Honda "Drive by Wire" question... what if the power goes out?

Don Bruder wrote:

> In article >,
> Sparky Spartacus > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"jim beam" > wrote in message news:BYCdnbjNyIqly-
>>>
>>>
>>>>you're tooling along at 20% throttle, 2k rpm. you want to accelerate
>>>>and go to 100% throttle. but your engine's only good for wot above 4k
>>>>rpm. you need to shift. but it's a stick and you don't. but you do
>>>>get some pull up to about 60% throttle. why throw away 40% that's not
>>>>being utilized? electronic control saves you gas.
>>>>
>>>>ok, so you don't drive a stick, but you have an old hydraulic automatic.
>>>> again, you want to go up a steepish hill and because it won't pull at
>>>>low rpm's, you need the transmission to shift. it won't until you kick
>>>>it to the floor because the transmission can't detect load, only whether
>>>>you've operated the kickdown. sure, you can manualy over-ride, but why?
>>>> electronic controls know exactly the engine load and can therefore
>>>>determine the grade of hill. selection of gear ratio and throttle
>>>>position is /much/ better.
>>>>
>>>>besides, what's with this misconception that we need direct throttle
>>>>linkage? anyone here ever worked on diesels? anyone here know that the
>>>>diesel govenor does? there's no direct linkage to fuel injection on a
>>>>diesel - it's all done by the govenor. if that thing fails, you have
>>>>ZERO engine control. diesels have been like this from day 1.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Few use manual transmissions now, and even if they did, the 'by wire'
>>>technology
>>>would not change a thing.
>>>
>>>Even with diesels, 'by wire' actuation does nothing unique.
>>>
>>>IF automated highways ever became a reality, then a totally electronic
>>>system
>>>might be the way to go...collision avoidance, route selection, traffic flow
>>>optimization,
>>>police interception, etc...all might be controlled by computer...
>>>
>>>I think I will stay home if that ever happens...
>>
>>Just think, though, no more speeding tickets.
>
>
> OK, Sparky... You've been itching for it, so here it is - *MY*
> application of "ain't technology wonderful?!?":
>
> <PLONK>
>
> (It's called a killfile - It's a sort of "storage area" for morons and
> fools who have nothing useful to say, but insist on running their
> clueless mouths anyhow - Say "buh-bye", Sparky... You no longer exist in
> my world. Which is a great improvement over 5 minutes ago.)

How nice - so you're no longer in mine, either.

Your overreaction to my posts has been noted.

Kevin Bottorff wrote:
> jim beam > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Doug McCrary wrote:
>>
>>>SoCalMike > wrote in message
om...
>>>
>>>
>>>>flobert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>From what i rmeber of the 'brake by wire' system, it uses the
>>>>
>>>>>opposite method. the brakes are on by default, and its the pressing
>>>>>of the pedal that brings it to default, until then, the position of
>>>>>the pedal inhibits the default. If something then brakes, the
>>>>>default is for the brakes to be activated. rather than not at all.
>>>>>Its what we call a 'failsafe' system. If something FAILs the system
>>>>>goes SAFE, FAIL-SAFE, see?
>>>>
>>>>i think air brakes on 18 wheelers use the same principle. the air
>>>>pressure forces the brake shoes apart. touching the brake releases
>>>>pressure. so losing pressure would cause the brakes to lock.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, they are applied - they don't actually "lock". I'd expected
>>>they would, but on the vehicles I've tried it on, it just comes to a
>>>relatively controlled stop, without skidding. Yet those same vehicles
>>>will skid (lock) using the service brake. My yard service manager
>>>says this is by design.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>locking is not by design. the ability to apply it hard enough so that
>>it /can/ be locked /is/ by design. big difference. a locked brake
>>does no one any good.
>>
>>
>
>
> alright I have to straighten this out. the air brakes have a large
> spring that applies the brakes on loss of air pressure, on normal braking
> they also use air pressure on the apply side to increase the braking
> force. on a trailer with the loss of air pressure "usually" the spring
> pressue is enough to lock the brakes. KB
>

nicely put - i didn't mean to suggest that air brakes couldn't lock - i
meant to say that locking is a result, not a purpose.

> >Road injuries are a big problem,
>
> Actually they are not, they are extremely low relative to the number of
> vehicle miles.

What's are you comparing that to? What they were in the past?

