India releases $2,200 car
The LA Times reports on the release of Tata Motors' Nano, a car that costs as much as a nice notebook computer. A million people have applied, but because Tata is only making about 60,000 this year, they'll only receive a Nano if they're chosen in a lottery.
The Nano will start at $2,200 after taxes and dealer costs, while the more expensive CX and LX models with heat, air conditioning and power brakes will go for as much as $3,800.India's Tata Motors unveils the world's cheapest carThe Nano is about the size of a Smart Car, which it closely resembles. The four-door vehicle has the smallest footprint and turning radius of any car in India, the company said. At just 10 feet long and less than 5 feet wide, it has a single windshield wiper and gets about 47 miles to the gallon from a two-cylinder engine that is hardly bigger than an outboard motor. With its limited power and top speed of about 65 mph, analysts said, it will be largely limited to city driving.
the latest
latest episodes
a two stroke? Why not just burn wood?
They won't be selling this car in North America without airbags and antilock brakes. I can't imagine it selling for less than 10,000 here; they will load it with import duties and taxes to make sure NA built vehicles will stay competitively priced by comparison.
Yes, but do they have an four-wheel drive version?
I'm glad the spirit of the Mini lives on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini for those of you unfamiliar with a real Mini.
I've got a 1962 LH drive version and it really is transportation stripped down to its basics. And a blast to drive. My wife and I drove off from our wedding in mine.
Things would have to change dramatically for this to ever pass safety regulations for most American driving. Any collision with a larger vehicle would most likely turn this into a coffin. That being said, if there were city areas set aside that only allowed smaller cars, motorcycles and bicycles this could be a very viable alternative for in-town driving.
well, that should bring the population down...
Takuan
It's a two cylinder not a two stroke. It will be three cylinder for Europe.
Dan
You are now seeing the future of a deficit-ravaged USA. Some people will prefer the Tata to bicycles, particularly with long trips.
Two commentators referencing the American market: I don't think they're intending ever to market this to America. Imagine if you can a world in which not every product is targeted at your market...
@1: 2 cylinder does not equal 2-stroke.
I wonder if it is as SAFE as the Smart car....
When I was in India this time last year, this thing was ALL OVER the news. A lot of people seemed to be getting very excited about it.
It seemed to me that, more than the possible practical benefits of owning a car in India (which are uncertain), people wanted one of these as a status symbol.
Cars in India are, to some extent, a sign of wealth and social standing. Given how many people get around using bikes, motorcycles, mopeds, autos, cart and oxen, etc, a shiny new car really stands out.
But there are two problems, from what I can see:
1) How much of a status symbol will this be if so many people can afford one? I'm all for diminishing the car's symbol of privelege and power, but I don't know if people realise that's what will happen (especially once they get all battered up, like most of the cars I saw in Indian cities).
2) How will this affect the already appalling traffic in India's cities? You could barely move for traffic in Delhi during my visit, and that was with a lot of people travelling on tiny bikes, mopeds, autos etc. These things, though small, will take up a lot more space on the road. What use is a car if the traffic never moves?
hope tata will someday make a cheap green car, its some thing that will help a lot to our grandchildren
Takuan, it says two cylinder, not two-stroke. Wikipedia does not give the stroke for the engine, but the SOHC part suggests four.
One another note: Tata, this engine is still disappointing. My car has a very similar sized engine as this thing (2 cylinder, 4 stroke, 600cc), but it gets 60mpg and 75mph, carries 4 and has been around since the '60s. I call bad I engineering.
#1): Two-cyliner is NOT the same as two-stroke.
Tata showed a European version of the Nano at the Geneva motor, which had been modified to meet European crash regulations and to provide a higher level of luxury.
The "Nano Europa" will cost around £4500/$6600 when it is released in 2011.
65 mph is more than enough for inter-city travel in India, given the road crowding & conditions. Sounds like the "analysts" weren't thinking locally.
We already have these in the US. They're called go-karts, made famous by Bruce Springsteen's Go-Kart Mozart.
so it is... single over head cam, two valves per cylinder, fuel injected.. I wonder how clean it'll burn after two years of typical (ie; "no") maintenance?
