News Report re: Hybrid Accords

Page 2 of 3  
Waiving the right to remain silent, snipped-for-privacy@nospam.com (Jason) said:


What does a Hybrid "look like"..? Why should it look any different than an ordinary car..?
Honda's original Hybrid looked so odd, it's no wonder they couldn't sell them.
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

"I've come here to enjoy nature. Don't talk to me
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 22:00:07 GMT, Larry the Free

Because how else will the poseurs driving them convay to everyone how 'enviromentally hip' they are (omitting that it'll take some 100,000 miles to offset the pollution caused by the battery production, however many miles the disposal of the batteries will take, and how they could probably get similar performance and economy if the heavy electrical system was taken out anyway (acceleration = force/mass, reduce the mass, you need less force - same as a car with 4 boss hawg's in will have to work much harder than if there were 4 japanese schoolgirls, all in very light clothes in there)

not so much spin on it, and no celbrity endorsements. Cars sell on coolness, nothing else. If its not cool, it won't sell. Thats why motorsports are so important to manufacturers. Rallying, touring cars, movies etc. all help sell the cars by making them cool. look at wht the Italian job did for the mini's. I get in one, I sure want to race around Turin. gone n 60 seconds helped make the mustang iconic. Jackie chan and mitsubishi... the list is endless.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

flobert, I agreed with every word. I could not have said it better. Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Cars are considered a major source of pollution. Flashlights aren't. The hybrid system is saving maybe 800 gallons of gas over 100,000 miles and emit eight tons less CO2. The batteries don't weigh that much and they will certainly be recycled.

This is demonstrably false (not F=MA, the part about achieving the same economy if weight of the hybrid system were removed) The hybrids compete against similar size and performance cars which don't have the hybrid electrical system and the hybrids get much better millage.
                                    Milage                 pounds    HP        EPA        Consumer Reports     Civic EX        2740        140        30/38        28     Civic Hybrid    2875        110        49/51        37     Prius            2890        110        60/51        44

What are the coolest cars out there? Must be Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Honda Civic, they are the best sellers. No doubt being cool can sell some cars but it is far from the only motivator.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I believe the hybrids are still only made in Japan so they probably don't make much money on them even at extra high price. Also gas mileage rating went down this year.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
IMO Honda completely missed the boat on this one by going for a "performance hybrid". Nobody needs even higher performance than the V-6 Accord already offers, and the price of the Hybrid Accord is a show stopper. Why pay the price on an Acura TL to get a Honda sedan?
Hybrids should be about great fuel economy, and the Accord hybrid real world economy is little better than the 4 cylinder Accord.
IMO Honda would do much better selling a high economy 1.8 L turbocharged version of the Accord instead of the silly V-6 hybrid. With the new focus on fuel economy we are going to see more use of smaller engines with turbochargers. Even Honda is about to get into the turbo act with the new Acura RDX.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

John, I agree with you. The new Honda Fit will get 33 mpg in the city and 38 miles on the highway. It's my opinion that lots of people will buy the Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris (for about $15,000 per car) instead of overpriced Hybrids. The cost of a Toyata Prius is about $23,000 per car. Do you agree? Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My wife's 97 and 2005 Civic EX coupes with 5 speeds were advertised to get 33 / 38 mpg. They both get about 25 / 35 mpg. But, she drives with that right pedal flat on the floor.
Lynn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lynn McGuire wrote:

Obviously agressive driving styles will result in worse than EPA test number economy.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jason wrote:

Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense, though the safety aspect concerns me. If fuel costs continue to rise we can expect to see a run on these things. Folks who can afford it will keep a little car for their commuter vehicle and perhaps something more comfortable/capable for weekends and vacations.
In general I think that hybrid technology as currently implemented results in too much cost and too much added complexity for too little benefit.
A small high tech turbo-diesel can get the job done better!
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is certainly something to be said for turbo-diesels. My new work truck is a Ford with the Cummins 6L TDi. It has shortcomings common to diesels and most marked in TDs: it has to be driven gently when cold to protect the engine, it is noisy and smoky (mostly smoky during warm-up), and even when warm merging into traffic makes me wish I had four feet - one to hold the accelerator down, one to let the clutch up, and two to do the Fred Flintstone thing. But the advantages are more important. It gets right at twice the fuel economy of the old gasser (at least on the highway... dunno about in town), yielding twice the range with the same size tank - important when crossing the largest indian reservation in the US at odd hours. On the highway, with only a slight turbo lag, the power is phenomenal... as I would expect with more than 20 lbs boost. And off-road it crawls along much better than the gasser did, as long as I don't let the turbo come in.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:01:06 -0700, "Michael Pardee"

Thats why he said a high-tech one. The cummins and other crap in US domestic trucks are OLD designs, at least 10 years behind whats available in europe, and filtering into the US. Friend's husband has the 7.something cummins in an F250. says the same thing as you. Its pretty much the same engine as all through the 80's and 90s.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Europe are the exact same way. Certainly the turbo lag will be identical - you can't get 20 psi boost from thin air.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?

too true. They're for show only. Its the automotive equivilent of recycling drinks cans.

too true,

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
flobert wrote:

My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the monster trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a disadvantage to the occupants in a crash.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not so much a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one, andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc. Its another situation where only one side of the equation is considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)

As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The shogun comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge pickups to be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be less likely to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most accidents take place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at intersections. In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people inside small cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster sized SUVs and monster size pick-up trucks. Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there, and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see it gets plenty complex.
The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20 years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini' if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda etc.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hello, I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy. For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy. However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point? Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:16:51 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified and overly basic evaluation.
I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more energy. A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial ofrces may be ---> <--- If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller vehicle for a given deflection.
Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels. Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat (bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the difference, its where those energies go.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.