Ridiculous Review of the Clarity

[Landshark]

Implying that I drift my Clarity is more asinine in my opinion than the way I worded my tire and suspension comments

The “drift” quote was an example of an opinion. It was not identified as your quote, nor was it intended to imply that you engaged in such behavior with your vehicle.

The “tires can’t handle the weight” was close to your statement, but not verbatim. It was an example of a statement as fact. In the case of a Clarity with OEM tires, it is a false statement. An opinion worded as a statement of fact could lead some to believe false statements as being true.

I trust that clarifies my position.

Regarding jumping cars, there are many variables. Speed, ramp angle, type of ramp, landing area, angle of landing area, composition of ground, etc. I was recently involved in a slightly lower jump with the stuntman who doubled for John Schneider on Dukes of Hazard. It was in a bone stock Ford Explorer at about 30 mph, the maximum height was only about 7-8’. The landing was without drama.

 

[hokkaidowilds]

Interesting!

 

[__jl]

I really like my Clarity, but a major part of that is the value of the vehicle after discounts and incentives. If it hadn't been because of the $5000 off MRSP and ~$9000 tax incentives/rebates, I would have definitely gone with a different car. I guess car reviewers can't factor in the fact that MRSP is usually an inflated figure into their write-ups, so their point about the car's value doesn't make a lot of sense.

As it is, I feel like I got a very comfortable ride with many high-tech features I wanted for less than I'd paid for a Civic...

@craze1cars makes some good points. I don't know if I'd bought this particular car if I wanted to use it for >13ft jump stunts though!

 

[petteyg359]

And some don’t qualify for the tax credits

I'm quite sure the intersection of {people who buy new cars that cost $35-40k} and {people who don't qualify for a $7.5k tax credit} is minuscule.

Feds and state should do better things with tax dollars than making large down payments on brand new cars for people who don’t need the financial assistance.

You mean things like provide massive subsidies throughout the whole fossil fuel industry chain? EV subsidies are peanuts. Deal with the malignant cancer before you get agitated over a benign freckle.

And all the credit does is cause instantaneous depreciation of the car value anyway...so for some there not as much gained as it seems.

That sounds an awful lot like "Wah! I can't sell my used car at a profit!"

 

[petteyg359]

Feds and state should do better things with tax dollars than making large down payments on brand new cars for people who don’t need the financial assistance.

You mean things like provide massive subsidies throughout the whole fossil fuel industry chain? EV subsidies are peanuts. Deal with the malignant cancer before you get agitated over a benign freckle.

To elaborate on this, a 2018 study found the U.S. (including state and federal level) spends more than $20 billion per year on oil subsidies. In contrast, a push to eliminate the $7500 EV tax credit would only save $2.5 billion over *ten* years. That's at least 80 times less. If governments all over the world weren't subsidizing oil so much, EVs would be flying off the lots and the gas guzzlers would only be owned by the stupidly rich.

 

[Landshark]

To elaborate on this, a 2018 study found the U.S. (including state and federal level) spends more than $20 billion per year on oil subsidies. In contrast, a push to eliminate the $7500 EV tax credit would only save $2.5 billion over *ten* years. That's at least 80 times less. If governments all over the world weren't subsidizing oil so much, EVs would be flying off the lots and the gas guzzlers would only be owned by the stupidly rich.

These are things over which we have little or no control. Very similar to many of the features on the Clarity.

I’ve ofter wondered how something could be 80 times “less”. If I had 80 times more money than I currently have, I might consider myself fabulously wealthy. Not that I wouldn’t spend it stupidly.

 

[petteyg359]

These are things over which we have little or no control.

We have all the control over it. Stop electing people because of their looks and celebrity status and elect people who will actually stop the stupidity of handouts to *companies* that don't need it. The tax breaks to individuals are nothing.

I’ve ofter wondered how something could be 80 times “less”.

It can be because math is a thing, "times less" is division, and English language abuse is a thing I could've said "That's only 1.25%" if you like that better.[/QUOTE]

 

[Tek_Freek]

My tire and suspension comments were intended to be subjective.

Implying that I drift my Clarity is more asinine in my opinion than the way I worded my tire and suspension comments, fwiw.

Seemed obvious to me when I reread my earlier post that I was referring to JUMPING my Clarity. Not drifting. Sorry I wasn’t clear. When the Clarity lands any jump exceeding 13 feet in height the suspension bottoms out and the tires all pop. Not only is the whole system overwhelmed but it also sucks that Honda doesn’t provide 4 spare tires.

I will submit that we could both benefit from thinking a bit more about how we choose to word things.

You're driving the wrong vehicle if you regularly expect to be jumping over obstacles that require exceeding a 13 foot drop on the far side. That holds true for a 3 foot drop as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Landshark]

Meow!

 

[Landshark]

It can be because math is a thing, "times less" is division, and English language abuse is a thing

“Times” is a multiplier. “Less” is subtraction.
“Times less” is nonsense.

That’s what I learnt in public schools anyhow.

 

[laptop]

Sounds like he wants to promote something else...


