Ho-Hum For Hybrids

I agree with the reasoning of most previous posters. Except for John's... But, then again, predictability is also a good thing. Thank goodness for differing perspectives.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DeadPhish @ Jul 21 2007, 10:31 AM) [snapback]482790[/snapback]</div>

Nope, it is more like opportunity. As I mentioned before, Honda is sitting on a pretty bountiful IP porfolio. This portfolio also includes a lot of unique improvements to diesel powerplants that gives them a leg-up on the Diesel competition. The fact that they have an elegant and ingenious Clean Diesel approach that does not need Urea... and it is all their own, means they will certainly capitalize on it. Why not?

Besides, they have stated for the better part of the last 5 years that hybrid technology offers diminishing returns for platforms above a certain size. Knowing Honda and that they have been and remain the greenest, why would they not be vocal about it? Unless, we forget, this is the company who resisted producing a V6 for over 20 years at the expense of market penetration.

Up until now, I do not disagree at all that hybrid tech offers the lesser benefits in larger platforms. Most would agree, that we have yet to see any proof that invalidates that assertion.


Cheers;

MSantos

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 20 2007, 10:06 PM) [snapback]482406[/snapback]</div>

That's totally wrong indeed. My wife's sister has a Corolla, and it is considerably smaller. When you compare the interior room, the difference is huge.
Besides, the Prius is built nicer, with better materials, is more versatile and has lots more features in the base package (at least in Belgium).

People who say that a Prius should be compared to a Corolla don't know what they are talking about, or are trying to bend the truth.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MSantos @ Jul 21 2007, 11:09 AM) [snapback]482800[/snapback]</div>

What about locomotives? They're massive and have been series hybrids for decades.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MSantos @ Jul 21 2007, 01:09 PM) [snapback]482800[/snapback]</div>

Careful, this has to be taken into perspective. Honda's perspective is correct as regards the IMA in that as the platforms get larger the IMA is less effective. This leads into the HSD which is perfectly suited for midsized platforms but as it gets into BOF vehicles it's not as capable. But then GM's 2-Mode is perfectly suited for heavier BOF vehicles.

So the summary statement that hybrid ..'technology offers diminishing returns for platforms above a certain size.' has to have an asterisk appended. *[ Each specific hybrid technology may offer diminishing returns for platforms above a certain size. ] It remain to be seen if the HSD is cost effective in smaller vehicles. It remains to be seen if the 2-Mode is as efficient in midsized vehicles as it is in larger vehicles.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(catgic @ Jul 21 2007, 07:46 PM) [snapback]482713[/snapback]</div>

One problem, Toyota already has Diesel Hybrids with Hino trucks line.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(catgic @ Jul 21 2007, 12:04 PM) [snapback]482799[/snapback]</div>

We need to make an effort to emphasize the "maximum" part. Here, it's not a big deal. But those on the not-so-friendly forums intentionally leave that part out, leading casual readers to believe it is required.

As for my driving, I never P&G and simply am not interested. Good thing too. Carrying the kayaks and bikes at times just kills the efficiency (down to 36 MPG!). Basically, I stick to the speed limit, accelerate briskly, and keep the MPG above the 50 mark (rather than trying to maximize).

With respect to the topic, watch what happens with Prius & Camry-Hybrid next year. The auto industry is in for quite a wake up call, not expecting both to be runaway hits. The article mentioned here will be another footnote in misreading consumer wants & needs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jul 21 2007, 08:37 PM) [snapback]482852[/snapback]</div>

I'm really no expert here, but I thought that the first reason for that wasn't efficiency. I thought that it was mainly an engineering design decision, because otherways they would need an immense amount of gears to pull a huge weight with such an "underpowered" engine. A traditional diesel-electric locomotive doesn't have batteries to regenerate anyway, so it is a bit marginal to call it a hybrid.

The power/weight proportion is much smaller than with most modern cars, and the demands are totally different. No one expects a train to do someting as silly as accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h in less than 10 seconds...

 

HTTP 404 Not Found

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 22 2007, 02:59 AM) [snapback]483107[/snapback]</div>

Neither am I. Still, I think the point is valid. A massive electric motor connected to a massive diesel engine is capable of quite a bit of pulling.

They could have batteries, but I don't think that they'd be all that useful. How often to freight trains actually stop. I'm guessing not that much (could be completely wrong). Granted, there's a massive amount of energy to be recovered but it probably doesn't make sense to add them.

I don't think anyone expects a large truck to accelerate that well either.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Jul 21 2007, 11:11 PM) [snapback]483022[/snapback]</div>

I don't think the Camry Hybrid is in danger of becoming a runaway hit. The V6 model still outsells it, and I don't think the Camry hybrid is going to crack 50K this year, is it? Compared to the rest of Camry sales, it should come in around 10-15% of sales.

