electronic throttle
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: Toyota Provided No Evidence of Testing Electronic Throttle toUS Congress
Next: Increase your penis size and feel better about yourself!!
From: Mike Hunter on 6 Mar 2010 11:52 What? "jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:fvudnV-hwr-Z6A_WnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d(a)speakeasy.net... > if you buy all this fear-mongering idiocy that electronic throttle is a > problem, and that brakes, transmissions and ignition kill switches can all > simultaneously fail causing a driver to lose control, it might be worth > auto manufacturers of all stripes to adopt a slightly different > implementation of electronic throttle [e.t.] - if not for mechanical > reasons, but to shut the idiots up. > > first, lets understand e.t. functionality: > > 1. open the throttle when demanded > 2. close throttle when demanded > 3. allow "demand" to account for additional requirements like > a. de-throttle on shifting for automatics, > b. throttle appropriate to load at high demand [eg. full throttle at low > rpms can choke an engine and significantly reduce output - thus > de-throttle until revs support full open] > > if we analyze the above [which is not exhaustive, but representative], we > find that in almost all situations, an e.t. needs to be more closed than > demanded, but seldom, if ever, more open. thus the "solution" to the > fear-mongering might be to have the throttle opened mechanically - i.e. > old fashioned cable linkage, but have the computer control a closer > device. thus, all the above can be implemented electronically, but > whenever the driver lifts their foot, the mechanical closure cannot be > over-ridden. and the throttle can never be more open than the mechanical > throttle command. > > this would not only address the "potential" for a runaway failure > [although how exactly a computer is supposed to fail such that it won't > switch off, disables brakes, disables transmission select, but still runs > its injection code is something i have never seen explained, even by the > most strident "but it must be the electronics" crowd], but it would also > remove the single most annoying thing i have ever experienced in any > vehicle driving experience: chevy's idiot idea that they need a > multi-second delay between foot pedal movement and e.t movement. anyone > that's ever tried to drive a chevy hhr on a winding mountain road knows > what i mean. > > y'all can now wait for at least 10 years for arrival, but i throw it out > there for what it's worth. > > > -- > nomina rutrum rutrum
From: Mike Hunter on 6 Mar 2010 11:53 What? "Bill Putney" <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote in message news:7vfb7hFhtgU1(a)mid.individual.net... > jim beam wrote: >> if you buy all this fear-mongering idiocy that electronic throttle is a >> problem, and that brakes, transmissions and ignition kill switches can >> all simultaneously fail causing a driver to lose control, it might be >> worth auto manufacturers of all stripes to adopt a slightly different >> implementation of electronic throttle [e.t.] - if not for mechanical >> reasons, but to shut the idiots up... > > The lawyers, politicians, and news media can convince the public of the > impossible (failure even a totally fail safe system) any time they decide > to do it depending on political or monetary motivation. IOW - the people > and companies who do a good job of designing are going to get punished > anyway (unless they know how to play the game in a corrupt system). There > are people in our society whose life goal is to make sure that that > happens. > > -- > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address > with the letter 'x')
From: Mike Hunter on 6 Mar 2010 11:54 Would it not be better for Toyota to find a solution to their problem? "jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:ZJidnYfpC62m5A_WnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net... > On 03/06/2010 07:38 AM, Bill Putney wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> if you buy all this fear-mongering idiocy that electronic throttle is >>> a problem, and that brakes, transmissions and ignition kill switches >>> can all simultaneously fail causing a driver to lose control, it might >>> be worth auto manufacturers of all stripes to adopt a slightly >>> different implementation of electronic throttle [e.t.] - if not for >>> mechanical reasons, but to shut the idiots up... >> >> The lawyers, politicians, and news media can convince the public of the >> impossible (failure even a totally fail safe system) any time they >> decide to do it depending on political or monetary motivation. IOW - the >> people and companies who do a good job of designing are going to get >> punished anyway (unless they know how to play the game in a corrupt >> system). There are people in our society whose life goal is to make sure >> that that happens. >> > > indeed. but given that, unlike ignorance, there's no cure for stupidity, > and that vehicle manufacturers have to be smart about politics, not just > engineering, i've been thinking the above is one of those solutions both > mechanically and politically acceptable. > > -- > nomina rutrum rutrum
From: Mike Hunter on 6 Mar 2010 11:56 It is 2010, not 1910, there are federal pollution laws now "Paul" <Paul(a)Houston.com> wrote in message news:hmttpn$6md$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Cable !!!! > That is soooo 1990's. > Reminds me of my old Pontiac. Cable opened the > throttle plate and computer controlled the > amount of fuel injected. > > jim beam wrote: >> than demanded, but seldom, if ever, more open. thus the "solution" to >> the fear-mongering might be to have the throttle opened mechanically - >> i.e. old fashioned cable linkage, but have the computer control a closer >> device. thus, all the above can be implemented electronically, but >> whenever the driver lifts their foot, the mechanical closure cannot be >> over-ridden. and the throttle can never be more open than the mechanical >> throttle command.
From: Mike Hunter on 6 Mar 2010 11:57
On todays cars we control the fuel flow, not the air flow. "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hmu0ae$p3e$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message > news:fvudnV-hwr-Z6A_WnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d(a)speakeasy.net... >> if you buy all this fear-mongering idiocy that electronic throttle is a >> problem, and that brakes, transmissions and ignition kill switches can >> all simultaneously fail causing a driver to lose control, it might be >> worth auto manufacturers of all stripes to adopt a slightly different >> implementation of electronic throttle [e.t.] - if not for mechanical >> reasons, but to shut the idiots up. >> >> first, lets understand e.t. functionality: >> >> 1. open the throttle when demanded >> 2. close throttle when demanded >> 3. allow "demand" to account for additional requirements like >> a. de-throttle on shifting for automatics, >> b. throttle appropriate to load at high demand [eg. full throttle at low >> rpms can choke an engine and significantly reduce output - thus >> de-throttle until revs support full open] >> >> if we analyze the above [which is not exhaustive, but representative], we >> find that in almost all situations, an e.t. needs to be more closed than >> demanded, but seldom, if ever, more open. thus the "solution" to the >> fear-mongering might be to have the throttle opened mechanically - i.e. >> old fashioned cable linkage, but have the computer control a closer >> device. > > <snip rest> > > > Nothing you say after this makes any sense. > > If you have a mechanical opening device -- cable for example -- then it is > by definition closed with another mechanical device -- a spring. The whole > point of e.t. is to remove the constraints that surround mechanical > linkage of the gas pedal to the throttle plate. If you are not going to > remove the constraints of a mechanical system by employing it for the > opening of the throttle, then you can use the return spring that any > mechanical method would require to return the mechanism to the home > position. The same spring that brings the gas pedal to home can also bring > the throttle to home. > > > > > > > > |