One of the biggest Auto makers in India showcased a super-compact at the Auto Expo in january, the car will cost under $3000 making it affordable to a whole lotta people.
Now this car, christened the TATA Nano will hit the roads in october this year, and cuz the market is huge bigger brands, such as Toyota, Renault, GM and Honda are lining up to deliver similar autos.
Is this good design?
What will it do to an already lacking infrastructure?
To rising pollution levels?
I thought it was notable that Ratan Tata told his team to design and engineer things like the custom headlights and the attention to design in the body and interior. This attention came in spite of the fact this is nearly a commodity level car.
I think it is a great sign of development too. In India, motorbikes are used as family transport (there are pictures on the net of bikes with 4 people on them). The Nano is a hell of a lot safer than that and probably less polluting than a poorly tuned '80’s motorbike.
I think the key to the spread of personal transport is that we in the west have to learn to share the world’s resources more equally.
Don’t you think that an alternative would be to have efficient public transport instead?
I know that entire families ride on a single motorcycle…that’s not good!
On a positive note, from an earlier discussion with an elder… it was pointed out that the Nano could replace the Autorickshaw, which will be awesome for the indian roads… maybe!!
These things look absolutely unsafe…for any sorta accident!
It turns out there are only four cities in India with subways. Mumbai’s and Delhi’s are the only two that look like they are widespread enough to offer good urban transport. The rest look more pathetic than Montreal’s.
hahahahah…worse than montreal’s!!! I dont think so…our capital… Delhi… has the newsest subway system. thats neat…but only phase one is complete…about 60km of track laid!!! Rode in it when i was there for the Auto Expo in january…
Calcutta’s metro system is ancient, but good none the less!!!
I looked at some photos. Delhi’s metro made me jealous. It is new! In the photos it looked very clean and modern as well. Mumbai’s looked like a museum exhibit.
The design is nice, but is it really THAT safer than a motorbike? No matter how many airbags you have in a smart car, if you get in a even a moderate speed wreck, your life is in danger and your car is totaled.
Fuel economy and environment friendly are always good, but safety does require some size, too.
The design is nice, but is it really THAT safer than a motorbike? No matter how many airbags you have in a smart car, if you get in a even a moderate speed wreck, your life is in danger and your car is totaled.
Fuel economy and environment friendly are always good
There is no way any larger solution should be ever be proposed. In India, people are just a bit crammed. One inch wider is a mile, or seven.
Size actually can mean less safe.
More mass = greater velocity.
Take two equally rated safe vehicles, A and B.
They’re both traveling at 50 mph.
A = 2000 lbs. B = 5000 lbs.
Both hit the same wall, same angle, etc.
In B, all passengers are likely deceased.
In A, they’re likely not in great shape, but still much better than human milkshakes.
Regardless of all that-- motorcycles are less safe because there is NO protection. A motorcyclist can fall off the bike doing 10 MPH, fall off the bike; split their their head open on a curb or rock (I’m positive helmets aren’t enforced), or fall into oncoming traffic, or fall off of a cliff, whatever. A shell, even an eggshell, is a bit safer, as it’s the first thing to hit the asphalt which is passing by under you at 50,60,70,80mph, acting like the scariest belt sander you’ve ever met.
There are some situations where a motorcycle could be safer, or a larger car could be safer, but for 90% of situations, this solution for this particular situation is better.
That being said- motorcycles are great. But not for family transport.
Good points Taylor, I agree with everything you said. I spent two years living in Tahiti, watching families on scooters (although I’m sure it’s much worse in India). I’ve been thinking about the idea of a smart car, but more repair friendly like older cars are - maybe even…with bumpers! I’m going to take a transportation design class next fall so we’ll see if I can have some fun with that…
(Edit) BTW, I like your backpack project, I remember checking that out a few months ago. Nice!
A larger vehicle is more safe than a smaller one, all things being equal. However, this can quickly lead to an arms race as we have seen in the US market. Because the extra safety is only there if the vehicle you are in is larger than all the others, everyone is forced to buy a new larger vehicle every year to keep the extra margin of safety. I’m sure everyone would be safer if we all drove Smart cars.
Another point is that cars that feel unsafe promote more sensible driving.
I’ve driven Explorers as rentals, and I’ve got to say, there is no chance these pieces of American steel are safer than any decently rated compact/midsize out there.
The reason being, driver confidence, maneuverability, agility. Those things are begging, bargaining, and pleading to roll over. They don’t handle well, at all. And they don’t provide enough agility to ‘Avoid A Crash’. That’s one major aspect of car safety commonly overlooked. The ability to get away from the accident in the first place.
Think about bull fighters. The smaller guy wins, maybe because of the swords, sure. An object with less mass is more likely to avoid an object with more mass.
Again the same A and B scenario. At 50mph, the lighter car will turn faster when trying to dodge the obstacle at the very last moment. The larger vehicle will be unable to avoid the obstacle, clip it, roll over, and then spontaneously go up into flames (well, everything true except for maybe not that last part).
