backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 67 comment(s) - last by Chaotic42.. on Jan 15 at 2:26 PM


The Tata Nano at the New Delphi Auto Show
Protests greet introduction of India's new Tata Nano.

Having been to most countries in Asia, I can't count the number of times I've seen an entire family of five people riding somewhere on a scooter. Yes, one scooter. Rain or shine.  When your average salary is a $250/month, you don't buy a car. You ride a scooter, a vehicle which for much of Asia's population is the de facto mode of transportation.

Of course, putting four or five people on a seat meant for one and a half isn't comfortable or even safe. The children have to be constantly held. Occasionally they'll sit on the rear tire shield or stand on the front, skipping the seat entirely. Accidents are common-- and without any sort of protection, even the most trivial often cause serious injury. Exposure to the elements has its health effects, especially for small children who in bad weather typically arrive rain-soaked and covered in mud from foul city streets.

The Indian company Tata is trying to change all that. Its new vehicle, the Nano, has a starting cost of only $2,500. Cheap enough for tens of millions of Asia's carless, it promises to revolutionize life for many in the region. It's also sending environmentalists into bladder-quivering, teeth-chattering rage.

Built by the Indian giant Tata Motors (rumored to be buying the Jaguar brand from Ford), the Nano was formally unveiled today at the New Delhi Motor Show. It has a 33 horsepower engine and a top speed of 65 mph. A radio is optional...but the vehicle meets all emission and safety standards for both the Indian and European market. It gets 50 miles to the gallon, but that's not enough for Greenpeace, whose activists held up banners outside the show to protest the car's introduction. Sunita Narain, head of an Indian environmental organization, called on the government to "tax cars like crazy" to slow their adoption.

The Nano potentially means tens of millions of new cars on world roads. Environmentalists would rather see that not happen. But what about the human cost? Should the burgeoning middle class of India, China, and Southeast Asia be denied a safe, comfortable means of personal transportation?  

Ratan Tata, chairman of Tata Motors, says, "We live in a country of one billion people, most of whom are denied connectivity. [We] hope to change that".   As Tata listed the cars specifications (and price) to an excited crowd, many clapped and even cheered.  Clearly the car is popular;  possibly even revolutionary. 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No news here...
By JasonMick (blog) on 1/10/2008 1:03:06 PM , Rating: 4
I am not defending Greenpeace or their actions in general, just this article is sort of ridiculous

As I was guessing, you are misrepresenting/confusing Greenpeace's activism in this case.

a) They were just talking about cars in general, not this specific model. Their banners said "Cut CO2" not "Kill the Tata" or something. They have been doing this outside every major auto show for the past decade. No news here

b) It is somewhat arbitrary to use the term protest, which bears a negative conontation as opposed to rally, which holds a positive conontation. I understand you are trying to "stir the pot" so to speak with this article, but people should recognize language like this as loaded. I'm not singling just you out either -- the three articles I read on this also used the same term.

Obviously the Narain's comments are just insane. The Indian government would never do such a thing, so its kind of a moot point. Bringing it up is sort of like saying gun rights activist Bob Brown says that every use family should be given a free rocket launcher and uzi. Its obviously not going to happen, so why requote a zealot? No news here either...

I think the Tata looks awesome, it should be relatively low emissions, with such great gas milage, and it can really save/positively effect people's lives. We are in complete agreement on this.

I just think that the way your presented it was a bit distorted, basically trying to spin a positive event (the release) into some sort of public hatred for Greenpeace for holding a rally outside of an auto show, which is something they have been doing outside every major auto show for the last decade at least or so.




RE: No news here...
By Chris Peredun on 1/10/2008 1:14:24 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I just think that the way your presented it was a bit distorted, basically trying to spin a positive event (the release) into some sort of public hatred for Greenpeace for holding a rally outside of an auto show, which is something they have been doing outside every major auto show for the last decade at least or so.


I agree. An article promoting public hatred on Greenpeace is totally unnecessary.

They can do an excellent job of that on their own.


RE: No news here...
By porkpie on 1/10/2008 1:15:37 PM , Rating: 4
> "It is somewhat arbitrary to use the term protest"

The Associated Press, along with several British and Indian papers used the same term. It was a protest, plain and simple.

You're right, a rally implies something positive. Being for something. This Greenpeace protest was just that-- a protest against car usage in general, and the Nano in particular.

