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: Bob Cooper on 15 Mar 2010 12:49 In article <3sednTevSOmy3APWnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net>, me(a)privacy.net says... > > On 03/15/2010 06:08 AM, Bob Cooper wrote: > > The real issue is giving sensors, computers, servos, etc, control >>over throttle opening, instead of a direct and simple mechanical link >>to the human foot. > > no it's not. there is not a single diesel ever used that gives an > operator direct link to fuel injection - it's all done via a control > module. should we get rid of control on all diesels? of course not. > Dance around with semantics all you want. Sensible people know the difference between a direct mechanical link to engine speed control and a sensor in the footwell sending signals to an ECU, blah, blah. > there is absolutely nothing wrong with the principle of using a control > system. oh, and mechanical systems are much more unreliable than > electrical. > Right. Tell it to Toyota. > > > Cruise control, simple as it is, has had plenty of issues over the > > years. And that is asked to handle only one parameter. > > Fortunately, you have to turn it on, so most have no problem turning it > > off if it goes haywire. Besides, on most cars it is little used. > > Emissions and any other excuse for for removing direct throttle control > > from the driver's foot is nonsense. > > Because then you're saying the driver doesn't control the throttle. > > Simple as that. > > A throttle position sensor works fines. > > Drive by wire in a car is caused either by beancounting or letting the > > wrong engineers run the show. > > It is an abomination. > > no it's not. but, that apparently won't stop info-tards bleating about > stuff for which they have not the slightest clue on usenet. > For somebody calling others "info-tards" and Luddites, you sure don't present any convincing arguments for your position. Hard to do though, given the reality facing Toyota. That's just how it is. I don't intend to slam Toyota. Others will take care of that. I read the tech group. I want to hear the justification - in concrete technical language - of why pedal/sensor/ecu/servo motor throttle control is in any way better or safer than pedal/cable/spring throttle control with TPS feedback to the ECU. And I dumbed up throttle-by-wire there - it's worse. Eliminate a cable and spring for mass confusion? That's what happens when you let computer geeks design control systems overriding the normal seat of the pants, hand/eye coordination and foot control which is the essence of car driving. I'll bet there was a big fight at Toyota between the geeks and the drivers about that one. And not just at Toyota. Anything separating physical feedback is bad enough, but taking over control of the basic driving actions is a re-incarnation of HAL 9000. You go ahead with your pseudo-technical and thoroughly unconvincing arguments. If it wasn't Toyota, you'd be singing a different song. You call somebody here a pimp for Ford when they make reasonable comments. I suspect you are the one with goldfish in your platform shoes.
From: PeterD on 15 Mar 2010 13:39 On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 07:16:14 -0700, jim beam <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >On 03/15/2010 06:08 AM, Bob Cooper wrote: >> In article<806g3mFtd8U1(a)mid.individual.net>, bptn(a)kinez.net says... >>> >>> Rodan wrote: >>>> This electronic throttle thing is great. If you believe everything that >>>> could be invented has already been been invented, do this: Replace >>>> something already invented with something else already invented >>>> and call it a new invention. >>>> >>>> This has been successfully done in automobiles by throwing away the >>>> familiar throttle cable and replacing it with a whole new system of >>>> electromechanical parts;... >>> >>> Is it not true that the drive-by-wire systems have a cable connecting >>> the accelerator pedal to the first electronic part? If so, a chain is >>> only as strong as its weakest link - literally in this case. If that's >>> the case, they'd be foolish to say that one benefit of the hi-tech >>> solution is the elimination of the cable. I can believe some of the >>> claims of better control of engines systems for power and emissions and >>> possibly enhanced safety if it's done right, but they should leave out >>> the part about eliminating the mechanical linkage. >> >> The real issue is giving sensors, computers, servos, etc, control over >> throttle opening, instead of a direct and simple mechanical link to the >> human foot. > >no it's not. there is not a single diesel ever used that gives an >operator direct link to fuel injection - it's all done via a control >module. Huh? Have you lost your mind? Electronic controls on diesel engines are relatively new, within the last 15-20 years. Prior to that *ALL* diesels had direct control of fuel, and even today many still do. Me thinks you have been sampling too much of your name sake. > should we get rid of control on all diesels? of course not. > >there is absolutely nothing wrong with the principle of using a control >system. oh, and mechanical systems are much more unreliable than >electrical. Any properly designed system is capable of being reliable.
