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: Yadda on 6 Mar 2010 21:52 on 3/6/10 3:30 PM Bob Cooper said the following: > In article<hmuep4$qd2$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com says... >> >> >> This is the most important part? >> >> It's nonsense! The gas pedal does two things, opens the throttle plate and >> closes the throttle plate. Period. >> >> You should ride the bus. > > Nonsense? Where have I heard that before? > This is what you get if you're foolish enough to to let somebody who > names himself after a whiskey, whose logic is limited to the HTML > programming he's done for a Toyota fanboy website, and thinks EPS uses a > pump - design automobile throttling. > Don't worry, nobody in charge of such things is that foolish. > Well, maybe Toyota was. And look where it got them. > > > > With car computers overriding the drivers inputs to correct an unbalanced car that may involve applying power when the the driver is using brake certainly implies complexity that if not exhaustively tested with logic tables and safety checks on sensors could lead to unintended outputs and maybe race conditions.
From: Bill Putney on 6 Mar 2010 23:26 jim beam wrote: > On 03/06/2010 11:48 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: >> ...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,... I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of your post, but that part of your post is definitely incorrect. Have you ever played with your power brakes while simultaneously pressing the accelerator? Anything more than one or two initial stabs at the brakes depletes the vacuum stored in the booster, and with even slight power simultaneously being demanded of the engine, the vacuum is not enough to directly power the brakes, much less re-charge the vacuum in the booster. People don't believe that, but try it on your car: On a deserted road at highway speed, stab the brake pedal a couple of times while holding the gas pedal down a little bit to load the engine slightly (this works anywhere from slight to WOT throttle). I guarantee you (unless your brake booster gets its vacuum from something besides the intake vacuum - like a separate electric motor-driven vacuum pump) that after two or more stabs at the brake pedal, the braking power will be extremely low - so low that the engine will have no trouble overpowering the brakes. No vacuum in the booster essentially equals no brakes. Also, once the booster is depleted of vacuum during that experiment, the vacuum charge in the booster will remain depleted until a second or so after the throttle is released - IOW - deplete it and continue applying the throttle (again - doesn't have to be anywhere near WOT) for several seconds. Every once in a while, while still applying the throttle, try the brakes again. You will not have any effective braking until *after* you release the throttle. I urge anyone who doesn't believe what I claim above to try it before commenting. -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
From: Ed Pawlowski on 6 Mar 2010 23:30 "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. > Brake interlocks were put in to prevent children from moving the car from > P and allowing it to roll down the driveway, they were not put in to keep > the driver from being an idiot. Perhaps, but the side effects are good.
From: Bill Putney on 6 Mar 2010 23:36 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. -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
From: Ed Pawlowski on 6 Mar 2010 23:42
"jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote > > you should actually /read/ the papers. nobody has offered any evidence > that there is a system failure. only allegation. allegation != evidence. > just like our congressional witnesses car alleging all kinds of demonic > behavior, but which was apparently driven 30k trouble-free miles after she > sold it. odd how that happened. > > >> Regardless of the reason, >> something failed or it would not have made the news to the degree is >> has. > > wow!!! exactly how wet behind the ears are you ed? > i was at a party the other weekend, and a woman there was bleating about > her prius having a stuck throttle. so i asked her some questions. > > did she crash? no. > was she able to stop the car? yes. > did this throttle problem occur before or after she'd heard about it in > the media. after. > did she have any problem before she'd heard about it? no. > > conclusion - some people are susceptible to suggestion. Your conclusion may be correct, but it may also be wrong. You have no evidence either way, only testimony. Neither of you can prove your conclusion. > no it wasn't. you're very politically naive. > > audi, had a successful 4wd sedan that had set the rest of the world on > fire and that was threatening the profitability of domestic manufacturers > that might have to follow suit. the hysteria was detroit smear campaign. > just like we're witnessing now with toyota. > > of course, complete exoneration was years after the damage had been done > and audi effectively chased from the u.s. market. So, no one ever had a problem in an Audi? Sure it may have been exploited but that does not mean it never happened. It does happen with all cars (see my post about brake interlock) but it happened more with the Audi. It may be exploited this time around too as the media often does, but that does not mean there never was a throttle problem. |