Issue No. 24 | Wanderlust
18 March 2010 10:34pm PST
18 March 2010 10:34pm PST
Opportunity missed.
Honda has recently unveiled their new Hybrid, the Insight (the one on the right…I think), which shares its name with its ill-befallen electric predecessor. Honda says the exterior design is a homage to and evolution of the original Insight (which looked a bit like their 80’s CRX with plastic wheel covers), but either way there therein lay a great opportunity for a fresh challenger to the en-vogue Prius.
However Honda didn’t just drop the ball in the originality department, they threw it through the windscreen. If you’re seeing double in the image above, then you’re noticing the unmistakable similarities between the current Prius and the new Insight…a high roof line, teardrop-esque profile and an abruptly flat rear end with a separate glass insert. Truthfully, the Honda is easier to look at and better proportioned, and will also be great deal cheaper…but it’s also markedly less efficient which leaves me feeling disappointed with Honda…they are late to the game with a dedicated Hybrid design (even though they’ve had a Hybrid Civic for a while now) and should therefore have made a departure from what’s been done in both the style and efficiency department.
You may say the Insight’s shape is dictated by passenger capacity and aerodynamics, so combine that with the design cues of its predecessor and you inevitably end up with the Insight. However I have a hard time spotting a Prius on the road that has more than one passenger, making me think that perhaps a 5-seater sedan isn’t the most relevant configuration for this class of vehicle, especially considering they are often people’s second or third cars. There is however, one redeeming feature; the design language of the Insight shares elements with their FCX Clarity, one of the first production ready hydrogen powered cars that is currently being tested in California. Looking at the Clarity, you can see some of the logic behind the Insight’s shape, but I still find that no excuse for its resemblance to the Prius. The only thing that helps is that the forthcoming 2010 Prius is pretty damn ugly, so Honda need not do anything rash just yet.
Honda Insight (above) and 2010 Toyota Prius (below)
via Leon Fitzpatrick, 13 May 2009 8:59am | 2
|
| Comments:
Honda did not copy the Toyota Prius. Honda copied…..Honda!
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=139246
“Many who have seen early photographs of the 2010 Honda Insight Hybrid have dismissed it as nothing more than a carbon copy of a Toyota Prius.
These people would be wrong.
What “these people” are forgetting is what was said about the current Toyota Prius when it first debuted in the fall of 2003. “It looks like a four-door Honda CRX,” they whined.
Honda Copied…Honda
Much of this finger-pointing stems from the nearly horizontal rear glass of the 2010 Honda Insight with its vertical, peekaboo rear window for enhanced rearward visibility.
The vertical glass panel allows the Insight to fully exploit the widely recognized aerodynamic principles of Wunibald Kamm, who discovered that if one abruptly chopped the tail end off a teardrop, the most streamlined of shapes, most of the low-drag goodness would remain. A Kamm back, they call it.
Yes, the Toyota Prius has this very arrangement. But so did the 2000-’06 Honda Insight and the 1988-’91 Honda CRX before it. That the 2010 Insight looks this way is no accident, because Yasunari Seki, chief engineer for the 2010 Honda Insight, made his name at Honda while working on the CRX HF.
And that’s just what the 2010 Honda Insight is, more or less: a hybrid version of the late Honda CRX HF, but with four doors, room for five passengers, up-to-date safety features and modern conveniences.
With respect to the 2010 Honda Insight, Honda is guilty of copying no one but itself.”
————-
I disagree with the argument that Honda did not copy the Prius and agree with the author of the post. When the Prius first debuted in 2003 and people commented that it looked like a four-door Honda CRX they weren’t incorrect either (although I don’t think you were attempting to say that). It’s not that I don’t see your view on this issue, it’s just that I disagree with the underpinning logic that led you to your stance on this post.
I think that I understand the dual points of your argument though, which I believe are 1) since the Prius looks like a modified Honda then Honda must therefore be taking inspiration from themselves, and 2) the primary elements that lead individuals to this incorrect supposition are the rear glass elements and the ‘Kamm’ rear-end of the vehicle. If this is indeed the basis for your feedback let me take and isolate each of these individually below and refute them.
1.Regardless of who the Prius stylistically robbed from one has to admit that the Insight looks all too similar, and holds up the author’s argument that Honda botched their opportunity to differentiate; with a product in the same category no less. From a side profile they look nearly identical from both the apex forward and backward. Even the treatment of defining stylistic elements like the wheel wells and beltline edge treatment aren’t that dissimilar. Sure, the part breaks that define the doors are slightly different, but if I need to look that closely to find separation between the two vehicles that isn’t a good sign. Which brings me to my next point….
2.The rear glass elements and the ‘Kamm’ back are far from the only attributes that enforce their similarity. The defining element of the rear glass window shape is the slope of the vehicle as it tapers backward. To state that there is a small shift in the grade as the forms taper backward is generous as they are nearly identical (+/1 <5 degrees). When it comes to the back end I have to say your argument works against you somewhat since as you put it ‘if one abruptly chopped the tail end off a teardrop, the most streamlined of shapes, most of the low-drag goodness would remain.’ This implies that the way by which the ‘tail’ is chopped off could have been done in a varying manner while retaining it’s advantageous attributes. We don’t see that done by Honda that strongly now do we?
Aerodynamic principles aside two hunks of metal from different companies competing for market share within the same segment shouldn’t be so similar that one needs to check their logomark to know who manufactured it. You Sir, seem to be looking at this from an engineering standpoint and not as much from a design standpoint which the article was written from. To see how similar these are one doesn’t need to draw a Venn diagram or tabulate ranked data points on what the consumer might value most as defining attributes. It’s clichéd but in this case the pictures say it all.