Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?

Page 12 of 16  


Not true, My Sonata has rear disc brakes, but the parking brake has shoes inside of a drum. I've tried stopping the car with it and doubt it would have a lot of effect at full throttle.
OTOH, it does have a throttle over ride if you stop on the brakes. Engine goes to idle no matter the pedal position.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I once owned a couple of Renault 10 shoe boxes, 1730 pounds of screaming 4 cylinder terror. The cars had 4 wheel disk brakes and the "emergency brake" was a cable operated cam mechanism that squeezed the rear calipers. It was a true emergency brake as opposed to a "parking brake". Those were the weirdest most fun vehicles I ever owned except for the Renault 16.
TDD
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Depends on the vehicle. In my experience, the overwhelming majority use the exact same set of pads/shoes.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 3, 7:18 am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Gee, I guess it isn't that bizarre then. Yeah, I over generalized suggesting it applied to all cars, but you were equally wrong suggesting that it's bizarre to find a manufacturer that designs them that way.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually not. Most cars with rear disk brakes use a small drum for the parking brake.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

While there may be some sort of unsolved interface problem that causes an unexpected acceleration one does wonder how many genuine instances there are? And maybe how many litigiuos one!
There may be also be something to the allegation 'Here's chance to take a bite out a none North American auto producer'.
But how many 'incidents' are due to driver error or insufficient competency in dealing with something unusual.
Every driver SHOULD, although one doubts whether many do, know what to do if/when their vehicle acts in an unexpected manner.
For example when we started towing a trailer with a 1976 Chev. Impala we reviewed what could happen if, for example we lost the car's power assisted hydraulic brakes (no dual braking then!) and/or the engine stopped and we had no power assisted brakes or steering. With engine off we then practiced bringing the whole rig to a stop by using the foot operated parking brake. Never had to do it for real but knew we could and with the family and all gear on board.
In another instance we had a V.W diesel 'take off' (running on it's own crankcase fumes on a warm day). Having read about the probable cause we depressed the clutch, disconnecting the engine which started to race uncontrollably; pulled into side of the road, stopped, and then stalled the engine, hoping not break anything! It stopped and when the engine had cooled bit we drove to the dealer.
Many years before, in 1953/4 we had a wheel break off the rear axle of a 1926 Daimler! But again somehow we knew which way to turn the wheels and brake (manual rod brakes no power assist at all) to bring the vehicle to a halt without turning over.
Included in the above axiom of "Think about what COULD happen and rehearse what to do about it", is that all members of this family (except one) prefer manual vehicles and state a preference for a proper hand brake lever located centre console. Which also means that in certain emergency situations the front seat passenger could also operate the handbrake!
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net 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?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in wrote:

Yes,exactly. If one's foot is on the brake,the throttle should naturally go back to idle. although,it would cause some trouble for left-foot brakers when they unknowingly ride the brakes. Hmm,might teach them to properly brake,with the right foot. B-)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 2, 9:48 am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Very good question and apparently one of the key differences between Toyota and the other manufacturers that do have it. Another question is if the design other manufacturers used involves the computer doing it or if there is some seperate circuit that does it. The obvious problem being that if the computer is the interlock mechanism, then when it's going nuts and ordering full power, it may also be incapable of executing the safety program as well.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

*Programming* a throttle override by the brake? As in relying on lack of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably apply an override onto the throttle?
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Klipstein) wrote:

Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a throttle malfunction, for the override to not work would require a second malfunction. Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely than any single malfunction.
For additional safety, a mechanical interlock could be constructed -- but the electronic systems are more reliable.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A mechanical interlock can malfunction resulting in a runaway throttle and be far less safe than nothing at all.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in Doug Miller wrote:

under normal conditions,the operator would/should not be applying both throttle and brake at the same time.
However,I question any need or benefit for throttle-by-wire(TBW) in an auto. the old mechanical throttle cable and throttle position sensor at the butterfly works fine,and has less chance for malfunction,particularly on newer vehicles.In fact,TBW is added complexity and cost,and more prone to failure. It violates the KISS principle,too.
As has been demonstrated by the Toyota SW problem,TBW can suffer programming errors,SW glitches,or component malfunctions resulting in loss of control of the vehicle.And there's no backup or redundant system as there are in aircraft.A critical failure and your engine runs away.
after checking Wiki,I found these "benefits" for TBW; "The significance of ETC is that it much easier to integrate features to the vehicle such as cruise control, traction control, stability control, and precrash systems and others that require torque management, since the throttle can be moved irrespective of the position of the driver's accelerator pedal."
IMO,if you need a computer to control your traction or vehicle stability,you should not be driving. If your vehicle needs "stability control",it's an inherently unsafe vehicle,and should not be on public roads.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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

No, not necessarily. It is a case of what everybody wants and thinks is necessary for safety. ABS is a crock - yet everyone thinks all cars should have it. Traction control makes it possible to drive in slippery conditions with the ridiculous wide tires everyone seems to want on their cars. Same with Stability control.
Better to just put the proper tires on the car and be done with it.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 2, 9:01 pm, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

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

I think it's arguable which are more reliable and which can be designed to better fail safely. However for it to do what it needs to do the interlock needs to be totally seperate from the computer commanding the throttle.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

No, in fact, that's an elementary principle of probability theory: any two events in combination are less likely to occur than either one of them alone.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in Doug Miller wrote:

only problem is that in this case of throttle control programming,both "events" are all part of the *same code*. it's still possible for the code to jump off into nowhere,go into some strange loop.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 3, 10:54 am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

That's false too. The probability of two events occuring in combination is only less IF THE TWO ARE INDEPENDENT. You are arguing that it's perfectly fine to have the same computer that is running the throttle to also be the safety override and to disengage the throttle if the brakes are applied. Running on the same computer, those two events are no longer independent. Surely you must know that you could easily design a computer that controlled both where if the computer ran amock, it could command full throttle and ignore the start/stop button that is telling it to shut off the engine. I'm amazed you would argue such a thing. Let's say you have a Microsoft Word program and Windows Explorer. Are you going to tell us that the probability of Word hanging and Explorer hanging at the same time and to stop responding are independent events? That would be true only if they were running on SEPERATE computers.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.