Well, we've been watching this for a while now, and it's finally here. India-based Tata Motors, run by the famed Ratan Tata, has come out with their Nano subcompact, which they are branding as the "People's car" (reminiscent of the original VW and communist Russia's Ladas) and is the cheapest car in the world.
At a price of $2,500 US, I don't think anyone can argue about that, but what about the price when it comes to the environmental impact? The car is being marketed to lower-income families who can be seen racing around on their scooters or motorcycles, 3 or 4 on a single bike. Having those families in cars is clearly safer, but of course there is always a cost attached to such things.
The company professes that "The People’s Car’s tailpipe emission performance exceeds regulatory requirements. In terms of overall pollutants, it has a lower pollution level than two-wheelers being manufactured in India today. The high fuel efficiency also ensures that the car has low carbon dioxide emissions, thereby providing the twin benefits of an affordable transportation solution with a low carbon footprint."
This statement, although promising, can be nebulous. "Regulatory requirements" are not very stringent in India, and as for having a lower pollution level than two-wheelers, it would depend on which ones. The Nano, which has an all-aluminum 2-cylinder engine and most likely attached to a catalytic converter (although it is not mentioned), most certainly has cleaner emissions, however we should not fail to account for the fact that the car will use up substantially more fuel than a lighter bike, thereby creating more emissions. Considering the vast population in India, this can have a major impact, both on the environment and society. In a country where streets are clogged with people, animals, horse and ox drawn carts, along with the cars and motorcycles, it will be interesting to see what a new influx of cheap vehicles will do.
Even ignoring tailpipe emissions, with the large numbers expected the sell, the footprint from producing the steel, aluminum, plastics, etc. is quite large. And anything that makes cars more accessible is going to increase the carbon footprint of India substantially.
Of course we need only look in our own backyards to see that Tata is simply working to help India catch up to the developed world. But that's not necessarily the most noble of pursuits.
via Yahoo! News
Hits: 7406
Comments (24)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Sanjay, January 10, 2008
How can you write such a shamelessly biased article? In the US there are over 1 Billion cars!!! That means over 3 cars for every American. In India there are over 1 Billion people, even if each one them buys a car (that might happen in 250 years from now) they will produce less pollution because the indian cars (including the TATA Nano) are far more fuel effcient than your gasoline hungry monsters. Get yor facts write or don't write such bull shit articles!
-
- -1
-
-
written by EcoMike, January 10, 2008
First of all, India does not yet have across the board emissions regulations, they only sat down to talk about making them mandatory in October 2007 and it's supposed to take effect for various vehicles over the next 2 years.
Secondly, I'm sure the Indian SUVs, of which there are many, burn just as much gas as the typical american SUV, they don't have magical solutions that the world doesn't know about.
Finally, fair enough that the US has way more vehicles, and it's shameful that it does, but I think the author, by saying that it's not great that india is catching up to us really is trying to say that it's WE who need to step down and not others who should come up to our present level as that is just not sustainable. He's not saying that India shouldn't develop, but that western-style development isn't the right way to go because there are smarter ways.
Secondly, I'm sure the Indian SUVs, of which there are many, burn just as much gas as the typical american SUV, they don't have magical solutions that the world doesn't know about.
Finally, fair enough that the US has way more vehicles, and it's shameful that it does, but I think the author, by saying that it's not great that india is catching up to us really is trying to say that it's WE who need to step down and not others who should come up to our present level as that is just not sustainable. He's not saying that India shouldn't develop, but that western-style development isn't the right way to go because there are smarter ways.
-
- +0
-
-
written by kunal, January 10, 2008
Does anyone here (including the author) know about Indian emission standards, and compare them against european and american emission standards??
And vehicular emissions are a fraction of what the production-related emissions are, in any country. The author should ideally compare the total European and American emissions with Indian emissions, not just vehicular emissions.
And vehicular emissions are a fraction of what the production-related emissions are, in any country. The author should ideally compare the total European and American emissions with Indian emissions, not just vehicular emissions.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sam D, January 11, 2008
On gut instinct (i.e. I haven't bothered to work out the numbers) I'm betting that the 2-cycle engine found in motor bikes and mopeds spews a lot more harmful emissions than your typical 4-cycle car engine. Especially, when you have 4 people weighing it down and the throttle of the bike pegged to the limit.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sanjay, January 11, 2008
Ecomike, why don't you understand that there are far more SUVs in the US? Sellig a million Nanos will not threaten the environment like selling 9 million SUVs in the US. Also, if you really care about the environment you should applaud a 50 mpg car. There are no magic in such cars. It's just that they consume less fuel than your SUVs.
