[esoticoreventon]

Attaching a picture of my 2006 Honda City ZX VTEC. The one on the left is the reversing light and the one on the right is a fog lamp. The lower variants (Exi and Gxi) had dual reversing lights.

I have never felt that the reversing light is not sufficient, and even if it was, I can always use the rear fog light for more visibility. But that said, my reversing light is fairly huge, I am not sure how efficient they are on the likes of the elite i20, Tata Hexa or even the German biggies!

[IndigoXLGrandDi]

I feel the Reverse Light provided only on Right Side on our Elite i20 underpowered/insufficient in darker areas even with the Camera and Sensors working.

The Bulb is mounted way low on rear bumper.

It simply does not illuminate the left side of rear number plate which makes reversing in darker areas a nightmare.

The position of bulb is vertical unlike normal position of horizontal (pointing towards rear) also creating hassle in procuring LED Bulb.

[Shreyas Agarwal]

I feel that the sole reason for one reverse light is cost cutting because if it was to comply with regulations, they could have simply changed the tail lamp design to accommodate two reverse lamps and two fog lamps.

When the first time I saw an etios with a single reversing light, I thought that he is such a careless driver that he cannot replae a fused bulb.

It is so asymmetrical that I cannot believe it. Some cars have it in the centre but for the cars with a single reversing light (either left or right) I think that the money spent in their R&D was just shown for tax evasion.

[dheepak10]

Originally Posted by Shreyas Agarwal

the first time I saw an etios with a single reversing light, I thought that he is such a careless driver that he cannot replae a fused bulb.

Even the first time I saw a single reversing light was on an Etios Liva. I was waiting for new bus from Hyderabad to Pondicherry near the Toyota showroom and a guy was taking delivery of his new car with the salesperson explaining him all the features.

So when he tried the reverse gear, I noticed only a single light glowing and went and informed the owner to get it checked with the showroom.

The salesperson then corrected me saying that it comes with a single reversing lamp.

[King_pin09]

Originally Posted by Parag_pv

Let's approach this in a broader perspective. I went through a few e-commerce sites in search of an OEM reverse light bulb for the Indica/Indigo. The closest match was about 400 INR (Price may vary). Note that LEDs and cheaper alternatives are also available. The number of cars sold by Tata motors in the year 2016 to April 2017 is 1,53,151 (IMV Dept). There has been fluctuations in sales over the years but consider an average of 1,50,000 per year. Doing the simple math, we can see that Tata can save upto 6 Crores INR just by skipping a single bulb ,give or take a few Lakhs.

Apologies to differ in opinion.

Brother, Tata (or to this extent any other manufacturer) does not provide any bulb by paying anything from their pockets. If at all they include this bulb of say Rs 400, then the total cost for the same ( Bulb + Taxes + installation charges + inspection charges + overheads + storage and handling charges + bulb housing + wiring), would come to approximately say 600 odd rupees.

Anyways, this entire sum shall be smoothly passed on to the consumer by adding on to the invoice value as this Rs 600 odd is not as much glaring amount for a car costing Rs 3.0 lakhs and above, as its absence would matter in the same. So, in effect, the manufacturers do not lose a thing by adding them in the standard set of equipment but instead they can boast of being "concerned about Customer Safety”, a tag which all manufacturers would wish to be associated with.

In my opinion, the primary reason to deny these lamps could be any/ all of the following,

1. To create parity between high and low priced variants and models, so as to justify the higher priced ones by increasing the feature list.
2. To create space for bringing mid life updates / facelift / refreshes/ Special Editions, etc, where these "Missing elements" gets included at increased prices.
3. Bulbs apparently are not high margin components and their absence would not mean any loss of profit, as against their presence.
Albeit this would mean that the revenue being affected slightly (and so are the expenses).
4. Perhaps, their presence would mean consumption of slightly more time at the assembly line. So skipping of these minor cosmetic features
would facilitate quicker release of the batches thereby enhancing the productivity considerably.
5. Perhaps the manufacturer do not have a direct control on the manufacturing of these components and so their inclusion in higher number
would mean probability of receiving more customer complaints, which would affect their brand image.

