Living Car Free - India will no longer be car-light

The tiny Tata Nano is an Indian car that's been getting huge buzz. But what do consumers need to know about this new four-passenger car - and is it green?
At about $2,000, the Tata Nano is the world's cheapest car.
Naturally, it's a tiny car. The dimensions are nine feet long, five feet wide and about five feet tall, "smaller than a Toyota Yaris," says Wired. It's powered by a 623 cc engine, and is designed to compete with scooters. The top speed the Nano can reach is 65 mph.
The Nano is pretty bare-bones: It has a manual transmission, and no air conditioning, stereo or air bags (they can be purchased as add-ons). It only has a single windshield wiper: "Kind of skimpy for a country with a monsoon season," notes Emily Wax of the Washington Post.
The sale of accessories will make Tata steep profits: According to the Economic Times, the accessories will command a 15-20 percent margin, almost thrice the 5-7 percent margin that is usual in the small-car segment.
Tata hopes to make the car available in the U.S. by 2011 or 2012. However, because of higher emissions and safety standards here, the cars would cost around $4,000.
The Nano is pretty green when it comes to fuel consumption. The car is certified by the Automotive Research Association of India as getting 56 miles to the gallon. That gives it not only the highest fuel rating of any other Indian petrol-powered car but also the lowest CO2 at 101 gm/km.
This doesn't mean the arrival of the Nano is green, though. Because it is so affordable, many environmentalists fear that it could double the amount of cars on already-crowded indian roads. According to the Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi, studies already show one person dies every hour in New Delhi from air pollution-related diseases.
However, if people give up their polluting scooters - currently a popular method of transportation in India - for a cleaner Nano, it might not be so bad after all. According to Tata, the Nano pollutes 12 percent less than a typical scooter.
Tata will not be able to keep up with the demand for the Nano. Auto analysts say that production will be limited to just 30,000 to 50,000 cars in the first year because of limited production capacity -- a fraction of the original target of 250,000.The first 100,000 Nanos will be sold at random to anyone who has applied early and put down a deposit.
Tata hopes to eventually release diesel, electric and compressed air-powered versions of the Nano
.

US News & World Report (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/fresh-greens/2009/3/24/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-tata-nano.html)





A key UN climate change official said on Monday Indians have the right to aspire to own cars - just as people in wealthy countries. Speaking a day after the launch of the Tata Nano, the world's cheapest car, Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), however said automobile makers should use more green technologies in order to meet the challenges of global warming.

"I am not concerned about it (the Tata Nano) because people in India have the same aspirational rights to own cars as people elsewhere in the world," de Boer told IANS at a press conference.

But he said it was crucial to support the automobile industry so that they produce "the automobiles of tomorrow rather than the automobiles of yesterday".

The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/News-By-Industry/Auto/No-problems-with-Nano-says-UN-climate-change-boss/articleshow/4310389.cms)






http://yeinjee.com/discovery/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/tata-nano-cheap-car.jpg

this is an age old strategy

when we were thinking the Auto Industry was wavering
auto makers simply shift their focus to other countries
look at Vietnam, the bicycle is quickly being replaced by motor scooters
this is just one example, its happening all over the world.

its an epidemic
dare i say on the coat tails of "Globalization"?
that is to say
culturally we are becoming homogenized
others are quick to say "Cultural Genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_genocide)"

auto mobiles
corporate jobs
mortgages
commute times
move into the city
CAREER
(i once read somewhere, that on average something like 100K people move into the cities around the world on a DAILY basis) that is to say, what we here in the US have come to accept the new hip buzz word, "sustainable", those sustainable cultural ways are being displaced by Corporations. People move to the cities around the world, simply to have "better lives". In many cases, the sprawl of Economics, and the Corporate world is displacing people. (i guess a good example would be the giant damn in China)

a buddy once pointed out to me:
those TV interviews with the average person on the street, they ask something along the lines of "what do you love most about our Country?"
the typical reply is along the lines, "I love my Freedom."
yet, that is exactly the 1st thing we give up. We sell out. We become overly in debt. if not student loans (at one extreme end of the spectrum) to simply overly obligated lifestyles (most common).

