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

"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.

"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.

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

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.

On 03/06/2010 04:56 PM, wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 12:20:36 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "jim > 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.
>
> 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.

indeed.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

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')

"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.

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

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