Jump to content

Talk:Tata Nano/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Clean up

I do believe the lead section requires minor clean up and re-writing. It looks a bit messy as of now. --Western Pines (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A bit messy? Submit this composition for grading in any fifth grade class and it would fail. It's all over the place, breaking the cardinal rule of moving seamlessly from general to specific. "President Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States. He was taller than other Presidents. He was assassinated. He had a mole on his right cheek. He freed the slaves." 842U (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This page is only for questions about using Wikipedia, not for general knowledge questions. If you have any factual questions please use the search box or post them on the Reference desk. Western Pines (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Number of Cases of "fire"

http://news.oneindia.in/2010/03/24/brand-new-tata-nano-goes-up-in-flames.html

There are many numbers that have been floating regarding cases of fire. But there is only one known incident with vital information like the Owner, Place, Time. And there are pictures to prove it. And if there have been 7 cases, then who owned rest of those 6 nanos ? Why there are no reports regarding those cases in credible Indian Media source like TvToday, NDTV, Hindu, HT, TOI ? Where are the pictures and Videos.

Some don't even call it fire, Huffington post and many other sources say that Tata Nano EXPLODED so what should be the headline of the section, that Tata Nano exploded or that this was a case of Fire ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/25/tata-nano-exlpodes-in-mum_n_513640.html http://www.duniyalive.com/?p=111627

The interview of the owner makes it clear that the car didn't explode as he wasn't aware of the issues, until when he was told by some motorcyclist. So this is a very good example of how we cannot trust just any media source or cite the wildest story or number.

Last but not least, Tata Motors who sold those vehicles, says that :-

"The incident in Mumbai does not require a recall because it is a stray one-off incident due to a problem in that particular unit,” wrote Debasis Ray, the head of corporate communications at Tata, in an e-mail message. “We are trying to understand what may have caused it. There are close to 30,000 Tata Nanos on the road now and increasing. There are no design or manufacturing lacunae in the cars.“

There you have it, I think that is certainly more credible source than various sites reporting various figures without any detail regarding Owner, Place, Time or any Picture/Video of the car.

Also, this incident is certainly not related to the last 3 incidents which were incorrectly reported as case of fire, when they were really cases of smoke from fire retardant material. Because the origin of fault in last 3 cases was the Steering Assembly, whereas in the case of Mr Sawant's car it was at the back of the car as reported in multiple Media sources.

Read this story http://business.rediff.com/report/2009/oct/22/auto-3-nanos-catch-fire-since-september.htm

Headline says that Nano caught fire, but inside it says that the there was smoke due to issue with fire retardant material, which Tata Motors rectified and returned the cars to the owners. If there really was fire then do you think that the Plastic dashboard - steering wheel - seats - covers - mats - wiring - instrumentations - buttons would have survived that ?

In case of fire there is no way one can fix the car and return, so obviously these are cases of irresponsible journalism which gets quoted by other News sources.

Also regarding the name of the section, if 1 case of fire and 3 case of short circuit makes it necessary to have such headline then soon we will need to have Cases of Fire, Smoke, Puncture, Oil Change.

And also we will need such section for every article of other mass produced car as almost every single mass produced car have had cases of short circuit and fires. Anmol.2k4 (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your reasoning is very flawed. Yes, Tata denied that there had been fires, but Toyota denied that their cars did not have an acceleration problem. Moreover, an electrical short circuit produces heat, no? Common knowledge, right? Could it be possible this is the reason why the fire retardant produced smoke, as in smoke from a fire? I don't think you are being objective here. Do you work for Tata? Soupysoap (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry but you are not being objective, because if there was fire then the the Plastic casing of Steering Wheel Assembly, Dashboard, Instrument Panel, Knobs and levers, Rear View Mirror, Electrical, Wiring, Seats and every thing else would have melted and there is no way one can rectify melted and fused parts.
So we have two things confirmed from the most reliable source, that there was smoke and they rectified it.
Also please don't pretend that Tata have denied anything, there are no pictures or names of the owners of those 3 nanos and Tata have responded accepting that there was some fault that they fixed it by removing steering wheel assembly component from all existing cars and the OEM for fire retardant material.

Moreover, an electrical short circuit produces heat, no? Common knowledge, right? Could it be possible this is the reason why the fire retardant produced smoke, as in smoke from a fire?

Did you read what Tata Motors said ? Kindly do the reading rather than coming to own conclusions. 3 Nanos were parked, and under direct sunlight the temperatures inside rose hence the fire retardant material melted which exposed electrical and the cocktail of short circuit and melted fire retardant material produced black smoke that alerted the owner.