> "Its obviously not going to happen, so why requote a zealot? "

Are you suggesting that quoting the statements of major environmental organizations is somehow unethical?


RE: No news here...
By thereaderrabbit on 1/15/2008 8:21:44 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm... let's look at his last two blog posts...

Study Finds Natural Cause for Rapid Arctic Warming

100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN: Attempting to Control Climate Futile

Perhaps there is an agenda wit this boy?


RE: No news here...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/10/2008 1:15:39 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree. I see it as calling it like it is. Greenpeace is never happy, even the cheapest, very effecient car and they are still unhappy. Throwing weight behind the argument that they are just Anarchists that would rather see everyone riding pedal bikes.

I would also point out Jason that you spin your Global Warming articles in support of the Global Warming Bandwagon. Pot Kettle Black. 'nuff said.


RE: No news here...
By onwisconsin on 1/10/2008 6:40:06 PM , Rating: 5
If Greenpeace was happy, they wouldn't exist.


RE: No news here...
By Symmetriad on 1/11/2008 12:01:50 PM , Rating: 5
And Asher spins his global warming articles in support of the other side. What, does having opposing viewpoints represented on the site scare you or something?

Personally, I'd love to see somebody, anybody, post one of these stories on here with no spin whatsoever.


RE: No news here...
By Chubbbs on 1/12/2008 2:01:51 AM , Rating: 2
Shouldn't a 1000-lb car with a 33hp engine get better than 50-60 mpg?


RE: No news here...
By SgtJonson on 1/13/2008 4:00:50 PM , Rating: 3
I imagine the reason why Green Peace isn't happy about this cheap car is global warming.

"We live in a country of one billion people, most of whom are denied connectivity. [We] hope to change that".

Imagine a billion cars driving around India getting 50MPG. Don't worry though, I'm sure that won't have any negative impacts on the environment.


RE: No news here...
By Proteusza on 1/15/2008 7:45:29 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sad to say that my cousin told me she wants to join Green Peace.


RE: No news here...
By TomZ on 1/10/2008 1:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
Jason, I'm seeing the same coverage also by mass media, including the word "protest."

I personally think that it is good to get the word out on Greenpeace, which is fundamentally an irresponsible and hypocritical organization.


RE: No news here...
By FITCamaro on 1/10/2008 4:01:35 PM , Rating: 5
I'm willing to bet many of them took a plane to get to India for that protest. And then took a car to get to the location. And stayed in a hotel that uses electricity generated by a coal power plant.

When they walk the walk, they can talk the talk. But then they won't be around any more since it'll take too long to get anywhere. Darn.


RE: No news here...
By Amiga500 on 1/10/2008 1:33:35 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry man, but until the hippies start listing some viable alternatives to the objects of their protests they are just another group to be ignored.

For instance, the flower-power brigade would like to see an end to all coal, oil, gas and nuclear power plants. So what do we use then? Current renewables simply are not viable - but that doesn't stop them protesting.


RE: No news here...
By mmntech on 1/10/2008 3:03:32 PM , Rating: 5
The "viable" alternative that I believe Greenpeace wants to impose is de-industrialization. They are technophobic. They don't like the car simply because it uses gas, but if we all moved to electric cars they'd complain about disposal of the batteries. It goes on ad-infinitum until we abandon all modern technology.

For groups like Greenpeace, the IPCC, and other eco-activists, this is all about making as much money for their respective organization as possible. The more they protest or stir up fear, the more donations they get. Anybody who thinks they're driven by anything other than financial motives is a fool.


RE: No news here...
By Segerstein on 1/12/2008 3:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
I recently watched the movie Mine Your Own Business. How typical of Greenpeace and environmentalists in general. They the green movement really has a worldwide campaign to block development and deny people the chance of jobs and a decent life.

A post from one blog about "Keep Mining Your Own Business" (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/movies/index.ht...

In today's Wall Street Journal (August 2007), John Fund defends poor people from the self-righteous environmentalists who would deny these people the fruits of economic growth. Specifically, John has good things to say about the movie "Mine Your Own Business" about a small Romanian village whose residents want a new mine built but whose non-resident environmentalist 'champions' object to the mine.