Well another nail on the coffin of Mother Earth.
well at least it looks cool.
seriously, is it required that you be legally blind to design affordable and/or eco-friendly cars? i can just see the first creative meeting: "we know it has to be cost-efficient, but more importantly, it MUST resemble a turd on wheels."
What I like about this car, besides the rad-looking airscoops on the rear fenders, is that you will never have to remember where you parked. You can just use the car itself as a key fob and toss it in your shirt pocket.
People have been talking about what it would take to get these into America...
What about the SmartCar?
So, basicly they've reinvented the concept of the original volkswagon bug. That is to say, a really cheap car for poor college students and the like.
#16 I'm not sure how this is eco friendly...the idea of producing cheap disposable cars to increase the fuel consumption of one of the most populace nations on the planet seems to be a step backwards. While I'm sure it is great for social equality, it certainly isn't good for greenhouse gas emissions.
The Tata is a big step in the right direction, but we need a lot more steps.
[this goofy radio station is playing "Colonel Bogey's March! How cool!] Where was I?
Stand on an onramp and watch the cars. 90% of them have one person in them. That's about 2000 pounds of unnecessary steel and upholstery each.
I'll be the first to tell you that most people have no business on a motorcycle. If you don't have the keen balance, quick responses, patience and a mellow temperament, something bad is gonna happen. And they're dangerous and uncomfortable in weather.
I believe the enclosed solo three-wheeler with two in front is the practical solution. And I have high hopes for fuel cell technology, but I'll settle for the quick-charge battery.
This is wonderful news. I am glad someone is thinking BIG, dreaming big dreams, asking "What do we want to do?" FIRST, and then "..and what will it cost?" second. So many people are buying into the "use less" mentality, that we will never reach the stars. Technology is inherently "green" (how that word makes me yawn) - your ipod is a smaller footprint than your Dad's stereo components.
Go India, go! An environmentalist is just someone who already has their car, their house in the country, and now is suddenly against development.
Congratulations to Tata and India. They must feel as proud as the Japanese and Korean baseball teams right now.
I'd rather drive an autorickshaw around here in the U.S. than the Nano, but if I were in India (or Thailand, or wherever) I'd probably appreciate being able to keep purchases in the car while I'm out, which you can't really do with a moped.
Forget hitting a bigger car; hitting anything in this car is almost certainly a death sentence. Look at the G-Wiz for an example of what a cheap little car (ie, not the Smart) does in an accident:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6NhuIS1RAE
Human paste and red mist are the inevitable result of any impact in that car. The Nano may be better, but I seriously doubt it.
There's a lot of reasons why cars are expensive in the US, but safety is a big factor of it. And I don't mind that much at all. Power windows I can do without, but I'm thankful that most of my family members are still alive despite a number of horrible accidents over the years. That would not be the case without safety regulations.
I forgot to add: I think the scoops in front of the rear wheels are for engine air intake and cooling. I believe this is rear engined.
Power brakes in a car that small. Just goes to show how lazy today's 'motorists' are.
It is also interesting all the criticism this car is getting especially from American sectors. Given that Americans build the most horrible, wasteful, crappiest cars in the world it is really quite amusing.
This is a developing nation who are trying to solve a problem. Sure, it might not be the best solution but they are heading in the right direction.
American solution - "Hey, lets just all drive big trucks!"
No, this thing isn't particularly safe by US/Euro standards, but it is a hell of a lot safer than putting your family of four on a motor-scooter. A big step for freedom, in my book.
Nano - super cool. I totally want one.
Yeah, environment. yeah, blah blah, still more friendly that a Ford Excursion.
motorcycles are THE way to go, I disagree with #21, but if you amend it to "most people need training ...." I'll go with it
in conclusion of my morning silliness.... WTF is wrong with 2-strokes? Modern, high efficiency, with a loop scavenging turbo?
@ #29 I think you're right. Otherwise you'd have to sit sideways in that front seat to drive it.
"Go India, go! An environmentalist is just someone who already has their car, their house in the country, and now is suddenly against development."
What a load of utter bollocks. Environmentalism is not inherently opposed to development, and development does not inherently favour polluting industrialisation and mass car-ownership. In fact, anyone working in development (or environmentalism) with half a brain would recognise that environmentalism and development are inextricably interrelated.
Let's see what you say about this when the true problems of peak oil hit.