It’s too bad the larger car thing has literally created a mindset for Offensive drivers. Now people actually think about crashing into each other - “my car is bigger so you will all die and I’ll be safe”. Essentially it’s a brains vs brawns situation. Agility is safer.
One thing I noticed 20 years ago is that cars have a “body english” that almost communicates what they are going to do next. Very strange at first and I only started to see a pattern when I moved downtown and gave up my truck in 2001. When you start cycling, walking and using transit all the time, you get a pretty good feel for that predictability.
I think I can safely say that drivers have been getting more aggressive, but not because the vehicles are larger, although the proliferation of SUVs has accelerated the process, so to speak. Rather, it’s the congestion. When overall mobility decreases, drivers tend to be more pushy… in a similar way to a crowd trying to move through a confined area. Not so much rude, but more like they are trying to assert their personal vehicular space. So in a sense it is their brains controlling the available brawn.
Hopefully, the high price of fuel and the incentive towards smaller vehicles will help to alleviate that congestion.
I’m curious, how does you think the addition of a small foreign car to the market going to create more problems than the continuation of a behemoth like the Hummer?
In this case you would have two and a half times the momentum in vehicle B, but larger vehicles now have more powerful brakes to compensate, a higher ride height to that keeps passengers safer in vehicle-on-vehicle collisions, and much more crunch space designed into the vehicle to protect passengers in crashes.
the crunch space i’m talking about is how having several feet of metals and other materials collapsing in a collision will slow the passenger’s sudden change in momentum. it’s a cushion of steel, and a suburban will have more of it than your average sub-compact.
the better point to make is in agility, but anyone who has driven a yaris knows how completely unable to maneuver it is. for example, companies are saving money by putting drum brakes-- a technology that should be dead-- on family-moving cars. I can only imagine how many life-threatening money-savers are on such an unbelievably cheap vehicle. remember the pinto? gives you that warm feeling inside?
Take two equally rated safe vehicles, A and B.
They’re both traveling at 50 mph.
A = 2000 lbs. B = 5000 lbs.
Both hit the same wall, same angle, etc.
In B, all passengers are likely deceased.
In A, they’re likely not in great shape, but still much better than human milkshakes.
False.
In this case you would have two and a half times the momentum in vehicle B, but larger vehicles now have more powerful brakes to compensate, a higher ride height to that keeps passengers safer in vehicle-on-vehicle collisions, and much more crunch space designed into the vehicle to protect passengers in crashes.
the crunch space i’m talking about is how having several feet of metals and other materials collapsing in a collision will slow the passenger’s sudden change in momentum. it’s a cushion of steel, and a suburban will have more of it than your average sub-compact.
the better point to make is in agility, but anyone who has driven a yaris knows how completely unable to maneuver it is. for example, companies are saving money by putting drum brakes-- a technology that should be dead-- on family-moving cars. I can only imagine how many life-threatening money-savers are on such an unbelievably cheap vehicle. remember the pinto? gives you that warm feeling inside?
[/quote]
[/quote]
Incorrect.
MINI Cooper (weight 2496 lbs).
Ford F150 (weight 4475).
Both 40 mph.
Both have antilock disc brakes.
Both into the same barrier.
One set of passengers walk away.
Milkshakes anyone?
There is no way you can claim that SUVs are designed better. They’re less safe, it’s a fact, not an opinion. It’s a perceived level of safety, one major fault of the human mind. SUVs are designed bigger. Smaller cars have more thought into crumple zones, why, where, and how they are impacted.
“Are the best performers the biggest and heaviest vehicles on the road? Not at all. Among the safest cars are the midsize imports, like the Toyota Camry and the Honda Accord. Or consider the extraordinary performance of some subcompacts, like the Volkswagen Jetta. Drivers of the tiny Jetta die at a rate of just forty-seven per million, which is in the same range as drivers of the five-thousand-pound Chevrolet Suburban and almost half that of popular S.U.V. models like the Ford Explorer or the GMC Jimmy. In a head-on crash, an **Explorer or a Suburban would crush a Jetta or a Camry. But, clearly, the drivers of Camrys and Jettas are finding a way to avoid head-on crashes with Explorers and Suburbans. The benefits of being nimble–of being in an automobile that’s capable of staying out of trouble–are in many cases greater than the benefits of being big.**â€
-Tom Wenzel, a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
-Marc Ross, a physicist at the University of Michigan
On the whole, the advantages of being in a heavier car when striking a lighter car are balanced out by the increased likely hood of rolling over or losing control and having a severe accident. At least that’s how I read the figures.
The Mini and Ram did not strike the same barrier, if it is a gov. test. Gov. tests require the vehicle to strike a barrier of the same mass as the vehicle. Therefore, the Mini hit a lighter wall than the Ram. At least, that is how tests were conducted 3-4 years ago when I looked it up.
I ran across an article, maybe I can find it tonite. It was written 3-5 years ago. At the time the most dangerous car in terms of deaths per miles driven was the Chevy Cavalier. Being big doesn’t save you, but neither does being small. Being smart does…not that the average buyer has any clue what makes a smart car…
