On Mar 1, 11:31*pm, mm wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:53:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:

I don't know, but in the case of the Lexus that killed 4 people in CA,
the car was going out of control long enough for a passenger to call
911 and be on the call long enough to tell what was happening. *The
driver was a CA Highway Patrol officer, who you would think would have
enough sense and understanding of what to do so with that amount of
time you would think he would have tried all the obvious things.

At the time, I thought it was the driver's fault, but I don't think so
anymore.

I _know_ it was the driver's fault. There is no debate about that.
He was just plain stupid.

Harry K

On Mar 2, 5:19*am, wrote:
On Mar 1, 11:47*pm, terry wrote:





On Mar 1, 6:01*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:

"In any passenger vehicle, even the weakest set of brakes is more
powerful than the strongest engine. There is no reason that a driver
should not be able to stop a Toyota when it exhibits the run-away
problem. The key is to not panic, apply the brakes, shift into neutral
and pull to the side of the road."

Sounds easy enough. ;-)- Hide quoted text -

While there may be some sort of unsolved interface problem that causes
an unexpected acceleration one does wonder how many genuine instances
there are? And maybe how many litigiuos one!

There may be also be something to the allegation 'Here's chance to
take a bite out a none North American auto producer'.

But how many 'incidents' are due to driver error or insufficient
competency in dealing with something unusual.

Every driver SHOULD, although one doubts whether many do, know what to
do if/when their vehicle acts in an unexpected manner.

For example when we started towing a trailer with a 1976 Chev. Impala
we reviewed what could happen if, for example we lost the car's power
assisted hydraulic brakes (no dual braking then!) and/or the engine
stopped and we had no power assisted brakes or steering. With engine
off we then practiced bringing the whole rig to a stop by using the
foot operated parking brake. Never had to do it for real but knew we
could and with the family and all gear on board.

In another instance we had a V.W diesel 'take off' (running on it's
own crankcase fumes on a warm day). Having read about the probable
cause we depressed the clutch, disconnecting the engine which started
to race uncontrollably; pulled into side of the road, stopped, and
then stalled the engine, hoping not break anything! It stopped and
when the engine had cooled bit we drove to the dealer.

Many years before, in 1953/4 we had a wheel break off the rear axle of
a 1926 Daimler! But again somehow we knew which way to turn the wheels
and brake (manual rod brakes no power assist at all) to bring the
vehicle to a halt without turning over.

Included in the above axiom of "Think about what COULD happen and
rehearse what to do about it", is that all members of this family
(except one) prefer manual vehicles and state a preference for a
proper hand brake lever located centre console. Which also means that
in certain emergency situations the front seat passenger could also
operate the handbrake!

How do you explain the fact that over the last 5 years or so Toyota
has a rate of these incidents happening that is 2X or 3X the rate of
other car manufacturers? * If it was just people doing something
wrong, the rates should be about the same. * They are not. *I saw a
chart comparing them and GM was low, at like 1/3 the number of
Totyota. * And Toyota was similar to other manufacturers before they
moved to the new fly by wire system. * Which is not to say that proves
it's an electronic problem, it could be something mechanical in the
design too, but it does tend to support that it's an electronic
problem.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

AS far as Toyota goes, at least _some_ of it is an electronic
problem. A 'stuck throttle' does not cause acceleration unless the
driver is already accelerating when it sticks.

I saw a clip yesterday on the news where a woman crawled into a parked
car, started it. jumped curb, across sidewalk and 1/2 way into a
store. Stuck throttle was her excuse. It must have also caused the
car to shift into drive instead of reverse. Riiiigggghhhhttt.

Harry K

wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:35:05 -0500, Tony
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:05:13 -0500, Tony
wrote:

LouB wrote:
Tony wrote:
mm wrote:
My friend had a Rav 4. I don't know what that is. Today my friend
says it has unintended acceleration, but only a little. !!!!
If I owned one of those Toyota vehicles affected, I would install an
auxiliary engine kill switch before I drove it again.
And when you kill the engine you loose both power steering and power
brakes.
Loose it, or it becomes more difficult? That would be a shame if I
couldn't steer or brake my car because I ran out of gasoline. Are there
any vehicles like that?

When I taught my niece to drive, in a large empty parking lot, at about
35mph I told her I was turning off the engine. Then I told her to make
a left hand turn. She's a tiny little thing but she struggled and it
did turn. As far as the brakes, if it's vacuum assisted you still have
normal braking until you pump it too many times and runs out of the
vacuum. Don't pump them, apply pressure until you stop.

I told her that if her engine ever dies for whatever reason, that will
be the result, so be ready for it.
You loose the ASSIST. Means braking needs both feet and steering
needs some muscle. At speed the steering is not much of an issue,
while at low speeds it can be very difficult. Braking the
opposite.(sorta)
The good part about braking is you will have full power assisted braking
until you pump the pedal a couple times... so Don't Pump it!

Under hard acceleration, you may lack the vacuum assist as well.
Anyone who has driven a car with vacuum wipers knows what happens when
you are flooring the gas pedal. The wipers slow dramatically or stop.

Vacuum assisted brakes have that large vacuum canister with a check
valve. A second or so idling and it has enough vacuum to work, and a
check valve so it works if your throttle is to the floor, or your engine
dies, it still has enough vacuum for a couple pumps. Try it with your
car in the driveway. Put it in park, turn off the engine, then pump the
brakes. You should get 1 to 3 good pumps before you feel in the pedal
that the vacuum assist is not working anymore.

wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:13:07 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:05:30 -0500, wrote:

HOWEVER - the brakes must be applied HARD - and STEADY - NOT PUMPED -
to stop the vehicle as quickly as possible. Lighter braking will give
the brakes too much time to heat up and fade - and pumping at WOT
looses your vacuum boot VERY QUICKLY.
People forget they have a parking / "emergency" brakes? What a crazy
world.


HOO BOY!

HOO BOY! And a Woo Hoo!

20% braking at the very most. At highway speeds after accelerating
uncontrollably they will get too hot to work long before you can stop
the vehicle. And no way will they make a difference if the vehicle is
still in gear. Didn't we go through this recently? They don't even
call them "emergency brakes" any more. They call them "parking brakes".

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , wrote:
On Mar 1, 9:13=A0pm, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:05:30 -0500, wrote:
HOWEVER - the brakes must be applied HARD - and STEADY - NOT PUMPED -
to stop the vehicle as quickly as possible. Lighter braking will give
the brakes too much time to heat up and fade - and pumping at WOT
looses your vacuum boot VERY QUICKLY.
People forget they have a parking / "emergency" brakes? =A0What a crazy
world.
Not sure what your point is but if it's to suggest that the parking
brake could be used to stop a car while it's under near max power,
that won't work. They are intended for parking only, the brake pads
are smaller than the main pads,

Not true. The parking brake uses exactly the same pads that the service brake
uses, except (as noted) on only two wheels instead of all four.

When using the rear brakes with the brake pedal, they give about 20% of
the braking power. That is with vacuum assist! Using the parking brake
lever or pedal they provide even less braking power with no vacuum assist.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:


"AZ Nomad" wrote
that quote doesn't imply the brakes will stop the car without being in
neutral. the brakes won't stop the car if, in fact, it is in gear and
accelerating (or at least once the breaks start slipping due to
overheating), it won't.

Yes it will, but probably no more than two times. The engine is no
match for the brakes.

That has been my understanding in the past, but I'm not so sure about
some of the newer cars from all that I've read. I'll have to try it on
my wife's car since it won't work on mine. When I push both the gas and
brake at the same time, the engine goes to idle no matter the speed.
When stopped, it it like being in neutral if I hold the brake down.

Dang, you can't even do "line lock" burnouts!

In article , Tony wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article
,
wrote:
On Mar 1, 9:13=A0pm, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:05:30 -0500, wrote:
HOWEVER - the brakes must be applied HARD - and STEADY - NOT PUMPED -
to stop the vehicle as quickly as possible. Lighter braking will give
the brakes too much time to heat up and fade - and pumping at WOT
looses your vacuum boot VERY QUICKLY.
People forget they have a parking / "emergency" brakes? =A0What a crazy
world.
Not sure what your point is but if it's to suggest that the parking
brake could be used to stop a car while it's under near max power,
that won't work. They are intended for parking only, the brake pads
are smaller than the main pads,

Not true. The parking brake uses exactly the same pads that the service brake
uses, except (as noted) on only two wheels instead of all four.

When using the rear brakes with the brake pedal, they give about 20% of
the braking power. That is with vacuum assist! Using the parking brake
lever or pedal they provide even less braking power with no vacuum assist.

I didn't say they provided equivalent braking power. I just pointed out that
they use the same pads as the service brakes.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article
,
wrote:
On Mar 1, 9:13=A0pm, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:05:30 -0500, wrote:
HOWEVER - the brakes must be applied HARD - and STEADY - NOT PUMPED
- to stop the vehicle as quickly as possible. Lighter braking will
give the brakes too much time to heat up and fade - and pumping at
WOT looses your vacuum boot VERY QUICKLY.

People forget they have a parking / "emergency" brakes? =A0What a
crazy world.

Not sure what your point is but if it's to suggest that the parking
brake could be used to stop a car while it's under near max power,

Or just at a considerable speed.

that won't work. They are intended for parking only, the brake pads
are smaller than the main pads,

Not true. The parking brake uses exactly the same pads that the
service brake uses, except (as noted) on only two wheels instead of
all four.


yes,the LEAST effective pair of braking wheels.
He IS right about rear brake pads being smaller than the fronts.
Most of a car's braking is from the front pair of wheels.
Also,disc brakes don't perform well without hydraulic power.


not hydraulically driven and only on 2
wheels. They could bring a car that is not under power to a stop,
but even then only in a much longer distance than the regular
brakes. Under full power, they would not have a chance.

This has been my experience.

They would
probably be useful in getting some additional stopping power, but
whether they could make a significant difference is doubtful.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article
,
wrote:
How do you explain the fact that over the last 5 years or so Toyota
has a rate of these incidents happening that is 2X or 3X the rate of
other car manufacturers? If it was just people doing something
wrong, the rates should be about the same. They are not. I saw a
chart comparing them and GM was low, at like 1/3 the number of
Totyota. And Toyota was similar to other manufacturers before they
moved to the new fly by wire system. Which is not to say that proves
it's an electronic problem, it could be something mechanical in the
design too, but it does tend to support that it's an electronic
problem.

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?

Yes,exactly.
If one's foot is on the brake,the throttle should naturally go back to
idle.
although,it would cause some trouble for left-foot brakers when they
unknowingly ride the brakes.
Hmm,might teach them to properly brake,with the right foot. B-)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Mar 2, 7:01*am, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Mar 2, 5:55*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"mm" wrote

Yes. And some of them won't turn off either, some of the ones with no
keyhole.
You have to hold the button for something like three seconds. *That sounds
like a very long time if you are accelerating in traffic.

Apply brakes, shift into neutral.

No more acceleration.

Do you know for sure how the shift mechanism works on all these cars?
The throttle is fly by wire, what makes you so sure there isn't
something similar for the tranny that could block it from being moved
into certain positions under certain conditions? That even seems
desirable, does it not? Like preventing it from being moved into
park while it's moving?

As for the 3 seconds to shut the engine off via the starting button on
the Lexus, that is indeed the case. And it's worse than that it
could take 3 seconds while roaring down the highway. Who would know
that it takes 3 seconds and hold the button in for that long?
Apparently it takes 3 secs while the car is moving, which is not the
normal shut-down sequence you would experience everyday. In fact,
you'd most likely only experience it when something was seriously
wrong. And then it would seem more likely many people would continue
to push the button again and again instead of just holding it in. To
top it off, the Lexus was a rental, so the driver had no familiarity
with it.

I'm quite amazed at how people want to just attribute this to driver
stupidity. In the famous Lexus case the driver was an experienced CA
highway patrol officer who had taken special driving training as part
of his job. I'd be pretty amazed if he didn't try to put the car in
neutral.

On Mar 2, 9:50*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , wrote:

On Mar 1, 9:13=A0pm, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:05:30 -0500, wrote:
HOWEVER - the brakes must be applied HARD - and STEADY - NOT PUMPED -
to stop the vehicle as quickly as possible. Lighter braking will give
the brakes too much time to heat up and fade - and pumping at WOT
looses your vacuum boot VERY QUICKLY.

People forget they have a parking / "emergency" brakes? =A0What a crazy
world.

Not sure what your point is but if it's to suggest that the parking
brake could be used to stop a car while it's under near max power,
that won't work. *They are intended for parking only, the brake pads
are smaller than the main pads,

Not true. The parking brake uses exactly the same pads that the service brake
uses, except (as noted) on only two wheels instead of all four.



Maybe on YOUR car, but not on my Mercedes. The parking brake pads are
completely seperate. I'm not sure what various other manufacturers
do. I'm sure others as you say do use the same pads. But even if
they do, it then has even less relevance to stopping the car under
runaway conditions. If you're already standing on the hydraulic
brakes that use the same pads, applying the parking brake isn't going
to do anything,

On Mar 2, 9:48*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , wrote:

How do you explain the fact that over the last 5 years or so Toyota
has a rate of these incidents happening that is 2X or 3X the rate of
other car manufacturers? * If it was just people doing something
wrong, the rates should be about the same. * They are not. *I saw a
chart comparing them and GM was low, at like 1/3 the number of
Totyota. * And Toyota was similar to other manufacturers before they
moved to the new fly by wire system. * Which is not to say that proves
it's an electronic problem, it could be something mechanical in the
design too, but it does tend to support that it's an electronic
problem.

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?


Very good question and apparently one of the key differences between
Toyota and the other manufacturers that do have it. Another
question is if the design other manufacturers used involves the
computer doing it or if there is some seperate circuit that does it.
The obvious problem being that if the computer is the interlock
mechanism, then when it's going nuts and ordering full power, it may
also be incapable of executing the safety program as well.

Harry K wrote:
On Mar 1, 11:31 pm, mm wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:53:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:

I don't know, but in the case of the Lexus that killed 4 people in CA,
the car was going out of control long enough for a passenger to call
911 and be on the call long enough to tell what was happening. The
driver was a CA Highway Patrol officer, who you would think would have
enough sense and understanding of what to do so with that amount of
time you would think he would have tried all the obvious things.
At the time, I thought it was the driver's fault, but I don't think so
anymore.

I _know_ it was the driver's fault. There is no debate about that.
He was just plain stupid.

More the fault of the car dealership that gave him that loaner car
even after the previous customer who'd used it reported the sudden
acceleration problem to them. They loaned it out again anyway.

Hell Toupee wrote in :

Harry K wrote:
On Mar 1, 11:31 pm, mm wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:53:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:

I don't know, but in the case of the Lexus that killed 4 people in CA,
the car was going out of control long enough for a passenger to call
911 and be on the call long enough to tell what was happening. The
driver was a CA Highway Patrol officer, who you would think would have
enough sense and understanding of what to do so with that amount of
time you would think he would have tried all the obvious things.
At the time, I thought it was the driver's fault, but I don't think so
anymore.

I _know_ it was the driver's fault. There is no debate about that.
He was just plain stupid.

More the fault of the car dealership that gave him that loaner car
even after the previous customer who'd used it reported the sudden
acceleration problem to them. They loaned it out again anyway.


It's common to have failures that are not readily repeatable by service
techs. You can't fix when you cannot diagnose,because the reported problem
did not occur when checking it out.

and isn't the operator responsible for learning about the engine shut-off
procedure from the Operators Manual? Even if it's a loaner?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 07:34:33 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote:
....

No, the deaths and accidents are the fault of stupid drivers. ...

Good grief!

Other than possibly being in very close quarters at initiation of the
event, one has to wonder what actually did happen other than panic and
inappropriate or incorrect response. If one were in a parking space and
it surged, it would be highly likely to hit something directly in
front/rear before had time to react. Similarly in close traffic. But
on open road as many seem to have been, one wonders why the disasters,
indeed.

But since there are no black boxes and personal recounts are notoriously
inaccurate (both for lack of actual recollection and knowledge as well
as for face-saving reasons) there's really no way to know what any
individual did in any given circumstance. And, of course, if there's
not a record of failure to respond to an input as well as the response,
even a black box wouldn't be the unequivocal answer, either.

And, unfortunately, there's no equivalent of air-crash safety post event
forensic investigation so afaik there's been no exhaustive study of any
of the events beyond simply police/highway patrol routine accident
reports. What, if anything, Toyota has done from any of the reports is
not publicly available altho one presumes at least something.

The CA incident is indeed the most mind-boggling of all I've heard and
doesn't say much for CHIPS training if actually was anything other than
a desk-bound supervisor or somesuch individual behind the wheel.

Panic and untrained/unskilled drivers certainly have a large component
to play in end results methinks as well even though the initiating event
is hardware/software related it appears...

--

On Mar 2, 9:24*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
wrote:

-snip-

All you need to do is look at accelleration figures in comparison to
stopping distance figures. A car takes X number of feet to accellerate
from a stop to 100 KPH. The stopping distance is generally something
in the neighbourhood of X/4 feet, meaning the brakes are dissipating
roughly 4 times the power the engine is producing.

I'd love to see a physics class [or Mythbusters] take out the words
like "a car" and "x number" and "generally in the neighborhood" and
"roughly". * * throw in a few things like inertia and the difference
in a drive train and brake pads. . . *and find out why none of the
reports that I've heard have said "The engine was at full throttle, I
was going 50 miles an hour and was able to get the car stopped with my
brakes."

Even the guy who drove to the dealership with a full throttle engine
who had the presence of mind to go to neutral, brake, go back in gear,
accelerate. . . then back to neutral for control said his brakes would
not slow the car while it was in full throttle position.

Looking for more proof for *my* thoughts- I found some middle ground
in actual research by Car & Driver-http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended...

In a nutshell-
"Certainly the most natural reaction to a stuck-throttle emergency is
to stomp on the brake pedal, possibly with both feet. *. . . *brakes
by and large can still overpower and rein in an engine roaring under
full throttle. With the Camry s throttle pinned while going 70 mph,
the brakes easily overcame all 268 horsepower straining against them
and stopped the car in 190 feet that s *. . . *just 16 feet longer
than with the Camry s throttle closed. From 100 mph, the
stopping-distance differential was 88 feet . . . *We also tried one
go-for-broke run at 120 mph, and, even then, the car quickly
decelerated to about 10 mph before the brakes got excessively hot and
the car refused to decelerate any further."

Maybe by the time you got to 10MPH you'd have the presence of mind to
put it in neutral- *

Don't know why they didn't try a Lexus. * Would have loved to see what
happened if you first tried the brakes-- then applied full power.
Seems like that would have been human nature. * *



HOWEVER - the brakes must be applied HARD - and STEADY - NOT PUMPED -
to stop the vehicle as quickly as possible. Lighter braking will give
the brakes too much time to heat up and fade - and pumping at WOT
looses your vacuum boot VERY QUICKLY.

If you are going slow enough, and your brakes are good enough, I
agree, you have a chance by mash 'em and hold 'em. *


Going slow enough? According to your own source, which I think is an
excellent one, even at 120MPH the brakes were capable of slowing the
car to 10mph. At that point, if all else failed you could stear the
car off the road into a guardrail, ditch, or some similar roadside
place to bring it to an end.


* * Problem is-
it isn't a perfect world. * *In the Calif crash, the car was a loaner
whose brakes were *already compromised. *

How were the brakes compromised?





[still- it looks like
shifting into neutral should have saved the day. *but we don't *know*
that they didn't try that.]

How do you know that they didn't try that? With a CA highlway patrol
officer that was trained in police driving techniques and surely isn't
an idiot driving, I would strongly suspect that they would have tried
it.




Audi & a couple other manufacturers have a shut off on their
drive-by-wire vehicles, so hitting the brakes kills the throttle. I
hate the idea of software on throttles, brakes, or steering-- but that
one seems like common sense. * * OTOH- if this is a computer problem,
what's to say that would work anyway.

Jim

It would work if the circuit that cuts off the throttle when breaking
is independent of the computer.

On Mar 2, 10:46*am, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 2, 5:19*am, wrote:





On Mar 1, 11:47*pm, terry wrote:

On Mar 1, 6:01*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:

"In any passenger vehicle, even the weakest set of brakes is more
powerful than the strongest engine. There is no reason that a driver
should not be able to stop a Toyota when it exhibits the run-away
problem. The key is to not panic, apply the brakes, shift into neutral
and pull to the side of the road."

Sounds easy enough. ;-)- Hide quoted text -

While there may be some sort of unsolved interface problem that causes
an unexpected acceleration one does wonder how many genuine instances
there are? And maybe how many litigiuos one!

There may be also be something to the allegation 'Here's chance to
take a bite out a none North American auto producer'.

But how many 'incidents' are due to driver error or insufficient
competency in dealing with something unusual.

Every driver SHOULD, although one doubts whether many do, know what to
do if/when their vehicle acts in an unexpected manner.

For example when we started towing a trailer with a 1976 Chev. Impala
we reviewed what could happen if, for example we lost the car's power
assisted hydraulic brakes (no dual braking then!) and/or the engine
stopped and we had no power assisted brakes or steering. With engine
off we then practiced bringing the whole rig to a stop by using the
foot operated parking brake. Never had to do it for real but knew we
could and with the family and all gear on board.

In another instance we had a V.W diesel 'take off' (running on it's
own crankcase fumes on a warm day). Having read about the probable
cause we depressed the clutch, disconnecting the engine which started
to race uncontrollably; pulled into side of the road, stopped, and
then stalled the engine, hoping not break anything! It stopped and
when the engine had cooled bit we drove to the dealer.

Many years before, in 1953/4 we had a wheel break off the rear axle of
a 1926 Daimler! But again somehow we knew which way to turn the wheels
and brake (manual rod brakes no power assist at all) to bring the
vehicle to a halt without turning over.

Included in the above axiom of "Think about what COULD happen and
rehearse what to do about it", is that all members of this family
(except one) prefer manual vehicles and state a preference for a
proper hand brake lever located centre console. Which also means that
in certain emergency situations the front seat passenger could also
operate the handbrake!

How do you explain the fact that over the last 5 years or so Toyota
has a rate of these incidents happening that is 2X or 3X the rate of
other car manufacturers? * If it was just people doing something
wrong, the rates should be about the same. * They are not. *I saw a
chart comparing them and GM was low, at like 1/3 the number of
Totyota. * And Toyota was similar to other manufacturers before they
moved to the new fly by wire system. * Which is not to say that proves
it's an electronic problem, it could be something mechanical in the
design too, but it does tend to support that it's an electronic
problem.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

AS far as Toyota goes, at least _some_ of it is an electronic
problem. *A 'stuck throttle' does not cause acceleration unless the
driver is already accelerating when it sticks.

I saw a clip yesterday on the news where a woman crawled into a parked
car, started it. *jumped curb, across sidewalk and 1/2 way into a
store. *Stuck throttle was her excuse. *It must have also caused the
car to shift into drive instead of reverse. *Riiiigggghhhhttt.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Good point about the many reports where people say the Toyotas
accelerated far above the speed they were driving at before it
happened. If they were mostly that they were driving at highway
speed, but then couldn't stop, it would be easier to believe it was
stuck mat, pedal, etc. It seems kind of illogical that you could
somehow shove the mat forward enough into the pedal without knowing
it.

In the cases where someone starts a car up and drives into a store
it's a lot easier to believe they mistook the accelerator for the
brake. I read about these a lot and the other factor is they are
almost always elderly.

In article , wrote:
On Mar 2, 9:50=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Not true. The parking brake uses exactly the same pads that the service brake
uses, except (as noted) on only two wheels instead of all four.

Maybe on YOUR car, but not on my Mercedes.

You make the mistake of generalizing on the basis of a too-small sample -- in
this case, a sample of one.

The parking brake pads are
completely seperate. I'm not sure what various other manufacturers
do. I'm sure others as you say do use the same pads.

Trust Mercedes to do something bizarre. Your car is the exception, I assure
you. *Every* vehicle I have ever owned used a cable to activate the same pair
of rear shoes or pads that were activated hydraulically by the service brake.
That list of vehicles includes three Dodges, a Plymouth, a Ford van, a
Fiat, a Chevy truck, a Dodge truck, two Mazdas, an Oldsmobile, two Buicks, two
Suburbans, two Saturns, and a Pontiac. _Every_single_one_ used exactly the
same pads or shoes for the parking brake as for the service brake.

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:09:55 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , wrote:
On Mar 2, 9:50=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Not true. The parking brake uses exactly the same pads that the service brake
uses, except (as noted) on only two wheels instead of all four.

Maybe on YOUR car, but not on my Mercedes.

You make the mistake of generalizing on the basis of a too-small sample -- in
this case, a sample of one.

The parking brake pads are
completely seperate. I'm not sure what various other manufacturers
do. I'm sure others as you say do use the same pads.

Most cars with rear disk brakes use a small drum brake for the parking
brake.

wrote:
....

What is mind boggling is that you want to blame the victims for not
being able to overcome something THAT SHOULD NEVER, EVER, HAPPEN.

The victims are 0% to blame.
....

So, _nothing_ ever breaks in your world?

"Should" ain't "doesn't" no matter what it is; if it's mechanical it can
fail.

Not reacting properly when there apparently was quite a lot of time
(evidenced by 911 call in the CA incident) makes the participant an
(albeit unwilling) accomplice in the result of a failure (granted) not
of their doing initially.

Unless there was a complete failure of the ignition system _and_
transmission shifter as well as the accelerator, then yes, there's no
doubt there was operator error involved as well as the mechanical failure.

Nobody's blamed those involved for the initiating event; only questioned
the outcome as being inevitable.

The counter example cited is too dissimilar to be of any import -- in
that case the remedy is to take some unusual precaution a priori (of
course, if one is proposing a walk in a particularly unsavory area after
dark if just might not be so unusual to either choose another
entertainment venue or take the precautions); in the case under
discussion it's the lack of an appropriate response to the event after
it has occurred when there is ample opportunity to take corrective
action (and afaik there's no data that says such actions aren't possible).

So, I'll disagree with the assertion that there's no culpability in
severity of outcome independent of the driver in the incidents until and
unless it's shown that the remedial actions were unavailable.

--

(PST), wrote:

On Mar 2, 9:24*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
wrote:


-snip-
* * Problem is-
it isn't a perfect world. * *In the Calif crash, the car was a loaner
whose brakes were *already compromised. *

How were the brakes compromised?

I worded that clumsily- The car had the same uncontrolled acceleration
problem the week before- so there is a good chance that that driver
had jumped on the brakes once or twice. Ii should have said "brakes
may have been compromised".


[still- it looks like
shifting into neutral should have saved the day. *but we don't *know*
that they didn't try that.]

How do you know that they didn't try that? With a CA highlway patrol
officer that was trained in police driving techniques and surely isn't
an idiot driving, I would strongly suspect that they would have tried
it.

I would too. but, as I said "we don't *know*".

Jim

wrote:
....

What is mind boggling is that you want to blame the victims for not
being able to overcome something THAT SHOULD NEVER, EVER, HAPPEN.

....

Or another take--

So, Capt Sully shouldn't have been trained to land w/o power, iow. It
_SHOULD_ never, ever, happen (but it does and did, of course).

--

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article
,
wrote:
On Mar 2, 9:50=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Not true. The parking brake uses exactly the same pads that the
service brake uses, except (as noted) on only two wheels instead of
all four.

Maybe on YOUR car, but not on my Mercedes.

You make the mistake of generalizing on the basis of a too-small
sample -- in this case, a sample of one.

The parking brake pads are
completely seperate. I'm not sure what various other manufacturers
do. I'm sure others as you say do use the same pads.

Trust Mercedes to do something bizarre. Your car is the exception, I
assure you. *Every* vehicle I have ever owned used a cable to activate
the same pair of rear shoes or pads that were activated hydraulically
by the service brake. That list of vehicles includes three Dodges, a
Plymouth, a Ford van, a Fiat, a Chevy truck, a Dodge truck, two
Mazdas, an Oldsmobile, two Buicks, two Suburbans, two Saturns, and a
Pontiac. _Every_single_one_ used exactly the same pads or shoes for
the parking brake as for the service brake.



some cars with rear disc brakes use a tiny DRUM brake built into the rotor
center for the "emergency" brake,because disc calipers need so much more
force to be effective.

either way,cable brake force is NOWHERE near the braking power that
hydraulic discs have.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:26:29 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

Hell Toupee wrote in :

Harry K wrote:
On Mar 1, 11:31 pm, mm wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:53:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:

I don't know, but in the case of the Lexus that killed 4 people in CA,
the car was going out of control long enough for a passenger to call
911 and be on the call long enough to tell what was happening. The
driver was a CA Highway Patrol officer, who you would think would have
enough sense and understanding of what to do so with that amount of
time you would think he would have tried all the obvious things.
At the time, I thought it was the driver's fault, but I don't think so
anymore.

I _know_ it was the driver's fault. There is no debate about that.
He was just plain stupid.

More the fault of the car dealership that gave him that loaner car
even after the previous customer who'd used it reported the sudden
acceleration problem to them. They loaned it out again anyway.

I didn't know about that.

It's common to have failures that are not readily repeatable by service
techs. You can't fix when you cannot diagnose,because the reported problem
did not occur when checking it out.

If a a problem was reported by the previous driver, none of what you
say is an excuse for lending it out. It might be an excuse for
returning it to the owner, but not for lending it out without
notifying the borrower about the problem that they couldn't find or
fix.

and isn't the operator responsible for learning about the engine shut-off
procedure from the Operators Manual? Even if it's a loaner?

Maybe, maybe not. Probably not.

What do you claim was in the manual that he didn't know? If there
were something really novel, the dealership should have explained it.
If it wasn't really novel, then he would have been able to turn off
the car.

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:08:52 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:01:21 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:55:24 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:37:24 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:49:48 -0600, dpb wrote:

LouB wrote:
Tony wrote:
mm wrote:

My friend had a Rav 4. I don't know what that is. Today my friend
says it has unintended acceleration, but only a little. !!!!

If I owned one of those Toyota vehicles affected, I would install an
auxiliary engine kill switch before I drove it again.

And when you kill the engine you loose both power steering and power
brakes.

Better than uncontrolled acceleration, undoubtedly.

Unless they're fully hydraulic steering (of which I know of no autos; do
have such a tractor), it's only the power assist that's lost, not
steering. Same w/ the brakes, it's only the power assist.

The actual recommendation is to shift to neutral and let it over-rev;
what possibility/likelihood of blowing an engine is I've not firm
estimate but if that happens you're in same boat anyway...

Probability of blowing the engine is much less than 2% - the compiuter
shuts off fuel at about 4500 RPM in neutral.

Unless of course the runaway condition is being caused by a fault in
the computer!

Would need to be a compound fault, as the rev limiter has no
connection to the throttle. It shuts off injectors.
SO - even if the "unintended accelleration" problem IS a computer
glitch, it would still not blow up if put in neutral.......


If the computer is malfunctioning, then I think you can allow for the
possiblity that it may not do what you expect on many fronts. We don't
know the nature of what is causing the fault. Is it an unreliable
oscillator? A bad ground? Leaky capacitor? Power fluctuations?
Electrical noise? Any of those things could have widepread
repercussions in the computer.



Maybe it will shut off the fuel, and maybe it won't. Toyota insisted
that the computer would have thrown up an error code after an alleged
runaway incident. It has been proven conclusively that that is not
correct. An engineer has demonstrated live on TV that he can cause the
computer to go into runaway acceleration, and it does not throw up any
trouble codes as a result.


And how is he "throwing it into runaway accelleration"??????

I don't know the specifics. He has equipment connected to points in
the computer that allow him to manipulate it.

I guess by applying hi or low logic signals to various circuits.

No logic signals afaik, no signals at all. He just connected them.

In article , wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:26:29 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

Hell Toupee wrote in :

Harry K wrote:
On Mar 1, 11:31 pm, mm wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:53:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:

I don't know, but in the case of the Lexus that killed 4 people in
CA, the car was going out of control long enough for a passenger to
call 911 and be on the call long enough to tell what was happening.
The driver was a CA Highway Patrol officer, who you would think
would have enough sense and understanding of what to do so with
that amount of time you would think he would have tried all the
obvious things.
At the time, I thought it was the driver's fault, but I don't think
so anymore.

I _know_ it was the driver's fault. There is no debate about that.
He was just plain stupid.

More the fault of the car dealership that gave him that loaner car
even after the previous customer who'd used it reported the sudden
acceleration problem to them. They loaned it out again anyway.

It's common to have failures that are not readily repeatable by service
techs. You can't fix when you cannot diagnose, because the reported
problem did not occur when checking it out.

and isn't the operator responsible for learning about the engine
shut-off procedure from the Operators Manual? Even if it's a loaner?

The operator should have known there was a problem, diagnosed it and
fixed it properly before leaving the dealership. He must have been
stupid.

So the operator is supposed to do the job of his dealership's mechanic
onto the dealership's loaner car? For a problem that the operator had no
opportunity to become aware of until on the road way out somewhere?

(Or was the operator supposed to not leave the dealership after
returning the car until the dealership confirms successful diagnosis and
repair of the problematic loaner car being returned by the operator?
And to verify that the dealership was not dishonest about successful
diagnosis and repair of the dealership's loaner car after it's return to
the dealership?)

- Don Klipstein )

In , Doug Miller wrote:
In ,
wrote:
How do you explain the fact that over the last 5 years or so Toyota
has a rate of these incidents happening that is 2X or 3X the rate of
other car manufacturers? If it was just people doing something
wrong, the rates should be about the same. They are not. I saw a
chart comparing them and GM was low, at like 1/3 the number of
Totyota. And Toyota was similar to other manufacturers before they
moved to the new fly by wire system. Which is not to say that proves
it's an electronic problem, it could be something mechanical in the
design too, but it does tend to support that it's an electronic
problem.

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?

*Programming* a throttle override by the brake? As in relying on lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably apply an
override onto the throttle?

- Don Klipstein )

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:05:30 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:42:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Mar 1, 4:48*pm, "chaniarts"
wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Mar 1, 3:21 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:08:01 -0600, AZ Nomad

wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:15:57 -0500,
wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:00:44 -0600, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:39:39 -0500, Tony
wrote:
mm wrote:

My friend had a Rav 4. I don't know what that is. Today my
friend says it has unintended acceleration, but only a little.
!!!!

If I owned one of those Toyota vehicles affected, I would
install an auxiliary engine kill switch before I drove it again.

I would simply assure myself that I could tell the difference
between the brake and accelerator pedals. This is the same
****ing hysteria that struct audi ten years ago. The reports
vanished when audi installed an interlock so that the driver had
to have his boot on the brake pedal before putting the car in
gear.

Not even remotely the same thing.

And you were there in each and every case? People occasionally stomp
on the wrong pedal. It happens every week all the time. The only
thing different now is the media hysteria.

The only hysteria evident is yours.

The Toyotas, when they "run away" seem to do it while the driver is
just cruising along, sometimes already at highway speeds. Has nothing
to do with a foot hitting the gas pedal rather than the brake pedal.
In fact, part of the problem is that at 70-80 MPH with both feet
standing on the brakes, you can't stop the vehicle.

This has been widely reported.

The problem with Audis would happen when the car was being moved from
a standing position because of the size and position of the pedals
making it easy to push the wrong one without realizing it.

Also widely reported.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"In fact, part of the problem is that at 70-80 MPH with both feet
standing on the brakes, you can't stop the vehicle."

I'm admittingy tossing out "partial information" here, since I can't
cite the source.

The other I heard a gentleman who was being interviewed on the radio -
who I believe was a spokesman from some Auto Safety organization - who
stated:

"In any passenger vehicle, even the weakest set of brakes is more
powerful than the strongest engine. There is no reason that a driver
should not be able to stop a Toyota when it exhibits the run-away
problem. The key is to not panic, apply the brakes, shift into neutral
and pull to the side of the road."

Sounds easy enough. ;-)

that quote doesn't imply the brakes will stop the car without being in
neutral. the brakes won't stop the car if, in fact, it is in gear and
accelerating (or at least once the breaks start slipping due to
overheating), it won't.

"that quote doesn't imply the brakes will stop the car without
being in neutral."

I'm not arguing whether the brakes will stop the car or not, but I
will argue that that is most certainly what the quote implies.

"In any passenger vehicle, even the weakest set of brakes is more
powerful than the strongest engine."

If indeed the brakes are stronger than the engine, then they will stop
the car even when it is in gear.

What would be the point of going on the radio and stating that "Any
brake system will stop a car that is in neutral."? That's pretty
obvious.

I can certainly see that as written in my post, you could take the
quote to mean the car must be in neutral. However, had you heard the
speaker speaking, with the inflections and pauses where they were, you
could easily tell that he was making 2 distinct points:

1 - The brakes are strong enough to overcome the most power engine.
2 - Here's the process to follow if you have a stuck accelerator.

Number 2 doesn't make Number 1 false.


All you need to do is look at accelleration figures in comparison to
stopping distance figures. A car takes X number of feet to accellerate
from a stop to 100 KPH. The stopping distance is generally something
in the neighbourhood of X/4 feet, meaning the brakes are dissipating
roughly 4 times the power the engine is producing.

It's not just Brakes vs Engine, though. See also mass, momentum,
inertia and gravity for additional information.

Those apply equally for both directions of acceleration. (OK, engine
has a disadvantage when its power after transmission loss is near or above
the rate at which brakes can remove the car's kinetic energy when the
engine does not apply torque to all wheels)

Unless of course, you are driving a weightless car.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In , 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?

*Programming* a throttle override by the brake? As in relying on lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably apply an
override onto the throttle?

Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a throttle
malfunction, for the override to not work would require a second malfunction.
Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely than any single
malfunction.

For additional safety, a mechanical interlock could be constructed -- but the
electronic systems are more reliable.

"Tony" wrote
That has been my understanding in the past, but I'm not so sure about
some of the newer cars from all that I've read. I'll have to try it on
my wife's car since it won't work on mine. When I push both the gas and
brake at the same time, the engine goes to idle no matter the speed. When
stopped, it it like being in neutral if I hold the brake down.

Dang, you can't even do "line lock" burnouts!

Nope, those days are gone. Shame since it is a Sonata Limited with the 249
hp V-6 It will beat a lot of so called muscle cars and has a top speed of
137 mph. I have no problem getting to 70 on the on-ramp.

wrote
Panic and untrained/unskilled drivers certainly have a large component
to play in end results methinks as well even though the initiating event
is hardware/software related it appears...

What is mind boggling is that you want to blame the victims for not
being able to overcome something THAT SHOULD NEVER, EVER, HAPPEN.

The victims are 0% to blame.

You do have a responsibility to your self and others to be properly trained
in the use of any machinery, be it a table saw, pistol, punch press or
automobile. Just as pilots train over and over how to handle a crippled
aircraft, drivers should know emergency procedures.

