 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / December 2005Honda "Drive by Wire" question... what if the power goes out?
Hi there. I have been looking at the new Honda Civic, it's pretty sweet, and the welds and everything are as nice as anything I have ever seen. I just have a question about the "Drive by wire" system that they are supposed to have. What happens if the Engine dies on you? In my current car, my timing chip went once and the engine went out. I had enough steering control left, even without power steering, to pull my car over before it came to a stop. If the drive by wire system has no "real" or active connection, how can it work if the engine or electronics quit on you? Are there any backups built into the system in case any of that stuff happens? And what if your battery dies and you need to push the car? Can you turn the steering wheel to adjust your wheels when you push the car? Much thanks, sorry to bother. David >Hi there. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >David This concern has been answered eloquently by a contributor to these newsgroups a few years ago. Sorry I can't name the author, but that person hit the nail squarely on the head with these words: ".........more importantly than that, you've got to have the insight and wisdom to know when something has been developed to the point where further development amounts to pointless engineering masturbation. "The hydraulic brake system is a textbook model of development to perfection. So was the hydromechanical automatic transmission -- computerisation of the automatic transmission has taken away three-for-one in durability, dependability and cost of repair what little it has given us. We know how to make steering systems that work and essentially never give trouble. There is, therefore, no valid reason for steer-by-wire." > This concern has been answered eloquently by a contributor to > these newsgroups a few years ago. Sorry I can't name the author, but [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "The hydraulic brake system is a textbook model of development > to perfection. So was the hydromechanical automatic transmission -- Ya, so was the horse and buggy, the bicycle, etc. > computerisation of the automatic transmission has taken away > three-for-one in durability, dependability and cost of repair what > little it has given us. We know how to make steering systems that work > and essentially never give trouble. There is, therefore, no valid > reason for steer-by-wire." This reminds me of Bill Gates comment a few decades ago that no one should ever need more than 64k of RAM on his/her computer. What you quote is incredibly short-sighted. It demonstrates a lack of willingness to do any kind of investigation of why fly-by-wire was considered. In short, these are the words not of an engineer, scientist, or technical person but a ninny, and a ninny tired of having more demanded of him for his labors, at that. He's happy with the status quo. Others are not. He should get out of the business or certainly never enter it. > There is, therefore, > no valid [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > no one should ever need more than 64k of RAM on his/her > computer. That quote from Billy-Bob has nothing to do with advances in design utilizing differing technologies. That only has to do with capacity - he was basing his opinion because of the current state of capacity. The technology hasnt changed in computers, but the capacity of devices has, such as faster CPUs (with increasing cache size), higher- capacity drives, more RAM, and so on. Higher capacity is required because of bloated operating systems and the bloated software written by lazy programmers. The basic design of the computer is still the same: to move 0's and 1's around the bus to peripherals, all controlled by various chipsets.  Signatureremove MYSHOES to email > Higher capacity is required because of bloated operating > systems and the bloated software written by lazy programmers. Another short-sighted gent. > > Higher capacity is required because of bloated operating > > systems and the bloated software written by lazy > programmers. > > Another short-sighted gent. Nice try. You obviously, regardless of gender, dont understand how to relate parallels. :) Signatureremove MYSHOES to email >>There is, therefore, >>no valid [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of the current state of capacity. The technology hasnt > changed in computers, Wow, have you told Intel, AMD, HDD manufacturers, etc., etc.? > > That quote from Billy-Bob has nothing to do with advances > > in design utilizing differing technologies. That only has [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Wow, have you told Intel, AMD, HDD manufacturers, etc., etc.? America, and indeed the world, pursue what is seen to be cutting edge technology just like codfish rush to bite an unbaited hook. Have things REALLY improved by quantum steps? Software capabilities are not so greatly changed, and the chip technology - though greatly evolved - has developed solely to service the software which, indeed, has become bloated and glitchy. You could run word processors, databases, spreadsheets, games, etc even on the old black and white Z80 machines. One company where I used to work ran the whole operation with two 10 megabyte harddrives and a Z80 network system. Personal computers today do little that the old ones wouldn't do in some form or the other. Nor do they always do the job so terribly much quicker or better, although the microprocessors grunt along at multigigahertz speeds. We garbage mongers that feed the data into them are, oft as not, the limiting factor. Mainframes had somewhat different requirements. They didnt have to cater to the executive gamer showoff computer-illiterate. > America, and indeed the world, pursue what is seen to be cutting edge > technology [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the > executive gamer showoff computer-illiterate. Having written programs for x86 machines since DOS 3 was the hot ticket, I think you have a slanted view. What is perceived as "bloat" by the public is a combination of two factors: increased packaged data and the overhead required for proper structure. When I started it was considered pretentious to refer to an accomplished programmer as a "software engineer," whereas that is the minimum expected of any modern programmer; the senior programmers are "software architects." (I am neither, since it was only a sideline for me and I couldn't ride the rocket. I am still a "cowboy coder" who can knock out small applications and utilities without making a big mess of it.) Did you ever see a DOS machine run on a network? It was ugly - surely you recall the "share" TSR to make files multi-accessible. There were email readers in the DOS days, but do you recall a web browser? The good old days were good mainly because we know everything came out okay. However, in this case, we can go back. You can still load DOS on any modern Windows capable box. Go for it and let us know how it works out. Mike >>>That quote from Billy-Bob has nothing to do with advances >>>in design utilizing differing technologies. That only has [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > America, and indeed the world, pursue what is seen to be cutting edge > technology just like codfish rush to bite an unbaited hook. Wow, do you have a cite for this? > Have things REALLY improved by quantum steps? The post to which I replied said "changed", not "improved" - that's more of a philosophical discussion. > Software capabilities are not so greatly changed, and the chip technology - > though greatly evolved - has developed solely to service the software [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > whole operation > with two 10 megabyte harddrives and a Z80 network system. Luxury! The first disk drives I worked with were the 2311s on the early IBM S/360s - 7.25 MB/pack (100 cyl x 10 heads, IIRC, 7,250 bytes/track). > Personal computers today do little that the old ones wouldn't do in some > form or the other. True, and computers don't do anything that a bunch of guys with abacuses couldn't also do, but time is a major factor - imagine a moon shot without computers or a lot of modern medicine. > Mainframes had somewhat different requirements. They didnt have to cater to > the executive gamer showoff computer-illiterate. How'd you know I'm retired from the mainframe business (mostly programming them)? > > That quote from Billy-Bob has nothing to do with advances > > in design utilizing differing technologies. That only has [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Wow, have you told Intel, AMD, HDD manufacturers, etc., etc.? So tell us what innovations have happened with processors and hard drives? They've made processors speedier, and maybe added more to the instructions set, or have increased capacity from 32-bit to 64-bit, and have made hard drives with more CAPACITY at lower cost to the consumer. Yes, we have new drive interfaces, such as SATA, but that is merely a higher rate interface that moves data at a HIGHER CAPACITY. My argument still stands - there has not been any true innovation to computer hardware/peripheral components, they have only gotten speedier moving those 0's/1's around and they move MORE (re: CAPACITY) 0's/1's than predecessors. Signatureremove MYSHOES to email >>>That quote from Billy-Bob has nothing to do with advances >>>in design utilizing differing technologies. That only has [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > from 32-bit to 64-bit, and have made hard drives with more > CAPACITY at lower cost to the consumer. These are all changes to the technology involved - did you mean something other than "changed", e.g., "improved"? > Yes, we have new drive interfaces, such as SATA, but that is > merely a higher rate interface that moves data at a HIGHER > CAPACITY. Moving from a parallel interface to a serial one is certainly a *change* (your term, not mine). > My argument still stands - there has not been any true > innovation to computer hardware/peripheral components, they > have only gotten speedier moving those 0's/1's around and > they move MORE (re: CAPACITY) 0's/1's than predecessors. Since when? Are you going back to the 8088 chips? IBM 650 computers, 701's, 7090's, etc.? > Higher capacity is required because of bloated operating > systems and the bloated software written by lazy programmers. That's garbage. Higher capacity is required for tasks that deal with large amounts of data, or need to do large amounts of data analysis (for starters). For example: - watching/editing high quality movies - playing computer games with high quality graphics and sound - analyzing data sent back by space probes / satellites - predicting the weather Try watching some porn on your IBM XT -- it isn't very exciting. >>Higher capacity is required because of bloated operating >>systems and the bloated software written by lazy programmers. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Try watching some porn on your IBM XT -- it isn't very exciting. You need better porn. ;) > What you quote is incredibly short-sighted. It demonstrates > a lack of willingness to do any kind of investigation of why [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > He's happy with the status quo. Others are not. He should > get out of the business or certainly never enter it. We have been served up a lot of dumb ideas in the past...ideas which were interesting, but not worth the cost and the risk. I am sure we will continue to make firm advancements in transportation science. If Honda wants to spend the money to offer a solution to a problem that does not exist, go for it. > "Elle" <honda.lioness@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:OPnff.853$rM2.97@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > transportation science. If Honda wants to spend the money > to offer a solution to a problem that does not exist, go for it. When someone posts a decent citation of whatever Honda is proposing be flown-by-wire, then comment will be worthwhile. To categorically reject change because the "current system is good enough" is foolishness and demonstrates obliviousness to the many points in automotive history when of course the old way was "good enough," but the new way yielded some advantage, so it predominated. > To categorically reject change because the "current system > is good enough" is foolishness and demonstrates > obliviousness to the many points in automotive history when > of course the old way was "good enough," but the new way > yielded some advantage, so it predominated. I give you the pick-up and the platform frame SUV built on chasis and suspensions from 1950 that all the people in the country have flocked to dealerships like sheep and plunked billions of dollars on and to which the automobile companies have spent next to nothing on in technology. You're not categorically rejecting change here. -- Honda home studies: http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness -- > > To categorically reject change because the "current system > > is good enough" is foolishness and demonstrates [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > dealerships like sheep and plunked billions of dollars on and to which the > automobile companies have spent next to nothing on in technology. >> To categorically reject change because the "current system >> is good enough" is foolishness and demonstrates [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > dealerships like sheep and plunked billions of dollars on and to which the > automobile companies have spent next to nothing on in technology. and instead of investing that money on a DECENT small car design, they blow it. meanwhile, the japanese took the money they made off selling excellent small cars and trucks, and invested it in making bigger trucks. the tundra is a really nice truck! course it should be, since the engine design was based on the lexus LS series. > Bob Palmer wrote: > > I give you the pick-up and the platform frame SUV built on chasis and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and instead of investing that money on a DECENT small car design, they > blow it. Do you think that car companies should produce what the companies think is right for the American consumer, or what consumers want? These companies have obligations to shareholders and their employees to turn a pretty profit, or else. >>>I give you the pick-up and the platform frame SUV built > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > companies think is right for the American consumer, or what > consumers want? You seem to be ignoring the <false> demand generated by skillful advertising. > These companies have obligations to shareholders and their > employees to turn a pretty profit, or else. So how much has GM made the past year? Ford? How about Honda & Toyota? Hmmm. > Elle wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > You seem to be ignoring the <false> demand generated by skillful > advertising. I agree that marketing and advertising and making a buck play a huge role in design. I agree the outcome is most certainly not always a better design, engineering-wise. I could even stomach someone's argument that most design changes are not engineering oriented at all. But America is also a revoltingly consumer-ist society. Which came first--the advertising blitzes pushing "bigger; more," or some sort of instinctual drive from Americans to insist on bigger more--is debatable. So Americans want pickup trucks and SUVs which rarely satisfy any physical need and are merely to keep up with the Joneses. What's an auto company executive to do to keep food on his family's table? So to speak. But safety, things like better fuel mileage or more Hp performance, are not ignored. Many improvements do lengthen the life of a car, etc. > > These companies have obligations to shareholders and their > > employees to turn a pretty profit, or else. > > So how much has GM made the past year? Ford? How about Honda & Toyota? Hmmm. Yes, I know. But I hesitate to say more without reading up on why GM and Ford has been going down the proverbial can the last several years. I thought it was more like labor problems: GM and Ford can't build a car cheaply. I dunno. Someone can post a citation on why they're failing while I guess Honda and Toyota are doing fine. 'Cause America still loves big, gas guzzling vehicles, from what I see. <snip> >>You seem to be ignoring the <false> demand generated by >> skillful advertising. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > more," or some sort of instinctual drive from Americans to > insist on bigger more--is debatable. Advertising first, check out the history of GM. > So Americans want pickup trucks and SUVs which rarely > satisfy any physical need and are merely to keep up with the > Joneses. What's an auto company executive to do to keep food > on his family's table? So to speak. Didn't the Japanese carmakers answer this question in the 70's? > But safety, things like better fuel mileage or more Hp > performance, are not ignored. Many improvements do lengthen > the life of a car, etc. Which safety innovations (after the rear view mirror, which was a racing innovation) were not mandated? The US automakers have fought every change tooth & nail (emissions as well as safety - Ford famously tried to sell safety in their '56 models & lost a bundle). >>>These companies have obligations to shareholders and >> their employees to turn a pretty profit, or else. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > guess Honda and Toyota are doing fine. 'Cause America still > loves big, gas guzzling vehicles, from what I see. So, you don't want to comment until all the facts are in? (a famous quote by Gen Turgidson in "Dr. Strangelove"). ;) The Japanese carmakers seem to be able to crank out cars profitably from their US plants, so I don't think it's primarily the cost of labor. Did you have anything specific in mind with "labor problems"? "These companies have obligations to shareholders and their employees to turn a pretty profit, or else" Leading to many very unhappy employees & shareholders as of late. ;) One final observation - the price of every new GM car includes something like $1,500 for health care costs (plus another chunk for retirement), which foreign carmakers, Asian & European, don't incur because those countries have universal health coverage & retirement. Wouldn't it be ironic if it were the auto (and other) CEOs who lead the charge to universal health coverage in the US? <this is an auto related observation, not a political one, and I won't debate the politics of such a move> > Elle wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Advertising first, check out the history of GM. I'll believe you. :-) > > So Americans want pickup trucks and SUVs which rarely > > satisfy any physical need and are merely to keep up with the > > Joneses. What's an auto company executive to do to keep food > > on his family's table? So to speak. > > Didn't the Japanese carmakers answer this question in the 70's? I don't know. I think it's hard to compare the successes of two companies satisfying the same basic need, but also many others, operating in two different countries, with different cultures and mores and different governmental philosophies. > > But safety, things like better fuel mileage or more Hp > > performance, are not ignored. Many improvements do lengthen [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > change tooth & nail (emissions as well as safety - Ford famously tried > to sell safety in their '56 models & lost a bundle). I reckon you're mostly right. I think also of reports (or the cinemization) of lawsuits where car companies defend against making a certain design change, because the cost of the 'wrongful death' yada lawsuits is much lower than the cost of the design change. Still, on a day to day basis with engineers, I don't buy that they are idiots who never object to certain proposed features as being inherently unsafe that will result in a car with many problems, threatening life and property. And so costing the company money, yada. > >>>These companies have obligations to shareholders and > >> their employees to turn a pretty profit, or else. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > their US plants, so I don't think it's primarily the cost of labor. Did > you have anything specific in mind with "labor problems"? After I posted, I did notice one of the lastest articles on GM's problems said a major component was the cost of the company's health care plans. Some are saying that's GM management's screwup, though. So, no, I don't have all the facts. Surely there's a site or two that talks about why GM and Ford are doing so poorly, and how Honda manages in comparison. As you suggest below, my suspicion is that some large companies are already starting to push somewhat for universal care. (I may have read as much.) They won't be gung-ho for it, I suppose, for some time (if ever), because their business ties in with that of insurers. I'm not talking about a conspiracy, but more about how executives look out for each other; one hand washes the other; etc. > "These companies have obligations to shareholders and their employees to > turn a pretty profit, or else" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > observation, not a political one, and I won't debate the politics of > such a move> Sure. We'd then maybe have a two-pronged attack on current American cultural mores: With the ailing American car companies, more small cars would go on the road. With the ailing health insurance system, Americans would be more willing to accept catastrophic health insurance plans and not accept every last procedure/drug (efficacies being not clear) their doctor prescribed. >After I posted, I did notice one of the lastest articles on >GM's problems said a major component was the cost of the >company's health care plans. > >Some are saying that's GM management's screwup, though. I think the screwup was that they didn't support the "socialized medicine" push in the 1960s. Whether it was because they couldn't screw over their buddies at the country club or because they thought it was a communist plot to have *all* children vaccinated or it was just apathy, they are paying the cost of a private health care system. Of course, the ultimate cost will be paid by the GM employees and retirees and all of the rest of us as we are gradually pushed out of the health care insurance system. >So, no, I don't have all the facts. Surely there's a site or >two that talks about why GM and Ford are doing so poorly, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >executives look out for each other; one hand washes the >other; etc. It is the best kind of conspiracy because there is never more then a wink or a nod between the conspirators. >> "These companies have obligations to shareholders and >their employees to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >because those >> countries have universal health coverage & retirement. Of course, they do incur those costs for their US factories. One advantage to Honda and Toyota is that they have relatively few US retirees and their workforce is younger (healthier) because the factories have only been running for 10 - 20 years. If we project current trends out another 20 - 40 years, Honda and Toyota US operations will be broke. But then again, everyone will be broke. >Wouldn't it be >> ironic if it were the auto (and other) CEOs who lead the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >politics of >> such a move> Actually, I think this is an issue who's time is coming fast. Are you veering OT because the power went out on the drive-by-wire steering? Sorry - I couldn't resist. <8^) Mike > Are you veering OT because the power went out on the drive-by-wire steering? > > Sorry - I couldn't resist. <8^) Nor should you have. Mike, LOL. <snip> >>you have anything specific in mind with "labor problems"? > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > executives look out for each other; one hand washes the > other; etc. For sure, Elle, plus the enormous cultural reticence to admit that the free market / rugged individualism isn't hacking this particular issue and that the govt might offer something worthwhile. >>"These companies have obligations to shareholders and > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > not accept every last procedure/drug (efficacies being not > clear) their doctor prescribed. There's a term which I can't remember which theorizes that one problem with health care in the US stems from the insured consumer's insulation from the economic consequences of his health care choices. Sounds as though that's what you're talking about above? "Sparky Spartacus" <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote E > > We'd then maybe have a two-pronged attack on current > > American cultural mores: With the ailing American car [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > from the economic consequences of his health care choices. Sounds as > though that's what you're talking about above? Spot on. Health services are not a true free market, because the consumer weighs in not at all on the pricing of the product. OTOH, plop your typical middle class employee and his/her family down somewhere in Canada for a couple of years of experiencing their health care system, and s/he'll come away saying s/he doesn't want universal health care, because Canada won't give him/her and his/her family every conceivable snake oil product offered for a malady. The person will not believe s/he's getting the best care in Canada. "More is better" is a way of life in the U.S. A cultural shift in attitude will be necessary, IMO. It will take a generation or two. > There's a term which I can't remember which theorizes that one problem > with health care in the US stems from the insured consumer's insulation > from the economic consequences of his health care choices. Sounds as > though that's what you're talking about above? I don't know the term, but a former neighbor who was president of the local hospital at the time explained it pretty much that way, and it made a lot of sense. He said health care at any particular standard costs a certain amount to deliver. First in line is the gov't, which says you will deliver for the amount we pay you or you won't do business at all. Next in line are the large insurance carriers, like Blue Cross, which say you will deliver for what we pay or you will be left in the cold. The remainder of the cost is spread among the self-payers at many times the fair price, because the others just won't pay. A while ago I had to appeal an emergency room visit that had been denied... my cost was to be $1300 and BCBS eventually picked it up for $300. That left the $1000 shortfall to end up on somebody else's bill. Mike > "Sparky Spartacus" <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote > > There's a term which I can't remember which theorizes that one problem [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > others just won't pay. A while ago I had to appeal an emergency room visit > that had been denied... It shouldn't be such a goddarned maze. A few weeks ago a Harvard PhD, a multi-degreed engineer, and a doctor wrote the NY Times each wrote letters saying they couldn't figure out how to navigate the new Medicare drug benefit. Add my father, also multi-degreed, an engineer, from one of those high-falutin' schools who has mentioned twice in the last six weeks that he is struggling mightily with it, as well. If people as educated as this can't figure out how to get the benefit, what about the roughly 80% of adults in the U.S. who never even graduated from any college? > my cost was to be $1300 and BCBS eventually picked > it up for $300. That left the $1000 shortfall to end up on somebody else's > bill. I have read that the uninsured are charged a higher fee (around 30%) because collecting from them is harder. It's revolting that different fees are charged for the same service, but there is, in part, a limited method to the madness. Also, I hear health care services write off the shortfalls as losses. I hate to dismiss it as "a lot of funny money is floating around," but the stories I'm reading in reputable publications sure make it seem like there's little order in the system. Bargaining over fees and haggling over what exactly was prescribed given by hospitals seems common. If one doesn't know the ins and outs, one is doomed, ISTM. Throw in the NY Times piece recently on people with /good health insurance/ who were driven into bankruptcy because having to pay "only 10%" of a million dollars of medical services is still a lot of money. > I have read that the uninsured are charged a higher fee > (around 30%) because collecting from them is harder. It's > revolting that different fees are charged for the same > service, but there is, in part, a limited method to the > madness. to bring this back to hondas... the above reminds me that for every smart internet shopper that gets a good deal through costco, sams, AAA, etc there are several that get ripped off, pay "added dealer markup", etc. > Elle wrote: > > I have read that the uninsured are charged a higher fee [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > there are several that get ripped off, pay "added dealer markup", etc. I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. It seems to me that hospitals will not generally haggle over costs with individuals without health insurance. I guess that's incentive to at least have catastrophic health insurance. Even though one may be well below the (usually several thousand dollars) deductible for, say, a hospital visit, one is obtaining the discounted rates that one's insurance company has previously negotiated with the hospital. So if one wants the discount, one is sort of forced into dealing with insurance companies. But then by being insured one is forced into subsidizing a lot of people who aren't careful with their health. Because of the way the insurance-health care system (monopoly? ponzi scheme?) is set up, there's little incentive for them to refuse unnecessary medical services. Hence doctors may prescribe away, lining their wallets and bringing income to hospitals, and promoting the "more is better" mentality while simultaneously claiming it's necessary because they'll be sued for malpractice if anything goes wrong. Meanwhile, the added cost is passed along to those who work to stay healthy and not abuse the insurance system. I know buying insurance is about buying peace of mind. One should not expect to ever get back what one pays. Just seems that in the last 15 years or so, too many expect to get back from their premiums what they paid and then some, by excessive use of medical services that benefits them not at all. Of course, with uninsured individuals in need of significant health care services, at some point Medicaid will kick in. But that also pushes up costs for everone else. Plus, by the time such people finally get to the hospital, a malady that might have been easily cured a year ago has exploded into a very expensive proposition. Seems to me a Universal Health Care system would solve a lot of these problems. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would stop this persistent spiralling of costs that, as I suggest above, seems more and more like a Ponzi scheme every year. >> the above reminds me that for every smart internet shopper > that gets a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > hospitals will not generally haggle over costs with > individuals without health insurance. then theres double-billing. the time i twisted my ankle i did everything by the book, (listed urgent care facility, paid my co-pay, etc.) bout a year later i got a bill from a doctor i NEVER saw that day, for treatment/services i NEVER received. only 2 people i saw were the receptionist, and a licensed vocational nurse. went straight into the shredder and havent heard anything since. the dealer version of that is the: "you need to come back with a check because..." 1) the car was mica blue metallic, and we forgot metallic paint was extra 2) down payment was too small 3)credit didnt go through 4)numbers didnt add up 5)want another chance to ream ya > Elle wrote: > >> the above reminds me that for every smart internet shopper [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > 5)want another chance to ream ya lol ... but to a large extent, I /do/ agree with this part of your analogy. Indeed, from what I'm reading in reputable publications, the medical-insurance billing process is so complicated that mistakes are very common. IIRC, and ballpark, 30% or more of the time there is a significant billing error by health care/insurance services. Whether they're intentional, or just gross gross negligence is another matter. I give the current, non-Medicare U.S. health care system 20 years or less. By which time I will be on Medicare. Still, if all Americans are paying less for health care (while some are paying a bit more in taxes), that will impact on inflation, etc. Nice tip re garages, water heaters, and leaky car fuel tanks. Whoa! Glad you're still alive to post here! We need a top ten list of "Things NOT To Do While Repairing One's Honda," drawn from real life experiences. snip We need a > top ten list of "Things NOT To Do While Repairing One's > Honda," drawn from real life experiences. 