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: jim beam on 16 Mar 2010 00:07 On 03/15/2010 12:32 PM, Bob Cooper wrote: > 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. so it should process a wrong pedal application immediately? er, ok. > Haven't seen anything that shows a difference, and I doubt it exists. the scientific approach... > 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. that's a side benefit. the biggest reason is control for the auto transmission - it can be built cheaper if it doesn't need to take the loads placed on it by full throttle shifting. oh, and it'll be smoother too. > 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. yes it is. two reasons - 1. it mitigates "dithering" wear on the actuator at the throttle body 2. it reduces gas consumption by throttle stabbers - those that constantly speed up and slow down. > >>> 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?" you don't understand. why do people that don't understand have opinions but not ask questions? > >>> 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. well, you effectively did. > 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. toyota's problem is political, not electrical. > That was a great collaboration of computer, > electrical and mechanical engineers brought together to overthrow the > humble cable and spring. 1. "humble" is not as reliable. 2. "humble" offers no control advantages. > >>> 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. do you ever drive diesels? you've never had direct control on a diesel, so what's your problem with gasoline control? [rhetorical] > >>> 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. your only "experience" is that of a failed education system. > 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. ever driven a diesel? you should try it. > Like manual windows too. Just because there's no electrics to fail. > here's a "manual" you could try: http://www.amazon.com/Control-Systems-Engineering-Norman-Nise/dp/0471794759/ref=sr_1_3/178-7851286-0899705?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268707535&sr=8-3 -- nomina rutrum rutrum
From: jim beam on 16 Mar 2010 00:07 On 03/15/2010 10:39 AM, PeterD wrote: > 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. no i haven't lost my mind. and you obviously don't know about diesel injection systems or you'd not make the above fundamentally incorrect statement. all diesels, from day one, have had a control system [otherwise known as a governor] between the driver's foot and the injection stroke commander. it limits revs and controls injector stroke depending on load. [example - the driver can have their foot at 100%, but the governor is only injecting 5%. or the driver can have the pedal at 30% and the injector can be at 100%. the final say with the amount of fuel injected rests with the control system, not with the driver.] these controls, while simple, are successors to the early watts governors found on steam engines. http://oldenginehouse.users.btopenworld.com/watt.htm > >> 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. not to the same extent as an electronic control it's not. as you'd know if you had enough experience or grounding in electronics. -- nomina rutrum rutrum
From: jim beam on 16 Mar 2010 00:07 On 03/15/2010 09:22 AM, Rodan 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. how is it possible to be so clueless? you don't even know what you don't know! > > 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. > yeah, the advice of the clueless is always helpful. -- nomina rutrum rutrum
From: jim beam on 16 Mar 2010 00:08 On 03/15/2010 03:39 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. 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. >> >> 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. > > I can think of two exceptions: Cruise control yes, cruise would be the facer. > and idle control have to revert o idle air control valves. > (for > engine loads like air conditioning). In addition, mechanical throttles > are often equipped with dash pots or other overrides to keep them from > slamming shut too fast. > > The idea behind electronic throttles is that with one actuator, all of > these functions can be implemented in software. i got that. the problem is the political dimension of how to implement it. -- nomina rutrum rutrum
From: C. E. White on 16 Mar 2010 08:35
"Clive" <clive(a)yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:cwoN8qFo8onLFwvq(a)yewbank.demon.co.uk... > In message <3sednTevSOmy3APWnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net>, jim > beam <me(a)privacy.net> writes >>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. > Please tell me why my Toyota SR180 which is a diesel, has been > recalled then? > -- > Clive Maybe becasue the accelerator pedal can get trapped under the floor mat? Ed |