What do you do if the hood flies up?
Tire blows out
run out of gas
slush from a passing car blinds the windshield
you hit black ice
a car cuts in front of you
the truck next to you drifts into your lane
and a few hundred other possibilities. These thing happen every day and a
competent driver knows how to handle them to avoid a crash. Some days I
play the mental game of "what if" while driving. When the emergency
presents itself, I should be better equipped to handle it.

The victim is 0% to blame for the fault, but has a lot of blame for the lack
of ability to handle the situation safely. In most cases, I'd say 100%.

"Doug Miller" wrote

Not true. The parking brake uses exactly the same pads that the service
brake
uses, except (as noted) on only two wheels instead of all four.

Not true, My Sonata has rear disc brakes, but the parking brake has shoes
inside of a drum. I've tried stopping the car with it and doubt it would
have a lot of effect at full throttle.

OTOH, it does have a throttle over ride if you stop on the brakes. Engine
goes to idle no matter the pedal position.

"Doug Miller" wrote
Trust Mercedes to do something bizarre. Your car is the exception, I
assure
you. *Every* vehicle I have ever owned used a cable to activate the same
pair
of rear shoes or pads that were activated hydraulically by the service
brake.
That list of vehicles includes three Dodges, a Plymouth, a Ford van, a
Fiat, a Chevy truck, a Dodge truck, two Mazdas, an Oldsmobile, two Buicks,
two
Suburbans, two Saturns, and a Pontiac. _Every_single_one_ used exactly the
same pads or shoes for the parking brake as for the service brake.


Times are changing. You think it is bizarre, others are doing it now.

"mm" wrote
What do you claim was in the manual that he didn't know? If there
were something really novel, the dealership should have explained it.
If it wasn't really novel, then he would have been able to turn off
the car.



The car did not start/stop with a key. It has a button and a sensor that
knows you have the fob on you. Yes, the dealer should have explained how to
shut the car off. From what I've read, you have to hold the button for a
couple of seconds. I can see a panicked driver slapping the button
repeatedly instead of holding it for a few seconds. Just like turning off a
cell phone, you have to hold the button.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 01:51:33 +0000 (UTC), Don Klipstein wrote:
In , Doug Miller wrote:
In ,
wrote:
How do you explain the fact that over the last 5 years or so Toyota
has a rate of these incidents happening that is 2X or 3X the rate of
other car manufacturers? If it was just people doing something
wrong, the rates should be about the same. They are not. I saw a
chart comparing them and GM was low, at like 1/3 the number of
Totyota. And Toyota was similar to other manufacturers before they
moved to the new fly by wire system. Which is not to say that proves
it's an electronic problem, it could be something mechanical in the
design too, but it does tend to support that it's an electronic
problem.

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?

*Programming* a throttle override by the brake? As in relying on lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably apply an
override onto the throttle?

Most throttles are just a cable to the throttle body / airbox.
It wouldn't be reasonable to expect a solenoid to move the cable; the
added complexity might cause more problems.
However, all cars are fuel injected nowadays and they can cut the fuel
based on brakes. However, going to all the way lean to no fuel might have
ramifications with the cat or valves overheating. OK for a detected
panic situation, but I don't think it would be desirable every time the
brakes are used.

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:01:52 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In , 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?

*Programming* a throttle override by the brake? As in relying on lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably apply an
override onto the throttle?

Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a throttle
malfunction, for the override to not work would require a second malfunction.
Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely than any single
malfunction.

For additional safety, a mechanical interlock could be constructed -- but the
electronic systems are more reliable.

A mechanical interlock can malfunction resulting in a runaway throttle and
be far less safe than nothing at all.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:
In , 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?

*Programming* a throttle override by the brake? As in relying on
lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably apply an
override onto the throttle?

Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a throttle
malfunction, for the override to not work would require a second
malfunction. Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less
likely than any single malfunction.

For additional safety, a mechanical interlock could be constructed --
but the electronic systems are more reliable.



under normal conditions,the operator would/should not be applying both
throttle and brake at the same time.

However,I question any need or benefit for throttle-by-wire(TBW) in an
auto.
the old mechanical throttle cable and throttle position sensor at the
butterfly works fine,and has less chance for malfunction,particularly on
newer vehicles.In fact,TBW is added complexity and cost,and more prone to
failure.
It violates the KISS principle,too.

As has been demonstrated by the Toyota SW problem,TBW can suffer
programming errors,SW glitches,or component malfunctions resulting in loss
of control of the vehicle.And there's no backup or redundant system as
there are in aircraft.A critical failure and your engine runs away.


after checking Wiki,I found these "benefits" for TBW;
"The significance of ETC is that it much easier to integrate features to
the vehicle such as cruise control, traction control, stability control,
and precrash systems and others that require torque management, since the
throttle can be moved irrespective of the position of the driver's
accelerator pedal."

IMO,if you need a computer to control your traction or vehicle
stability,you should not be driving. If your vehicle needs "stability
control",it's an inherently unsafe vehicle,and should not be on public
roads.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Mar 2, 11:43*am, wrote:
On Mar 2, 7:01*am, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Mar 2, 5:55*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"mm" wrote

Yes. And some of them won't turn off either, some of the ones with no
keyhole.
You have to hold the button for something like three seconds. *That sounds
like a very long time if you are accelerating in traffic.

Apply brakes, shift into neutral.

No more acceleration.

Do you know for sure how the shift mechanism works on all these cars?

No, I don't know for sure, and I'm assuming you don't either. So I
guess it's open for discussion.

The throttle is fly by wire, what makes you so sure there isn't
something similar for the tranny that could block it from being moved
into certain positions under certain conditions? *

That even seems desirable, does it not?

Not in all instances.

Like preventing it from being moved into park while it's moving?

While I *might* not want to be able to put a tranny in park while it's
moving, I would most certainly want to be able to put it in neutral
for the very reason this "snow on the roof" thread has continued for
so long.

If my throttle got stuck, whether by a floor mat, an electronic fault,
a driver having a heart attack or a car jacker with a death wish, I'd
be really ****ed if I couldn't pop it into neutral in an attempt to
keep myself alive.


As for the 3 seconds to shut the engine off via the starting button on
the Lexus, that is indeed the case. * And it's worse than that it
could take 3 seconds while roaring down the highway. * Who would know
that it takes 3 seconds and hold the button in for that long?
Apparently it takes 3 secs while the car is moving, which is not the
normal shut-down sequence you would experience everyday. * In fact,
you'd most likely only experience it when something was seriously
wrong. * And then it would seem more likely many people would continue
to push the button again and again instead of just holding it in. * To
top it off, the Lexus was a rental, so the driver had no familiarity
with it.

I'm quite amazed at how people want to just attribute this to driver
stupidity. *

Just so ya know, I'm neither in that group nor not in that group. I
place no blame because I don't know what happened because I wasn't
there when it happened to any of them. All I know is what I think I
would do if I found myself in that situation. Brake first, neutral
next, shut it off I had to.

The only experience I *can* speak from is with my 1980 Mustang. A
faulty control module would occasionally shut the car down. The first
time it happened, I was traveling at 70 mph in the left lane of a
highway and all the gauges dropped to zero. I said to myself "That's
weird!" and calmly put the car into neutral, turned the key to restart
it, put it back into drive and continued on down the highway. Granted,
there was no need to panic since I wasn't accelerating, but my point
is that it wasn't that tough to quickly figure out what to try. I'm
pretty sure that some drivers would have freaked out and tried to
coast to the side of highway, possibly causing an accident as they
slowed down. I'd like to think that if my accelerator got stuck, I'd
handle it a similarly calm fashion.


In the famous Lexus case the driver was an experienced CA
highway patrol officer who had taken special driving training as part
of his job. *I'd be pretty amazed if he didn't try to put the car in
neutral.

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 02:35:22 -0500, mm
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:52:19 -0500, Tony
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:55:24 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:37:24 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:49:48 -0600, dpb wrote:

LouB wrote:
Tony wrote:
mm wrote:
My friend had a Rav 4. I don't know what that is. Today my friend
says it has unintended acceleration, but only a little. !!!!
If I owned one of those Toyota vehicles affected, I would install an
auxiliary engine kill switch before I drove it again.
And when you kill the engine you loose both power steering and power
brakes.
Better than uncontrolled acceleration, undoubtedly.

Unless they're fully hydraulic steering (of which I know of no autos; do
have such a tractor), it's only the power assist that's lost, not
steering. Same w/ the brakes, it's only the power assist.

The actual recommendation is to shift to neutral and let it over-rev;
what possibility/likelihood of blowing an engine is I've not firm
estimate but if that happens you're in same boat anyway...
Probability of blowing the engine is much less than 2% - the compiuter
shuts off fuel at about 4500 RPM in neutral.
Unless of course the runaway condition is being caused by a fault in
the computer!

Would need to be a compound fault, as the rev limiter has no
connection to the throttle. It shuts off injectors.
SO - even if the "unintended accelleration" problem IS a computer
glitch, it would still not blow up if put in neutral.......

Maybe it will shut off the fuel, and maybe it won't. Toyota insisted
that the computer would have thrown up an error code after an alleged
runaway incident. It has been proven conclusively that that is not
correct. An engineer has demonstrated live on TV that he can cause the
computer to go into runaway acceleration, and it does not throw up any
trouble codes as a result.


And how is he "throwing it into runaway accelleration"??????

My question too!!!!!! Is it on you tube? I saw the one where a
professor basically shorted two wires and the car went into runaway
mode. The brakes could not stop the car but putting it into neutral
then using the brakes worked. I question the odds of that same short
circuit happening, but I saw that on the code reader it showed no errors
after its runaway test.

That was his big point. Gilbert is his name. that it didn't set a
code, when Toyota insisted it would.

His other point was that shorting two wires made it accelerate. That
might have been a lesser point, because I don't know if in practice
those two particular wires could short. But he wasn't claiming to
have found the actual problem, just showing that he could have runaway
acc. with no code.
As long as the inputs used are not outside normal limits, and the
results (output) are what the inputs are calling for, why WOULD it set
a code?
If the input he shorted resulted in an input voltage that WAS supposed
to result in full throttle accelleration, it would not detect an
error.
IF however, some stray input (RF or whatever) got into the mix and
caused the engine to rev higher than the inputs would indicate (which
is what so many who know nothing about how digital full authority
engine controls (aka FADEC) works are postulating) the computer WOULD
trip a code in all likelihood.

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:08:52 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:01:21 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:55:24 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:37:24 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:49:48 -0600, dpb wrote:

LouB wrote:
Tony wrote:
mm wrote:

My friend had a Rav 4. I don't know what that is. Today my friend
says it has unintended acceleration, but only a little. !!!!

If I owned one of those Toyota vehicles affected, I would install an
auxiliary engine kill switch before I drove it again.

And when you kill the engine you loose both power steering and power
brakes.

Better than uncontrolled acceleration, undoubtedly.

Unless they're fully hydraulic steering (of which I know of no autos; do
have such a tractor), it's only the power assist that's lost, not
steering. Same w/ the brakes, it's only the power assist.

The actual recommendation is to shift to neutral and let it over-rev;
what possibility/likelihood of blowing an engine is I've not firm
estimate but if that happens you're in same boat anyway...

Probability of blowing the engine is much less than 2% - the compiuter
shuts off fuel at about 4500 RPM in neutral.

Unless of course the runaway condition is being caused by a fault in
the computer!

Would need to be a compound fault, as the rev limiter has no
connection to the throttle. It shuts off injectors.
SO - even if the "unintended accelleration" problem IS a computer
glitch, it would still not blow up if put in neutral.......


If the computer is malfunctioning, then I think you can allow for the
possiblity that it may not do what you expect on many fronts. We don't
know the nature of what is causing the fault. Is it an unreliable
oscillator? A bad ground? Leaky capacitor? Power fluctuations?
Electrical noise? Any of those things could have widepread
repercussions in the computer.


Anything that stops the clock would, by necessity, stop the engine
because the clock is required to fire the injectors and time the
spark. Absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for the engine to run if the oscillator
(clock) of the ECU was to fail.
Pretty much the same with a bad ground - as the injectors are ALL
powered externally and grounded through the ECU. Also, all the sensors
go to higher voltage as the input increases. A ground (Other than the
wired signal ground for each 3 wire resistance type sensor) is not
required on the majority of sensors, and if that ground went bad the
reference voltage would go out of spec, throwing a code or the sensor
would be detected as an open circuit (also an out of range value),
throwing a different code.
About the only thing external that could be causing an accelleration
problem would be digital noise entering the system as RFI that just
happened to be exactly the right frequency and amplitude , at exactly
the right place, to fool the computer into thinking it was a
legitimate signal.

Extremely unlikely - not at all like the analogue type fuel injection
computers used on the oldD-Jetronic system like the VW412. (and EFI
SuperBeetle)


Maybe it will shut off the fuel, and maybe it won't. Toyota insisted
that the computer would have thrown up an error code after an alleged
runaway incident. It has been proven conclusively that that is not
correct. An engineer has demonstrated live on TV that he can cause the
computer to go into runaway acceleration, and it does not throw up any
trouble codes as a result.


And how is he "throwing it into runaway accelleration"??????

I don't know the specifics. He has equipment connected to points in
the computer that allow him to manipulate it.

I guess by applying hi or low logic signals to various circuits.