On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 06:32:01 -0500, 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
I did.

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:47:48 -0500, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

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.'
Not necessarily.
If it was an "electronic problem" it would set a code. If it is a
mechanical [problem it won't set a code (usually).

If someone gets inside the computer and starts fooling around, it is
quite possible he could get tit to accellerate without showing a code
because he is "faking" a legitimate signal - which is extremely
unlikely to happen by itself in the real world.

I'm not saying it is impossible - but it would be extremely unlikely -
and certainly not common ( occurring on many different vehicles under
different conditions in different areas)

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 Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:47:33 -0600, AZ Nomad
wrote:

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.
Shutting the fuel off will NOT cause "lean overheating". Can't damage
the cat or valves.

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:51:53 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

(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.

You are ASSuming there is a code problem (software). No evidence to
support that assumption at this point. And GENERALLY, solid state and
particularly digital electronics is far less likely to cause problems
than mechanical controls.


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.

No, not necessarily. It is a case of what everybody wants and thinks
is necessary for safety.
ABS is a crock - yet everyone thinks all cars should have it.
Traction control makes it possible to drive in slippery conditions
with the ridiculous wide tires everyone seems to want on their cars.
Same with Stability control.

Better to just put the proper tires on the car and be done with it.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:47:35 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

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.

More parts that COULD fail, but a significantly lower probability that
ANY would. Having owned and driven vehicles with mechanical brakes I
can attest to the fact that "juice brakes" are infinitely more
reliable and effective.
* Then came power brakes with even more vulnerable parts.

Won't argue with you there - but again the incidence of power brake
failure is EXTREMELY low, as the system is dead-nuts simple.
* Next came dual brake systems.

Again - a HUGE increase in safety, because now you need at least 2
simultaneous failures to render the braking system inopperative.
* Then anti-lock brakes

A royal pain in the behind - trouble prone and un-necessary.
* 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.

No, not even a model T (which, by the way, had only brakes on the rear
wheels and the transmission.)
Even a 2 wheel braked car had more parts in each wheel than either a
hydraulic drum or disk brake when you count all the clevises, pins,
etc that were required - and EVERY ONE of them was critical.
Many juice drum brakes today have only 4 moving parts per wheel. 2
pistons and 2 shoes. The master cyl has 2 - the primary and secondary
piston..
It's MOVING parts that are critical because they wear, jam, and fail.


Both my '49 VW and my '28 Chevy had 4 wheel mechanical brakes.
The Chevy service brakes were external bands on the rear drum, and
internal shoes on the front - with internal shoes on the rear for the
emergency brake. To stop it from speed required yanking the handbrake
and stomping the pedal at the same time to keep from throwing the rear
drums out of shape.
The VW would go wherever it wanted when you first touched the brakes.

I carry a chain and a grappling hook.

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:44:06 -0500, Tony
wrote:

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! ;-)
The computer cannot lock the shifter in gear. At least not on the
Lexus ES 300.
It can lock it in PARK on some cars - which is a PAIN, but not a
sefety issue.

On Mar 3, 8:03*am, wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually, that the Lexus can be stopped by shifting to neutral under
runaway conditions has been proven. It was proven TWICE and both were
cited in this thread.

Again. The cause of the runaway was a manufacturers fault. That
people died becuse of it is the DRIVER'S fault for not knowing what to
do.

Someone who drives a runaway for minutes and crashes without doing
such a simple thing as shiftint to nuetral...

Harry K

On Mar 3, 7:20*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"LSMFT" wrote

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?

She also testified that she tried to put the car in neutral but could not
and tried other gears and could not. * I don't know if that is true or not.
In a panic, people do (or cannot do) some strange things.

In the case of Toyota, it was proven twice that it can easily be
shifted to nuetral.

Harry K

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 07:49:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:

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

...

Yes, but you missed my whole point. Â* 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. Â* OK, so I implement
that system via an interlock system consisting of a solenoid driven by
the computer. Â* That's right, the same computer that is malfunctioning
and has the throttle pegged. Â* ...

Automotives don't use simply a single computer -- hence there is no "the
computer". Â*There are a multitude of very small (and some not so small)
microprocessors. Â*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.


And in FACT, on most current production vehicles, there is either one
or 2 computers that control everything. Common practice seams to be a
PCM (Powertrain control module) and a BCM (Body control module).
The PCM handles engine and transmission and all related functions -
often including cruise control, stability control, ABS, etc, while the
BCM handles the AC, power windows, sometimes cruise control etc, and
the instrument panel, among others.

SOME vehicles use only one computer to handle everything (including,
apparently, the RADIO.


AFAIK there's discussion of firmware but no definitive data (released
anyway) regarding the role in the acceleration incidents. Â*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.

On Mar 3, 8:50*am, Tony wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep, If the service brakes won't do it, the parking brake for sure
won't.

Now, if the parking brake is on a separate drum or disk, or something
that hasn't already been heated up by the service ones, the parking
_might_ finish stopping the car if it was already down to slow speed
by the service brakes. That's about it.

