In article , AZ Nomad wrote:
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.

Umm, no, actually that would be you. Remember I had to go through it with you
three times before you caught on?

Bye now.

In article , wrote:
On Mar 4, 11:14=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Jim Yanik j=
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 m=
ore
code to the existing computer programming,which you deny advocating.

The only point under discussion in *this* subthread is whether it's neces=
sary
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?

Are you and Yanik related?

*This* subthread originated from the contention by some fool that trying to
stop runaway acceleration by shutting off the flow of fuel was a bad idea
because it would supposedly damage the engine. I simply pointed out that it's
not necessary to shut it off completely in order to stop runaway acceleration.

In article , Harry K wrote:
On Mar 4, 3:03=A0am, 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 t=
hink
about what to do. How to open a door or window, equalizing pressure, the=
air
bubble that will remain, using a cell phone, etc. =A0Yes, it is stupid n=
ot 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.

Exactly. I've experienced unplanned, uncommanded acceleration twice, once from
a throttle return spring that came off of the linkage, and once from a
faulty cruise control module. In the latter case, the CC engaged _full
throttle_ as I was coasting down a cloverleaf exit ramp.

Neither one of those events turned into "runaway" acceleration -- because I
did not panic, and kept my vehicle under control. In both cases, the brakes
did their job quite adequately, thank you very much.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

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.

and STILL can't answer.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Mar 4, 12:02*pm, Harry K wrote:
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.


It's not up to me to watch the news to prove your claims. You
claimed specifically that a Lexus had been brought to a stop by
shifting into neutral during runaway conditions. First, on the face
of it, this is actually impossible to do, because no one has been able
to duplicate the "runaway" condition. So, the best you could be
referring to was that it's been proven that a Lexus identical to the
one driven by the CA highway patrol officer can be shifted into
neutral when traveling 120mph under full throttle. That would be a
good start. Link please.



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.

Please point me to where this is in this long thread. I've seen where
someone posted about an electronics guy causing full throttle by
fooling with some wires and that it did not set any fault code in the
computer. I have not seen where he did that while driving and
shifted to neutral while going 120mph at full throttle. Maybe I
missed something and you can show me where this was stated.



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.


I never claimed that you had said so. But YOU keep insisting that
there is loads of evidence that a Lexus can be shifted into neutral
under runaway conditions. All I'm asking for is a link to Toyota or
anyone else that has done a test that your believe at least closely
duplicates the runaway conditions.

Note: That isn't an anecdotal report here that someone shifted their
car into neutral going at 50mph, etc.



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.

Why is it unreasonable to expect a forensic investigation of the key
components from key cars, like the CA highway patrol officers Lexus?
Just because you want to jump to conclusions, everyone else should
join you? Is that what the NTSB does with a plane crash?




*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.

How would you suggest to get to the bottom of it? Just rely on your
speculation as opposed to scientific investigation?


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...'



Just point us to a link where it has been proven that you can shift
that Lexus into neutral under runaway conditions, as you claim. Of
course you can't because no one can duplicate the runaway conditions
exactly. But I'll settle for a link to a test going at 100-120mph
under full throttle conditions.

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.


Then it should be easy for you to provide us to a link to any source,
Toyota, the media, etc where they proved it. First, it should be
obvious to even you that they can't actually duplicate the runaway
condition, because no one knows what is causing it and exactly what
occurs during that period. However, a good starting point would be
where the test was done going 120 mph under full throttle.
Waiting.......

On Mar 4, 12:26*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , wrote:





On Mar 4, 11:14=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Jim Yanik j=
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 m=
ore
code to the existing computer programming,which you deny advocating.

The only point under discussion in *this* subthread is whether it's neces=
sary
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?

Are you and Yanik related?

Perhaps, because we apparently can follow the thread, and filter out
the nonsense.



*This* subthread originated from the contention by some fool that trying to
stop runaway acceleration by shutting off the flow of fuel was a bad idea
because it would supposedly damage the engine. I simply pointed out that it's
not necessary to shut it off completely in order to stop runaway acceleration.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You need to learn to read threads in context. The whole discussion
was focused on cutting off fuel flow to stop the car. There clearly
is no point in doing that through the SAME computer that is already
controlling the fuel flow.

In article , wrote:
On Mar 4, 12:26=A0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article =
..com, wrote:





On Mar 4, 11:14=3DA0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Jim Yanik=
j=3D
wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article ,
wrote:

If you are talking a diesel you are correct. On gasoline engines b=
oth
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 ord=
er
to maintain emission standards. That obviously isn't important in a=
n
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 tha=
t
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 addin=
g m=3D
ore
code to the existing computer programming,which you deny advocating.

The only point under discussion in *this* subthread is whether it's ne=
ces=3D
sary
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. =A0To 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? =A0I thought the presumption
here was a failsafe to cutoff the engine. =A0 =A0Clearly, what you need =
is
an entirely seperate cuttoff system. =A0Talking 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. =A0 So, how is it now suddenly going to go back to a nice
idle?

Are you and Yanik related?

Perhaps, because we apparently can follow the thread, and filter out
the nonsense.

If by "filter out" you mean "generate" I suppose I'd agree.



*This* subthread originated from the contention by some fool that trying to
stop runaway acceleration by shutting off the flow of fuel was a bad idea
because it would supposedly damage the engine. I simply pointed out that it's
not necessary to shut it off completely in order to stop runaway acceleration.

You need to learn to read threads in context. The whole discussion
was focused on cutting off fuel flow to stop the car. There clearly
is no point in doing that through the SAME computer that is already
controlling the fuel flow.

Speaking of reading in context ... the context here was the claim by some fool
that you couldn't stop runaway acceleration by _shutting off_ fuel flow
because to do so would damage the engine. My point _in context_ was that it's
not necessary to shut it off completely, only reduce it. I didn't say anything
about how, or where, to accomplish that.

So: learn to pay attention to the posts you're responding to. I'm tired of
explaining this to you.

Bye now.

On Mar 4, 11:05*am, wrote:
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.

Here's a much better source that says you don't know what you're
talking about:

http://www.embedded.com/columns/sign...questid=508024

For background, embedded processors are the computers that are
embedded in something else, as opposed to being a desktop, notebook,
server, etc. That something else could be your TV, cell phone,
microwave, or in this case car. They have a cpu, memory, input/output
and execute a program. Here's what they have to say about how many
of these are in cars today and it's even more than I would have
guessed. I think many here will be surprised at how high the numbers
actually are.