1. Do NOT crawl under a jacked up car with jackstands in place! JT > > We need a > > top ten list of "Things NOT To Do While Repairing One's > > Honda," drawn from real life experiences. > > 1. Do NOT crawl under a jacked up car with jackstands in place! What's the matter with using jackstands (of the appropriate size) to support a car while doing work underneath it? > > > We need a > > > top ten list of "Things NOT To Do While Repairing One's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What's the matter with using jackstands (of the appropriate > size) to support a car while doing work underneath it? Heh. I forgot the "out." Hadn't had my coffee yet... <G> JT > Nice tip re garages, water heaters, and leaky car fuel > tanks. Whoa! Glad you're still alive to post here! We need a > top ten list of "Things NOT To Do While Repairing One's > Honda," drawn from real life experiences. Okay, time to fess up. Sometimes I can do the *dumbest* things, too. I used to have an early Nissan 300ZX (troublesome beast!). One day it developed a leak in one injector, so I bought a replacement. I was waiting for the weekend to undertake the job, but one night the engine started running rough. I was only a couple blocks form home so I went home and parked in the driveway. Then I noticed smoke coming from under the hood. I didn't have an extinguisher or even a plan, but I opened the hood anyway. "Huh. I wonder what's happening?!" Of course the leak had caught fire, but it had burned down to where it was only hoses and insulation sedately flaming, so I bent over and blew them out like a candle on a birthday cake. Not two seconds later the fuel injector hose that had been burning ruptured and sprayed about an ounce of gasoline where the flame and my face had been! Sometimes it is better to be lucky than good. Who's next? Mike About a year ago I was working on those nasty rear control arm bolts etc. I had to be someplace the next day, so I had to stop mid-job. For a temporary "replacement" of a bolt I wired up one control arm with some 10 AWG copper wire I had lying around, several loops. I thought I should take a test drive. I made it halfway out the driveway at a couple miles an hour when the car went over a half-inch bump. The applicable rear strut assembly collapsed, and that rear quarter of the car crashed to the ground. The wheel bent out in a totally unseemly way, and I thought, "Oh no... " The wire was sheared right apart. Jacked it up. Stuck the old control arm bolt yada in place. Wheel looked okay. The asphalt of the road where the car quarter landed was kinda scratched up. Had the wheel balance checked a week later; it needed no adjustment. The road looks fine, after a year too. Helluva crash. I got lucky. "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote snip "thing not to do during Honda repairs" > Who's next? I was checking under the hood of a Pontiac Tempest and the wind blew the hood right almost on the windscreen. It was so strong I could not bring it down to hook in the support rod. So I left it there thinking I will be done in a second. I got involved with whatever I was doing (I will tell you in a second why I forgot) and then heard a very loud thud and everything turned white. The wind had let up and the hood used me as a supporting rod. I staggered into work and put in a full day. I think my boss was happy with how quiet I was that time. > About a year ago I was working on those nasty rear control > arm bolts etc. I had to be someplace the next day, so I had [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > snip "thing not to do during Honda repairs" >> Who's next? >> There's a term which I can't remember which theorizes that one problem >> with health care in the US stems from the insured consumer's insulation [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to deliver. First in line is the gov't, which says you will deliver for the > amount we pay you or you won't do business at all. Next in line are the which sounds pretty damn good. all our elected representatives get free health care off our dime, while a lot of people that pay taxes have no healthcare at all. if the govt can negotiate for 300+ million people, they should get a better deal than my employer! and in that case, id give up my *excellent* healthcare coverage for something mediocre if my employer wont have to deal with that burden. > large insurance carriers, like Blue Cross, which say you will deliver for > what we pay or you will be left in the cold. The remainder of the cost is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it up for $300. That left the $1000 shortfall to end up on somebody else's > bill. or not. you likely didnt even receive $300 worth of service. > Mike >>> There's a term which I can't remember which theorizes that one problem >>> with health care in the US stems from the insured consumer's insulation [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > health care off our dime, while a lot of people that pay taxes have no > healthcare at all. The only health care plan our elected representatives deserve is the Soylent Green plan. Fire up the furnaces. > if the govt can negotiate for 300+ million people, they should get a > better deal than my employer! and in that case, id give up my [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> Mike > Elle wrote: > > As you suggest below, my suspicion is that some large [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > free market / rugged individualism isn't hacking this particular issue > and that the govt might offer something worthwhile. snip > > >Wouldn't it be ironic if it were the auto (and other) CEOs who lead > > >the charge to universal health coverage in the US? <this is an auto > > >related observation, not a political one, and I won't debate the > >>politics of such a move> Today's NY Times editorial page has fascinating commentary related to the above discussion as follows: "Big Labor's Big Secret" (NY Times, Dec. 28, 2005) As most Americans are aware, our auto industry is in a crisis. Workers' wages are falling, and hundreds of thousands of jobs are being sent offshore. ... How did we get here? There are many causes: poor car designs, high pension costs, increased foreign competition. But much of it comes down to the overwhelming health insurance costs borne by the auto makers. This is why the union's president, Ron Gettelfinger, has urged Congress to enact sweeping health insurance reforms. If the government paid everyone's health insurance bills, as those in Canada and most of Europe do, Detroit's Big Three could save at least $1,300 per vehicle. Profitability would return. With deeper pockets, the auto makers could afford to pay their suppliers. Communities would be spared layoffs. ... Most advocates of universal health care focus on the opposition of Republicans and insurance companies. But perhaps the most important factor keeping an overhaul off the national agenda is one that few Democrats acknowledge: most of Mr. Gettelfinger's fellow labor leaders don't support a single-payer system either. The reason comes down to simple self-interest. The United Auto Workers is one of the few private-sector unions that doesn't run its own health plan. Rather, most have created huge companies to administer their workers' plans, giving them a large and often corrupt stake in the current system. Opposition to a national health care plan is as much a part of the American trade union tradition as the picket line. It goes back to Samuel Gompers, the founder of the American Federation of Labor, who railed at early Congressional efforts to pass a law mandating employer coverage as Britain had done, which he said had "taken much of the virility out of the British unions." This line of thinking led to the notorious decision in 1991 by the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s health care committee to reject a proposal that the federation support a single-payer plan. The majority said a national system simply had no chance in Congress, but others saw a conflict of interest: government-supplied health care would put union-run plans out of business. The deciding vote was cast by Robert Georgine, chief executive of Ullico, a huge insurance provider created by the unions. A decade later, Mr. Georgine, who was paid $3 million a year by Ullico, and several other company directors - all heads of major A.F.L.-C.I.O. unions - were investigated by a federal panel for insider trading involving Ullico stock. Mr. Georgine and several directors resigned, and this year he agreed to pay back $13 million to the company. Let's face it: union-administered health insurance funds provide irresistible opportunities for labor leaders. First there's patronage: hiring friends and relatives. Then there are the conventions, junkets and retreats provided by the plans and the providers. And for those willing to cross the line of legality, there's the chance to take kickbacks from health care vendors. Many officials are charged, but few go to prison, even when money allegedly winds up in Mafia hands. Last month federal prosecutors lost a criminal case in Brooklyn in which they charged that the Genovese crime family leaned on two International Longshoremen's Association local presidents to, among other things, choose a favored health vendor. Evidently, the jury was convinced by the defense's argument that the union leaders were under duress. Even Lawrence Ricci, the principal accused Genovese figure, was acquitted, although he disappeared during the trial and never testified. (His body was found last month in the trunk of a car in Union, N.J.) Despite shrinking membership, organized labor still has enough money and muscle to get behind a campaign for national health insurance. Last month, public-sector unions in California came up with tens of millions of dollars in a successful campaign to defeat a ballot measure that challenged their right to use union dues for political purposes. The problem is getting American unions to fight for common concerns as opposed to narrow institutional interests. It may just be that a broad-scale union overhaul will have to precede one in American health care. ---- By Robert Fitch, author of the forthcoming "Solidarity for Sale: How Corruption Destroyed the Labor Movement and Undermined America's Promise." So the UAW (the auto industry union) has no ties to health insurance; its industry is being devastated by health costs; and so the UAW is for a national health plan, which is consistent with the whole (let's face it, socialist or at least social-democrat) notion of unions. (But what ties to health insurance profits do auto companies have? Would it pay for the CEOs of auto companies to lobby for a national health plan?) Unions in other industries have ties to health insurance; are in industries not /as/ devastated (knock on wood) by health costs; and so oppose a national health plan, which is antithetical to the notion of unions. And, apparently, they have opposed such a plan as a matter of historical record. > > Elle wrote: > > > As you suggest below, my suspicion is that some large [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Workers' wages are falling, and hundreds of thousands of > jobs are being sent offshore. ... snip I suspect that the "savings" of $1,300 would quickly be distributed as bonuses and other executive perks etc. with little going to reduce prices or instituting efficiencies... JT (Who really like to call "trickle down" something else...) On 12/28/05 2:21 PM, in article GtCsf.11074$nm.5040@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net, "Elle" <honda.lioness@earthlink.net> wrote: >> Elle wrote: >>> As you suggest below, my suspicion is that some large [quoted text clipped - 143 lines] > antithetical to the notion of unions. And, apparently, they > have opposed such a plan as a matter of historical record. This all sounds right at face value, until you look at that new Nissan, or Honda, or Toyota and note that they are all built in US plants using > 90% US content by US workers. I don't think healthcare is the real issue. "E Meyer" <epmeyer50@msn.com> wrote snip--Look back. :-) > This all sounds right at face value, until you look at that new Nissan, or > Honda, or Toyota and note that they are all built in US plants using > 90% > US content by US workers. I don't think healthcare is the real issue. That's a good point, but as I think I pointed out earlier in the thread, Time magazine in its Dec. 5th issue had an article on GM and pointed out that Honda or Toyota's (can't remember which) health care cost per car for its much younger work force was only about $300. Compare this to the IIRC roughly $1500 per car that goes for health care for GM's workforce (including retirees). > This all sounds right at face value, until you look at that new Nissan, or > Honda, or Toyota and note that they are all built in US plants using > 90% > US content by US workers. I don't think healthcare is the real issue. they dont have all the retirees... yet. and the workers make sub-UAW wages, which isnt necessarily a bad thing. if GM hadnt kept giving outrageous executive pay and bonuses, the UAW wouldnt have asked for (and gotten) all those wage increases. someone had to draw the line somewhere, and it might take bankruptcy court to settle the whole thing. > E Meyer wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > had to draw the line somewhere, and it might take bankruptcy court to > settle the whole thing. All good points about which I had been wondering as well. The Time magazine article also pointed out that GM (and I think Ford) too were selling their cars at relatively huge discounts the last few years. Whereas Honda and Toyota cars have been in such demand that they go for a premium. (Which I guess means consistently higher than invoice or far more over invoice than GM and Ford cars.) So the GM and Ford profit for each car sold tends to be lower. Sorta blows away my theory that Americans are jerks about buying small, fuel efficient cars, though. They do buy them. Elle Hoping to buy some Honda stock in the next year or so. Doggone Toyota stock has just about gone through the roof but still may be a good investment, if GM goes under. > Elle > Hoping to buy some Honda stock in the next year or so. > Doggone Toyota stock has just about gone through the roof > but still may be a good investment, if GM goes under. if youre looking to invest to actually MAKE some money, i think ford is undervalued. yes- theyre in the same boat as GM, but theyre smaller and easier to turn around. > Elle wrote: > > Elle [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > if youre looking to invest to actually MAKE some money, i think ford is > undervalued. If you mean check it's P/E (particularly the expected, next year's P/E) and make sure it's low, sure, that's one so-called stock fundamental to check. Ford's P/E is low at the moment. But, as you may be aware, this is one of dozens of company fundamentals that an astute investor should check. I often go next to the earnings history. In fact, Ford's annual earnings were in negative territory in the last five years, and are otherwise erratic. If you're interested, see the chart in the lower right of http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Stock/Snapshot.asp?Country= USA&Symbol=F&stocktab=snapshot&pgid=qtqnnavsnapshot for the earnings trend in the last five years. Type in HMC for Honda or TM for Toyota, and compare their earnings trends. Also, compare to a huge conglomerate like GE or the soda pop company Coca-cola KO. Then too simple realities like Ford bonds are now rated at the junk level make its stock an easy rejection. Not to be obnoxiously pedantic, but for the interested student, this means professional business analysts have gone over a company's fundamentals (prospects for making profit!) with a fine tooth comb and ruled the company in deep doo-doo, at significantly greater risk of going bankrupt compared to, say, a company like Honda these days. > yes- theyre in the same boat as GM, but theyre smaller and easier to > turn around. Both are too risky for my blood at this time. That took some hard experience in investing to realize--I did own some Ford stock a few years ago! Coulda timed it and come out ahead, but you know how that goes. Likewise, one could buy some Ford stock today, like you suggest, and try to time it. But it really could go under. It's even more likely today than a few years ago. It's for gamblers, or people that want to put a very small portion of their portfolio in risky stocks, in the hope it will go up and provide a little gain. But they can also sustain the loss of the company going under, and the stock becoming worthless. I also had some GMAC bonds (a subsidiary of GM) a few years ago. Pre-junk rating. They paid a nice interest rate, matured and all was swell. But today any GMAC bond available is rated junk. The yield is great, but they're high risk. Of course, I know reputable people who say there is a fair chance the government would bail out either GM or Ford and not let them go under. Point being to spare the drag on the economy all these folks out of work etc. would be, I suppose. But then that may be seen to unfairly stifle companies producing a good product, like Honda and Toyota. So we'll see. For me, I want stock in products I know people like and that are quality. Ford and GM once were. No more. Onto Honda and Toyota. Back to the fun, substantive stuff that makes us all go "Whish, vroom, putt-putt-putt-putt... " Elle (Gonna lay off poor Elliott, too.) >> Elle >> Hoping to buy some Honda stock in the next year or so. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > yes- theyre in the same boat as GM, but theyre smaller and easier to > turn around. Smaller is a highly relative term here. Ford is a massive company both in North America and globally. The first obvious action Ford needs to take is to stop putting money down the Jaguar sink-hole, but instead Ford just put another $2.1 billion into Jaguar. http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=marketsNews&storyID= 2005-12-23T110104Z_01_L23231860_RTRIDST_0_AUTOS-FORD-JAGUAR-UPDATE-2.XML John >>> Elle >>> Hoping to buy some Honda stock in the next year or so. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=marketsNews&storyID= 2005-12-23T110104Z_01_L23231860_RTRIDST_0_AUTOS-FORD-JAGUAR-UPDATE-2.XML dunno if jaguar is that much of a sinkhole. mebbe i should read the link, huh? before the ford buyout, jags were extremely pricey and had a completely lousy reputation. now, hell- anyone could afford one! taurus guts underneath, FWIW. i see a lot more of em on the road than i used to, also. and they also managed to keep jags looking like jags. and then theres GM/saab. ugh. rebadged crap from a once quirky company. even a rebadged subie, fer chrissakes. i still say ford can turn it all around way before GM. yes, therye massive, but not as huge as GM and with a bit less baggage and a bit better reputation. GM needs a LOT of help and should get rid of at *least* one US division entirely. id suggest losing the chevy truck line, badge em all GMC, and get rid of buick. > This all sounds right at face value, until you look at that new Nissan, or > Honda, or Toyota and note that they are all built in US plants using > 90% > US content by US workers. I don't think healthcare is the real issue. The transplant factories employee mostly younger workers and have almost no retirees on the books. Healthcare expenses, and healthcare insurance costs, go up exponentially as a person ages. John > meanwhile, the japanese took the money they made off selling excellent > small cars and trucks, and invested it in making bigger trucks. the > tundra is a really nice truck! course it should be, since the engine > design was based on the lexus LS series. Yeah, the tundra's great. Unless you need to haul, tow, carry, pull, or otherwise do real work. I can't believe the STUPIDITY of the Japanese makers in trying to get in on the dying tails of the poseur truck market, selling luxury pseudo-trucks to people that need a truck like a hole in the head. Ford, Dodge, and Chevy will always sell their real work trucks to contractors farmers and ranchers, even when the poseur market is gone. Toyota, Nissan, and (especially) Honda with that ridiculous front-drive Ridgeline will have a lot of wasted engineering investment on their hands. <snip> > To categorically reject change because the "current system > is good enough" is foolishness Indubitably true. > and demonstrates > obliviousness to the many points in automotive history when > of course the old way was "good enough," but the new way > yielded some advantage, so it predominated. True again. But in the comparison of aircraft "fly-by-wire" and the idea of truly analogous automotive "drive-by-wire", the plot tends to get lost. Aircraft "fly-by-wire" came about to address certain actual, specific issues regarding the rather inmportant goal of keeping an airplane in the air. Automotive "throttle-by-wire" (to coin a more accurate phrase) arose in an attempt at meeting emissions regulations. The difference is fundamental and of great import: One is critical, the other is utterly useless absent its regulatory impetus. To install true "drive-by-wire" in a road-going automobile on current roads would be astonishingly stupid. Airplanes are not cars and do not live in even remotely the same environment. > Elle wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > fundamental and of great import: One is critical, the other is utterly > useless absent its regulatory impetus. That last comment is a bit too sweeping, or a bit misleading, for me to buy. Some of the outcomes of reduced emissions regulations have made automobiles less trouble-prone. That's good for the driver-owner. > To install true "drive-by-wire" in a road-going automobile on current > roads would be astonishingly stupid. Airplanes are not cars and do not > live in even remotely the same environment. I agree people are throwing around this phrase very loosely here. But folks love to kvetch, so... :-) >> Aircraft "fly-by-wire" came about to address certain >> actual, specific issues regarding the rather inmportant goal of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That last comment is a bit too sweeping, or a bit > misleading, for me to buy. Then I concentrate it a bit by saying that: airplane fly-by-wire addressed certain laws-of-physics issues that pointed up serious shortcomings in previous control systems. Cable control of the automotive throttle has not that sort of limitation where it would be fundamentally incapable of reliable and durable operation under normal and expected operating conditions. Therefore, replacing a cable with a servomotor in a car does not grant functional improvement to an auto throttle the way a servomotor would to, say, an airplane rudder. Is that better? > Some of the outcomes of reduced emissions regulations have > made automobiles less trouble-prone. That's good for the > driver-owner. I used to grow weary of replacing the points and condenser every 6,000 miles, so yes, electronic ignition (just to cite one example) has been a boon for the automotive enthusiast who wishes to do something else besides getting a backache and needing to find his bifocals. However, this convenience comes at quite a price. I remember a points-and-condenser set costing the equivalent of a few dollars. If a modern electronic ignition component fails, you could spend the equivalent of 20-years worth of points-and-condensers replacing it. >> To install true "drive-by-wire" in a road-going automobile >> on current roads would be astonishingly stupid. Airplanes are not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > But folks love to kvetch, so... :-) This *is* Usenet, after all. Kvetching-R-Us. > Elle wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Is that better? Sure. I think I would have just said that the demands of operating a plane are quite a bit different from the demands of operating a car. One pushes against air to move; the other pushes against the ground to move, for one. It was your somewhat disrespecting the outcome of regulatory impetus, as well as ignoring that other improvements not a result of regulation, that seemed to me to be off the mark. No big deal. Your first post had already reduced the slop in this discussion substantially. > > Some of the outcomes of reduced emissions regulations have > > made automobiles less trouble-prone. That's good for the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a boon for the automotive enthusiast who wishes to do something else > besides getting a backache and needing to find his bifocals. Sure. Though as an aside, one of the regulars at the Honda newsgroup discovered that the external radio noise condenser some older Hondas have does wear over time and replacing it may improve performance. While it's not located electrically in the exact same place that the old points condenser was located, it does serve a kind of analogous function, protecting, for one, the igniter, just as the old points condenser protected the points, etc. > However, this convenience comes at quite a price. I remember a > points-and-condenser set costing the equivalent of a few dollars. If a > modern electronic ignition component fails, you could spend the > equivalent of 20-years worth of points-and-condensers replacing it. I'm not sure what a precise cost-benefit (including reliability; that has a pricetag) analysis would yield, but certainly I see your point. Just that radio noise condenser to which I refer above goes for about $6 today through online Honda OEM parts sites. I'm not sure one can just run over to Radio Shack and replace it for a lot less. <snip> > Just that radio noise condenser to which I refer above goes > for about $6 today through online Honda OEM parts sites. Not that 6 bucks is all that big a price for a condenser to begin with... (Or was that your whole point? I haven't been following this thread closely since finding out that "drive-by-wire" actually means "throttle-by-wire" - A rather different beast than the subject line implied.) > I'm not sure one can just run over to Radio Shack and replace it for > a lot less. I'm sure one can, as long as one defines "a lot" as somewhere in the 2-3 dollar range. It might be a multi-piece unit, and it will have two leads, rather than being the usual "single can with a wire hanging out" style, but when you get right down to it, a capacitor of the right value is a capacitor of the right value, regardless of form-factor or common-use name. Given the value (mF/pF & voltage rating - prolly find it easily in the service manual - You *DO* have the service manual for your vehicle, right?) of the condenser on your Honda, you've got all the information you need to get one or more - depends on whether the target value is a standard size or not - capacitors that will replace it just fine, even though they might look a bit "odd" for an automotive application. :) They'll be functional, though, and that's what I'd be caring about. I'd expect that rat-shack would have them for around 2-3 bucks. Sure, the "real" one is easier to wire into the system, and might be "prettier" to a purist's eye, but the rat-shack one will work just the same once you get it in place, which would be my main concern if I was needing to be pinching pennies hard enough to go to the effort. Going back to the "drive/throttle-by-wire" concept for a bit... I could cope with throttle-by-wire - if, AND ONLY IF, it used a failsafe of "total driver control of the throttle", and when in operation, it confined its "modification" of my input to (brace yourself for the run-on-quotated-phrase from hell :) ) "OK, you just stomped it to the floor - That's fine, but since we're only turning "X" revs and I see we're in "Y"th gear, I can calculate that opening the throttle all the way will just dump "Z" amount of gas out the tailpipe unburned as we rev up to speed, so what I'll do is I'll actually only open the throttle "T" amount, which is optimal to increase "R" from the current value for <set of current operating conditions> without pouring that gas out the tailpipe, and I'll continuously recalculate and apply that "T" value to the throttle based on a new <set of current operating conditions> sampled every "M" milliseconds until either the throttle is fully open, or you let up on the pedal to a point at or below the current throttle position, whichever comes first" <INHALE!> <Whew!> Any application of drive-by-wire that involves steering or braking is something I don't want any part of. As I said previously, I demand total, godlike control of my vehicle when I'm at the controls - Aside from the case stated above, I don't need or want a computer second-guessing my inputs - If my input says "put it on the locks to the left", I want the wheels turned to the locks on the left. I don't CARE if you think that's unsafe, Mr. Computer - Just MAKE IT HAPPEN. Your calculations may very well show that doing so will send the car into an out-of-control skid to the left. That's fine. Maybe that's *EXACTLY* what I'm counting on in order to avoid running over that kid that just jumped out in front of me. Ditto ABS - Mr. Computer says "You're braking too hard! You're gonna skid! Here, lemme just pump that real fast for you so you don't break traction." What if I'm *TRYING* to break traction for some reason that your little electronic pea-brain just plain isn't equipped to comprehend, let alone react to? What if that reason involves the difference between whether I break traction and spin out to come to a stop just before going over the 400 foot drop, or knowing that I braked smoothly and without loss of traction until a point about 30 feet beyond the edge of the dropoff? Uh-uh... when it comes to steering and braking, just DO WHAT I SAID AND DO IT NOW! As someone else said, though, steering has been refined over the years, as have braking systems, so that both are highly reliable (given proper service, of course) and both responsive to user input in all but catastrophic failure situations, and give the operator good-to-excellent feedback when power-assisted. The considerations that make "fly-by-wire" a must-have (or even "just desirable") for some aircraft don't exist in cars, and no "drive-by-wire" control is needed unless one wishes to fully automate the driving (Thinking in terms of the "Autodrive" feature in the cars of the future from "Demolition Man"), which is something that I personally think is still a good many years beyond the reach of current technology and AI methods. Or, more tersely: "It ain't broke. Why are we trying to fix it?" SignatureDon Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist, or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow" somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > get it in place, which would be my main concern if I was needing to be > pinching pennies hard enough to go to the effort. it's 0.47 microfarads. the oem part is $27 with all the wiring and harness that accompanies it. > Going back to the "drive/throttle-by-wire" concept for a bit... > > I could cope with throttle-by-wire - if, AND ONLY IF, it used a failsafe > of "total driver control of the throttle", why on earth would you want that? have you ever driven a diesel? a diesel driver has no direct control over fuel injection whatsoever - it's all delegated to the govenor, either old mechanical or modern electronic. can't say i've met a diesel driver that ever had their panties in a bunch about it the way you all have. the biggest single advantage for fly-by-wire throttle control in a car is the ability to impliment F1 style shifting on the steering wheel. the day i can get that in a honda [that i can fit in] is the day i retire my 89 civic hatch. > and when in operation, it > confined its "modification" of my input to (brace yourself for the [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Or, more tersely: "It ain't broke. Why are we trying to fix it?" so, you want to go back to manual ignition timing adjustment on the steering wheel? how about hand crank starting? bias ply tires? rod brakes? fly-by-wire engine control is simply the next logical step. why shift an automatic under full power if you don't have to? it's bad for the transmission, the rest of the power train, the engine mountings, and gives a lurchy ride to the occupants. the current "fudge" of this is to retard ignition timing so that power drops on shift, but it still burns full power gas. that's dumb if you can properly de-throttle and speed up the shift at the same time - and that can be achieved with fly-by-wire. > "Elle" <honda.lioness@earthlink.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Not that 6 bucks is all that big a price for a condenser to begin > with... (Or was that your whole point? I meant that I would think the points and condenser assembly today was more than a few bucks. More like at least $20. OTOH, I've never put my hands on these and certainly never went shopping for them. I'm only going by what simple mechanical parts for my 91 Civic go for. Now I could google and either quickly prove myself wrong--that points and condensers remain so common today they're dirt cheap--or I would find I'm correct. Don't know. Don't care. We're not doing a detailed analysis of anything here and so there is no learning going on. Just people posting crap off the top of their heads. > I haven't been following this > thread closely since finding out that "drive-by-wire" actually means > "throttle-by-wire" - A rather different beast than the subject line > implied.) Yes. > > I'm not sure one can just run over to Radio Shack and replace it for > > a lot less. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > service manual - You *DO* have the service manual for your vehicle, > right?) What do *YOU* think? It's 0.47 microfarad on the cars that have them. You *DO* know how I found this, right? No, you don't. I haven't a service manaul. I'm amazingly smart and know where to find info like this. snip stuff that's a best guess and I'd just have to double check anyway, if I were in the market for this condenser, which I'm not, because my Civic's radio noise condenser is built-in to the igniter. snip the dilettante stuff > Not that 6 bucks is all that big a price for a condenser to begin > with... I don't recall exact pricing any more, but the Kettering points-and-condenser set used to be one of those very cheap things you could buy for your car, probably because so very many were made and sold every day of the week. I'm vaguely remembering the set was close to the cost of an oil filter. And if you had only one set of points (some cars had two) and were not swapping the condenser this time around, it got even cheaper. Anyone with a better memory? > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > Or, more tersely: "It ain't broke. Why are we trying to fix it?" So why did humans move out of caves? > > Or, more tersely: "It ain't broke. Why are we trying to fix it?" > > So why did humans move out of caves? How many layers of gold leaf are you planning on putting on that turd? In other words, Sparky, take your specious "If it isn't the newest, bestest, fastest, it must be garbage", and the implied "If you aren't using the newest/fastest/bestest, you're too stupid to move out of a cave" crap and stick it where the sun don't shine. Something being *ABLE* to be improved doesn't imply a need, or even a desirability, for the improvement to happen - Only the possibility of doing so. Also phrased as "just because it's the hot new thing doesn't mean it's any good." - Ever heard of Thalidomide? And the results of using it? Things as they stand in automotive technology, are quite functional now. Further development, while being *POSSIBLE*, is neither required, nor in some cases, desirable, for many currently in-use automotive systems. An old programmer's line: "A program is never *DONE*, but you do have to ship it sooner or later." In other words, there's the choice between continuing to hang bells and whistles (needed or not) off the program, and actually getting it to the customer - *ANY* program can be tweaked and tuned and fiddled with until doomsday, if desired. But somewhere, somebody has to step in and say "Hey! We've gotta ship this thing if we wanna eat!" Cars have reached that point. Particularly the control systems. The next major change in vehicle systems won't come until the day that we can make *100 PERCENT* reliable, sentient machines that can respond to a situation as well as or better than a human *EVERY SINGLE TIME*. At which point, cars will be ready to go to "full auto drive". Until the "Eureka Moment" that shows us how to make things absolutely infallible happens, I'll continue to be a luddite and insist on purely mechanical/hydraulic control of my brakes and steering, *WITHOUT* any input from a computer, thanks. SignatureDon Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist, or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow" somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info >>>Or, more tersely: "It ain't broke. Why are we trying to fix it?" >> >>So why did humans move out of caves? > > How many layers of gold leaf are you planning on putting on that turd? LOL, interesting turn of phrase. The temp gauge should be pointing to about 2 o'clock (according to the manual) but is actually down to about 4 o'clock. obviously the idea that the car is running too cold is ridiculous (unless Santa has taken up residence under the hood and is making it snow). so what's up with the gauge saying she's cold? just a bad gauge? mdr It could mean a worn out thermostat. If the interior heat is lower than normal, it would indicate that. Or maybe the plug and socket for the sensor is just in need of a clean. Contact cleaner is best but WD40 will work also. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/index.html?id=2120343242 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > The temp gauge should be pointing to about 2 o'clock (according to the > manual) but is actually down to about 4 o'clock. obviously the idea that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > mdr thanks. I'll check that. cold enough in TX to be checking your heater these days... mark > It could mean a worn out thermostat. If the interior heat is lower than > normal, it would indicate that. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > > > mdr My 96 Accord and my friend's 00 Accord, both temp gauge point to 4 o'clock. I believe this is normal for a Honda. My 01 corolla's temp gauge points to 3 o'clock. Ted > The temp gauge should be pointing to about 2 o'clock (according to the > manual) but is actually down to about 4 o'clock. obviously the idea that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > mdr manual says it isn't but I wonder if it has always been that way and I just didn't notice. mdr > My 96 Accord and my friend's 00 Accord, both temp gauge point to 4 o'clock. > I believe this is normal for a Honda. My 01 corolla's temp gauge points to 3 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > > mdr >> > The temp gauge should be pointing to about 2 o'clock (according to the >> > manual) but is actually down to about 4 o'clock. obviously the idea [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > >> > mdr Well, how is the heat in the car?? if it is hot enough, then it isn't your thermostat... Fwed > The temp gauge should be pointing to about 2 o'clock (according to the > manual) but is actually down to about 4 o'clock. obviously the idea that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > mdr More than likely a bum thermostat. Don't let run cold too long, it'll cost you in fuel mileage, and make it sludge up faster. Erik >>>What you quote is incredibly short-sighted. It > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > of course the old way was "good enough," but the new way > yielded some advantage, so it predominated. If these guys' thinking had predominated, we'd still be living in caves and hoping the fire doesn't go out. > > This concern has been answered eloquently by a contributor > to [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > He's happy with the status quo. Others are not. He should > get out of the business or certainly never enter it. Tell ya what, Ellie... You drive that "fly-by-wire" unit. Just do me a favor: Warn me where you'll be so I can avoid that deathtrap-looking-for-a-victim. At least when something (Assuming it isn't a totally catastrophic failure like a tie-rod snapping or similar) goes wrong, I'll be able to wheel my poor obsolete "steered by a gear directly connected to the wheels" rig to the side of the road as it coasts down from 50+. You, in your "connected to the wheels by wires" steering vehicle are going to continue hurtling down the road at whatever speed you were doing when the system went Tango-Uniform, wondering which tree you're going to hit, or embankment you're going to find yourself sailing over. I want, and will settle for *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LESS* than *DIRECT* mechanical or hydraulic control of all major vehicle functions, particularly steering and braking. Something that works *NO MATTER WHAT* in every situation short of total catastrrophic failure. I neither want nor need some engineer's piece of software deciding "Oh, you're turning too sharp - Obviously you don't mean that, so we're gonna do you a favor and take it from "on the locks" to "just a little to the right", which is what we're sure is what you actually intended. SignatureDon Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist, or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow" somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info > Tell ya what, Ellie... You drive that "fly-by-wire" unit. Just do me a > favor: Warn me where you'll be so I can avoid that > deathtrap-looking-for-a-victim. Tell ya what, you give me a good citation on whatever Honda is proposing be flown-by-wire, and I'll give you meaningful commentary. So far, I think people haven't any clue as to what's under consideration here. > Tell ya what, Ellie... You drive that "fly-by-wire" unit. Just do me a > favor: Warn me where you'll be so I can avoid that > deathtrap-looking-for-a-victim. As others have mentioned, the Civic only has "throttle by wire". So in case of electronic failure, it would just slow to a stop. The car you really need to be watching out for is Mercedes, who has had "brake by wire" in its higher end models since 2003. > I want, and will settle for *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LESS* than *DIRECT* > mechanical or hydraulic control of all major vehicle functions, > particularly steering and braking. Something that works *NO MATTER WHAT* > in every situation short of total catastrrophic failure. I'm sure most people, including me, are uncomfortable with the concept of taking away direct control. But hypothetically, let's say mechanical catastrophic failure occurs 1 in a million chance. And after much maturation, electronic "drive by wire" systems only occur 1 in 10 million chance. Which system would you prefer? (Again, that is just hypothetical, it may not be feasible to implement such a reliable electronic system cheaply). I would take the more reliable one. > > Tell ya what, Ellie... You drive that "fly-by-wire" unit. Just do me a > > favor: Warn me where you'll be so I can avoid that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > really need to be watching out for is Mercedes, who has had "brake by > wire" in its higher end models since 2003. Brake-by-wire is little different than the brake-by-oil which is the norm on pretty much every car and light truck and even some heavy trucks. Of course the brake-by-oil is a split system and you still have the cable operated parking/E-brake as backup. Presumably the brake-by-wire system has similar redundancy and the good old cable operated backup. > > I want, and will settle for *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LESS* than *DIRECT* > > mechanical or hydraulic control of all major vehicle functions, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > hypothetical, it may not be feasible to implement such a reliable > electronic system cheaply). I would take the more reliable one. I have no problem with electronic linkages replacing mechanical ones. Where I have a problem is when they try to interject computers in between and have them second guess my judgment. No computer in any even remotely affordable vehicle can ever (in my lifetime) have as much sensory input as a human and therefore does not have the information to even begin to second guess the human. Pete C. Hey Pete, Mercedes' "break by wire" system senses traffic ahead of you and applies the breaks for you to maintain distance from car in front of you. It controls spcae in front of you in flowing traffic, as in long highway hauls. Bryan > Mercedes' "break by wire" system senses traffic ahead of you and > applies the breaks for you to maintain distance from car in front of > you. It controls spcae in front of you in flowing traffic, as in long > highway hauls. cite, please. nb > > Mercedes' "break by wire" system senses traffic ahead of you and > > applies the breaks for you to maintain distance from car in front of > > you. It controls spcae in front of you in flowing traffic, as in long > > highway hauls. > cite, please. Actually, that is not Mercedes' "brake by wire" system. "Brake by wire" is just how I described, it uses the gas pedal as an electronic input to adjust the brakes. (Since this is very new technology, Mercedes still has a hydraulic backup). However, the system described by Flyingmonk does exist. It's called "adaptive cruise control". I believe Mercedes was the first to use it in production cars a couple of years ago. But now everyone is offering as an option on high-end luxury cars. http://www.edmunds.com/new/research/mercedesbenz/clkclass.html http://autorepair.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/aa020202a_3.htm > "Brake by wire" > is just how I described, it uses the gas pedal as an electronic input > to adjust the brakes. Whoops. Obviously I meant "brake pedal" instead of "gas pedal". > Hey Pete, > > Mercedes' "break by wire" LOL - I'm sure you intended "brake". :) >Mercedes' "break by wire" system senses traffic ahead of you and >applies the breaks for you to maintain distance from car in front of >you. It controls spcae in front of you in flowing traffic, as in long >highway hauls. Thereby leaving you more time to talk on your cellphone! --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > I have no problem with electronic linkages replacing mechanical ones. > Where I have a problem is when they try to interject computers in > between and have them second guess my judgment. I know where you're coming from. I personally have only bought manual cars because I hate software deciding when to shift for me. > No computer in any even > remotely affordable vehicle can ever (in my lifetime) have as much > sensory input as a human and therefore does not have the information to > even begin to second guess the human. This is partially true. You won't get as good feedback from an electronic linkage as opposed to a physical linkage. Especially for cases like braking and steering. But there are certain scenarios where a computer's sensory input is far superior to a human's. For example, the airbag. Do you want a computer sensor and software deciding when to deploy the airbag, or would you rather do it manually based on your human response? > > I have no problem with electronic linkages replacing mechanical ones. > > Where I have a problem is when they try to interject computers in > > between and have them second guess my judgment. > > I know where you're coming from. I personally have only bought manual > cars because I hate software deciding when to shift for me. Also the reliability of being able to trash the transmission and still limp along. > > No computer in any even > > remotely affordable vehicle can ever (in my lifetime) have as much [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > deploy the airbag, or would you rather do it manually based on your > human response? First off, I do not allow air bags in any vehicle I own. Second off my point was that no vehicle priced in anywhere near an affordable range even for the rich can have sufficient sensor inputs to even come remotely close to the sensory inputs of a human. The car computer can not detect ice ahead in the road, it can only attempt to detect when the wheels are already slipping and even then it has difficulty if you are not also attempting to brake. The car computer can not detect potholes or other obstacles in the road ahead where you need to swerve to avoid them. The car computer can not detect when bumpy conditions are causing a wheel to bounce off the road and lock during light braking as opposed to actual wheel lockup during hard braking. This is a current problem with ABS systems on heavier vehicles with stiff suspension. None of the sensors on current autos are redundant and the computer quite readily gets very confused when there is a sensor failure and can make the wrong decision. This has been known to happen when a wheel sensor fails on an ABS system causing the computer to think the wheel is locking and the ABS system reduces the braking force and causes and accident. Simply put, sensor technology is either not sufficiently advanced to detect a condition, or is far too expensive for deployment on a common auto for the computer to have sufficient information to try to second guess the human operator. Pete C. > > a computer's sensory input is far superior to a human's. For example, > > the airbag. Do you want a computer sensor and software deciding when to > > deploy the airbag, or would you rather do it manually based on your > > human response? > > First off, I do not allow air bags in any vehicle I own. This is a really stupid and dumb attitude. All you have to do is go to your doctor and tell him that there's a short person in the household that sometimes drives the car, and he will write a medical release that you can give to the dealership so they can install a defeat switch. Or you can wire in a defeat switch yourself, all you do is splice it into the power line to the airbag computer, you use a DPDT relay and a momentary contact, when you push the contact the relay energizes, and you wire the coil to the second set of contacts so as long as power is present the relay stays energized, then when you shut off the motor the relay resets. Or you can probably order the defeat switch and parts from the dealership and wire it in yourself. You may know enough to drive with your seatbelt on all the time but unless your a cranky old man who nobody can stand to live with, you most likely have another driver in the household that one day might forget to buckle up. It will be small consolation to you at her funeral that she "deserved to die because she forgot to buckle up" (unless your gay, in which case it won't be a her, it will probably be a him I guess) And if your a parent with teenagers, you are a simple fool if you let them drive in a non-airbag-equipped vehicle. > Second off my point was that no vehicle priced in anywhere near an > affordable range even for the rich can have sufficient sensor inputs to [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > auto for the computer to have sufficient information to try to second > guess the human operator. This is only true if the human operator is somewhat intelligent and good driver. My observation of the other drivers I see on the freeway is that a surprising percentage of them are morons, and I would feel safer if the computer was controlling their car while they ate their breakfast/read the newspaper/put on makeup/talked on the cell phone/etc etc. There's nothing wrong with autopilots as long as provision is made to override them. But, such provision MUST be constructed in such a way that the driver has to make a conscious effort to override the computer. There's too many drivers on the road that aren't paying any attention to what they are doing, and for these people the effort to push a button each time they start the car to, for example, disable the airbags, is too great for them to make simply because the effort to pay attention to their driving is too great for them to make. In those cases the autopilots are going to make a hideous threat to your safety marginally better. Ted > > > a computer's sensory input is far superior to a human's. For example, > > > the airbag. Do you want a computer sensor and software deciding when to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Or you can probably order the defeat switch and parts from the dealership > and wire it in yourself. I will not allow an explosive device in my steering wheel, armed or not. It will either not be there in the first place, or it will be removed - period. This generally hasn't been an issue since the vehicles I buy are generally over 8,600# GVWR and don't get airbags. When / if I need to purchase a vehicle that comes with an airbag, it will be removed as soon as I take delivery. > You may know enough to drive with your seatbelt on all the time