EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   Aerodynamics (https://ecomodder.com/forum/aerodynamics.html)
-   -   Honda wussed out (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/honda-wussed-out-8990.html)

dutchboy 06-29-2009 07:54 PM

Honda wussed out
 
The initial pics/concept of the new Insight had some low profile mirrors that were looking very aero, but they went for the traditional crappy mirrors on the production models.

I don't know why everyone resists change and advancement so much...wouldn't the mirrors have cost about the same to manufacture, no matter what design they used?

I know they alread have the tooling for the status quo, but why not actually push forward a bit? It seems like honda and toyota have actually crippled their conventional models the past couple years, in order to make the hybrids look like a better deal/have further seperation.

jesse.rizzo 06-29-2009 09:36 PM

I'm just mad they didn't put rear wheel skirts on it. It's a step backwards from the one 10 years ago. How much sense does that make?

RobertSmalls 06-29-2009 10:20 PM

And no manual transmission! Where's the fahrvergnuegen in a CVT?

But the bottom line on the new Insight, for me, is that the fuel economy is unimpressive. The first generation Insight made numerous, drastic sacrifices to gain a few MPG, and was therefore a commercial failure. Lots of us here have expressed our disappointment that the new Insight did not take the same approach.

Who 06-29-2009 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls (Post 112918)
The first generation Insight made numerous, drastic sacrifices to gain a few MPG, and was therefore a commercial failure. Lots of us here have expressed our disappointment that the new Insight did not take the same approach.

To become another commercial failure? :D

SVOboy 06-29-2009 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dutchboy (Post 112878)
The initial pics/concept of the new Insight had some low profile mirrors that were looking very aero, but they went for the traditional crappy mirrors on the production models.

I don't know why everyone resists change and advancement so much...wouldn't the mirrors have cost about the same to manufacture, no matter what design they used?

I know they alread have the tooling for the status quo, but why not actually push forward a bit? It seems like honda and toyota have actually crippled their conventional models the past couple years, in order to make the hybrids look like a better deal/have further seperation.

I am sure they consider them a safety issue. They were hard to see out of. They wont keep the rear view cameras on the CR-Z concept either. Such is the nature of concept cars.

99LeCouch 06-29-2009 10:46 PM

It's kinda sad when a Fit can match the Insight's EPA highway fuel economy. The Fit in question was also loaded to the gills, driving 70 mph from SC to NY.

They could have gotten a few more MPG out of the Insight. And also not crippled the Fit's EPA fuel economy to make the Insight more attractive. I guess 29 mpg combined (real-world with psycho drivers is 4-5 mpg higher, and hypermilers can get ~40 or greater) was the point that their focus groups told them they would pony up $3k more for a car that got ~41 combined.

jamesqf 06-30-2009 01:50 PM

A step backwards? IMHO, it's about a half-marathon run backwards.

The original Insight didn't (as far as I can tell, and I've owned one for six years) make any sacrifices, drastic or otherwise. In fact, it made a lot of... brain stall here - what's a word that's the opposite of sacrifice? ...design decisions that made it quite costly to build.

Nor was it a failure in any sense. It was an experiment: Honda built the car as a real-world test of hybrid technology, and sold it for less than what it cost to build. They chose to build limited numbers, and sold all that they built. How's that a failure?

As for the mirrors, I really wish they'd change the regulations, and allow rear-view cameras instead. Not just for aerodynamics, but as a safety issue. I'm effing tired of being blinded by the glare from following cars whose drivers apparently never heard of low beams.

stevey_frac 06-30-2009 02:04 PM

Don't really have anything new to add. My thoughts reflect those of others in the thread. However, i shall watch with rapt attention..

a.k.a. Subscribed.

tjts1 06-30-2009 03:17 PM

Honda has to deal with a little something called 'REALITY'. You might have heard of it. Its the place where the DOT regulates the size of rear view mirrors, cost dictates the diameter of your rims etc. If you want all that concept car junk on your car, you're welcome to get your hands dirty and build those parts yourself. I'm sure the aftermarket would be more than happy to sell it to you as well. The new insight is a huge leap forward from the first generation simply because a lot more people will buy it. Toyota and Honda tried completely different formulas with the first generation hybrids. The 4 door practical sedan/hatch back won because real people with real money to spend are willing to sacrifice some fuel economy in exchange for a practical family car. Honda got the message and followed the leader. More power to them. At least they have the ability to adapt and learn from their mistakes. More than I can say for GM.

