U.S. finds no defect in Toyota's electronic throttles

U.S. finds no defect in Toyota's electronic throttles
Laurén Abdel-Razzaq
Automotive News -- February 8, 2011 - 1:55 pm ET

DETROIT -- The U.S. Department of Transportation announced today that
electric systems and electromagnetic interference did not play a role in the
incidents of unintended acceleration involving Toyota Motor Corp. vehicles.

It was a major victory for Toyota, which has sought to recover from a recall
crisis and accidents allegedly linked to unintended acceleration in some of
its top-selling models.

"There is no electronic-based cause for unintended high-speed acceleration
in Toyotas," U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement to
Reuters.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration launched the study 10
months ago at Congress' urging. With the help of NASA engineers, the study
sought to determine if cases of unintended acceleration in Toyota and Lexus
vehicles were caused by something other than sticky gas pedals and trapped
floor mats.

In August, the government said it had not found any problems with the
software-driven electronic systems in Toyota vehicles during the first six
months of the study.

Toyota, which has had electronically controlled throttles in its vehicles
since 2002, has said its own tests ruled out electronic interference as a
possible cause.

Global recalls

Toyota has recalled more than 18 million vehicles globally since the fall of
2009 -- including more than five million for floor mats and more than four
million for gas pedals.

The Japanese automaker has already paid $48.8 million in fines in three
separate penalties and faces hundreds of lawsuits. The biggest previous
automaker fine was $1 million paid by General Motors Corp. for
windshield-wiper failure in vehicles made in 2002-2003.

Regulators are looking into 89 deaths that may be associated with unintended
acceleration in Toyota and Lexus vehicles but have so far linked only a
handful to the floor mat problem.

Although the investigation turned up no flaws that would prompt another
massive recall, Toyota still faces significant risks from scores of civil
lawsuits stemming from the recalls.

Those cases in federal and state courts, which may turn on the timing of
company disclosures to regulators of already established defects, have an
estimated potential liability of up to $10 billion.

Reuters contributed to this report

Read mo
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...110209749/1143

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
...
> U.S. finds no defect in Toyota's electronic throttles
> Laurén Abdel-Razzaq
> Automotive News -- February 8, 2011 - 1:55 pm ET
>
> DETROIT -- The U.S. Department of Transportation announced today that
> electric systems and electromagnetic interference did not play a role in
> the incidents of unintended acceleration involving Toyota Motor Corp.
> vehicles.

I can accept this. As I have said before, we own two Toyotas, and trust
our lives to them every day, with never any sort of problem. That doesnt
mean that no one has ever had some sort of problem, but I havent detected
one.

Those who dislike Toyotas and most other things considered unAmerican,
I am sure, will not accept this report, and that is fine with me too.

hls > wrote:
>"C. E. White" > wrote in message
...
>> U.S. finds no defect in Toyota's electronic throttles
>> Laurén Abdel-Razzaq
>> Automotive News -- February 8, 2011 - 1:55 pm ET
>>
>> DETROIT -- The U.S. Department of Transportation announced today that
>> electric systems and electromagnetic interference did not play a role in
>> the incidents of unintended acceleration involving Toyota Motor Corp.
>> vehicles.
>
>I can accept this. As I have said before, we own two Toyotas, and trust
>our lives to them every day, with never any sort of problem. That doesnt
>mean that no one has ever had some sort of problem, but I havent detected
>one.

I'd be more willing to suspect a race condition in the software than EMI
issues, in part because EMI issues are pretty easy to test for. In the
past, Toyota has had more electromagnetic compatibility problems than some
of the other manufacturers (and in fact Ford seems to be more careful about
it than anyone, in part because Ford markets to police departments that want
to put high power radios in cars), but you'd think if it were an EMI problem
it would be fairly easy to replicate.

The problem with race conditions is that they aren't usually easy to replicate,
and that's bad for the people on either side of the debate who want to really
figure out what it is.

>Those who dislike Toyotas and most other things considered unAmerican,
>I am sure, will not accept this report, and that is fine with me too.

I think people need to learn how to shut their damn cars down in an
emergency. There's a reason you have a prindle....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> hls > wrote:
> >"C. E. White" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> U.S. finds no defect in Toyota's electronic throttles
> >> Laurén Abdel-Razzaq
> >> Automotive News -- February 8, 2011 - 1:55 pm ET
> >>
> >> DETROIT -- The U.S. Department of Transportation announced today that
> >> electric systems and electromagnetic interference did not play a role in
> >> the incidents of unintended acceleration involving Toyota Motor Corp.
> >> vehicles.
> >
> >I can accept this. As I have said before, we own two Toyotas, and trust
> >our lives to them every day, with never any sort of problem. That doesnt
> >mean that no one has ever had some sort of problem, but I havent detected
> >one.
>
> I'd be more willing to suspect a race condition in the software than EMI
> issues, in part because EMI issues are pretty easy to test for. In the
> past, Toyota has had more electromagnetic compatibility problems than some
> of the other manufacturers (and in fact Ford seems to be more careful about
> it than anyone, in part because Ford markets to police departments that want
> to put high power radios in cars), but you'd think if it were an EMI problem
> it would be fairly easy to replicate.
>
> The problem with race conditions is that they aren't usually easy to replicate,
> and that's bad for the people on either side of the debate who want to really
> figure out what it is.

