Where did Honda compromise with the Insight?
So Honda seems to have made remarkably few concessions to practicality when designing the Insight (Gen 1 in particular, more concessions (800+lbs) in the 2010). I'd love to get everyone's thoughts on where they might have traded some additional drag for some modicum of practicality. The grill opening seems to be one place. They might have gone with more pronounced tire spats as well. They added a rear wiper to the hatch.
Just throwing out a few. It would be interesting to mention how they've designed the rest of the body around these compromises—no front wheel skirts means that the trailing edge of the wheel well is rounded and recessed, for example. Just taping on skirts wouldn't do as well as addressing the compromise they made to lessen the impact of not having them in the first place. I hope to prototype and test a lot of ideas come warmer weather and the completion of my thesis. Also, is anyone familiar with a foam called Zotefoam? I ran into it being used to make fairings...The Recumbent Bicycle and Human Powered Vehicle Information Center |
the rear wheel skirts are missing. they may have designed it so there is no measurable loss just for the skirts to be missing, but the skirts made a statement.
WHEN DID THEY START MAKING IT A 5 PASSENGER INSIGHT?!? 2010?!? |
The 2010 seems to have made quite a few more concessions to boot. Interestingly, one driver I know says his favorite feature of the 2010 is the fact that he can have the windows down at speed and it's still quiet inside. It's probably the same design considerations that make the rear wheel skirt absence less of an issue.
|
The original - I've owned one for the last six years - is wider and taller than I'd like it to be. The doors have always annoyed me, since they're about 6" thick (but all empty space inside), and don't even have pockets to make use of the space.
There's also quite a bit of extra space in the engine compartment, everything considered, and in the battery/inverter area. Understandable for a first generation, but I sure wish they'd done a second, instead of slapping the name on a completely different car. |
If we were talking about aerodynamic compromises made by Honda in the design of the first-gen Honda Insight, I can think of several: grille, underbody panels, the size of the car's trailing end, height and width of the car, and things that stick out into the airstream.
http://www.insightcentral.net/_images/sidedims.jpg The biggest room for improvement is at the rear of the car. Foremost, the Insight needs a boat tail. Yes, it would be large and at times cumbersome, but if you need the best possible aerodynamics, you need a boat tail. I presume Honda omitted it for very good reasons. It would be hard to park a boat-tailed Insight in Japan and Europe, and possibly hard to sell such a car in America. There are also crash safety questions, namely: can you design a 5mph bumper that's 50cm wide? If you are rear ended at high speed, would such a boat tail act like a trench spike through the firewall of the guy behind you? http://www.insightcentral.net/_images/topdims.jpg Notice how the bottom half of the rear is much less tapered than the top half. The rear track width dictates the width of the rear. I'm not suggesting you should move your suspension inward, but hey, it would improve CdA. http://www.insightcentral.net/_images/frontdims.jpg IMO, air should not travel through the engine bay, except as required by the radiator. Honda's gasketed hood and engine bay underpaneling are good, but both can be improved on slightly. A more complete engine bay cover increases the cost/hassle of servicing the vehicle. If you complete that and a grille block, you may want to reduce the size of the engine bay to wheel well passage too. There are a few simple appendages that hang out in the airstream. In order from largest CdA to smallest: wing mirrors, rear wiper, door handles, antenna, washer fluid nozzles (x3), raised hood emblem. Some of these things are very necessary on a road-going car, while others were added to conform to regulations and/or consumer expectations. Of these, I've only removed the rear wiper, and I plan to remove the mirrors, antenna, and one washer nozzle. Frontal area reduction would help. I could still seat two side-by-side with a few inches less overall width, though it would be uncomfortable when large people are in the car. Likewise, the roof could be lowered by reclining the passengers more or excluding tall people. The Insight has 5.9" of ground clearance. A lower design would reduce CdA, though lowering the car yourself is not guaranteed to do so. I would favor more aggressive fairings in front of and behind front and rear tires, even though they'd likely come in to contact with pavement at some point. The Insight leaves the factory with an excelled Cd=0.25. I wonder if 0.20 or even 0.17 is within the reach of an EcoModder. |
As jamesqf noted, this isn't comparing changes from one generation of Insight to the next, it's comparing two totally different cars with the same name.
Of course, we should pay attention to what Honda could have done better with the Insight II (that's what we're here for, right?). In my opinion, if it's called the Insight, then it should have more in common with gen1 then just "being a hybrid". |
A big part of the Insight II disappointment IMO was because it could not tred on the Civic Hybrid's toes. The Insight II was to cost less, so it could never be as great as the Civic, otherwise it would kill their sales there. One thing I know is, they purposely geared it higher than the Civic which hurts the highway mileage.
|
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Take a look at the photo below. Notice how you can make out the rear wheels inside the front wheels. This displaces more air than if they were in line, front to back. So was it worth it for Honda to move the rear wheels inside of the front to taper the rear panels of the car?? It's always a compromise... http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1265077611 Jim. |
they are in-line.. not only airflow, but snow and water traction is better when they are in-line.
by the way, did you know that parallel lines eventually meet? http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:5..._tracks414.JPG . |
From the tire marks on the snow, it looks like the rear tires are about 4 inches total inside of the front.
regards Mech |
i'm looking at the snow real close.
the passenger wheels look in-line, but the driver-side wheels have an illusion with that stray line between the front and rear wheels. |
From the specifications.
http://www.internetautoguide.com/car...ght/index.html Track front 1435 MM Track rear 1326 MM Just over 4 inches. regards Mech |
lol. ok. good job, mech.
2 inches per side. i'm very surprised. i should check to see if any vehicles in my ownership history has ever not been in-line. |
Parallel lines do not meet, ever. They may come "close enough" for your purposes at a great enough distance, but they never meet. You could prove this to yourself in that photo by picturing a train at the end of the track, and asking yourself whether the train's two rows of wheels turn to one row when it gets far enough away from you.
On the subject of aerodynamics, a 1.6mph crosswind at 65mph would bring two of the wheels in-line. |
This is from memory so I could easily be wrong. Most cars have a wider front than rear track. Usually not as much as the Insight but there usually is a small difference.
Not talking about modified (not stock) and this may not apply to high performance cars with wider tires in the rear than in the front. I THINK (sometimes dangerous ;)) that it has something to do with the dynamics of thrust and if the thrust from the rear wheels in a RWD car is outside the front wheel track, then you can have handling issues. Could (and probably is different dynamics in a FWD car, and there could be other reasons for the difference in front and rear track. There have been cars with different wheelbases from one side to the other. One was a Renault. Again this is from memory so don't jump on me too hard if I am wrong. regards Mech |
Quote:
|
On in-line wheels, does this explain one of the reasons why the front wheel spats stick a few inches further in beyond where the tire ends? It could also be to shelter the suspension. Wheels tracking closer in the rear seems like an advantageous compromise. The wake of the body having a proper shape seems more important than an extra 4" of tire exposed in an already turbulent area of the underbody.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
That photo shows the front view of the car very well. You probably can't tell, but it was taken with a 500mm zoom lens maxed out for range. I was probably a good 200 feet in front of the car when the picture was taken on the tripod. It does show just about exactly how much more air that the rear tires displace compared to the front. On an aside note, you can feel the back end kicking around more when traveling through snow, since the wheels are not aligned. I am getting more used to it however, but it does keep your attention. Jim. |
3-Wheeler -
Thanks for the info. 200 feet is great because that's more than 60 meters : http://ecomodder.com/forum/member-cf...al-area-02.jpg CarloSW2 |
Quote:
http://www.opel-calibra.info/aerodynamik3.jpg |
A picture = 1000 words. In this case, many of the don't seem to address a different reason for long spats.
Really interesting picture, though. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:08 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