'There are smarter ways' for development? Then why you and your country don't do it? You can rectify your mistake (which you admit to have done) by stopping now and changing your ways, if you are serious about it. The argument 'we already did it' does not spare you from your responsibility to correct your mistake.
'There are smarter ways' for development? Then why you and your country don't do it? You can rectify your mistake (which you admit to have done) by stopping now and changing your ways, if you are serious about it. The argument 'we already did it' does not spare you from your responsibility to correct your mistake.
-
- +0
-
-
written by marwin, January 11, 2008
this would be a perfect platform for an electric motor. the car is lightweight, doesn´t have any unnecessary electric gadgets and the 48 kmh it can go with the planned gasoline engine could easily be achieved with an electric motor. it might cost a little more, but then you will never have to buy gasoline, which will only get more and more expensive.
and the electric people´s car would be a hit not only in all developing countries but also in the developed ones.
and the electric people´s car would be a hit not only in all developing countries but also in the developed ones.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ecomike, January 11, 2008
Sanjay, we are both on the same page, I totally agree with you. What we've done in the US is crazy and we totally need to reverse it. We have too many SUVs, too many personal cars in general. What we need is more public transportation. I WISH, like many others, that my country would smarten up and start doing this, and some of us are trying to do our part, but it's a big change that not everyone embraces.
It's great that the Nano is very fuel efficient, but adding a few hundred million to the roads is still a massive impact whichever way you look at it.
You're very right though, we are not absolved of our responsibility... we are shameful in the US and because we are the "global leaders" (leaders of destruction?) people look to us when they want "progress" when our brand of it is the WRONG kind.
It's just crappy that more people in power don't think like you and me Sanjay.
It's great that the Nano is very fuel efficient, but adding a few hundred million to the roads is still a massive impact whichever way you look at it.
You're very right though, we are not absolved of our responsibility... we are shameful in the US and because we are the "global leaders" (leaders of destruction?) people look to us when they want "progress" when our brand of it is the WRONG kind.
It's just crappy that more people in power don't think like you and me Sanjay.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Karsten, January 11, 2008
...I have to completely agree with Sanjay.
If the Western ways are "smarter" than we should be happy to do it. We are obviously not happy to do it and we are certainly not doing it at levels that could send a message that we are in the process of accepting that smaller, more efficient cars are the smarter way. By that definition, as a society we DO NOT think that what the environmentalists suggest (say, small, efficient cars and using them as little as possible)is an acceptable solution for North Americans. Until we reduce our fuel consumption significantly in North America, we have no business in telling other countries what is the "smarter" way.
Let's clean up our own mess first. The biggest polluters are we (I consider China only such a big polluter because they supply us with whatever we order) and we need to reduce our impact and then look at other nations. They will be happy to look at what we do if we manage to do it "smarter" as a whole.
And of course, as a inhabitant of the world it is worrisome to see the dramatic increase in vehicle traffic in China, India, Russia, etc., the roads that will be built which will attract more traffic, allow faster vehicles, etc. As an individual you may call for restraint. I do. But it is more reasonable to call for restraint where restraint is most needed (= in North America). And only if you actually live in North America, because we would not like to be told by folks from other countries what to do or not do.
Karsten
--
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice For North Americans (and other polluters) to Pollute Less
If the Western ways are "smarter" than we should be happy to do it. We are obviously not happy to do it and we are certainly not doing it at levels that could send a message that we are in the process of accepting that smaller, more efficient cars are the smarter way. By that definition, as a society we DO NOT think that what the environmentalists suggest (say, small, efficient cars and using them as little as possible)is an acceptable solution for North Americans. Until we reduce our fuel consumption significantly in North America, we have no business in telling other countries what is the "smarter" way.
Let's clean up our own mess first. The biggest polluters are we (I consider China only such a big polluter because they supply us with whatever we order) and we need to reduce our impact and then look at other nations. They will be happy to look at what we do if we manage to do it "smarter" as a whole.
