[Nafsika]

I think this one will never be safe to drive...I would never buy that...I'd rather buy a bike than this one.

[Jelena]

Originally Posted by tsa

Due to some safety issues it is not out in the West yet but I think if it ever will be it will be a smash hit. I want one .

I can see myself having one of these for going to and from work. (Preferably the yellow one in the video. )
But it looks a bit too small to be safe enough for long distance driving.
Will they come with a flexifuel option? (expr?)

[tsa]

I have no idea. Wht is flexifuel?

I did find out that it allegedly passed the EuroNCAP crash test, but I couldn't find anything about that on EuroNCAP.org. I must say I haven't really looked for that either; I was distracted by the crash results of my own car

[rlpw]

There are many Americans who would love some Tatas(snicker). If it's like American vehicles FlexFuel means the ability to handle biofuels.

[tsa]

I guess you don't like it because it isn't 4WD, right?

[Jelena]

Originally Posted by rlpw

If it's like American vehicles FlexFuel means the ability to handle biofuels.

That's what I meant.

[tsa]

Originally Posted by Nafsika

I think this one will never be safe to drive...I would never buy that...I'd rather buy a bike than this one.

Originally Posted by Jelena

I can see myself having one of these for going to and from work. (Preferably the yellow one in the video. )
But it looks a bit too small to be safe enough for long distance driving.
Will they come with a flexifuel option? (expr?)

It's meant for use in the city in India, where you don't go much faster than 50 km/h. It can only do 105 km/h max. Here is some more info about the EU crash test it passed. I wonder how it performs in a side crash

[Nafsika]

Yea but still I wouldn't buy that car..I mean it's not a car! Why would anyone wanna buy something like that? If you want a small car buy a smart(which I again think it's a waste of money). If you wanna buy a car just buy a real one...otherwise buy a motorcycle.

[tsa]

I forgot to tell you that it costs only the equivalent of 2000 US$ in India. And it's much more useful than a Smart. You can put 5 people in it and still have a comfortable ride. Of course they mean 5 Indians when they say that, but it's much bigger on the inside than a 2CV so that's cool. I think price/value wise it's a brilliant car, but for the rest you're right.

[Nafsika]

Oh ok yea I see what you mean. Anyway it's just that I wouldn't choose death in a death/money or safety dilemma. XD

[tsa]

Heheh. That's why I would never drive a 2CV, especially on the motorway. That car is just one big crumple zone.

[Sage]

Originally Posted by Nafsika

Yea but still I wouldn't buy that car..I mean it's not a car! Why would anyone wanna buy something like that? If you want a small car buy a smart(which I again think it's a waste of money).

I fully agree with you about the Smart.

Originally Posted by Nafsika

If you wanna buy a car just buy a real one...otherwise buy a motorcycle.

However, if you think of Smart cars as motorcycles with less fun factor and considerably more storage space and weather protection then they start to make a bit more sense.

Originally Posted by tsa

Heheh. That's why I would never drive a 2CV, especially on the motorway. That car is just one big crumple zone.

While 2CVs can't begin to meet modern automobile crash standards, they're no worse (and probably in some respects a lot better) in a crash than many contemporary designs that were far larger and appeared to be safer but actually weren't, because of the 2CV's surprisingly sturdy frame underneath.

In fairness, driving on the motorway was not an initial 2CV design parameter anyway. From the Wikipedia article:
Pierre-Jules Boulanger's early 1930s design brief, (after a pioneering market research survey done by Jacques Duclos), was to be astonishingly radical for the time, was for a low-priced, rugged "umbrella on four wheels" that would enable two peasants to drive 100 kg (220 lb) of farm goods to market at 60 km/h (37 mph), in clogs and across muddy unpaved roads if necessary. France at that time had a very large rural population, who had not yet adopted the automobile, due to its cost. The car would use no more than 3 L of gasoline to travel 100 km (78 MPG). Most famously, it would be able to drive across a ploughed field without breaking the eggs it was carrying. Boulanger later also had the roof raised to allow him to drive while wearing a hat.
The fact that 2CVs were in production as long as they were and adapted to roles for which they were never intended as well as they did is a testament to the overall brilliance of the design. Once again, if you think of a 2CV not as a proper "car" but as a Vespa with vastly superior cargo/passenger capacity and weather protection, then it makes a lot more sense.

[tsa]

When I went home last Sunday I tried out my car on the German Autobahn. I went 172 km/h (106.88 mph). The car is surprisingly stable and silent at that high speed, and very steerable. I love it! I didn't dare go faster because my winter tyres are made for 180 km/h max (there aren't any faster winter tyres in my size). When I have my regular tyres back in spring I will try again.

[rlpw]

Vrroooom Baby!! I went 150mph (240 kph if my old 8th grade math is right) in my first car, a 1970 Chevelle with a 327 and 300 horse heads. Hell of a small engine. I have no hunger for speed after that.

[tsa]

Small engine? 300 hp? Guess what kind of engine I have; my car should be able to do 200 km/h according to the specs. The only place where you can safely do that in Europe on public roads is in Germany, and then only on some parts of the Autobahn.

[Sage]

In my wild youth, I went 105 mph in a '73 Monte Carlo like this one-

... and blasted past an Alabama State Trooper hiding beneath an underpass, resulting in a rather expensive speeding ticket, thus ending my "need for speed".
Several years later I owned a '72 Coronet like this one-

... that if left unchecked would creep up to and maintain 80 mph with less apparent effort than most cars expend to maintain 35 mph. I've often wondered just how fast that car would've gone if I'd ever encouraged it's natural tendency to break the posted speed limits, but cheap tires and no money for speeding tickets forced me to keep that car reigned in to under 60 mph for almost the entire time that I owned it.

[tsa]

Cool car! I can't see the second one though.

[Sage]

Originally Posted by tsa

Cool car!

For the most part, it was. It featured outstanding road-holding, and responsiveness to driver input, putting lie to the theory that large American can't be built to handle well (although I won't argue that most large American cars aren't built to handle well). It did, however, have several ergonomic peculiarities that detracted from it's overall goodness such as:
Bucket seats that sat about two inches too high;
Power window switches that were mounted strangely low and too far forward on the doors;
Instrument covers that were angled in such a way that they reflected whatever shirt I was wearing- a red shirt on a sunny day made it look like all the warning lights were illuminated at once.

Originally Posted by tsa

I can't see the second one though.

Oops! That pic worked okay last night.
Here's another one-

[tsa]

But American cars are maybe fun because they don't handle well. Richard Hammond once said: "I like it when they add more power, and more, and just a bit more, until it's just not usable anymore."

[Sage]

Originally Posted by tsa

But American cars are maybe fun because they don't handle well.

Well, there's certainly a lot more driver skill involved. Any fool can look good zipping around a road course in a light, responsive sports car, but it takes a REAL DRIVER to go around a road course at anything faster than a walking pace in a huge American sedan like this-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eA3gFHM5TI
I love old Lincolns, but I'll be the first to admit that they suffer from (if not actually revel in) flaccid shocks, bare minimum roll control, and slow, numb, and wildly over-boosted steering. The guy driving the car in that video has to be spinning the steering wheel like mad to keep from knocking down every cone on that course... although he's probably able to do so with only the index and middle fingers of one hand.

Originally Posted by tsa

Richard Hammond once said: "I like it when they add more power, and more, and just a bit more, until it's just not usable anymore."

Yeah, that comes from our fascination with drag racing, the automotive manifestation of two typically American attitudes that are applied to everything here:
1. "If some is good, more is better, and a lot more is a lot better".
2. "The best way to get anywhere is in a straight line with no deviation and as quickly as possible".