On Mar 2, 11:50*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:43:29 -0800 (PST), 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?
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?

How about like " I tried it on a Lexus ES300 and you can put it in
neutral any time you like, and when in neutral the car slows down, and
when floored in neutral the tachometer jumps between 3000 and 4500
rpm"




I'll bet you didn't do it on one where the car was undergoing
unintended acceleration, did you? You can do all the tests you want
on a PROPERLY FUNCTIONING car. Without knowing how the car is
designed and what is linked to what, you have no way of knowing what
would happen when it's undergoing this unintended acceleration.
How about the computer has the shift locked, the accelerator pegged
and isn't responding to any commands?

On Mar 3, 7:18*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:



"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.

Depends on the vehicle. In my experience, the overwhelming majority use the
exact same set of pads/shoes.

Gee, I guess it isn't that bizarre then. Yeah, I over generalized
suggesting it applied to all cars, but you were equally wrong
suggesting that it's bizarre to find a manufacturer that designs them
that way.

On Mar 2, 9:01*pm, (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.


That's obviously totally false. Let's say I have a single computer
that is running the throttle, the shift interlock, and the engine shut
off via the start/stop button. Actually that doesn't sound that far
fetched. Clearly you could write a program in such a way that the
program under certain conditions goes into a program loop where it
will no longer respond to either a change in throttle input or the
stop button and will also not unlock the shift. That's a single
program failure, not two simultaneous malfunctions.



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

I think it's arguable which are more reliable and which can be
designed to better fail safely. However for it to do what it needs
to do the interlock needs to be totally seperate from the computer
commanding the throttle.

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:18:58 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


"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.

Depends on the vehicle. In my experience, the overwhelming majority use the
exact same set of pads/shoes.

Actually not. Most cars with rear disk brakes use a small drum for the
parking brake.

On 03/03/2010 02:17 AM, Don Klipstein wrote:
In , wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:48:36 GMT, (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?
Because very many drivers will find the effect on driveability
something less than desireable?? And just how much authority do you
give the brakes over the throttle, and under what conditions, at what
road speed, and at what throttle position??

As if you expect need for the engine to be more than idling when the
brakes are applied?

- Don Klipstein )

What makes people too god damn stupid to pop it in neutral and switch
off the key? A woman testified to congress that she had both feet on the
brake and was pulling on the steering wheel as her car climbed over
100mph for 6 miles. She had to hit a guard rail to stop. How fracking
stupid can you get?

--
LSFT

wrote:
....

... There is a stack of dead bodies ...

AFAIK, there's no indication there _had_ to be any dead bodies other
than the drivers failed to take remedial action.

Can you find any indication anywhere that the simple expedient of
turning off the engine ignition wouldn't have stopped the vehicle?

--

wrote:

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

-snip-
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?

I don't know. But it proves false Toyotas contention that there were
no problems with the electronics- 'because if there was an electrical
problem a code would be set.'

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.

Stray input, short, open- all possible. Apparently one of those was
able to cause the problem without leaving a code.

Toyota should have known that it was possible as at least one customer
got his racing engine to the dealer where the service tech observed
it-- and was not able to pull a code.

Jim

On Mar 3, 3:32*am, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:28:09 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:17:36 -0500, 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.

Which is EXACTLY what was just said.

Really? Who other than me said that under heavy acceleration, engine
vacuum is reduced?

I'll give you a hint: NOBODY- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And what you are missing (seems to be a habit) is that there is a
_vacuum canister accumulator_ that permits full brake assist under all
conditions (if the engine was running at all) for a couple of
'pumps'. Try it yourself. While diving shut off engine and step on
brake.

Harry K

On Mar 3, 3:35*am, wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 20:47:18 -0800 (PST), Harry K





wrote:
On Mar 2, 4:55 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:11:16 -0600, dpb wrote:
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.