"How many embedded processors does your car have? Go ahead, guess. If
you've got a late-model luxury sedan, two or three processors might be
obvious in the GPS navigation system or the automatic distance
control. Yet you'd still be off by a factor of 25 or 50. The current 7-
Series BMW and S-class Mercedes boast about 100 processors apiece. A
relatively low-profile Volvo still has 50 to 60 baby processors on
board. Even a boring low-cost econobox has a few dozen different
microprocessors in it. Your transportation appliance probably has more
chips than your Internet appliance."

wrote

Then it should be easy for you to provide us to a link to any source,
Toyota, the media, etc where they proved it.

Another unrealistic request. Can you recite exactly what was on the new last
Tuesday? The Monday two weeks ago? Can you provide a link? I see a lot
of interesting news that has relevance to a conversation I'm having a year
later, but I cannot provide the link or citation if requested. I'm sure you
can though.

Harry K wrote:
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!


No problem, it's just like on Buggs Bunny! Air Brakes!

On Mar 4, 6:20*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
wrote



Then it should be easy for you to provide us to a link to any source,
Toyota, the media, etc where they proved it.

Another unrealistic request. Can you recite exactly what was on the new last
Tuesday? *The Monday two weeks ago? * Can you provide a link? *I see a lot
of interesting news that has relevance to a conversation I'm having a year
later, but I cannot provide the link or citation if requested. *I'm sure you
can though.

Nothing at all unreasonable about it. Harrry is running around
claiming over and over that it's been proven that a Lexus like the one
driven by the CA highway patrol officer can be "shifted into neutral
in runaway condition" and that this fact has been widely reported. He
says it's been everywhere. The TV media routinely have videos or
text reports available online on all kinds of current hot topic
stuff. Also, newpapers have articles available online. And those
things are routinely used to establish facts.

Are you suggesting I just accept as a given his statement about what
he claims he saw on TV? Even Harry hasn't told us what car was used,
how fast was it going, etc. Is that the new standard here to
establish fact? And once again, I'd say that the best he could do
would be to show us a link that establishes that a similar car
traveling at 120mph can be shifted into neutral, because no one can
actually duplicate what is exactly happening in cars at the time they
are experiencing the runaway phenomena. But if there is credible
proof that the model Lexus the CA patrol officer was driving can be
shifted into neutral at 120 mph, that would be an important step. All
I'm asking for is a simple link to see it for myself.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 06:09:17 -0500, wrote:

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.
I have a diploma from a recognized school and have been doing
computer service and repair for over 20 years.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 06:48:20 -0500, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

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?]

That's not what I said - but if, in fact, the wires that happened to
short could LEGITIMATELY have a ground potential under normal
operating conditions, a code may not be set. (actually, in all
likelihood WOULD not be set).

And yes, that would be a "mechanical" problem - although in the
electrical system. I would not call it an "electronic" problem.


However, there are very few input signals that would ever have a
ground potential. Most inputs are variable voltage between roughly one
and five volts. 5 volts is the reference voltage that the signals work
from, and the "legitimate" signal is usually something between, say
1/2 and 4 1/2 volts. I do not have the ACTUAL accurate voltage ranges
at hand - but that is the basic principal. If the input voltage to the
computer is outside the normal range, a fault is recorded and a code
can be set.
The computer can also "predict" what a reading should be in some
cases, and compare the actual reading to what it expects and cause a
code if it is wrong.

O2 sensors are a different type of signal in that they are not
resistance based, but are a voltage source. However the same basics
still apply. An O2 sensor is supposed to "clock" from roughly 0 to 1.1
volts. The higher the voltage, the richer the exhaust(less oxygen) ,
with a chemically correct mixture being roughly 0.45 volts. A standard
narrow band sensor has a steep "knee" to the signal so is not terribly
accurate, but can tell if it is too rich, or too lean, and the
computer bounces the mixture from rich to lean around that point. Just
happens the catalytic converter likes that, as it alternately absorbs
oxygen and oxydizes carbon (oxidation/reduction catalyst)
This is one place the "prediction" comes in. The front O2 sensor sees
a varying voltage, and the rear sensor is supposed to see less
variation. If it sees the right reduction in swing it knows the
catalyst is working. If it sees too much swing, it knows it is not
working.
The computer also knows how many "counts" or crossings to expect under
given conditions, and knows there is a problem with the sensor when
the number of counts per unit time is too low, or if the voltage swing
is too small so it can set an O2 sensor failure code.


All this to say that the system of "fault codes" is NOT perfect and is
not designed to cover every possible eventuality.
It is really designed to predict emission control ineffectiveness more
than anything else, and to give someone with some understanding of the
system a place to start in troubleshooting what is a very complex
control and feedback system.

And the computer can NOT, at this point, diagnose itself.
3 computers are required to do this, with all three having an even
"vote". If two agree, and one dissagrees, it is assumed the
dissagreeing computer is at fault.

A simple "dual redundant"ystem is not fail-safe.

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.


VERY easy to do. Simply apply a "full throttle" signal to the
fly-by-wire throttle input, or cause the cruise control "accellerate"
input to be "active". Both could be legitimate inputs, with full
throttle (or at least opening throttle) being a legitimate output.

Now, if that input were to be asserted with the transmission in
neutral, the computer would attempt to limit the RPM to protect the
engine. If the open throttle signal, in gear, did not create an
increase in speed on the vehicle speed sensor (VSS) and DID create a
difference in speed from the crankshaft and/or camshaft sensors
(engine tach signal) he computer could also throw a code to say the
transmission or torque converter had a problem.
The computer reads both the crankshaft speed and the transmission
input speed so it can tell if the lockup torque converter is working
properly.


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?


Extremely slim chance that any 2 wires in the harness, if connected
together, would cause the problem without a code, and an even smaller
chance that they would be next to each other in the harness, AND be
subject to damage under "normal useage", if at all.

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


IF there is a problem electronically it is likely to be one of 3
things.
A faulty sensor
A faulty component in the computer
or
A "bug" in the code.

A "bug" would generally be universal - meaning it would occurr in
virtually all of a given model/option because the firmware is "common"
to all of a type.

