This care is an unaerodynamic pig. The open wheel wells, lack of aero shape (no boat tail) and lack of smooth underside suggest that any work in the wind tunnel was by the art department, not aerodynamic engineering.
2nd March, 2011 @ 1:31 a.m. (California Time)
What about the price, can we get it in the US......
2nd March, 2011 @ 5:39 a.m. (California Time)
@TogetherinParis I think it\'s optimized as far as reasonably possible. Putting farings on the wheel wells, a smooth underside and a boat tail would be the stupidest city car design imaginable. It\'s not an aeroplane, it\'s a city car. Surely the most important aspect of engineering is establishing requirements.
Did you just look up \'aerodynamics\' on Wikipedia?
I think it looks great.
2nd March, 2011 @ 5:51 a.m. (California Time)
How do you open the windows to hand your arm out? and what happens when you take the car to a mall or other venue that has covered/underground parking? Doesn\'t seem to me to be enough clearance...
2nd March, 2011 @ 6:14 a.m. (California Time)
It is very similar to \"NIDO 600\" Pininfarina design, with the beautiness encountered only in the simplicity.
Congratulations to Mr. Tata.
I hope he develops, as soon as possible, a 0.6 l turbo diesel hybrid version to complete his masterpiece.
Fantastic the IVT drive system and the info gadgets.
2nd March, 2011 @ 6:15 a.m. (California Time)
creative, innovative, frugal and with a competitive pricing this could be a winner, as consumers we need henry fords of future. well done.
2nd March, 2011 @ 6:20 a.m. (California Time)
I like it. And I bet it cost half the silly money of a smart. Get this thing to market for motor bike money (say $7 to $9 K in Australia/US dollars and Tata will become a global player. Price it like a premium car (I\'m talking to you, Mercedes/Smart) and watch it founder. Tata, look at Asus with their netbooks. Surprisingly cheap yet useful and bringing millions of new customers to the brand. Unlike the Smart, with that motor its a real car - it could even tow a small trailer I bet. I say keep it simple though - a simple manual motorbike-style gearbox is more than enough (and flicking gears sequentially is super cool) and lose the rear wheel steering - if ever there was a case of the KISS principle this is it.
Re - aerodynamics - yeah I take the point above that it\'s not much better than a brick but designers always say stupid stuff like that... sounds good in the brochures and techies and car nerds are not the target market of those brochures! It will spend most of it\'s life doing between 20 and 110 kph so who cares.
I have a Ford Fiesta and while it drives better than this Tata ever would, its fuel economy is disappointing. I\'ve considered going to the combination of a cheap motor bike and cheap bigger vehicle. This Tata could accomplish 95% of my driving tasks and if it was cheap enough, with the difference I would buy or share a larger car for that other 5% of tasks. I\'d be a serious potential customer for one of these at the right price. Price it cheap, Tata.
2nd March, 2011 @ 7:08 a.m. (California Time)
togetherinparis has little understanding of aerodynamics or simple practicality. Aside from apparent ignorance of the Kamm effect allowing bobtailed aero effects - fact remains this is a commuter car rarely exceeding 60kph.
Yup. Let\'s cover over the wheels and achieve another .0025mpg.
Get out of the ivory tower.
2nd March, 2011 @ 7:32 a.m. (California Time)
I also immediately compared this car to the Pininfarina. It sure is terrible that most concepts fade away. This design makes a lot more sense than a squashed 4 door jellybean. Extremely useful too!!! I like it, but I hesitate to say so since almost everything people like vanishes.
2nd March, 2011 @ 7:50 a.m. (California Time)
I would have liked to see some details on safety equipment.
Curtain air-bags? Electronic stability control?
2nd March, 2011 @ 2:21 p.m. (California Time)
Why doesn\'t this have that revolutionary compressed air powerplant that was being touted by Tata just a year or two ago? Because it doesn\'t work????????
2nd March, 2011 @ 3:55 p.m. (California Time)
Let us compare the Tata Pixel to the Nissan Micro DIG-S.
1. Both have 3 cylinder 1.2 liter supercharged motors. The Pixel uses diesel; the Micro uses gasoline.
2. The Pixel is rated at 69 mpg, the Micro at 68 mpg.
3. The Pixel has gull doors, the Micro has 4 doors.
Neither appears to have a low Cd but this does not mean that a newly designed good aerodynamic body could not fit on the chasis to bring the mpg up to around 100. The present drawback in body design is the lack of understanding or lack of industrial equipment to taper the body from front to back (even on the sides) like the Volkswagon Qatar. Both the Pixel and Micro are flat in back. Tapering the entire body should bring the Cd down considerably. This may be difficult for small cars since the space inside is already limited.
2nd March, 2011 @ 5:14 p.m. (California Time)
It looks good, and 70 mpg sounds good. Price it right and it will sell like crazy.
2nd March, 2011 @ 8:49 p.m. (California Time)
Tapering the body to go from 69mpg to 100mpg? If it was 18\' long, 2\' wide and 6\" high maybe, but doesn\'t that defeat the purpose of being a car?
2nd March, 2011 @ 8:57 p.m. (California Time)
Dear Facebook User,
You must understand that only a small amount of taper is necessary to reduce the Cd considerably. There are presently no cars manufactured that have this characteristic but it is necessary to cut the suction caused by turbulance in the back of the car which is a major source of resistance to the motion of the vehicle, especially above 45 mph. Small city cars need not be concerned with aerodynamics since their speeds are normally low but companies manufacturing any vehicle, including large US made cars with hundreds of horsepower should realize that by simply tapering the sides and top will increase the mpg considerably. Presently, tapering is only occurring at the top.
3rd March, 2011 @ 12:59 p.m. (California Time)
Just for your information - the common known aerodynamic rules applies only (or better say \'much more\') at higher speeds. For city cars, where the average speed is 40-50 km/s it makes almost no difference
i did have a Smart, and it was a perfect car for a city, as it was big as a motorbike, so i was allowed to park the oposite way. This will not be possible (allowed) with this car, so the main advantage is out, so if i could choose (and do not look at price) than i would definitely go to Smart electric.
5th March, 2011 @ 12:48 p.m. (California Time)
If I paid $5000 and this thing lasted 5 years I would be quite pleased with it. I am very excited to see Tatas in the USA! Should be here in the next couple years as far as I have been reading. Plus because it gets 69 mpg it will basically pay for itself in what you save on fuel. So if the car lasted 5 years, cost $5K and saved you $85 a month on fuel ( or $20 a week) it would actually pay for itself. Plus I think it looks really cool just how it is. :) And I am partial to American cars, but I think its about time a company puts its greed aside and really challenged the current car prices that start at like $20k at the cheapest.
20th April, 2011 @ 1:36 a.m. (California Time)
I love Gizmag but all this stuff drives me nuts. Mass production and the assembly line was potentially to keep costs down for producers and consumers, but the way things are now, there are no practical vehicles that are inexpensive safe and practical for everyday use. All the money goes to making fancy add-ons instead of keeping it simple and practical and safe. Make it boring. Make it durable. Make it lightweight. Make it rustproof. Make it able to travel over land, sea, or in the air. Make it powered by rotary Wankel air motor. Use 10,000 psi air pressure tank. Use solar panels. Put a tornado tube down the center of the vehicle to pull air out of the front of the car. Use counterrotating turboprop. Use air brake. Use Twheels. Use automatic collision avoidance. Use graphene. In-wheel air motors. Use Cadillac Aera concept car 2010 1,000 mile range, curb wt. 1,000 pounds, 10,000 psi carbon fiber air pressure tank.
14th April, 2012 @ 8:03 p.m. (California Time)