Rationalizew any way you wish. There is a stack of dead bodies that
says you are wrong.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And the cure for _not_ dieing has been published and should have been
known by every one of the victims (provided there was _time_ to react
properly). *You "totally innocent" stance is groundless. *Every driver
should know enough about the vehicle operation to take the proper
action without having to be told.

Harry K

You are truly "lost in space"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So you think operator's of equipment should not know how the thing
operates or what simple things to do to stop it if it malfunctions?
Strange.

Harry K

On Mar 3, 3:22*am, wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:32:08 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:







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.

Okay, how many of the items above do YOU practice dealing with on a
regular basis.

And by practice, I mean, replicate the situation and drive out of it.

Do you own a skid pad?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In my case, I didn't have to 'replicate' them. I had each and
everyone of them happen to me and knew enough about the vehicle to
avoid an accident. It ain't rocket science although you seem to think
it is.

As for skid pad. Didn't need one. Live in snow country and every kid
had a ball learning spins and recovery when adults weren't watching on
parking lots and country roads.

Harry K

wrote:
....
Yes, but you missed my whole point. You acknowledged that it's
desirable to have some kind of interlock to keep the car from being
shifted into at least Park while it's moving. OK, so I implement
that system via an interlock system consisting of a solenoid driven by
the computer. That's right, the same computer that is malfunctioning
and has the throttle pegged. ...

Automotives don't use simply a single computer -- hence there is no "the
computer". There are a multitude of very small (and some not so small)
microprocessors. The likelihood of there being multiple systems on the
same processor is small.

AFAIK there's discussion of firmware but no definitive data (released
anyway) regarding the role in the acceleration incidents. There (again,
apparently) may be some firmware issues w/ braking systems it seems...

Again, I've yet to see any indication there was/is anything that would
have prevented shifting to neutral or turning off the ignition as
effective countermeasures.

--

wrote:
....

I'll bet you didn't do it on one where the car was undergoing
unintended acceleration, did you? You can do all the tests you want
on a PROPERLY FUNCTIONING car. Without knowing how the car is
designed and what is linked to what, you have no way of knowing what
would happen when it's undergoing this unintended acceleration.
How about the computer has the shift locked, the accelerator pegged
and isn't responding to any commands?

Turn off ignition...

As far as has been released and as afaict from Mr Toyota's remarks, the
return to neutral function is mechanical linkage only.

--

Harry K wrote:
On Mar 3, 3:22 am, wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:32:08 -0500, "Ed
wrote:







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.

Okay, how many of the items above do YOU practice dealing with on a
regular basis.

And by practice, I mean, replicate the situation and drive out of it.

Do you own a skid pad?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In my case, I didn't have to 'replicate' them. I had each and
everyone of them happen to me and knew enough about the vehicle to
avoid an accident. It ain't rocket science although you seem to think
it is.

As for skid pad. Didn't need one. Live in snow country and every kid
had a ball learning spins and recovery when adults weren't watching on
parking lots and country roads.

Harry K
Hi,
Makes total sense! motor vehicle operator vs. driver. Driver is in
control of his car at all times. My friend who is a very good driver
crashed his Volvo XC90 last winter on icy rural road. He very well knew
what to do when his car started skidding but car's so called
traction/stability control won't let do what he wanted ro do. Took the
control off his hands.

On Mar 3, 12:31*am, mm wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 20:51:13 -0800 (PST), Harry K





wrote:
On Mar 2, 9:06 am, Hell Toupee wrote:
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 doesn't matter that the dealership was at fault there. *The primary
cause of the deaths was driver stupidity.

The primary cause was auto failure. *

Who was negligent? *The dealership.

It would have been great if the driver had found something that
worked, but there is no evidence he was negligent, and nothing you've
said even if true has suggested it.



Had he responded properly,
as I hope anyone possting in this forum would, noone would have died.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The only way I would absolve the driver of blame is for someone to
prove that that car cannot be put into neutral in that condition. I
don't know of _any_ car that can't be shifted to neutral under power.

Harry K

On Mar 3, 5:12*am, wrote:
On Mar 2, 11:51*pm, Harry K wrote:





On Mar 2, 9:06*am, Hell Toupee wrote:

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.

On Mar 3, 5:19*am, wrote:
On Mar 2, 11:08*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:





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.

Right



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.

Yes, but you missed my whole point. * You acknowledged that it's
desirable to have some kind of interlock to keep the car from being
shifted into at least Park while it's moving. * OK, so I implement
that system via an interlock system consisting of a solenoid driven by
the computer. * That's right, the same computer that is malfunctioning
and has the throttle pegged. * How do you know the computer isn't
stuck in some erroneous program loop or state and isn't responding to
ANY commands? *Until someone has a definitive independent study of
what happened in a lot of these cases, I'm not going to rush to
judgement against the drivers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, if you want to prove that the car cannot be shifted to neutral,
go rent one and try it.

Harry K

On Mar 3, 5:22*am, wrote:
On Mar 2, 11:50*pm, wrote:





On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:43:29 -0800 (PST), 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?
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?

How about like " I tried it on a Lexus ES300 and you can put it in
neutral any time you like, and when in neutral the car slows down, and
when floored in neutral the tachometer jumps between 3000 and 4500
rpm"

I'll bet you didn't do it on one where the car was undergoing
unintended acceleration, did you? *You can do all the tests you want
on a PROPERLY FUNCTIONING car. * *Without knowing how the car is
designed and what is linked to what, you have no way of knowing what
would happen when it's undergoing this unintended acceleration.
How about the computer has the shift locked, the accelerator pegged
and isn't responding to any commands?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And how about if God reached down and blocked off the shift lever?

Harry K

Jim Elbrecht wrote:
....

... as at least one customer got his racing engine to the dealer ...

Interesting -- I thought from salty and some others everybody involved
was stacked like cordwood...

--

On Mar 3, 6:10*am, wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:08:21 -0500, LSMFT wrote:
On 03/03/2010 02:17 AM, Don Klipstein wrote:
In , wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:48:36 GMT, (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?
Because very many drivers will find the effect on driveability
something less than desireable?? And just how much authority do you
give the brakes over the throttle, and under what conditions, at what
road speed, and at what throttle position??

* As if you expect need for the engine to be more than idling when the
brakes are applied?

*- Don Klipstein )

What makes people too god damn stupid to pop it in neutral and switch
off the key? A woman testified to congress that she had both feet on the
brake and was pulling on the steering wheel as her car climbed over
100mph for 6 miles. She had to hit a guard rail to stop. How fracking
stupid can you get?

I wasn't really sure how stupid people could get. Your post gave me a
better understanding.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ya notice you are the only poster calling others 'stupid'. Why is
that? Your posts have borded on 'stupid' since the start of the
thread but noone AFAIK has called you on it....hmmm...guess I just
did.



Harry K

Don Klipstein 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?


Heh! In a wonderful book called "Systemantics" the author discovered several
rules of systems. One of which was: "Fail Safe systems often fail by failing
to fail safe."

As an example, consider automotive braking:
* Originally, you stepped on a pedal which pulled a wire which activated the
brake shoes.
* Next stage was hydraulic brakes, with about twice as many parts that could
fail.
* Then came power brakes with even more vulnerable parts.
* Next came dual brake systems.
* Then anti-lock brakes
* Now we're back to "brake-by-wire" (although not the same wire as in
incarnation #1)

In between each of these "improvements" were dozens of minor tweaks. So,
then, today an automobiles braking system contains, oh, 100 times as many
parts at that of a Model-T.

I carry a chain and a grappling hook.

On Mar 3, 10:06*am, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

Yes, but you missed my whole point. * You acknowledged that it's
desirable to have some kind of interlock to keep the car from being
shifted into at least Park while it's moving. * OK, so I implement
that system via an interlock system consisting of a solenoid driven by
the computer. * That's right, the same computer that is malfunctioning
and has the throttle pegged. * ...

Automotives don't use simply a single computer -- hence there is no "the
computer". *There are a multitude of very small (and some not so small)
microprocessors. *The likelihood of there being multiple systems on the
same processor is small.

Nonsense. Sure there are multiple computers in a car. Common ones
are for the engine control, ABS, climate control, etc. But nothing
says that one computer cannot be responsible for many systems. Why
would it seem unusual to have a case where the engine start/shutoff
was in the same computer as that which determines the throttle
position? It is part of the engine control, is it not? And if
there was an electronic shift interlock, why would it be unusual for
that same computer to control it? That computer is the one that
knows if the car is running, what speed it's traveling at etc.

I don't know what exactly any of the computers in these cars controls
or how the system is put together. Yet, you among others, are
jumping to conclusions on what is possible or impossible without any
facts.




AFAIK there's discussion of firmware but no definitive data (released
anyway) regarding the role in the acceleration incidents. *There (again,
apparently) may be some firmware issues w/ braking systems it seems...

Again, I've yet to see any indication there was/is anything that would
have prevented shifting to neutral or turning off the ignition as
effective countermeasures.


Just because you haven't yet seen it doesn't make it impossible by
design as you are now suggesting.

In article , wrote:

A - In the Lexus at least, it takes a continuous 3 sec push to turn
off the ignition of the car while moving. That seems excessively
long.

How long does it take to shift into neutral?

B - Toytota, unlike other manufacturers, chose to not have an
interlock that disengages the throttle when brakes are applied

Incredible stupidity on their part IMHO.

C - They knew about these increasing incidents for a long time and
didn't do enough.

Toyota bears responsibility for the runaway acceleration, to be sure -- but
the accidents that resulted are, for the most part, the fault of the
incompetent drivers. Shifting into neutral is not a difficult concept.

On Mar 3, 10:10*am, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

I'll bet you didn't do it on one where the car was undergoing
unintended acceleration, did you? *You can do all the tests you want
on a PROPERLY FUNCTIONING car. * *Without knowing how the car is
designed and what is linked to what, you have no way of knowing what
would happen when it's undergoing this unintended acceleration.
How about the computer has the shift locked, the accelerator pegged
and isn't responding to any commands?

Turn off ignition...

Geez, after all this time isn't this clear? YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO
TURN OFF THE IGNITION. Did you read how the Lexus, for example, is
built? There is no key to turn. It's based on a key chain fobe
that enables the ignition when you are in the car. You then push a
start button to start the car. You have to hold that same button
for 3 secs continuosly to shut off the ignition. And that ASSUMES
the computer is responding to that command, which, if the same
computer happens to be commanding full throttle could mean the
computer is stuck in some abnormal mode and IS NOT GOING TO RESPOND.



As far as has been released and as afaict from Mr Toyota's remarks, the
return to neutral function is mechanical linkage only.

--

In article , wrote:
On Mar 2, 9:01=A0pm, (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?

=A0*Programming* a throttle override by the brake? =A0As 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.


That's obviously totally false.

No, in fact, that's an elementary principle of probability theory: any two
events in combination are less likely to occur than either one of them alone.

wrote:
On Mar 3, 10:06 am, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

Yes, but you missed my whole point. You acknowledged that it's
desirable to have some kind of interlock to keep the car from being
shifted into at least Park while it's moving. OK, so I implement
that system via an interlock system consisting of a solenoid driven by
the computer. That's right, the same computer that is malfunctioning
and has the throttle pegged. ...
Automotives don't use simply a single computer -- hence there is no "the
computer". There are a multitude of very small (and some not so small)
microprocessors. The likelihood of there being multiple systems on the
same processor is small.

Nonsense. Sure there are multiple computers in a car. Common ones
are for the engine control, ABS, climate control, etc. But nothing
says that one computer cannot be responsible for many systems. Why
would it seem unusual to have a case where the engine start/shutoff
was in the same computer as that which determines the throttle
position? It is part of the engine control, is it not? And if
there was an electronic shift interlock, why would it be unusual for
that same computer to control it? That computer is the one that
knows if the car is running, what speed it's traveling at etc.

I don't know what exactly any of the computers in these cars controls
or how the system is put together. Yet, you among others, are
jumping to conclusions on what is possible or impossible without any
facts.



AFAIK there's discussion of firmware but no definitive data (released
anyway) regarding the role in the acceleration incidents. There (again,
apparently) may be some firmware issues w/ braking systems it seems...

Again, I've yet to see any indication there was/is anything that would
have prevented shifting to neutral or turning off the ignition as
effective countermeasures.


Just because you haven't yet seen it doesn't make it impossible by
design as you are now suggesting.

I'm suggesting nothing other than what you're suggesting is no less
hypothesizing than I (and is, in fact, more than I've suggested which is
only that there's been no indication of any reason shifting to neutral
or turning off ignition wouldn't have halted the runaways).

All I pointed out above was that there are multiple controllers; there's
no indication of what is in which and it's quite possible the
fly-by-wire (if that is, indeed, what it is; I've seen no absolute
confirmation on that, either) portion that is apparently the problem
isn't a single processor subsystem of the larger system. So, to assert
that there's "the computer" that is at fault is again, purely speculation.

--

wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:20:39 -0600, dpb wrote:

Jim Elbrecht wrote:
...

... as at least one customer got his racing engine to the dealer ...
Interesting -- I thought from salty and some others everybody involved
was stacked like cordwood...

That's because, as we already know, you are an idiot.

Simply because I happen to think (as, apparently, did at least _one_
driver) there might be an alternative to simply hanging on for the ride
that one behind the wheel might take???

Interesting definition, that...

--

On Mar 3, 10:32*am, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 07:23:51 -0800 (PST), Harry K





wrote:
On Mar 3, 6:10 am, wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:08:21 -0500, LSMFT wrote:
On 03/03/2010 02:17 AM, Don Klipstein wrote:
In , wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:48:36 GMT, (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?
Because very many drivers will find the effect on driveability
something less than desireable?? And just how much authority do you
give the brakes over the throttle, and under what conditions, at what
road speed, and at what throttle position??

As if you expect need for the engine to be more than idling when the
brakes are applied?

- Don Klipstein )

What makes people too god damn stupid to pop it in neutral and switch
off the key? A woman testified to congress that she had both feet on the
brake and was pulling on the steering wheel as her car climbed over
100mph for 6 miles. She had to hit a guard rail to stop. How fracking
stupid can you get?

I wasn't really sure how stupid people could get. Your post gave me a
better understanding.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ya notice you are the only poster calling others 'stupid'. *

Actually, and in fact, that is not correct. Add it to the list of
things you got wrong. You ARE stupid.




It seems to me Harry is the guy calling people stupid. Those that
died in crashes, including the CA highway patrol officer. And he
does that without understand how the various systems on these cars
work, which computer controls what, how they may or may not be
interlinked and what is possible. His reasoning is that since you
could almost always stop most cars or even a Lexus by turning off the
ignition, shifting into neutral, etc, that it must be true on every
car from Toyota that is undergoing this acceleration phenomena I
don't know about stupid, but it is very illogical and poor reasoning.

wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:28:09 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:17:36 -0500, 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.

Which is EXACTLY what was just said.

Really? Who other than me said that under heavy acceleration, engine
vacuum is reduced?

I'll give you a hint: NOBODY

Ahh, but are you talking about a high vacuum or a low vacuum?

wrote:
....

As far as has been released and as afaict from Mr Toyota's remarks, the
return to neutral function is mechanical linkage only.

--

(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

-- Doug

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?

I only rented a car a few times but they always do a quick course on the
"cabin controls" just like they always have done for me with a new car.
I'm thinking the rental agency could be in hot water too. I'd bet the
person going over the controls didn't even know it takes 3 seconds of
holding that button when the car is in motion. Probably more like "you
press it to start it, you press it again to turn it off".

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?

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:39:03 -0600, 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?

Actually, the throttle is normally closed when somebody is braking
under normal circumstances.

I wonder how specialty cars with carbs will handle new regulations for
the accelerator interlock.

Harry K wrote:
On Mar 3, 5:22 am, wrote:
On Mar 2, 11:50 pm, wrote:





On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:43:29 -0800 (PST), 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?
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?
How about like " I tried it on a Lexus ES300 and you can put it in
neutral any time you like, and when in neutral the car slows down, and
when floored in neutral the tachometer jumps between 3000 and 4500
rpm"
I'll bet you didn't do it on one where the car was undergoing
unintended acceleration, did you? You can do all the tests you want
on a PROPERLY FUNCTIONING car. Without knowing how the car is
designed and what is linked to what, you have no way of knowing what
would happen when it's undergoing this unintended acceleration.
How about the computer has the shift locked, the accelerator pegged
and isn't responding to any commands?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And how about if God reached down and blocked off the shift lever?

Harry K

Finally, a straight forward sensible question! ;-)

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article
,
wrote:

B - Toytota, unlike other manufacturers, chose to not have an
interlock that disengages the throttle when brakes are applied

Incredible stupidity on their part IMHO.

there's an article about this today on Fox News online.
seems there's several automakers who don't have the "interlock".

they have doubts about adding MORE code to the electronic throttle control
code.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article
,
wrote:
On Mar 2, 9:01=A0pm, (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?

=A0*Programming* a throttle override by the brake? =A0As 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.


That's obviously totally false.

No, in fact, that's an elementary principle of probability theory: any
two events in combination are less likely to occur than either one of
them alone.


only problem is that in this case of throttle control programming,both
"events" are all part of the *same code*.
it's still possible for the code to jump off into nowhere,go into some
strange loop.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:17:25 -0500, 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.


On many cars with read disk brakes the "parking" brake is a VERY small
drum brake inside the rear rotor and will have virtually NO effect on
slowing the car at speed, in gear or out.

That's news to me but either way we both know the parking brake isn't
going to stop a car at highway speeds and full throttle. No argument
from me.

Douglas Johnson 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?

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

-- Doug


the Obama "administration" likes mandating things.They are anti-freedom.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Harry K wrote:
On Mar 3, 3:32 am, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:28:09 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:17:36 -0500, 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.
Which is EXACTLY what was just said.
Really? Who other than me said that under heavy acceleration, engine
vacuum is reduced?

I'll give you a hint: NOBODY- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And what you are missing (seems to be a habit) is that there is a
_vacuum canister accumulator_ that permits full brake assist under all
conditions (if the engine was running at all) for a couple of
'pumps'. Try it yourself. While diving shut off engine and step on
brake.

Harry K

You don't even have to be driving, in the driveway turn off the engine
in park and pump it a few times. You will feel it using up the vacuum.

So! How about that new Harbor Freight Multifunction Tool? Do I need
proof of purchase to join the club?

And my front door sticks, is this due to the humidity from my fern plant
at the other end of the house? Not to mention the radon, it's higher
outside than inside! And I can't find the pilot light on the oven? I
have it plugged into 240VAC but can't find the pilot? How about the cat
litter smell? It's only been a year and it's time to change the litter
already? Is this true? How about my heat, I hear it costs more to turn
it back when no one is home then to leave it at 70F? And my washing
machine won't drain, should I just cut a hole in the bottom of it and
tape it when I want it to fill? My phone is messed up too. Every time
I hear it ring I pick up, say hello, and someone is there talking to me.
And I can't find the "dial", how can I dial numbers when it only has
push buttons? Of course my van, it says 5-30 oil, should I put in
straight 30? I'm in northern Alaska.