Here's the penultimate paragraph of John's essay:

"Mine Your Own Business" also contains interviews with leading environmentalists opposing other mining projects who display smug indifference to bettering the lives of poor people. In Madagascar, Mr. McAleer [the movie's host and narrator] finds Mark Fenn, country director for the World Wide Fund for Nature, who argues that the poor are just as happy as the rich because they smile more and that if Madagascar locals (who now earn $100 a month) get more money "they'll buy cases of beer, invite their friends, they'll throw a party . . . three, four days the money's gone." He then shows off his new $35,000 catamaran.


RE: No news here...
By Ringold on 1/12/2008 6:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't seen that movie, but I did see an interesting thing on History Channel about gold mines in undeveloped countries. They hire a lot of local help for labor, and pay good wages compared to what else the locals could be doing. The generation that works at the mines doesn't necessarily end up living grand lifestyles -- but they do send their kids to universities in large numbers, meaning the next generation is significantly better off. Of course, a mountain side gets eaten in the process, but environmentalists don't see a generation of men being raised from poverty, the vicious cycle of poverty being finally broken, they see rock getting displaced. Clearly, rock is more important than men to them.


RE: No news here...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/10/2008 1:55:02 PM , Rating: 5
Greenpeace has a long history of protesting against Tata projects. Last year, they organized several protests against Tata building a new car plant, saying it would threaten the olive ridley turtle. They even went so far as to fraudulently alter the contents of a university study to advance their goals:
quote:
North Orissa University accusing Greenpeace of doctoring [the university] report to suit its agenda...The university pointed out 16 instances, including portions not in the original report, where [Greenpeace] had doctored the report. Greenpeace [added] that the port project should be stopped immediately, which Nanda says is not in the university report
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage....


RE: No news here...
By stmok on 1/10/2008 6:54:28 PM , Rating: 3
Well, that crosses the line. Its one thing to defend something or someone, its another to corrupt one's own self to do it. The lack of moral values is disturbing. The supposed "good guys" for the environment, aren't so good...


RE: No news here...
By Misty Dingos on 1/10/2008 3:08:37 PM , Rating: 5
This is news. Actual news. Not the made up kind about alligator tears coming from some ambulance chasing left wing feminist aging baby boomer.

A group that had it's start protesting nuclear weapons tests wasn't satisfied when they got those banned. They just moved on to the next Great Cause. Here is the ugly little secret they aren’t ever going to tell you. They are never going to stop finding causes. Nuke power, global warming sorry climate change (like the last ice age wasn’t climate change), harp seals, whales (I actually agree with that one), wind power (kills birds you know), ocean power (could slow down the currents), hydro-power (dams kill rivers and the fish that live in them). Now they are protesting a company in a developing nation that is trying to produce cheap safe transportation for human beings. Well that is mighty generous of them. Why don’t they protest the cheap cars made in South Korea or Russia or Poland or Romania? I will tell you why because it isn’t the car they hate, it is the people. Not people that live in India. They hate mankind in total. In their minds mankind is the problem and needs to be solved.

Greenpeace won’t be happy until we are in a pre Stone Age condition, with a total human population of about 200.

It is time that we call up Canada and tell them that if they keep harboring these eco/econ-terrorists in Vancouver we will just have to go in there and get them.


RE: No news here...
By FITCamaro on 1/10/2008 3:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why don’t they protest the cheap cars made in South Korea or Russia or Poland or Romania?


Because they'd get shot in 3 of the 4 countries.


RE: No news here...
By Murst on 1/10/2008 4:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
I realize you're trying to be funny, but all of the countries you've listed have peaceful protests, and they're fairly common. The only one that I've heard about having problems were Russia w/ their political protests last year. And people weren't shot, just some were arrested by police.


RE: No news here...
By Ringold on 1/10/2008 7:58:46 PM , Rating: 5
They don't have to kill too many people in Russia; Putin essentially took control of the state media.

Even still, you must've missed the uproar over the journalist they had assasinated not too long ago, and the pollonium that must've just fallen from the sky in the UK. The only thing that keeps Kasparov alive is probably the fact he's internationally known -- but it doesn't keep him out of jail.


RE: No news here...
By Ringold on 1/12/2008 6:06:43 PM , Rating: 5
Oh, and not to mention that anti-Kremlin Ukranian presidential nominee they nearly killed, and pretty badly disfigured in the process.