Harry K

On Mar 3, 1:45*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Mar 2, 11:37*pm, wrote:





On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:07:41 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03

wrote:
On Mar 1, 7:38*pm, AZ Nomad wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:20:49 -0500, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote:
-snip-

bulll****. *There is just about no car and certainly no toyota that
can't be stopped by the brakes in normal working order even if the
engine is under full throttle. The engine isn't 1/20th as powerful as
the brakes.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/test...toyota-9917789
At about 1:21 Brian Ross says "Brakes don't work". * *At 2:50 he
expands on that a bit. * The brakes did not work.

Try it some time. *Floor your car with one foot. *Stomp on the brakes
with the other foot. *The car will stop. *If it is a manual tranny,
the engine will stall.
And yet all these folks with runaway cars say [the survivors] they
stood on the brakes to no avail.

People confuse the pedals all the time. *I doubt they had time to look
down and verify the pedals while they were panicing.

Happens several times every week in a country the size of the U.S.
Only difference now is the hysteria over it. *Just like 10 years ago
with the audis. *The runaway audi's were all people stoping on the
wrong pedal.

" The runaway audi's were all people stoping on the wrong pedal."

Just so I'm clear on this...

Are you saying that there is no problem with the Toyotas? It's all
user error?

It is when they go for several miles (or even a mile) and then hit
something. Even IF there is a malfunction, only driver error accounts
for that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I can't argue with that!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah, but I have been called stupid for sayign the deaths were driver's
fault. Of course I wasn't careful enough to distinguish between teh
cause of the runaway (Toyota) and the cause of death (driver). Didn't
make it simple enough for them.

Harry K

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:26:29 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who said anything about cutting off the fuel? Dropping the throttle back to
idle is more than sufficient to stop runaway acceleration.
UNLESS the throttle itself is stuck open - in which case fuel cut is
the ONLY viable method (ignition cut would damage the converter and
could cause a fire)

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:03:39 -0700, "chaniarts"
wrote:

wrote:
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.

but most modern cars have probably 30, and some upwards of 100, different
computers.

Nope - unless you count all the CanBuss controll modules - and even
then 30 would be stretching it.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:32:12 -0700, "chaniarts"
wrote:

AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:03:39 -0700, chaniarts
wrote:
wrote:
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.

but most modern cars have probably 30, and some upwards of 100,
different computers.

Wether or not there's a door lock computer is irrelevent.

There's just one controlling the engine, the ECU.

Do you have some insane notion that there's one computer for each
spark plug and another bunch for the injectors, etc?

no.

however, there are multiple computers controlling the engine, and all it's
assocated subsystems, at least on mine, which is a 94. one would assume that
more modern cars have more computers to better control emissions, since the
current laws are much more strict than in 94.

Your assumptions are wrong 1994 was pre OBD2 - with the mandated OBD2
system the entire power train is controlled by one computer.

all the functions don't have to reside within one computer. they are
networked together and cooperate and share data amongst themselves.

But that does not meet the OBD2 requirements.

On Mar 3, 11:38*am, wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:21*pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:

wrote:
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.

Now who is making assumptions? *The high performance street driving I took as a
Paramedic did not include any training about run away acceleration. *-- Doug

No, and I never assumed it did. * But don't you think a CA highway
patrol officer that has received a variety of training, not only in
driving, but in how to handle difficult, stressful, combat situations,
would have the presence of mind to shift into neutral? * Yet he did
not during a ride that lasted minutes? * *Or that not one of the 3
other people in the car thought of it? * *Is it possible they didn't
try sure. * But doesn't this bother you at all, or are you certain to
join Harry in calling the dead cop stupid?

Have a problem with pointing out the truth. The FACT is that the
lexus can be shifted to neutrral under runaway conditions. It has
been proven TWICE and both were cited in this thread.

To explain it in simple terms for simple people:

The cause of the runaway was Toyota's fault. The deaths were due to
driver error.

Harry K

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:40:40 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

look 5 lines up
and look 10 lines up

I guess I have to spell this out for you.

To stop runaway acceleration it is not necessary to cut off the flow of fuel.
Reducing fuel flow to idle levels is more than sufficient. The engine computer
controls the flow of fuel to the injectors. For the engine computer to reduce
this flow to idle levels does not require any movement of any mechanical
linkage.

Do you understand now?
If you are talking a diesel you are correct. On gasoline engines both
air and fuel must be regulated TOGETHER. Either fuel is shut OFF or
the throttle (air control) needs to be closed in concert with the
reduced fuel flow.

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:53:37 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:26:29 GMT, Doug Miller
wrote:
In article ,
AZ Nomad
wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:24:15 -0600, Douglas Johnson

wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote:
The thing that really stood out to me was the statement by
Toyota's
president

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


some modern engines cut off fuel flow to pairs of the cylinders,to improve
fuel economy under light load.it doesn't harm anything;the cut-off
cylinders just pump air.it doesn't even matter if the spark plug fires.