The NASA folks supposedly examined all of the source code for the PCM
and found no software faults. Embedded software for real time controls
like a PCM are written quite a bit differently from common software, and
generally use no interrupts, multithreading or subroutines. They
generally can not have a race condition.

Pete C. > wrote:
> The NASA folks supposedly examined all of the source code for the PCM
> and found no software faults. Embedded software for real time controls
> like a PCM are written quite a bit differently from common software, and
> generally use no interrupts, multithreading or subroutines. They
> generally can not have a race condition.

That's correct (in theory) but in practice the underlying hardware might
be faulty. In my lab I once found a common commercial PC motherboard that
_very occasionally_ gave two sensors simultaneous access to the same
16-bit bus (signal pathway) at the same time. When something like that
happens all bets are off and the problem is not reproducible.

--
Jack Myers / Westminster, California, USA

If it feels safe, you aren't going fast enough." - Parnelli Jones

Pete C. > wrote:
>
>The NASA folks supposedly examined all of the source code for the PCM
>and found no software faults. Embedded software for real time controls
>like a PCM are written quite a bit differently from common software, and
>generally use no interrupts, multithreading or subroutines. They
>generally can not have a race condition.

If you read the paper, they're basically saying they did a code review and
didn't find anything obviously wrong. This doesn't mean there isn't something
wrong, but it does make it less likely.

They didn't do actual code verification, which isn't surprising since that's
a difficult thing to do even on code that is designed to be verified. But
until there _is_ actual code verification and correctness proof, as is used
in aircraft ECU applications, then you don't really know.

And even WITH that, there have still been wacky interaction issues (which
you could argue were hardware or software issues depending on your perspective)
with proven code in aircraft ECUs.

So... the answer is basically that the chances are pretty good the Toyota
software is clean, but that complex software systems should never be trusted
completely. So know where your prindle is and learn how to use it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2/9/2011 8:40 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Pete > wrote:
>>
>> The NASA folks supposedly examined all of the source code for the PCM
>> and found no software faults. Embedded software for real time controls
>> like a PCM are written quite a bit differently from common software, and
>> generally use no interrupts, multithreading or subroutines. They
>> generally can not have a race condition.
>
> If you read the paper, they're basically saying they did a code review and
> didn't find anything obviously wrong. This doesn't mean there isn't something
> wrong, but it does make it less likely.
>
> They didn't do actual code verification, which isn't surprising since that's
> a difficult thing to do even on code that is designed to be verified. But
> until there _is_ actual code verification and correctness proof, as is used
> in aircraft ECU applications, then you don't really know.
>
> And even WITH that, there have still been wacky interaction issues (which
> you could argue were hardware or software issues depending on your perspective)
> with proven code in aircraft ECUs.
>
> So... the answer is basically that the chances are pretty good the Toyota
> software is clean, but that complex software systems should never be trusted
> completely. So know where your prindle is and learn how to use it.
> --scott

Well of course the software is clean. the software in the RTOS that
controls the throttle works as intended. But when some not discovered
outside event happens the software goes into a undefined state
and this could happen. I remember doing some events with the military
where high ranking officers would come up to the podium and talk
and of a sudden there was strange noises in the sound system
unexplained. Took awhile to figure that one out. Turned out their
blackberry's were interfering with the sound system. Solution,
go up to speak with all blackberry TURNED OFF!
That comes under the heading of unexpected interference event.


You can look at Microsoft products operating systems for an example.
how many times have they been patched? Hundreds. for products that were
supposedly ready for prime time and work as expected most of the time.
But unexpected events happened (hackers, sequence of operations and
such) and the software was re engineered. Nobody stops using windows
because of this. But it being continually updated for such things.

Do you NOT think Toyota is doing the same thing? My question to anyone
with one of the suspect cars: have you had your computer(PCM) replaced
or reflashed for ANY reason since this has happened under warranty or
recall? Do you NOT think toyota was madly working behind the scences on
any kind of code updates that would prevent some of these unexpected
events? and do you really think they are going to tell you that was what
the update was for? Hell no! I am sure if done, they will just tell
you it was an emissions update or such. Or, they recalled some seemingly
unimportant item on the car and updated the code without telling you.
I think legally there suppose to put a sticker somewhere when they do
update the PCM for emissions. Not sure if that applys to other issues.


My brother in law just took his corolla S into the dealer last week for
some warranty repair of door molding that would always leak, and a
slight rough idle at times. He came out of that deal with a NEW PCM.
He did not ask for one. And no real explanation of why. Makes me wonder...

