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

Bucky wrote:
> "Brake by wire"
> is just how I described, it uses the gas pedal as an electronic input
> to adjust the brakes.

Whoops. Obviously I meant "brake pedal" instead of "gas pedal".

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:06:31 -0600, "Hugo Schmeisser"
> wrote:
>The "drive by wire" refers to throttle butterfly control, not the
>steering.

Thank you for actually answering OP's question!

J.

JXStern wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:06:31 -0600, "Hugo Schmeisser"
> > wrote:
> > The "drive by wire" refers to throttle butterfly control, not the
> > steering.
>
> Thank you for actually answering OP's question!
>


It's a dirty job, but somebody had to do it...

Elle wrote:

> "Hugo Schmeisser" > wrote

>> 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.



Then I concentrate it a bit by saying that: airplane fly-by-wire
addressed certain laws-of-physics issues that pointed up serious
shortcomings in previous control systems. Cable control of the
automotive throttle has not that sort of limitation where it would be
fundamentally incapable of reliable and durable operation under normal
and expected operating conditions. Therefore, replacing a cable with a
servomotor in a car does not grant functional improvement to an auto
throttle the way a servomotor would to, say, an airplane rudder.

Is that better?



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


I used to grow weary of replacing the points and condenser every 6,000
miles, so yes, electronic ignition (just to cite one example) has been
a boon for the automotive enthusiast who wishes to do something else
besides getting a backache and needing to find his bifocals.

However, this convenience comes at quite a price. I remember a
points-and-condenser set costing the equivalent of a few dollars. If a
modern electronic ignition component fails, you could spend the
equivalent of 20-years worth of points-and-condensers replacing it.


>
>> 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... :-)



This *is* Usenet, after all. Kvetching-R-Us.

"Hugo Schmeisser" > wrote
> Elle wrote:
>
> > "Hugo Schmeisser" > wrote
>
> >> 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.
>
>
>
> Then I concentrate it a bit by saying that: airplane
fly-by-wire
> addressed certain laws-of-physics issues that pointed up
serious
> shortcomings in previous control systems. Cable control of
the
> automotive throttle has not that sort of limitation where
it would be
> fundamentally incapable of reliable and durable operation
under normal
> and expected operating conditions. Therefore, replacing a
cable with a
> servomotor in a car does not grant functional improvement
to an auto
> throttle the way a servomotor would to, say, an airplane
rudder.
>
> Is that better?

Sure.

I think I would have just said that the demands of operating
a plane are quite a bit different from the demands of
operating a car. One pushes against air to move; the other
pushes against the ground to move, for one.

It was your somewhat disrespecting the outcome of regulatory
impetus, as well as ignoring that other improvements not a
result of regulation, that seemed to me to be off the mark.

No big deal. Your first post had already reduced the slop in
this discussion substantially.

> > Some of the outcomes of reduced emissions regulations
have
> > made automobiles less trouble-prone. That's good for the
> > driver-owner.
>
>
> I used to grow weary of replacing the points and condenser
every 6,000
> miles, so yes, electronic ignition (just to cite one
example) has been
> a boon for the automotive enthusiast who wishes to do
something else
> besides getting a backache and needing to find his
bifocals.

Sure.

Though as an aside, one of the regulars at the Honda
newsgroup discovered that the external radio noise condenser
some older Hondas have does wear over time and replacing it
may improve performance. While it's not located electrically
in the exact same place that the old points condenser was
located, it does serve a kind of analogous function,
protecting, for one, the igniter, just as the old points
condenser protected the points, etc.

> However, this convenience comes at quite a price. I
remember a
> points-and-condenser set costing the equivalent of a few
dollars. If a
> modern electronic ignition component fails, you could
spend the
> equivalent of 20-years worth of points-and-condensers
replacing it.

I'm not sure what a precise cost-benefit (including
reliability; that has a pricetag) analysis would yield, but
certainly I see your point.

Just that radio noise condenser to which I refer above goes
for about $6 today through online Honda OEM parts sites. I'm
not sure one can just run over to Radio Shack and replace it
for a lot less.

"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

What does naming any car with drive by wire system have anything to do with
Honda's description of the "feature" as it relates to their implementation?

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.
Two points to make: 1) I always watch out for Mercedes anyway, because I
presume they're driven by twits and I haven't forgiven Daimler for
screwing up Chrysler, 2) I'm pretty sure that even their "brake by wire"
has a mechanical fallback, although I'm not sure it utilizes all 4
brakes to anything like full capacity.


>
> 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 think the second part of your statement is important here. How often
have you ever heard of a complete failure of a mechanical steering
system? Now go back to the 1920s, and in all that time and all those
billions of vehicle miles travelled, have their been many cases? (I
don't have the numbers, but I'm pretty confident they're small but
nonzero). At any rate, it would be VERY hard to design and build a
complex electronic system that is as simple and dead-nuts reliable as a
worm-and-sector gear or a rack-and-pinion. Its kinda like trying to
build an electric walnut crusher that is more reliable than a brick.

>
> meanwhile, the japanese took the money they made off selling excellent
> small cars and trucks, and invested it in making bigger trucks. the
> tundra is a really nice truck! course it should be, since the engine
> design was based on the lexus LS series.


Yeah, the tundra's great. Unless you need to haul, tow, carry, pull, or
otherwise do real work. I can't believe the STUPIDITY of the Japanese
makers in trying to get in on the dying tails of the poseur truck
market, selling luxury pseudo-trucks to people that need a truck like a
hole in the head. Ford, Dodge, and Chevy will always sell their real
work trucks to contractors farmers and ranchers, even when the poseur
market is gone. Toyota, Nissan, and (especially) Honda with that
ridiculous front-drive Ridgeline will have a lot of wasted engineering
investment on their hands.

jim beam wrote:

>> SUVs are *not* unstable by the wildest stretch of the imagination.
>
>
> that's not correct pete. the dynamic that causes all the rollover
> problems in suv's is transition from a lean in one direction while
> turning in the other - a rapid s-bend.

<coughBULL****cough>

> most suv's will flip. that's
> fundamental instability.

Cite? Documentation? Reality check? Been consuming too much of your
screen name?


"Most" SUVs will not flip unless they slide offroad, pull a tire off a
rim, or clip a curb- same conditions that will flip a lot of cars. SUVs
are more likely to flip in THOSE situations than are cars, but just
swerving on a flat road? No way. You can slide most SUVs sideways
without them rolling over.

Pete C. wrote:


>
> Er, I think you're confusing something here.
>
> If as you say "it is automatically disconnected if the pilot moves the
> control column with a strong force", then you must be referring to auto
> pilot and not fly-by-wire.
>
> If it's fly by wire you're referring to and "it is automatically
> disconnected if the pilot moves the control column with a strong force."
> that would imply that a strong force on the control results in complete
> disconnection of that control from the planes control surfaces.
>
> Pete C.

A true "fly-by-wire" airplane cannot "disengage" the FBW. But what can
happen- and what is VERY different between Boeing and Airbus
implementations, is what happens when the "control laws" change from one
mode to another. Different control law modes actually change the effect
that moving the stick or yoke has on the control surfaces, and most
pilots I've talked to think the Boeing method is a bit better. It will
revert back to the exact same "control laws" that would apply if the
yoke and pedals were connected to the control surfaces by pulleys,
bellcranks, and cables just like a non FBW airplane, and I thing that's
what the OP was talking about.