R.A. Mashelkar: Breakthrough designs for ultra-low-cost products

R.A. Mashelkar: Breakthrough designs for ultra-low-cost products


The big residual is always value for money. All the time we are trying to get value for money. What we don’t look for is value for many, while we are generating value for money. Do we care about those four billion people whose income levels are less than two dollars a day, the so-called bottom of the pyramid? What are the challenges in getting value for money as well as value for many? We have described here in terms of the performance and the price. If you have money, of course, you can get the value. You can get a Mercedes for a very high price, very high performance. But if you don’t have money, what happens? Well, you are to ride a bicycle, carrying your own weight and also some other weight, so that you can earn the bread for the day. Well, poor do not remain poor; they become lower-middle-class. And if they do so, then, of course, the conditions improve, and they start riding on scooters. But the challenge is, again, they don’t get much value, because they can’t afford anything more than the scooter. The issue is, at that price, can you give them some extra value? A super value, in terms of their ability to ride in a car, to get that dignity, to get that safety, looks practically impossible, isn’t it. Now, this is something that we see on Indian streets all the time. But many people see the same thing and think things differently, and one of them is here, Ratan Tata. The great thing about our leaders is that, should they not only have passion in their belly, which practically all of them have, they’re also very innovative. An innovator is one who does not know it cannot be done. They believe that things can be done. But great leaders like Ratan have compassion. And what you said, Lakshmi, is absolutely true: it’s not just Ratan Tata, it’s the house of Tatas over time. Let me confirm what she said. Yes, I went barefoot until I was 12. I struggled to [unclear] day was a huge issue. And when I finished my SSC, the eleventh standard, I stood eleventh among 125,000 students. But I was about to leave the school, because my poor mother couldn’t afford schooling. And it was [unclear] Tata Trust, which gave me six rupees per month, almost a dollar per month for six years. That’s how I’m standing before you. So that is the House of Tata. (Applause) Innovation, compassion and passion. They combine all that. And it was that compassion which bothered them, because when he saw — in fact, he told me about eight or nine years ago how he was driving his own car — he drives his own car by the way — and he saw in the rain, a family like the one that I showed to you getting drenched with an infant. And then he said, “Well, I must give them a car that they can afford, one lakh car, $2,000 car.” Of course, as soon as you say something like this people say it is impossible, and that’s what was said by Suzuki. He said, oh, probably he is going to build a three-wheeler with stepney. And you can see the cartoon here. Well they didn’t build that. They built a proper car. Nano. And mind you, I’m six feet half an inch, Ratan is taller than me, and we have ample space in the front and ample space in the back in this particular car. And incredible car. And of course, nothing succeeds like success; the cynics then turned around, and one after the other they also started saying, “Yes, we also want to make a car in the Nano Segment. We’ll manufacture a car in the Nano Segment.” How did this great story unfold, the making of Nano? Let me tell you a bit about it. For example, how we started: Ratan just began with a five-engineer team, young people in their mid-twenties. And he said, “Well, I won’t define the vehicle for you, but I will define the cost for you. It is one lakh, 100,000 rupees, and you are to make it within that.” And he told them, “Question the unquestionable. Stretch the envelope.” And at a point in time, he got so engrossed in the whole challenge, that he himself became a member of the team. Can you believe it? I still am told about this story of that single wiper design in which he participated. Until midnight, he’d be thinking. Early morning he’ll be coming back with sort of solutions. But who was the team leader? The team leader was Girish Wagh, a 34 year-old boy in [unclear]. And the Nano team average age was just 27 years. And they did innovation in design and beyond. Broke many norms of the standard conventions for the first time. For example, that a two-cylinder gas engine was used in a car with a single balancer shaft. Adhesives were replacing the rivets. There was a co-creation, a huge co-creation, with vendors and suppliers. All ideas on board were welcome. 100 vendors were co-located adjacent to the plant, and innovative business models for automobile dealerships were developed. Imagine that a fellow who sells cloth, for example, will be selling Nano. I mean, it was incredible innovation. Seeking solutions for non-auto sectors. It was an open innovation, ideas from all over were welcome. The mechanism of helicopters seats and windows was used, by the way, as well as a dashboard that was inspired by two-wheelers. The fuel lines and lamps were as in two-wheelers. And the crux of the matter was, however, getting more from less. All the time, you have been given an envelope. You can’t cross that envelope, which is 100,000 rupees, 2,000 dollars. And therefore, each component had to have a dual functionality. And the seat riser, for example, serving as a mounting for the seat as well as a structural part of the functional rigidity. Half the number of parts are contained in Nano in comparison to a typical passenger car. The length is smaller by eight percent by the way. But the current entry-level cars in comparison to that is eight percent less, but 21 percent more inside space. And what happened was that — more from less — you can see how much more for how much less. When the Model T was launched — and this is, by the way, all the figures that are adjusted to 2007 dollar prices — Model T was 19,700 by Ford. Volkswagon was 11,333. And British Motor was around 11,000. And Nano was, bang, 2,000 dollars. This is why you started actually a new paradigm shift, where the same people who could not dream of sitting in a car, who were carrying their entire family in a scooter, started dreaming of being in a car. And those dreams are getting fulfilled. This is a photograph of a house and a driver and a car near my own home. The driver’s name is Naran. He has bought his own Nano. And you can see, there is a physical space that has been created for him, parking that car, along with the owner’s car, but more importantly, they’ve created a space in their mind that “Yes, my chauffeur is going to come in his own car and park it.” And that’s why I call it a transformational innovation. It is not just technological, it is social innovation that we talk about. And that is where, ladies and gentlemen, this famous theme of getting more from less for more becomes important. I remember talking about this for the first time in Australia, about one and a half years ago, when their academy honored me with a fellowship. And unbelievably, in 40 years, I was the first Indian to be honored. And the title of my talk was therefore “Indian innovation from Gandhi to Gandhian engineering.” And I titled this more from less for more and more people as Gandhian engineering. And Gandhian engineering, in my judgment, is the one which is going to take the world forward, is going to make a difference, not just for a few, but for everyone. Let me move from mobility in a car to individual mobility for those unfortunates who have lost their legs. Here is an American citizen and his son having an artificial foot. What is its price? 20,000 dollars. And of course, these feet are so designed that they can walk only on such perfect pavement or roads. Unfortunately, that’s not the case in India. You can see him walk barefoot on an awkward land, sometimes in a marshy land, and so on and so forth. More importantly, they not only walk far to work, and not only do they cycle to work, but they cycle for work, as you can see here. And they climb up for their work. You have to design an artificial foot for such conditions. A challenge, of course. Four billion people, their incomes are less then two dollars a day. And if you talk about a 20,000-dollar shoe, you’re talking about 10,000 days of income. You just don’t have it. And therefore, you ought to look at alternatives. And that is how Jaipur Foot was created in India. It had a revolutionary prosthetic fitment and delivery system, a quick molding and modular components, enabling custom-made, on-the-spot limb fitments. You could feel it actually in an hour, by the way, whereas the equivalent other feet took something like a day, as so on. Outer socket made by using heated high-density polyethylene pipes, rather than using heated sheets. And unique high-ankle design and human-like looks, [unclear] and functions. And I like to show how it looks and how it works. (Music) See, he jumps. You can see what stress it must have. (Text: … any person with a below the knee limb could do this. … above the limb, yes, it would be difficult … “Did it hurt?” “No … not at all.” … he can run a kilometer in four minutes and 30 seconds …) One kilometer in four minutes and 30 seconds. (Applause) So that’s what it is all about. And therefore Time took notice of this 28-dollar foot, basically. (Applause) An incredible story. Let’s move on to something else. I’ve been talking about getting more from less for more. Let’s move to health. We’ve talked about mobility and the rest of it, let’s talk about health. What’s happening in the area of health? You know, you have new diseases that require new drugs. And if you look at the drug development 10 years ago and now, what has happened? 10 years ago, it used to cost about a quarter billion. Today it costs 1.5 billion dollars. Time taken for moving a molecule to marketplace, after all the human and animal testing, was 10 years, now it is 15 years. Are you getting more drugs because you are spending more time and more money? No, I’m sorry. We used to have 40, now they have come down to 30. So actually we are getting less from more for less and less people. Why less and less people? Because it is so expensive, so very few will be able to basically afford that. Let us just take an example. Psoriasis is very dreadful disease of the skin. The cost of treatment, 20,000 dollars. 1,000-dollar antibody injections under the skin, by the way, and 20 of them. Time for development — it took around 10 years and 700 million dollars. Let’s start in the spirit of more from less and more for more and start putting some targets. For example, we don’t want 20,000 dollars; we don’t have it. Can we do it [for] 100 dollars? Time for development, not 10 years. We are in a hurry. Five years. Cost of development — 300 million dollars. Sorry. I can’t spend more than 10 million dollars. Looks absolutely audacious. Looks absolutely ridiculous. You know something? This has been achieved in India. These targets have been achieved in India. And how they have been achieved … Sir Francis Bacon once said, “When you wish to achieve results that have not been achieved before, it is an unwise fancy to think that they can be achieved by using methods that have been used before.” And therefore, the standard process, where you develop a molecule, put it into mice, into men, are not yielding those results — the billions of dollars that have been spent. The Indian cleverness was using its traditional knowledge, however, scientifically validating it and making that journey from men to mice to men, not molecule to mice to men, you know. And that is how this difference has come. And you can see this blending of traditional medicine, modern medicine, modern science. I launched a big program [unclear] CSIR about nine years ago. He is giving us not just for Psoriasis, for cancer and a whole range of things, changing the whole paradigm. And you can see this Indian Psoriasis breakthrough obtained by this reverse form of [unclear] by doing things differently. You can see before treatment and after treatment. This is really getting more from less for more and more people, because these are all affordable treatments now. Let me just remind you of what Mahatma Gandhi had said. He had said, “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed.” So the message he was giving us was you must get more from less and less and less so that you can share it for more and more people, not only the current generation, but the future generations. And he also said, “I would prize every invention of science made for the benefit for all.” So he was giving you the message that you must have it for more and more people, not just a few people. And therefore, ladies and gentlemen, this is the theme, getting more from less for more. And mind you, it is not getting just a little more for just a little less. It’s not about low cost. It’s about ultra-low cost. You cannot say it’s a mere treatment 10,000 dollars, but because you are poor I’ll give it for 9,000. Sorry, it doesn’t work. You have to give it for 100 dollars, 200 dollars. Is it possible? It has been made possible, by the way, for certain other different reasons. So you are not talking about low cost, you are talking about ultra-low cost. You are not talking about affordability, you are talking about extreme affordability. Because of the four billion people whose income is under two dollars a day. You’re not talking exclusive innovation. You’re talking about inclusive innovation. And therefore, you’re not talking about incremental innovation, you’re talking about disruptive innovation. The ideas have to be such that you think in completely different terms. And I would also add, it is not only getting more from less for more by more and more people, the whole world working for it. I was very touched when I saw a breakthrough the other day. You know, incubators for infants, for example. They’re not available in Africa. They’re not available in Indian villages. And infants die. And incubator costs 2,000 dollars. And there’s a 25-dollar incubator giving that performance that had been created. And by whom? By young students from Standford University on an extreme affordability project that they had, basically. Their heart is in the right place, like Ratan Tata. It’s not just innovation, compassion and passion — compassion in the heart and passion in the belly. That’s the new world that we want to create. And that is why the message is that of Gandhian engineering. Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to end before time. I was also afraid of those 18 minutes. I’ve still one and a half to go. The message, the final message, is this: India gave a great gift to the world. What was that? [In the] 20th century, we gave Gandhi to the world. The 21st century gift, which is very, very important for the whole world, whether it is global economic meltdown, whether it is climate change — any problem that you talk about is gaining more from less for more and more — not only the current generations, for the future generations. And that can come only from Gandhian engineering. So ladies and gentlemen, I’m very happy to announce, this gift of the 21st century to the world from India, Gandhian engineering. (Applause) Lakshmi Pratury: Thank you, Dr. Mashelkar. (R.A. Mashelkar: Thank you very much.) LP: A quick question for you. Now, when you were a young boy in this school, what were your thoughts, like what did you think you could become? What do you think that drove you? Was there a vision you had? What is it that drove you? RAM: I’ll tell you a story that drove me, that transformed my life. I remember, I went to a poor school, because my mother could not gather the 21 rupees, that half a dollar that was required within the stipulated time. It was [unclear] high school. But it was a poor school with rich teachers, honestly. And one of them was [unclear] who taught us physics. One day he took us out into the sun and tried to show us how to find the focal length of a convex lens. The lens was here. The piece of paper was there. He moved it up and down. And there was a bright spot up there. And then he said, “This is the focal length.” But then he held it for a little while, Lakshmi. And then the paper burned. When the paper burned, for some reason he turned to me, and he said, “Mashelkar, like this, if you do not diffuse your energies, if you focus your energies, you can achieve anything in the world.” That gave me a great message: focus and you can achieve. I said, “Whoa, science is so wonderful, I have to become a scientist.” But more importantly, focus and you can achieve. And that message, very frankly, is valuable for society today. What does that focal length do? It has parallel lines, which are sun rays. And the property of parallel lines is that they never meet. What does that convex lens do? It makes them meet. This is convex lens leadership. You know what today’s leadership is doing? Concave length. They divide them farther. So I learned the lesson of convex lens leadership from that. And when I was at National Chemical Laboratory [unclear]. When I was at Council of Scientific Industry Research — 40 laboratories — when two laboratories were not talking to each other, I would [unclear]. And currently I’m president of Global Research Alliance, 60,000 scientists in nine counties, right from India to the U.S. I’m trying to build a global team, which will look at the global grand challenges that the world is facing. That was the lesson. That was the inspirational moment. LP: Thank you very much. (RAM: Thank you.) (Applause)

94 thoughts on “R.A. Mashelkar: Breakthrough designs for ultra-low-cost products

  1. Nobody gets rich by selling 50 expensive airconditioners to the Royalty of Europe.
    They get rich by selling 500 million airconditioners to absolutely everybody.
    In a free market, those who cut costs make better profits, and sell to the "many".

  2. @graphattic what about the running costs? a used car has probably a shorter lifetime and uses more fuel while being less efficient. These are just assumptions, but price is not the only factor you should take into account when judging a product. Not even if you only want to look at it from a financial stand point. IF the Nano uses less fuel and is more efficient it also has less impact on the environment, which for me is not a question of luxury.

  3. I was watching this when my brother walked in and said "leave it to a brown guy to find the cheapest way to do things"

  4. @ThatsSouTrik That's the model that dropped the price of a PC from $4000 to $400, including Windows, and made it possible for half the world to have their own computer.
    I've been using Linux since before Win95 came out, and Linux is far cheaper and more international than Windows. Again, more from less for more, by the simple expedient of no govt enforced monopoly: The Free Market.

  5. @CurtHowland agreed, yet your example with air conditioners is unfortunate as it shows already that the environment will be the one suffering at some point when you keep cutting costs (same goes for security (oil spills) and wages (outsourced cheap labor)). These things should of course be demanded by the customer for the Free Market to function, yet it does not, because the customer is either not informed or not interested, which both is a shame.

  6. @graphattic In order to have cheap second hand cars you need a large number of new cars being bought every year and there for a surplus of second hand ones to drive down the cost. I dont know but I would imagine that's not the case in India. But what about a second hand Nano? How much will they sell for, $500?

  7. @mastertonberry that is beside the point. Its about a concept, It still helps Narayan to image that he is taking car to the house where he works.

  8. @P1ranh4 Air conditioners won't be at the level of cheapness as the videos examples, if they have to pull energy off the grid to function. The kind of air conditioner that would fit this criteria would be some sort of solar powered heat pipe made with printing technology, that simply gets installed as part of the roofing. Getting more with less is the solution to the world's ecological problems, not a contributor to it.

  9. @P1ranh4 "These things should of course be demanded by the customer for the Free Market to function, yet it does not"
    Yes, they are demanded. Politely put, "Green sells."
    If it didn't, would AGW be as popular as it is?
    Seriously, pollution is a cost. It's wasted product, at the very least, like gasoline and paraffin were before they were turned into profitable products.
    Ammonia makes a good refrigerant, and is used in place of more expensive engineered refrigerants like Freon, for example.

  10. @CurtHowland Yeah.. slowly there are a few small companies realizing that there can be a profit with the Green. Yet most customers don't even look at running costs of the product not to mention it's impact on the environment.
    Your the first person I have ever met anywhere that called AGW popular. I feel it's rather an inconvenience and puts limitations on how freely we can use all kinds of resources.
    Plus: just because you can sell shit, doesn't mean it gets into the environment eventually.

  11. @P1ranh4 "there are a few small companies…"
    Hardly! Starting in the 1970s products everywhere were touted as "green". Most were a sham, of course, but the sales draw was obvious.
    "the first person I have ever met anywhere that called AGW popular."
    Of course it's popular! Look at the politicians who use it to get votes. Or say it's not real, and watch how fast and numerous (and impolite) the replies are.
    I believe in strict liability. Prosecute all pollution.

  12. @P1ranh4 Everything gets into the environment eventually. Strict liability on pollution (rather than govt protection of industry and campaign contributors) would make "green" a very profitable goal.
    Intel stopped using CFCs to clean their chips when they realized distilled water worked just fine. Saved HUGE money, too.
    But "green" also can mean more capital intensive processes. Look how polluted the USSR was. Capitalism gives us the wealth to even care about the environment.

  13. We permit capitalist 'elites' to have wealth so that we don't have to adore them.
    If everybody made about the same, someone who helped all do better would be worthy of adoration by all. However if someone makes billions for themselves, then good luck to them, but don't ask us to applaud.
    Leftist states like Kerela educated their populations, taxed the rich & took death off the streets. It became India's Silicon Valley, power house of her economy.
    Pride & inequality is what holds India back.

  14. @marsCubed "However if someone makes billions for themselves." They make those billions in serving other people. Bill Gates didn't steal or murder or anything like that to make billions for himself. He did it by providing the WORLD with tons of great new technologies that allow the world to be more advanced and allow people to be more efficient and produce more and etc. etc. etc.

  15. @alphaignus Because its doing more with less. Why bother giving an actual car when a photoshopped one is much cheaper. Most in the audience won't know the difference.

  16. $2/day x 365 days = $730/year. $2000 / $730 = 2.7 years.

    $2000 / 365 days = 5.5 years / $2 per day = 2.7 years.

    Given that no one can devote 100% of their income to buying a car, on average it probably takes minimum 5 years, maximum 20 for a worker in the third world to afford a $2000 automobile. Food for thought.

  17. About that super cheap leg, DARPA! WTF?! There was another TEDtalk about an Indian company giving people glasses for $2, why do ours cost ~$100? Shows how advanced the US is.

  18. @solojam Are you kidding me? He didn't say it was a car produced for rich people that can mock brilliant innovation behind their computer screens. It's for people that are living on $2 a day! They don't care about looks. What do you think happens when a transport truck hits you and your whole family on a scooter???

  19. @pixelr0 That depends on different variables. If you're driving on a racetrack or if you're driving in a city during a traffic jam. And it depends on the car you're comparing: a new BMW € 26.000,- = $ 35.887,80 or a second hand BMW .

  20. @chessfan6 "What do you think happens when a transport truck hits you and your whole family on a scooter???" – Well, your impact is cushioned by granny. Anyone can work that one out. What do you think will happen when i a transport truck hits pretty much any car. Same bloody thing. Many indian families are more than 5 people anyway, all you will see is 5 or 6 inside and another 3 or 4 on the roof etc.

  21. I think some people forget that most of our "western" costs come from the costs of working along supported guidelines, protocols and information archiving etc. As well as the human costs, health and safety, employment regulations etc. Everything costs more because it supports what makes us the west in the first place. If you remove every single thing that costs to make something as cheap as the indians have, then you become india. Not to give credit to these guys, they pushed serious boundaries.

  22. Great, they gave us Ghandi. The man who was completely obsessed with peoples bowel movements hehe. Yeah yeah, i know he was a peaceful soul…. 😉

  23. I only paid $300 for my car. Unfortunately, insurance is $100/mo for it, which I assume means they expect me to total it once every three months.

    I wish owning a car was cheaper, and that I got more than 30mpg. I'd prefer 300.

  24. @ytMarkcg i don't know about the person you were talking to, but the reason religion offends me a lot is because it doesn't help improve peoples lives, shure it makes them feel loved and suck, but poor, unhealthy people still stay poor and unhealthy, rich people still stay rich, sure you can say the occasional "miracle" happens, but science isn't a rare miracle, it helps billions of people all over the world, to say religion competes with that is very insulting indeed.

  25. Unfortunately, parts of the world doesn't share Mashelkar 's communal values. It's completely contrary how capitalists think more profit from less cost for less people.

  26. @ytMarkcg science is a tool, for understanding how the world works, and how to predict things. It's in itself (falsifiable) truth seeking and self correcting, and every new thing must do a better job than the previous at that. A better understanding of the world automatically brings practical benefits.
    Religion is also a tool, for controll of masses by oppression/suspension of critical thinking, regardless of (falsifiable) truth or practical benefits. This can be used for any given purpose.

  27. @TheSpankyMonkey Why do you have to undermine their efforts? They are trying to give the poor some feeling of dignity, some degree of safety and a reasonable, reliable, efficient transport vehicle. Not only is it a triumph of engineering to make a car that cheap, it shows the great consequences when one uses their knowledge to help out those less fortunate. Can you not respect the hard work, and look at the good these people have done in stead of making fun? What do you do to help poor?

  28. Great speech. I believe this is the course that the United States needs to follow. We can again manufacture for the rest of the world, and with our automation, doing more from less for more can be expanded to perhaps produce a surplus of goods for the world.

  29. @ytMarkcg i think you confuse religion with philosophy here, at least substituting the words would make the comment meaningfull.
    Would you care to share how "religion(/philosophy) of science" can be used to opress/suspend critical thinking regardless of falsifiable truth/proof? Without falsifiable claims supported by empirical evidence, the claim holds no power, and THE core value of any scientist is critical thinking.
    Also, how can religion beat secular philosophy and ethics at opening minds?

  30. @Shalek then you should never visit the Large Hardon Collider (sorry, hadron), where scientists do mindblowing things efficiently. 😉

  31. @maillort i see someone has marked your intellectual and well thought through comment that was critical of another users post as spam. It was in no way spam, and it sadens me that ignorant fools roam youtube comment pages marking anything critical as spam.

  32. @chessfan6 "Why do you have to undermine their efforts?" – Nobody is undermining anything. To be perfectly frank northing i said takes any credit or respect away from the men and women that made that car. With all the respect i can give you right now, fuck off. You asked a really stupid question, i gave you a correct answer to your own stupid question. This is about your own personal stupidity, nobody else. Grow up.

  33. I would like to see this innovative method applied to truly affordable solar power, or wind, or even hydro. Using ultra low cost for ultra high efficiency would truly change the world.

  34. @arngorf True, the one photoshopped image degrades the quality and integrity of the entire talk, but his bottom line points and the Ghandian Engineering philosophy remains valid.

  35. @TKDWolf Actually they are more worried you'll total it into the side of a 2010 Ford Mustang 😀 Insurance is about paying off the other guy's car as well as any injury claims he might make. The other person's car can easily bee 25k+. His or her injuries could hit the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

  36. @aleph13 This is in India I believe, India is a very stratified society where "castes" still exist. People of the lower caste are as you can imagine the poorest of the poor, his message is if you raise up peoples living standards, if you give people more for less, you change society, you change the world, not just the poor but also the rich.

  37. Why are people commenting on the photoshop, the car is photoshop in to show the space which was built for the driver, to show how the views of the rich as well as the poor has changed when you raise their living standard. It's not like he needs to advertise the Nano, its already a success.

  38. I can't believe you people can only think about Photoshop when this guy is talking about a $28 prosthetic foot, and cheap, accessible medicine. This is really, really important stuff.

  39. @SalientK The men to mice bit was taking traditional medicines (men) and scientifically testing them (on mice, in repeatable experiments) to people again. They weren't testing new drugs on humans, they were codifying medicines people had been using for centuries. Hell, it's India – probably millennia.

  40. Amazing India, Amazing INDIANS ….
    இந்தியன் என்று சொல்லடா
    தலை நிமிர்ந்து நில்லடா

  41. pretty bad presentation compared tot he usual TED talks.
    It's a good topic, but needs to be presented but someone else… and without trying to fool us with "the physical space that has been created" bullshit.

  42. let us just allow those who make so little to earn their share.
    But he has a point, why does stuff always have to be so expensive, when there are much cheaper solutions that are almost as good, but not as nice looking or high-tech.

  43. @majinspy Yes you do misunderstand. He was basically saying that they created their experiments based on traditional medicine, or more specifically using old remedies as inspiration for modern medicine.

    So the "men" part for men –> mice –> men, were historical figures, typically religious.

    Through this method, they would definitely be using more trial / error on mice, but I guess it works, and it's cheaper / less time consuming.

  44. @TheSpankymonkey The reason why there's such dismay at "western costs", is because for a couple hundred years now it's simply been a copy / paste model of innovation from west to the rest of the world, and that's seriously left a lot of people behind. These guys are changing that, and that's what truly makes their achievements so great.

  45. @AssyrianRebel1 – The engineers and designers that made this car deserve nothing short of an international award. Innovation never required a western model to work so your words are complete and utter bollocks. Much of it occurred there simply because it is rich enough to support the time and effort in doing so. A great amount of the "cost" of products in the west has to support employment taxes, insurances, sales taxes, pensions, health and safety reviews and equipment, (cont.)

  46. @AssyrianRebel1 – Crash impact tests and so on. My point is you COMPLETELY miss the point of this car. The mission for creating this car was to make a super affordable car for markets such as india etc. Nobody has ever attempted to make a car at this price in the west because if we were to make something to this cost and skip all the things that make us the west then where would we be. Ahhh yes. That's right. INDIA. Let's get one thing straight, this car is great but not in spite of the west.

  47. @AssyrianRebel1 Ah, fair enough. The "photoshopped car" still was an extremely bad idea, but at least I now understand he isn't nuts. Thanks for clearing that up, AssyrianRebel1 🙂

  48. @LemonLimeLaughter
    The Tata car is a real car and is presently running on Indian roads. It has also passed the European crash tests.

  49. @ytMarkcg Of course many ideas can be perverted to mislead, but that doesn't make all ideologies the same. You have a failure in logic here. Just because science or religion or philosophy can be used negatively does not make them the same or equal to each other. Science, philosophy, and religion are each very different approaches. Your simplification shows you misunderstand the differences. You understand very little, misuse words, and generalize too often to be taken seriously.

  50. @subarustiguy that's OK, at least you're trying to understand an accent different from yours – which is kind of like learning another language in some countries, I guess.

  51. @LemonLimeLaughter lol, i know lecturers and they tend to run out of time collecting their presentation material. guess that's what happened here. he probably isn't precisely lying about that guy having the tata car.

  52. The celebration of the pharma takeover of traditional medicines can be pernicious, particularly if the pharma company involved then patents it and gives nothing back to the community from which it has taken the remedy from. What about the demographic who already had some similar knowledge and were practicing it? They might be robbed of whatever sensible percentage of profit royalties they might be earning on this. Disclaimer: I'm not sure this is happening here, but w/ more remote sources yes.

  53. I'm just amazed by that artificial leg! Way to go!

    On the Nano: Why try to get even more cars onto this planet's roads? At rush hour, those who still own a scooter will be home for dinner when the rest is still wandering, whether their lane truly is the slowest!

  54. Tata Nano is a big failure in India.
    As in india , there is a strong belief.. that buying a car is a symbol of success.
    So everyone recognized the car as small box (dabba) running on roads which made them make fun of themselves in their friends/peers/colleagues group….

    I appreciate the Tata team, for the disruptive Innovation…. but finally it funnels down to selling !

  55. мне показалось или машину нано прифотошопили к дому и человеку?????? и смех и грех

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *