In article , AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:40:40 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , AZ Nomad
wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:07:46 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , AZ
Nomad
wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:26:29 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , AZ
Nomad
wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:24:15 -0600, Douglas Johnson
wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote:
The thing that really stood out to me was the statement by Toyota's
president

that they're going to look into programming a brake override for the
throttle.

I have only one question: WHY IN GOD'S NAME WAS THAT NOT THERE FROM THE

BEGINNING?

There are a very few times when you want to brake and throttle at the
same
time.
In the good old days, with drum brakes, crossing a stream, you wanted
the
brakes lightly on the drums to keep them dry. This kept them effective
after
leaving the stream. Give me some time, I probably can think of one or
two
more...

But these days, given the problems, it probably makes tons of sense.
This
morning, the Dallas paper said the Obama administration is considering
mandating
it. It must make sense vbg

Not only that, but most cars have the throttle connected mechanically
to an airbox. If you cut off the fuel every time the brakes are used,
it'll wreck havock with fuel air mixture. Do you think having valves
that only last 50K miles is a worthwhile side effect of providing a
fuel cutoff for idiots who lack the driving skills to turn the engine
off?

Who said anything about cutting off the fuel? Dropping the throttle back
to
idle is more than sufficient to stop runaway acceleration.


Do you think the linkage is going to be moved to idle, pedal and all?
Do you think you can move it at one end only?

Most likely the cable outer sheath at the throttle end would be moved.
Using mechanical means can cause more problems than might be solved.
If the contraption jams, you might have runaway conditions more often
than without the kluge.

Why do you think the cable needs to be moved _at all_ for the engine
computer
to reduce fuel flow?

look 5 lines up
and look 10 lines up

I guess I have to spell this out for you.

To stop runaway acceleration it is not necessary to cut off the flow of fuel.
Reducing fuel flow to idle levels is more than sufficient. The engine computer

controls the flow of fuel to the injectors. For the engine computer to reduce
this flow to idle levels does not require any movement of any mechanical
linkage.

Do you understand now?

Do I have to read the thread to you?
"Dropping the throttle back to dle is more than sufficient to stop
runaway acceleration."

What the **** do you think a throttle is? Software?

On many cars, yes, it is. Software-controlled, at any rate. The point remains,
there is no need for any sort of mechanical movement of the throttle pedal,
cable, linkage, or whatever for the engine computer to reduce fuel flow to the
injectors.

I replied "Using mechanical means can cause more problems than might
be solved."

I was saying that using a mechanical method was a bad idea.

I don't think anybody ever suggested that using *only* a mechanical method was
a good idea.