MOST variable displacement engines disable the cyl by keeping the
valves from opening as well as shutting off the fuel. Running an air
compressor takes power. Bad for economy. An engine with all the valves
closed requires very little NET energy because the copressed air stays
in the cyl and pushes the piston back down again.

On Mar 3, 7:49*am, 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.

Just because there are two confirmed cases where it was proven that it
_can_ be shifted to neutral under runaway conditions...

Harry K

On Mar 3, 3:27*pm, Tony wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:02:35 -0500, Tony
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Harry K" wrote
*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.
Actually, my father took us out so we could do those things.
My father didn't, but I did that for my daughter and I did it for
myself, starting in parking lots. *When roads are snow covered I
regularly do test skids and acceleration tests when no other cars are in
sight and I'm not likely to do damage if I do go out of control. * *I do
the same on wet roads too. *I was surprised how easy I could make the
back of a front wheel drive the car slide as I turned faster/sharper
than normal.

Have you practiced getting a family of four out of the car while it is
upside down in a deep river? You really should!

If you are not prepared for dealing with that, you are stupid. Just
ask Harry K., DerbyDad, or DPD.

****, no I didn't. *After the practice runs over the active volcanoes I
needed new tires and never finished the underwater part of the course. :-/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Damn. I have to go out and try teh "over the cliff" recovery maneuver
now!

Waiting for sa's next strawman.

Harry K

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 22:38:29 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:



wrote

Have you practiced getting a family of four out of the car while it is
upside down in a deep river? You really should!

If you are not prepared for dealing with that, you are stupid. Just
ask Harry K., DerbyDad, or DPD.

Correct, while it is not practical to practice, it is very possible to think
about what to do. How to open a door or window, equalizing pressure, the air
bubble that will remain, using a cell phone, etc. Yes, it is stupid not to
think about it.


Thinking about it might be helpful if you think the right thoughts and
the exact same thing happens in reality that happens in your dream.

Just because actual practice isn't practical, doesn't mean you are
excused from doing it.

Slamming into a concrete bridge abutment isn't practical either, but
people still do it.

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:30:55 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 06:30:11 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:27:34 -0500, wrote:

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.


Nice try, but it's obvious you don't have an advanced degree in
computer science.
Do you?

yes

I am a computer tech by trade and training, as well as a licenced auto
mechanic.

Everybody and their brother hangs up a sign and claims to be a
"computer tech". Do you also do clairvoyant tea leaf readings? Screen
door repair?



The explanation was not meant to be detailed and 100% accurate - but
to cover the basics.

Well, you still failed.

wrote:

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:47:48 -0500, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

wrote:

-snip-

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.'
Not necessarily.
If it was an "electronic problem" it would set a code. If it is a
mechanical [problem it won't set a code (usually).

I've never claimed to know anything about the computer under my hood.
Are you saying that if a couple wires were abraded & shorted to the
frame for a millisecond that wouldn't leave a code? And that is
acceptable? [is that a mechanical or electronic problem? or do the
mechanics say electronic and the electrical engineers say mechanical?]


If someone gets inside the computer and starts fooling around, it is
quite possible he could get tit to accellerate without showing a code
because he is "faking" a legitimate signal - which is extremely
unlikely to happen by itself in the real world.


Who knows what the professor actually did-- but on camera he completed
a circuit and the car took off- pulled the wire & the engine went back
to normal. no code.

I'm not saying it is impossible - but it would be extremely unlikely -
and certainly not common ( occurring on many different vehicles under
different conditions in different areas)

No chance that the right 2 wires in that harness, when connected,
could cause the fault?

I would say that whatever the cause- it *is* unlikely- because
considering the number of those cars out there, a lot of them have had
no problems. But I think there is a problem.

Jim

In article , wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:26:29 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who said anything about cutting off the fuel? Dropping the throttle back to
idle is more than sufficient to stop runaway acceleration.
UNLESS the throttle itself is stuck open - in which case fuel cut is
the ONLY viable method (ignition cut would damage the converter and
could cause a fire)

It's still not necessary to cut the fuel flow off *completely* in order to
stop runaway acceleration.

For that matter, as has already been cited by Harry K, it's not necessary to
cut the fuel flow off _at all_ -- the brakes alone are enough to stop runaway
acceleration.

In article , wrote:

If you are talking a diesel you are correct. On gasoline engines both
air and fuel must be regulated TOGETHER. Either fuel is shut OFF or
the throttle (air control) needs to be closed in concert with the
reduced fuel flow.

They have to be regulated together *under normal conditions* in order to
maintain emission standards. That obviously isn't important in an emergency.
Reduce the fuel flow to a trickle, and the engine *will* slow down, regardless
of what happens to the airflow. Under runaway acceleration, the primary
consideration -- indeed, the only consideration -- is the need to get the car
stopped. Any damage that may or may not occur to the engine or the cat is of
comparatively little importance.

On Mar 4, 12:39*am, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 3, 11:38*am, wrote:





On Mar 3, 1:21*pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:

wrote:
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.

