[R.I.P]

Originally Posted by saket77

1. The build of 800 is more sturdy & robust as compared to the Nano.
2. 800 Has much better brakes due to disc-drum combination whereas nano has only drum brakes.
3. 800 is not affected by the cross winds generated by other vehicles on the highway.
4. Nano's ECU will cut out at the most crucial time and it can be deadly on the highway while overtaking.
5. Different tyre sizes try to control the oversteer on the Nano, but when on the spare wheel, the speed limit is just 50kmph. When this wheel is at the rear, the car's stability is compromised.

Only because the 800 is old, we cannot term it unsafe.

Returning to the topic, don't you think that most of the quads may end up replacing taxis (for eg. like Ambys in Kolkata & Padminis in Mumbai) rather than puny autos? If that's the case, we may end be getting more unsafe on the roads. Isn't it?

Regards,
Saket

800 has a very weak A pillar for starters, i am saying this from personal experience here. My father was in an accident a few years ago where the car tumbled downhill. The brakes are good in it but that helps you only till the time you don't crash it. 800 has not been put through many crash tests compared to a nano but we have enough crumpled 800s on the internet(and i have seen enough with my own eyes) to know their "ruggedness" when they are crashed.
I have not driven a nano on highways so i cannot comment but 800 and even my city gets affected from crosswinds on the highway. As for the overtaking, Nano is not really built to overtake at high(just like the 800) speeds so i don't see your point here. Different tyre sizes is an issue and that can affect handling but the driver should know that(and drive accordingly) while driving with a spare on.

No, i do not think so, ambys and padminis will be replaced with cars not quads. These are two segments which will remain there due to different purchase/rent capability of the businessman/customer

Peace

[saket77]

Thanks RIP for your inputs. Though, better to continue this discussion on a relevant thread. Just in case, you want to take the discussion forward. http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian...a-nano-20.html

[SAE40 in veins]

Originally Posted by R.I.P

policy getting ready with the vehicle/product is nothing new. every major company does it(it is called lobbying) be it the Tatas, M&M, Bajaj, Birlas, Reliance, Bharti, etc.

It is the smartness of Bajaj to develop a product on lines with the European standards as we do look to them whenever we want any standard put in place. Nothing wrong in that. As i said before M&M is also entering this segment.

Level playing field is a myth in business. There would always be at least one competitor who will feel outmaneuvered by new policies.

Firstly, direct lobbying is still not legal in India from what i understand(refer 2G Nira Radia fiasco and related news) so if Bajaj has been doing lobbying, it means that they have been doing some 'not so appropriate' stuff. Cannot give them any credit for that.

Secondly, they were intelligent in diverting the attention to just passenger carriers. Please note that Quads do have their goods carriers and there are quite a few 0.5 Ton potential quads already in India like the Ace Zip, Piaggio Mini and Mahindra Gio none of which qualifies as per the qualifying norms. Usually when a policy is made govt calls for a hearing of all stake holders and decides on the policy based on prevailing market conditions. Externally at least, here it looks to be too biased in favor of the RE 60.

Last but not least, Mahindra Gio passenger and Tata Iris are already in the market and hence it may be worth noting that Bajaj is actually a late starter here just that they were 'SMART' enough to fire the arrow first and then draw the circle.

If the govt is so very serious about European norms such that the officials swear by It, why dont we have Crash safety and emission norms in line with the European market?? They find it OK to heavily Indianize the norms when it comes to crash and emissions. Why is it that just a Quad is slated to be a true blue European??? Certain things cannot be explained in India. It is just that way. Jai Ho and Jai Hind

[pratyush6]

Here are my humble 2 cents on this:

1. Safety is a very subjective matter in India. People still have not grasped the fact that they and/or their family can be seriously injured or die on the roads.

2. Look at the number of 2 wheelers in India. Bangalore is home to the max no. of bikes in the world. What safety standards do they follow? Zilch.

3. 4 wheels are at-least stable than 3 wheels. If a Quad replaces the Auto then I am still ok with it. 3 wheels are a terror and they should have been phased out long time back. Only in India corporate profits and politics is more important that citizens' lives.

4. Quads should not be allowed as a private mode of transport simply because then it would be on the highways, tolled roads and what not, where its more likely to be met with an accident.

5. I totally disagree with Mr. Bajaj when he talks about technology and safety of the Quad. Even the Nano is far safer than a Quad. He is simply being selfish. Fact that he wanted to get a car which competes with Nano and now they have realized that it might now be a very good idea for some reasons.

