Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?

[AZ Nomad]

look 5 lines up and look 10 lines up

[trader4]

I never asserted that a "computer" was at fault or any such thing. I only told those that say the driver should have just shut off the engine or that they should have just shifted it into neutral, etc, that if those functions are under the control of a computer, as opposed to simple mechanical linkages, it's possible that you would be unable to do so while the computer is malfunctioning and causing the full throttle, if indeed that is what is happening. You asserted that the likelihood of there being multiple systems on a single processor is small, without any basis. Do you know for example that the shutoff function of the engine is NOT controlled by the same computer as the throttle? It seems far more likely to me it would be as the throttle control is telling the engine what speed to run at, including a speed of zero rpm.

And even if it's not controlled by the same computer doesn't mean that one computer getting into some unexpected state cannnot have unintended consequences on other computers. The other computer could, for example, be stuck waiting for a response that is never coming from the first failed computer. Unless you know how this whole system is put together and works, I'm only saying it's premature to rush to judgement against all the drivers by saying they surely could have stopped the car by turning it off, shifting it, etc.

[trader4]

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?

[Doug Miller]

I guess I have to spell this out for you.

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.

Do you understand now?

[dpb]

[e-mail] wrote: ...

You wrote "the computer" -- that implies one and was all I objected to.

...

And I'm only saying there's been nothing I've seen that indicates that one or the other was, in fact, actually disabled.

[AZ Nomad]

Do I have to read the thread to you? "Dropping the throttle back to dle is more than sufficient to stop runaway acceleration."

What the f*ck do you think a throttle is? Software?

I replied "Using mechanical means can cause more problems than might be solved."

I was saying that using a mechanical method was a bad idea.

[trader4]

one.- Hide quoted text -

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.

[trader4]

:

e:

I'm having a tough time figuring out how it could have a negative effect on driveability too. I guess it might piss off the idiots that you occasionally see going down the highway at 60mph with the brake lights going on and off as they apparently tap the brakes for no reason. But it's a moot point, because most of the other manufacturers have the brake/throttle interlock and I don't hear anyone bitching.

[Doug Miller]

I said no such thing.

Indeed, that is so. But "running on the same computer" is *your* idea, not mine.

I have not done so. You are debating against a straw man of your own creation.

[Doug Miller]

On many cars, yes, it is. Software-controlled, at any rate. The point remains, there is no need for any sort of mechanical movement of the throttle pedal, cable, linkage, or whatever for the engine computer to reduce fuel flow to the injectors.

I don't think anybody ever suggested that using *only* a mechanical method was a good idea.

[Douglas Johnson]

It bothers me quite a bit. I don't have a good explanation for the reported facts.

I've never seen a car that can't be shifted into neutral at speed, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. I've instructed my wife and daughters to shift into neutral if the car runs away. They all said "You can do that?". So it is possible that no one thought of it or that it was possible.

I had an '79 Audi that didn't run away, but didn't slow down when I lifted the accelerator. I hooked my foot under the pedal and pulled it up. It slowed down just fine. It turned out there was a problem with the throttle sticking. It was common enough that my mechanic recognized it immediately. If the Lexus throttle was jammed by the floor mat, the same technique may have worked.

Since I owned an Audi of the appropriate vintage, I paid a lot of attention to the unintended acceleration issues at the time. Car and Driver magazine has some first rate automotive engineers on the staff. They showed conclusively that the brakes can overcome a full throttle. As mentioned in this thread, they did so again recently.

For most people, 90 mph through traffic is terrifying and panic is not unexpected. For a CHiPs officer, that is just another day at the office. But he was calling 911! Of all the useless activities.

Like I said, I don't have a good explanation.

-- Doug

[Jim Yanik]

Douglas Johnson wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Thus the necessity of as little government as possible. Except that DemocRATs are for BIG government and Big Brother.

Restricting who you can marry has existed for long before Republicans. there never has been any "h*mo marriage",not in 1000's of years of marriages.Marriage has always been between man and woman. also,"marriage" is not a "right",it's privelege.There are other restrictions besides man-woman.

But DemocRATs want to restrict your free speech through speech codes and "fairness doctrines",they want to restrict(ban) gun ownership,they want to nullify your private property rights(like Kelo),they want to discard the Constitution so they can advance communism.Oh,and DemocRATs are for Racism,always have been.They still believe non-white races need special priveleges to be "equal" to whites.

[Jim Yanik]

[e-mail] (Doug Miller) wrote in news:hmm649$rn0$ [e-mail]:

O2 sensors,along with the throttle position sensor would cause the ECU to reduce fuel flow to maintain the proper fuel-air ratio.

The problem is electric control of the throttle butterfly. It leaves it subject to the whims of the computer's programming,any flaws it may contain,and electrical/electronic failures.

[HeyBub]

Don't blame the Republicans - they're just the messengers. It was God who laid down the rules. The Democrats, too, are someone's messenger.

[Jim Yanik]

[e-mail] (Doug Miller) wrote in news:hmmc27$kqk$ [e-mail]:

some modern engines cut off fuel flow to pairs of the cylinders,to improve fuel economy under light load.it doesn't harm anything;the cut-off cylinders just pump air.it doesn't even matter if the spark plug fires.

[Jim Yanik]

[e-mail] (Doug Miller) wrote in news:hmmg68$5uu$ [e-mail]:

OTOH,you never mentioned the need to ADD a second computer to run your extra override code. Thus,it's natural that we should presume you intended to add extra code to the existing computer programming and use the existing control channels.

Or perhaps you can tell us just HOW you intended to implement your idea of brake override programming?

[Jim Yanik]

Douglas Johnson wrote in news: [e-mail]:

so,you can exit your car,and leave the motor running while you go into a store?

And then some thief can drive off with it.

[trader4]

(D=3D

Here is the first post from Don and your reply:

Don:

Doug: 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.

In the context of the discussion here, it seems very reasonable that Don's logical meaning was that if you program the brake safety overide on the same computer that is controlling the throttle, then you're potentially exposed to the same fault. A computer malfunction that caused full throttle could also result in the same computer not being able to perform the brake safety function.

You could have just said, it's OK if it's programmed into a SEPERATE independent computer. That would have added clarity instead of your reply, which only made it more confusing. And your statement as made is WRONG anyway, because the requirement for two simulataneous malfunctions is only true if the program resides in a SEPERATE computer. That qualification you never made. You seem to expect everyone else to spell out all the conditions and qualifiers yet you yourself leave things vague or confusing and think it's just fine.

[Jim Yanik]

Douglas Johnson wrote in news: [e-mail]:

did they do this with the car MOVING at speed,and THEN try to stop the car with full throttle? Or just put the brakes on and floor the gas pedal?

[Doug Miller]

Well, DUH! Obviously.

But *I* never suggested that it would be part of the same computer. That's

*your* assumption.

Like I said -- you're arguing against a straw man of your own creation.

Yes, or could have just NOT ASSUMED that I meant it would be in the same computer. I never said that. You ASSumed it.

Confusing only if you make an ASSumption that I never stated, or even suggested.

And if you hadn't immediately made the ASSumption that it necessarily had to be part of the same system, you wouldn't be confused. And you wouldn't think that a perfectly true statement about probability is somehow false.

That problem comes from your faulty ASSumptions.

Oh, I'm supposed to predict in advance what ASSumptions you're going to make? Sorry, no can do. My crystal ball is in the shop right now, and it's not due back til the middle of next week.