email@example.com (Doug Miller) wrote in
Doug Miller wrote:
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?
On Mar 3, 3:18 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org (Doug Miller) wrote:
Here is the first post from Don and your reply:
Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a throttle
malfunction, for the override to not work would require a second
Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely than any
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.
Well, DUH! Obviously.
But *I* never suggested that it would be part of the same computer. That's
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
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.
On Mar 3, 4:11 pm, email@example.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
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
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
" > >Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a
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.
Wether or not there's a door lock computer is irrelevent.
There's just one controlling the engine, the ECU.
Do you have some insane notion that there's one computer for each
spark plug and another bunch for the injectors, etc?
however, there are multiple computers controlling the engine, and all it's
assocated subsystems, at least on mine, which is a 94. one would assume that
more modern cars have more computers to better control emissions, since the
current laws are much more strict than in 94.
all the functions don't have to reside within one computer. they are
networked together and cooperate and share data amongst themselves.
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.
moving the goalposts.
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.
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.