Do you work for Tata

Because I am not having same point of view as you, you accuse me of working for Tata ? But for your kind information even if I did work for Tata, even then there is nothing wrong for a Tata employee to edit articles while conforming to Wikipedia's norms.
How about this, don't keep this to yourself, you should take this to some admin to find out if your suspicions are true. Few things that might help your case :- I think I joined in 2005 and since 2008 started working on this article and other than this article I contribute to most of the Tata Motors articles and have started many articles for their new launches .
And soupy, even though it doesn't matter and there is nothing wrong with you being as such until you follow wikipedia guidelines, how would you feel if I or anyone else were to accuse as being paid by Tata Motor's competitor ?
Regarding the headline, again my reasoning is that almost all cars that have been mass produced have had some model which have gone up in flames. In fact I can show you pictures of many more separate incidents of much more expensive vehicle such a Lamborghini, so does that mean we would add such section to Lamborghini and to every other car's article ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/motoring/article-1197858/Rare-Lamborghini-Gallardo-bursts-flames-test-drive.html http://jalopnik.com/5291012/lamborghini-gallardo-burns-in-greece-ignites-super-car-flame-war http://jalopnik.com/5291012/lamborghini-gallardo-burns-in-greece-ignites-super-car-flame-war http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/lamborghini-owned-by-hulk-hogan-catches-fire-ar13206.html http://aussieexotics.com/drivers/displayimage-17931.html http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Lamborghini-catches-fire-at-Chennai-airport-engine-damaged/articleshow/5262710.cms


Do you want cases for BMW, Lotus, Ferrari, Audi, Ford, Hyundai etc etc ? Can you google.
Here are some other cars sold in India catching fire :-
http://www.thehindu.com/2009/03/19/stories/2009031953420300.htm http://www.consumercomplaints.in/complaints/hyundai-i10-magna-12-c325460.html http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/street-experiences/49074-swift-catches-fire.html http://www.indianexpress.com/news/car-fire-husband-in-shock-not-told-about-w/550809/ http:// http://www.ahmedabadmirror.com/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=3&contentid=2009080120090801032710453de36a5bb&sectxslt http://www.consumercomplaints.in/complaints/maruti-suzuki-swiftzxi-c55237.html http://www.theinsidenewshyderabad.com/?p=1490 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ludhiana/Car-catches-fire-at-Mall-Road/articleshow/5638238.cms http://www.deccanchronicle.com/latest-news/omar-abdullah-has-narrow-escape-car-catches-fire-247 http://www.topnews.in/woman-burnt-alive-car-catches-fire-delhi-2242432 http://www.thehindu.com/2009/11/24/stories/2009112459270300.htm http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091206/jsp/nation/story_11828786.jsp http://samaylive.com/404.html?url=http://www.samaylive.com/news/car-catches-fire-on-dnd-flyover/66879.html http://www.consumercourt.in/after-sale-services/3069-safety-failure-hyundai-vehicles-rat-bite-leads-fire-accident.html http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/12-children-inside-when-it-caught-fire-van-didnt-have-permit-to-transport-school-kids/266498/ http://photos.merinews.com/newPhotoLanding.jsp?imageID=4987 http://www.consumercomplaints.in/complaints/maruti-suzuki-swiftzxi-c55237.html http://burnyourfuel.com/2009/03/01/cars/was-fiat-grand-punto-caught-fire-during-testing/ http://www.ahmedabadmirror.com/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=3&contentid=2009080120090801032710453de36a5bb&sectxslt
Also why just fire, why not any other issue ? How about faulty seat belts and non working headlight or brakes all of which can cost life of the owner ? I am sure you know that one can find one or two such cases for every car on the plant.
I know you think this case is like that of Toyota, well unlike Toyota there have been 1 known case of fire with solid evidence to back it up. Unlike Toyota, Tata Motors have admitted fault and taken measures such as replacing OEM and such. While Toyota was being alerted about this issue since 1999 and hundreds of unintended acceleration cases were reported even back then. But there have been one case of fire and other smaller issues. Unlike toyota, Tata is not accused of destroying evidence and making excuses.
Today there are 40,000 nanos on road, and the number is increasing and if there was any design or component's flaw, lot more cases would have been reported than just one of Mr Sawant. Unless this becomes a norm and we have hundreds upon hundreds cases that get reported this certainly doesn't deserve its own section.
Henceforth I am reverting the sections heading to "Post Sales Issues" Anmol.2k4 (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

fuel efficiency

shouldn't it be expressed in terms of litres per hundred kilometres instead of km/l? I'm User:Ich and too lazy to sign in. 64.9.63.183 (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

nano booking

TO TATAMOTORS 

                                                                       April 18, 2010.
                                      Unique Identification Number : 110256102

Mr. Nitin Seth Head - Car Product Group

Dear Sir,

Kindly let me know to whom I should contact at Bangalore Concorde Motors regarding current position of delivery of my Nano car booking. Please provide the details as I wish to contact in person at any of your Concorde office on May 03, 2010. I wish to take delivery immediately if possible.