I don't know about where you're from, but in my country road deaths
occur at about 4-5 times the rate of homicides, so there is reason to
improve saftey.

>
> > clearly our current
> > cars are not safe enough!
>
> Clearly our current driver training and licensing is insufficient. Try
> upgrading training and licensing to the level of a class A commercial
> license and watch the number of accidents plummet along with the number
> of clueless drivers.

That's one way, but I doubt it will be the most effective once
technology is sufficiently developed. And it won't be developed other
than in small steps, such as brake-by-wire, throttle-by-wire,
steer-by-wire, navigate-by-wire, see-by-wire, think-by-wire.

wrote:

> ******What significant performance, control, and reliability benefits
> do you see from the by-wire system ( as it has been defined as
> applying to the Honda
> application)?

I'm not sure about the Honda system, but the GM system allows
the computer to use the throttle to make other things that are
happening transparent to the driver. I know that the new v-8's
with the 4-8 cylinder technology use the electronic throttle to
make the shift from 4-8 cylinder transparent. The electronic
throttle is also used to "improve" tranmission shift quality.
There are bound to be all sorts of good reasons why you want
to control the throttle. Personally, as a tech that works on
the vehicles, I hate the fact that I can no longer "blip" the
throttle under the hood. I can use a scan tool to change
rpm, but there is no way, other then using a helper, to
rev the engine quickly anymore.

I also find that many of the vehicles have a very "disconnected"
feeling from the throttle. Some are better then others, so I'm
sure it's just a matter of tweaking the calibrations.

Now when it comes to "steering by wire".....I'm not sure
that I'd be in favour of that.

Ian

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:58:03 -0800, jim beam >
wrote:

>Doug McCrary wrote:
>> SoCalMike > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>>flobert wrote:
>>>
>>>>From what i rmeber of the 'brake by wire' system, it uses the opposite
>>>>method. the brakes are on by default, and its the pressing of the
>>>>pedal that brings it to default, until then, the position of the pedal
>>>>inhibits the default. If something then brakes, the default is for the
>>>>brakes to be activated. rather than not at all. Its what we call a
>>>>'failsafe' system. If something FAILs the system goes SAFE, FAIL-SAFE,
>>>>see?
>>>
>>>i think air brakes on 18 wheelers use the same principle. the air
>>>pressure forces the brake shoes apart. touching the brake releases
>>>pressure. so losing pressure would cause the brakes to lock.
>>
>>
>> Well, they are applied - they don't actually "lock". I'd expected they would,
>> but on the vehicles I've tried it on, it just comes to a relatively controlled
>> stop, without skidding. Yet those same vehicles will skid (lock) using the
>> service brake. My yard service manager says this is by design.
>>
>>
>locking is not by design. the ability to apply it hard enough so that
>it /can/ be locked /is/ by design. big difference. a locked brake does
>no one any good.

Depends on the surface. on loose gravel or snow, locking improevvs
baing, by packing material. Lot of the truck places here have lose
dirt and/or gravel for their internal roads, if nowhere else.

On smooth flat, clear surfaces, however, you are correct.

"Sparky Spartacus" > wrote
> Elle wrote:
>
> > "SoCalMike" > wrote
> >
> >>Bob Palmer wrote:
> >>
> >>>I give you the pick-up and the platform frame SUV built
> >
> > on chasis and
> >
> >>>suspensions from 1950 that all the people in the
country
> >
> > have flocked to
> >
> >>>dealerships like sheep and plunked billions of dollars
> >
> > on and to which the
> >
> >>>automobile companies have spent next to nothing on in
> >
> > technology.
> >
> >>>
> >>and instead of investing that money on a DECENT small
car
> >
> > design, they
> >
> >>blow it.
> >
> > Do you think that car companies should produce what the
> > companies think is right for the American consumer, or
what
> > consumers want?
>
> You seem to be ignoring the <false> demand generated by
skillful
> advertising.

I agree that marketing and advertising and making a buck
play a huge role in design. I agree the outcome is most
certainly not always a better design, engineering-wise. I
could even stomach someone's argument that most design
changes are not engineering oriented at all.

But America is also a revoltingly consumer-ist society.
Which came first--the advertising blitzes pushing "bigger;
more," or some sort of instinctual drive from Americans to
insist on bigger more--is debatable.

