If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
electronic throttle
On 03/06/2010 11:48 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > > "Jim Warman" > wrote >> Drive by wire throttle is a natural progression (if you can't see >> where the future of the automobile is going - I feel sorry for you). >> It allows for precise (hopefully) control of any electronic stability >> features, It allows for torque limiting when appropirate... reducing >> the need for other traction control measures (such as active brake >> booster application) when necessary... >> >> Fords system relies on redundancy... I'm not a Toyota tech so I can't >> tell you what they do... Fords system has three inputs..(one of them >> is inversely proportional). If the inputs aren't "coherent", the car >> will remain at idle... > > Drive by wire is certainly a natural progression. What failed is two > things. One is the Toyota system (whatever that was), really? has that been demonstrated yet? i see lots of speculation from idiots that don't know what the heck they're talking about, and loads of astroturf from people with a stake in forcing a negative outcome, but i've yet to see any real evidence of this. > and driver > training. abso-freakin-lutely. > 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, or even hit the "off" button. > Fail safe and redundancy should be part of any > throttle system, but even that can fail, as have the simplest of > mechanical systems. indeed. statistically, mechanical throttles are much more unreliable. but it appears that we need a system that removes the ability of idiots to speculate about the "black box" they don't understand. -- nomina rutrum rutrum |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
electronic throttle
"jim beam" > wrote in message t... > >> Fail safe and redundancy should be part of any >> throttle system, but even that can fail, as have the simplest of >> mechanical systems. > > indeed. statistically, mechanical throttles are much more unreliable. STATISTICALLY? I'd like to see any statistic you have ... The facts are that save a few notable examples -- Audi -- there have been virtually no known cases of unintended acceleration that involved vehicles on the highway. The only known instances of wrong-pedal acceleration involve vehicles in parking lots. To be sure, there are exceptions -- the guy that drove his Buick through the Farmer's Market in Los Angeles and ran over several people -- but the exception is just that. An exception. Statistically, the exception is not noteworthy. There is no statistic that says mechanical throttles less reliable. Indeed, statistically speaking, electronic throttle controls (fly-by-wire gas pedals) haven't been in use long enough to be a statistically large enough sample to compare against the decades of mechanical throttle mechanisms that have gone into millions upon millions of vehicles. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
electronic throttle
"jim beam" > wrote >> Drive by wire is certainly a natural progression. What failed is two >> things. One is the Toyota system (whatever that was), > > really? has that been demonstrated yet? i see lots of speculation from > idiots that don't know what the heck they're talking about, and loads of > astroturf from people with a stake in forcing a negative outcome, but i've > yet to see any real evidence of this. You read the papers and watch the news. Regardless of the reason, something failed or it would not have made the news to the degree is has. Faulty design? Faulty electronics? Faulty mechanics? Even if it is proved to be 100% driver error, something failed or that many drivers would not have had the problem. Just as the Audi was shown to be pedal location and driver error, it was a failure to get the job done properly. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
electronic throttle
On 03/06/2010 02:02 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > > "jim beam" > wrote >>> Drive by wire is certainly a natural progression. What failed is two >>> things. One is the Toyota system (whatever that was), >> >> really? has that been demonstrated yet? i see lots of speculation from >> idiots that don't know what the heck they're talking about, and loads >> of astroturf from people with a stake in forcing a negative outcome, >> but i've yet to see any real evidence of this. > > You read the papers and watch the news. 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? > Faulty design? Faulty electronics? Faulty mechanics? Even if it is > proved to be 100% driver error, something failed or that many drivers > would not have had the problem. 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. > Just as the Audi was shown to be pedal > location and driver error, it was a failure to get the job done properly. 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. -- nomina rutrum rutrum |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
electronic throttle
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 12:20:36 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> wrote: > >"jim beam" > wrote in message et... >> >>> Fail safe and redundancy should be part of any >>> throttle system, but even that can fail, as have the simplest of >>> mechanical systems. >> >> indeed. statistically, mechanical throttles are much more unreliable. > > >STATISTICALLY? > >I'd like to see any statistic you have ... > >The facts are that save a few notable examples -- Audi -- there have been >virtually no known cases of unintended acceleration that involved vehicles >on the highway. The only known instances of wrong-pedal acceleration involve >vehicles in parking lots. > >To be sure, there are exceptions -- the guy that drove his Buick through the >Farmer's Market in Los Angeles and ran over several people -- but the >exception is just that. An exception. > >Statistically, the exception is not noteworthy. There is no statistic that >says mechanical throttles less reliable. Indeed, statistically speaking, >electronic throttle controls (fly-by-wire gas pedals) haven't been in use >long enough to be a statistically large enough sample to compare against the >decades of mechanical throttle mechanisms that have gone into millions upon >millions of vehicles. Over the years there have been MANY more failures of mechanical throtles - both cable and linkage, than failures with drive by wire. A large percentage resulted in NO throttle, but a still very appreciable number resulted in throttles stuck open. Many hundreds of general motors cars in particular when the engine mounts separated. And that was when there were only a tenth as many cars on the road (more or less) The probability of failure with a mechanical system IS higher than with electronics. Moving parts fail more often than non-moving parts. Electronics do not "wear out". And at this point, the only PROVEN problems with the Toyota system HAVE been mechanical. There is SPECULATION that there may be an electronic problem - but nothing concrete ponting that direction yet. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
electronic throttle
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
electronic throttle
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') |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
electronic throttle
"jim beam" > 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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
electronic throttle
On 03/06/2010 08:42 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > > "jim beam" > 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. believe it or not, i'm wide open to the evidence on this, but where is it? all we have is a butt-load of politically charged allegation and hysteria, direct from the white house no less. with frod, all you had to do was look at the crushed cabin and the paper-trail of their dealings with the nhtsa, and all the evidence you ever needed was right there. with toyota, i see nothing to support the allegations, and nothing distinguish this from my grandmother pressing the wrong [mechanically linked] pedal in her frod. -- nomina rutrum rutrum |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
electronic throttle
On 03/06/2010 08:26 PM, Bill Putney wrote:
> 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. i have done this. with the engine off, the vacuum remains until the pedal is released - thus if you stomp the pedal and keep it there, you don't need to keep replenishing the vacuum. and you will stop the car. with the engine running, there is no vacuum issue, and the brakes are still powerful enough to stop the car. on my honda anyway. > > 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. with respect, i think you're confusing vacuum with fade. i've experienced that too, one particular time on a major hill in san francisco approaching a busy intersection. yes, it's scary stuff. but when i changed the pads on my civic from after-market to oem, all fade problems disappeared. even fully loaded, repeatedly decelerating from speed. [i learned my "honda oem is best" lesson that way.] > > 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. i have. my results and comments are as above. -- nomina rutrum rutrum |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Toyota Runaway Cause: Electronic Throttle/Cruise Control? | john | Technology | 88 | June 8th 15 02:10 PM |
Toyota Provided No Evidence of Testing Electronic Throttle to USCongress | john | Technology | 2 | March 7th 10 10:49 PM |
Throttle Assembly - Throttle Sensor | k_ross_burlington | Honda | 11 | February 14th 10 06:28 PM |
electronic panel | Christine Zink | BMW | 0 | April 29th 05 07:07 AM |
electronic throttle? | Bill Jones | Ford Mustang | 17 | November 22nd 04 11:51 AM |