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: PeterD on 7 Mar 2010 18:34 On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:01:06 -0600, Grumpy AuContraire <GrumpyOne(a)GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote: > >I'm not sure about this but for sure... The causes you cite certainly >contributed in getting to where we're at! > >Oh, don't forget that little incident when a B-777's engines went to >idle about a minute before touch down at Heathrow about a year ago. >Aircraft was totaled but there were no major injuries. > >Cause has been assessed to software/computer glitch. Cause was assessed to ice in the fuel, not a computer/software glitch. > >JT
From: Jeff Strickland on 7 Mar 2010 19:28 <clare(a)snyder.on.ca> wrote in message news:5gb8p5h562difanjdn647tghhlgb2smkib(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 09:45:14 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" > <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >>"Ed Pawlowski" <esp(a)snetnospam.net> wrote in message >>news:GfedncnS4KVktg7WnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>> >>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote >>>> Brake interlocks are a relatively new thing. I drove cars for 30 years >>>> before I had one with a brake pedal interlock. Your elderly customer >>>> also >>>> drove for a very long time with cars that had no brake interlock, and >>>> he >>>> wasn't aware that his new car had one. My guess is that he wasn't aware >>>> that any car had one ... >>> >>> True >>> >>>> >>>> There is no inherent accident waiting to happen without the brake >>>> interlock. >>> >>> Elderly person, foot on gas, put car in gear. Crash Happens too >>> frequently. >>> >>> >> >>We had cars built for almost 90 years before brake interlocks came around. >>The occurance of a car shifting out of P was relatively rare, and almost >>always involved children playing in the car and moving the gear selector >>while the engine was not even ON. >> >>Yes, a person could take the car out of P while the engine was running, >>but >>as a practical matter, this almost never happened. Almost never. > > EXCEPT - it took the situation where Ford transmissions could > sometimes jump out of park (due to a defect in the park mechanism or > linkage) for the industry to be MANDATED to provide a brake/shift > interlock Most of those were children playing in the car and moving the gear selector out of P and the car would roll over the playmate, or out into the street and hit or get hit by another car. But, you're right, that situation was what it took to get the interlock.
From: Jeff Strickland on 7 Mar 2010 19:43 "jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:5PGdnb1nWsX2hQnWnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d(a)speakeasy.net... > On 03/07/2010 11:21 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote: >> "jim beam"<me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message >> news:F4udnU6SrZ0kZQ7WnZ2dnUVZ_vQAAAAA(a)speakeasy.net... >>> On 03/07/2010 09:52 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote: >>>> "jim beam"<me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message >>>> news:xbWdnV8Xic4E3Q7WnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net... >>>>> On 03/06/2010 08:36 PM, Bill Putney wrote: >>>>>> Jeff Strickland wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> ...We have not explored the interaction of traction control and >>>>>>> antilock brakes preventing the brakes from stopping a car with a >>>>>>> throttle intent on being set to the maximum setting. We also have >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> looked at the issue of brake fade that comes from the brakes getting >>>>>>> hot. If the brakes locked the front tires, the ABS would sense this >>>>>>> and unlock them. The driver might keep his foot planted firmly on >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> brake pedal which has sunk to the floor, but the car still would not >>>>>>> stop. The brakes get hot and fade badly, and the car wouldn't even >>>>>>> slow down... >>>>>> >>>>>> Read my previous post. With throttle applied (even partial throttle), >>>>>> the booster vacuum gets depleted *rapidly*. There is no way to use >>>>>> the >>>>>> brakes to stop a car with an engine of any power at all with throttle >>>>>> applied since, with throttle applied, intake vacuum drops to close to >>>>>> zero. No vacuum = essentially no brakes. Try the experiment I >>>>>> described >>>>>> in my previous post. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> no dude. even with no engine running to replenish vacuum, there is >>>>> still >>>>> sufficient vacuum reserve in the booster to apply the brakes full-on >>>>> three >>>>> times. unless you have a leak of course, which could also be >>>>> affecting >>>>> your experience. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Doesn't matter. Even if the driver holds the brake pedal, the brakes >>>> get >>>> hot >>>> and fade, and this will cause them to stop doing the job they are >>>> supposed >>>> to do. >>> >>> if the brakes fade badly enough, even vacuum assist won't help much. >>> >>> >> >> Which is why a driver might not be able to stop a runaway car. You keep >> saying that a driver can always stop a car by standing onthe brakes, the >> facts are that this is not absolutely true. It's not even generally true, >> but I'll give you the point that it's theoretically possible that a car >> can >> be stopped while the throttle is held open and the brakes are held down. >> As >> a practical matter, I don't think most people can manage such a >> situation. >> > > maybe this isn't something you and i have discussed before, but > underbraked domestics are a recurrent theme that's been done to death. > [and i'm sure, literally.] just because someone has one experience with a > certain vehicle doesn't mean it's representative of all vehicles. > > and it is generally true that most vehicles have a design spec of roughly > 3:1 braking power vs. engine power. > But if the goal of stopping the car is not accomplished before the brakes get so hot as to fade out, then you can stand on the pedal as hard as you want and the car isn't going to stop. Brakes are designed to stop a car that's not actively engaged in trying to go to its maximum capability. That's the key to having somebody be able to stop a car or not. I accpet that you and I could stop a car that was intent on barrelling down the highway at full throttle. We are comfortable with the machine, and have no doubt that we could pursuade it to do what we want instead of what it wants. But what if there is a driver that isn't as comfortable with his or her machine, and the machine was insisiting on doing its own thing? Thats where the problems come in. The throttle control MUST perform the tasks of speeding or slowing the engine, and it must do it without fail each and every time it is called upon. The issue here, for me, isn't that the Toyota throttle system works or not, I'd like it to work but that's not the point. The issue for me is Toyota's apparent RESPONSE to the problem. It is hiding behind the notion that the Black Box data is proprietary, and it settles out of court so that it does not have to divulge what the data shows. I'm okay with settling out of court, but Toyota appears to not have gone back and looked at the system design and fixed it. I worked for a Japanese company that settled out of court, but I was in the service department, and was tasked in finding out what went wrong so we could makek sure it stopped going wrong. That's what Toyota should be doing, but by all appearances seems ot not be doing. That's my beef. I am convinced that a fly-by-wire throttle is a perfectly sound automotive breakthrough. There's no reason that it can't be used safely, but we have a significant number of people that are having problems with vehicles from Toyota that are so equipped. I'm more concerned with the appearance of covering up the problem than I am that there IS a problem. And, there might not be a problem but I happen to think there is, mostly because in my world I think a California Highway Partol Officer should be as able or more able than I am to operate a runaway vehicle. Were it not for the CHP officer, I'd probably go along with sticky pedals and moved mats, but a cop should not be killed by these kinds of things.
From: Grumpy AuContraire on 7 Mar 2010 20:25 News wrote: > clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: >> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 11:10:20 -0800, "theref" <theref(a)seanet.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <GrumpyOne(a)GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in message >>> news:99adnZJAetdSdQ7WnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>> bjn wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:38:19 -0500, Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> The problem is that now lawyers, politicians and news media are >>>>> driving (no >>>>> pun intended) solution. The way I see them talking, cars will wind >>>>> up with >>>>> a fail-safe throttle that is more fail-safe than the controls of a >>>>> jumbo >>>>> passenger jet. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not sure about this but for sure... The causes you cite >>>> certainly contributed in getting to where we're at! >>>> >>>> Oh, don't forget that little incident when a B-777's engines went to >>>> idle about a minute before touch down at Heathrow about a year ago. >>>> Aircraft was totaled but there were no major injuries. >>>> >>>> Cause has been assessed to software/computer glitch. >>>> >>>> JT >>> I believe that was traced to icing in the fuel system. SOP now is to >>> cycle fuel after prolonged low temp at altitude. >> Icing on a JET????????? >> Don't think so. > > > Absolutely. Determined to be cause of BA 777 landing short at Heathrow. This does seem to be the published cause but I have some doubts. I could have sworn that I did come across a s/w issue as well but... There are a number of reasons why I do so but that isn't appropriate here.
From: Dave on 7 Mar 2010 21:23
"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') And there are people who sell tin foil hats for people like you. |