Honda Fit Hybrid "Is Go!" in Fall 2010?

Considering that the Insight shares its front and rear suspension and a lot of the chassis with the Fit this shouldn't be a problem. The seats in the Insight fold down. I see the Fit hybrid as a more practical version of the Insight.

 

We had a 1989 Civic Wagon, which my husband still considers his favorite of all time. If the Fit is anything like it at all, that may be our next purchase (in a few years, anyway), especially if they bring an AWD version of it to the US.

 

This article's probably only referring to the release in Japan.

 

Here is another article, but this one stats the Fit isn't due out until 2013. The car based on the CRZ concept will be out in 2010. Still, there is some great additional info in this article.

Honda Plans Hybrid Push

 

Won't happen. Toyota's patents are blocking any HSD-format hybrids from any manufacturer other than Ford. Two-mode is different enough that it possibly doesn't infringe Toyota's patents, but that hasn't been tested in small vehicles yet - and it's owned by GM, Mercedes and BMW anyway if I recall correctly.

The European trend is now to announce 'hybrids' where the front wheels are driven by a petrol or diesel engine, and the rears by electric motor. I wouldn't like that transition to happen in the middle of a corner - front-wheel-drive tends to cause understeer while rear-wheel-drive tends to oversteer. See for example Volvo V70, Peugeot 3008 Crossover.

Basically the patents are forcing everyone along suboptimal development paths, rather than getting lots of vehicles out on one good plan. I'd like something smaller than a Prius, really, but I have to wait another couple of years for Toyota to get the Yaris Hybrid going - though I'd really like something between Yaris and Prius.

The way I see it, HSD technology is mature enough for everyone using the current NiMH batteries, and we shouldn't be waiting for plug-in or lithium chemistry. Everyone should be switching over to HSD now. Instead they're all wasting billions trying to come up with their own patentable variant, or on trying to persuade governments not to require fuel economy/emissions improvements.

 

Toyota didn't invent the two motor hybrid system or the power-split device used in the Toyota HSD. Those systems were invented and patented by TRW in the 1970's.

Feature Article - Present at the Creation - 11/06

 

Doesn't Nissan use HSD in its Altima hybrid?

 

True - but TRW's patent has expired, and Toyota did enough to convince the patent offices to issue new patents for their work to make HSD practical. Those patents are the competition blockers.

Patents can be issued for new derivative work of work that was previously patented. They are supposed to involve an 'inventive step', a change to the prior art, and one that is supposed not to be obvious to those skilled in the relevant art. Unfortunately the bar which the patent offices set is normally ludicrously low, which skeptics attribute to the fact that the patent office gets recurring patent renewal fees only if it grants patents. It's supposed to at least pay for itself and in some countries (like yours and mine) to show a profit. As such Toyota can apply for, and get, hundreds of new patents on the 2010 Prius.

The patent system is supposed to be a repository to get known solutions so that work is not reinvented, and that inventors can be
modestly compensated for their inventions. Right now is restricting the advancement of science and technology and several things need to happen: at the very least, the office must be treated as a public cost and examiners instructed to apply the very highest standards of investigation to ensure that applicants do not claim an invention that was already in public knowledge, that they in fact invented it, and that it represents a real advance.

The triple-damages rule for 'wilful infringement' - having seen or heard of the patent before making something believed not to infringe, but subsequently judged to have infringed - needs to go. Somehow we need to put caps on royalties so that it is cheaper for companies to search for a solution and pay the associated royalty than to spend millions on trying to evade the patent.

Patents must be described in the technical language of the relevant art, not in legalese. I have tried to understand software patents in the past to determine whether I agree with a judgement or decide whether it was an 'inventive step', and I can't make head nor tail of them.

Failing that, scrap the patent system entirely. I'd rather the details kept private and reverse-engineered copies be made than the current farce.

Yes, but using Toyota parts - the inverter reportedly has a Nissan cover over a Toyota cover. I'm not sure which car the inverter's from originally - the reports I saw say it has THS badges which would make it first-gen Prius, but that seems unlikely. The specs appear to match the Camry Hybrid - same battery voltage, same motor specs.

 

Further to the patent discussion, for US patents at least, the examination system works against proper examination of applications. Examiners are said to get 18 to 20 hours on average to read an application, conduct a search, and create a response, called an "Office Action". I haven't seen one for about ten years now, but it was clear from reading them that the examiner often did not grasp the point of the application. From what I was told, many examiners are actually young and join the USPTO as its the cheapest way to train to become a patent attorney. For the software patents I dealt with, many Office Actions were written in non-native English by examiners with Vietnamese sounding names.

I don't know if it still applies, but examiners used to be paid by piecework on a points system skewed towards continued applications, i.e., applications that have been rewritten after a "final" rejection. Since the examiner's first office action is automatically non-final, this also allows examiners to put any old rubbish out the door just to make their quota, especially towards the cutoff for assessment. That said, the job must be no cushy number because there is a high turnover of staff. Every time someone leaves, there goes all that acquired knowledge of the field.

As Mike says, the system is extremely flawed. Its main saving grace is that they at least expire in a reasonable time frame. That is the main problem with the copyright system which is even more flawed and affects more people (IMO).

I gleaned most of this from translating Japanese patent applications into English (though hopefully not legalese!). About 30% of US applications come from Japanese companies.