I think an interesting and Poignant example is:
The London School of Economics, happiest Country in the World.
Bangladesh (http://www.oneworld.nl/Agenda/event/2217/The_happiest_people_in_the_world_Bangladesh_and_its_history)
or is it Iceland (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/18/iceland)?

i have yet to fully understand the data
i have yet to fully understand the scientific approach
i have yet to fully understand the cognitive, finite measure, of that which is "The Human Experience"
i have yet to fully understand the need, the desire, the use of "measure" to "experience"

however, in our Occidental World, where "Measure" is the foundation of everything.
where Real Numbers constitute Reality, perhaps our Natural World...
I suppose I can attempt to ponder how it is that we try to measure experience

no one wants to relent to the notion that our Emotional Mind, is in command of our Logical Mind.
we want to think that we are in control
but the reality is that The Human Experience is vastly an emotional roller coaster...
we try to figure out "why we are not happy". the cognitive mind tries to make sense of things.

so when they say things like Bangladesh is The Happiest Country in The World.
Huxley's, Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_(novel)) comes to mind.

I start to seriously look at all those cars
i start to seriously look at things like Apart-ments, where an entire village of people live APART in our Occidental ways, complete of course with bickering over parking spaces, ad nauseam...

from what I can tell of things en gross
is
we are becoming fragmented
a shattered people
dissected, separated by roads, boarders, and the auto mobile is a key culprit.

we've lost our families
we've lost our communities
we've lost our villages
we've lost our selves

but we have GPS, satellite radio, etc...

this is all part of our evolution
i often wonder of Gigantopithicus
i often wonder of aboriginal utopias
i often wonder of The Ohlone Way (http://www.amazon.com/Ohlone-Way-Indian-Life-Francisco-Monterey/dp/0930588010)

but that is where we are at
we are in an age of Zoom Zoom
very much like the Iron Age, the Bronze Age, we are in the age of Zoom Zoom
once we finally discover how to travel at light speeds, etc..
my mind does not know of things like this...
once we overcome our Energy issues... if we ever do
perhaps we'd be liberated

we are a very primitive people
and sadly we are killing ourselves with this kind of stuff...

here's another one.

"The Air Car"

http://hybridautoinfo.com/air-powered/compressed-air-cars-to-hit-the-indian-roads-in-2008/

reminds me of

The Air Jammer Road Rammer
http://www.ilovethe80s.com/toys_toys_airjammer.htm

The owner of Tata believes that he's doing a great thing for India; he's very patriotic. He said that he saw all the people being killed on scooters, and thought that they would be safer in cars. India is almost done with building a huge expressway system called the Golden Quadrilateral. There was a good article and photos in National Geographic (I think last October). One photo was of the body of a 15 year old boy who had been killed whne he was hit headon by a car or truck on the new expressway.

Some people think that India isn't suitable for cars. Even with the Golden Quadrilateral and other improvements, their roads aren't very good. The traffic system is already overwhelmed with pedestrians, bikes, scooters and cars. There's an extensive railroad system, but I guess people aren't satisfied with it. I remind myself that India has sustained a large population and vibrant civilization for almost 10,000 years. They can probably make it through this also. Like AsanaCycles said, the real problem is probably 100,000 people moving to the cities every day.

Turning back home, I think that we should be more honest with ourselves. We have cars, trucks, cities and beautiful homes--everything that India wants. If it's been good for us, we should welcome India to have it too. But if all this (cars, cities, etc) is not making us happy, we should admit that to ourselves. Then we should tell the people in India so they don't have to go through all the changes we've been through.

Like I have said before. The attempt by those that have advantages to dissuade those that do not simply doesn't ring true. Otherwise teenagers would listen to their parent's advice and avoid the same problems their parents had. The two most populace countries in the world are moving into the auto age with both hands.

When I look around this car congested city I can see that just about every vehicle provides far more horsepower than is required for urban driving and are most often driven by one person... who needs a 200+ hp car that might get 25 mpg to drive to the grocery store ?