So Americans want pickup trucks and SUVs which rarely
satisfy any physical need and are merely to keep up with the
Joneses. What's an auto company executive to do to keep food
on his family's table? So to speak.

But safety, things like better fuel mileage or more Hp
performance, are not ignored. Many improvements do lengthen
the life of a car, etc.

> > These companies have obligations to shareholders and
their
> > employees to turn a pretty profit, or else.
>
> So how much has GM made the past year? Ford? How about
Honda & Toyota? Hmmm.

Yes, I know. But I hesitate to say more without reading up
on why GM and Ford has been going down the proverbial can
the last several years. I thought it was more like labor
problems: GM and Ford can't build a car cheaply. I dunno.
Someone can post a citation on why they're failing while I
guess Honda and Toyota are doing fine. 'Cause America still
loves big, gas guzzling vehicles, from what I see.

Pete C. wrote:
> Better driver training would save more lives and cost no additional
> lives, unlike failing ABS and airbags.

Can you point to any research that support this conclusion? I would be
very interested to see it, since all the research I have seen supports
the opposite conclusion: That driver training is ineffective at
improving
safety.

Please note that I am asking for references to actual peer reviewed
research,
not just opinion.

Here is a good place to start:

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc022.html
http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/Other/peer.html

James C. Reeves wrote:

> I believe the Chevy Malibu has a steer-by-wire system.

No...it has a regular old rack and pinion steering system.
The electric "assist" sits up in the steering column area
and simply provides the assist to a "standard steering"
rack and pinion.

Ian

Elle wrote:

> "Sparky Spartacus" > wrote
>
>>Elle wrote:

<snip>

>>You seem to be ignoring the <false> demand generated by
>> skillful advertising.
>
> I agree that marketing and advertising and making a buck
> play a huge role in design. I agree the outcome is most
> certainly not always a better design, engineering-wise. I
> could even stomach someone's argument that most design
> changes are not engineering oriented at all.
>
> But America is also a revoltingly consumer-ist society.
> Which came first--the advertising blitzes pushing "bigger;
> more," or some sort of instinctual drive from Americans to
> insist on bigger more--is debatable.

Advertising first, check out the history of GM.

> So Americans want pickup trucks and SUVs which rarely
> satisfy any physical need and are merely to keep up with the
> Joneses. What's an auto company executive to do to keep food
> on his family's table? So to speak.

Didn't the Japanese carmakers answer this question in the 70's?

> But safety, things like better fuel mileage or more Hp
> performance, are not ignored. Many improvements do lengthen
> the life of a car, etc.

Which safety innovations (after the rear view mirror, which was a racing
innovation) were not mandated? The US automakers have fought every
change tooth & nail (emissions as well as safety - Ford famously tried
to sell safety in their '56 models & lost a bundle).

>>>These companies have obligations to shareholders and
>> their employees to turn a pretty profit, or else.
>>
>>So how much has GM made the past year? Ford? How about
>
> Honda & Toyota? Hmmm.
>
> Yes, I know. But I hesitate to say more without reading up
> on why GM and Ford has been going down the proverbial can
> the last several years. I thought it was more like labor
> problems: GM and Ford can't build a car cheaply. I dunno.
> Someone can post a citation on why they're failing while I
> guess Honda and Toyota are doing fine. 'Cause America still
> loves big, gas guzzling vehicles, from what I see.

So, you don't want to comment until all the facts are in? (a famous
quote by Gen Turgidson in "Dr. Strangelove").

The Japanese carmakers seem to be able to crank out cars profitably from
their US plants, so I don't think it's primarily the cost of labor. Did
you have anything specific in mind with "labor problems"?


"These companies have obligations to shareholders and their employees to
turn a pretty profit, or else"

Leading to many very unhappy employees & shareholders as of late.


