[sustran] Re: any details on Nano and safety and environmental regs?

John Ernst itdpasia at comcast.net
Fri Feb 1 08:04:05 JST 2008


New Scientist reports that it does meet Euro IV emissions standards, 
see 
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2008/01/environmental-impact-of-indias-nano-car.html. 
I assume they are going off of Tata's claimed emissions and not 
actual tests.  But this would not be unreasonable for the small 
fuel-injected engine Tata has in there.

It does not have air bags, so it does not meet US safety 
standards.  I don't believe EU standards require air bags in all cars...??

I'm not sure what roadworthiness standards would be, but Tata has 
extensive experience building vehicles, so I imagine the Nano can 
handle the basics in terms of handling and braking.

best,
John

www. itdp.org

At 03:00 PM 1/31/2008, Lee Schipper wrote:
>  Mike, can you help.
>I was interviewed by CNN Business but no response yet..
>
>
>Lee Schipper
>EMBARQ Fellow
>EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Sustainable Transport
>www.embarq.wri.org
>and
>Visiting Scholar
>UC Transportation Center
>Berkeley CA USA www.uctc.net
>skype: mrmeter
>+1 510 642 6889
>Cell +1 202 262 7476
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: sustran-discuss-bounces+schipper=wri.org at list.jca.apc.org
>[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+schipper=wri.org at list.jca.apc.org] On
>Behalf Of Walter Hook
>Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:58 PM
>To: 'Sarath Guttikunda'; sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
>Cc: 'Anumita'; Rhys Thom
>Subject: [sustran] any details on Nano and safety and environmental
>regs?
>
>I was "mis" quoted in the Daily News saying the Nano does not meet
>Western emissions, road worthyness and safety standards.  What i said
>was that it "might" not but that i didn't know.
>
>Does anybody know for sure?  Would it be in compliance with euro IV or
>EPA standards, etc?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org
>[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org] On
>Behalf Of Sarath Guttikunda
>Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 6:41 AM
>To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
>Cc: Anumita; RThom at wri.org
>Subject: [sustran] Re: [SUSTRAN] Re: Tata Nano:
>CriminalizingMobilityorMobilizing Crime
>
>Dear Anumita,
>
>Thanks for your elaborate email..
>
>My 2 cents,
>
>In an interview with Ratan Tata, he mentioned that goal behind making
>Nano is family safety and he is inspired to making Nano after seeing a
>family on a motorcycle. I have seen some arguments in papers and on net,
>that the largest jump in buying a Nano will come from the MC group. This
>I doubt.
>
>A simple math between MCs and Cars, assuming all gasoline (priced at
>Rs.50per liter) and a family traveling 30 km per day. MCs give 60 km per
>lit, which translates to Rs.0.83 per km or Rs.7800 per year per family.
>If the family jumps to a Nano, assuming a 20 km per lit, math translates
>to Rs.2.50per km or Rs.23,400 per year per family. One year = 6 working
>days per week and 52 weeks.
>
>On an average, a middle class family with MC in India earns between 10K
>to 15K. Even if we take the higher end of 15K, this accounts to 4% for
>MCs and 13% for cars on fuel expenses per year. That is a big change.
>
>This does not account for the price difference (~Rs.40K for MC and
>Rs.125Kfor Nano) and interests they will incur for 5 or 10 years of
>loans, insurance, and maintenance. And lets not forget Parking - even if
>it is cheap compared to the developed nations.
>
>There is no doubt that with growing demand for cars, Nano will be a hit
>(similar to Maruti 800 when it arrived in the 80's) - given the
>production levels are as high as the current demand. What we saw on TV
>is a glimpse of the car which is still a year away or less from hitting
>the roads. A good public awareness campaign with numbers will do good -
>explaining what people will end up spending - both in terms on money and
>time (leading to more congestion).
>
>MCs are by far the largest number in the country and will remain so for
>the coming decades. On the other side, a good price differential and
>extra tax for cars, Nano could shift some people away from buying SUVs,
>who knows :-) Cars are not bad, but more cars on road make it worse.
>
>Similarly, there are some discussions on how Nano will cut into the 3Ws
>and Taxi market, which is also stretching the limits. In the cities like
>Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad, or Bangalore, parking has already become a
>problem, and more cars will not make it easy. Under a parking cap, 3Ws
>and Taxis still rule the short trip version.
>
>As we argue on cars and MCs, as Anumita pointed out, we have to also
>understand the lack of "public transport" in place to take the current
>travel loads. And also the share of diesel on road. We are basically
>stuck at "Access to Mobility".
>
>with regards,
>Sarath
>
>--
>Sarath Guttikunda
>New Delhi, India
>Phone: +91 9891 315 946
>Email: sguttikunda at gmail.com
>
>On Jan 25, 2008 11:56 AM, Anumita <anumita at cseindia.org> wrote:
>
> > Lee,
> >
> > I guess all of us are saying the same thing. Clearly, this fuss over
> > Nano is just not about Nano but about cars, all cars - big, small,
> > cheap, expensive cars.
> > Nano has
> > given us the chance to focus the public debate on congestion, oil
> > guzzling and emissions and make these concerns more visible. This
> > debate is certainly very nuanced.
> >
> > -- Look at the Indian paradox today - super cheap cars like Nano will
> > expand the bottom of the market pyramid when rising incomes have
> > already triggered a steady drift to bigger cars and SUVs. So the ends
> > are stretched both ways. Car companies will continue to compete on
> > costs in a price sensitive market. With frugal engineering, weak
> > regulations, fiscal largess to the car companies, even for their
