The narratives built for owning a car have a conflict of interest with owning a microcar, such as Eva and Ezio. Understand why microcars will always struggle to find a spot in urban mobility space from a vehicle and mobility designer.

Summary

• Microcars like Eva and Ezio are impractical for last-mile connectivity due to infrastructure needs and urban density challenges.
• Cities are better suited for two-wheelers, public transport, or pedestrian-focused solutions over something like a microcar for last mile commutes.
• Microcars face niche appeal due to size, space, and safety perceptions.
• Aspirational value often trumps utility in consumer choices (Punch, Creta & Swift sell more than Alto now).
• Comparisons of Maruti Eeco with Ertiga show the latter dominates due to safety, stability, and customer comfort. Even as Ola and Uber cabs, Ertiga is desired.
• Vehicles like Ezio and Eva will face acceptability challenges in personal and commercial spaces despite their cost advantages. They might end up like Bajaj Qute, Mahindra Reva e20 and even Tata Nano.
• Ezio and Eva aim to solve problems motorcycles, Auto Rikshaw and even E-rikshaws already addressed.
• Market potential for these vehicles remains niche and hard to scale compared to mainstream solutions.

I’ve been obsessed with cars since I was a kid. The dream of becoming a car designer led me to pursue a master’s degree in Industrial Design, specializing in Vehicle and Mobility Design. During my time in design school, I had the opportunity to work on a micro mobility project called Olli Lite—a mobility solution designed for island communities. I proposed this solution on Launchforth, a co-creation platform, during a design challenge organized by Siemens and Local Motors. Not only did I win the challenge, but I also shared IP rights with them.

Back then, I had zero knowledge about business or how systems worked. I was simply a car enthusiast who sketched cars everywhere. I was also a proactive reader, absorbing the world through books. I went gaga over my own concept which was this:

Fast forward to today, after running garages, working in e-commerce, ed-tech, and even running mental health clinics—just to understand how to build great augmented digital and physical products, services, and systems—I’ve come to realize one crucial truth: utility is not the only thing that drives the world.

If you’re working with commoditized products and services that lack aspiration, you’re bound to hit a ceiling. Take the example of the Alto and Nano. People chose Alto over Nano because it was aspirational. But now, even the Alto isn’t the best-selling car. Today, it’s the Swift, the Brezza, or even a premium car like the Creta. Why? Because these cars offer something beyond just utility. They represent aspiration, status, and desire. People don’t just buy products; they buy what those products represent.

Even though nano suffered from a marketing blunder, but have you also considered other aspects on why nano failed? I have written a separate article on Vayve's Eva and have mentioned about the other reasons for Nano's faliure that you should read it here.

Why microcars cannot be last mile solutions

From the perspective of architecture and city planning, they fail to address the core challenges of dense urban spaces. Cities are designed to prioritize pedestrian zones, public transport, and even two-wheelers for last-mile connectivity. Microcars, while smaller than regular cars, still take up more space than scooters or bicycles and contribute to traffic congestion and parking woes.

They require infrastructure like roads, parking slots, and maintenance facilities, which doesn’t align well with last-mile efficiency goals.

Microcars have always been a niche due to their limited appeal and practical restrictions. While they offer an efficient and eco-friendly solution, they have struggled to break into the mainstream for a few reasons.

In many countries, microcars are seen as too small for family use, and the perception is that they don’t offer enough space or safety features compared to larger vehicles. For example, in Europe, microcars like the Smart Fortwo and Aixam are popular for city dwellers who need a compact, efficient vehicle. However, they remain largely restricted to urban environments and don’t replace larger cars for long-distance or family travel.

But, it’s not like there aren’t better alternatives to big cars or flexible use cases. In fact, there are already existing solutions called "Motorcycles". Motorcycles are far more flexible and practical for two people, especially in crowded localities where parking and space are a challenge.

One thing I’ve learned about human behavior as a designer is that people think a lot before owning something big in size enough to occupay significant portion of their dwelling—it’s not just about the capacity of buying; it’s also about space. Even if you can afford two cars, where do you park them? And if parking isn’t an issue, why would you go for a microcar?

Most high-income groups are moving to housing societies with wide roads and ample parking. These aren’t the people looking for compact solutions. So, who are cars like Eva and Ezio actually for? Are they designed for residents of places like Chandni Chowk, where space is a luxury? If yes, how do you make them appealing in such densely packed environments where two-wheelers or even walking might feel more practical?