And of course, as a inhabitant of the world it is worrisome to see the dramatic increase in vehicle traffic in China, India, Russia, etc., the roads that will be built which will attract more traffic, allow faster vehicles, etc. As an individual you may call for restraint. I do. But it is more reasonable to call for restraint where restraint is most needed (= in North America). And only if you actually live in North America, because we would not like to be told by folks from other countries what to do or not do.
Karsten
--
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice For North Americans (and other polluters) to Pollute Less
-
- +0
-
-
written by EV, January 11, 2008
How can you write such a shamelessly biased article? In the US there are over 1 Billion cars!!! That means over 3 cars for every American.
Actually, there are less than 250 million passenger vehicles in the US, with less than 100 million being classified as cars. Perhaps you mean 1 Billion have been built?
Get yor facts write or don't write such bull shit articles!
I believe you should take your own advice.
Does anyone know what the crash tests are like on this vehicle? Or are we looking at another Pinto firetrap?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Charlie, January 11, 2008
Until we reduce our fuel consumption significantly in North America, we have no business in telling other countries what is the "smarter" way.
Who is "we"? This isn't the Borg, or an anthill. I'm not a big fan of collective guilt and I don't speak for my country, I speak for myself and for objective fact. My personal fuel consumption is less than 20 gallons a month at its highest. I'm not going to eat crow on the behalf of some dumbass who commutes in his Suburban. And, as an ecologist, I'm not going to let the fact that I share a geographical area with over-consuming idiots muzzle my opinion that "cars for everybody" is a terrible idea. I don't really care about anybody's feelings.
Nobody gets a free pass because they were late to the party. While North America is the source of the largest quantity of emissions, the wedge claimed by India and China is the one growing at the fastest rate...and they're the ones who have the opportunity to take another path right now, instead of slowly and painfully backtracking. Whether you're a westerner who thinks it's his birthright or an Indian or Chinese who wants in on the party because you feel you're entitled to it too, it's ecologically damaging. Wherever you are, however personally guilty you feel, however guilty you believe others should feel, the bottom line is this: overconsumption is overconsumption.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Charlie, January 11, 2008
And I didn't even mention the fact that transportation of commodities, agriculture (especially including conventional tillage and heavy fertilizer use), and power generation represent far greater contributions to greenhouse gas emissions than does the use of personal automobiles. Before you lay a guilt trip on anybody about their car, consider the fact that you're typing on a power-sucking computer made of plastic and metal, that was likely built in China, while wearing a shirt sewn in Thailand from African cotton that was woven in India.
-
- +0
-
-
written by suresh, January 11, 2008
BTW, each car will consume 10 gallons or less per month going by normal usage patterns there.
-
- +0
-
-
written by rayan, January 11, 2008
tata's do take care of emission norms.. the engines comply with euro iv norms which is prevailant all over the world.. it has passed full frontal crash test and it hopes to pass the side impact test for european standards.
Now Euro IV compliant cars, which the Tata Nano is, produce one (1) gramme of carbon monoxide and 0.08 gramme of nitrous oxide. To convert them into CO2 equivalent, a conversion factor recommended by IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of which Mr Pachauri is chairman) is applied. It is 3 for carbon monoxide and 310 for nitrous oxide. Once all the maths is done, we get 30 grammes per kilometre.
So each time the Tata Nano moves a kilometre, it will release 30 grammes of CO2 equivalent material into the atmosphere. This is 40% less than what all others cars produce (50 grammes/kilometre or more) — and there are more than 5 million cars in India today. But let us take the argument into a zone where the naysayers would be comfortable: on the total amount of CO2 equivalent that Tata Nanos will produce over the next five years. This involves a bit of some assumptions.
So assume that Tata will from the next year sell 1,00,000 cars a year for five years and reach a total of 5,00,000 — half the size Mr Tata thinks a car at one-lakh price point may sell. Now let us take a range that the Tata Nano runs between 1,000 kilometres and 8,000 kilometres a year. If all those half-a-million cars run 1,000 kilometres then the total CO2 produced will be 15,000 tonnes annually.
If they all run 8,000 kilometres then the total CO2 equivalent will be 1,20,000 tonnes. In reality, the figure should be closer to 25-30,000 tonnes because our assumptions of car sales and annual mileage are on the higher side.