Now who is making assumptions? *The high performance street driving I took as a
Paramedic did not include any training about run away acceleration. *-- Doug

No, and I never assumed it did. * But don't you think a CA highway
patrol officer that has received a variety of training, not only in
driving, but in how to handle difficult, stressful, combat situations,
would have the presence of mind to shift into neutral? * Yet he did
not during a ride that lasted minutes? * *Or that not one of the 3
other people in the car thought of it? * *Is it possible they didn't
try sure. * But doesn't this bother you at all, or are you certain to
join Harry in calling the dead cop stupid?

Have a problem with pointing out the truth. *The FACT is that the
lexus can be shifted to neutrral under runaway conditions. *It has
been proven TWICE and both were cited in this thread.


Show us where what you claim above has been proven. I've seen people
saying that a NORMAL functioning Lexus can be shifted into neutral.
I've seen people report that Toyota has said that the shift linkage is
only mechanical and it can be shifted into neutral while being
driven. Neither of those proves that it's true under runaway
conditions. As I've said before, unless you know the design of the
car and what is linked to what, you are making assumptions unsupported
by the facts.

If you have a link supporting that Toyota has tested shifting a Lexus
into neutral on a track going at topspeed with full throttle, I'd be
very happy to see it.

That would be a start. But then the other component would be that
you would also have to know by design that nothing in the tranny could
prevent it from being shifted, even if not designed to do so
intentionally. I'd want to see exactly what prevents the shift lever
from moving into ANY position under any circumstances. For example,
is there a lock that keeps it from moving into park when the car is
moving? And what determines that, how the mechanism works, etc.
You would need to take apart the trannys from the wrecked cars and do
a complete forensic investigation of the components.

I'm not saying it's likely all the cars could not be shifted, just
that if we jumped to conclusions without ALL the facts, a lot more
people would be dead today. Why do you think it takes so long for
the NTSB to carefully analyze plane crashes instead of saying the
pilot was stupid, he should have been able to land the plane?

Also note that I'm not saying how the cars are or are not designed or
what caused anything. All I'm saying is that until more
investigations are done and more facts are established, it's premature
to be calling a dead CHP officer, among others, stupid for not being
able to shift the car.






explain it in simple terms for simple people:

The cause of the runaway was Toyota's fault. *The deaths were due to
driver error.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -



Actually, your whole approach to the problem is remarkably similar to
Toyota's. For years they dismissed reports of both runaway
acceleration and wrecks as driver stupidity instead of doing a
complete investigation before jumping to conclusions.

On Mar 3, 4:45*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Mar 2, 11:37*pm, wrote:





On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:07:41 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03

wrote:
On Mar 1, 7:38*pm, AZ Nomad wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:20:49 -0500, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote:
-snip-

bulll****. *There is just about no car and certainly no toyota that
can't be stopped by the brakes in normal working order even if the
engine is under full throttle. The engine isn't 1/20th as powerful as
the brakes.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/test...toyota-9917789
At about 1:21 Brian Ross says "Brakes don't work". * *At 2:50 he
expands on that a bit. * The brakes did not work.

Try it some time. *Floor your car with one foot. *Stomp on the brakes
with the other foot. *The car will stop. *If it is a manual tranny,
the engine will stall.
And yet all these folks with runaway cars say [the survivors] they
stood on the brakes to no avail.

People confuse the pedals all the time. *I doubt they had time to look
down and verify the pedals while they were panicing.

Happens several times every week in a country the size of the U.S.
Only difference now is the hysteria over it. *Just like 10 years ago
with the audis. *The runaway audi's were all people stoping on the
wrong pedal.

" The runaway audi's were all people stoping on the wrong pedal."

Just so I'm clear on this...

Are you saying that there is no problem with the Toyotas? It's all
user error?

It is when they go for several miles (or even a mile) and then hit
something. Even IF there is a malfunction, only driver error accounts
for that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I can't argue with that!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I can. Neither of you knows exactly how the various systems on these
cars work or are interlinked. Only a complete investigation which
includes knowing how the cars are designed and actually analyzing the
components from the failed cars will show whether the cars could have
been stopped or not.

Following your approach, the NTSB would be wasting it's time taking
years to investigate plane crashes. They could just arrive at the
site and shoot from the hip.

On Mar 3, 11:17*pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote :





In article
,
wrote:
On Mar 3, 3:18=A0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
.=
com, wrote:

On Mar 3, 10:54=3DA0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
=
ups=3D
..com, wrote:

On Mar 2, 9:01=3D3DA0pm, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
In article ,
=
(D=3D
on =3D3D
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 ove=
rri=3D
de
for the throttle.

I have only one question: WHY IN GOD'S NAME WAS THAT NOT
THERE FR=
OM =3D
THE
BEGINNING?

=3D3DA0*Programming* a throttle override by the brake?
=3D3DA0As =
in rely=3D
ing on =3D3D
lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably
appl=
y a=3D
n
override onto the throttle?

Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a
throttl=
e
malfunction, for the override to not work would require a
second ma=
lfu=3D
nction.
Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely
than an=
y s=3D
ingle
malfunction.

That's obviously totally false.

No, in fact, that's an elementary principle of probability
theory: any=
tw=3D
o
events in combination are less likely to occur than either one of
them=
al=3D
one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's false too. =A0 The probability of two events occuring in
combination is only less IF THE TWO ARE INDEPENDENT. =A0 You are
arguing that it's perfectly fine to have the same computer that is
running the throttle to also be the safety override and to
disengage the throttle if the brakes are applied.

I said no such thing.

=A0Running on the same computer, those two
events are no longer independent. =A0

Indeed, that is so. But "running on the same computer" is *your*
idea, no=
t
mine.

Here is the first post from Don and your reply:

Don:
**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?

Doug:
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.

In the context of the discussion here, it seems very reasonable that
Don's logical meaning was that if you program the brake safety overide
on the same computer that is controlling the throttle, then you're
potentially exposed to the same fault. *

Well, DUH! Obviously.

But *I* never suggested that it would be part of the same computer.
That's *your* assumption.

Like I said -- you're arguing against a straw man of your own
creation.

A computer malfunction that
caused full throttle could also result in the same computer not being
able to perform the brake safety function.

You could have just said, it's OK if it's programmed into a SEPERATE
independent computer. *

Yes, or could have just NOT ASSUMED that I meant it would be in the
same computer. I never said that. You ASSumed it.

That would have added clarity instead of your
reply, which only made it more confusing.

Confusing only if you make an ASSumption that I never stated, or even
suggested.

*And your statement as made
is WRONG anyway, because the requirement for two simulataneous
malfunctions is only true if the program resides in a SEPERATE
computer. *That qualification you never made.

And if you hadn't immediately made the ASSumption that it necessarily
had to be part of the same system, you wouldn't be confused. And you
wouldn't think that a perfectly true statement about probability is
somehow false.

That problem comes from your faulty ASSumptions.

You seem to expect
everyone else to spell out all the conditions and qualifiers yet you
yourself leave things vague or confusing and think it's just fine.

Oh, I'm supposed to predict in advance what ASSumptions you're going
to make? Sorry, no can do. My crystal ball is in the shop right now,
and it's not due back til the middle of next week.

you debate dishonestly.
You have never mentioned any additional computer or other method of
execution of your additional override code.

--

Thank you Jim. Good to see someone following the discussion agrees.





Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 4, 12:35*am, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:03:39 -0700, "chaniarts"





wrote:
wrote:
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.

but most modern cars have probably 30, and some upwards of 100, different
computers.

Nope - unless you count all the CanBuss controll modules - and even
then 30 would be stretching it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nonsense. A computer in any reasonable context means a CPU of some
kind executing a program defined by software. There most certainly
are many computers in a car today. Aside from the ECU, there
typically are CPU's for things like the ABS brakes, climate control,
radio, GPS, air bag, etc. Some or all of those computers may be
linked together, some may issue commands to others, etc, but that
doesn't mean there are a lot more than 1.

dpb wrote:
....

So, Capt Sully shouldn't have been trained to land w/o power, iow. ...

Speaking of whom, I saw that by pure coinky-dinck that yesterday was his
retirement flight shower landing day (along w/ one other longtime crew
member also on the now-fabled flight)....

Hoping for a long and no water landings one...

--

On Mar 4, 12:23*am, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 07:49:16 -0800 (PST), 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.

And in FACT, on most current production vehicles, there is either one
or 2 computers that control everything. Common practice seams to be a
PCM (Powertrain control module) and a BCM (Body control module).
The PCM handles *engine and transmission and all related functions -
often including cruise control, stability control, ABS, etc, while the
BCM handles the AC, power windows, sometimes cruise control etc, and
the instrument panel, among others.

SOME vehicles use only one computer to handle everything (including,
apparently, the RADIO.


And your source for that would be? Everything I've seen over the
years is that there are more and more microprocessors, ie computers in
cars. And that only makes sense as cars become increasingly
complex. Do you really believe the radio, CD player, GPS, etc are all
controlled by one computer and that it makes sense to do that, when
you can have a cheap local microcontroller that tends to functions
right where they need to be handled, eg radio, gps, climate
control.

Here's a news story that says you are wrong:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8510228.stm

They identify at least 8 computers in a typical car. A computer
doesn't have to be a big module. It can be as simple as an 8 bit
microcontroller that sells for $1 and is used to run something like a
dashboard display or the radio. You can't even buy it or replace it
as a seperate part any more than you could with the one in your
dishwasher, microwave oven, etc.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article ,
wrote:

If you are talking a diesel you are correct. On gasoline engines both
air and fuel must be regulated TOGETHER. Either fuel is shut OFF or
the throttle (air control) needs to be closed in concert with the
reduced fuel flow.