A line of acknowledgement is highly appreciated,

K.R.SUBRAMANYA


Forwarded message ----------

From: Subramanya K.R. <susowpanika5@yahoo.co.in> Date: Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:02 PM Subject: Delivery advancement of TATA NANO car To: tatanano@tatamtors.com Cc: infoblr@concordemotors.com


To November 13, 2009. 

                                      Unique Identification Number : 110256102

Mr. Nitin Seth Head - Car Product Group


Thankyou for letter dated October 19, 2009 informing about advancement of delivery of Nano LX Sunshine yellow BS 3 by July - September 2010 through CONCORDE MOROTS BANGALORE.

Pleas try advance the delivery if possible by January-March 2010 as I am getting retired by September 2010 and my wish to have a new TATA NANO car before retirement.

Awaiting for your positive reply soon,

Yours faithfuly,

K.R.SUBRAMANYA 10/A, NETHAJI ROAD, THYAGARAJANAGAR 3RD BLOCK BANGALORE 560 028 KARNATAKA

copy to CONCORDE BANGALORE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.112.115 (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

accurate figures?

are these figures accurate?

"Many have compared the Nano with Henry Ford's Model T launched exactly 100 years earlier, in 1908.[citation needed] While the Model T initially cost $850 (equivalent to $20,091 today), Ford refined the assembly line process and by the 1920s, the price of Ford's Model T had fallen to $290 (equivalent to $3,191 today),[89] comparable to the release price of the Nano at US$2,171 as of October 2009."

if $290 is equivalent $3191, then how come $850 is equivalent to $20,091? $850 is slightly less than 3 times $290, but $20,091 is slightly less than 7 times $3191.

202.53.199.23 (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the title of section dealing with two inscidents of fire, 3 incident of a parts malfunction etc.

Well, I have gone over this again and again with past contributors. There have been only two cases out of total delivered vehicles, which is probably reaching ~60,000 figure. Of these two only one was owned by a customer and hence fire issue affected only once customer.

Also, after Tata Motors forensic study it was found that it wasn't due to related causes, any part's malfunction or some defect in design, rather it was caused by a foreign object blocking the exhaust pipe in case of car owned by Mr Sawant of Mumbai. In case of the incident that took place in Gujarat, the car owned by Tata Motors itself was being driven to a dealership and the fire incident was caused by ruptured fuel pipe. Again the vehicle cannot rupture its own fuel pipe and nor can fuel pipe rupture itself. It was due to improper handling which led to fuel pipe being ruptured, this probably happened as this particular nano was being taken off the container. So, the two fires took place due to non related and external causes. So the term "Spontaneous Combustion" is improper as two cars didn't caught fire on their own but due to external causes.

Also having title such as "Fire & Smoke" is not encyclopedic,as if we will small issues affecting 2-3 customers in the title then where are we going to draw line. Soon we will have "Fire Smoke, Drained out Battery, Low tire pressure, Non Functional Headlight, Non functional HVAC, Hard steering - clutch - gear". Also, neither Smoke nor Fire actually convey the real issue as both are just symptoms. Again, issues were :- ruptured fuel pipe,foreign object blocking exhaust and malfunctioning combination switch.

That is why the encyclopedic title to various issues that will affect users is "Post sales issues".

Also, GM recently did recall of because of actual Spontaneous Combustion issues with many of their models. There were not 1 or 2 incidents rather thousands. Same thing happened with Ford which also affected thousands which led them recall some 4 million vehicles http://www.switchfires.com/.

Point is, these cases were not due to external causes and affected LOT more people(in fact injuring and killing some customers) than just one in case of Nano and such defects were not just in one or two models but numerous models from many different years.