When it comes to replacing regular cars, microcars are bound to remain an alternate choice rather than a primary option that too for a niche audience who never want to ride a bike. Sure, regular cars have challenges in Bengaluru like traffic but the solution is less unnecassary visits and promoting WFH. Another solution is creating more cities like bengaluru and Gurugram throughout the country.

Why in first place, private ownership of vehicles exist!

Neom is an ambitious project in Saudi Arabia that envisions a city without cars, focusing on sustainability and innovative urban living. The idea is to replace traditional mobility with a seamless, shared, and highly efficient public transport network powered by renewable energy. You must have heared about Hyperloop right! That's what they want to have.

The city is being designed in a linear way, with small designated pockets. Each pocket will have all the civic amenities and housing, ensuring everything is accessible within a 5-minute walk. This approach prioritizes human-centric urban design, drastically reducing the need for vehicles. Instead, the focus will be on seamless, shared, and highly efficient public transport networks powered by renewable energy.

This vision contrasts sharply with the history of urban planning, where cars became central to city layouts. Cars were promoted over shared mobility for several reasons, primarily rooted in capitalist motives.

In the early 20th century, oil companies, car manufacturers, and infrastructure developers shaped a narrative that owning a car equated to freedom and status. Public transport and shared mobility, though efficient, did not generate as much profit as private car ownership. Cities were built to accommodate cars—expanding highways, parking spaces, and urban sprawl—all of which fueled oil consumption and car sales. Moreover mass production has it's own breakeven goals.

The private ownership model for mobility solutions led to urban congestion, a byproduct of the capitalist drive to make people consume more oil and pay for its use.

Cars were marketed as aspirational products, symbols of success and personal freedom. Advertisements portrayed them as gateways to a better lifestyle—luxury, independence, and prestige. Over time, owning a car became less about necessity and more about identity. This culture of aspiration further entrenched the private ownership model, leading to the urban challenges we face today—congestion, pollution, and inefficient use of space.

Who were responsible for making cars an integral part of city?

The post-World War era is deeply tied to the rise of automotive giants across nations that needed to recover and rebuild. These countries turned to industrial innovation, leveraging the internal combustion (IC) engine revolution to not only fuel their economies but also redefine their global identities.

The devastation of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and much of Japan during World War II left the country in economic shambles. Yet, it gave rise to a philosophy of resilience and innovation. Japanese automakers like Toyota, Suzuki, Isuzu, Mazda, and Nissan became symbols of this recovery.

Germany faced devastation after the war, but its engineering prowess helped it rise. The need to rebuild its economy was instrumental in the global success of automotive brands like Porsche, Volkswagen (VW), BMW, and Skoda (though Skoda's roots are Czech, it became part of the VW Group later).

The United States, while not as physically ravaged by the war, faced economic uncertainty and the need to stabilize its economy. This led to the rise of giants like General Motors (GM), Ford, and Chrysler, forming the "Big Three."

Even South Korea recovered from slavery in the mid 1950s and a huge chunk of credit goes to Hyundai, Kia and Samsumg. Samsung played in both cars and electronics. You might be shocked to know this but yes, Samsung was into automotive business.

The narratives built for owning a car has a conflict of interest with owning a microcar.

Why microcars might struggle even as a commercial ride

Even as commercial rides, microcars like Eva and Ezio are likely to face significant challenges in terms of acceptability.

Let’s take the example of the Maruti Eeco and compare it with the Ertiga in the context of ride-hailing services. On paper, the Eeco seems like a logical choice: it offers decent luggage space, a seating capacity for five, and is cheaper to purchase and maintain. It can sail through traffic fairly faster than an Ertiga due to shorter turn radius and size. Yet, despite these advantages, vehicles like the Ertiga dominate platforms like Uber and Ola.

Why?

The answer lies in a mix of Safety, practicality and customer experience.

While the Eeco can carry a similar amount of luggage as the Ertiga and is shorter in length, making it more maneuverable in crowded areas, it fails on other crucial fronts. The Ertiga, with its MPV design, offers a better balance between utility and passenger comfort. It is way more stable than an Eeco.

I closely follow the Co-founder of Blu Smart i.e Anmol Jaggi who also owns the parent company of Ezio, Gensol.

I follow him because I find inspiration in him. He’s probably the most successful entrepreneur from UPES, Dehradun up till now, and being an alumnus, I look up to him as a role model. His slow, humble approach to business, along with his serving nature, truly inspires me.