They have to be regulated together *under normal conditions* in order
to maintain emission standards. That obviously isn't important in an
emergency. Reduce the fuel flow to a trickle, and the engine *will*
slow down, regardless of what happens to the airflow. Under runaway
acceleration, the primary consideration -- indeed, the only
consideration -- is the need to get the car stopped. Any damage that
may or may not occur to the engine or the cat is of comparatively
little importance.


OK,now tell us HOW you propose to "reduce fuel flow" other than adding more
code to the existing computer programming,which you deny advocating.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

In article , Jim Yanik wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article ,
wrote:

If you are talking a diesel you are correct. On gasoline engines both
air and fuel must be regulated TOGETHER. Either fuel is shut OFF or
the throttle (air control) needs to be closed in concert with the
reduced fuel flow.

They have to be regulated together *under normal conditions* in order
to maintain emission standards. That obviously isn't important in an
emergency. Reduce the fuel flow to a trickle, and the engine *will*
slow down, regardless of what happens to the airflow. Under runaway
acceleration, the primary consideration -- indeed, the only
consideration -- is the need to get the car stopped. Any damage that
may or may not occur to the engine or the cat is of comparatively
little importance.


OK,now tell us HOW you propose to "reduce fuel flow" other than adding more
code to the existing computer programming,which you deny advocating.

The only point under discussion in *this* subthread is whether it's necessary
to stop, or merely reduce, the flow of fuel in order to stop runaway
acceleration.

Do try to keep up.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Jim Yanik
wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article ,
wrote:

If you are talking a diesel you are correct. On gasoline engines
both
air and fuel must be regulated TOGETHER. Either fuel is shut OFF or
the throttle (air control) needs to be closed in concert with the
reduced fuel flow.

They have to be regulated together *under normal conditions* in
order to maintain emission standards. That obviously isn't important
in an emergency. Reduce the fuel flow to a trickle, and the engine
*will* slow down, regardless of what happens to the airflow. Under
runaway acceleration, the primary consideration -- indeed, the only
consideration -- is the need to get the car stopped. Any damage that
may or may not occur to the engine or the cat is of comparatively
little importance.


OK,now tell us HOW you propose to "reduce fuel flow" other than adding
more code to the existing computer programming,which you deny
advocating.

The only point under discussion in *this* subthread is whether it's
necessary to stop, or merely reduce, the flow of fuel in order to stop
runaway acceleration.

Do try to keep up.


IOW,you CAN'T.
I've noted that you avoided answering the same question in my other posts.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Mar 4, 12:16*am, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:03*am, wrote:





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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually, that the Lexus can be stopped by shifting to neutral under
runaway conditions has been proven. *It was proven TWICE and both were
cited in this thread.


Help us out here and show us where that was proved. Perhaps I missed
it.







Again. *The cause of the runaway was a manufacturers fault. *That
people died becuse of it is the DRIVER'S fault for not knowing what to
do.

Someone who drives a runaway for minutes and crashes without doing
such a simple thing as shiftint to nuetral...

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


It's incredible how quick you are to condemn drivers. Many drivers
may have known what to do, but were unable to do it in sufficient
time. If your car suddenly went to full acceleration in traffic
with you in the left lane and you couldn't react to the totally
unexpected and act, I'm sure you'd have a very different opinion.
Hindsight is 20-20. You know the outcome was a total wreck. But if
the car started accelerating in heavy traffic, with you in the left
lane, going 70mph, what would you do? The standard reply here is
turn off the car, shift to neutral, stand on the brakes as hard as you
can. Is that what you would do in the first 1 sec? The first 2
secs? Or would you apply the brakes, increasing the distance
between you and the car in front of you, while you figured out what
was going on, what to do next and at the same time avoid hitting
another car? My first reaction would be that maybe the cruise
control is engaged. Figuring out how to disengage that on a rental
car or even a car you drive regularly but don't use the cruise
control, could consume precious seconds. And so it goes. The
bottom line is I would not necessarily fault drivers or call them
stupid unless you were in their shoes or know all the facts. And at
this point, it's clear that no one, including Toyota, knows all the
facts.

On Mar 4, 11:14*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Jim Yanik wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article ,
wrote:

If you are talking a diesel you are correct. On gasoline engines both
air and fuel must be regulated TOGETHER. Either fuel is shut OFF or
the throttle (air control) needs to be closed in concert with the
reduced fuel flow.

They have to be regulated together *under normal conditions* in order
to maintain emission standards. That obviously isn't important in an
emergency. Reduce the fuel flow to a trickle, and the engine *will*
slow down, regardless of what happens to the airflow. Under runaway
acceleration, the primary consideration -- indeed, the only
consideration -- is the need to get the car stopped. Any damage that
may or may not occur to the engine or the cat is of comparatively
little importance.

OK,now tell us HOW you propose to "reduce fuel flow" other than adding more
code to the existing computer programming,which you deny advocating.

The only point under discussion in *this* subthread is whether it's necessary
to stop, or merely reduce, the flow of fuel in order to stop runaway
acceleration.

