Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?

Page 14 of 16  

On Mar 4, 12:35 am, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca 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.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 05:17:57 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net 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 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???????
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 4, 9:31 pm, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca 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.
http://forums.nicoclub.com/zerothread/351612
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?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:47:33 -0600, AZ Nomad

the cat or valves.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Klipstein wrote:

Heh! In a wonderful book called "Systemantics" the author discovered several rules of systems. One of which was: "Fail Safe systems often fail by failing to fail safe."
As an example, consider automotive braking: * Originally, you stepped on a pedal which pulled a wire which activated the brake shoes. * Next stage was hydraulic brakes, with about twice as many parts that could fail. * 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 incarnation #1)
In between each of these "improvements" were dozens of minor tweaks. So, then, today an automobiles braking system contains, oh, 100 times as many parts at that of a Model-T.
I carry a chain and a grappling hook.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:48:36 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

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??
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As if you expect need for the engine to be more than idling when the brakes are applied?
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/03/2010 02:17 AM, Don Klipstein wrote:

What makes people too god damn stupid to pop it in neutral and switch off the key? A woman testified to congress that she had both feet on the brake and was pulling on the steering wheel as her car climbed over 100mph for 6 miles. She had to hit a guard rail to stop. How fracking stupid can you get?
--
LSFT

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wasn't really sure how stupid people could get. Your post gave me a better understanding.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 3, 6:10 am, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com 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 did.
Harry K
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 07:23:51 -0800 (PST), Harry K

Actually, and in fact, that is not correct. Add it to the list of things you got wrong. You ARE stupid.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 3, 10:32 am, snipped-for-privacy@dog.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.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 3, 8:03 am, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net 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 do.
Someone who drives a runaway for minutes and crashes without doing such a simple thing as shiftint to nuetral...
Harry K
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

It's incredible how quick you are to condemn drivers. Many drivers may have known what to do, but were unable to do it in sufficient time. If your car suddenly went to full acceleration in traffic with you in the left lane and you couldn't react to the totally unexpected and act, I'm sure you'd have a very different opinion. Hindsight is 20-20. You know the outcome was a total wreck. But if the car started accelerating in heavy traffic, with you in the left lane, going 70mph, what would you do? The standard reply here is turn off the car, shift to neutral, stand on the brakes as hard as you can. Is that what you would do in the first 1 sec? The first 2 secs? Or would you apply the brakes, increasing the distance between you and the car in front of you, while you figured out what was going on, what to do next and at the same time avoid hitting another car? My first reaction would be that maybe the cruise control is engaged. Figuring out how to disengage that on a rental car or even a car you drive regularly but don't use the cruise control, could consume precious seconds. And so it goes. The bottom line is I would not necessarily fault drivers or call them stupid unless you were in their shoes or know all the facts. And at this point, it's clear that no one, including Toyota, knows all the facts.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 4, 8:22 am, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net 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 this thread.
2. The guy who demonstrated how he could induce runaway and get 'no code' That demonstration was also all over the news and cited in this thread. And yes, they pulled it out of gear before finally stopping.
Since you are trying to put up strawmen let me curtail your attempt:
1. Sudden acceleration with no time to react. No problem there. Driver not at fault.
2. My problem is someone who does have time to react but doesn't - Cop and 3 family members. Clearly driver error that caused the deaths. How many others died due to incompetancy I don't know but I bet there were some.
Sinceyou cannot differentiate between the cause of the runaway and the cause of the deaths I see no point in contineuing..
Harry K
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.......
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
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.