So are these numbers large? Taking the worst case — 5,00,000 on roads and each running 8,000 kilometres annually — the total CO2 equivalent will be less than 8% of India’s total CO2 emission. And if we take a more realistic assumption then it will be less than 1% of India’s total CO2 emission. Environment guys would do well to go after the other 99%.
the car has a mileage of around 50miles per gallon, which is matched in US only by hybrid cars where the national average for cars are 17 miles per gallon,nano burns 1/3 of the fuel of US cars. and these hybrids dont come at even average prices..
considering india has just 200 million people in the middle class with a mix of individual families and joint family where sharing of vehicle among family members is common hardly 50 million vehicles will be sold.Consider 250 million cars plus new cars added every year in US alone.
the remaining 800 million people solely rely on public transport/ bicycles or none.
Coming of public transports.. Tata motors is the numero uno supplier of buses for India. It also produces CNG buses which are less polluting than diesel ones.
The Govt of India cannot immediately take steps in improving the public transport nor the infrastructure , thought its going in the positive direction in most cities and towns. This shouldn't deter the growth of India which is poised for higher growth in each and every sector including automobile industry.
The middle class people will buy a car as and when possible, so why not the nano which will be compacter, fuel efficient, safe and environment friendly (in place of a 2 full bodied sedan 3 nanos can fit in)
The US which has not yet ratified the Kyoto protocol though it being the single largest entity in world emitting highest CO2, when the govt itself has no attitude to reduce the emission how are the people be worried of it. India though a signatory has taken some steps towards a greener country but the growth of economy can curtail to only some extent. Still lots has to be done in India to curtail it.
Coming to engineering and economics, its always a challenge to give a good product with the least possible price. Cars are available in millions of dollars, but to produce a million dollar car into a few hundred thousand dollars it would be near impossible task, same is the condition here. a normal car is approx 4lacs($10000) and now reducing the cost to 70 percent opens a new dimension in global auto scenario with regards to cost (Tata Steel a group company of tata sons is the worlds cheapest producer of steel). This is in fact a revolution in this field since this will surely bring all the companies to the drawing board to cut down the cost of the product.
The design of the car is very futuristic with a sloped windshield, curved tall boy structure, head and tail lamp cluster, lines in bonnet and the sides, air intake at sides all are above expectations.
There should be a balance in ecology... and this car doesnt destruct the balance
Now Euro IV compliant cars, which the Tata Nano is, produce one (1) gramme of carbon monoxide and 0.08 gramme of nitrous oxide. To convert them into CO2 equivalent, a conversion factor recommended by IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of which Mr Pachauri is chairman) is applied. It is 3 for carbon monoxide and 310 for nitrous oxide. Once all the maths is done, we get 30 grammes per kilometre.
So each time the Tata Nano moves a kilometre, it will release 30 grammes of CO2 equivalent material into the atmosphere. This is 40% less than what all others cars produce (50 grammes/kilometre or more) — and there are more than 5 million cars in India today. But let us take the argument into a zone where the naysayers would be comfortable: on the total amount of CO2 equivalent that Tata Nanos will produce over the next five years. This involves a bit of some assumptions.
So assume that Tata will from the next year sell 1,00,000 cars a year for five years and reach a total of 5,00,000 — half the size Mr Tata thinks a car at one-lakh price point may sell. Now let us take a range that the Tata Nano runs between 1,000 kilometres and 8,000 kilometres a year. If all those half-a-million cars run 1,000 kilometres then the total CO2 produced will be 15,000 tonnes annually.
If they all run 8,000 kilometres then the total CO2 equivalent will be 1,20,000 tonnes. In reality, the figure should be closer to 25-30,000 tonnes because our assumptions of car sales and annual mileage are on the higher side.
So are these numbers large? Taking the worst case — 5,00,000 on roads and each running 8,000 kilometres annually — the total CO2 equivalent will be less than 8% of India’s total CO2 emission. And if we take a more realistic assumption then it will be less than 1% of India’s total CO2 emission. Environment guys would do well to go after the other 99%.
the car has a mileage of around 50miles per gallon, which is matched in US only by hybrid cars where the national average for cars are 17 miles per gallon,nano burns 1/3 of the fuel of US cars. and these hybrids dont come at even average prices..
considering india has just 200 million people in the middle class with a mix of individual families and joint family where sharing of vehicle among family members is common hardly 50 million vehicles will be sold.Consider 250 million cars plus new cars added every year in US alone.
the remaining 800 million people solely rely on public transport/ bicycles or none.
Coming of public transports.. Tata motors is the numero uno supplier of buses for India. It also produces CNG buses which are less polluting than diesel ones.