Whichever way is the case, the Customer is always put at the toss for bringing profits to the manufacturer.

[Parag_pv]

Originally Posted by King_pin09

//
Anyways, this entire sum shall be smoothly passed on to the consumer by adding on to the invoice value as this Rs 600 odd is not as much glaring amount for a car costing Rs 3.0 lakhs and above, as its absence would matter in the same.
//
1. To create parity between high and low priced variants and models, so as to justify the higher priced ones by increasing the feature list.
3. Bulbs apparently are not high margin components and their absence would not mean any loss of profit, as against their presence.

King_pin, you have some good points there.

A few things I'd like to point out, I never said anything about Tata paying the money out of their pockets. I mentioned a reduction in the total production cost of a huge batch of vehicles.
Also, as one of our friends pointed out earlier, 600 INR was the retail figure. In a batch manufacturing facility the wholesale cost of such a product would be much lower.

If you feel that a mere 600 INR item is not relevant, or that their presence/absence would not affect the production cost, It's only through such small items that the company gains profits.
Check the cost cutting measures taken by Toyota in the Etios. It lacks an engine cover, adjustable headrests, has only one wiper blade instead of two(retails around 500 INR). If you take just one of these items into consideration, it would not seem like the company is saving much. It's the collective omission of a few low margin components (may even include a light bulb) that helps a manufacturer in cutting cost.

As you mentioned, the omission of products will also save time in the assembly line. That was a point I missed out on my earlier post.

Originally Posted by esoticoreventon

Attaching a picture of my 2006 Honda City ZX VTEC. The one on the left is the reversing light and the one on the right is a fog lamp. The lower variants (Exi and Gxi) had dual reversing lights.

Contrary to your point 1, esoticoreventon stated that the lower priced variants of City had dual reversing lights and the higher priced variants did not. Note that this isn't the case for Honda alone.

[motorworks]

Originally Posted by Parag_pv

Sorry for digging up an old thread.

I own a 2015 VW Vento 1.6 HL and I'm fed up with people commenting on the "fused" reverse light of my German engineered automobile (As they mock it).

2. About Volkswagen, The Vento is truly a no nonsense car. Volkswagen did not skip a bulb like Tata. Instead, you have one reversing light and one rear fog light. You activate this by pulling the light control knob to the outer most position and engaging the reverse gear. Voila, now you have both reversing lights. That's your answer for annoying comments on German engineering. I'm currently researching on a way to turn on the fog light along with the reverse light when the reverse gear in engaged.
.

By the way, the Vento's cousin Rapid has dual reverse lights and a rear fog lamp! Well the Rapid costs lesser than the Vento, Skoda could have gained as well by cutting one of those lights. I just think it's not just down to cost. May be the design of the Rear light assembly too. EU regulations have it mandatory to have a rear fog light on the driver's side, so some
of the tail light designs which have no provision for extra lights use one side for reverse light and the other for rear fog lamp. Skoda Rapid's rear fog lamp is sort of encompassed in to the main rear light, so when you turn on the rear fog lamp it lights up in addition to the rear main light. And the reversing lights stay dual.
My assumption could be wrong, but just thinking it's also down to the tail light design.

[Parag_pv]

Originally Posted by motorworks

I just think it's not just down to cost. May be the design of the Rear light assembly too.

Originally Posted by Parag_pv

Or maybe it's the hassles associated with designing and integrating a secondary light in the car's body. A much simpler solution than spending money on redesigning and making amendments.

Motorworks, I completely agree with you on your point.
I have already mentioned the same in my post. A huge amount of money goes into R&D, Designing different components for different country requirements and then manufacturing them is a tedious task for any car company, especially when the car is to be made affordable to the general public. So, VW's decision on the Vento is completely justifiable.

What bothers me most is the decision made by premium car companies. I've seen some posts about a few Indian Mercedes missing one of the rear lights. I don't see the point of cost cutting in a Merc. That's the last thing you'd want. If it's aesthetics, then a single reverse light is very very unsymmetrical. Can someone shed some light on this?