DonR 06-30-2009 04:08 PM

I am suprised that they don't make the wheel skirts as an option you can buy. If they could quantify the fe increase the additional parts they may actually sell some.

On a side note, I saw that Red Line Oil is making fluids for modern CVT's including Hondas.

Don

evolutionmovement 06-30-2009 05:07 PM

And it doesn't get any better mileage than the larger Civic Hybrid. A car as butt ugly as the Insight should damn well be more radically aerodynamic—it looks odd, but it's not really any kind of big step forward aerodynamically. It's not like the Civic where it's appealing to a more conservative buyer, so why not try to integrate more advanced aero (even just something like side skirts) to better get the average consumer used to such features so that they can be introduced to regular model cars in the future?

cfg83 06-30-2009 05:28 PM

DonR -

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonR (Post 113032)
I am suprised that they don't make the wheel skirts as an option you can buy. If they could quantify the fe increase the additional parts they may actually sell some.

On a side note, I saw that Red Line Oil is making fluids for modern CVT's including Hondas.

Don

Yes yes yes. It would be really nice to have the "holes already there" for mounting.

CarloSW2

jamesqf 07-01-2009 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjts1 (Post 113025)
The new insight is a huge leap forward from the first generation simply because a lot more people will buy it.

At best it's a leap sideways. It's not a bad idea for them to have an entry in the 4-seat hybrid class, but by giving it the Insight name they alienated a lot of original Insight owners, most of whom were hoping for an improved version.

They're also neglecting the (potentially large) market segment composed of people who have no need for a back seat, and maybe just need a little marketing (and another gas price increase :-)) to recognize the fact.

stevey_frac 07-01-2009 05:34 AM

Does anyone know if the new insight still has lean burn?

i_am_socket 07-01-2009 10:04 AM

41 MPG combined in a hybrid that small... I'm just .5 mpg short of that with my last fill.

They could have done so much better.

stevey_frac 07-01-2009 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_am_socket (Post 113139)
41 MPG combined in a hybrid that small... I'm just .5 mpg short of that with my last fill.

They could have done so much better.

Reporters following the blue-> green system on the dash have pulled 65 MPG. We both know that your or I could pull 70's without breaking a sweat. It's not really fair to compare a hypermiler performance in once car to the EPA rating of another.

KJSatz 07-01-2009 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_am_socket (Post 113139)
41 MPG combined in a hybrid that small... I'm just .5 mpg short of that with my last fill.

They could have done so much better.

I'm going to side with Mr. Frac on this one. I can substantially exceed the Insight's highway EPA of 43mpg in my Civic LX...but that's with techniques like going around 50mph, minimizing AC, conserving momentum, watching lights, coasting...it stands to reason that if I can beat my Civic's highway EPA by almost 50%, I could do similarly well in an Insight.

stevey_frac 07-01-2009 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJSatz (Post 113160)
I'm going to side with Mr. Frac on this one. I can substantially exceed the Insight's highway EPA of 43mpg in my Civic LX...but that's with techniques like going around 50mph, minimizing AC, conserving momentum, watching lights, coasting...it stands to reason that if I can beat my Civic's highway EPA by almost 50%, I could do similarly well in an Insight.


... Mr. Frac.... I like it. :thumbup:

bombloader 07-06-2009 09:50 PM

Jamesqf
I really doubt their is a large market for people who don't need a backseat outside of sports car buyers. The only real market I can think would be as a second commuter car for driving to work and back. Then you're gonna have to get the price low enough so people can justify buying 2 cars. Most car buyers are looking for 4 person capacity, and that's just the US car market.

jamesqf 07-07-2009 12:55 AM

Why do you think that? About the only people who actually need a back seat are families with kids under 18 or less, and that's far from a majority of the population. Even a lot of those already have two (or more) cars, so having one a two-seater is no problem.

Now maybe most people have been convinced that they "need" four or more seats, but that's what marketing is for.

Shawn D. 07-07-2009 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjts1 (Post 113025)
Honda has to deal with a little something called 'REALITY'.