If a company can provide a compact, fuel efficient, reliable, and safe vehicle for as little as $4000.00 that could serve a high % of our population's urban driving needs and reduce pollution I say bring it on.

If it became massively popular we might have to lower our speed limits to accommodate a new kind of driver and a lifestyle which would reduce pollution, increase safety, and encourage people to car pool for longer high speed commutes or car share for when longer trips are needed.

I bet things like this scare the crap out of the big 3 as it shows that a smaller company can offer a vehicle at a fraction of the cost and it reminds me a lot of the venerable Citroen 2CV which was not a powerful car but one that was more efficient than most modern vehicles and still very utilitarian.

This would be the perfect car for me... if I was to ever get another car.

I agree with Sixty Fiver...I've got no problem with this car. No reason India shouldn't suffer like the rest of us... :)

Seriously, I'd never own another car again due to cost ($$$) but this would be a good rental solution if I needed to travel longer distances in less time than my bike would allow. The bike is still the most efficient means of transportation but you have to have other means of transport to get further in shorter periods of time.. I wish they'd bring more trains back (electric and diesel) since they're still way more efficient than having to drive..

But if all this (cars, cities, etc) is not making us happy, we should admit that to ourselves. Then we should tell the people in India so they don't have to go through all the changes we've been through.

I hardly think they'd listen to us, unless, perhaps, we changed our ways first and led by example.

I hardly think they'd listen to us, unless, perhaps, we changed our ways first and led by example.
We're leading by example. India will shortly chew up farmland with suburban sprawl and highways because we've taught them by example how to fight automotive congestion. Look at how effective we are at showing other countries how having nuclear weapons and the will to use them advances your interests.

We're leading by example. India will shortly chew up farmland with suburban sprawl and highways because we've taught them by example how to fight automotive congestion. Look at how effective we are at showing other countries how having nuclear weapons and the will to use them advances your interests.

Teach them what ?

The cars have taken over...when they achieve sentience we are doomed.

I'm still not sure if the car has made America happier or unhappier. It seems like community vs. convenience and convenience won in America. The car was an instrument of this, but it's more than just the car.

I'm still not sure if the car has made America happier or unhappier. It seems like community vs. convenience and convenience won in America. The car was an instrument of this, but it's more than just the car.

That has proven true and shows human naure. But if you think about it even a Shark prefers to attack a wounded animal. It is easier. It takes force of will to do things that are best for us.;)

micor cars are not new
http://www.smartcarofamerica.com/forums/f5/vintage-micro-cars-5194/

i read somewhere:

"the most powerful entities in our world are Corporations." <--- I'm sure i've botched the quote.

but it goes something like that, i hope we get the gist.

in reference to Corporations, that just about see no boarders.
here stateside, we have companies that move finance freely
more over, powerful corporations, are international
with that comes all the learned skills of Corporate Psychology, and Submissive Coercion

when we look at Nations that have not been developed to the extent of the likes of the US, and European countries...

honestly... a quick read of Huxley's, Island (http://www.huxley.net/island/)is quite poignant
(a PDF of the book is near the bottom of the link. Free)

as a quick example:
there is an Island (i always want to think its Sri Lanka) where there is an aging Monarch
an Oil Company discovers the Natural Resource
a Government sends a General
and the heir to the throne, a young man, is dazzled by the prospects of a new motorcycle from a Sears and Roebuck catalog. (time setting, as i remember in the 20's, 30's, i doubt 40's)

anyways... it has a degree of seduction, misgivings, and of course, the plight of a culture

Turning back home, I think that we should be more honest with ourselves. We have cars, trucks, cities and beautiful homes--everything that India wants. If it's been good for us, we should welcome India to have it too. But if all this (cars, cities, etc) is not making us happy, we should admit that to ourselves. Then we should tell the people in India so they don't have to go through all the changes we've been through.
We should be setting the example. If we can show that the materialistic, heavily resource consuming lifestyle can evolve into some gentler and more sustainable, I'm sure the Indians and the Chinese would quickly see the benefits. From reading Thomas Friedman's "Hot, Flat and Crowded", it seems more like that it will be the Chinese and the Indians who end up showing us a better lifestyle.

