F1technical.net

Detroit Auto Show 2008 - Another Mobile Entry from Tang Hua. This is one cheeky company with a cute design philosophy.



Once again an electric mobile meant for negotiating the neighborhood

manchild wrote:Will TATA become new Henry Ford is yet to be seen. Modern US industry that makes 2-3 tonne heavy cars with multi liter inefficient engines, driven by one person from home to work and back certainly is not closer Ford's vision.

Please, let's not be so naïve... all of them are out there reaching for our money...

ALL OF THEM

sebbe wrote:Please, let's not be so naïve... all of them are out there reaching for our money...

ALL OF THEM

I need help understanding this post.

Who reaches for whose money, who are "we". Who are "all of them"? Car manufacturers, Indians, Americans, Extraterrestrials?

I really don't get it. You sound as a major share holder or CEO of rival company that is scared by Nano's possible success.

If this car is worth its price than it will overflow not just India but whole Asia, East Europe, Middle East, Russia, Africa, South and Central America. One European scooter costs as much as Nano or even more. If it is as good as initially reported even the people in the Europe and America will by it as a spare vehicle, fun vehicle, same goes for students, delivery companies in big cities etc.

1700 euros for a new car with a German engine (if I understood engine origin correctly).

Yes of course Sebbe
We take that as a given, we are imbued with Capitalism, like Star Wars 'THE FORCE'
it's all around us, even internalized with our every thought, from the time we are tiny little children, barely able to speak, we know the essence of our toy is MONEY, and since we must be good to get a toy, MONEY is of value and arduously acquired, and when we don't have our MONEY anymore, we mournfully realize someone, somewhere, in a small backroom, or the citadel of a monstrous corporation ... someone else has our MONEY - and by the time we buy our second toy - we know that the money we trade for toys belongs to someone else, when it belongs to someone else, it is called PROFIT. Lifelong, we swear that profit is too much, probably very nearly 100 PERCENT ... maybe just 97.

Companies that want to turn our MONEY into their PROFIT try very hard to invent cute, wonderful things that stimulate our emotions, desires and occasionally our needs, so our MONEY becomes their PROFIT, sometimes it is a piece of plastic, a doll called Hello Kitty or a paper magazine called Hello P***y. Sometimes it is a cheeseburger. Sometimes we think of the people who have no MONEY and can't buy things they need but this makes us uncomfortable so we try not to do it too often, maybe try to change that a bit or turn to our lives hoping our good efforts will produce some help,in whatever indirect way, knowing that the benefits of MONEY and PROFIT will eventually see to everyone's desire and needs, this is called GLOBALIZATION. My little town in Canada makes a lot of auto parts, today for smaller wages than a few years ago and some people working in China make wages for the first time in their lives, but only a little and only a small number of people. This is hopefully the eventual byproduct of money, profit, wages and globalization. Perhaps one day poverty will accidentally or intentionally be reduced this way.

When I get up in the morning and use the porcelain fixtures I do not venerate the company that produced the paper product that cleans things up, but I do notice the papers soft texture and may even make a note to buy the same brand again. These things are ordinary. In my mind I partially think of Henry Ford as an icon but also think that what he accomplished was just his job. I do admit my jobs have not been so grand, but both Henry Ford and I got up each morning, did our jobs, so we could buy children's toys and adult's magazines

Sebbe we both understand they do it for their own profit, always have and always will. You are right Sebbe. Hopefully something good will come of it

Carlos wrote: a doll called Hello Kitty or a paper magazine called Hello P***y.

Piggy? Porky?

I understand that all car manufacturers are after profit but think about this: What was the contribution to motorization of Ford and what was the contribution of Rolls Royce? He could have made luxurious cars and get rich but he opted to get rich by mass producing cheap car whose price constantly fell. Contribution of Rolls Royce to development of society and human kind trough motorization that boosted individuality = 0. On the other hand, Ford's way of getting rich changed the world for the better.

That's like comparing TATA and Farce India F1 team. They're both getting rich but TATA owner will get rich by doing something useful for his countryman while Farce India team owner is just showing off with the money that invested in something profitable could help his countryman. The practical value of India having a team in F1 = 0. The practical value of India producing very promising global ultra cheap car is something great.

Yes , I also agree with your post Manchild. I agree with both your opinion and sebbe's opinion.

The only way to avoid all these capitalist problems is that Fidel designs and builds the "AutoCHE" (only in color red) to replace all the 50/60´s American cars that circulate in the Cuban streets.
But Fidel is sick and old so thats not gonna happen.

I repeat, 1st world wealthy people should leave their V6/8s for sunday rides or vacations and go to work in a TATA or similar < 1litre car.

And CEOs should start giving the example.
Last week I visited a Ford plant and outside executive offices you could see at least 12 new giant Ford Mondeos, that surelly dont make a good use of fuel being "jammed" (did I wrote this correctly?) 1 hour a day.