From: PeterD on 15 Mar 2010 13:43 On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:49:38 -0500, Bob Cooper <bc(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >I want to hear the justification - in concrete technical language - of >why pedal/sensor/ecu/servo motor throttle control is in any way better Consider issues of time lag, fuel mix coordination, etc. >or safer than pedal/cable/spring throttle control with TPS feedback to >the ECU. And I dumbed up throttle-by-wire there - it's worse. worse than what? >Eliminate a cable and spring for mass confusion? Seems only a few are confused, certainly not the masses. And 'fly by wire' has been around for a very long time, and worked very well in most cases. >That's what happens when you let computer geeks design control systems >overriding the normal seat of the pants, hand/eye coordination and foot >control which is the essence of car driving. So now computer engineers are incompentent? OK... >I'll bet there was a big fight at Toyota between the geeks and the >drivers about that one. And not just at Toyota. Bet there wasn't... >Anything separating physical feedback is bad enough, but taking over >control of the basic driving actions is a re-incarnation of HAL 9000. Bwa-ha-ha-ha... Now that's funny. Noting beats a confusion between (old) science FICTION and reality. Nothing at all.
From: PeterD on 15 Mar 2010 13:46 On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:22:57 +0000 (UTC), "Rodan" <Rodan(a)Verizon.NOT> wrote: >"jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote; > >dude, you're utterly clueless. this is about control systems. >diesels have had control systems from day one. >have you any idea /why/ they're always used? >what would you have us do to them? >______________________________________________________________ > >Please ask an experienced diesel mechanic that question. >Surely he/she will tell you that diesels have no throttle >plate to control, therefore no use for a throttle plate cable. > >As you gain experience as a devil's advocate, please try >to keep your demurrals related to the subject at hand, >lest your sincere postings be mistaken for trolling. > >Rodan. > > Beam is an idiot, best ignored for his ignorance about diesel engines.
From: Bob Cooper on 15 Mar 2010 15:32
In article <r8ssp5dka698va7vhhnu27dq9ovc8r67u0(a)4ax.com>, peter2 @hipson.net says... > > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:49:38 -0500, Bob Cooper <bc(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > > >I want to hear the justification - in concrete technical language - of > >why pedal/sensor/ecu/servo motor throttle control is in any way better > > Consider issues of time lag, fuel mix coordination, etc. > Nothing the TPS can't signal a microsecond later. Haven't seen anything that shows a difference, and I doubt it exists. Face it, they just want to replace the cable/hardware and the hole. Cables can be greasy and icky. The biggest actual measurable "benefit" is to eliminate cruise control hardware. BTW, speaking of lag, a friend notices a lag when punching down the gas pedal up his '06 F-150 with throttle-by-wire. Hasn't caused him problems, but he likes to befuddle the computer now and then, even if it's only between half a second and a second. Cheap thrills. I've read that lag is noticed by many drivers. Maybe the ECU is "considering" other issues than what the driver wants. > >or safer than pedal/cable/spring throttle control with TPS feedback to > >the ECU. And I dumbed up throttle-by-wire there - it's worse. > > worse than what? > Than the pedal/sensor/ecu/servo motor elements I mentioned. A schematic of the electron flow through wires, sensors, resistors, etc, and the lines of code contolling actions taken by demand from a foot, compared to a throttle cable schematic has to make you scatch your head and say "Why did they do this?" > >Eliminate a cable and spring for mass confusion? > > Seems only a few are confused, certainly not the masses. And 'fly by > wire' has been around for a very long time, and worked very well in > most cases. > > >That's what happens when you let computer geeks design control systems > >overriding the normal seat of the pants, hand/eye coordination and foot > >control which is the essence of car driving. > > So now computer engineers are incompentent? OK... > Didn't say that. What I said is what I said. I'm sure Toyota is happy with the competence of those who designed a throttle system that is now costing them billions. That was a great collaboration of computer, electrical and mechanical engineers brought together to overthrow the humble cable and spring. > >I'll bet there was a big fight at Toyota between the geeks and the > >drivers about that one. And not just at Toyota. > > Bet there wasn't... > You may be right. But I hope I'm not the only one who wants direct throttle control. > >Anything separating physical feedback is bad enough, but taking over > >control of the basic driving actions is a re-incarnation of HAL 9000. > > Bwa-ha-ha-ha... Now that's funny. Noting beats a confusion between > (old) science FICTION and reality. Nothing at all. Does that mean you believe an ECU is always obedient? Not my experience. But I do like the ECU that that adjusts fuel/air ratio on my FI car, and it's nice enough to toss a code now and then to tell me what to fix. I'm all in with most recent car innovations that aren't fluff. I like to control throttle all by my lonsesome. Like manual windows too. Just because there's no electrics to fail. |