A faulty component OR a faulty sensor would be more likely - but you
would expect them to become "predictable" because failures usually
get worse very quickly, like an avalanche, when they start - and are
usually somewhat temperature related.

To this point there does not appear to be any kind of a pattern that
would point towards anything with any degree of certainty.

I used to do a LOT of system troubleshooting during my years as an
automotive technician - and now do a fair amount in the computer
field. (as well as some more basic electronic repairs - fixed 2 GPS
units last weekend, and 2 inoperative handheld aviation radios
yesterday).

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 04:58:58 -0800 (PST), wrote:

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





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

wrote:
I'm quite amazed at how people want to just attribute this to driver
stupidity. Â*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. Â*I'd be pretty amazed if he didn't try to put the car in
neutral.

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

No, and I never assumed it did. Â* 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? Â* Yet he did
not during a ride that lasted minutes? Â* Â*Or that not one of the 3
other people in the car thought of it? Â* Â*Is it possible they didn't
try sure. Â* 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. Â*The FACT is that the
lexus can be shifted to neutrral under runaway conditions. Â*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.


The FACT is the law requires there be a mechanical way to put a cat
out of gear, and ALL cars with automatic transmissions, to this day,
have a "manual valve" controled by a linkage to do this. The only
automatic car in history that I cannot say for 100% positive had this
feature was the electric shifted Edsel with the buttons in the
steering wheel (made for only 2 years) and the Packard Ultramatic,
which is the only car in history that could NOT be shifted into
neutral at speed.

Both of these had come and gone before automotive safety legislation
caught up with them.

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.


Don't need a test if you understand how the car is built. There is NO
LOCKOUT that can prevent the shifter fom moving to neutral at speed
and yet allow the car to be put in neutral at a stop.

Any mechanical FAILURE that would prevent shifting to neutral at speed
would also prevent going to neutral at a stop. The brake/shifter
interlock only prevents shifting OUT OF PARK without the brake pedal
depressed - and even IF it could control the movement into neutral
fron either drive or reverse (the only options) stepping on the brake
would allow the shifter to be moved.

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.

Having had many transmissions apart, including electrically shifted,
electronic controlled units, the only electical or electronic controls
in today's automatics are electrically operated solenoid valves that
control the flow of hydraulic fluid under pressure to the various
clutches and brakes that control the shifting of the planetary gear
sets. There are no electromechanical devices that interface with the
manual valve control which has ULTIMATE CONTROL of the transmission.
NO combination of sticky, faulty, or missapplied solenoids could cause
the transmission to transmit driving force to the wheels with the
manual valve in the neutral position.

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.

That, when it exists, is in the shifter assembly itself - not the
tranny, and is called a brake/shifter interlock. Requires the brake to
be depressed to put the vehicle into or out of PARK ONLY.

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?

Because there is a LOT more affecting an airplane's flight than there
is affecting the operation of a motor vehicle.
Aerodynamics are CRITICAL, as is structural strength and loading -
which can be affected by so MANY different parameters.
A little bit of ice can totally destroy the lifting capability of an
airfoil (particularly the now-common "laminar" airfoils) - and by the
time investigators get there, the ice is long gone.

By the way - I am also building an airplane.

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'd tell him to his face if he were still alive - even if he was
"carrying" There is NO EXCUSE for the death of the Chippy and his
family other than gross stupidity in the face of adversity.






explain it in simple terms for simple people:

The cause of the runaway was Toyota's fault. Â*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 Thu, 4 Mar 2010 05:17:57 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 4, 12:35Â*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. Â*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. Â*Actually that doesn't sound that far
fetched. Â* 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. Â* 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.


Well, I happen to know that the engine and transmission controls are
"one computer" . The climate control, air bags, radio, compass, etc
are another "computer". Not sure if current Toyota practice is to put
the ABS in the BCM or the BCM - used to be PCM, along with traction
control..

As far as having more than one cpu in a box making it more than one
computer, what do you call a "computer" with a quad core duo intell
processor? 8 computers???????

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:44:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 4, 11:05Â*am, wrote:
On Mar 4, 12:23Â*am, wrote:





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. Â*Sure there are multiple computers in a car. Â*Common ones
are for the engine control, ABS, climate control, etc. Â* But nothing
says that one computer cannot be responsible for many systems. Â*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? Â*It is part of the engine control, is it not? Â* Â*And if
there was an electronic shift interlock, why would it be unusual for
that same computer to control it? Â* 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. Â* 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 Â*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.

Here's a much better source that says you don't know what you're
talking about:

http://www.embedded.com/columns/sign...questid=508024

For background, embedded processors are the computers that are
embedded in something else, as opposed to being a desktop, notebook,
server, etc. That something else could be your TV, cell phone,
microwave, or in this case car. They have a cpu, memory, input/output
and execute a program. Here's what they have to say about how many
of these are in cars today and it's even more than I would have
guessed. I think many here will be surprised at how high the numbers
actually are.


"How many embedded processors does your car have? Go ahead, guess. If
you've got a late-model luxury sedan, two or three processors might be
obvious in the GPS navigation system or the automatic distance
control. Yet you'd still be off by a factor of 25 or 50. The current 7-
Series BMW and S-class Mercedes boast about 100 processors apiece. A
relatively low-profile Volvo still has 50 to 60 baby processors on
board. Even a boring low-cost econobox has a few dozen different
microprocessors in it. Your transportation appliance probably has more
chips than your Internet appliance."

Like I said, there are a lot of "smart switches" in the canbus system
- but although they may use"microprocessors" they are not computers.
The microprocessor is used as a switch. Switches are binary digital
devices too - canbus switches are solid state and remote control. They
do NO data processing so are not REALLY computers.

That said, even if you count them, and use a Bimmer as your example
(likely the most over-computerized space-ships in tha galaxy) finding
100 microprocessor controlled devices, muchless microprocessors, would
be a big stretch.

And counting the display driver on an LCD display as a "computer" is a
real stretch of litterary licence!!!!!

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 17:03:09 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 4, 6:20Â*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
wrote



Then it should be easy for you to provide us to a link to any source,
Toyota, the media, etc where they proved it.

Another unrealistic request. Can you recite exactly what was on the new last
Tuesday? Â*The Monday two weeks ago? Â* Can you provide a link? Â*I see a lot
of interesting news that has relevance to a conversation I'm having a year
later, but I cannot provide the link or citation if requested. Â*I'm sure you
can though.