Belatti wrote:The only way to avoid all these capitalist problems is that Fidel designs and builds the "AutoCHE" (only in color red) to replace all the 50/60´s American cars that circulate in the Cuban streets.

Jeje, it's a longstanding

tradition that different strongmen (especially when they've gotten bored of just ruling) involve themselves with design/art projects, so there's still hope for a "FiCa Revolución 0.5" or a "CuVe Camarada 0.8" I guess. I remember Libya's Gaddafi ... designing a couple of cars ... and I think there are other examples. But on a serious note, transportation problems do not start or end with vehicle design. Most designers who are serious about sustainability recognise this ... I don't mean to say that TATA should solve every problem (who could?) but at least I hope there are other people and organisations willing to continue where TATA left off. Urban design, modularity, traffic control, enforcement, utilization rate, infrastructural energy efficiency, recycling and such.

Belatti wrote:I repeat, 1st world wealthy people should leave their V6/8s for sunday rides or vacations and go to work in a TATA or similar < 1litre car.

... or public transport, or sophisticated on-demand vehicle allocation etc. What I find a bit silly, though, is saying outright that a certain concept is less environmental, responsible or moral. Just today it was reported that European Parliament had labelled V8s "bad" and recommended four cyls instead in a report called "CARS 21" (Autosport reported it in relation to F1, FIA and Mosley). From an engineering/sustainable standpoint such statements appear completely inessential in relation to the real World technical/environmental problems and their solutions. I'll have to look the whole report up, I hope it's not all on that level.

Belatti wrote:Last week I visited a Ford plant and outside executive offices you could see at least 12 new giant Ford Mondeos ...

Hm, perhaps there are some differences. I used to view the Mondeo as perhaps a midsize car, certainly not a giant. Range Rovers, big Mercs, people carriers and such go under the "giant" label. Hummers, Rolls Royces and American flagship pickups (and some of their Japanese US market counterparts) go beyond that, they're mainly ridiculous in size. But even size, in this day and age, really shouldn't matter. We have very sophisticated tools in our disposal to do even small amounts of, or even personalised, vehicles pretty economically. Either "big business" is incapable or unwilling to bring the advantages of this into the market ... but I think there's a manufacturing and design revolution coming, one which doesn't rely on huge volumes to make economical, social and environmental sense.

TATA Nano has a lot of good points. The design overlooks others. I hope they've gotten it right enough for the moment and I hope that when time is right that Nano itself won't become a hindrance to something better in itself.

All good points you remark, Chekered!
However public transport is a disaster here and something you cant trust, you would have to wake up 1 hour early to make sure you wont be late!!!
And if you make statistics of car sizes here, you will see that new Mondeo is huge!

By the way, VW Beetle (a car Manchild worships ) was designed by Ferdinand Porsche with the supervition and approval of Hitler (a strongman involved in a design proyect like you said) to have an economical car for the masses.

Ferdinand Porsche designed "Volkswagen" in 1931, two years before Hitler came on power. In 1932 three prototypes were running. Hitler came on power in 1933 and just took it.

Since you seam bored, check out this http://www.traces.org/henryford.html

Not read it all and not sure if its been mentioned but wasnt it Hitler who basically designed the version of the Beetle that was launched?

Because didnt he hate the proposed ideas?

Not sure though.

manchild wrote:
I need help understanding this post.

Who reaches for whose money, who are "we". Who are "all of them"? Car manufacturers, Indians, Americans, Extraterrestrials?

I really don't get it. You sound as a major share holder or CEO of rival company that is scared by Nano's possible success.

Ok, ok, I've gone way out of order...

In my not so humble opinion, Tata Nano is a piece of crap (from the mecanical and technical point of view) -Full stop.

Tata cannot be compared with H Ford, because even when both of them wanted to make a profit at least Ford implemented mass production; Tata won't do anything somebody hasn't done already -Full Stop.

I wish I was a CEO of a car manufacturer. If I were, I wouldn't be scared at Tata Nano -Full Stop.

Tata Nano won't be a success in Europe, South America nor in USA -Full Stop.

Isn't Tata Nano going to be produced here in Argentina? (Belatti please help me with this).

This is what we need! (It could be posted in Ciros NO MORE V8 thread, too)
http://www.motorauthority.com/cars/merc ... e-engines/

No Sebbe, Socma (ex Sevel group) is associated to Chery to produce here and in Uruguay a tiny Chery SUV. Cant recall the name right now (whatfor anyway?). This is real crap because its expensive compared to, for example, a Ford Ecosport (another crap, 15% more expensive but maybe 40% better if something like that could be said).

I challenge you to get to 70mph (if it goes that fast), then crash it....and still be alive. It may be $2500 but i'd prefer to stick to one that costs £9000 and made out of metal! The crumple zone for the Tata car ends by the back axle.

Does it count if you crash it into another car going 69mph in the same direction?

I challenge you to crash any mid range production car with an impact speed of 70mph and survive. You'll quickly find that all that metal stopping suddenly is likely to be as fatal as crashing the Nano, at least with the plastic its probably going to be over quick.