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: clare on 11 Mar 2010 20:04 On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:44:49 -0800 (PST), Ed White <ce.white3(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >While the actual electronics might be very reliable, there are moving >mechanical parts at both ends of the throttle control system >(accelerator pedal on one end, throttle plate on the other). And the >underhood enviroment can be very challenging - hot, wet, subject to a >lot of shock and vibration - and of course incompetent mechanics.... > >Ed All of which can also cause a cable or mechanical lncage to stick- - - - - - -
From: dizzy on 11 Mar 2010 20:06 David Skelton wrote: >>>But, ABS does not >>>work so well in the very wet or icy conditions. >> >> Sure it does. It can't perform miracles, however. > >No, it doesn't work so well in slippery conditions. I'd love to see you prove that statement. It's a fact beyond dispute that it aids stability and control... >In slippery conditions, it is much easier to lock all four wheels at once >with a stomp on the brake pedal. Then the ABS controller cannot detect >wheels turning at different speeds which is required to activate the ABS >system. A) Does that really work? B) Why the HELL would you want to do that?
From: dizzy on 11 Mar 2010 20:07 clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: >Oh, it detects the lockup all right - and RELEASES all 4 wheels to get >them turning again. Result? No brakes. They come back on again as soon >as the wheels start turning - locking all 4 again You guys need better tires, and stop blaming ABS if you can't stop on glare ice - you wouldn't be able to, anyway.
From: dizzy on 11 Mar 2010 20:07 clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: > In wet sloppy snow with wide tires, ABS is TERRIBLE. Nonsense.
From: clare on 11 Mar 2010 20:10
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:35:29 -0500, Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote: >clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: > >> ...Properly designed and implemented >> electronic controls are more reliable than properly designed and built >> mechanical systems. Ther is NO WEAR, and NO MOVING PARTS. Moving parts >> either wear or seize or break in time. >> If electronic devices are operated within their design voltage and >> temperature parameters they can last virtually forever. 10s of >> thousands of operating hours at the minimum. > >You forget one thing: Modern (automotive) electronics are made using >surface mount components, and surface mount solder bonds (as currently >done in the modern automotive world) are particularly bad at >withstanding years of thermal cycling and other environmental exposure. > All these electronic module failures (hard and intermittent) are >probably 90+% due to the failure of surface mount component-to-board >bonds. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link - and that is it. > You forget the main culprit - LEAD FREE SOLDER. >You might argue "Well, then they aren't properly designed and >implemented, are they?". That may be true, but it is a fact that you >can't get away from in the present state of automotive electronic >manufacturing. > >I claim that the admission has to be one of two things: >(1) Surface mount electronics as currently utilized in the present >automotive industry do not fit into the category of "proper design and >implementation", or >(2) Even properly designed and implemented electronics (by modern >standards of the automotive industry) are prone to failure. > >Perhaps you would choose (1)? Or do you not accept that electronic >modules in our automobiles have real failure rates over the life of the >vehicle? > >You might have one valid counter to this if you were to say that a >proper design would be fail safe (for the uninitiated, that means that >things may fail, but when they do, they do so in a safe manner). But >then, can we anticipate all failure modes and analyze their results? (I >have served on FMEA teams for major manufacturers, so I know what I'm >talking about in this area.) It probably is a circular argument, >because you could always claim that "...then it is not properly designed >and implemented, is it?", and I couldn't disagree with you. Bean counters. And greenies. Lead free solder and bean counters on the same project can definitely cause problems. But bean counters and engineers on the same project ALWAYS cause problems - whether mechanical or electronic - which IS why I qualified both conditions - electronic and mechanical - as properly designed and implemented. You caught that. > >Perhaps this relates back to some of the Toyota problems, perhaps not. >But electronics do fail - you have to decide if that is due to (1) or >(2) above. ANd all told, Toyota has had a lot less of those problems, up 'till now, over the long haul, than virtually ANY American manufacturer. Toyota electronics over the years have been WAY above average. NipponDenso components in particular. |