Nothing at all unreasonable about it. Harrry is running around
claiming over and over that it's been proven that a Lexus like the one
driven by the CA highway patrol officer can be "shifted into neutral
in runaway condition" and that this fact has been widely reported. He
says it's been everywhere. The TV media routinely have videos or
text reports available online on all kinds of current hot topic
stuff. Also, newpapers have articles available online. And those
things are routinely used to establish facts.

Are you suggesting I just accept as a given his statement about what
he claims he saw on TV? Even Harry hasn't told us what car was used,
how fast was it going, etc. Is that the new standard here to
establish fact? And once again, I'd say that the best he could do
would be to show us a link that establishes that a similar car
traveling at 120mph can be shifted into neutral, because no one can
actually duplicate what is exactly happening in cars at the time they
are experiencing the runaway phenomena. But if there is credible
proof that the model Lexus the CA patrol officer was driving can be
shifted into neutral at 120 mph, that would be an important step. All
I'm asking for is a simple link to see it for myself.


You are so smart and argumentative, why don't you provide even ONE
proof that ANY car has that capability built in???
I've given you ONE from the late fifties, that is documented to have
the possibility of being unable to be shifted into neutral, and ONE
from the early fifties that DEFINITELY, BY DESIGN, was IMPOSSIBLE to
shift into neutral at speed .

The first was the Edsel Telletronic - and the second was the Packard
UltraMatic. Both were totally out of the picture by the early 1960s.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:42:20 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

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.


Properly applied, the brakes are adequate. Pumped or tentatively
applied they are not.
The brakes can not be depended on to CONTROL the speed. They must be
used to STOP THE CAR. As quickly as possible.

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.


On a spark ignition, port injected, gasoline engine the fuel must be
SHUT OFF to prevent runnaway if the air throttle is held open..
The fuel can be INTERMITTENTLY shut off, but cannot be "flow reduced".

I'll explain why.
With the throttle open, a more or less constant volume of air per cyl
stroke is pumped into the engine. A very narrow range of mixtures will
reliably fire in that cyl under the pressure of combustion. Any leaner
than that "lean limit" will not ignite in the cyl. Instead it will be
pumped out directly into the extremely hot and reactive catalytic
converter - where it WILL burn - flashing th converter white hot,
damaging it in a "flash" and very likely causing a fire by overheating
any flamable materials within 6 inches, whether protected by a steel
floorpan or not.

I've seen floormats and consoles burned out of cars from this exact
problem in the past.

By SHUTTING OFF fuel flow, you either have proper combustion mixture
or you have air. No catalytic converter issues. No overheating issues.
No emission control issues. No safety issues.

In ,
typed:
On Mar 4, 6:20 pm, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:
wrote



Then it should be easy for you to provide us to a link to
any source, Toyota, the media, etc where they proved it.

Another unrealistic request. Can you recite exactly what
was on the new last Tuesday? The Monday two weeks ago? Can
you provide a link? I see a lot
of interesting news that has relevance to a conversation
I'm having a year later, but I cannot provide the link or
citation if requested. I'm sure you can though.

Nothing at all unreasonable about it. Harrry is running
around claiming over and over that it's been proven that a
Lexus like the one driven by the CA highway patrol officer
can be "shifted into neutral in runaway condition" and that
this fact has been widely reported. He says it's been
everywhere. The TV media routinely have videos or text
reports available online on all kinds of current hot topic
stuff. Also, newpapers have articles available online.
And those things are routinely used to establish facts.

Are you suggesting I just accept as a given his statement
about what he claims he saw on TV? Even Harry hasn't told
us what car was used, how fast was it going, etc. Is that
the new standard here to establish fact? And once again,
I'd say that the best he could do would be to show us a
link that establishes that a similar car traveling at
120mph can be shifted into neutral, because no one can
actually duplicate what is exactly happening in cars at the
time they are experiencing the runaway phenomena. But if
there is credible proof that the model Lexus the CA patrol
officer was driving can be shifted into neutral at 120 mph,
that would be an important step. All I'm asking for is a
simple link to see it for myself.

My Buick can be shifted into any gear you wish at speeds over 45 mph. Of
course, nothing will happen. Shift to Neutral, you're still in Drive, shift
to Reverse, still nothing happens and you stay in drive. I know because when
I read it in the manual, I tried it. All but Park, that is; I took their
word for it on that one. A step further, if you stick it in L1 and floor
it, you'll still go shifting through three of the four gears. Only
overdrive won't kick in since it takes an electrical switch to do that,
which is held open unless you're in drive.
Anyone who can't turn off the key when they finally realize what's going
on though would have to be quite a rube.

"Twayne" wrote in message
My Buick can be shifted into any gear you wish at speeds over 45 mph. Of
course, nothing will happen. Shift to Neutral, you're still in Drive,
shift to Reverse, still nothing happens and you stay in drive. I know
because when I read it in the manual, I tried it.

What Buick is that? When I shift mine into neutral, it is in neutral, not
drive. 2001 LeSabre and 1991 Regal went out of gear. I did not try
reverse. .

On Mar 4, 2:05*pm, 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.

Then it should be easy for you to provide us to a link to any source,
Toyota, the media, etc where they proved it. * First, it should be
obvious to even you that they can't actually duplicate the runaway
condition, because no one knows what is causing it and exactly what
occurs during that period. * * However, a good starting point would be
where the test was done going 120 mph under full throttle.
Waiting.......- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Already done as to a cite for it being proved and as I said I have no
cite from Toyota. You _could_ try reading my respons to you directly
above this but that might be asking just a bit too much of you.

Harry K

On Mar 4, 5:03*pm, wrote:
On Mar 4, 6:20*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

wrote

Then it should be easy for you to provide us to a link to any source,
Toyota, the media, etc where they proved it.

Another unrealistic request. Can you recite exactly what was on the new last
Tuesday? *The Monday two weeks ago? * Can you provide a link? *I see a lot
of interesting news that has relevance to a conversation I'm having a year
later, but I cannot provide the link or citation if requested. *I'm sure you
can though.

Nothing at all unreasonable about it. * Harrry is running around
claiming over and over that it's been proven that a Lexus like the one
driven by the CA highway patrol officer can be "shifted into neutral
in runaway condition" and that this fact has been widely reported. He
says it's been everywhere. * The TV media routinely have videos or
text reports available online on all kinds of current hot topic
stuff. * Also, newpapers have articles available online. * And those
things are routinely used to establish facts.