Sent from my iPhone using Inside EVs

 

[skylines]

This is going a bit off topic, but as long as the the meaning of "times less" is understood what is the problem? This article suggests that the It has been "used in such constructions for about 300 years, and there is no evidence to suggest that it has ever been misunderstood." and "It wasn't till the 20th century that language commentators - not mathematicians - came up with the notion that "three times closer" and "100 times slower" were illogical and confusing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/opinion/28iht-edfreeman.1.8081659.html

 

[Landshark]

Oddly enough, my formal education took place in the 20th century, just when this heated debate between mathematicians and “language commentators” began. Did the journalist coin the term “language commentators”? Would that be someone with, perhaps, an English degree and possibly a thorough understanding of grammar? At least they had the decency to not critique any mathematical formulas.

It is interesting to note that the article points out that 5 times more than 100 is 600. Whereas, 5 times as much is 500. This is because 1 times more that 100 is 200, which is, at the same twice as much as 100.
Perhaps the 80 times less mentioned previously would have been more accurate if it was stated as 79 times less.

The article also says that to say something costs 300% less is nonsense (their word). But 300% is either 2 times more that 100% or 3 times as much as 100%, depending of which method one prefers, and there doesn’t seem to be an issue with saying something is 2 or 3 times less.

At least the usage of “X times less” isn’t as grammatically challenged as “pre-existing condition” which an inch deep of thinking will reveal that a condition cannot exist before it exists.

 

[Tek_Freek]

While I understand the logic in your "pre-existing" statement you are using it incorrectly. That phrase is used by insurance companies to denote a condition that was in existence before someone applies for insurance. Therefore it is a pre-existing condition and they will not cover it.

 

[skylines]

As long as people can understand the meaning of what is being said language evolves accordingly. And it is obvious to most people. No amount of insisting otherwise and gatekeeping is going to change that. At least we are very much back on to the topic of the thread ... complaining about journalists

For what it is worth I love the car. It has a few quirks. But whether or not this or similar cars remain in the market likely depends far more on gas prices and govt policies than reviews. I hope it does. Nice car. Much better for the environment than most alternatives.

 

[DaleL]

One of my pet peeves are ignorant reviewers who state that the Clarity PHEV has a CVT. IT DOES NOT! It has a 181 hp electric motor. At speeds between 45 and 65 mph the engine can directly couple with the motor to provide a total peak power of 212 hp.

 

[Walt R]

Also ironic that the Toyota Power Split Device is sometimes described as a "different type of CVT" when, as far as I remember, the planetary PSD was the first CVT to (mass) market, and only later did the pulley-belt with varying pulley diameters approach come to market.

As to the Clarity and other two-motor hybrids, it is mostly Honda Marketing's fault though, since they felt that "no transmission" was too confusing and had to claim there is an "eCVT" in there.

(And, speaking of linguistic precision, yes I understand there is a single-speed transmission and clutch there, but the descriptivist understanding of "transmission" is now "a thing which allows varying gear ratios to be selected".)

 

[insightman]

One of my pet peeves are ignorant reviewers who state that the Clarity PHEV has a CVT. IT DOES NOT! It has a 181 hp electric motor. At speeds between 45 and 65 mph the engine can directly couple with the motor to provide a total peak power of 212 hp.

I'm still waiting for Honda to explain how the 181-hp motor and the 103-hp engine produce 212 hp and in what mode that happens. If you floor the accelerator when the Engine Drive clutch is engaged, the Clarity opens the clutch and returns to Hybrid Drive mode, which Honda says provides 181 hp from the motor being powered by the battery and the engine-driven generator.

 

[petteyg359]

I'm still waiting for Honda to explain how the 181-hp motor and the 103-hp engine produce 212 hp and in what mode that happens. If you floor the accelerator when the Engine Drive clutch is engaged, the Clarity opens the clutch and returns to Hybrid Drive mode, which Honda says provides 181 hp from the motor being powered by the battery and the engine-driven generator.

I wonder if their labeling actually means what it says there. Compare acceleration from a dead stop in EV mode and HV mode. In either case, floor the pedal (not past the force-the-engine-despite-EV-mode stop). In HV mode, it is noticeably quicker to accelerate.

HP can be converted directly to watts, so when they say "181 hp motor" they might actually mean "(181 hp in watts) maximum draw from the battery", and then you have (103 hp in watts) maximum power when you're down to 2 bars 0 EV range, which is why performance gets bad when you kill the battery, and you get a maximum (212 hp in watts) supply to the motor in HV mode, hence the quicker acceleration in HV than EV.

I would then wonder whether "212 hp" is talking about the direct-drive mode or just HV mode. Direct gas->motion in addition to the electric generation must be slightly more efficient than gas->electricity->motion, or they wouldn't have bothered to include that mode, so either you get slightly better than 212 hp while the gear is engaged or slightly worse in plain HV mode.

 

[Walt R]

@petteyg359 it has been posted here that when staying in EV mode, the battery output maximum is about 121 hp. So, I don't doubt that the EV mode power is 121 hp and the motor capacity is 181 hp. Since the Clarity EV model has three battery packs instead of two, that would make the EV battery and motor perfectly matched.

As to the 212 hp vs. 181 hp, no one knows whether that indicates a temporary over-rating capability of the electric motor, or if there is a condition where the engine can put out its 103 hp while clutched, and have the motor and battery add another 109 hp.

(By the way, horsepower and watts are exactly the same thing - they are units of power. An ICE output can be expressed in watts, and an electric circuit output can be expressed in hp, it doesn't depend on the technology. It's just that certain forms of power have traditionally been expressed in different units. We see the same thing now with kWh being used instead of joules.)