You live here on Earth, Murst, or just get news from FSB-approved RSS feeds? :P


RE: No news here...
By Murst on 1/15/2008 2:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
My reply was about protests. In the Orange (I think it was orange anyways) revolution, there were mass protests during the election. I don't recall people being killed, especially by Russia (notice how Ukraine wasn't one of the 4 countries I replied about). Yes, in the poisoning of the ukranian candidate, Russia is most likely responsible (although I doubt it was Russia who actually did it).

I also don't recall anyone being shot in the Kasparov incidents.

The assassination of the journalist was probably not actually done by the government, but by a pro-kremlin group. I don't recall a suspect being found, and stating that it was Putin who did it (or someone did it by following his order) is most likely inaccurate.

An in the Polonium poisoning incident... what the hell does that have to do w/ any type of protest?

The entire point was the exaggeration of the situation by the "getting shot" comment, which is simply not accurate.


RE: No news here...
By Manch on 1/10/2008 8:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
and the fourth they would get their asses kicked. So-Ko cops don't play


RE: No news here...
By HaZaRd2K6 on 1/10/2008 9:30:05 PM , Rating: 5
They aren't only in Vancouver =P

I understand you're just trying to make a point (Greenpeace was co-founded by Bob Hunter--a Canadian), but organisations like the Sierra Club and countless others were founded by Americans and there are hundreds more founded by even more nationalities still. Environmentalists simply don't have a nationality. They're a global menace.


RE: No news here...
By Chaotic42 on 1/15/2008 2:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I think that calling these people "environmentalists" is like calling suicide bombers "protesters". There's certainly nothing wrong with wanting to help the environment, but these people take it too far.


RE: No news here...
By AlexWade on 1/11/2008 4:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
Some of the eco-nazis have overtly expressed an outright hate of human beings. I believe I've seen some of the more radical ones call for killing lots and lots of people.

And one of these eco-nazi groups has been disavowed by its founder. I forgot which one.


RE: No news here...
By geddarkstorm on 1/10/2008 3:43:37 PM , Rating: 3
I don't know why they are whining either way. What sort of gas mileage would such an overburdened scooter get anyways? These cars probably cut emissions compared to those things, protect lives, and leave room for more cargo (which could mean less trips they'd otherwise take with the scooters, thus potentially more emissions reduction).


RE: No news here...
By Eris23007 on 1/14/2008 5:38:54 PM , Rating: 3
Not to mention, scooter engines are notorious polluters. The two-cycle ones in particular can produce twenty times or more of the really nasty pollution - not CO2, but sulfurs, NOx, soot, ozone, smog, that sort of thing. Frankly this is likely a net positive .


RE: No news here...
By BruceLeet on 1/10/2008 7:12:08 PM , Rating: 2
Shouldn't you be ranting in an Apple/Microsoft article?

Praising Apple while talking smack on Microsoft?


RE: No news here...
By crystal clear on 1/11/2008 5:08:17 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think the Tata looks awesome, it should be relatively low emissions, with such great gas milage, and it can really save/positively effect people's lives. We are in complete agreement on this.


I dont know if you have visited/toured India-I have done so frequently & recently,I know what I saw.

The roads are pre historic as per modern standards,they are clogged with two wheelers & three wheelers(in their thousands) spitting out CO2 in huge quantities.

Those driving those two wheelers (scooters) ride with a cloth wrapped around their nose/mouth just enough space for their eyes to see.

Their public transport buses are the worst polluters & so are their trucks.

You will believe only when you see for yourself-you have cows sitting in midddle of the road & nobody dare touch them as they are sacred.

Textile factories to chemical factories all spitting their share of pollutants in abudance.

From Mumbai to Calcutta to any other major city in India,its all the same story.

Even the petrol/fuel is polluted mixed with kerosene & what not,result being vechiles spitting out choking smoke/gases.

So Tata cars dont make the situation any better-Doesnt save lives either.

India's infra structure is pre historic & need to be upgraded from scratch.
From roads to transport to electricity to water supplies to airports to .. the list is endless.

I wish the infra structure was as hospitible & loving as the Indian people are.

Cheap priced cars not necessarily makes its maintaince cheap,looks are decieving & performances highly deceptable,reliability is questionable.

Remember that Russian car of the former USSR called "lada"
or previous generation "Skoda"-they were the peoples car of those times.