Do try to keep up.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Again, taking things in context, the whole point of reducing or
cutting off fuel flow was to implement a safety to stop a runaway
car. To which you posted:

"To stop runaway acceleration it is not necessary to cut off the flow
of fuel.
Reducing fuel flow to idle levels is more than sufficient. The engine
computer
controls the flow of fuel to the injectors. For the engine computer to
reduce
this flow to idle levels does not require any movement of any
mechanical
linkage."

In which case, what's the point if you're arguing about doing it
through the same computer that already regulates the fuel injection
and it's undergoing runaway acceleration? I thought the presumption
here was a failsafe to cutoff the engine. Clearly, what you need is
an entirely seperate cuttoff system. Talking about reducing it to
idle is spurious, because the computer that is already managing the
fuel flow is presumed to have faulted and is commanding full
acceleration. So, how is it now suddenly going to go back to a nice
idle?

On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:14:10 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Jim Yanik wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article ,
wrote:

If you are talking a diesel you are correct. On gasoline engines both
air and fuel must be regulated TOGETHER. Either fuel is shut OFF or
the throttle (air control) needs to be closed in concert with the
reduced fuel flow.

They have to be regulated together *under normal conditions* in order
to maintain emission standards. That obviously isn't important in an
emergency. Reduce the fuel flow to a trickle, and the engine *will*
slow down, regardless of what happens to the airflow. Under runaway
acceleration, the primary consideration -- indeed, the only
consideration -- is the need to get the car stopped. Any damage that
may or may not occur to the engine or the cat is of comparatively
little importance.


OK,now tell us HOW you propose to "reduce fuel flow" other than adding more
code to the existing computer programming,which you deny advocating.

The only point under discussion in *this* subthread is whether it's necessary
to stop, or merely reduce, the flow of fuel in order to stop runaway
acceleration.

Do try to keep up.

That rich coming from somebody who has to have the post he's replying
to read back to him.

On Mar 4, 3:03*am, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 22:38:29 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:



wrote

Have you practiced getting a family of four out of the car while it is
upside down in a deep river? You really should!

If you are not prepared for dealing with that, you are stupid. Just
ask Harry K., DerbyDad, or DPD.

Correct, while it is not practical to practice, it is very possible to think
about what to do. How to open a door or window, equalizing pressure, the air
bubble that will remain, using a cell phone, etc. *Yes, it is stupid not to
think about it.

Thinking about it might be helpful if you think the right thoughts and
the exact same thing happens in reality that happens in your dream.

Just because actual practice isn't practical, doesn't mean you are
excused from doing it.

Slamming into a concrete bridge abutment isn't practical either, but
people still do it.

Due to:
1. Suicide
2. Being to stupid to pull it out of gear.

Harry K

On Mar 4, 8:22*am, wrote:
On Mar 4, 12:16*am, Harry K wrote:





On Mar 3, 8:03*am, wrote:

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually, that the Lexus can be stopped by shifting to neutral under
runaway conditions has been proven. *It was proven TWICE and both were
cited in this thread.

Help us out here and show us where that was proved. *Perhaps I missed
it.



Again. *The cause of the runaway was a manufacturers fault. *That
people died becuse of it is the DRIVER'S fault for not knowing what to
do.

Someone who drives a runaway for minutes and crashes without doing
such a simple thing as shiftint to nuetral...

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's incredible how quick you are to condemn drivers. * Many drivers
may have known what to do, but were unable to do it in sufficient
time. * * If your car suddenly went to full acceleration in traffic
with you in the left lane and you couldn't react to the totally
unexpected and act, I'm sure you'd have a very different opinion.
Hindsight is 20-20. *You know the outcome was a total wreck. * But if
the car started accelerating in heavy traffic, with you in the left
lane, going 70mph, what would you do? * The standard reply here is
turn off the car, shift to neutral, stand on the brakes as hard as you
can. * * Is that what you would do in the first 1 sec? *The first 2
secs? * *Or would you apply the brakes, increasing the distance
between you and the car in front of you, while you figured out what
was going on, what to do next and at the same time avoid hitting
another car? * My first reaction would be that maybe the cruise
control is engaged. *Figuring out how to disengage that on a rental
car or even a car you drive regularly but don't use the cruise
control, could consume precious seconds. * And so it goes. * The
bottom line is I would not necessarily fault drivers or call them
stupid unless you were in their shoes or know all the facts. * And at
this point, it's clear that no one, including Toyota, knows all the
facts.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here is you help.

1. Guy drives a faily good distance in runaway conditions by
repeatedlyi in/out of gear, pulls into dealer with it still doing and
smoking hot breaks. That was all over the news and was also cited in
this thread.

2. The guy who demonstrated how he could induce runaway and get 'no
code' That demonstration was also all over the news and cited in this
thread. And yes, they pulled it out of gear before finally stopping.

Since you are trying to put up strawmen let me curtail your attempt:

1. Sudden acceleration with no time to react. No problem there.
Driver not at fault.

2. My problem is someone who does have time to react but doesn't -
Cop and 3 family members. Clearly driver error that caused the
deaths. How many others died due to incompetancy I don't know but I
bet there were some.

Sinceyou cannot differentiate between the cause of the runaway and the
cause of the deaths I see no point in contineuing..

Harry K

On Mar 4, 4:58*am, wrote:
On Mar 4, 12:39*am, Harry K wrote:





On Mar 3, 11:38*am, wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:21*pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:

wrote:
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.

Now who is making assumptions? *The high performance street driving I took as a
Paramedic did not include any training about run away acceleration. *-- Doug

No, and I never assumed it did. * But don't you think a CA highway
patrol officer that has received a variety of training, not only in
driving, but in how to handle difficult, stressful, combat situations,
would have the presence of mind to shift into neutral? * Yet he did
not during a ride that lasted minutes? * *Or that not one of the 3
other people in the car thought of it? * *Is it possible they didn't
try sure. * But doesn't this bother you at all, or are you certain to
join Harry in calling the dead cop stupid?

Have a problem with pointing out the truth. *The FACT is that the
lexus can be shifted to neutrral under runaway conditions. *It has
been proven TWICE and both were cited in this thread.

Show us where what you claim above has been proven. * I've seen people
saying that a NORMAL functioning Lexus can be shifted into neutral.
I've seen people report that Toyota has said that the shift linkage is
only mechanical and it can be shifted into neutral while being
driven. * * Neither of those proves that it's true under runaway
conditions. *As I've said before, unless you know the design of the
car and what is linked to what, you are making assumptions unsupported
by the facts.

Take it from the top again and making it simple for you.

Thne cause of the cop/family death:

Runaway - Toyota
Deaths - incompetent driver.


Proof of shifting under runaway: You must never watch the news or
read this thread very carefully.

1. Guy gets runaway, does the correct thing (short of shutting it
off) - repeatedly goes from drive to neutral and back, pulls into
dealers lot with it still happening. All over the news and cited in
this thread.

2. Guy shows how he can induce runaway. Aslo shifts to neutral prior
to making a stop. Aslo all over the news and cited in this thread.

Feel free to continue distorting what I have said.


If you have a link supporting that Toyota has tested shifting a Lexus
into neutral on a track going at topspeed with full throttle, I'd be
very happy to see it.


Never claimed that I did but nice try.

That would be a start. * But then the other component would be that
you would also have to know by design that nothing in the tranny could
prevent it from being shifted, even if not designed to do so
intentionally. * I'd want to see exactly what prevents the shift lever
from moving into ANY position under any circumstances. *For example,
is there a lock that keeps it from moving into park when the car is
moving? * And what determines that, how the mechanism works, etc.
You would need to take apart the trannys from the wrecked cars and do
a complete forensic investigation of the components.

Now you are just being totally unreasonable. How about proposing
somehow picking up a rock that blocks the shifter.

*I'm not saying it's likely all the cars could not be shifted, just
that if we jumped to conclusions without ALL the facts, a lot more
people would be dead today. * Why do you think it takes so long for
the NTSB to carefully analyze plane crashes instead of saying the
pilot was stupid, he should have been able to land the plane?

Really stretching there now.

Also note that I'm not saying how the cars are or are not designed or
what caused anything. *All I'm saying is that until more
investigations are done and more facts are established, it's premature
to be calling a dead CHP officer, among others, *stupid for not being
able to shift the car.

I repeat. Since it has been proven it can be shifted and noone has
come up with even one example of a car that cannot be shifted...'



explain it in simple terms for simple people:

The cause of the runaway was Toyota's fault. *The deaths were due to
driver error.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

Actually, your whole approach to the problem is remarkably similar to
Toyota's. * For years they dismissed reports of both runaway
acceleration and wrecks as driver stupidity instead of doing a
complete investigation before jumping to conclusions.- Hide quoted text -

Sorry if me pointing out reality to you doesn't suit you.


Harry K

In article , Jim Yanik wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Jim Yanik
wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article ,
wrote:

If you are talking a diesel you are correct. On gasoline engines
both
air and fuel must be regulated TOGETHER. Either fuel is shut OFF or
the throttle (air control) needs to be closed in concert with the
reduced fuel flow.

They have to be regulated together *under normal conditions* in
order to maintain emission standards. That obviously isn't important
in an emergency. Reduce the fuel flow to a trickle, and the engine
*will* slow down, regardless of what happens to the airflow. Under
runaway acceleration, the primary consideration -- indeed, the only
consideration -- is the need to get the car stopped. Any damage that
may or may not occur to the engine or the cat is of comparatively
little importance.


OK,now tell us HOW you propose to "reduce fuel flow" other than adding
more code to the existing computer programming,which you deny
advocating.

The only point under discussion in *this* subthread is whether it's
necessary to stop, or merely reduce, the flow of fuel in order to stop
runaway acceleration.

Do try to keep up.


IOW,you CAN'T.
I've noted that you avoided answering the same question in my other posts.

IOW that's not what this conversation is about. Sorry that was too hard for
you.