So we are looking at around following vehicles

GM vehicles :-

Buick Lucerne, Cadillac DTS, Hummer H2 (2006-2009 Models)

Buick Enclave, Cadillac CTS (2008-2009 Models) Cadillac Escalade, Escalade ESV, Escalade EXT, Chevrolet Avalanche, Silverado, Suburban, Tahoe, GMC Acadia, Sierra, Yukon, Yukon XL; Saturn Outlook (2007-2009 Models)

Chevrolet Traverse (2009 Model)

Ford vehicles :-

Cars

1992-1998 Ford Crown Victoria 1992-1998 Lincoln Town Car 1992-1998 Mercury Grand Marquis 1993-1995 Ford Taurus SHO 1993-1998 Lincoln Mark VIII 1994 Mercury Capri SUVs 1993-1996 Ford Bronco 1997-2002 Ford Expedition 1998-2001 Ford Explorer 1998-2001 Mercury Mountaineer 1998-2002 Lincoln Navigator 2000-2003 Ford Excursion 2001-2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2001-2002 Ford Explorer Sport Trac Pickup Trucks 1993-2004 Ford F-150 1993-2003 Ford F-250 1993-1999 Ford F-250 gas engine 1993-2003 Ford F-350 1993-2003 Ford F-450 1993-2003 Ford F-550 1993-2002 F series Super Duty 1998-2002 Ford Ranger 2001 F-Series Super Crew 2002-2003 Lincoln Blackwood 2003-2004 Ford F-150 Lightning Vans 1992-1993, 1997-2003 E150-350 1994-1996 Ford Econoline 1996-2003 Ford E-450 gas or natural gas 2002 Ford E-550 gas RVs and Motorhomes

1995-2002 Ford F53 Motor Home

Are we going to have "Spontaneous Combustion" section in all those cars ? Anmol.2k4 (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

By all means add sections to those articles. I changed the name of the section because your title was ridiculous. I think your reasoning as to causes is specious, a customer doens't care why the car bursts into flames, they just rather it didn't. Incidentally if you want to discuss stuff on talk pages don't make massive edits to the article at the same time, I'll just revert them. I agree the crash criticism should go into the design section, at least until accident stats are released.Greglocock (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

With all those Ford and GM vehicles, I was trying to give you a hint of the kind of precedent that has been set in Wikipedia. Please do a search on the both issues. Rather than adding ridiculous sections in each and every vehicle, there is a section for the actual issue in the article for the part that actually malfunctioned.
Regarding the title, what do you mean by "Ridiculous" ? I am sorry but that is a ridiculous excuse, please give a logical reason why your title should be preferred. I don't think you are helping by simply calling other people's edits as "ridiculous".
Speaking of ridiculous, going by the logic you have used for that title soon we will have title such as "Fires, smoke, spontaneous combustion, flat tires, dysfunctional headlights". Try to think of the number of issues that would affect hundreds of thousands car owners over the years, issues which only affect 1 or 2 people. And you think my title is ridiculous ?, and your's makes lot of sense ?
Also, while you can have can have an opinion that my edits are ridiculous, but ones you made were outright false. I explained in the previous post what "Spontaneous Fires" really mean, it means that a car catches fire by itself without any external cause. If you would have done some research you would have known that the two nanos did not catch fire on their own but due to external cause: Foreign object blocking exhaust and ruptured fuel pipe.

I think your reasoning as to causes is specious, a customer doens't care why the car bursts into flames, they just rather it didn't

My reasoning, that you are labeling as "false" is based on the result of the forensic study done to find out the cause. So again, I am curious how you can claim that as a) my reasoning. b) false.
Also why does it matter what they care or don't care about, explain to me where in Wikipedia's policy is it written that we should have edits made on the basis of what some individuals care or don't care about not matter how ridiculous their reasoning might be ? Last I checked this isn't customerpedia, this is wikipedia which happens to be an encyclopedia. Some individuals who's vehicles get caught up in floods won't care why the water would destroys the car, they just rather it didn't. Likewise when a car gets damaged by the speedbumps, some customers may not care why that happened, they just rather it didn't. And you were saying something like my edits being ridiculous.
So tell me are you going to make edits to all the vehicles ever produced which might have got damaged due to external causes ? And do you think those edits would be encyclopedic.

I agree the crash criticism should go into the design section, at least until accident stats are released

It is hard not to detect some agenda. Explain to me why suc criticism is relevant if the vehicles in question complies with all the regulations in place where it is on sale ? Are you suggesting that the car can prove its safety only if in each and every case of accident occupant survive any kind of crash. If that is the case then it would mean that each and every single passenger vehicle ever manufactured would require a section called "Crash criticism", because there isn't any car which can promise survival for its occupants in any kind of accident. Also, can you please give me the name of authority which compiles such statistics.
IMHO only the criticism based on results of tests done by ARAI, EuroNCAP and NHTSA are relevant to the article.
Coming back to the title for the section, "Post Sales Issues" makes lot more sense as two incidents caused by unrelated external factors which affected only one customer Mr Sawant, notability of this incident is debatable hence a section for this incident alone IMHO cannot be justified and allowing such a section would open a door for other small sections all over wikipedia regarding incidents affecting one or two people.
Regarding some edits you have made regarding "abs", do you know that this isn't either a standard feature or a regulatory for cars sold in India. In fact even air bags aren't found in 90% vehicles sold. I can give you statistics with model wise breakup and you can confirm whether those cars come with abs srs etc. But I have issue with abs alone, as i believe it isn't a standard feature in kei/city cars sold in most countries. What is your opinion on this matters ?
Anmol.2k4 (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Get a grip, have a cup of tea, go for a walk. The wording I have used is generally a paraphrase of what is in the sources given. You may observe that I have added very little material to this article, mostly I have been reorganising it and getting rid of some of the more egregious rubbish. That is I did not add the stuff on fires, other editors did. But calling a fire an incident is spin of the worst sort. Yes I was taking the mickey when I agreed with your foolish suggestion to add a section on fires to every single article. It would appear that you are very easy to wind up. Greglocock (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Fuel Mileage

I noticed that the article uses km/l for direct conversion of mpg. It's supposed to be read litres/100km. That is the correct metric way to read it. Acid 1 (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Article Length

What's the deal with the article length to and fro? Please sort it out here rather than just reverting each other. Greglocock (talk)17:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The matter has been sorted at my talk page RahulChoudhary 18:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Greglocock. I have reopened the discussion here at User talk:Fleetham. Please share your opinion there.--Pineapple Fez 06:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is an incomplete list of things I removed from the page. If anyone wants something put back, I will not be against that.

  • Number of pre-orders
  • Price of the Maruti 800
  • A mention that the car was thought to open entrepreneurial-opportunities across India
  • Eco-friendliness
  • safety
  • speculation that the car might be a simple four-wheeled auto rickshaw
  • That the car was partly designed at Italy's Institute of Development in Automotive Engineering
  • That Bosch's subsidiary in India will be manufacturing the fuel-injection and brake systems for the Nano
  • That the Nano has 21% more interior space (albeit mostly as headroom, due to its tall stance) and an 8% smaller exterior compared to its closest rival, the Maruti 800
  • That Tata has set its initial production target at 250,000 units per year
  • The choices Tata faced due to rising material costs
  • That it is the first time a two-cylinder non-opposed petrol engine will be used in a car with a single balance shaft
  • That Tata filed 34 patents for the car
  • any mention of Girish Wagh
  • That the Nano passed the required Indian 'homologation’ tests
  • rear mounted engine discussion
  • diesel engine rumor
  • Guinness Book of World Records as the world's lowest cost production car
  • Comparison to the Model T
  • any mention of Mamata Banerjee, including his a hunger strike
  • a government ban of political parties holding meetings or processions at Singur
  • the death of Tapasi, a Save Farmland Committee campaigner
  • two incidents when a Nano caught fire

Fleetham (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not against adding facts to the page, but please do so one-by-one. I am against reverting the page. If you want to improve the article please do so by doing something other than reverting it to an earlier version. Fleetham (talk) 07:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Carfires

The Tata Nano has caught fire six times by Friday, Aug 27, 2010--209.213.220.227 (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Car fires numbers by AAA and the National Fire Protection Association 2005 say that "266,000 car fires resulted in 520 deaths". Can someone give details of these and latest figures so we can make people aware of this please?Thisthat2011 (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that 6 car fire incidents make it to the article as anyhing. Am I missing anything here or is talking about safety of cheap cars is passed off an acceptable behavior in spite of numbers that prove otherwise.Thisthat2011 (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Pics do have commerical-use lic.

A flickr search reveals the pics on this page, while appearing to me not to have commercial-reuse rights, do in fact allow commercial use. Fleetham (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Where's the engine?

The article says, "The Nano's trunk is only accessible from inside the car, as the rear hatch does not open.[20]" but later it says it has a rear engine. So either the trunk is in the front and the rear hatch gives engine access, or the engine's in the rear and the front hatch doesn't open. Or..???? Very confusing. Graywriter (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the engine is in the front. See this photo. On the Tata official site under "features" --> "interior" a "rear parcel shelf" is mentioned. My guess is that this is the Nano's truck. Fleetham (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, according to this website it looks like "To create extra space for passengers, Tata’s engineers jammed the Nano’s engine under the rear seat." Fleetham (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tata_Nano/Archive_2&oldid=1137219698"