Are you suggesting I just accept as a given his statement about what
he claims he saw on TV? * Even Harry hasn't told us what car was used,
how fast was it going, etc. *Is that the new standard here to
establish fact? * And once again, I'd say that the best he could do
would be to show us a link that establishes that a similar car
traveling at 120mph can be shifted into neutral, because no one can
actually duplicate what is exactly happening in cars at the time they
are experiencing the runaway phenomena. * *But if there is credible
proof that the model Lexus the CA patrol officer was driving can be
shifted into neutral at 120 mph, that would be an important step. *All
I'm asking for is a simple link to see it for myself.

In at least one case it was a Lexus and I think it was in both. If
you want to look it up, got ahead. According to you it is simple and
you seem to be expert on simple.

Harry K

On Mar 4, 7:53*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Twayne" wrote in message
My Buick can be shifted into any gear you wish at speeds over 45 mph. Of
course, nothing will happen. Shift to Neutral, you're still in Drive,
shift to Reverse, still nothing happens and you stay in drive. I know
because when I read it in the manual, I tried it.

What Buick is that? *When I shift mine into neutral, it is in neutral, not
drive. * 2001 LeSabre and 1991 Regal went out of gear. *I did not try
reverse. .

My 2005 Ford 500 can be put in nuetral. I know because I tried it. I
too would like to know what buick that is.

Harry K

On Mar 4, 1:59*pm, wrote:
On Mar 4, 12:02*pm, Harry K wrote:





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.

It's not up to me to watch the news to prove your claims. * You
claimed specifically that a Lexus had been brought to a stop by
shifting into neutral during runaway conditions. * First, on the face
of it, this is actually impossible to do, because no one has been able
to duplicate the "runaway" condition. * So, the best you could be
referring to was that it's been proven that a Lexus identical to the
one driven by the CA highway patrol officer can be shifted into
neutral when traveling 120mph under full throttle. * That would be a
good start. *Link please.



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.

Please point me to where this is in this long thread. *I've seen where
someone posted about an electronics guy causing full throttle by
fooling with some wires and that it did not set any fault code in the
computer. * I have not seen where he did that while driving and
shifted to neutral while going 120mph at full throttle. * Maybe I
missed something and you can show me where this was stated.



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.

I never claimed that you had said so. * But YOU keep insisting that
there is loads of evidence that a Lexus can be shifted into neutral
under runaway conditions. * All I'm asking for is a link to Toyota or
anyone else that has done a test that your believe at least closely
duplicates the runaway conditions.

Note: *That isn't an anecdotal report here that someone shifted their
car into neutral going at 50mph, etc.



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.

Why is it unreasonable to expect a forensic investigation of the key
components from key cars, like the CA highway patrol officers Lexus?
Just because you want to jump to conclusions, everyone else should
join you? * Is that what the NTSB does with a plane crash?



*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.

How would you suggest to get to the bottom of it? *Just rely on your
speculation as opposed to scientific investigation?



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...'

Just point us to a link where it has been proven that you can shift
that Lexus into neutral under runaway conditions, as you claim. * Of
course you can't because no one can duplicate the runaway conditions
exactly. * But I'll settle for a link to a test going at 100-120mph
under full throttle conditions.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Keep trying and digging yourself deeper. Anyone who claims that they
did _not_ see those news reports OR the cites to them in this thread
has no credibilityi.

Harry K

On Mar 4, 6:27*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 04:58:58 -0800 (PST), 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.

The FACT is the law requires there be a mechanical way to put a cat
out of gear, and ALL cars with automatic transmissions, to this day,
have a "manual valve" controled by a linkage to do this. The only
automatic car in history that I cannot say for 100% positive *had this
feature was the electric shifted Edsel with the buttons in the
steering wheel (made for only 2 years) and the Packard Ultramatic,
which is the only car in history that could NOT be shifted into
neutral at speed.

Both of these had come and gone before automotive safety legislation
caught up with them.

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.

Don't need a test if you understand how the car is built. There is NO
LOCKOUT that can prevent the shifter fom moving to neutral at speed
and yet allow the car to be put in neutral at a stop.

Any mechanical FAILURE that would prevent shifting to neutral at speed
would also prevent going to neutral at a stop. The brake/shifter
interlock only prevents shifting OUT OF PARK without the brake pedal
depressed - and even IF it could control the movement into neutral
fron either drive or reverse (the only options) stepping on the brake
would allow the shifter to be moved.

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.

*Having had many transmissions apart, including electrically shifted,
electronic controlled units, the only electical or electronic controls
in today's automatics are electrically operated solenoid valves that
control the flow of hydraulic fluid under pressure to the various
clutches and brakes that control the shifting of the planetary gear
sets. There are no electromechanical devices that interface with the
manual valve control which has ULTIMATE CONTROL of the transmission.
NO combination of sticky, faulty, or missapplied solenoids could cause
the transmission to transmit driving force to the wheels with the
manual valve in the neutral position.

*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.

That, when it exists, is in the shifter assembly itself - not the
tranny, and is called a brake/shifter interlock. Requires the brake to
be depressed to put the vehicle into or out of PARK ONLY.



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?

Because there is a LOT more affecting an airplane's flight than there
is affecting the operation of a motor vehicle.
Aerodynamics are CRITICAL, as is structural strength and loading -
which can be affected by so MANY different parameters.
A little bit of ice can totally destroy the lifting capability of an
airfoil (particularly the now-common "laminar" airfoils) - and by the
time investigators get there, the ice is long gone.

By the way - I am also building an airplane.



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'd tell him to his face if he were still alive - even if he was
"carrying" There is NO EXCUSE for the death of the Chippy and his
family other than gross stupidity in *the face of adversity.





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 -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you did it. He will want a cite to each and every statement.

Harry K

On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:42:55 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:44:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 4, 11:05*am, wrote:
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.

Here's a much better source that says you don't know what you're
talking about:

http://www.embedded.com/columns/sign...questid=508024

For background, embedded processors are the computers that are
embedded in something else, as opposed to being a desktop, notebook,
server, etc. That something else could be your TV, cell phone,
microwave, or in this case car. They have a cpu, memory, input/output
and execute a program. Here's what they have to say about how many
of these are in cars today and it's even more than I would have
guessed. I think many here will be surprised at how high the numbers
actually are.