Tata Motors is one thing, but remember that there's lot of R and D happening all over the world. China is showing a lot of strength in developing new technologies and moving them out to their population. They have a political system that makes such change easier to implement. Plus, they don't have the baggage of a century of infrastructure to contend with. [Best example is how India's telecommunications needs are largely being met by cell phone providers... in a country that always had a very poor land line infrastructure. They just by-pass a lot of useless baggage and get the problem solved efficiently.]

The owner of Tata believes that he's doing a great thing for India; he's very patriotic. He said that he saw all the people being killed on scooters, and thought that they would be safer in cars. India is almost done with building a huge expressway system called the Golden Quadrilateral. There was a good article and photos in National Geographic (I think last October). One photo was of the body of a 15 year old boy who had been killed whne he was hit headon by a car or truck on the new expressway.


The scooters are killing a lot of people but this car will increase that by five fold. Once these cars are placed on the same roads with bicycles and scooters, they will be doing a lot of killing. I can see these cars going 60 mph once people start enhancing the engines.

To be honest, I would be scared to ride in one of them. They offer very little crush space for the driver and front seat passenger. Put this little car on the expressway with turcks, buses and full size cars with everyone traveling at 60-75 mph and your no safer than scooter.

Over-population

pw

Over-population

pw

exactly

Over-population

pw

I think we should require a license to breed. Or maybe have a financial threshold so only the rich can have kids. Or in America only the car-free can breed, then we'd kill two birds with one stone, get people to pollute less and bring the population down to a sustainable level.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7974995.stm

I think we should require a license to breed. Or maybe have a financial threshold so only the rich can have kids. Or in America only the car-free can breed, then we'd kill two birds with one stone, get people to pollute less and bring the population down to a sustainable level.


Also, I don't understand why convicted felons -- at least those charged with violent or property crimes -- aren't immediately sterilized upon conviction. They are far more likely to be responsible for absentee parentage and to pass on their bad lifestyle habits when they actually are around. They should not be allowed to breed, and they should certainly not be allowed to drive.

I think we should require a license to breed. Or maybe have a financial threshold so only the rich can have kids. Or in America only the car-free can breed, then we'd kill two birds with one stone, get people to pollute less and bring the population down to a sustainable level.

If this list is any indication, there probably is not that big a problem of over breeding (or any breeding) amongst the voluntary car free proselytizers, with or without a license.

I think we should require a license to breed. Or maybe have a financial threshold so only the rich can have kids. Or in America only the car-free can breed, then we'd kill two birds with one stone, get people to pollute less and bring the population down to a sustainable level.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7974995.stm

So far China is the only country to attempt something like this, with their one-child policy. I guess it's been at least a partial success, from what little I've read about it.

Increased prosperity is the surest way I know of to decrease birth rates. (Equality for women is an important part of the equation also.) The real challenge is how to increase prosperity for poor countries, while also decreasing total consumption in the world as a whole. I don't think anybody has an answer to this problem yet. But I think it will probably involve efficiency, conservation, better technology, and especially social justice.

I think we should require a license to breed. Or maybe have a financial threshold so only the rich can have kids. Or in America only the car-free can breed, then we'd kill two birds with one stone, get people to pollute less and bring the population down to a sustainable level.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7974995.stm

The last thing we need are more rich folks and their wasteful, car-centric, unsustainable ways.

Wonder how these cracker boxes will hold up on rough sub-continent roads?

So far China is the only country to attempt something like this, with their one-child policy. I guess it's been at least a partial success, from what little I've read about it.

