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

AZ Nomad > wrote:
>
>>Likely because "driving" involves/requires steering as well as throttle.
>>Calling something "drive-by-wire" would imply that all systems
>>required/necessary in order to "drive" (i.e. brakes, throttle, steering) are
>>*all* involved in the "drive-by-wire" system. Honda used a very poor
>>description of the "feature".
>
>Uh huh. Please name a single car with such steering. One example should
>be enough.

The Automatomobile, which is featured in several Isaac Asimov stories.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

You're not categorically rejecting change here.

--
Honda home studies: http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness
--


"Bob Palmer" > wrote
> > To categorically reject change because the "current
system
> > is good enough" is foolishness and demonstrates
> > obliviousness to the many points in automotive history
when
> > of course the old way was "good enough," but the new way
> > yielded some advantage, so it predominated.
>
> 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.

"Steve" > wrote
> Elle wrote:
>
>
> > He's happy with the status quo. Others are not. He
should
> > get out of the business or certainly never enter it.
>
> There's a difference between "improvements" and "stupid
application of
> technology."
>
> The idea of full-on "steer by wire" with NO mechanical
backup is STUPID.

Which is why I doubt it's this simple.

"Hugo Schmeisser" > wrote
> Elle wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> >
> > To categorically reject change because the "current
system
> > is good enough" is foolishness
>
>
> Indubitably true.
>
>
> > and demonstrates
> > obliviousness to the many points in automotive history
when
> > of course the old way was "good enough," but the new way
> > yielded some advantage, so it predominated.
>
>
> True again.
>
> But in the comparison of aircraft "fly-by-wire" and the
idea of truly
> analogous automotive "drive-by-wire", the plot tends to
get lost.
>
> Aircraft "fly-by-wire" came about to address certain
actual, specific
> issues regarding the rather inmportant goal of keeping an
airplane in
> the air. Automotive "throttle-by-wire" (to coin a more
accurate phrase)
> arose in an attempt at meeting emissions regulations. The
difference is
> fundamental and of great import: One is critical, the
other is utterly
> useless absent its regulatory impetus.

That last comment is a bit too sweeping, or a bit
misleading, for me to buy.

Some of the outcomes of reduced emissions regulations have
made automobiles less trouble-prone. That's good for the
driver-owner.

> To install true "drive-by-wire" in a road-going automobile
on current
> roads would be astonishingly stupid. Airplanes are not
cars and do not
> live in even remotely the same environment.

I agree people are throwing around this phrase very loosely
here.

But folks love to kvetch, so... :-)

David E. Powell wrote:
> Hi there.
>
> I have been looking at the new Honda Civic, it's pretty sweet, and the
> welds and everything are as nice as anything I have ever seen. I just
> have a question about the "Drive by wire" system that they are supposed
> to have.
>
> What happens if the Engine dies on you? In my current car, my timing
> chip went once and the engine went out. I had enough steering control
> left, even without power steering, to pull my car over before it came
> to a stop. If the drive by wire system has no "real" or active
> connection, how can it work if the engine or electronics quit on you?
> Are there any backups built into the system in case any of that stuff
> happens? And what if your battery dies and you need to push the car?
> Can you turn the steering wheel to adjust your wheels when you push the
> car?
>
> Much thanks, sorry to bother.
>
> David
>

cT = 0.99

Steve Mackie wrote:
>
> > So it is a misapplication of the drive-by-wire term to electronic
> > throttle control. Presumably something the marketing folks dreamed up.
>
> They acutally call it "Drive-by-Wire Throttle SystemT"
>
> Steve

Sure sounds like the marketing department drivel to me. The engineers
were probably cringing.

Pete C.

Bucky wrote:
>
> Don Bruder wrote:
> > Tell ya what, Ellie... You drive that "fly-by-wire" unit. Just do me a
> > favor: Warn me where you'll be so I can avoid that
> > deathtrap-looking-for-a-victim.
>
> As others have mentioned, the Civic only has "throttle by wire". So in
> case of electronic failure, it would just slow to a stop. The car you
> really need to be watching out for is Mercedes, who has had "brake by
> wire" in its higher end models since 2003.

Brake-by-wire is little different than the brake-by-oil which is the
norm on pretty much every car and light truck and even some heavy
trucks. Of course the brake-by-oil is a split system and you still have
the cable operated parking/E-brake as backup. Presumably the
brake-by-wire system has similar redundancy and the good old cable
operated backup.