> > production facilities, cars can come very cheap. Question is how do we
>
> > deal with it?
> >
> > -- Interestingly, in a car to car comparison nano or any small car can
>
> > offer fuel savings - certainly more sensible than the bigger, more
> > powerful, high performance cars that are about several hundreds per
> > 1000 people in many industrialized cities.
> > But the new investments in the Indian auto sector will have to be
> > linked with stringent emissions regulations, in-use compliance
> > requirements and efficiency standards.
> >
> > - But the reason why we are debating Nano, and, are so concerned
> > today, is because we still have the time, the chance and the
> > alternatives to plan mobility systems differently in Indian cities. We
>
> > already have a reasonable strength in the usage of public transport at
>
> > least in big cities, NMT and walking -- that if protected and improved
>
> > can help us to take an alternative route and avoid huge emissions and
> > oil guzzling in Indian cities. Building alternatives at this stage of
> > motorisation is critical
> > -- cars may drive growth and aspirations, but they can never meet the
> > commuting needs of the urban majority.
> >
> > -- But this is where we draw a blank. As in the rest of the world we
> > have also realized that to a very great extent mobility management
> > hinges on fiscal measures (in addition to providing good public
> > transport).  But the wisdom of taxing a product for the vice and not
> > just for their values is still quite alien to the Indian and many
> > other Asian fiscal regimes. The governments are strongly entrenched in
>
> > command and control strategies. They are still not looking at fiscal
> > measures that can change consumer and commuter choices, push cities to
>
> > make better choices on transportation options, create alternative
> > sources of revenue and broaden the revenue base to fund mobility and
> > technology transition. But this will require a different kind of
> > maturity and sophistication in our fiscal regimen.
> >
> > -- Greening of taxes will be an even bigger battle in the present
> > context of governance and public awareness. Aspirational vote bank
> > never says tax our cars and the governance systems in cities are not
> > strong enough to force it down.
> > Therefore, just the opposite is happening today. The city governments
> > penalize buses by taxing them higher per passenger they carry than
> > cars that carry lot less and use up more road space etc.
> >
> > -- In Delhi, we are amidst discussions on fuel taxes, parking charges,
>
> > road taxes etc.
> > But resistance is unbelievable. Even if matters move in Delhi it will
> > still be a drop in the ocean. The policy mandate on transportation and
>
> > mobility matters is so decentralized that it is the ability of all
> > individual cities that will ultimately decide the progress on this
> > front. National policies like JNURM etc are still not strong enough
> > framework to create a template for the cities. Smaller cities are
> > going to be even more badly hit by small car explosion as public
> > policies on public transport are virtually non existent for these
> > cities - just because these cities do not have high density travel
> > corridors to justify investment in 'profitable' public transport.
> > This means millions are left to organise their own mobility and will
> > happily graduate from bicycles and cycle rickshaws to cheap cars.
> >
> > -- We need to understand that when it comes to practical planning for
> > mobility management in our cities the basic policy tools, databases,
> > policy indicators of sustainability etc do not even exist to enable
> > city level planning and action. Even public voice remains dormant.
> > This is where we need to move fast to see some real action. Otherwise,
>
> > good ideas will remain good ideas while cars take over.
> >
> > Anumita
> >
> > ******************************
> > >
> > > **************************
> > > Anumita Roychowdhury
> > > Associate Director,Research and Advocacy Centre for Science and
> > > Environment 41, Tughlakabad Institutional Area New Delhi 110062
> > > Tel: 91-11-29955124, 29955125, 29956394
> > > Fax: 91-11-29955879, 29955870
> > > Email: anumita at cseindia.org
> > > Website: www.cseindia.org
> > > ***************************************************
> >
> >
> > On 24 Jan 2008 at 10:40, Lee Schipper wrote:
> >
> > > Anumita, what do you say? Sounds like we're between a piece of
> > > rubber and a spare tyre
> > >
> > >
> > > Lee Schipper
> > > EMBARQ Fellow
> > > EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Sustainable Transport www.embarq.wri.org
> > > and Visiting Scholar UC Transportation Center Berkeley CA USA
> > > www.uctc.net
> > > skype: mrmeter
> > > +1 510 642 6889
> > > Cell +1 202 262 7476
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via
>YAHOOGROUPS.
>
>Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to
>join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The
>yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to
>the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem
>like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement.
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
>(the 'Global South').
>--------------------------------------------------------
>IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS.
>
>Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss 
>to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The 
>yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post 
>to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it 
>seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement.
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, 
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing 
>countries (the 'Global South').



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list