On Mar 4, 12:35 am, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
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.
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 05:17:57 -0800 (PST), email@example.com wrote:
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
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 Mar 4, 9:31 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I'd love to see a reference that says all that stuff, including the
air bags, are run by one computer on any car. You also seem to be
making very broad generalizations as to how all cars are designed.
A simple google search on "air bag computer" brings up lots of hits.
There is discussion on where it is, how to repIace it, etc. Funny
how they call it an airbag computer, not an airbag/radio/compass
computer and there is no mention of it doing anything other than
control the airbags. Here's one link with a picture of the airbag
computer from a Nissan.
And I can think of some very good reasons why designers would want an
airbag computer to be dedicated to that one specific task. Can you?
Most throttles are just a cable to the throttle body / airbox.
It wouldn't be reasonable to expect a solenoid to move the cable; the
added complexity might cause more problems.
However, all cars are fuel injected nowadays and they can cut the fuel
based on brakes. However, going to all the way lean to no fuel might have
ramifications with the cat or valves overheating. OK for a detected
panic situation, but I don't think it would be desirable every time the
brakes are used.
Heh! In a wonderful book called "Systemantics" the author discovered several
rules of systems. One of which was: "Fail Safe systems often fail by failing
to fail safe."
As an example, consider automotive braking:
* Originally, you stepped on a pedal which pulled a wire which activated the
* Next stage was hydraulic brakes, with about twice as many parts that could
* Then came power brakes with even more vulnerable parts.
* Next came dual brake systems.
* Then anti-lock brakes
* Now we're back to "brake-by-wire" (although not the same wire as in
In between each of these "improvements" were dozens of minor tweaks. So,
then, today an automobiles braking system contains, oh, 100 times as many
parts at that of a Model-T.
I carry a chain and a grappling hook.
More parts that COULD fail, but a significantly lower probability that
ANY would. Having owned and driven vehicles with mechanical brakes I
can attest to the fact that "juice brakes" are infinitely more
reliable and effective.
Won't argue with you there - but again the incidence of power brake
failure is EXTREMELY low, as the system is dead-nuts simple.
Again - a HUGE increase in safety, because now you need at least 2
simultaneous failures to render the braking system inopperative.
A royal pain in the behind - trouble prone and un-necessary.
No, not even a model T (which, by the way, had only brakes on the rear
wheels and the transmission.)
Even a 2 wheel braked car had more parts in each wheel than either a
hydraulic drum or disk brake when you count all the clevises, pins,
etc that were required - and EVERY ONE of them was critical.
Many juice drum brakes today have only 4 moving parts per wheel. 2
pistons and 2 shoes. The master cyl has 2 - the primary and secondary
It's MOVING parts that are critical because they wear, jam, and fail.
Both my '49 VW and my '28 Chevy had 4 wheel mechanical brakes.
The Chevy service brakes were external bands on the rear drum, and
internal shoes on the front - with internal shoes on the rear for the
emergency brake. To stop it from speed required yanking the handbrake
and stomping the pedal at the same time to keep from throwing the rear
drums out of shape.
The VW would go wherever it wanted when you first touched the brakes.
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:48:36 GMT, email@example.com (Doug Miller)
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??
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?
On Mar 3, 6:10 am, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Ya notice you are the only poster calling others 'stupid'. Why is
that? Your posts have borded on 'stupid' since the start of the
thread but noone AFAIK has called you on it....hmmm...guess I just
On Mar 3, 10:32 am, email@example.com wrote:
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.
On Mar 3, 8:03 am, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Actually, that the Lexus can be stopped by shifting to neutral under
runaway conditions has been proven. It was proven TWICE and both were
cited in this thread.
Again. The cause of the runaway was a manufacturers fault. That
people died becuse of it is the DRIVER'S fault for not knowing what to
Someone who drives a runaway for minutes and crashes without doing
such a simple thing as shiftint to nuetral...
Help us out here and show us where that was proved. Perhaps I missed
It's incredible how quick you are to condemn drivers. Many drivers
may have known what to do, but were unable to do it in sufficient
time. If your car suddenly went to full acceleration in traffic
with you in the left lane and you couldn't react to the totally
unexpected and act, I'm sure you'd have a very different opinion.
Hindsight is 20-20. You know the outcome was a total wreck. But if
the car started accelerating in heavy traffic, with you in the left
lane, going 70mph, what would you do? The standard reply here is
turn off the car, shift to neutral, stand on the brakes as hard as you
can. Is that what you would do in the first 1 sec? The first 2
secs? Or would you apply the brakes, increasing the distance
between you and the car in front of you, while you figured out what
was going on, what to do next and at the same time avoid hitting
another car? My first reaction would be that maybe the cruise
control is engaged. Figuring out how to disengage that on a rental
car or even a car you drive regularly but don't use the cruise
control, could consume precious seconds. And so it goes. The
bottom line is I would not necessarily fault drivers or call them
stupid unless you were in their shoes or know all the facts. And at
this point, it's clear that no one, including Toyota, knows all the
On Mar 4, 8:22 am, email@example.com wrote:
Here is you help.
1. Guy drives a faily good distance in runaway conditions by
repeatedlyi in/out of gear, pulls into dealer with it still doing and
smoking hot breaks. That was all over the news and was also cited in
2. The guy who demonstrated how he could induce runaway and get 'no
code' That demonstration was also all over the news and cited in this
thread. And yes, they pulled it out of gear before finally stopping.
Since you are trying to put up strawmen let me curtail your attempt:
1. Sudden acceleration with no time to react. No problem there.
Driver not at fault.
2. My problem is someone who does have time to react but doesn't -
Cop and 3 family members. Clearly driver error that caused the
deaths. How many others died due to incompetancy I don't know but I
bet there were some.
Sinceyou cannot differentiate between the cause of the runaway and the
cause of the deaths I see no point in contineuing..
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.
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
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.
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.