>
> > I want, and will settle for *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LESS* than *DIRECT*
> > mechanical or hydraulic control of all major vehicle functions,
> > particularly steering and braking. Something that works *NO MATTER WHAT*
> > in every situation short of total catastrrophic failure.
>
> I'm sure most people, including me, are uncomfortable with the concept
> of taking away direct control. But hypothetically, let's say mechanical
> catastrophic failure occurs 1 in a million chance. And after much
> maturation, electronic "drive by wire" systems only occur 1 in 10
> million chance. Which system would you prefer? (Again, that is just
> hypothetical, it may not be feasible to implement such a reliable
> electronic system cheaply). I would take the more reliable one.

I have no problem with electronic linkages replacing mechanical ones.
Where I have a problem is when they try to interject computers in
between and have them second guess my judgment. No computer in any even
remotely affordable vehicle can ever (in my lifetime) have as much
sensory input as a human and therefore does not have the information to
even begin to second guess the human.

Pete C.

AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:52:17 -0500, James C. Reeves > wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> I am slightly puzzled why everyone seems to assume "drive by wire" has
> >> anything at all to do with the steering.
> >>
>
> >Likely because "driving" involves/requires steering as well as throttle.
> >Calling something "drive-by-wire" would imply that all systems
> >required/necessary in order to "drive" (i.e. brakes, throttle, steering) are
> >*all* involved in the "drive-by-wire" system. Honda used a very poor
> >description of the "feature".
>
> Uh huh. Please name a single car with such steering. One example should
> be enough.

OK. A couple months back, one of the major news networks had a "Car of
the future" thing talking about future concepts, and one of them was a
fully fuel cell car, which had adaptable body/interior features, very
spacious interior (It looked like it skimped on safety to do so, being
a prototype, and might have been intended for a world where everything
went 20-30 mph, though it was underprotected even so IMO) So there are
such projects out there, and aircraft have done this for some years.

Long story short, it had a full steer by wire/drive by wire system that
the demonstrator gushed over. I don't like the idea. "Autodrive" cars
they are working on aren't my thing either.

When the Honda salesperson said "No mechanical, it is all drive by
wire" I figured it was like the one I had seen on TV,and the
salesperson basically seemed to agree when I asked. So since the
dealership person was saying it I figured I would ask on here, because
I have had experience with a car losing power at speed and it is not
fun, even with residual steering left after power steering fails, With
drive by wire it could be worse.

If the sales line the dealers are using is wrong, thank you for
informing me. I wish Honda would, because I am going on their word
here.

AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:52:17 -0500, James C. Reeves > wrote:
> >>
> >> I am slightly puzzled why everyone seems to assume "drive by wire" has
> >> anything at all to do with the steering.
> >>
>
> >Likely because "driving" involves/requires steering as well as throttle.
> >Calling something "drive-by-wire" would imply that all systems
> >required/necessary in order to "drive" (i.e. brakes, throttle, steering) are
> >*all* involved in the "drive-by-wire" system. Honda used a very poor
> >description of the "feature".
>
> Uh huh. Please name a single car with such steering. One example should
> be enough.

OK. A couple months back, one of the major news networks had a "Car of
the future" thing talking about future concepts, and one of them was a
fully fuel cell car, which had adaptable body/interior features, very
spacious interior (It looked like it skimped on safety to do so, being
a prototype, and might have been intended for a world where everything
went 20-30 mph, though it was underprotected even so IMO) So there are
such projects out there, and aircraft have done this for some years.

Long story short, it had a full steer by wire/drive by wire system that

the demonstrator gushed over. I don't like the idea. "Autodrive" cars
they are working on aren't my thing either.

When the Honda salesperson said "No mechanical, it's drive by
wire" I figured it was like the one I had seen on TV,and the
salesperson basically seemed to agree from the jist of the
conversation.
So since the dealership person was saying it I figured I would ask on
here, because
I have had experience with a car losing power at speed and it is not
fun, even with residual steering left after power steering fails, With
drive by wire it could be worse.

So, from the details I had heard, this is what I felt it was; a true
drive by wire, which I would be wary of due to my experience.

On 18 Nov 2005 19:27:09 -0500, Scott Dorsey > wrote:


>AZ Nomad > wrote:
>>
>>>Likely because "driving" involves/requires steering as well as throttle.
>>>Calling something "drive-by-wire" would imply that all systems
>>>required/necessary in order to "drive" (i.e. brakes, throttle, steering) are
>>>*all* involved in the "drive-by-wire" system. Honda used a very poor
>>>description of the "feature".
>>
>>Uh huh. Please name a single car with such steering. One example should
>>be enough.

>The Automatomobile, which is featured in several Isaac Asimov stories.

Fiction doesn't count as an example. If you haven't a single real world
example, perhaps it's time to put your strawman argument away.