Increased prosperity is the surest way I know of to decrease birth rates. (Equality for women is an important part of the equation also.) The real challenge is how to increase prosperity for poor countries, while also decreasing total consumption in the world as a whole. I don't think anybody has an answer to this problem yet. But I think it will probably involve efficiency, conservation, better technology, and especially social justice.
China's one-child policy had an equity and cultural flaw. The equity flaw was similar to my suggestion- the rich and politically connected didn't adhere to the policy. The cultural flaw was that parent's wanted boys so now china has too many males. It might have worked better if it was a one boy policy.

We're leading by example.

Oh goody! :P A new way to Pimp My Ride - Pimp My Nano....... :roflmao2: What would be even better is if we were following their example by downsizing.

China's one-child policy had an equity and cultural flaw. The equity flaw was similar to my suggestion- the rich and politically connected didn't adhere to the policy. The cultural flaw was that parent's wanted boys so now china has too many males. It might have worked better if it was a one boy policy.

Except that more male babies is the best way to ensure a lower population in the next generation, since only females can have babies. The Chinese leaders think much further ahead than our leaders do.

Except that more male babies is the best way to ensure a lower population in the next generation, since only females can have babies. The Chinese leaders think much further ahead than our leaders do.

I wonder if the Chinese leaders thought like that. I suspect that many Chinese men are finding brides in nearby countries. What is worse is that many Chinese men will be eager for foreign adventures in the military. I imagine if they get a chance to **** and pillage Japan they'll use the Japanese atrocities in Nanjing as a convenient excuse to go wild. If the economy in China goes bad then a foreign war is a convenient way to control the people's discontent. Remember the Bush years?

Except that more male babies is the best way to ensure a lower population in the next generation, since only females can have babies. The Chinese leaders think much further ahead than our leaders do.


It also gives them more males for military service...

Aaron:)

I wonder if the Chinese leaders thought like that. I suspect that many Chinese men are finding brides in nearby countries. What is worse is that many Chinese men will be eager for foreign adventures in the military. I imagine if they get a chance to **** and pillage Japan they'll use the Japanese atrocities in Nanjing as a convenient excuse to go wild. If the economy in China goes bad then a foreign war is a convenient way to control the people's discontent. Remember the Bush years?

I don't think China has ever invaded a foreign country in the past 5,000 years, have they?

I don't think China has ever invaded a foreign country in the past 5,000 years, have they?

ROODY!!!! China invaded Viet Nam in the 1970's. And several times in the last 1000 years. This happened when we were in our '20s right?
Both countries still think the Spratly Islands are floating on oil and other natural resources so there is likely to be another confrontation as resources become scarce.

From Wikipedia:
"The PRC, now under Deng Xiaoping, was growing increasingly defiant, and Deng Xiaoping was speaking to American president Jimmy Carter during Deng's brief visit to the USA: "It's time to smack the bottom of unruly little children" (original Chinese words: 小朋友不聴話,該打打屁股了).[15] The USSR felt that there was simply no way that they could directly support Vietnam against the PRC; the distances were too great to be an effective ally, and any sort of reinforcements would have to cross territory controlled by the PRC or U.S. allies. The only realistic option would be to indirectly re-start the simmering border war with China in the north. Vietnam was important to Soviet policy but not enough for the Soviets to go to war over.

On February 15, 1979 the PRC publicly announced their intention to strike back the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. Few observers realized the symbolic importance of this date. It marked the expiration of the 30-year-old 1950 Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance, and thus the first time that the PRC could strike back at a Soviet ally without breaking their own treaties. The reason cited for the counter strike was the supposed mistreatment of Vietnam's ethnic Chinese minority and the Vietnamese occupation of the Spratly Islands (claimed by the PRC)."

ROODY!!!! China invaded Viet Nam in the 1970's. And several times in the last 1000 years. This happened when we were in our '20s right?

You're right, my bad.

I now recall that China also attempted to invade Japan sometime in the Middle Ages, but their invasion fleet was destroyed by the "Divine Wind" or Kamikaze. And of course many will say that China invaded Tibet...twice. The US claims that China invaded Korea in 1951, but China says they were invited by the North Koreans--whom we had invaded.

But the point remains that China has been very self-involved for most of its history. On average, the US probably invades more countries in 10 years than China invades in 1,000.