The Govt of India cannot immediately take steps in improving the public transport nor the infrastructure , thought its going in the positive direction in most cities and towns. This shouldn't deter the growth of India which is poised for higher growth in each and every sector including automobile industry.
The middle class people will buy a car as and when possible, so why not the nano which will be compacter, fuel efficient, safe and environment friendly (in place of a 2 full bodied sedan 3 nanos can fit in)
The US which has not yet ratified the Kyoto protocol though it being the single largest entity in world emitting highest CO2, when the govt itself has no attitude to reduce the emission how are the people be worried of it. India though a signatory has taken some steps towards a greener country but the growth of economy can curtail to only some extent. Still lots has to be done in India to curtail it.
Coming to engineering and economics, its always a challenge to give a good product with the least possible price. Cars are available in millions of dollars, but to produce a million dollar car into a few hundred thousand dollars it would be near impossible task, same is the condition here. a normal car is approx 4lacs($10000) and now reducing the cost to 70 percent opens a new dimension in global auto scenario with regards to cost (Tata Steel a group company of tata sons is the worlds cheapest producer of steel). This is in fact a revolution in this field since this will surely bring all the companies to the drawing board to cut down the cost of the product.
The design of the car is very futuristic with a sloped windshield, curved tall boy structure, head and tail lamp cluster, lines in bonnet and the sides, air intake at sides all are above expectations.
There should be a balance in ecology... and this car doesnt destruct the balance
-
- +0
-
-
written by Home Maintenance, January 12, 2008
Imagine the enviromental benefit if people in other countries switch from their SUVs to these!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Charlie, January 12, 2008
In what alternate Earth is ANY level of carbon dioxide emission from long-term geological sinks (fossil fuels) a part of a balanced ecology? No offense to the obvious Tata PR flack posting above, but there isn't a car on Earth aside from those that are pedal-powered or fueled ENTIRELY by truly greenhouse-neutral fuels that can be considered truly ecologically neutral from an emissions standpoint. The point that they do less damage is well-taken, but they DO do damage, and the release of fossil carbon is a problem if you're doing it in excess of the sink rate.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Hannah, July 31, 2008
Of course we need only look in our own backyards to see that Tata is simply working to help India catch up to the developed world. But that's not necessarily the most noble of pursuits.
I'm sorry, but I feel like that's really a horrible thing to say. People in India live in such crushing poverty, who are you to say that a life improved even in the slightest is worth less than the carbon footprint? A car like this could get families off of bicycles in bad weather, provide transportation to a school that would be too far away to walk to, carry necessary supplies from outside the town home.
While the reduction of pollution (especially greenhouse gasses) is noble, it is cruel to suggest that the means by which to do this is allowing a country to remain miserable.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sat2, July 31, 2008
The old version of Tata (the company) was a pioneer in public transport vehicles (primarily buses). Is there a reason why there are no new innovations in that sector??
Should'nt India learn to avoid the same mistakes as Western nations have made and admitted to?
Please keep in mind India imports more than 90% of its oil, and most(all) Indians agree that pollution and traffic on the roads is only getting worse.
Should'nt India learn to avoid the same mistakes as Western nations have made and admitted to?
Please keep in mind India imports more than 90% of its oil, and most(all) Indians agree that pollution and traffic on the roads is only getting worse.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Mike, August 11, 2008
I wish they could ship the unassembled car minus the engine to the US as a "kit".
It sounds like the perfect platform build an EV from. Those old VW frame$ are really hard to find.
It sounds like the perfect platform build an EV from. Those old VW frame$ are really hard to find.
-
- +0
-
-
written by haji, August 14, 2008
hey people that nano is nothing compared to japans model af MULTICAB. it is much more fuel efficient which can run to 25KM in 1 liter and can carry up to half ton of load. try to research on that.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Rohit, August 25, 2008
OK guys, i think we need to clear some air here:
FIRSTLY: Emission norms DO exist in India, and if what i've seen in "an inconvenient truth" is any thing to go by, Indian emission norms are currently more stringent than those in the US.
You see, there are currently 2 sets of emission norms for india: one for the metro cities (currently BHARAT STAGE III) and one for the rest of the country (Bharat STAGE II).
Now here's how the Indian emission norms work: In India, emission norms were put into place following the EU, and thus, when, say, EURO IV is implemented in EU, india begins implementing euro III (but only calles it BHARAT STAGE II, etc). In this way, India just remains a few years behind Europe in terms of its emission norms. Though i must admit that the laws are not very strictly exercised in the non-metro areas.