He has had small continuing issues with that car since he bought it.
Now, he wants to trade it off for a Honda. Five times into the dealer
for warranty work was enough for him




bob

bob urz > wrote:
>
>Well of course the software is clean. the software in the RTOS that
>controls the throttle works as intended. But when some not discovered
>outside event happens the software goes into a undefined state
>and this could happen.

That's what code verification prevents. It describes every possible path
through the code and what can happen in every case.

Unfortunately this requires putting some severe limitations into the code.

>I remember doing some events with the military
>where high ranking officers would come up to the podium and talk
>and of a sudden there was strange noises in the sound system
>unexplained. Took awhile to figure that one out. Turned out their
>blackberry's were interfering with the sound system. Solution,
>go up to speak with all blackberry TURNED OFF!
>That comes under the heading of unexpected interference event.

That shouldn't have been unexpected at all. GSM waveforms are really
annoying, and sound systems that are well-designed don't have issues.
You design the system properly, you test the system properly, and
everything is fine. But, that also isn't a software issue and it has
nothing to do with software issues. We're talking about software issues,
not EMI. EMI is a different issue altogether.

>You can look at Microsoft products operating systems for an example.
>how many times have they been patched? Hundreds. for products that were
>supposedly ready for prime time and work as expected most of the time.
>But unexpected events happened (hackers, sequence of operations and
>such) and the software was re engineered. Nobody stops using windows
>because of this. But it being continually updated for such things.

Sure, but that's because Microsoft software is putrid garbage written by
incompetent morons. If anything, Microsoft has reduced the public's
expectation of system reliability. This is not the normal state of affairs
of software.

Just because Microsoft releases worthless code to the public without doing
any testing at all does not mean that proper testing is impossible or that
code verification is impossible. Code verification is a huge step above
exhaustive testing, and the aviation folks consider it essential for using
software in mission critical environment.

>Do you NOT think Toyota is doing the same thing?

No, I certainly don't. Nobody doing any kind of embedded control work,
even the folks making toasters and microwave ovens does that kind of crap.
That kind of crap gets people killed in the embedded world. Hell, competent
applications programmers don't even pull that kind of stuff.

>My question to anyone
>with one of the suspect cars: have you had your computer(PCM) replaced
>or reflashed for ANY reason since this has happened under warranty or
>recall? Do you NOT think toyota was madly working behind the scences on
>any kind of code updates that would prevent some of these unexpected
>events? and do you really think they are going to tell you that was what
>the update was for? Hell no! I am sure if done, they will just tell
>you it was an emissions update or such. Or, they recalled some seemingly
>unimportant item on the car and updated the code without telling you.
>I think legally there suppose to put a sticker somewhere when they do
>update the PCM for emissions. Not sure if that applys to other issues.

You seem awfully paranoid about this. Sure, that kind of thing could have
happened but I don't see any reason to think it has.

And if if has, then the problem will stop once everyone gets updates,
and then you'll know.

>My brother in law just took his corolla S into the dealer last week for
>some warranty repair of door molding that would always leak, and a
>slight rough idle at times. He came out of that deal with a NEW PCM.
>He did not ask for one. And no real explanation of why. Makes me wonder...
>
>He has had small continuing issues with that car since he bought it.
>Now, he wants to trade it off for a Honda. Five times into the dealer
>for warranty work was enough for him

Often there are PCM updates. One of the nice things about software is that
it's effectively free to update.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

bob urz > wrote:
>Well of course the software is clean. the software in the RTOS that
>controls the throttle works as intended.

Oh, also looking at the report, there isn't really any RTOS, just one big
loop.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 09:25:21 -0600, bob urz >
wrote:

>On 2/9/2011 8:40 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

>>
>> So... the answer is basically that the chances are pretty good the Toyota
>> software is clean, but that complex software systems should never be trusted
>> completely. So know where your prindle is and learn how to use it.
>> --scott
>
>Well of course the software is clean. the software in the RTOS that
>controls the throttle works as intended. But when some not discovered
>outside event happens the software goes into a undefined state
>and this could happen. I remember doing some events with the military
>where high ranking officers would come up to the podium and talk
>and of a sudden there was strange noises in the sound system
>unexplained. Took awhile to figure that one out. Turned out their
>blackberry's were interfering with the sound system. Solution,
>go up to speak with all blackberry TURNED OFF!
>That comes under the heading of unexpected interference event.

Similar, but different story. Guy working for Walgreens told this to
me in an IT class way back.
An old batch program had worked flawlessly processing hundreds of
thousands of transactions nightly for years.
Big program, still using cards then, and it was thousands of cards.
Then it blew up. Took him and 2 other guys working on the dump all
night to figure it out.
There was not a single error in the transactions.
First time it had happened.
The solution was to add a null transaction with an error to the front
of the deck.

Never had a Toyota and probably won't, but I agree with Scott if he's
saying know how to shut your car down.
Got no idea what "prindle" means.
Too many Toyotas running around to be serious problem with them.

--Vic