DCulberson is right, it is rear-engined. The wikipedia page on this is fascinating reading, including the bits on the opposition to the original factory site, the proposed green options for the chassis, and the critiques by Nobel scientists on the potential impact of this vehicle.
It has often been compared to the Model T, in terms of how ground-breaking this vehicle will be in India. As for the issues of increased oil demand and emissions that tossing thousands, if not millions of vehicles on the road will cause, isn't this the perfect situation for international greenhouse gas treaties and commissions? If we in the First world are so concerned about an increase in emissions from the Second and Third world, why don't we all sit down at the table together, run through the numbers, and get the First-worlders to cut down on their emissions equivalent to the projected increase from other parts of the world? We've got the technology, and if we thought about it we could find the money. I say we either put our money where our mouth is, or shut up and let others do what they need to do. Ultimately, you don't have control over anyone else's actions or behavior, only your own. Lead by example, not by decree.
gimme!
Reality checks are bouncing higher about this car than anything since the model T. Assumptions and presumptions tend to displace logic and fact checking- but this case's rush to proclaim failure is simply unreal. There's been a disconnect between "costs" and "sells for" in many consumer products that approaches "Congressional Numbers" in it's enormity. The application of new logic might make new rules.
#35 - I am with you, and agree that development and impact must go together. I was being a bit over the top to make the "third wave" point. When winter comes, some simply move (1st wave), some want to cut more trees for firewood (2nd wave), and some invent thermostats to actually produce more warmth with less fuel. I aimed my jibe at those who (I suspect) are new to the environmental movement and tend to retreat to ill-considered "sustainable" slogans that seem to thwart rather than encourage invention. ("No cars for India, Britain must halve its population" and so on.) That's where I see bullocks.
@#20:
She hates it when you anthropomorphize her, you know.
this will never sell in america.
there is no place for a gun rack. my blood hound mavis would barely fit his head through the window, and i would have to get rid of 4 of my 6 kids.
i guess they don't hunt deer or go to tailgate parties in india.
Daemon says:
"So, basicly they've reinvented the concept of the original volkswagon bug. That is to say, a really cheap car for poor college students and the like."
Please Daemon, tell me you are
(a) being ironic (in which case, sorry I missed it);
or
(b) you do not, yourself, have a college education.
Failing in either of these eventualities, go and read something (almost anything in fact) about India's economic situation.
Given their production rate, nobody not actually in India is ever going to get one.
Safety can be improved by removing large heavy cars from the road. Safety should not be an arms race, with everyone trying to buy the biggest, heaviest trucks they can afford in order to be safe. The lighter the vehicle, the less energy is wasted.
Safety also increases proportionally with a decrease in speed. A light vehicle, traveling at slow speed, is less dangerous to other road users, compared to a fast heavy vehicle.
If the speed is low enough, deaths from traffic accidents can be reduced to zero. What we need is self driving vehicles. Instead of driving 20 minutes to work, you'd spend 1 hour in the car. But the time is not wasted since you do not have to drive it. I could get in the car and immediately start reading boingboing, or doing my work.
You'll save even more time from not having to drive the kids around. Never look for a parking spot again. Even traffic jams could be largely eliminated.
Safety does not only depend upon hitting cars of comparable size. The construction techniques have more to do with it. Compare a Smart Car crash video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz-s1sIoLhU
with the G-Wiz video I posted earlier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6NhuIS1RAE
Comparable sized cars, opposite end of the spectrum in quality and safety. The G-Wiz will never be safe, even if the only cars on the road are other G-Wiz. (G-Wizes? G-Wizs? G-Wiz's?)
No speed will ever make all traffic accidents 100% survivable. Recently there was someone killed in my city that was merely thrown off balance by a car backing out of a parking space. Humans are fragile and pavement is hard.
#25: more people getting cars means more global warming, sure. But no one in the US or EU is in any position to object to people elsewhere doing what we ourselves have been doing for decades -- and continue to do. The US with its shameful blocking of truly progressive global level climate policies is the main climate culprit. In fact, the war on the climate is the most successful US war in a long time...
That rant said, I hope for science to come up with better fuels fast as hell so that all of us can with a clean conscience get one of these "Netbook of cars".
If Tata ever wanted to sell a similar model in the US it would be totally redesigned into something else anyway. From what I've heard, there are no plans to bring this the US.