+1!
The production car has to be for the real world, not for auto shows or niche enthusiasts.

jamesqf 07-07-2009 01:22 PM

Why? There is little real-world use for an SUV, and none at all for those stupid four-door "pickups" with four-foot long beds, yet clever marketing sold millions of them before gas hit $4/gal. The same sort of marketing, by Honda or some other company, could as easily sell the idea of 2-seaters, making the company a chunk of money and increasing their CAFE numbers.

cfg83 07-07-2009 02:44 PM

jamesqf -

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesqf (Post 114257)
Why? There is little real-world use for an SUV, and none at all for those stupid four-door "pickups" with four-foot long beds, yet clever marketing sold millions of them before gas hit $4/gal. The same sort of marketing, by Honda or some other company, could as easily sell the idea of 2-seaters, making the company a chunk of money and increasing their CAFE numbers.

I don't think Shawn was talking about SUVs. I used to own a 2nd gen CRX. As a prime example of utility, I could load a 5 piece drumset in the CRX without removing the passenger seat. The Insight couldn't do that because of the battery pack.

The 1st gen Insight's a stellar MPG machine, I considered getting one. But, I decided against it because the price didn't justify the loss in utility. It just didn't measure up to the CRX.

CarloSW2

evolutionmovement 07-07-2009 03:01 PM

People don't need to be marketed "macho" vehicles—they gravitate towards them naturally to make up for the control deficiencies in their lives, be it lack of personal power, respect, or just fear and the more that buy them, the more join in to feel part of the crowd. Small and efficient says "sissy" to these type of primates and, unfortunately, these primates are the majority.

bombloader 07-07-2009 06:25 PM

Honda wussed out
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesqf (Post 114180)
Why do you think that? About the only people who actually need a back seat are families with kids under 18 or less, and that's far from a majority of the population. Even a lot of those already have two (or more) cars, so having one a two-seater is no problem.

Now maybe most people have been convinced that they "need" four or more seats, but that's what marketing is for.

Families with children probably are a majority of new car buying households, so car companies have to make a lot of cars to meet their needs. Plus, cars are big ticket items so people tend to buy what will fulfill their needs in a wide range of situations, not just what they drive 75-80% of the time. Most buyers are aiming for more like 95% of the time. I did say their is a market for two seaters, and that is as second cars. But I don't know if Honda could get the price low enough to satisfy this market. So they probably chose to make the car more useful to more people.

BTW, marketing is more about determining what the customer wants and making it, not convincing the customer to buy your stuff. Japanese car companies have been pretty good at marketing for that reason.

99LeCouch 07-07-2009 09:19 PM

I almost never use my backseat for hauling people. It's used for "stuff" that I'm too lazy to put in the trunk, or want more secured than in an empty cavern. But when my car does get loaded down, it's nice to have.

Agreed people buy the car for the 95% rule. I do think the Honda Fit exemplifies this rule, since it's a fuel-sipping, fun-to-drive echoing cavern of a car wrapped in a dinky shell. Honda put the emphasis on the front seats, and made the rears to get out of the way. And it works marvelously! Now if only other manufacturers would get the hint we'd see some genuinely novel designs out there.

bombloader 07-07-2009 10:15 PM

Honda wussed out
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 99LeCouch (Post 114335)

Agreed people buy the car for the 95% rule. I do think the Honda Fit exemplifies this rule, since it's a fuel-sipping, fun-to-drive echoing cavern of a car wrapped in a dinky shell. Honda put the emphasis on the front seats, and made the rears to get out of the way. And it works marvelously! Now if only other manufacturers would get the hint we'd see some genuinely novel designs out there.

Yup. That also explains the 2+2 sports car design. In most of those, nobody whose older than 10 and not a midget can fit comfortably in the back seat. And another thing on back seats. By recommendation of safety experts and possibly by law, children under a certain age or weight are required to ride in the back seat. So, a 2-seater as a second car is even less useful to a family with young children since you can't take a kid anywhere in it. BTW, I wonder if it would be beneficial to FE to remove the backseat in your car to reduce weight? Even if it didn't work, you'd get more storage room. If you could sell it a low enough price, I always thought it would be cool to make a tandem two seat car, to really reduce frontal area. You'd probably have to stick the wheels out a bit make it stable enough though, and might lose some of the aero advantage that way.

jamesqf 07-08-2009 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cfg83 (Post 114266)
I don't think Shawn was talking about SUVs. I used to own a 2nd gen CRX. As a prime example of utility, I could load a 5 piece drumset in the CRX without removing the passenger seat. The Insight couldn't do that because of the battery pack.

OK, but what percentage of the car-buying population ever wants to carry a 5-piece drum set?

Quote:

The 1st gen Insight's a stellar MPG machine, I considered getting one. But, I decided against it because the price didn't justify the loss in utility. It just didn't measure up to the CRX.
Funny you should say that, as I had a CRX for years (untill an unfortunate incident involving water running over a freeway - suddenly going backwards at 65 mph does not do nice things to your engine), and bought the Insight mainly because it was the closest thing I could find. I've had no problems hauling reasonable amounts of stuff - frequently a 110 lb dog, often bikes, computers, skis, backpacking gear for a week...

jamesqf 07-08-2009 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bombloader (Post 114305)
BTW, marketing is more about determining what the customer wants and making it, not convincing the customer to buy your stuff.

Sure it is :-) Compare how much is spent on research to find out what customers actually want - possibly nothing, though they may do a bit of research and then ignore the results - versus how much is spent on advertising what they decide to build.

Or just consider the aforementioned Honda CRX. They were, and still are, quite popular, yet Honda stopped production, and hasn't offered anything comparable since(except the limited-production Insight), nor has any other automaker tried to fill its niche.

cfg83 07-08-2009 01:26 AM

jamesqf -

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesqf (Post 114363)
OK, but what percentage of the car-buying population ever wants to carry a 5-piece drum set?

...

That's why I said a *prime* example. It was a 2-seater with gobs of hauling space for it's size, form follows function and all that. The 1st-gen Insight was obviously a CRX HFFFFF in spirit, but ... just ... not ... enough ... of a ... CRX ... for me.

YMMV,

CarloSW2

some_other_dave 07-08-2009 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesqf (Post 114367)
Or just consider the aforementioned Honda CRX. They were, and still are, quite popular, yet Honda stopped production...

"Quite popular" relative to what?

In 1990, the Miata came out. At that point, most people who wanted two-seaters decided that they were more interested in a "truuuuue roadster"--an open-topped car that had RWD handling and no cargo space. Sales of the CRX dropped like a stone.

You have to understand--to Honda, the notion of selling ten thousand of a regular (non-halo) model is nothing. They need to sell many thousands of them every week in order for it to be seen as worthwhile. Maybe even more.

If the 1st-gen Insight had sold in similar numbers to the Civic, there would still be a two-seat hybrid Honda on the market. It didn't, plain and simple. I remember them sitting at the dealer for months and months after they were discontinued...

Maybe the market is changing--maybe. But I won't be holding my breath waiting for utilitarian two-seaters to come back to the market in a big way.

That said, I love my CRX. I've had it for years, and will likely have it for many more to come.

-soD

cfg83 07-08-2009 06:05 PM

some_other_dave -

Quote:

Originally Posted by some_other_dave (Post 114507)
"Quite popular" relative to what?

In 1990, the Miata came out. At that point, most people who wanted two-seaters decided that they were more interested in a "truuuuue roadster"--an open-topped car that had RWD handling and no cargo space. Sales of the CRX dropped like a stone.

...

That said, I love my CRX. I've had it for years, and will likely have it for many more to come.

-soD

Hmmmm, I never saw it that way. I thought the Miata was a throwback to the Triumph Spitfire and the MG MGB sports cars, hence the British Racing Green.

From my POV, the CRX died of competition. The Mazda MX-3 (a fat CRX, *with* a small vertical rear window), the Toyota Paseo (a "normal" CRX), and the Nissan NX (the evil egg).

But I agree that the CRX was the best car I ever had. If I had to do it all over again, instead of selling it to my friend, I would have given the CRX to my Dad so it stayed "in the family" while keeping the mileage down. But, I'll bet someone would have stolen it.

CarloSW2

some_other_dave 07-09-2009 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cfg83 (Post 114513)
I thought the Miata was a throwback to the Triumph Spitfire and the MG MGB sports cars, hence the British Racing Green.

Exactly! Hence the TV ads around then that kept calling it "a truuuuue roadster". (Boy did those get annoying after a while!!) But it seems that people who were willing to do without any back seat, even the "notional" one in most 2+2 cars, wanted more of a "fun only" car than a "fun and practical" car.

I hope the CR-Z does well, but I'm afraid they won't be able to capture the spirit of the CRX with it.

-soD

Shawn D. 07-09-2009 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cfg83 (Post 114266)
I don't think Shawn was talking about SUVs. I used to own a 2nd gen CRX. As a prime example of utility, I could load a 5 piece drumset in the CRX without removing the passenger seat. The Insight couldn't do that because of the battery pack.CarloSW2

Exactly. Simply because someone thinks a dinky vehicle is not a good all-round answer does not mean that person automatically means the opposite extreme is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesqf (Post 114363)
OK, but what percentage of the car-buying population ever wants to carry a 5-piece drum set?

Come on, you know that was just one example. Another is going to the junkyard (recycling!) with my son to pull a complete drivetrain and set of brakes off a vehicle, and taking two toolboxes and a garden cart to pull it all -- to people and all that gear fits fine in my Mercedes wagon, but wouldn't in an Insight.

jamesqf 07-09-2009 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by some_other_dave (Post 114507)
"Quite popular" relative to what?

Quite popular as in I still see a fair number on the road, probably more than Miatas.

Quote:

If the 1st-gen Insight had sold in similar numbers to the Civic, there would still be a two-seat hybrid Honda on the market. It didn't, plain and simple. I remember them sitting at the dealer for months and months after they were discontinued...
Whereabouts, in the midwest? Because I remember people trying to find them around that time, and occasionally making a flight from the west coast to pick one up.

You're stuck on the idea that the Insight was a sales flop, when it was widely known that Honda didn't intend to sell more that a relative few, because they were selling them below what they cost to produce. Even leaving out the cost of the hybrid system, what other aluminium-bodied car ever sold at that price?

jamesqf 07-09-2009 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn D. (Post 114768)
Come on, you know that was just one example. Another is going to the junkyard (recycling!) with my son to pull a complete drivetrain and set of brakes off a vehicle, and taking two toolboxes and a garden cart to pull it all -- to people and all that gear fits fine in my Mercedes wagon, but wouldn't in an Insight.

When I go to cut my firewood this fall, I won't be hauling it in the Insight, nor will I be bringing back sheets of plywood from Home Depot. Nor will I drive it up the really rough dirt road (I've seen Jeeps get high-centered on it) to where I went hiking this morning. I use a truck for those things, but I likewise wouldn't drive the truck into town for grocery shopping. Try to build one vehicle that does everything, and you wind up with something (like a Mercedes wagon?) that does nothing really well.

Shawn D. 07-10-2009 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesqf (Post 114779)
When I go to cut my firewood this fall, I won't be hauling it in the Insight, nor will I be bringing back sheets of plywood from Home Depot. Nor will I drive it up the really rough dirt road (I've seen Jeeps get high-centered on it) to where I went hiking this morning. I use a truck for those things, but I likewise wouldn't drive the truck into town for grocery shopping. Try to build one vehicle that does everything, and you wind up with something (like a Mercedes wagon?) that does nothing really well.

Believe me, I would NEVER say a Mercedes wagon does anything really well! Well, maybe frustrate me, but that's another issue. :p

Some folks cannot have multiple vehicles to fit multiple needs. Therefore, they need to have a vehicle that can perform multiple tasks, even if none of those tasks are optimized.

jamesqf 07-10-2009 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn D. (Post 114836)
Some folks cannot have multiple vehicles to fit multiple needs. Therefore, they need to have a vehicle that can perform multiple tasks, even if none of those tasks are optimized.

Sure, but why should that keep car makers from also producing cars that are optimized for particular tasks? Lots of people can & do have multiple vehicles, such as a car for driving and a truck for hauling, so it would seem to make sense to build a car that does a good job of being a car, and a truck that's good at being a truck. Instead, they give us things like the four-door "pickup" with a four-foot bed,that combine the worst features of both and so as far as I can tell do nothing really well.

cfg83 07-10-2009 05:16 PM

jamesqf -

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesqf (Post 114966)
Sure, but why should that keep car makers from also producing cars that are optimized for particular tasks? Lots of people can & do have multiple vehicles, such as a car for driving and a truck for hauling, so it would seem to make sense to build a car that does a good job of being a car, and a truck that's good at being a truck. Instead, they give us things like the four-door "pickup" with a four-foot bed,that combine the worst features of both and so as far as I can tell do nothing really well.

I agree that there should be more room in the American market for optimized and/or retro vehicles. In Japan, there seem to be strange little cars like this :

Nissan Figaro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...garo_Front.jpg

But for me, multiple car ownership is ri$ky bu$ine$$. I think you need space and car fixin' skillzz to be able to have dedicated task cars, and I have neither. If I had another car, I would want to park it at the curb. Where I live, that would cost me $60 per year (small but annoying city fee), not including the extra insurance and the risk of being hit by a drunk (while parked no less!!!! happened last year, :mad: ).

CarloSW2


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com