One final observation - the price of every new GM car includes something
like $1,500 for health care costs (plus another chunk for retirement),
which foreign carmakers, Asian & European, don't incur because those
countries have universal health coverage & retirement. Wouldn't it be
ironic if it were the auto (and other) CEOs who lead the charge to
universal health coverage in the US? <this is an auto related
observation, not a political one, and I won't debate the politics of
such a move>

"Sparky Spartacus" > wrote
> Elle wrote:
>
> > "Sparky Spartacus" > wrote
> >
> >>Elle wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>You seem to be ignoring the <false> demand generated by
> >> skillful advertising.
> >
> > I agree that marketing and advertising and making a buck
> > play a huge role in design. I agree the outcome is most
> > certainly not always a better design, engineering-wise.
I
> > could even stomach someone's argument that most design
> > changes are not engineering oriented at all.
> >
> > But America is also a revoltingly consumer-ist society.
> > Which came first--the advertising blitzes pushing
"bigger;
> > more," or some sort of instinctual drive from Americans
to
> > insist on bigger more--is debatable.
>
> Advertising first, check out the history of GM.

I'll believe you. :-)

> > So Americans want pickup trucks and SUVs which rarely
> > satisfy any physical need and are merely to keep up with
the
> > Joneses. What's an auto company executive to do to keep
food
> > on his family's table? So to speak.
>
> Didn't the Japanese carmakers answer this question in the
70's?

I don't know.

I think it's hard to compare the successes of two companies
satisfying the same basic need, but also many others,
operating in two different countries, with different
cultures and mores and different governmental philosophies.

> > But safety, things like better fuel mileage or more Hp
> > performance, are not ignored. Many improvements do
lengthen
> > the life of a car, etc.
>
> Which safety innovations (after the rear view mirror,
which was a racing
> innovation) were not mandated? The US automakers have
fought every
> change tooth & nail (emissions as well as safety - Ford
famously tried
> to sell safety in their '56 models & lost a bundle).

I reckon you're mostly right.

I think also of reports (or the cinemization) of lawsuits
where car companies defend against making a certain design
change, because the cost of the 'wrongful death' yada
lawsuits is much lower than the cost of the design change.

Still, on a day to day basis with engineers, I don't buy
that they are idiots who never object to certain proposed
features as being inherently unsafe that will result in a
car with many problems, threatening life and property. And
so costing the company money, yada.

> >>>These companies have obligations to shareholders and
> >> their employees to turn a pretty profit, or else.
> >>
> >>So how much has GM made the past year? Ford? How about
> >
> > Honda & Toyota? Hmmm.
> >
> > Yes, I know. But I hesitate to say more without reading
up
> > on why GM and Ford has been going down the proverbial
can
> > the last several years. I thought it was more like labor
> > problems: GM and Ford can't build a car cheaply. I
dunno.
> > Someone can post a citation on why they're failing while
I
> > guess Honda and Toyota are doing fine. 'Cause America
still
> > loves big, gas guzzling vehicles, from what I see.
>
> So, you don't want to comment until all the facts are in?
(a famous
> quote by Gen Turgidson in "Dr. Strangelove").
>
> The Japanese carmakers seem to be able to crank out cars
profitably from
> their US plants, so I don't think it's primarily the cost
of labor. Did
> you have anything specific in mind with "labor problems"?

After I posted, I did notice one of the lastest articles on
GM's problems said a major component was the cost of the
company's health care plans.

Some are saying that's GM management's screwup, though.

So, no, I don't have all the facts. Surely there's a site or
two that talks about why GM and Ford are doing so poorly,
and how Honda manages in comparison.

As you suggest below, my suspicion is that some large
companies are already starting to push somewhat for
universal care. (I may have read as much.) They won't be
gung-ho for it, I suppose, for some time (if ever), because
their business ties in with that of insurers.

I'm not talking about a conspiracy, but more about how
executives look out for each other; one hand washes the
other; etc.

> "These companies have obligations to shareholders and
their employees to
> turn a pretty profit, or else"
>
> Leading to many very unhappy employees & shareholders as
of late.
>
>
> One final observation - the price of every new GM car
includes something
> like $1,500 for health care costs (plus another chunk for
retirement),
> which foreign carmakers, Asian & European, don't incur
because those
> countries have universal health coverage & retirement.
Wouldn't it be
> ironic if it were the auto (and other) CEOs who lead the
charge to
> universal health coverage in the US? <this is an auto
related
> observation, not a political one, and I won't debate the
politics of
> such a move>

Sure.

We'd then maybe have a two-pronged attack on current
American cultural mores: With the ailing American car
companies, more small cars would go on the road. With the
ailing health insurance system, Americans would be more
willing to accept catastrophic health insurance plans and
not accept every last procedure/drug (efficacies being not
clear) their doctor prescribed.