RE: No news here...
By wordsworm on 1/11/08, Rating: 0
Family transportion is no joke
By Crystalysis on 1/10/2008 12:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
I spent a month and a half in India earlier this year and I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw 7 people piled into a Rickshaw (however you spell that). I also saw tons of 3 person families on regular bicycles.

I suppose this is a good thing, although it makes Tata (an already enormous company over there) even more profitable.

Any other thoughts?




By Spivonious on 1/10/2008 12:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
I think a car like this would be great competition to the Smart Car. 33hp/65mph is more than anyone needs for city driving. It would even do okay on the highway, provided it had space to get up to speed (with 33hp I imagine the 0-60 time is over 30s).


RE: Family transportion is no joke
By porkpie on 1/10/2008 12:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
Let the envirowackos whine. This is a very good thing for the people of India IMO.


RE: Family transportion is no joke
By psychmike on 1/10/2008 4:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
Can't it be BOTH a boon for India AND a source of concern for environmentalists?

I don't think we have much of a right to tell people that they can't have the same standard of living that we enjoy but the reality is that we likely can't all have the same standard of living without causing massive environmental problems. You don't have to be a tree hugger to care about the environment - air and water quality, food scarcity, climate changes, etc. are all important in our daily lives and adding a few BILLION consumers aspring to first-world standards (India and China) is going to cause problems.

Mike

Mike


By Chris Peredun on 1/10/2008 4:12:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Can't it be BOTH a boon for India AND a source of concern for environmentalists?


Personally, I think the environmentalists should be trying to leverage the Nano as a way to get "Joe Six-Pack" used to the idea of a smaller, lighter, less powerful vehicle. That way, when the low-powered* alternative fuel or electric vehicles show up in the mass market, it's not so much of a shock taking that step down. Hell, you might even get people to make that step voluntarily.

That's just my opinion though.

*I'd like all EV's to be as lovely as the Tesla Roadster, but it's just not possible right now.


RE: Family transportion is no joke
By Ringold on 1/10/2008 8:21:31 PM , Rating: 2
Malthus rides again!

From a purely economic perspective, I don't see where there would be a resource constraint that would stop them from living a first-world existance -- except perhaps for the lack of space. The average Indian will never match American standards for the size of the average living quarters, for example. Beyond that, though, there seem to be no shortages that aren't being overcome. Fossil fuels are becoming more expensive to extract, and stubborn national oil companies, seized in socialist fervor, all around the world are a serious impediment to growing supply. They lack the motivation, funding and expertise to do so. Nuclear power, however, seems to be almost unlimited in potential. Water is also a scarce resource, but already here in Florida we've realized (belatedly) that desalination has become price-competitive with further draining of rivers. It also happens to be an infinite resource when obtained that way. The supply of food already sustains the population, but they'll want to eat more as they become more wealthy. Not a problem as long as whenever Greenpeace is rounded up and shot the anti-GM food crowd is as well. At the very least, they must be ignored. Some of these broad assumptions are helped along by the fact that the pace of technological advancement shows no sign of slowing. Energy efficiency has increased significantly since the 70s, for example, in the US, such that the amount of oil consumed per dollar of GDP has steadily dropped. These nations also have an amazing opportunity; the US, and Europe especially, had to grow around what was left of the last generation. Developing countries essentially are blank slates.

For environmental concerns, I assume you mean global warming. I'd suggest that fission power takes care of that now, and fusion in the future.

Also worth noting that population growth would come to a screaching halt, and probably go in to reverse, once China and India got their masses out of poverty. Initially, birth rates and death rates are high. Then we introduce a little modern information and basic medicines, death rates drop significantly but birth rates stay high -- population explosion. When people don't need children to help provide for the family and to protect against losing one or two children via disease, birth rate drops. When people become too involved in their own lives to bother bringing about the next generation, as in the EU, Japan, and elsewhere, it drops below replacement rate.. much to the joy of Greenpeace.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/10/2008 9:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
> "The average Indian will never match American standards for the size of the average living quarters, for example."

You forgot the vertical dimension. Build 10-story apartment buildings, and you can put all one billion citizens in twice as much living space as the average American, and still only take up 120,000 sq km of the country...that's less than 4% of the total area of the country.


RE: Family transportion is no joke
By Manch on 1/10/2008 8:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
You're RIGHT!! They should stay in their Third world status....Moron


RE: Family transportion is no joke
By luhar49 on 1/10/2008 12:59:52 PM , Rating: 2
Automobile industry will be watching this product very closely. It has potential to be a big revenue generator considering the huge market for this product in India/China and other developing world.

As if to show they arent just onto the budget side of the market, Tata are also top contenders to buy Jaguar and Land Rover.

Funny to see the environmentalists making sure they are on the sidelines of a headline gathering event, so that they can get some news bytes as well. They dont like SUVs...and they dont like a fuel efficient light weight car either. They would rather have everyone walk the earth...


RE: Family transportion is no joke
By porkpie on 1/10/2008 1:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They dont like SUVs...and they dont like a fuel efficient light weight car either. They would rather have everyone walk the earth...
Bikes are ok too, as long as they're $2000 carbon fiber models. Mining steel or aluminum hurts Mother Nature too much.


RE: Family transportion is no joke
By rtrski on 1/10/2008 3:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
But the epoxy resin system that holds composites together is just peachy? (Cured epoxy from what I understand is pretty inert, but some of the additives to the resins or hardeners may or may not be carcinogenic. Doesn't stop me from wiping the drips on my jeans when I'm gluing crap together and go a bit overboard... ;) )


RE: Family transportion is no joke
By Hoser McMoose on 1/10/2008 6:04:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
They dont like SUVs...and they dont like a fuel efficient light weight car either.

I personally don't like the fact that this tiny little 33hp car puts out so much air pollution that it would fail both the American Tier 2 and EU Euro IV emission regulations. Sure it doesn't use much gas but it burns that gas in a horribly dirty way with little to no emissions control systems in place.

Considering this Nano pollutes the air more then a Hummer H3 it should come as no surprise that at least some environmentalists are opposed to it.


By Hoser McMoose on 1/10/2008 6:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
Just to follow-up on my own post, India is planning on phasing in the Euro IV emission standards in 2010, so unless this car gets modified with new emission control systems it's likely to have a rather short lifespan.

Most people I've spoken with that have been to Mumbai or Dehli have mentioned that the air pollution in these cities is some of the worst in the world (or at least outside of China :) ), so such emissions controls may be a rather welcome there.


RE: Family transportion is no joke
By nanza on 1/11/2008 11:40:10 AM , Rating: 2
I could have sworn I read somewhere that it does indeed meet Euro IV standards. Also there was a study which concluded that it emmitted less emissions than a typical scooter in India. Furthermore, it will be a good candidate to replace all those auto-rickshaws, low-cost and similar size. And those are major polluters it will be replacing. How come no one bans those two-wheelers? How come no one is so against cheap cars from East Asian countries. Chinese one's are exactly the best in emission standards. This just seems a like an outpouring of grief against this because it got the most publicity. Plus it's going to force competition and cause other makers to bring down price. Plus it will give a giant boost to low car segment, which will be good in long-term. Either way you have to let market forces decide. There are more polluting cars all available in the same market segment but no protests against them! This is just cheaper and better. Again market forces will decide and must decide and it will also be upscaled to meet new Euro V standards when implemented.

Ofcourse don't forget it's also safer than all those scooters, motorbikes and auto-rickshaws.


RE: Family transportion is no joke
By crystal clear on 1/11/2008 5:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
Did you take a ride in those rickshaws on those narrow roads with those nasty bumps nagging you every minute or two.


By Inkjammer on 1/12/2008 9:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
But now those rickshaw drivers won't have jobs - the Tata Nano will ravage their industry!


all environmentalists != Greenpeace
By CheesePoofs on 1/10/2008 6:53:37 PM , Rating: 1
Please, stop throwing around labels like "environmentalist" and assuming that just because Greenpeace supports something, everyone who cares about the environment supports it as well.

I consider myself an environmentalist, but I disagree with Greenpeace on more issues than I probably agree with them on. Greenpeace consists of an incredibly small, portion of environmentalists, they just happen to be rather vocal/controversial.

Stop bending the news to suite your purposes please.




By Ringold on 1/10/2008 8:37:19 PM , Rating: 3
To be honest, what needs to be happening then if they truly are a minority is the majority denouncing and counter-protesting them.

