General Cycling Discussion - Honda designs car after a bicycle

Its aluminum and carbon fiber frame yield a weight of only 1500 pounds.

Its aerodynamic shape gives it a coefficient of drag of only 0.20cd. (Can someone provide something we can compare this to?)

It has an intentionally sparse interior that exposes the frame of the vehicle, much like a bicycle's frame is exposed.

It gets approximately 95 miles per gallon (or 40km/l)

It looks cool too!

http://world.honda.com/Tokyo2003/auto/imas/image/imas-main.jpg

http://world.honda.com/Tokyo2003/auto/imas/

Nice car. You probably would need to take out a second mortgage for it and insurance payments on that would be through the roof. Otherwise, it's a nice car.

Nice car. You probably would need to take out a second mortgage for it and insurance payments on that would be through the roof. Otherwise, it's a nice car.

I don't know... it is probable that Honda won't release it stateside for several years (I could be wrong) but their Insight vehicle is very similar:

1850 pounds, aluminum construction, 65mpg. Insurance for me for 6 months is $832.90. Invoice on an Insight is $20,000 or so.

One point worth mentioning is that I heard Honda is actually losing money on the Insight. I don't know what that means for the sales of the IMAS if they sell it in the USA... they may accept a loss on that car as well.

I don't know... it is probable that Honda won't release it stateside for several years (I could be wrong) but their Insight vehicle is very similar:

1850 pounds, aluminum construction, 65mpg. Insurance for me for 6 months is $832.90. Invoice on an Insight is $20,000 or so.

One point worth mentioning is that I heard Honda is actually losing money on the Insight. I don't know what that means for the sales of the IMAS if they sell it in the USA... they may accept a loss on that car as well.


Concept Vehicle Stage

Honda will present its ideas for the future in a lineup of intriguing concept vehicles: the HSC which offers the driving pleasure of a sports car in a package that anyone can handle; the IMAS, a lightweight aerodynamic hybrid sports car...

This isn't an actual car, and won't be for sale ever. It looks interesting though I couldn't get excited about driving with an exposed frame. Get in an accident and it would likely mess you up that much worse.

It does look like an Insight. Funny, I just saw an Insight on the freeway today that was going in excess of 80mph. It tried to pace it, but I stopped after a certain point.

It does look like an Insight. Funny, I just saw an Insight on the freeway today that was going in excess of 80mph. It tried to pace it, but I stopped after a certain point.

What, were you on your bike or something? :D

Its aerodynamic shape gives it a coefficient of drag of only 0.20cd. (Can someone provide something we can compare this to?)


That's pretty aero. I remember the Honda CRX having a CD of around .29

I don't know... it is probable that Honda won't release it stateside for several years (I could be wrong) but their Insight vehicle is very similar:

1850 pounds, aluminum construction, 65mpg. Insurance for me for 6 months is $832.90. Invoice on an Insight is $20,000 or so.

One point worth mentioning is that I heard Honda is actually losing money on the Insight. I don't know what that means for the sales of the IMAS if they sell it in the USA... they may accept a loss on that car as well.

That's pretty light. The mclaren F1's about 350 lbs heavier but it seats 3, gets around 20mpg, and has a 620bhp V12 with an aero coeff of 0.3.

The 2nd generation Toyota Prius has a .26 Cd

The Honda Insight has a .25 Cd.

These are some of the lowest for production cars.

Al

This isn't an actual car, and won't be for sale ever. It looks interesting though I couldn't get excited about driving with an exposed frame. Get in an accident and it would likely mess you up that much worse.

It's most likely not passive bodywork on a tube-frame, that's old-school 1970s stuff. Looks like monocoque construction which yields the highest strenght-to-weight ratio. Probably uses aluminium for bolt-on attachment points for engine, bumpers, suspension, seats, etc and carbon-fibre to connect those alloy pieces. Similar to the Mclaren or Enzo construction methods.

It's most likely not passive bodywork on a tube-frame, that's old-school 1970s stuff. Looks like monocoque construction which yields the highest strenght-to-weight ratio. Probably uses aluminium for bolt-on attachment points for engine, bumpers, suspension, seats, etc and carbon-fibre to connect those alloy pieces. Similar to the Mclaren or Enzo construction methods.

I just like having something between me and the part of the car that would absorb energy from an impact. Even crate paper would be nice, then I wouldn't have to look at it and worry about crumple fragments flying into my eyes :p

hoping this will become the new honda insight..


Its aluminum and carbon fiber frame yield a weight of only 1500 pounds.

Its aerodynamic shape gives it a coefficient of drag of only 0.20cd. (Can someone provide something we can compare this to?)

It has an intentionally sparse interior that exposes the frame of the vehicle, much like a bicycle's frame is exposed.

It gets approximately 95 miles per gallon (or 40km/l)

It looks cool too!

http://world.honda.com/Tokyo2003/auto/imas/image/imas-main.jpg

http://world.honda.com/Tokyo2003/auto/imas/

That's pretty light. The mclaren F1's about 350 lbs heavier but it seats 3, gets around 20mpg, and has a 620bhp V12 with an aero coeff of 0.3.

If you are saying the F1 is heavier than an Insight... just think of what you could do with this car...

You could put a nice turboed Hayabusa engine in it... like they did:

http://zcars.org.uk/ultima/index.htm

They put dual Hayabusa motorcycle engines in a (finished weight) 980KG car for a BHP of 1000.

So I'm assuming you could pull 500BHP out of one engine?

I don't know how much those engines weigh but we could say 500lbs (They go in motorcycles, this is probably way over the actual weight).

So remove about 300 lbs from your base of 1500lbs for the stock engine, and add 500lbs, and you have an 1800lb vehicle with 500bhp and a cd of 0.20. Freakin insane. Of course, you would have to make some other adjustments as well, like adding some really awesome brakes, and you'd probably need a non-stock transmission. Well... you'd also need an electric motor in there so you could go in reverse.

But that's pretty crazy potential for a mad-crazy-fast vehicle. Almost or better than F1 specs at probably half to a third or quarter of the price.

But that would require someone who had a clue about autos and what they were doing. Not me.

Oh... and some money.

And I forgot... that would also kind of destroy the whole point of this vehicle: to get insane crazy gas mileage.

I'll bet it has a sealed undercarriage.

You could put a nice turboed Hayabusa engine in it... like they did:


And the mclaren would be comfortable, safe, seat more, handle better, and not kill me. :)

The Honda company actually started out with bicycles.

Therefore, ALL of their cars have been designed after a bicycle.

(Just looking for trouble.)

"I don't know how much those engines weigh but we could say 500lbs (They go in motorcycles, this is probably way over the actual weight)."

Stock Busa motor weighs about 175lbs... Add about 50-lbs for the extra plumbing of turbos.

What, were you on your bike or something? :D

Of course I was on my bike. :D I was drafting behind the Insight! hahaha




Naw, I was driving my car.

So remove about 300 lbs from your base of 1500lbs for the stock engine, and add 500lbs, and you have an 1800lb vehicle with 500bhp and a cd of 0.20. Freakin insane.

But that's pretty crazy potential for a mad-crazy-fast vehicle. Almost or better than F1 specs at probably half to a third or quarter of the price.


There is the Ariel Atom. Not the most aerodynamic, but that thing is fast with it's great power to weight ratio. Weighs 456kg and has a Honda 1.8L VTEC engine. 220BHP.

Rumor has it, it's going to be sold in the US and may come with a 2.4L engine.

Its aerodynamic shape gives it a coefficient of drag of only 0.20cd. (Can someone provide something we can compare this to?)


It gets approximately 95 miles per gallon (or 40km/l)



BMW put together a turbodeisel that has a drag coeff. of .14. It moves pretty well, and gets about 90 mpg.

They have no plans to release it. Just proving that they can do gas milage too, they just dun wanna.

There is the Ariel Atom. Not the most aerodynamic, but that thing is fast with it's great power to weight ratio. Weighs 456kg and has a Honda 1.8L VTEC engine. 220BHP.

Rumor has it, it's going to be sold in the US and may come with a 2.4L engine.

Then there's the Lotus Elise and Exige. I did the 2001 OTC where there was a Lotus Elise and 340R. They kicked butt!!! I would imagine the Exige can offer Ferrari-F40/Enzo levels of performance... :)

There is the Ariel Atom. Not the most aerodynamic, but that thing is fast with it's great power to weight ratio. Weighs 456kg and has a Honda 1.8L VTEC engine. 220BHP.

Rumor has it, it's going to be sold in the US and may come with a 2.4L engine.

How would that come close to passing even 10% of American safety requirements. Don't get me wrong, seeing the Atom in the USA would be awesome, but if it did make it I doubt it would be the same car.

How would that come close to passing even 10% of American safety requirements. Don't get me wrong, seeing the Atom in the USA would be awesome, but if it did make it I doubt it would be the same car.

Perhaps it will be limited to track use only? I dunno. Or perhaps it'll come into the States as a "kit car"??

The Honda company actually started out with bicycles.

Therefore, ALL of their cars have been designed after a bicycle.

(Just looking for trouble.)

Actually, Honda originally made engines that were installed onto bike frames, not bicycles themselves.

My 1985 Honda CRX HI got 51 MPG. It used less gas than my Honda motorcycle. The motorcycle only got 44 MPG. Some impressive technology for 1985.

"I don't know how much those engines weigh but we could say 500lbs (They go in motorcycles, this is probably way over the actual weight)."

Stock Busa motor weighs about 175lbs... Add about 50-lbs for the extra plumbing of turbos.

I miss my Busa.... :cry:

My 1985 Honda CRX HI got 51 MPG. It used less gas than my Honda motorcycle. The motorcycle only got 44 MPG. Some impressive technology for 1985.

The US hit a fuel efficiency peak in the 80s for overall car production. I'd like to see us get back there.

I have always wondered why cars weigh so much. Then, recently, I read an article about how cars in the US have been getting heavier and heavier in the past 10 years. Consumers want a quiet, smooth ride; they equate this with quality. The cheapest way for designers to satisfy this is with big wheels and heavy bodies. As a result, 30mpg is considered good gas mileage these days.

Motorcycles have been getting lighter and lighter, as more motorcycle buyers are looking for sport performance. Maybe with the high gas prices, we will start seeing lighter cars based on the same technology.

I recently got a dent in the hood of my car, and I looked on the internet to find a replacement. The only hood I could find was a carbon fiber "performance" hood that cost over 500 dollars (ha), and claimed to be 40 lbs lighter than the stock hood. FORTY POUNDS? Why the heck do cars weigh so much?

Cost... in materials, in design time, in engineering... You can build a car with pervasive use of carbon-fibre/aluminium/titanium and have it be 1/2 the weight of current cars, with similar impact-safety and better performance and gas-mileage. But it will cost $200k and the ride won't be quite as smooth or nice as the current 4000lb tanks. It's all market-driven, the manufacturers are building what the people want... cheap tanks...

I have always wondered why cars weigh so much. Then, recently, I read an article about how cars in the US have been getting heavier and heavier in the past 10 years.

Another contributing factor is the growing list of safety equipment. Requirements by law for dual airbags for all US spec cars. Stronger bumpers to pass the collisions tests (for example. On my car, the bumper beam is 25lbs heavier than the ones sold in Japan). Some cars also have side airbags.

Cars are also loaded up with so many unnecessary toys. Four or more LCD screens, DVD player. SUV's and trucks are moving from 16" rims to 20-24" rims. All they're missing is the kitchen sink.

Another contributing factor is the growing list of safety equipment. Requirements by law for dual airbags for all US spec cars. Stronger bumpers to pass the collisions tests (for example. On my car, the bumper beam is 25lbs heavier than the ones sold in Japan). Some cars also have side airbags.

Cars are also loaded up with so many unnecessary toys. Four or more LCD screens, DVD player. SUV's and trucks are moving from 16" rims to 20-24" rims. All they're missing is the kitchen sink.

Hmmmm....define "unnecessary". If it's what the people want, then is it "unnecessary"? Are padded bike shorts "unnecessary"? Are multiple chain-rings "unnecessary"? Is a DVD player in the mini-van "unnecessary"? Sure. They are all unnecessary. But are they convenient? Yes. Do those who buy them find value in them? Absolutely.

Just because you don't value the DVD player in the vehicle doesn't make it any more "unnecessary" than a non-cyclist's view of bicycle shorts. And really, are you proposing that we get rid of airbags for the fuel-consumption benefits? Please.... :rolleyes: C'mon, how much do LCD screens weigh? My Honda Odyssey has one, and it is AWESOME on long trips with my two toddlers. Do I value it more than a carbon frame for my bike? You betcha.