SECONDLY: India is taking steps to reduce its Carbon footprint. One such effort was the Indo-US nuclear deal- to use cleaner nuclear energy to provide for india's domestic energy needs. Also, many cars in india run on LPG or CNG, which are cleaner burning fuels and thus ARE SUBSIDISED by the govt. Furthermore, the top two indian automotive COs (Mahindra and TATA) already have plans to roll out Hybrids, EVs, and compressed air powered cars (Just google Hybrid Scorpio, Electric indica/nano or tata air car 2 find out more). And yeah, india already manufactures a 2 seater electric car (reva) and many e-bikes.
THIRDLY: i DO agree that the nano would have an impact on the environment. However, this is not because of inferior parts, but because of the sheer numbers it is expected to sell in, and also because it's target customers are those who currently ride 2 wheelers, some of which give fuel efficiencies of 109km/l (http://www.bajajauto.com/xcd/). But, here too, the tata's are planning to come out with more fuel efficien engines, an electric version and one powered by compressed air.
However, as EcoMike mentioned, that does not give us the excuse to pollute the environment. So what if the US made a mistake years ago? Learning from other's mistake is wise.. Deliberately repeating them is.. well.. plain stupid!!
FIRSTLY: Emission norms DO exist in India, and if what i've seen in "an inconvenient truth" is any thing to go by, Indian emission norms are currently more stringent than those in the US.
You see, there are currently 2 sets of emission norms for india: one for the metro cities (currently BHARAT STAGE III) and one for the rest of the country (Bharat STAGE II).
Now here's how the Indian emission norms work: In India, emission norms were put into place following the EU, and thus, when, say, EURO IV is implemented in EU, india begins implementing euro III (but only calles it BHARAT STAGE II, etc). In this way, India just remains a few years behind Europe in terms of its emission norms. Though i must admit that the laws are not very strictly exercised in the non-metro areas.
SECONDLY: India is taking steps to reduce its Carbon footprint. One such effort was the Indo-US nuclear deal- to use cleaner nuclear energy to provide for india's domestic energy needs. Also, many cars in india run on LPG or CNG, which are cleaner burning fuels and thus ARE SUBSIDISED by the govt. Furthermore, the top two indian automotive COs (Mahindra and TATA) already have plans to roll out Hybrids, EVs, and compressed air powered cars (Just google Hybrid Scorpio, Electric indica/nano or tata air car 2 find out more). And yeah, india already manufactures a 2 seater electric car (reva) and many e-bikes.
THIRDLY: i DO agree that the nano would have an impact on the environment. However, this is not because of inferior parts, but because of the sheer numbers it is expected to sell in, and also because it's target customers are those who currently ride 2 wheelers, some of which give fuel efficiencies of 109km/l (http://www.bajajauto.com/xcd/). But, here too, the tata's are planning to come out with more fuel efficien engines, an electric version and one powered by compressed air.
However, as EcoMike mentioned, that does not give us the excuse to pollute the environment. So what if the US made a mistake years ago? Learning from other's mistake is wise.. Deliberately repeating them is.. well.. plain stupid!!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Rohit, August 25, 2008
PS: here is a detailed view of indian emission standards: http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/in/
-
- +0
-
-
written by Billy, March 02, 2009
I am absolutely pissed off because this vehicle is not allowed in the U.S. The reason? It doesn't meet Federal rules. Bullshit, Yeah I am calling it. BULLSHIT! It isn't allowed because the big auto companies paid the government to say it can't come in. Oh wait a minute Billy, it doesn't meet the tough standards for crash testing. Oh yeah, How does a motorcycle do in these stringent crash tests. BULLSHIT #1. No Billy, you have it all wrong it is because it doesn't meet emission standards. Oh really, So riding lawn mowers, wood chippers, push mowers, bull dozers, log splitters, chainsaws, weed whackers, mopeds, go carts, race cars, gas powered radio controlled cars and Joe Ray Bob's 1975 Ford F-150 4x4 meet emissions? BULLSHIT #2. The only reasons it can't come in to the U.S. is it would put all the car companies, gas stations and Big Oil in a bind. I say BULLSHIT!
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
JAN 10
"Im sure the car would be just as popular in the UK. A cheap Electric ..."
View all Comments