Considering the only counter-protestors I've ever seen show up to any sort of "liberal" protest were hard-core Republican's and veterans, the other environmentalists silence appears to me to be a sign they condone it. Not sure how else one can take it.


By Hoser McMoose on 1/10/2008 9:46:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'm in the same boat in that I would describe myself as something of an environmentalist but I very rarely agree with Greenpeace.

In fact, I would go further and say that Greenpeace is NOT an environmentalist group at all anymore, they're an activist group. Most of Greenpeace wouldn't know environmental science if you smacked them over the head with it! They seem to be in it more for the "joy" of protesting rather then for actually improving the environment.

It's unfortunate that Greenpeace is so vocal because some of their more questionable antics (falsifying data, placing people lives in danger to get in the news, etc.) have done more harm to advancing intelligent environmental policy than any other organization in the world.


By Symmetriad on 1/11/2008 11:53:35 AM , Rating: 3
Agreed. I consider myself somewhat environmentalist and am very concerned about a number of environmental and ecological issues, but I detest Greenpeace. They're about as far out there as Scientologists, and make those of us who merely want reasonable preventative and maintenance measures taken look just as bad and nutty as them. Their protests have no basis in reality, nor do they take into account economic and social concerns, not to mention actual science.

And I agree that Asher is using loaded language here. Greenpeace hardly represents the whole of environmentalist concerns, and portraying them as such is knowingly putting the rest of us in a negative light for no good reason.


The Nano?
By PWNettle on 1/10/2008 5:08:24 PM , Rating: 3
Doesn't Apple own the word "Nano" now? This is an outrage!




RE: The Nano?
By agentjka03 on 1/10/2008 5:22:15 PM , Rating: 3
The only thing Apple owns is the loyalty of millions of sheep-like followers.


By indianpunk on 1/10/2008 4:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
being an indian and currently living in india i know we'll get all kind of people talking and coming to get a piece of the pie i havent seen the local indian media covering any such news today and all day we had this cars features and launch videos aired repetedly on the news channels and since it was termed "1 lakh car" thats what was the main topic.
The only question now remains is how much quality is in the car since to save money the quality of parts and interiors will be much much debateable




Neat
By Murst on 1/10/2008 5:00:02 PM , Rating: 2
This is about the same price as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polski_Fiat_126p used to be. This one also looks much better!

The 126p used to be the only "modern" car not having 0-60mph time numbers since it couldn't achieve 60mph (although you can do 60mph if you go downhill or mod the engine). Looks like someone else is joining this exclusive club.




Ye Poor People...
By gradoman on 1/10/2008 5:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
...do not deserve to drive! Get back on your scooters, rickshaws, bicycles, buses, and feet ye peons!




Picture caption
By Cullinaire on 1/11/2008 12:46:13 AM , Rating: 2
The Tata Nano at the New Delphi Auto Show

Surely you didn't mean New Delhi? Or does Delphi sponsor auto shows in India?




By BernardP on 1/11/2008 10:49:57 AM , Rating: 2
Almost all TV and print articles rest on the supposed inconvenient truth that CO2 is the uncontested cause of an uncontested global warming. Nothing could be further from the facts:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/p...




Is there a reason...
By iFX on 1/12/2008 4:51:13 AM , Rating: 2
That I had to read all the way to the middle of the 4th paragraph to get any information related to the title of the article?




Green Car?
By Major HooHaa on 1/12/2008 8:11:54 AM , Rating: 2
33 horsepower and 50 miles per gallon? This does not compare favourably to other cars.

For example, the VW Polo with a 1.4 litre, 89 horsepower diesel engine will return around 50 miles per gallon. I wonder what the CO2 emissions of the two cars would be?




Dare I say it?
By mindless1 on 1/13/2008 4:21:32 AM , Rating: 2
If the underprivledged were meant to travel by car instead of foot, they wouldn't have been born with legs!

Just kidding. I think the central idea here is idiots who have more luxury than they realize, trying to declare others can't evolve on their own timetable but instead have to do so based on higher standards that don't apply to different cultures.

IMO, the first priority is to get rid of two cycle engines. Not just new products but existing ones and this includes america where there are still plenty of leaf blowers, weed-wackers, maybe even lawn mowers(?) in an economy where there is no reasonably excuse for it. If you can afford to be vain about your lawn you can afford to buy a 4 cycle engine too.




