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.
I've practiced some, I'd had a couple happen to me, but just as important, I practice them in my mind. Ever watch the top athletes run the downhill in their minds? Or a race course? They know what to expect and are ready for when it happens. While driving, just think about where you are and what you can do if an emergency happens.
Oh, as for the black ice, I learned quickly when I was 17 and found myself going backwards at 50 mph. Valuable lesson. I do have a rather large parking lot at work to pay around too, so yes, I do have a skid pad of sorts.
"With the Camry?s throttle pinned while going 70 mph, the brakes easily overcame all 268 horsepower straining against them and stopped the car in 190 feet?that?s a foot shorter than the performance of a Ford Taurus without any gas-pedal problems and just 16 feet longer than with the Camry?s throttle closed. From 100 mph, the stopping-distance differential was 88 feet?noticeable to be sure, but the car still slowed enthusiastically enough to impart a feeling of confidence"
Well if you now agree that Don's meaning was that he was talking about the same computer, then your reply was totally wrong, because it was then up to you to say YOU were talking about 2 different computers. So, your reply makes no sense.
Your getting yourself confused here. You just agreed above it was obvious that Don was referring to one computer, ie the same one that is running the throttle. So, how is it anyone else then supposed to interpret your comments to be referring to anything other than that ONE computer?
You have a problem admitting when you are wrong. And you've been wrong three times now in this thread. Once on the parking brake issue when you first claimed all cars parking brakes use the same pads as the service break. Then wrong again when you said it was bizarre that Mercedes would use a seperate brake pad for the parking brake. Several people spotted it and told you that many cars have brakes where the parking brakes are seperate. I also was wrong when I first implied that all cars were that way. The difference is, I admitted it. Yet you never said you were wrong. And your statement above is still false:
" > >Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a throttle
That is true ONLY IF the two computers are independent of each other. That is a critical missing piece. But you never stated that. It's not up to others to have to make the correct assumptions to go along with what you wrote. It's like saying you can easily survive a jump off the George Washington bridge, but leaving out the part about having a base jumping parachute. Then when called on it, ragging on about others making the wrong assumptions. Also what you call assumptions, I would call paying attention to the thread and following the context of the discussion. I think what Don who made the post was referring to was clear from the context. You agreed to that above, I;ve seen his posts and think he has good sense and knows that if you have a totally seperate computer programmed as the safety brake/throttle override, then it's not a problem. It's very likely he was referring to programming the SAME computer. Yet you came back and implied he was wrong and if you were talking about 2 seperate computers, first the response then doens't make sense, and second, it was up to YOU to say you were talking about two.
Let's see here. Don didn't say whether he meant programming another computer as the brake safety or the same computer we've been talking about in this thread that controls the throttle. Yet you ASSume he meant a seperate computer, which seems less likely given the context, and that's peachy keen. That is the only way the statements that you then made would be correct. So, there are one set of rules for Doug and one for everyone else.
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.
So are the Republicans, just in different areas. Big military, big police, war on terror, warrantless wiretaps, denial of habeas...
Sure. But it is still a government mandate that restricts freedoms, your original point.
Ain't no saints here. As I started out, it is the nature of government to mandate and restrict rights. You are trying to frame it as "My guys are giving good restrictions and those guys are giving bad restrictions." OK. I get that.
But by the way, not all Democrats (notice the correct capitalization) share the same views any more that all Republicans are of one mind. I think most Democrats would view the characterization above as extreme.
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.
And the failure rates of the processor, its RAM, whatever the code is stored in, and power and ground connections to these and any power conditioning circuitry / components such as voltage regulators and bypass capacitors are not going to zero. The power conditioning for the throttle control computer may be insufficient to handle voltage variations caused by malfunction or failure elsewhere in the car. Hardware failure/malfunction can cause the software/firmware to malfunction or not be any good at all.
(Will the computer that controls the throttle work properly at the lowest voltage that the ignition system can work at? If the alternator's voltage regulator fails, will the computer that controls the throttle keep on ticking at 17 volts-plus or whatever until the battery is dried out or fried enough to not allow the car to run or the high voltage blows something in a way that stops the engine? Will the computer control the throttle properly with the worst corrosion at the battery terminals that allows the car to run?)
She also testified that she tried to put the car in neutral but could not and tried other gears and could not. I don't know if that is true or not. In a panic, people do (or cannot do) some strange things.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.