The point is this story is all about their own profit and nothing about the 'common' man's security. I am not even going close to these killer machines.

[saket77]

Originally Posted by SAE40 in veins

Firstly, direct lobbying is still not legal in India from what i understand(refer 2G Nira Radia fiasco and related news) so if Bajaj has been doing lobbying, it means that they have been doing some 'not so appropriate' stuff. Cannot give them any credit for that.

Secondly, they were intelligent in diverting the attention to just passenger carriers. Please note that Quads do have their goods carriers and there are quite a few 0.5 Ton potential quads already in India like the Ace Zip, Piaggio Mini and Mahindra Gio none of which qualifies as per the qualifying norms. Usually when a policy is made govt calls for a hearing of all stake holders and decides on the policy based on prevailing market conditions. Externally at least, here it looks to be too biased in favor of the RE 60.

Last but not least, Mahindra Gio passenger and Tata Iris are already in the market and hence it may be worth noting that Bajaj is actually a late starter here just that they were 'SMART' enough to fire the arrow first and then draw the circle.

If the govt is so very serious about European norms such that the officials swear by It, why dont we have Crash safety and emission norms in line with the European market?? They find it OK to heavily Indianize the norms when it comes to crash and emissions. Why is it that just a Quad is slated to be a true blue European??? Certain things cannot be explained in India. It is just that way. Jai Ho and Jai Hind

Originally Posted by pratyush6

1. Safety is a very subjective matter in India. People still have not grasped the fact that they and/or their family can be seriously injured or die on the roads.


4. Quads should not be allowed as a private mode of transport simply because then it would be on the highways, tolled roads and what not, where its more likely to be met with an accident.

5. I totally disagree with Mr. Bajaj when he talks about technology and safety of the Quad. Even the Nano is far safer than a Quad. He is simply being selfish. Fact that he wanted to get a car which competes with Nano and now they have realized that it might now be a very good idea for some reasons.

Thanks guys for bringing up back to the topic and that too with very apt points to discuss. First, yes, the policy cannot be so unaccommodating to other similar vehicles; that's no coincidence.

Another point put forward by Pratyush: no quads for private use, which Mr. Bajaj advocates. Private vehicles of course cannot be stopped from entering the highways.

Also, he definitely wanted it to compete with Nano, but why he has to speak lies to mislead general public about the engine of the Nano. As I stated a few posts earlier too,

We have put in a lot of technology. We have a fuel-injected engine from Bosch, like the BMW. The Nano does not have it. It has four valves per cylinder, like the Merc.

This is a blatant. And I am astonished that why people have failed to notice it? And only because they have a fuel injected engine, they are comparing this to a BMW? Utter Rubbish!

Then Tata Ace has 4 wheels, just like the Lamborghini.

[discoverwild]

Originally Posted by saket77

Then probably you have the lightest foot around. & more than laughing at these points, it would have been more fruitful for the discussion if you had posted some points in your favour, however, in a relevant thread. As I said in my previous post, we are going way OT.

The only reason why I didn't take time replying to each point of yours was clearly that you had no idea what the nano is, and yes, because we were going way off-topic. I asked you whether you could prove any point of yours but then you didn't.

About me having the lightest foot, I am not so sure, but I can say that I have experienced most cars in the country since the 90s and the Bajaj autorickshaw.

Bajaj is not trying to do anyone a favour. He is out to make a quick buck. He brought out a contraption just to make sure that the Nano didn't catch all the limelight. After being unable to make a car of the standards that the Nano has set, he is just trying to save face and create a new category of vehicles for his ill-conceived ideas. No wonder the world laughs at our countrymen, he comparing his RE60 to a Merc and a BMW. What next? Give it leather seats and compare it to the Flying Spur?

[apachelongbow]

Companies like Bajaj are the dark face of licence raj India, infact they along with the Birlas and Doshis are the families that made maximum profits under the licence raj.
The only way they know to do business is to create lobbies, protectionist schemes to suit them and then try and be the sole supplier, with the happy powers of pricing as they please.
Rajiv Bajaj, I thought was unlike his father, and had a truly modern vision, with his push and how he brought Bajaj to the forefront in affordable performance motorcycling. With his back to the basics strategy regarding quadricycles, he seems more 'like' his father than 'unlike him. Sorry to say this!!