Don't waste your time...
By Strunf on 1/14/2008 6:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
trying to sell it here!! no one on its perfect state of mind would buy it... ever.




Greenpeace = HYPOCRATES
By twnorows on 1/15/2008 12:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
My take on this global warming myth:

These enviro-nazis aren't interested in making a contribution - just being noisy mufflers and increasing political power. I wish that we could 'register' these people such that the power companies will disconnect their electrical / natural gas services. Don't want them to be hypocritical by consuming energy that is produced by polluting companies. When they try to gas up their stupid Prius (the one with the replacement battery that will cost over $5,000), the arabs in the gas station should refuse to sell them any unleaded - and tell them they should get a bicycle and set an example.

Thirty years ago these people (or their hippie parents) were talking about GLOBAL COOLING. They also said that METHANE was the real problem. Since they were wrong (they always seem to be wrong about everything), they started to talk about GLOBAL WARMING. And because there's a huge amount of scientists that refute and dismiss this claim (with real scientific evidence -- not irrational diatribe), these tree-huggers have changed their mantra to the term CLIMATE CHANGE (I guess they're trying to hedge their stupidity by covering both ends simultaneously.)

And Yes, there is climate change - it happens constantly. The earth is not as tightly-regulated and temperature-controlled environment as these gloom-and-doom fanatics would like you to believe. (really, haven't YOU ALSO gotten hotter and/or colder when you're ill?). In fact, it's the sun that is the culprit for this change in temperature - which in turn produces changes in climate. If these enviro-nazi ostridges pulled their cranial-rectal-inversion heads out of (you know where - -), they'd see that even the whimpy ice caps on Mars are receding - and at a rate to be expected for it's distance from the sun. But they'd have to admit they were wrong - something that they are genetically incapable of doing. I don't recall seeing any powerplants, SUVs or other CO2 generators being on Mars, so you can draw your own conclusion. Wasn't it Galileo who said, "A telescope is useless if your eyes are closed."?

The earth has already experienced several major ice ages and numerous minor ice ages. According to the scientists, at least the ones that have hard data and communicate rationally, we are actually entering another ice age cycle. So if anything, we need MORE CO2 to offset the temperature DECREASES that we'll see in the near future.

These robot-mind idiots don't understand that WE NEED CO2. How do you think plants grow? They 'breathe' CO2 and 'exhale' O2 (that stands for oxygen). We, however, breathe O2 and exhale CO2. It's a perfect symbiosis. If the frazzled, frantic, irrational tree-huggers want to reduce CO2, then they should either plant more trees (actually grass is way more efficient) or they should STOP BREATHING.

But to get these misguided and irrational control-freak hypocrates to stop using electricity, natural gas (or equivalent), unleaded gas would be like trying to get a Hyena to become a vegetarian. NOT!

By the way, I'm also giving away FREE Carbon Offset Certificates to everybody who wants to be 'politically correct' (a term that is exclusively used by the left to obliquely censor others who have differing views. These sleeze use the term "politically correct" because it permits them to avoid being challenged and held accountable for their neo-cheating censorship practices. These so-called "liberals" are completely outrageous. They "pretend" to be advocates of free speech, but become vicious in denying others their free-speech rights, especially if the speech of others doesn't align with - or prop up THEIR agenda. These people are a joke!).

So if you want to get your own FREE Carbon Offset Certificate , go to:

http://www.tw-profitzone.com/free/




By indianpunk on 1/10/2008 4:35:51 PM , Rating: 1
being an indian and currently living in india i know we'll get all kind of people talking and coming to get a piece of the pie i havent seen the local indian media covering any such news today and all day we had this cars features and launch videos aired repetedly on the news channels and since it was termed "1 lakh car" thats what was the main topic.
The only question now remains is how much quality is in the car since to save money the quality of parts and interiors will be much much debateable




Thumbs down, pointless car
By rsasp on 1/11/2008 4:15:57 PM , Rating: 1
What's the point creating a low cost car if the consumer can not afford the gas and insurance? look at how much the gasoline cost(average of $1/L in Ontario), and insurance is like $400-450 depends on your age,etc... all of those adds up it will cost a lot.

This car is a bad idea
If they are poor they should just take public transit, it saves money and enviorment.




"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

















botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki