> spawning a generation of drivers that could easily
> do hill starts deftly balancing the accelerator and brake
That'd be me. When I bought my Mitsubishi Lancer Hatchback with manual transmission in the US, having a working handbrake was a jarring experience. My friends spent a lot of time helping me break my habit of using gas and brake pedals for keeping the car balanced up hill - I can still do it well.
I'd like to note that this feature wasn't exclusively limited to Ambassadors, my dad owned a Maruti 800[1], and a Fiat Padmini[2], neither of those had working handbrakes AND my dad managed to install aftermarket LGP kit in former and a datsun diesel engine in latter. Both modifications made it an interesting driving experience. These days when I'm driving my automatic transmission car on a freeway with no potholes, cows, I do get some flashbacks of driving in pouring rain with water creeping up from floor and being scared out of my wits.
> That'd be me. When I bought my Mitsubishi Lancer Hatchback with manual transmission in the US, having a working handbrake was a jarring experience. My friends spent a lot of time helping me break my habit of using gas and brake pedals for keeping the car balanced up hill - I can still do it well.
You mean people actually use the handbrake for hill starts with a manual? I thought it was just something you do when first learning. I've always found it more difficult to coordinate everything with the handbrake, I can operate all the pedals quick enough anyway. The only time I use the handbrake really is for sliding around :-)
With modern, powerful cars, using the handbrake really is unnecessary. However until recently many European cars had only a handful of HP and incredibly low torque compared to modern diesels... Citroën 2CV: 12 to 21 HP DIN. VW Beetle: 34 to 50 HP. Even a "sport" car like a Golf GTI was 110 HP only in the 80s. The torque was also much lower.
I was not "taught" much to do with a manual transmission, but now I think I have a pretty good grasp of it. I've never done a hand-brake turn though. At first, I even struggled because the brief instruction I had had was from a used-car salesman and I barely learned enough to get my first manual transmission-equipped car off that lot. But I learned hand-brake hill-holding and foot-brake hill-holding, eventually, by trying them out when consequence-free opportunities presented themselves. There is a maneuver in turns, when you might need to make a gear change in a turn, that calls for manipulating the brakes, clutch and gas in coordination with the gear change, so the hand brake in that situation would not be right and your hands are full anyway. The goal of this maneuver is to maintain smooth momentum and change gears. So I think people should learn all the techniques.
No, it's something you're taught to do generally. It's going to be 3 inputs either way (accel, brake, clutch - 4 if you count steering), most people find it easier to do them independently with two feet and one hand than to have one foot do two inputs.
> You mean people actually use the handbrake for hill starts with a manual? I thought it was just something you do when first learning. I've always found it more difficult to coordinate everything with the handbrake, I can operate all the pedals quick enough anyway.
Your comment makes me think you've never had to do a hill start on a sufficiently steep hill with a sufficiently heavy vehicle. I don't care how fast you are moving your foot from the brake to the accelerator, you will roll backwards. Not to mention the wear you're putting on the clutch, which again, won't take that kind of abuse in a heavy vehicle.
You're right. I've only driven regular sized cars. I have started them on pretty steep inclines though, around 30%. I'm quick enough that I never roll backwards more than an inch or two.
Also, I'm not so sure that the friction from the car's weight + a tiny amount of backwards momentum is any worse for the clutch than the car's weight + friction from the hand brake.
The first time I used a car with hill assist I wondered why the car wouldn't start. Seems the assist was slower than me at the brake-clutch-accelerator game.
I'm really impressed with the new Peugot 3008 i-Cockpit system [https://youtu.be/5UapzN65V7Q?t=1m16s] and the general interior design. IMHO way ahead of the competition.
This is a really surprising development! The Peugeot leadership seems to be unafraid to think different, and I think great things are in store for the Ambassador brand. It was totally neglected for decades.
I've tested the new Peugeot 508 and 307 and they had horrible infotainment software - slow, buggy and very illogical (some settings couldn't be controled from steering wheel, some settings were only available on the screen on the dashboard, etc.)
The fact that 307 got rid of climate control buttons and only had the settings on the laggy touchscreen was even worse.
307 isn't particularly new, though. Production ended in 2007 (except in South America and China).
I agree that putting controls behind a touch screen is not nice. Especially in the winter where I live, they're impossible - they don't work in the cold, with gloves.
The Ambassador is based on the Morris Oxford, a British car from the 1950s, and I am fascinated that they never felt any pressure to update the design (although if I recall correctly in the early 2000s they replaced the original British Motor Company 1.5L with an Isuzu 1.6L).
It was so low because of the per capita income that was equally low, and looking into reasons for such a disproportion would lead to a wide-ranging discussion.
Times have changed a lot. It wasn't until the 90s that the average middle class family could afford a car. The father bought his first car at about the same time I did, except he was 50 and I had just started grad school in the US.
Cars were definitely a luxury item while I was growing up. Better incomes, more choice, ability to get car loans, etc have made cars the norm now (in big cities at least).
In cities like Kolkata the taxi fleet is Ambassadors. I don’t know what the average age of the vehicles is, but they almost always feel as old as they look.
For all its faults, the Ambassador is a robust vehicle.
I wonder if any of that $12 million will go to paying out the workers who were left stranded by the company? If the linked story (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36044903) is anything to go by, the employees got severely screwed when the plant shut down.
That article doesn't tell me that the employees would have been defrauded or somehow deceived by their employer. Rather than selling out too soon, it seems that the Hindustan company tried to stay in its old ways for far too long.
>the employees got severely screwed when the plant shut down.
Isn't that the case everywhere? Why do these workers in particular deserve 'pay outs'?
These workers seemed to have got screwed by the globalisation like people from soviet union who had no idea how to make sense of the new world where govt is not resposible to provide you with a job anymore.
> Nirmal Kumar Ram, who worked at the factory's engine plant, says he has not yet left his job because Hindustan Motors has still not told workers that they were fired.
Instead of communicating with the employees they just kind of forgot about them.
And this guy:
> "Even before production stopped, I didn't get my salary for six months."
The company wasn't paying the employees, of course it's impossible to know what was said but you wouldn't think that he'd be waiting around for six months unpaid if they weren't telling him it was coming.
I remember riding in this vehicle and feeling the number of things that went wrong in their construction. Honestly its hard to extricate such a POS car from my memories in India.
Take a guess. China, India had similar GDP per-capita figures in late 70s (Korea was poorer at one point). India never suffered from war and dictatorial madness like Korea and China, yet today India has < 1/5 GDP of China, and about ~< 2x the GDP of S.Korea (with 10-20x the population).
All this for what ? Some anti-colonial revolution ? Nope. India has almost completely ignored everything Indian, if not actively tried to destroy its traditions/languages/cultures and has ran after who ever would care to smooch over its "elite". India is as much a British colony today (if not more) than it ever was.
Not sure if it is fair to compare India and China/Korea. I don't know much about the history of China and Korea, but I doubt if both those countries faced full scale colonialism like India did. Recovering from the devastation caused by 200+ years of colonial rule takes a while.
S.Korea particularity benefitted from the Korean war. USA stepped in and boosted it's economy.
> I don't know much about the history of China and Korea...I doubt if both those countries faced full scale colonialism like India
China had a much harder time through the colonial era than India. Remember, China spent decades being traded between warring imperial powers (France vs. Britain, Britain vs. Japan, Japan vs. the Soviets, et cetera). In that process, its institutions were wrecked and cultural memory wreaked havoc with. When all was said and done, they had no equivalent to India's nation-spanning railroad system; systems of law, governance and courts; or (relatively) unified linguistic bloc.
I tend to disagree slightly, though I don't see why you're downvoted (I don't think you should downvote a civilly written comment just because you disagree).
China was subject to colonialism, but not in the same way as India; it was never fully controlled by colonial masters like the British controlled India. There were colonial enclaves and much of humiliation with being forced to hand over areas for trade posts; there were the opium wars and later there was the Japanese expansion and imperialism, but the deep Chinese countryside was always managed by the Chinese for the Chinese.
And there were decades of unrest and civil war. But still, I don't see how China was suffering from colonialism more than India.
They both had their hardest times in their early independence after colonial times. China with civil war, Great Leap Forward, Cultural revolution; India with jumping to the Soviet boat, socialism, planned economy and protectionism.
Korea, on the other hand, has throughout its history been a smaller nation which bigger neighbours try to run over. Sometimes - like in the case of Japan in earlier half of 20th century - it has indeed been completely overrun for decades. So, to survive, it has become fiercely nationalistic. But Korea also definitely faced absolute full scale colonialism, in my opinion in much more depth than India.
Definitely, but that was not colonialism. The warlords were Chinese; the power bases for these warlords were built during the late Qing dynasty. They of course had some Western influences (one even proclaimed himself Christian, another announced he was admirer of George Washington) but primarily they were just Chinese men of power, with short-term visions that were ultimately defeated by determined nationalists.
I downvoted not because you sounded condescending but you did not back it up with sources given the scale of "facts" you are presenting to us. For a person complaining banality, you post can use better style and structure to make your case.
There are lot of things contributing to this mismanagement
Unlike China and Korea, India is not ethnically and culturally cohesive (I know China is a bit more diverse but not to levels of India).
The Economic Reforms started in 1991 soon lost stream by mid-2000s and there we no policy cohesion for reforms
Colonial two step, every Indian will not miss a chance to say how many official languages are there in India, but Indian economy discriminates against non-english languages, esp. in a set up where majority of public education is non-english. The effort of language development outside of Hindi is a state's mission, which itself has two or more official languages outside of English. So, only 20-30% of people who are educated in English medium has the ability to fully participate in the economy etc.
The point is India will straddle along, the West and South will lead the economic growth, where as North and East will drag along, and there is nothing changing in the near future.
Think China and India like the Hare and the Tortoise, China did the miraculous fast run esp. from late 90s to 2012 (when the miracle actually ran out of steam), and India will staddle and move along at 4-7% with ebbs and flows and will catch-up say, in 2050 (its my pure guess).
... and this is supposed to be good, why ? Because the WASPs brainwash us into thinking so ? Because it pays good money ?
The systems we live under are barely different from feudal systems from Europe. Now we just get blamed for all the shit, because you know.. "democracy".
Give someone a toothpick to fight against those wielding guns, and call it even - that is democracy.
there is a lot of manufacturing taking place in India by very large brands and some of it for export. Motorcycles and such are being built there for export by brands even as iconic as BMW and Harley Davidson.
So buying up an already established brand is probably cheaper than building the factory (new construction, bribes, etc) to get manufacturing capacity where labor is cheap
This is a good point. If you want to access the Indian market, your problem probably isn't building a plant, or finding competent labour, or buying materials or logistics. It is the licenses and permissions to operate, and the relations to government officials. And if you can purchase an existing outfit that has at least some of the needed licenses and permissions and has some existing government contacts, contracts and agreements, then it is easier to ramp up business.
Has Peugeot lost its mind ? This is like buying the brand name of TVS XL 100 or Kinetic Luna. The French must be drunk over after the Dassault rip-off they pulled off.
The car that is being molded is Ambassador