Also--'Tata'
/heh, just wanted to point that out
Hooray! :)
Seems the Americans in this thread are crying rivers over the fact that people in another country might be able to afford cars; and I find it most deeply amusing that they are using the "environmentally friendly" argument.
These cars are about 130 times more efficient than the 0.5MPG US-built hummers. Beam in your own eye...
The major reason these would be dangerous on US roads isn't because they are inherently unsafer than US cars: it's because US cars are, on average, somewhere between vast and mountainous. Basic physics tells us that everything else being equal, when big thing hits little thing, little thing gives way.
This is why car safety is only rated within its size category, and different sizes simply can't be compared: you're always safer (and always less environmentally friendly) in a bigger, heavier car.
Personally, I see these as awesome. Car prices have been ridiculously out of whack for far too long. They are far, far too expensive to buy. I don't want any car, but that's beside the point. I'm really glad that other people can have one for little more than a tuktuk (now THOSE are two-stroke, and very polluting: if this replaces some, then that's all to the good. But it won't, of course.)
Cars are dangerous in general: my little brother just got out of hospital where they had to dig glass out of his face because he was in one that didn't want to stay on the road very much. So I don't have one, but that's very difficult for most people. At least a cheap, small-engined car is a vast step in the right direction compared to the expensive smoking juggernauts of the US.
Yes but unlike a VW Bug I doubt this thing could stand up to a Siberian winter or a summer in the Sahara...
Frankly VW should have never stopped producing the Bug, it was and still is a marvel of engineering.
Does it have any safety features other than "Go limp"?
-- MrJM
I can't wait to pull up next to one of these with spinning rims, ceiling-mounted flatscreen, and a spoiler.
The effects of weight, velocity, impact angle, and size of vehicle all play together.
SMART and some other small cars adopt the strategy of trying to use the other car's crush space to some degree - a fairly short crush zone, but very stiff frame / chassis behind that to prevent deformation or intrusion into the passenger compartment. It works reasonably well - we can design very very tough spaces for cars if we need to (see race car crash structures), and SMART did a good job on that aspect.
There are some problems though...
If you have a tough car with short crumple zones, hit a solid fixed object that doesn't crush, you decellerate in 1 foot-ish rather than 3 feet-ish distances.
Two, if you have a light car versus a heavy car, the change in velocity the light car experiences is not about equal to its forwards velocity, it's the difference between its initial velocity and the velocity of the center of mass of the two cars, which is moving towards it in a frontal collision with a much heavier car. The occupants of the lighter car, even if it uses the larger car's crush space effectively, make a much higher velocity change.
You can deal with that higher velocity change, if there's good enough restraint and soft internals in the crash cage, and the cage doesn't collapse or get intruded into badly. Humans will survive a typical 100G deceleration if onset isn't too sudden and they're restrained well. That's about a 100 MPH velocity change with 3 feet of effective crush, which is about what you'll get if you get a 70 MPH in each direction head on between a SMART and a large heavy sedan or light SUV. The SMART probably isn't set up with solid enough restraints or *that* solid a safety cage, so the collapse of the structure and intrusion are likely to kill the SMART occupants at that speed, but the raw G forces wouldn't. If you added another 2-300 lb of steel to the SMART it might have a chance under those conditions.
Regarding the safety of small cars, let me remind you of open-wheel CART cars (ala Indy 500). We've all seen them hit the wall at over 200mph, tumble, flip and cartwheel, disintegrate, burst into flames, and the driver walks away.
Size is a factor in safety, but not the only one.
I think this little dude kicks the ass of the SmartCar, based on economy and seating four.
It's called the nano in deference to the proportions you take on subsequent to an accident inside it. Within a nanosecond.
I think the biggest category of injuries will come from teenagers trying to have sex in the back seat of one of those things. We're talking serious back injuries, twisted ankles, and strained muscles.
I hear the soon-to-be-released "Tata Shuffle" will be even smaller and sell for just $800, but it doesn't come with a windshield or steering wheel.
Global warming's going to be kicked up a few notches. Having said that, it's pretty hypocritical to deny the developing world the comforts the western world has had for 50 years. It's scary shit.
Actually, this is exactly the kind of cheap vehicle America needs...re-purposed as a NEV (Neighborhood Electric Vehicle). That's a category of electric car which is presently limited to 25 mph (35 mph in some states) on local, low speed roads. Looser safety standards for NEVs make this a good fit for imports such as this. Perfect for inner city use, but still too expensive at $10K to 16K to be used widely. Ditch the gas, Mr. Tata!
Didn't the Metro get 50MPG?
Beats the heck out of walking.
If you have seen videos of the chaotic traffic in India and how most of the vehicles are motorcyles, buses and bicycles, one must try to see this as an actual step forward.
Yes, there are valid security concerns, but this development should also serve as a pathway to address and integrate those concerns.
Or not, if so, I'll give them 3 years time.
Remember that 15% of all CO2 a car emits in its lifetime is expended in its production and distribution alone.
You'd have to drive the Nano for 20 years before it becomes "carbon neutral" in that sense. And then run it on sustainably-sourced biofuels, or solar-powered batteries, before you can clean up your Carbon Karma.
So much for the climate-friendly car. And never mind what so many more cars on one of the world's fastest developing nation's roads means.
The worst thing, really, is what environmental crimes this company has gotten itself involved in to produce the kosher Nano... bailing out Dow in Bhopal, busting unions in Kandhamal, pushing the endangered Olive Ridley turtles over the brink of extinction, that kind of thing.
Found some interesting stuff online this morning to confirm these suspicions...
http://www.greenpeace.org/turtles
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOvk2pxaqy0
Why the F*£% is the world getting this car by Tata instead of THIS car from Tata?
http://www.themotorreport.com.au/5732/tata-air-car-powered-entirely-by-compressed-air-blow-me-down/
Everyone wants their turn in the American Dream electric chair.
Hmm, so this'll be one of the few cars that's worth more second-hand than new?
Given such a disparity between supply and demand, surely the correct method is to use the INVISIBLE HAND (that is, raise prices) rather than a lottery?
I just had a look-see at Tata's air powered cars.
I'm a little embarrased at my own skipticism, knowing that skeptics are rarely innovators, and technological advances often come from the babies thrown out with the washwater.
They say it has a range of 300 meters. Not bad. And it recharges on household current in 3 or 4 hours. Pretty good. I'm not crazy about the frame being glued together...
Time will tell. But if it works, it's as clean as electrical energy, and gas stations can easily adapt by adding an high-pressure air compressor.
@ Troofseeker #64:
I think you mean 300 kilometers. 300 meters wouldn't get you to the end of a rich guy's driveway.
The air-powered car sounds neat, but I'm curious how efficient (and widespread) the air compressing stations will be.
Folks - please please me. Hydrogen. Fuel Cells. Hydrogen Economy. Please.
A few points:
(disclosure: I'm one of the rare India based Indian readers of Boing)
- There are no plans to sell this car in its current form in the US- so no point arguing about how it wouldn't survive crashes/doesn't meet safety standards/can be squished by your SUV etc.
- The biggest attraction here is the Rs. 100,000 price point(US$1 = Rs. 50). In India- scooters and motorcycles typically range in price from about Rs. 20k at the low end to over 80k for high end bikes (and 'high end' is a relative term- we don't mean Harleys or Kawasaki Ninjas). The current cheapest cars start at around Rs. 300k - so with the advent of the Nano, many people can now afford a car who would've been forced to drive a 2 wheeler before.
- To those who talk about the environmental impact- let me tell you that the most popular current hatchbacks in India from Hyundai and Suzuki- give a mileage that varies from 30 to 45 mpg.Petrol costs Rs. 55/liter, or around $4.10 a gallon.
We've lived with expensive petrol for years- which is why small cars are a big hit and the first question anyone asks of a car dealer is the mileage it gives. Import duties on SUVs here are of the order of 150% or more- so only the ultra rich and thoughtless in India would be seen driving Landcruisers or Ford Explorers (I still haven't seen any Hummers- that didn't have US embassy plates on em!)
-Traffic also moves a lot slower here- speed limits are not set more than 50 mph even on highways. Congestion within the city forces you down to around 20mph, so within city road accidents tend to be far less horrific.
-Finally, there IS a compressed air version of Nano under development- but you'll use an electric compressor to recharge it won't you? It's not going be any more environmentally friendly unless you plan to use a bicycle pump to fill it up.