I’ve used BluSmart, and I must say, it’s a pretty solid experience. I know that riding in Ezio will likely be cheaper than traditional taxis, and in many ways, it will serve as an alternative to autorickshaws. But have you ever thought about why even vehicles like the Bajaj Qute failed in India? Or why the Mahindra Reva electric cars weren’t able to replace traditional vehicles even as Ola and Uber cabs?

The issue lies in the same core question—What drives people to adopt new mobility solutions? The Bajaj Qute was designed as an affordable, compact, eco-friendly alternative to autorickshaws, but it never gained the traction its manufacturers hoped for. It’s a similar story with the Mahindra Reva, an early electric car that was ahead of its time but failed to replace conventional vehicles, despite its electric efficiency. Why? Because, while these vehicles addressed the need for a smaller, more eco-friendly solution, they missed out on several key factors that shape consumer behavior.

The e-rickshaw explosion around 2023 in India serves as a clear example. E-rickshaws flooded cities as a replacement for autorickshaws and manual rickshaws, not just for their compact size, but because they were economically accessible. They could carry more passengers than traditional rickshaws, making them terribly practical for short-distance travel. And while e-rickshaws are now associated with lower standards in terms of quality and safety, their main appeal was the affordability and availability they provided to millions.

However, the rise of e-rickshaws is also a reflection of unemployment. Many people turned to driving these vehicles because they didn’t have other means to earn a livelihood. So, even though e-rickshaws are practical, the influx of these vehicles was largely a result of economic necessity on the supply side. They were cheap, got the job done, and worked well in the context of a struggling economy. But as much as the e-rickshaw works in areas with high congestion and low-income areas, microcars like Ezio may not have the same impact.

The reality is, when you put a microcar like Ezio or Eva into comparison with something new, like E-Rikshaw in the early 2010s, the financial gap becomes evident. A ride in an Ezio won’t be as cheap as an e-rickshaw. It’s unlikely to be cheaper than a rapido bike or an autorickshaw either, especially for short-distance commutes. If the Ezio were to be used as a commercial ride, it would be able to accommodate only one passenger. On the other hand, an autorickshaw can comfortably carry three people, which immediately makes it more attractive for group travel. They can even use a cab.

One more thing: Remember Multix by Eicher Motors?

It was marketed as a modular commercial vehicle designed to optimize space and offer flexibility for small businesses, rural markets, and even personal use. The idea behind the Multix was intriguing—it could be transformed to carry passengers, cargo, or even serve as a mobile shop by rearranging the interior. It was a concept that aimed to tackle the lack of affordable, versatile transport options in smaller towns and rural India.

However, despite its innovative design, the Multix never really took off.

While it offered a lot of flexibility, it was hard to market it as a one-size-fits-all solution. People either wanted a traditional personal vehicle or a more professional commercial vehicle. Multix didn’t quite fit into either category comfortably. It was too large for personal use in urban areas and not robust enough for full-scale commercial operations in rural areas.

When you try to be everything for everyone, you end up being nothing for no one!

When and where can microcars work?

For a vehicle to work on a large scale commercially, especially in urban areas, it needs to be cost-effective and offer more utility in comparison to existing options. A microcar simply can’t match the space efficiency or cost efficiency of a vehicle like an auto rickshaw, which has been deeply embedded into the urban mobility ecosystem. Microcars like Ezio have their use cases in limited areas, primarily targeting individuals who want a personalized, compact vehicle.

One thing is for sure—microcars will always struggle to be part of Integrated Vehicle Highway Systems (IVHS). Take the MG Comet, for instance. How often do you see it on highways? In fact, how many Comets do you see at all? It’s supposed to be a compact, four-seater, yet it barely gets spotted on the road. This tells you something important about the practical appeal of microcars for regular commutes.

Microcars like Ezio and Eva are going to end up being something closely related to golf carts. And if you think about it, golf carts are basically e-rickshaws with four wheels, designed for non-IVHS zones like university campuses, hospitals, large offices, or tourist destinations. So, expect a similar use case for the Ezio and Eva—limited to restricted, low-speed environments where their small size and compact design actually become an advantage.

What does this mean for the business side of things?

The scope is painfully low. While these microcars may be useful in niche applications, they won’t capture large market share or become mainstream options. Whether it's for personal use or commercial rides, the demand will always remain small and localized, making it hard to scale up in a meaningful way. The real question is—who really needs a tiny, electric car in a world already filled with affordable two-wheelers, e-rickshaws, and public transport options?