"How many embedded processors does your car have? Go ahead, guess. If
you've got a late-model luxury sedan, two or three processors might be
obvious in the GPS navigation system or the automatic distance
control. Yet you'd still be off by a factor of 25 or 50. The current 7-
Series BMW and S-class Mercedes boast about 100 processors apiece. A
relatively low-profile Volvo still has 50 to 60 baby processors on
board. Even a boring low-cost econobox has a few dozen different
microprocessors in it. Your transportation appliance probably has more
chips than your Internet appliance."

Like I said, there are a lot of "smart switches" in the canbus system
- but although they may use"microprocessors" they are not computers.

Tell us, how is a microprocessor (any microprocessor) *not* a computer?

The microprocessor is used as a switch. Switches are binary digital
devices too - canbus switches are solid state and remote control. They
do NO data processing so are not REALLY computers.

Huh?

That said, even if you count them, and use a Bimmer as your example
(likely the most over-computerized space-ships in tha galaxy) finding
100 microprocessor controlled devices, muchless microprocessors, would
be a big stretch.

And counting the display driver on an LCD display as a "computer" is a
real stretch of litterary licence!!!!!

On Mar 4, 9:31*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Harry K wrote:





On Mar 4, 3:03=A0am, 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 t=
hink
about what to do. How to open a door or window, equalizing pressure, the=
air
bubble that will remain, using a cell phone, etc. =A0Yes, it is stupid n=
ot 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.

Exactly. I've experienced unplanned, uncommanded acceleration twice, once from
a throttle return spring that came off of the linkage, and once from a
faulty cruise control module. In the latter case, the CC engaged _full
throttle_ as I was coasting down a cloverleaf exit ramp.

Neither one of those events turned into "runaway" acceleration -- because I
did not panic, and kept my vehicle under control. In both cases, the brakes
did their job quite adequately, thank you very much.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I had a few 'runaway' myself but considering the junkers I drove back
in the day... Most of them were resolved by kicking at the gas
pedal. Had a 36/37/38/41 chev and all of them belonged in the
junkyard.

Harry K

In article , writes:

| It's not up to me to watch the news to prove your claims. You
| claimed specifically that a Lexus had been brought to a stop by
| shifting into neutral during runaway conditions. First, on the face
| of it, this is actually impossible to do, because no one has been able
| to duplicate the "runaway" condition. So, the best you could be
| referring to was that it's been proven that a Lexus identical to the
| one driven by the CA highway patrol officer can be shifted into
| neutral when traveling 120mph under full throttle.

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but I really don't know:
typically, does shifting an automatic transmission into neutral
actually disengage a gear or does it merely cause the torque
converter to stop transferring torque?

Let me explain why I ask. I have a 1997 Toyota Landcruiser with
automatic transmission. It also has a (totally mechanical) shift
on the transfer case to select low or (normal) high speed. The
manual says to put the automatic transmission in neutral when you
want to change the transfer ratio. If I follow those instructions
I hear/feel a nasty gear grinding when I try to shift the transfer
case, suggesting that somehow the output of the transmission is
still rotating with at least some force. If I put the automatic
transmission in park then transfer case shifting is smooth and
quiet, though as I pass through the neutral position of the
transfer case I get a warning light that the A/T parking break
is no longer effective. The manual says not to do this, but I'm
not sure why.

Incidentally, there are two solenoid interlocks that can prevent
certain shifts of the automatic transmission but nothing (well,
at least nothing electric) that can stop me from putting the transfer
case in neutral so I figure I'm safe no matter what any computer may
decide to do.

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

In article , ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:


I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but I really don't know:
typically, does shifting an automatic transmission into neutral
actually disengage a gear or does it merely cause the torque
converter to stop transferring torque?

Neither, actually. It disengages a clutch inside the transmission.

On Mar 4, 11:45*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:42:55 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:44:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 4, 11:05*am, wrote:
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.

Here's a much better source that says you don't know what you're
talking about:

http://www.embedded.com/columns/sign...6?_requestid=5....

For background, embedded processors are the computers that are
embedded in something else, as opposed to being a desktop, notebook,
server, etc. *That something else could be your TV, cell phone,
microwave, or in this case car. *They have a cpu, memory, input/output
and execute a program. * *Here's what they have to say about how many
of these are in cars today and it's even more than I would have
guessed. *I think many here will be surprised at how high the numbers
actually are.

"How many embedded processors does your car have? Go ahead, guess. If
you've got a late-model luxury sedan, two or three processors might be
obvious in the GPS navigation system or the automatic distance
control. Yet you'd still be off by a factor of 25 or 50. The current 7-
Series BMW and S-class Mercedes boast about 100 processors apiece. A
relatively low-profile Volvo still has 50 to 60 baby processors on
board. Even a boring low-cost econobox has a few dozen different
microprocessors in it. Your transportation appliance probably has more
chips than your Internet appliance."

Like I said, there are a lot of "smart switches" in the canbus system
- but although they may use"microprocessors" they are not computers.

Tell us, how is a microprocessor (any microprocessor) *not* a computer?

Yeah, I think everyone wants to know the answer to that question.
It's amazing how when some people are dead wrong on something, instead
of just saying "you're right", they prefer to really make an ass of
themselves.



The microprocessor is used as a switch. Switches are binary digital
devices too - canbus switches are solid state and remote control. They
do NO data processing so are not REALLY computers.

Huh?


Using even a trivial example, where a microprocessor is used as a
switch, then it:

has a CPU
has memory
executes a program
has input and output


That's the basic definition of a computer. How about I write a
simple assembly language program that implements a switch function,
turning a keyboard light on and off, put it in a flash memory chip,
and replace the bios on my PC with it? The light is now flashing.
Is my PC no longer a computer just because it's running a very simple
program?




That said, even if you count them, and use a Bimmer as your example
(likely the most over-computerized space-ships in tha galaxy) finding
100 microprocessor controlled devices, muchless microprocessors, would
be a big stretch.

Who should we believe, you or a website dedicated to embedded
control? Let's say they are off by 2X. That's still a long way from
your claim that there are only one or two computers in any car. I'm
still waiting for a source on that.



And counting the display driver on an LCD display as a "computer" is a
real stretch of litterary licence!!!!!- Hide quoted text -


It's no stretch at all if the display is in fact implemented by using
a microprocessor or microcontroller. If it's implemented strictly
via a digital hardware device, ie, it isn't a cpu running a program,
then yes it would be just a display driver. I think the embedded
system development folks know the difference. Some key point are that
it makes sense to use a computer as opposed to just digital logic
because it's cheap, easy to design, re-programmable during
developemt, manufacturing or potentially in the field without changing
the hardware and once you have it in the display, you can then add all
kinds of nifty features because the cpu is already there and can
handle more stuff for free. If you read the article I provided,
they even point to the first use of a Motorolla 6802 microprocessor in
the 1978 cadillac dashboard display to implement the trip computer.

On Mar 3, 7:52*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:50:48 -0600, AZ Nomad





wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:07:12 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:16:13 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:52*pm, AZ Nomad wrote:
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.

nope.- Hide quoted text -

I'd like to see a credible reference that says there is more than one
computer controlling the engine on a 1994 car or even most of the cars
today. * The cars I've been familiar with have had one ECU, or engine
control unit and that is the one computer that manages the engine. *It
only makes sense, because whatever the emissions reqts are, you meet
them by correctly running the engine which means you need to measure
rpms, temp, airflow, emissions, speed, throttle, etc and all that
needs to be factored in to then determine the fuel delivery, timing,
etc. * It's would seem far easier and simpler to do that in one
computer that gets fed all the info.

There are potentially lots of other computers for climate control,
entertainment system, tranny, electronic displays, etc.

A lot also depends on what you want to count as a "computer".

A relay uses logic. Is it a computer?

How about a toggle switch?

moving the goalposts.

It looks like you're argueing for the sake of arguing.

An ECU is going to have a master program. *It doesn't matter if there
are ten trillion computers inside. *It is trivial for the master computer
to issue the order to shut the fuel off. *It is done every time the
car is shut off. *This isn't a terrible complex concept.

????- Hide quoted text -



???? times two.

On Mar 4, 11:05*pm, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 4, 2:05*pm, 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.

Then it should be easy for you to provide us to a link to any source,
Toyota, the media, etc where they proved it. * First, it should be
obvious to even you that they can't actually duplicate the runaway
condition, because no one knows what is causing it and exactly what
occurs during that period. * * However, a good starting point would be
where the test was done going 120 mph under full throttle.
Waiting.......- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Already done as to a cite for it being proved and as I said *I have no
cite from Toyota. *You _could_ try reading my respons to you directly
above this but that might be asking just a bit too much of you.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess that means you have no link. Kind of strange since you
accused me of not watching the news, because the test case proof you
are crowing about was all over the news. Why it was everywhere.
Yet, you have not a single link and you think I should just take what
you say you saw on TV as all there is too it. Here's an example of
where that will get you. I watched the 60 Minutes segment on Bloom
Energy. I come in here and say "60 Minutes last night had a story
about a company that is going to soon have everyone generating their
own electricity at home using a cube that is about 6" on a side".
Following your rules, that's all there is to it and anyone who dares
ask for a link to more info about it is being unreasonable. Why it's
been all over the news. I saw it on TV! Just for the record, I can
provide you with many links to the Bloom Energy story.

In article , (Doug Miller) writes:
| In article , ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
|
|
| I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but I really don't know:
| typically, does shifting an automatic transmission into neutral
| actually disengage a gear or does it merely cause the torque
| converter to stop transferring torque?
|
| Neither, actually. It disengages a clutch inside the transmission.

Interesting. Is disengaging that clutch used for anything else (except
perhaps park)? If that clutch on my vehicle were not fully disengaging
would I likely observe any other symptoms or would the torque converter
absorb the rotation in park and at idle in neutral with the transmission
loaded (i.e., with the transfer case not in neutral)?

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

In article , ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
In article , (Doug
Miller) writes:
| In article , ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani)
wrote:
|
|
| I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but I really don't know:
| typically, does shifting an automatic transmission into neutral
| actually disengage a gear or does it merely cause the torque
| converter to stop transferring torque?
|
| Neither, actually. It disengages a clutch inside the transmission.

Interesting. Is disengaging that clutch used for anything else (except
perhaps park)?

A typical automatic transmission has several internal clutches that are
engaged, or disengaged, by hydraulic pressure. The gearing in an AT consists
of multiple sets of planetary gears, and the clutches lock or release various
parts of the various gearsets to control the gear ratios. The clutches are
disengaged in both neutral and park. In park, additionally, the transmission
output shaft is mechanically locked by a pin or bar which prevents it from
turning.

If that clutch on my vehicle were not fully disengaging
would I likely observe any other symptoms

I would expect harsh shifts and unpleasant noises.

or would the torque converter
absorb the rotation in park and at idle in neutral with the transmission
loaded (i.e., with the transfer case not in neutral)?

Given that the torque converter can absorb the engine's rotation with the
transmission in gear and the vehicle stopped with the brakes applied... I'd
have to say yes. :-)

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:05:11 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 4, 11:45*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:42:55 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:44:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 4, 11:05*am, wrote:
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.

Here's a much better source that says you don't know what you're
talking about:

http://www.embedded.com/columns/sign...6?_requestid=5...

For background, embedded processors are the computers that are
embedded in something else, as opposed to being a desktop, notebook,
server, etc. *That something else could be your TV, cell phone,
microwave, or in this case car. *They have a cpu, memory, input/output
and execute a program. * *Here's what they have to say about how many
of these are in cars today and it's even more than I would have
guessed. *I think many here will be surprised at how high the numbers
actually are.

"How many embedded processors does your car have? Go ahead, guess. If
you've got a late-model luxury sedan, two or three processors might be
obvious in the GPS navigation system or the automatic distance
control. Yet you'd still be off by a factor of 25 or 50. The current 7-
Series BMW and S-class Mercedes boast about 100 processors apiece. A
relatively low-profile Volvo still has 50 to 60 baby processors on
board. Even a boring low-cost econobox has a few dozen different
microprocessors in it. Your transportation appliance probably has more
chips than your Internet appliance."

Like I said, there are a lot of "smart switches" in the canbus system
- but although they may use"microprocessors" they are not computers.

Tell us, how is a microprocessor (any microprocessor) *not* a computer?

Yeah, I think everyone wants to know the answer to that question.
It's amazing how when some people are dead wrong on something, instead
of just saying "you're right", they prefer to really make an ass of
themselves.



The microprocessor is used as a switch. Switches are binary digital
devices too - canbus switches are solid state and remote control. They
do NO data processing so are not REALLY computers.

Huh?


Using even a trivial example, where a microprocessor is used as a
switch, then it:

has a CPU
has memory
executes a program
has input and output


That's the basic definition of a computer.

I'd draw the line between hardware implementation of a function and a
"computer" whether or not it has a _stored_program_. How that stored program
is accessible is up for discussion. ;-)

How about I write a
simple assembly language program that implements a switch function,
turning a keyboard light on and off, put it in a flash memory chip,
and replace the bios on my PC with it? The light is now flashing.
Is my PC no longer a computer just because it's running a very simple
program?

The computer is not the switch, in this usage anyway. It may control a
switch, but it is not in itself one.

That said, even if you count them, and use a Bimmer as your example
(likely the most over-computerized space-ships in tha galaxy) finding
100 microprocessor controlled devices, muchless microprocessors, would
be a big stretch.

Who should we believe, you or a website dedicated to embedded
control? Let's say they are off by 2X. That's still a long way from
your claim that there are only one or two computers in any car. I'm
still waiting for a source on that.



And counting the display driver on an LCD display as a "computer" is a
real stretch of litterary licence!!!!!- Hide quoted text -


It's no stretch at all if the display is in fact implemented by using
a microprocessor or microcontroller. If it's implemented strictly
via a digital hardware device, ie, it isn't a cpu running a program,
then yes it would be just a display driver. I think the embedded
system development folks know the difference. Some key point are that
it makes sense to use a computer as opposed to just digital logic
because it's cheap, easy to design, re-programmable during
developemt, manufacturing or potentially in the field without changing
the hardware and once you have it in the display, you can then add all
kinds of nifty features because the cpu is already there and can
handle more stuff for free. If you read the article I provided,
they even point to the first use of a Motorolla 6802 microprocessor in
the 1978 cadillac dashboard display to implement the trip computer.

There is a murky area here, which you even alluded to. Is an FPGA a computer?
(no need to answer that

In article , (Doug Miller) writes:
| In article , ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
| In article , (Doug
| Miller) writes:
| | In article , ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani)
| wrote:
| |
| |
| | I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but I really don't know:
| | typically, does shifting an automatic transmission into neutral
| | actually disengage a gear or does it merely cause the torque
| | converter to stop transferring torque?
| |
| | Neither, actually. It disengages a clutch inside the transmission.
|
| Interesting. Is disengaging that clutch used for anything else (except
| perhaps park)?
|
| A typical automatic transmission has several internal clutches that are
| engaged, or disengaged, by hydraulic pressure. The gearing in an AT consists
| of multiple sets of planetary gears, and the clutches lock or release various
| parts of the various gearsets to control the gear ratios. The clutches are
| disengaged in both neutral and park. In park, additionally, the transmission
| output shaft is mechanically locked by a pin or bar which prevents it from
| turning.
|
| If that clutch on my vehicle were not fully disengaging
| would I likely observe any other symptoms
|
| I would expect harsh shifts and unpleasant noises.

There's nothing obvious like that. Of course, with the transfer case
I have my hand on the shift to feel the grinding. I did ask the
dealer service guy about this but he just stared at me blankly. I
had them change the transfer case fluid to see if I was causing any
major damage (either by following or by not following the directions)
and there wasn't any metal. I should note that for years I happily
shifted the transfer ratio while in park. It was only when I noticed
a blurb in the manual that I tried neutral. (The manual said not to
shift in park because "the transmission will damage." I'm not sure
if they meant "will be damaged" or will damage something.)

| or would the torque converter
| absorb the rotation in park and at idle in neutral with the transmission
| loaded (i.e., with the transfer case not in neutral)?
|
| Given that the torque converter can absorb the engine's rotation with the
| transmission in gear and the vehicle stopped with the brakes applied... I'd
| have to say yes. :-)

Yeah, that was my thought as well. The system is too fault tolerant.
I think the vehicle is too old to have enough sensors for the computer(s)
to realize that the torque converter is absorbing rotation when it really
should not be. And for all I know maybe it is normal for it to absorb a
little in this case...

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

On 5 Mar 2010 07:20:52 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:

In article , writes:

| It's not up to me to watch the news to prove your claims. You
| claimed specifically that a Lexus had been brought to a stop by
| shifting into neutral during runaway conditions. First, on the face
| of it, this is actually impossible to do, because no one has been able
| to duplicate the "runaway" condition. So, the best you could be
| referring to was that it's been proven that a Lexus identical to the
| one driven by the CA highway patrol officer can be shifted into
| neutral when traveling 120mph under full throttle.

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but I really don't know:
typically, does shifting an automatic transmission into neutral
actually disengage a gear or does it merely cause the torque
converter to stop transferring torque?

It disengages the drive clutches of the planetary gear sets -
effectively disconnecting the gears.

Let me explain why I ask. I have a 1997 Toyota Landcruiser with
automatic transmission. It also has a (totally mechanical) shift
on the transfer case to select low or (normal) high speed. The
manual says to put the automatic transmission in neutral when you
want to change the transfer ratio. If I follow those instructions
I hear/feel a nasty gear grinding when I try to shift the transfer
case, suggesting that somehow the output of the transmission is
still rotating with at least some force.

The planetarys are still spinning, with some friction dragging the
output around. Much better to shift in park - or come to a full stop,
THEN shift into neutral and shift the transfer case quickly

If I put the automatic
transmission in park then transfer case shifting is smooth and
quiet, though as I pass through the neutral position of the
transfer case I get a warning light that the A/T parking break
is no longer effective. The manual says not to do this, but I'm
not sure why.

Incidentally, there are two solenoid interlocks that can prevent
certain shifts of the automatic transmission but nothing (well,
at least nothing electric) that can stop me from putting the transfer
case in neutral so I figure I'm safe no matter what any computer may
decide to do.

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:50:20 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:


I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but I really don't know:
typically, does shifting an automatic transmission into neutral
actually disengage a gear or does it merely cause the torque
converter to stop transferring torque?

Neither, actually. It disengages a clutch inside the transmission.

Which disengages the gears.
Even in most manual transmissions today the gears (except for reverse)
are in constant mesh.