Respectable, yes. A runaway hit, not hardly.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(catgic @ Jul 22 2007, 01:20 PM) [snapback]483171[/snapback]</div>

The 1974 T-bird was a pig; brakes were crap for a car of that weight, a point and shoot driver=get through the turn with clenched butt cheeks and punch it down the straight (watch gas gauge drop as you reach a scary 90mph), if you got in a serious crash you probably would be ejected because of the poor seatbelts that nobody would use. Styling at that time had vehicles looking a lot alike actually. Remember carbs with chokes? You can have the old junk, I don't miss it.

 

This thing about Honda being the fuel economy kings seems a little overblown. I like to ride motorcycles, but for some reason the Hondas never made it to my garage. I read Cycleworld mag and others that test all sorts of bike and the Honda is never tops in fuel economy, I also read Consumer Reports and their tests on cars and trucks don't seem to show Honda ahead of the pack. I see a lot of manufacturers touting their vehicles hi-way mpg, I don't drive hi-way only, my mpg would be far less appealing. I checked into diesels a few years ago and was told that I would have problems if I did not have a long way to drive at least a few times a week, short trips are bad for diesels. My Prius ICE stops and starts constantly, how would a diesel change it's stripes to be superior to a gasoline engine?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(catgic @ Jul 22 2007, 01:20 PM) [snapback]483171[/snapback]</div>

As a mechanical engineer, I have to take exception to your assertion that "body-on-frame" was a balance of art and engineering. It was no such thing. It was pig-lazy engineering to design a structural system and then hang a ton of sheet metal on it strictly for aesthetic reasons. Hell, I'm not sure they even bothered to engineer the frame; you don't really have to with a safety factor of 12. I did (and had to if I wanted to pass) better engineering when I built a car for an SAE competition at college (of course, I had modern tools such as finite element analysis and modern materials)(the engine was scrounged from a motor bike).

A heavy extruded bumper beam is poor engineering. It is wasteful of materials and resources, and harkens from a time when cars were built by craftsmen who did what looked sturdy rather than ran the numbers.

Modern steel is a different animal than in the past, as are corrosion protection treatments. Rust through is no longer a serious factor in choosing the panel gauge, nor are impurities in the material or forming equipment limitations.

I think your legitimate point is properly alluded to when you say "making them have some semblance of an eye-pleasing appearance." You think modern cars are ugly. Fine, more power to you and you have a rock solid point there - my Prius (on order) will be sharing the garage with a Triumph Spitfire and a '89 Porsche 951 (one of them even runs!). My old car is a piece of art, but my modern cars are pieces of engineering that I find equally beautiful. Suggesting a 1974 Thunderbird is an example of any type of engineering other than 'quick and dirty overkill' is just... so wrong.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(catgic @ Jul 22 2007, 12:20 PM) [snapback]483171[/snapback]</div>

Disagree with "Ho-Hum" and "runaway" all you want, those labels won't change want actually matters: SALES.

Camry-Hybrid purchases will continue to grow. It's that simple.

Don't listen to the spinners. They'll make arbitrary comparisons, rather than acknowledging the hybrid volume increase.

 

HTTP 404 Not Found

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(catgic @ Jul 22 2007, 01:20 PM) [snapback]483171[/snapback]</div>

Speaking as a pedestrian, who walked to work this morning, I have to point out that modern day bumper design, which you find fault with, is more pedestrian-friendly.

Honda had some TV commercials that addressed this. They design their cars to reduce injuries to pedestrians. As a pedestrian, I appreciate that.

I'd much rather be hit by a Prius with its styrofoam bumper than one of your favorite old monstrosities with chrome bumpers and pointy bits that were great at impaling and seriously hurting pedestrians.

Harry

 

The root of fewer sales from non-Prius hybrids is simply >>>

People who decide they want to drive a hybrid TODAY, want the BEST FE available for the money/ car. That will always take them to a Prius.

If they are shopping for a Camry (or other hybrid optioned model), it's probably not because there is a Camry hybrid AVAILABLE. Since the hybrid version is typically (if not always) considerably more expensive, then it's not a real consideration to many buyers TODAY.

The public is just starting to warm up to the hybrid/ FE/ environmental awareness thing. This is something still in its infancy. Whenever I read articles that try to take a negative spin on the hybrid movement/ option, I always clasify them as marketing FUD. Detroit still can't get their act together on anything other than the next BLING Escalade.

 

HTTP 404 Not Found

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MSantos @ Jul 20 2007, 09:42 PM) [snapback]482612[/snapback]</div>

Baseless? I don't think so.

Honda has stated, for the record, that they believe that clean Diesel technology will eclipse hybrids. You're right about the company, but I'll stand by my characterization of them regarding hybrids. You said it yourself, for that matter, and their product mix confirms it.

Besides, why does the HCH have a tachometer, that's placed dead center on the dash? It's a hybrid with a CVT! As I said, Honda's not really on board with hybrids, and the interior of this car speaks volumes.

And whose car is a monopoly piece? It's not marketing that made the Prius a success; it's good product design and good engineering...the things that Honda claims to be a leader at, but somehow doesn't always seem to deliver.

Finally, the idea is for them to sell cars; doesn't matter why it doesn't happen. If Honda can't get their marketing and engineering folks talking, they need to fix that problem first, not rationalize failures by suggesting that the two don't play well together.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(catgic @ Jul 23 2007, 04:56 PM) [snapback]483739[/snapback]</div>

Designing for Pedestrians in Impact
In direct response to proposed and actual EU legislation, manufacturers are trying to stop pedestrians impacting with hard-points at the front of vehicles. The principle responses are to either raise the bonnet to a stance that better absorbs energy, or to use airbags to cushion against these hard-points. Although these approaches offer a way to maintain existing styling traits, they are unlikely to be as simple or effective as more dramatic changes in vehicle front design.

In 2000, 28% of UK road fatalities were pedestrians. Key improvements seem to revolve around giving the right amount of support, in the right areas, to a pedestrian in impact. It is suggested that bumpers have a deeper profile or a support structure below the surface to reduce “pitching of the leg-form and bending of the knee jointâ€. ‘Foam plastics’ could be used to absorb the energy of the impact as they possess good ‘recovery characteristics’ to reduce permanent damage to the vehicle in “low-speed car-to-car collisionsâ€.

At the leading edge of the bonnet it is desirable to reduce the stiffness of the structure and avoid the location of catches and other fixings close to the surface. Bonnet reinforcing structure and panel seams add to the number of risk areas for impact. Statistics by the (UK) Transport Research Laboratory predict design improvements could prevent 8% of all pedestrian fatalities and 21% of serious injuries. The UK Department of the Environment, Transport & the Regions (DETR) is more optimistic, believing up to 20% of pedestrian fatalities could be prevented within 8 years.


Several key changes to design can be considered as a means to improve pedestrian impact performance:

Bumper foam needs to be 20-40mm thicker than on current vehicles and may need to be bigger in the vertical direction.

“A low level foam-covered beam is needed to reduce rotation of the knee joint. This could be disguised under a spoiler-style skin..â€

Lights should be kept below the upper leg crush zone or designed to deform in a controlled way.

Under bonnet clearance should be at least 75mm, with special consideration paid to major features such as shock absorber mounts. Some suggestions have been made that double-wishbone suspension may be an alternative - this depends on the packaging in this area.

There is some difference of opinion on bonnet leading-edge height. Some sources state that anything above 650mm in height is undesirable where other point out that “making the hood edge height higher is effective in lowering the vehicle-head collision speedâ€. It is noted though, that “if the edge of the hood is too high, it might be dangerous for children because their heads might be directly hit by the front of the carâ€. They chose 800mm as a suitable height as it is lower than the head of a 3 year old child. There is no defining conclusion on the subject of leading edge height; it makes more sense to look at reducing hard points, improving controlled plastic deformation to absorb energy and stiffening lower bumper structure to minimise leg injury.

In tests on bonnet structure, it was concluded that steel, backed with a ‘soft foam elastic material’ performed better than any other metal-based structure. No solely polymer structures were tested. Traditional bonnet design involves dangerous points of reinforcement and its performance in impact is very difficult to predict or control.

Modifying existing methods of manufacture to improve pedestrian impact performance may not be the ideal direction to take. It should be noted that bonnet clearance needs are different for children and adults, that clam-shell bonnets are preferred, that simply raising everything for greater clearance over componentry will increase drag and thus fuel consumption. Existing vehicle structures cannot produce uniform responses to impact and some common practices - such as the use of MacPherson strut suspension - are almost incompatible with long-term improvements in this field.

Headlight design may also need to change. The front of the headlight could become part of the passive safety system, where the lens will be collapsible and packaging requirements will alter as the lighting unit is moved back from the likely point of impact.

from: http://www.cardesignonline.com/safety/pedestrian-safety.php

It seems not everyone scoffs at pedestrian safety and vehicle design.

Honda has been in the lead in pedestrian safety, developing the first pedestrian crash test dummy, Polar II, to measure the dynamics of car-pedestrian accidents. The dummy mimics the performance of the human leg, chest, and shoulders in a collision with a car. Utilizing feedback from the dummy, the 2001 Civic was designed with a 3-inch gap between the hood and engine block to cushion impact and bendable hinges that allow the hood to collapse more easily.

from: http://www.automedia.com/Pedestrian_Safety/dsm20050401ps/2

The Prius may not be the most pedestrian friendly vehicle in an accident, but it surely beats that old locomotive you are so fond of.

Harry