[sadsack]

I would like to add my two bits to this discussion. More than 10 years ago TVS did make a quadricycle and the ratification of that was contested by Bajaj. Now the boot is on the other foot. It is only natural that TVS will object to Bajaj's attempts to lobby for the RE60. One also cannot forget that the long drawn litigation that Bajaj forced TVS into over dual spark plug meant that the Flame which was by far the most stylish product that TVS made sank without a trace. Let us face it, there are two issues here. One in about quadricycles and the other is about the loud mouth that Rajiv Bajaj has turned out to be.

Objectively speaking the idea of a quadricycle is no more dangerous than a three wheeled autorickshaw. In fact, I would imagine having a steering wheel and uniform width of the vehicle would be a detriment for drivers to drive as they please, something which the autorickshaw is most amenable to.

Coming to Rajiv Bajaj and his loud mouthed antics. He is no visionary; unfortunately that is what a lot of auto journalists call him. Despite claims that Joseph Abraham is the head of R&D, Bajaj hardly has any credible R&D. Bajaj is cash rich thanks to the licence raj days and therefore has had cash reserves to use for buying up a huge chunk of KTM. Otherwise what Bajaj makes in India including the Pulsar 200NS are not technically or technologically sound. None of them are doing well in the market. Don't be fooled by the sales figures that Bajaj releases to the media. They include all the old Boxer models which they sell in African countries.

The cash reserves and the ability to leverage them for buying up shares in KTM have been keeping Bajaj alive. Otherwise it would have gone the LML way long ago. Mr. Rajiv Bajaj is an odious human being who will stop and nothing to protect his business and ethics be damned. But don't mix this up with the quadricycle being passed. The RE60's competition is not the Nano. That is a proper car. The former isn't and that is why Renault-Nissan have refused to touch it.

[blue_pulsar]

Originally Posted by sadsack

Let us face it, there are two issues here. One in about quadricycles and the other is about the loud mouth that Rajiv Bajaj has turned out to be.
...

The cash reserves and the ability to leverage them for buying up shares in KTM have been keeping Bajaj alive. Otherwise it would have gone the LML way long ago. Mr. Rajiv Bajaj is an odious human being who will stop and nothing to protect his business and ethics be damned. But don't mix this up with the quadricycle being passed. The RE60's competition is not the Nano. That is a proper car. The former isn't and that is why Renault-Nissan have refused to touch it.

Thats a nicely written post, sadsack.

I had a lot of respect for Mr. Rajiv Bajaj. He was the one who turned the performance motorcycling in India on its head. Of course, it was the CBZ, but it didn't gain that much popularity as the Pulsars. The Pulsars might not be technologically good, but still I love my pulsar.

That said, after reading this article, I've lost all respect I had for Mr. Bajaj. He could have pushed his RE60 in a better way. He could have rather highlighted the positives of his product when compared with the auto rickshaw. Rather than that, comparing it with the Nano is not correct. Comparing the RE60 engine with Merc and BMW is laughable. And the way the isn't giving a damn about the ever-increasing safety norms is shameful.

I always thought Mr. Bajaj was an enthusiast. Now I will have to think many times before buying a Bajaj product again (excluding KTM and Ninja that is).

[man_and_machine]

Me thinks, its not about the "car" that is being discussed. There are tax brackets for all cars. Sub 4 mtr, < 1 L etc, etc. The point may be this new "segment" will then "deserve" a new tax bracket (the netas and babus together with enough "impetus") will surely create a new bracket of tax for this new "category" that will simply make if more affordable for the private user. The Nano is surely not a 1 Lakh car, as it was claimed. Surely ex showroom is close to that, but then there are financial structures that make is close to 2 L, which already becomes out of scope for the "Bajaj scooter" user whom TATA wanted to up-shift to a NANO. Now, if this quadracycle or what ever is the right term gets a new "tax" scheme then it will be posed (and I am sure there will be a migration plan for a Bajaj Scooter owner) to make it more economical one for a two wheeler owner. The rest is the back stage dance before the stage show. Making it a private user vehicle is surely going to make our roads a lot more unsafe and difficult to drive than it is today. We need to move towards standardization, not create new "things" in the name of innovation.

[sadsack]

[quote=blue_pulsar;3151219]Thats a nicely written post, sadsack.

Thank you Blue_Pulsar for your compliment. Much obliged.

[deetjohn]

There is a brilliant article in today' Hindu in Business Review called Quadricycle questions which says this is much more than a corporate battle.

An excerpt from the article:

The government sees the quadricycle as an intra-city people mover which explains its decision to permit them for commercial use.

If that is the case, then it should also design norms for the vehicle that will make it absolutely safe and such norms should account for possible over-loading and running on highways.

This could possibly make the vehicle more expensive but that cannot be an excuse for compromising on safety.

This country may have once made the mistake of licensing the three-wheeled autorickshaw which is possibly one of the most unsafe and polluting, public transport vehicles ever designed. The price we are paying for it now is congestion on roads and pollution — air and noise. We should be careful not to repeat the mistake again.

Link to the full article: quadricycle-questions

Mr. Rajiv Bajaj should read this.

[HighwayofLife]

Originally Posted by discoverwild

Bajaj is not trying to do anyone a favour. He is out to make a quick buck. He brought out a contraption just to make sure that the Nano didn't catch all the limelight. After being unable to make a car of the standards that the Nano has set, he is just trying to save face and create a new category of vehicles for his ill-conceived ideas. No wonder the world laughs at our countrymen, he comparing his RE60 to a Merc and a BMW. What next? Give it leather seats and compare it to the Flying Spur?

Seriously, does Bajaj think his 4 wheeled auto has a chance in the car market? It's really a pathetic joke that such a car with a 2 wheeler engine and zero safety is even being approved in India. Granted that it's still safer than an auto

There are more funny quotes in that article such as "If someone has more than 5 lacs in his pocket, he does not buy a Maruti Suzuki vehicle". If Mr. Bajaj cared to look at sales figures for cars in India, right here on team-bhp, he would know that the Maruti cars that beat the socks of the competition even in this age of the Honda Amaze, continue to be the Swift and the Dzire, both of which are priced above 5 lacs when I last checked.

The whole article is nothing more than a high-powered rant.

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by deetjohn

There is a brilliant article in today' Hindu in Business Review called Quadricycle questions which says this is much more than a corporate battle.

Atleast Mr. Bajaj had the guts to express his views directly even if some of them may have been one sided, but these opposing bigwigs seem to be hiding behind the veil of this 'friendly' reporter and firing.

Some of the arguments from the the article.

Mr. Bajaj is arguing for European norms for quadricycles projecting them as safe. But the problem is that in Europe, the vehicle is used either for recreation and leisure or by the elderly and those too young to get a car licence.

Even motorcycles are recreational vehicles in Europe, but used for commuting in India. They are far more dangerous than any other form of transport and account for the most number of road deaths in india. Why aren't you arguing for their licences to be scrapped.

What we need in India are regulations that will fit the use for which the vehicle will be put to, not based on the category of the vehicle. Thus, if in Europe the quadricycle did not need certification for crash worthiness, in India it is necessary for — government norms notwithstanding — it will ply on highways.

Does the author know that if crash norms are standardised like in Europe, most of the car models that sell more than 1000 units per month here in India will be unfit to be sold.

This country may have once made the mistake of licensing the three-wheeled autorickshaw which is possibly one of the most unsafe and polluting, public transport vehicles ever designed. The price we are paying for it now is congestion on roads and pollution — air and noise.

I live in the same metro as the author and anyone with uncoloured eyes will tell you that the conjestion on the roads is due to the extreme rise in number of cars during the past 8 years and autos form only a small fraction of that number.

[deetjohn]

Originally Posted by Daewood

Some of the arguments from the the article.
Even motorcycles are recreational vehicles in Europe, but used for commuting in India. They are far more dangerous than any other form of transport and account for the most number of road deaths in india. Why aren't you arguing for their licences to be scrapped.

I think this argument is there because the government has more control over what vehicles are to be used for public transport than private ones.

Originally Posted by Daewood

Does the author know that if crash norms are standardised like in Europe, most of the car models that sell more than 1000 units per month here in India will be unfit to be sold.

+ 1

Given the number of accidents and the associated ailments and fatalities, it high time government makes the rules tight with regard to safety. And both active and passive safety features should be made mandatory for all cars sold in the country.

Originally Posted by Daewood

I live in the same metro as the author and anyone with uncoloured eyes will tell you that the conjestion on the roads is due to the extreme rise in number of cars during the past 8 years and autos form only a small fraction of that number.

And the solution is not to flood the market with more vehicles of similar kind right? I quote the article again.

The solution to this problem is not to flood the market with more vehicles that can drive at just that speed; that will be pandemonium on the road. On the contrary, the solution is to create a better, more efficient public transport system and get cars off the roads.