You'll need to convert that number PLUS figure out a way to convert their testing methods to ours.


Busa Swap
By Runiteshark on 3/23/2009 11:28:44 AM , Rating: 2
Roll cage + Busa swap + boost = awesome.

"Nice Ferrari, I'll smoke you in my Smart Car / Tata"




RE: Busa Swap
By piroroadkill on 3/23/2009 2:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
You've no doubt watched the Smart Diablo videos on YouTube then. Ahh, looks like fun. It's almost like a toy car with far too much power.


The real problem is not safety
By Jeffk464 on 3/23/2009 1:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with this car is not safety, but the price tag. It was never meant for the affluent western world so saying that Americans and Europeans would not want it is not the point. The problem is that this car is going to allow huge amounts of people in the third world to consume oil and pump out CO2. I know its hypocritical since we have been doing it for a long time but we are at a time when many fossil fuels are reaching or past their peak and the scientific community is in agreement that CO2 is a real threat. We need to becoming up with ways to get more people out of their cars, this is a bad trend.




RE: The real problem is not safety
By Parhel on 3/23/2009 3:40:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'd say that's hypocritical.


By SeeManRun on 3/23/2009 10:30:23 AM , Rating: 2
This is the future. By getting those 2 more billion people driving in cars the fuzzy dice industry can flourish once again!




By Nightowl358 on 3/23/2009 11:17:26 AM , Rating: 2
I live in Tampa Bay, FL and 0-60 in 17 secs is just not gonna cut it; I'd get rear ended for sure. Here, they only know one speed: fast.




Safety
By TallCoolOne on 3/23/2009 12:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps they can improve safety by speed limiting this thing. 40 MPH would be enough for city driving considering the car's lightweight frame and propensity for rolling. I doubt pedestrians would appreciate being bowling pins to this Tata bowling ball!




This is Stupid
By afkrotch on 3/23/2009 8:37:30 PM , Rating: 2
So they want to have the cheapest car around in one of the most overpopulated locations in the world. Wonder how much this will cause pollution to skyrocket.

Well, guess it'd be better than if they each owned a 4 cyclinder car or something.




Humongous car!
By Etern205 on 3/23/2009 9:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
The Peel P50 is much smaller and "saves" on the planet! :P
Jeremy Clarkson 6'2" can even fit in it!




What is it's airspeed?
By SilentSin on 3/23/09, Rating: 0
"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki