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: Jeff Strickland on 6 Mar 2010 12:03 "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] The functionality is even easier than that -- open the throttle plate when the gas pedal is pressed and close the throttle plate when the gas pedal is released. You can get bogged down in semantics if you want, but the functiionality is really that simple Go when the pedal is pressed and stop going when the pedal is released. At the end of the day, anything else is a variation on pushing the pedal down or releasing the pedal so that it comes back up. When or why one might press or release the pedal has no bearing on the discussion. The only thing that matters is the expecation that the car goes faster when the pedal is pressed and stops going faster when the pedal is held at a mid-point, and slows when the pedal is released. When the throttle control system does those things, then it is doing its job.
From: Jeff Strickland on 6 Mar 2010 12:16 Technically, there is control of both. But the distinction is meaningless for the purposes of the good Mr. Beam's thesis. If more air is provided but not more gas, the engine will die. If more gas is provided but not more air, the engine will die. There must be the proper amount of air and gas for the engine to keep running. If the throttle plate is opened to bring in more air, the injectors are powered longer to send in more gas. Both air and fuel are controlled, air by the driver and fuel by the computer. The point is, the driver expects the speed to increase if he presses the gas pedal, the speed to level off if he holds the gas pedal steady, and the speed to decrease if he releases the gas pedal. The technicality of how this is accomplished isn't really germain to the discussion. "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message news:4b928765$0$31161$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... > 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
From: Jim Warman on 6 Mar 2010 12:41 The cross posting sucks.. but you guys seem to like it.... Toyota is having trouble... Ford isn't (I'm reading this in a Ford NG and I work at a Ford dealer). Drive by wire throttle is a natural progression (if you can't see where the future of the automobile is going - I feel sorry for you). It allows for precise (hopefully) control of any electronic stability features, It allows for torque limiting when appropirate... reducing the need for other traction control measures (such as active brake booster application) when necessary... Fords system relies on redundancy... I'm not a Toyota tech so I can't tell you what they do... Fords system has three inputs..(one of them is inversely proportional). If the inputs aren't "coherent", the car will remain at idle... Have we seen problems with Fords drive by wire? A very few, but yes.... No unintended accelerations have been (AFAIK) documented. "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hmu1u8$uus$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] > > > The functionality is even easier than that -- open the throttle plate when > the gas pedal is pressed and close the throttle plate when the gas pedal > is released. You can get bogged down in semantics if you want, but the > functiionality is really that simple Go when the pedal is pressed and stop > going when the pedal is released. At the end of the day, anything else is > a variation on pushing the pedal down or releasing the pedal so that it > comes back up. > > When or why one might press or release the pedal has no bearing on the > discussion. The only thing that matters is the expecation that the car > goes faster when the pedal is pressed and stops going faster when the > pedal is held at a mid-point, and slows when the pedal is released. > > When the throttle control system does those things, then it is doing its > job. > > > > > > > >
From: Ed Pawlowski on 6 Mar 2010 14:48 "Jim Warman" <mechanic(a)telusplanet.net> wrote > Drive by wire throttle is a natural progression (if you can't see where > the future of the automobile is going - I feel sorry for you). It allows > for precise (hopefully) control of any electronic stability features, It > allows for torque limiting when appropirate... reducing the need for other > traction control measures (such as active brake booster application) when > necessary... > > Fords system relies on redundancy... I'm not a Toyota tech so I can't tell > you what they do... Fords system has three inputs..(one of them is > inversely proportional). If the inputs aren't "coherent", the car will > remain at idle... Drive by wire is certainly a natural progression. What failed is two things. One is the Toyota system (whatever that was), and driver training. Emergencies do happen and a driver should be competent enough to shift into neutral. Fail safe and redundancy should be part of any throttle system, but even that can fail, as have the simplest of mechanical systems.
From: jim beam on 6 Mar 2010 14:58
On 03/06/2010 11:48 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: > > > "Jim Warman" <mechanic(a)telusplanet.net> wrote >> Drive by wire throttle is a natural progression (if you can't see >> where the future of the automobile is going - I feel sorry for you). >> It allows for precise (hopefully) control of any electronic stability >> features, It allows for torque limiting when appropirate... reducing >> the need for other traction control measures (such as active brake >> booster application) when necessary... >> >> Fords system relies on redundancy... I'm not a Toyota tech so I can't >> tell you what they do... Fords system has three inputs..(one of them >> is inversely proportional). If the inputs aren't "coherent", the car >> will remain at idle... > > Drive by wire is certainly a natural progression. What failed is two > things. One is the Toyota system (whatever that was), really? has that been demonstrated yet? i see lots of speculation from idiots that don't know what the heck they're talking about, and loads of astroturf from people with a stake in forcing a negative outcome, but i've yet to see any real evidence of this. > and driver > training. abso-freakin-lutely. > Emergencies do happen and a driver should be competent enough > to shift into neutral. or stomp the brakes - which are three times more powerful than the engine, or even hit the "off" button. > Fail safe and redundancy should be part of any > throttle system, but even that can fail, as have the simplest of > mechanical systems. indeed. statistically, mechanical throttles are much more unreliable. but it appears that we need a system that removes the ability of idiots to speculate about the "black box" they don't understand. -- nomina rutrum rutrum |