but > unless your a cranky old man who nobody can stand to live with, you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (unless your gay, in which case it won't be a her, it will probably be > a him I guess) I always wear my seat belt. It is not capable of causing accidents as an airbag is and I like something to hold me in my seat on sharp turns. I am the cranky old man that has found I do not have the patience or tolerance to deal with anyone but my cat. Even if I did have a spouse, it would be you have your vehicle(s) and I have my vehicle(s) and never the twain shall meet. > And if your a parent with teenagers, you are a simple fool if you > let them drive in a non-airbag-equipped vehicle. In the very unlikely event I were to have children, they would not be allowed to drive any vehicle they did not own and insure themselves, until such time as they had a commercial class B drivers license indicating they had some qualifications as opposed to the class C non-commercial which indicates you paid the fee and nothing more. As for airbags, again they would not be allowed in any vehicle I own. Airbags can and do cause accidents, seat belts do not. > > Second off my point was that no vehicle priced in anywhere near an > > affordable range even for the rich can have sufficient sensor inputs to [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > breakfast/read > the newspaper/put on makeup/talked on the cell phone/etc etc. Unlike you, I would feel safer if drivers had more training and had to pass tests equivalent to at least a class B commercial license. Perhaps mandating high deductibles for at fault accidents would increase driver attentiveness as well. > There's nothing wrong with autopilots as long as provision is made to > override them. But, such provision MUST be constructed in such [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Ted In those cases they should not be on the road. Perhaps if someone could invent an attention sensor to insure the drivers were actually paying attention most of the time. Perhaps an eye tracker that would set off an alarm when the driver was looking away from the travel direction for more than 2 seconds or for two seconds repeatedly in a short span of time when the vehicle was at speed. Pete C. >I will not allow an explosive device in my steering wheel, armed or not. >It will either not be there in the first place, or it will be removed - >period. This generally hasn't been an issue since the vehicles I buy are >generally over 8,600# GVWR and don't get airbags. When / if I need to >purchase a vehicle that comes with an airbag, it will be removed as soon >as I take delivery. Yet you probably drive above 30 mph routinely. Have you any idea what kinetic energy your car contains at the speed? Any idea of the kinetic energy at 60 or 80 mph? That "explosive device" behind your steering wheel is *nothing* compared to the kinetic energy of a you alone as your sail towards your dash during an accident. Belts help, but so do airbags. In what would otherwise be a fatal accident, I wouldn't mind having a broken arm or two. You might prefer having your face cut in two, and more power to you, but don't give us that "explosive device" emotional dribble. > >I will not allow an explosive device in my steering wheel, armed or not. > >It will either not be there in the first place, or it will be removed - [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > having your face cut in two, and more power to you, but don't give us that > "explosive device" emotional dribble. My point was not about the danger of being killed directly by the airbag, it was about the danger of being in an accident *caused* by the airbag. Seat belts are not capable of *causing* and accident, airbags *are*. It is *not* emotional dribble, it is a *fact* that people have been injured or killed in accidents *caused* by airbags. There have been recalls for this problem. Think, driving down the highway at the speed limit, hit a pothole and *bam!* the airbag blows up in your face. A second later and you're splattered against a bridge column. Pete C. > It is *not* emotional dribble, it is a *fact* that people have been > injured or killed in accidents *caused* by airbags. youre more likely to be hit by lightning > > It is *not* emotional dribble, it is a *fact* that people have been > > injured or killed in accidents *caused* by airbags. > > youre more likely to be hit by lightning Um, no. The documented incidence of accidents cause by improper airbag deployment is significant and I'm quite sure there are many that go unrecognized and undocumented because once the car is splattered against the bridge support there is no obvious indicator that the airbag went off well before the final impact. Will not be allowed in any vehicle I own under any circumstances - ever. Pete C. >>>It is *not* emotional dribble, it is a *fact* that people have been >>>injured or killed in accidents *caused* by airbags. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Um, no. The documented incidence of accidents cause by improper airbag > deployment is significant really? google '"improper airbag deployment" honda' = 32 hits. and most of those are in relation to a seat belt sensor recall. i didn't notice evidence of actual deployment. are you sure your tinfoil hat antenna is adjusted correctly? > and I'm quite sure there are many that go > unrecognized and undocumented because once the car is splattered against > the bridge support there is no obvious indicator that the airbag went > off well before the final impact. ah, the cool technical rationale - you got me convinced pete. not. fact is, that's untrue. the bag bursts milliseconds after deployment. any injury sustained after deployment is easily distinguishable from that sustained during - it's /far/ worse. you've done your homework on this, right? oh, wait... > Will not be allowed in any vehicle I own under any circumstances - ever. > > Pete C. > >>>It is *not* emotional dribble, it is a *fact* that people have been > >>>injured or killed in accidents *caused* by airbags. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > really? Yes. > google '"improper airbag deployment" honda' = 32 hits. and most of > those are in relation to a seat belt sensor recall. i didn't notice > evidence of actual deployment. > > are you sure your tinfoil hat antenna is adjusted correctly? Try searching NHTSA stats, instead of a lame search engine. > > and I'm quite sure there are many that go > > unrecognized and undocumented because once the car is splattered against > > the bridge support there is no obvious indicator that the airbag went > > off well before the final impact. > > ah, the cool technical rationale - you got me convinced pete. not. Suit yourself, the fact remains that I will not ever allow airbags in any vehicle I own. > fact is, that's untrue. the bag bursts milliseconds after deployment. Airbags do not burst, they deflate as the gasses both cool and escape through the bag material. > any injury sustained after deployment is easily distinguishable from > that sustained during - it's /far/ worse. you've done your homework on > this, right? oh, wait... No, it's quite true. In a minor accident you would be able to tell the difference, but with a vehicle going head on into a concrete bridge support at 65 mph a couple seconds after the aigbag blew up in the drivers face, you would not be able to tell without extensive investigation. Will not be allowed in any vehicle I own under any circumstances - ever. Pete C. >>>>>It is *not* emotional dribble, it is a *fact* that people have been >>>>>injured or killed in accidents *caused* by airbags. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Airbags do not burst, they deflate as the gasses both cool and escape > through the bag material. eh? so you're convinced that air bags are dangerous, but you don't know how they work??? great!!! i have an old tekmark 27-b antigravity machine i'm looking to sell - the one with the pink glitter girly tassles on the hand grips. low mileage. want to buy it? we can work out a great deal on the price i'm sure. >>any injury sustained after deployment is easily distinguishable from >>that sustained during - it's /far/ worse. you've done your homework on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Pete C. well pete, i hope you like it there in your radiation proof, virus proof, anti-meteorite immortality bunker. but you know "they" are on to you don't you? normally, once we've had the probe inserted, we're not allowed to tip off the truth-warriors like you, but being as "they" are outside your bunker right now, i figured it's safe to tell you; "they" get you all in the end... >> > It is *not* emotional dribble, it is a *fact* that people have been >> > injured or killed in accidents *caused* by airbags. >> >> youre more likely to be hit by lightning >Um, no. The documented incidence of accidents cause by improper airbag >deployment is significant and I'm quite sure there are many that go They are insignificant compared to the lives saved by airbags. > >> > It is *not* emotional dribble, it is a *fact* that people have been > >> > injured or killed in accidents *caused* by airbags. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > They are insignificant compared to the lives saved by airbags. I consider zero deaths *caused* by airbags to be acceptable. Airbags are a solution to a problem that does not exist. Seat belts work well and are not capable of causing accidents. If people choose not to use seat belts and are injured or killed as a result that is fine with me as it is their choice. Do not force "death bags" onto the public in a misguided attempt to "save" a few idiots who choose not to wear seat belts. Pete C. > I consider zero deaths *caused* by airbags to be acceptable. Airbags are > a solution to a problem that does not exist. Seat belts work well and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > misguided attempt to "save" a few idiots who choose not to wear seat > belts. Whatever we think of it, that was the exact goal IIRC. It grew out of a US congressional mandate for a passive restraint system (Big Brother is watching you!) that first appeared as those god-awful automatic seatbelts. Air bags came along and nobody had a better idea, so here we are. That's why they are called Supplemental Restraint Systems - they are meant to complement the use of seat belts, even though the original concept was to protect those who didn't have the sense to put a seatbelt on and it is widely recognized that air bags can increase injury to unbelted passengers in many circumstances. Go figure. Two of my coworkers have been in airbag deployments when the cars they were driving were hit by oncoming cars during left turns. Both suffered extensively bruised faces and the skin was scraped from the underside of their arms. One was doing a hand-over-hand left turn (the way I was taught back in the 60's; I guess we are to do the "mickey-mouse" method now) and both his arms were broken across his face by the air bag - ouch! Both credited the air bag with saving them from worse injuries. Sometimes it reminds me of those schoolboy questions: "would you rather have [one horrible happening] or [something else gross]?" Mike >> > It is *not* emotional dribble, it is a *fact* that people have been >> > injured or killed in accidents *caused* by airbags. >> >> youre more likely to be hit by lightning >Um, no. The documented incidence of accidents cause by improper airbag >deployment is significant and I'm quite sure there are many that go >unrecognized and undocumented because once the car is splattered against >the bridge support there is no obvious indicator that the airbag went >off well before the final impact. >Will not be allowed in any vehicle I own under any circumstances - ever. No problem. But do us a favor and get yourself killed *before* you breed. > >> > It is *not* emotional dribble, it is a *fact* that people have been > >> > injured or killed in accidents *caused* by airbags. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > No problem. But do us a favor and get yourself killed *before* you breed. Nope, I always wear my seat belt and I keep "death bags" out of my vehicles. Pete C. > Um, no. The documented incidence of accidents cause by improper airbag > deployment is significant and I'm quite sure there are many that go > unrecognized and undocumented because once the car is splattered against > the bridge support there is no obvious indicator that the airbag went > off well before the final impact. That's why modern airbag controllers have the controversial "black box" that records vehicle speed, braking, acceleration forces, etc. in the period before deployment. There have indeed been a number of unwarranted deployments, but few go undetected today. I, too, have an uneasy relationship with those bombs. But I recognize there is nothing I can do to change the situation unless I want to stay with progressively aging cars. Mike > > Um, no. The documented incidence of accidents cause by improper airbag > > deployment is significant and I'm quite sure there are many that go [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Mike Um, you can remove the "death bag", it's not brain surgery and the procedure is detailed in the service manuals. In fact when you read the service procedure with all it's explosive warnings you will get an even better idea of how dangerous the "death bags" are. Pete C. >> > Um, no. The documented incidence of accidents cause by improper airbag >> > deployment is significant and I'm quite sure there are many that go [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Pete C. And you can just cut the death belts with scissors and strip the plastic padding of death from the dash board. The lethally collapsing steering wheel is harder to disable, but the original level of safety can be restored by bracing a 4X4 timber against the frame pointed at your head. Don't forget to remove the side impact death beams from the doors and replace the death glass windshield with plate glass from the local window repair company. > >> > Um, no. The documented incidence of accidents cause by improper airbag > >> > deployment is significant and I'm quite sure there are many that go [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > the doors and replace the death glass windshield with plate glass from > the local window repair company. My what an ignorant idiot you are. Only the "death bags" are capable of causing an accident and have been documented doing so. Pete C. >>>>Um, no. The documented incidence of accidents cause by improper airbag >>>>deployment is significant and I'm quite sure there are many that go [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > the doors and replace the death glass windshield with plate glass from > the local window repair company. Now you're talking! >> It is *not* emotional dribble, it is a *fact* that people have been >> injured or killed in accidents *caused* by airbags. > > youre more likely to be hit by lightning Reminds me of my mother. She would not wear seat belts. Worried about being in a crash and knocked unconsious. If there were a fire and she had belts on, she wouldn't be able to get out of car. Of course, I never figured out how she'd get out of the car if she were unconsious but NOT belted. Maybe she figured if she were not belted she'd always be thrown from car. >>> It is *not* emotional dribble, it is a *fact* that people have been >>> injured or killed in accidents *caused* by airbags. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > but NOT belted. Maybe she figured if she were not belted she'd always be > thrown from car. I believe there is some investigation with electrical steering being developed in much the way power assisted steering has been developed: ie: assisted but not completely powered. It makes for interesting reading. Cant find the article, but I think the Magazine was "Silicon Chip" an Aussie mag. Would be fun to hook it up to GPS. You could read the mag on the way to work, never having touched the steering wheel. > >> It is *not* emotional dribble, it is a *fact* that people have been > >> injured or killed in accidents *caused* by airbags. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > but NOT belted. Maybe she figured if she were not belted she'd always be > thrown from car. The fact remains that seat belts are not capable of causing an accident while airbags are and have been documented as doing so. Pete C. Ah the old "technology is bad/technology is good" debate. This argument has been around for literally centuries. It boils down to a standard cost/benefit analysis. BTW, please ignore marketing crap and dig deeper on anything. A container for drinking liquids really hasn't changed in many centuries; just slight variations. Some things have reached the limit of advancement. Most systems in cars that have electronics have benefited. Far too many people replace ECMs and other electronics in cars that are working properly, when a mechanical problem is usually the root cause. >> It is *not* emotional dribble, it is a *fact* that people have been >> injured or killed in accidents *caused* by airbags. > > youre more likely to be hit by lightning Thanks - the preceding post sounds like someone who argues against seat belts because he heard that someone was trapped in a vehicle instead of being "thrown clear", ignoring the 99.99999% of the time when being belted is better. >>>Tell ya what, Ellie... You drive that "fly-by-wire" unit. Just do me a >>>favor: Warn me where you'll be so I can avoid that [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > sensory input as a human and therefore does not have the information to > even begin to second guess the human. I would disagree here - the automated systems probably do a better job than *most* humans, but not the very best (which we all are here, of course). > >>>Tell ya what, Ellie... You drive that "fly-by-wire" unit. Just do me a > >>>favor: Warn me where you'll be so I can avoid that [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > than *most* humans, but not the very best (which we all are here, of > course). Wrong. Computers can react faster than humans, but without a boatload of very expensive sensors they do not have enough information to properly make the decisions in all cases. When one of the non-redundant sensors fails and in a common auto they are indeed non-redundant and produced by the low bidder, the computer makes the wrong decision and in the case of current ABS systems has been known to cause accidents. Pete C. >>Tell ya what, Ellie... You drive that "fly-by-wire" unit. Just do me a >>favor: Warn me where you'll be so I can avoid that [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > hypothetical, it may not be feasible to implement such a reliable > electronic system cheaply). I would take the more reliable one. I'm even uncomfortable with it in airplanes. I have flown on Airbus models with complete fly-by-wire, and I get very nervous. I believe Boeing's models now have fly-by-wire, but it is automatically disconnected if the pilot moves the control column with a strong force. > >>Tell ya what, Ellie... You drive that "fly-by-wire" unit. Just do me a > >>favor: Warn me where you'll be so I can avoid that [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Boeing's models now have fly-by-wire, but it is automatically > disconnected if the pilot moves the control column with a strong force. Er, I think you're confusing something here. If as you say "it is automatically disconnected if the pilot moves the control column with a strong force", then you must be referring to auto pilot and not fly-by-wire. If it's fly by wire you're referring to and "it is automatically disconnected if the pilot moves the control column with a strong force." that would imply that a strong force on the control results in complete disconnection of that control from the planes control surfaces. Pete C. > Er, I think you're confusing something here. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Pete C. A true "fly-by-wire" airplane cannot "disengage" the FBW. But what can happen- and what is VERY different between Boeing and Airbus implementations, is what happens when the "control laws" change from one mode to another. Different control law modes actually change the effect that moving the stick or yoke has on the control surfaces, and most pilots I've talked to think the Boeing method is a bit better. It will revert back to the exact same "control laws" that would apply if the yoke and pedals were connected to the control surfaces by pulleys, bellcranks, and cables just like a non FBW airplane, and I thing that's what the OP was talking about. >>> Tell ya what, Ellie... You drive that "fly-by-wire" unit. Just do me a >>> favor: Warn me where you'll be so I can avoid that [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Boeing's models now have fly-by-wire, but it is automatically > disconnected if the pilot moves the control column with a strong force. you're "uncomfortable" with it? fly by wire has been used in civilian planes since concorde first flew in 1969. maybe before for all i know. all the fud that surrounds fly by wire is the bleating of johnny-come-lately's like boeing who have had their lunch eaten because they're too damned slow off the blocks. you can bet that if boeing were there first, all the fud would be about "old mechanical systems". want another example? look at arianne. they've just launched a 10 ton payload into geosynchronous orbit. what do /we/ have that can do that these days? the shuttle? what a joke. /american/ companies are going to the /french/ to launch their satellites? that's ridiculous. seriously, we've taken our eye off the aerospace ball big time. bleating about the technology won't help us get back on track. we need a massive re-commitment to aerospace, a MASSIVE re-commitment to science and engineering in schools [ELIMINATING GRADE INFLATION] and to take some initiatives for a change. right now, we're trying to play catch-up after tossing stones from off-field. >>Tell ya what, Ellie... You drive that "fly-by-wire" unit. Just do me a >>favor: Warn me where you'll be so I can avoid that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > really need to be watching out for is Mercedes, who has had "brake by > wire" in its higher end models since 2003. Two points to make: 1) I always watch out for Mercedes anyway, because I presume they're driven by twits and I haven't forgiven Daimler for screwing up Chrysler, 2) I'm pretty sure that even their "brake by wire" has a mechanical fallback, although I'm not sure it utilizes all 4 brakes to anything like full capacity. > I'm sure most people, including me, are uncomfortable with the concept > of taking away direct control. But hypothetically, let's say mechanical [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hypothetical, it may not be feasible to implement such a reliable > electronic system cheaply). I would take the more reliable one. I think the second part of your statement is important here. How often have you ever heard of a complete failure of a mechanical steering system? Now go back to the 1920s, and in all that time and all those billions of vehicle miles travelled, have their been many cases? (I don't have the numbers, but I'm pretty confident they're small but nonzero). At any rate, it would be VERY hard to design and build a complex electronic system that is as simple and dead-nuts reliable as a worm-and-sector gear or a rack-and-pinion. Its kinda like trying to build an electric walnut crusher that is more reliable than a brick. In rec.autos.makers.honda Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote: > Two points to make: 1) I always watch out for Mercedes anyway, because I > presume they're driven by twits and I haven't forgiven Daimler for > screwing up Chrysler, 2) I'm pretty sure that even their "brake by wire" > has a mechanical fallback, although I'm not sure it utilizes all 4 > brakes to anything like full capacity. There was a story in the news in the last few days. Mercedes was doing a demo of their braking control systems. Three Mercedes drove into the lecture hall, and they were each supposed to be brought to a stop entirely by the collision avoidance system. Three smashes later, they were, indeed, all stopped. The Mercedes story had something to do with an adjacent metal wall and echoes. This wasn't the brake by wire that failed, per se, but amusing anyway. <http://www.askaprice.com/torque-article.asp?article=Mercedes_makes_mess_of_safet y_demonstration&item=669> --- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 > In rec.autos.makers.honda Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > This wasn't the brake by wire that failed, per se, but amusing anyway. Love it, much like the Microsoft demo conducted personally by Bill Gates during which the computers failed. I thin some guy named Murphy was involved. >>> Tell ya what, Ellie... You drive that "fly-by-wire" unit. Just do me a >>> favor: Warn me where you'll be so I can avoid that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > presume they're driven by twits and I haven't forgiven Daimler for > screwing up Chrysler, ROTFLMAO - thanks for the comic relief. :) >> Tell ya what, Ellie... You drive that "fly-by-wire" unit. Just do me a >> favor: Warn me where you'll be so I can avoid that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >really need to be watching out for is Mercedes, who has had "brake by >wire" in its higher end models since 2003. Nothing wrong with 'brake by wire' - its actually in many ways MORe safe than traditional methods. Standard hydraulic methods use an imput to force the brakes to engage. If a componant in that chain fails, then that chain is broken, and the brakes affected by that chain don't engage. I had my master cylinder in my 88 civic go out suddenly a year ago, luckily the wife was just pulling into a parking space at the time, and used the handbrake to stop, and only slightly nudged the facing car (at about 2mph) From what i rmeber of the 'brake by wire' system, it uses the opposite method. the brakes are on by default, and its the pressing of the pedal that brings it to default, until then, the position of the pedal inhibits the default. If something then brakes, the default is for the brakes to be activated. rather than not at all. Its what we call a 'failsafe' system. If something FAILs the system goes SAFE, FAIL-SAFE, see? Thinking how i'd apply the brakes, a sudden on would tend to induce a lockup, possibly dangerous, so maybe a small wheel-fed generation of power (regen braking) powering a backup control system, the ABS, steering, and so on, in case of main power failure. and then, probably a manual pressure bleed resevoir for afterwards, to release the brakes for it to be towed. ADmitedly more complex, but in theory, anyway, a safer system. since you're not totally screwed if the master cylinder goes (and i've replaced 2 of them in the past year, one per vehicle) Admitedly, *-by-wire systems aren't as muhch of an advantage, as they are in larger 'evices' Aircrafts, ships would need a huge amount more control systems space and weight, and the imputs would have to be excessively high for manual linkage systems to be utilisable. Of a cars systems, throttle-by-wire is the simplest (in fact, technically they're all 'by wire' just a steel one and not an electrical one. Gearchange by wire is used in a lot of cars (flappy paddle gearboxes for instance) and brake by wire is described above (well, one implimentation of it) Steering by wire is a different matter. Tried it once (sorta) in a LHD car, using dual controls. except i used a motorised steering unit, connected to a computer steering wheel (like you use for Need for Speed and Gran Turismo) to drive it, sitting in the front passenger seat (where a brit would sit to drive) was VERY weird,, having no feedback through the wheel, no grip indications, or even turn resistance. 30-40mph around a quarry was about as adentalin pumping as co-driving a raly, > From what i rmeber of the 'brake by wire' system, it uses the opposite > method. the brakes are on by default, and its the pressing of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 'failsafe' system. If something FAILs the system goes SAFE, FAIL-SAFE, > see? i think air brakes on 18 wheelers use the same principle. the air pressure forces the brake shoes apart. touching the brake releases pressure. so losing pressure would cause the brakes to lock. >> From what i rmeber of the 'brake by wire' system, it uses the opposite >> method. the brakes are on by default, and its the pressing of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > forces the brake shoes apart. touching the brake releases pressure. so > losing pressure would cause the brakes to lock. Yes, they do. According to a History Channel program, pre-loaded pneumatic brakes were originally an important safety development for trains. If anything went wrong, the brakes would be applied. Before that, "brakemen" had to scamper to the tops of the cars in whatever the conditions were to apply brakes. Mike > > From what i rmeber of the 'brake by wire' system, it uses the opposite > > method. the brakes are on by default, and its the pressing of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > pressure forces the brake shoes apart. touching the brake releases > pressure. so losing pressure would cause the brakes to lock. Well, they are applied - they don't actually "lock". I'd expected they would, but on the vehicles I've tried it on, it just comes to a relatively controlled stop, without skidding. Yet those same vehicles will skid (lock) using the service brake. My yard service manager says this is by design. >>>From what i rmeber of the 'brake by wire' system, it uses the opposite >>>method. the brakes are on by default, and its the pressing of the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > stop, without skidding. Yet those same vehicles will skid (lock) using the > service brake. My yard service manager says this is by design. locking is not by design. the ability to apply it hard enough so that it /can/ be locked /is/ by design. big difference. a locked brake does no one any good. >>>>From what i rmeber of the 'brake by wire' system, it uses the >>>>opposite method. the brakes are on by default, and its the pressing [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > it /can/ be locked /is/ by design. big difference. a locked brake > does no one any good. alright I have to straighten this out. the air brakes have a large spring that applies the brakes on loss of air pressure, on normal braking they also use air pressure on the apply side to increase the braking force. on a trailer with the loss of air pressure "usually" the spring pressue is enough to lock the brakes. KB SignatureThunderSnake #9 Warn once, shoot twice 460 in the pkup, 460 on the stand for another pkup and one in the shed for a fun project to yet be decided on >>>>>From what i rmeber of the 'brake by wire' system, it uses the >>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > force. on a trailer with the loss of air pressure "usually" the spring > pressue is enough to lock the brakes. KB nicely put - i didn't mean to suggest that air brakes couldn't lock - i meant to say that locking is a result, not a purpose. >>>>From what i rmeber of the 'brake by wire' system, it uses the opposite >>>>method. the brakes are on by default, and its the pressing of the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >it /can/ be locked /is/ by design. big difference. a locked brake does >no one any good. Depends on the surface. on loose gravel or snow, locking improevvs baing, by packing material. Lot of the truck places here have lose dirt and/or gravel for their internal roads, if nowhere else. On smooth flat, clear surfaces, however, you are correct. Yo. Before you get too worried, have you ever looked at a steering lock mechanism? What happens if a small fault occurs in your lock barrel and you become unable to steer? In my car it actually has failed in the locked position (not while driving) so I've removed the lock bolt. It's not hard to make an electrical system reliable. It just happens that most of the time we don't need high reliability so we are can accept occasional fuses blowing or motors burning out when it reduces costs. By the way, one proposed steer-by-wire system gives the driver complete control, but also provides force feedback to help less skillful or innatentive drivers. If you really want to turn somewhere you simply need to apply more force to overcome it. Our reactions are pretty good at doing this. Try turning off the engine while going down a steep winding road. You'll find that you automatically apply more brake pressure and more steering force when it's needed. What's the benefit? How many people are killed or injured by contact with the steering wheel in an accident? Wouldn't it be nice to have a collapsable steering wheel? How many accidents occur because of driver error causing them to drift out of their lane, trying to take corners too fast, etc? Road injuries are a big problem, clearly our current cars are not safe enough! Or maybe it's just more cool than doing the same boring thing that's been done for a hundred years!! <snipped> >Road injuries are a big problem, Actually they are not, they are extremely low relative to the number of vehicle miles. > clearly our current > cars are not safe enough! Clearly our current driver training and licensing is insufficient. Try upgrading training and licensing to the level of a class A commercial license and watch the number of accidents plummet along with the number of clueless drivers. <snipped> Pete C. > >Road injuries are a big problem, > > Actually they are not, they are extremely low relative to the number of > vehicle miles. What's are you comparing that to? What they were in the past? I don't know about where you're from, but in my country road deaths occur at about 4-5 times the rate of homicides, so there is reason to improve saftey. > > clearly our current > > cars are not safe enough! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > license and watch the number of accidents plummet along with the number > of clueless drivers. That's one way, but I doubt it will be the most effective once technology is sufficiently developed. And it won't be developed other than in small steps, such as brake-by-wire, throttle-by-wire, steer-by-wire, navigate-by-wire, see-by-wire, think-by-wire. >>>This concern has been answered eloquently by a contributor >> [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > wheel my poor obsolete "steered by a gear directly connected to the > wheels" rig to the side of the road as it coasts down from 50+. Once again, o thick skulled one, throttle-by-wire has nothing to do with the steering. New Hondas still have steering wheels, rack & pinion, linkage, etc. > He's happy with the status quo. Others are not. He should > get out of the business or certainly never enter it. There's a difference between "improvements" and "stupid application of technology." The idea of full-on "steer by wire" with NO mechanical backup is STUPID. Throttle-by-wire is questionable, but at least not outright stupid, and has some quantifiable advantages (throttle modulation during automatic transmission shifts, more graceful over-rev protection, etc.) Full-on steer-by-wire has no redeeming features to anyone except the automaker. Not to the driver, not to the passengers, and not to other users of the roadway who had sense to buy cars without steer-by-wire. That said, I don't know of any true "steer by wire" systems on the road. If Honda has "electric steering" I would hope and expect that its really just an electric ASSIST steering system. I believe the Chevy Malibu has a steer-by-wire system. > I believe the Chevy Malibu has a steer-by-wire system. I doubt it, seriously. To my knowledge, concept cars are the only vehicles that employ steer-by-wire. Signatureremove MYSHOES to email > > I believe the Chevy Malibu has a steer-by-wire system. > > I doubt it, seriously. To my knowledge, concept cars > are the only vehicles that employ steer-by-wire. I think what you're referring to is "electric power steering". Signatureremove MYSHOES to email > I believe the Chevy Malibu has a steer-by-wire system. No...it has a regular old rack and pinion steering system. The electric "assist" sits up in the steering column area and simply provides the assist to a "standard steering" rack and pinion. Ian > Elle wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The idea of full-on "steer by wire" with NO mechanical backup is STUPID. Which is why I doubt it's this simple. ">> The idea of full-on "steer by wire" with NO mechanical > backup is STUPID. As I understand it, electric steering is "electric power assisted" steering. That it, instead of the tradtional hydraulic assist system, there are electrical-mechanical assists (stepper motors maybe come to mind) to the standard rack and pinion. Stewart DIBBS <snip> > ".........more importantly than that, you've got to have the > insight and wisdom to know when something has been developed to the > point where further development amounts to pointless engineering > masturbation. <snip> "Drive by wire" is there for emissions control and for no other reason. Blame the regulatory authorities. > "The hydraulic brake system is a textbook model of development > to perfection. So was the hydromechanical automatic transmission -- [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and essentially never give trouble. There is, therefore, no valid > reason for steer-by-wire." And what does this have to do with "drive by wire" throttle systems? The Civic does not have a steer by wire system. On the other hand, I do own two farm tractors that have drive by hydraulic systems. They have no mechanical link between the steering wheel and the front wheels. It is all handled by hydraulics. I had a line blow once and had to steer off the road with the brakes..... Ed > > "The hydraulic brake system is a textbook model of development > > to perfection. So was the hydromechanical automatic transmission -- [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Ed One of the times the split brake pedal is quite handy. Pete C. > On the other hand, I do own two farm tractors that have drive by hydraulic > systems. They have no mechanical link between the steering wheel and the > front wheels. It is all handled by hydraulics. I had a line blow once and > had to steer off the road with the brakes..... I'm getting a real kick out of reading all the wire=boo!, mechanical=yeah! luddite comments. Must be a buncha young whippersnappers with no history under their belt. Two cases in point. One, blown hydraulic hose on a '67 Ford Mustang. Fortunately, I got it to the side of the freeway before the fluid was completely drained. Second, '72 Dodge van, borderline stripped spines of universal joint (mechanical) to hydro steering gearbox finally reaches yield point and suddenly way to much slippage of rotating steering wheel yields little/no corresponding front wheel response. IOW, I'm coming hard hard a'stabard, but the front wheels are not!! Both incidences were not "catastrophic" but I can assure you they were too damn close for my tastes and I was damn lucky to not suffer a "world o' hurts"! Bottom line: sh.t happens nb I have always gotten a laugh out of such a foolish system. The way I understand it, basically if the power fails when you are at speed, you crash, just like on an airplane. I guess you could also put your head between your legs and kiss your a.s good-bye like they do on planes too... ;-) Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/index.html?id=2120343242 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > Hi there. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > David > I have always gotten a laugh out of such a foolish system. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/index.html?id=2120343242 > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) Most of the fighter jets are fly-by-wire and they generally don't have problems with failures of this system. The fly-by-wire system is multiply redundant and rather expensive though. The main reason for it is the fact that it allows faster response and allows the computers to assist in stabilizing some inherently unstable aircraft designs. In the auto world drive-by-wire would be constrained by the price points and the multiple redundancy would probably be sacrificed. At auto speeds the faster response of by-wire technology is not needed, so the only possible reason to use the more expensive technology would be to allow the computer to try to compensate for a drivers lack of skill. Pete C. > so the only > possible reason to use the more expensive technology would be to allow > the computer to try to compensate for a drivers lack of skill. That would fit in this day-n-age of soccer-moms-driving-SUVs-with-a-phone-stuck-on-their-ear. Signatureremove MYSHOES to email > > I have always gotten a laugh out of such a foolish system. > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > is the fact that it allows faster response and allows the computers to > assist in stabilizing some inherently unstable aircraft designs. The F-16 - Proof that even a brick will fly if you can cram a big enough engine into it... > In the auto world drive-by-wire would be constrained by the price points > and the multiple redundancy would probably be sacrificed. At auto speeds > the faster response of by-wire technology is not needed, so the only > possible reason to use the more expensive technology would be to allow > the computer to try to compensate for a drivers lack of skill. Or more accurately phrased, to allow the computer to *ATTEMPT* to compensate for what it *PERCEIVES* as operator inability. When I turn the steering wheel, the wheels better move correspondingly *EVERY* time. Not "just when the engine is on", not "When there's a charged battery installed", not "When the computer thinks that what I'm doing is OK", but *EVERY* *SINGLE* *TIME* *NO* *MATTER* *WHAT*. While I'm behind the wheel, I will accept *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* less than *TOTAL*, godlike control of that vehicle, subject to *NO* influences outside of my own decisions and actions. (By way of illustration, a few years ago in europe, a "fly by wire" plane decided it knew more than the pilots - Pilots said "We gotta hammer on the power and crank the bejeezus out of the controls so we can lift, or we're gonna crash!". Fly-by-wire system said "Sorry, you can't do that", and proceeded to "fix their mistakes" by throttling down and not permitting them to crank the control surfaces to the needed degree, which caused the plane to crash and burn. After something like that, I can't see *ANYBODY* with a functioning brain-cell wanting anything to do with getting into a machine that might decide at any time that what they're trying to do is "off limits".) SignatureDon Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist, or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow" somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info > > > I have always gotten a laugh out of such a foolish system. > > > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > *TOTAL*, godlike control of that vehicle, subject to *NO* influences > outside of my own decisions and actions. Indeed, one of the reasons I demand a manual transmission. > (By way of illustration, a few years ago in europe, a "fly by wire" > plane decided it knew more than the pilots - Pilots said "We gotta [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with getting into a machine that might decide at any time that what > they're trying to do is "off limits".) You're partly confusing two different things, the fly-by-wire i.e. no mechanical link, and an automated control system. Not really the same thing although the fly-by-wire makes implementing the automated control easier. If it's a simple electronic replacement for a mechanical link (with suitable redundancy) it's ok with me. Automated control trying to second guess my decisions based on far less sensory input than I have, is not ok with me. The hydraulic steering on a lot of tractors and construction equipment that was noted by another poster is a good example of basic fly-by-wire or in this case fly-by-oil technology. It makes no attempt to second guess the operators decisions and simply replaces what could be a very complex mechanical linkage with a couple of nice flexible hoses. The hydraulic brakes in cars is another even earlier example. Brake-by-oil basically, and we still require the mechanical cable operated backup system in addition to the split hydraulic redundancy. Of course in recent years they've added the automated control a.k.a. ABS to try to second guess the operator. Pete C. > -- > Don Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist, > or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow" > somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my > ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info >>>>I have always gotten a laugh out of such a foolish system. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > course in recent years they've added the automated control a.k.a. ABS to > try to second guess the operator. This is a good example of who benefits & who is penalized, i.e., ABS undoubtedly saves more a.ses/lives than it costs. I can understand why manufacturers would put automated vehicle stability on unstable vehicles like SUVs, same logic as above. > >>>>I have always gotten a laugh out of such a foolish system. > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > This is a good example of who benefits & who is penalized, i.e., ABS > undoubtedly saves more a.ses/lives than it costs. Better driver training would save more lives and cost no additional lives, unlike failing ABS and airbags. > I can understand why manufacturers would put automated vehicle stability > on unstable vehicles like SUVs, same logic as above. SUVs are *not* unstable by the wildest stretch of the imagination. Under any normal driving conditions they are as stable as anything else on the road. Under limited emergency conditions they can become unstable, just as a regular car can become unstable, when in the hands of an unskilled driver. Note that a standard 80,000# tractor trailer has a significantly higher center of gravity than any SUV and you do not see them rolling over at anywhere near the rate of SUVs. This is because of better driver training. You of course do see semis rolled over, but the factor in the majority of those cases was not the higher COG, but rather the braking limitations of an 80,000# vehicle that has a pivot point 1/3 of the way down it's length. Pete C. >>>>>>I have always gotten a laugh out of such a foolish system. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > SUVs are *not* unstable by the wildest stretch of the imagination. that's not correct pete. the dynamic that causes all the rollover problems in suv's is transition from a lean in one direction while turning in the other - a rapid s-bend. most suv's will flip. that's fundamental instability. it's been known about for ages, but the u.s., in typical response to lobbying pressure, chooses to test suv's in the one mode most are known to pass, the j-bend test. why is this? if you dig about in the nhtsa web site, you'll see the explanation - it's political - they can't impliment a test that would condemn a significant portion of vehicles in domestic production. you can bet your rear end that if this same test condemned imports, it would be implimented tomorrow. > Under > any normal driving conditions they are as stable as anything else on the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Pete C. > >>>>>>I have always gotten a laugh out of such a foolish system. > >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > turning in the other - a rapid s-bend. most suv's will flip. that's > fundamental instability. That is exactly the same maneuver that results in cars rolling over as well. My point still stands. SUVs are *not* unstable, they simply have lower limits to that stability. Unskilled drivers will roll either, they just do it more often in an SUV since it's less forgiving of their lack of competence. > it's been known about for ages, but the u.s., > in typical response to lobbying pressure, chooses to test suv's in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > portion of vehicles in domestic production. you can bet your rear end > that if this same test condemned imports, it would be implimented tomorrow. It's been known for ages that the typical driver has insufficient training. It's politics that prevent upgrading driver training and licensing standards. As with everything else, it is more palatable to blame an inanimate object or large corporation than to blame the person that actually caused the problem. Pete C. > > Under > > any normal driving conditions they are as stable as anything else on the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > > Pete C. <snip> >>>SUVs are *not* unstable by the wildest stretch of the imagination. >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Pete C. i disagree. while in an ideal world, driver training would be perfect, it's never going to be. go sit with my grandmother as she drives her crown vic. "why are you sweating? - the air conditioner's on max". no kidding grandma. reality is, vehicles need to take account of the "average" driver. i personally dislike abs because it doesn't offer me choices on my braking limits. but for my grandmother, it's the /only/ way to go - there's no amount of driver training will /ever/ get her up to a standard that would ever allow her to steer out of a skid or have /any/ chance of fighting wheel lift in an suv. i therefore say that while /you/ may feel you can control an suv competently, it's unrealistic to expect everyone else to approach the standard necessary. the only responsible approach is [and i hate to say this] do what the europeans do and go for active stability control on suv's. that vehicle platform is just not capable of being "safe" without it. Pete C. wrote: > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> well. My point still stands. SUVs are *not* unstable, they simply have >> lower limits to that stability. This is the finest hair I've ever seen split! >> SUVs are *not* unstable by the wildest stretch of the imagination. > > that's not correct pete. the dynamic that causes all the rollover > problems in suv's is transition from a lean in one direction while > turning in the other - a rapid s-bend. <coughBULLSHITcough> > most suv's will flip. that's > fundamental instability. Cite? Documentation? Reality check? Been consuming too much of your screen name? "Most" SUVs will not flip unless they slide offroad, pull a tire off a rim, or clip a curb- same conditions that will flip a lot of cars. SUVs are more likely to flip in THOSE situations than are cars, but just swerving on a flat road? No way. You can slide most SUVs sideways without them rolling over. > Better driver training would save more lives and cost no additional > lives, unlike failing ABS and airbags. Can you point to any research that support this conclusion? I would be very interested to see it, since all the research I have seen supports the opposite conclusion: That driver training is ineffective at improving safety. Please note that I am asking for references to actual peer reviewed research, not just opinion. Here is a good place to start: http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc022.html http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/Other/peer.html > The F-16 - Proof that even a brick will fly if you can cram a big enough > engine into it... Tell it to a bumblebee. nb >>The F-16 - Proof that even a brick will fly if you can cram a big enough >>engine into it... > > Tell it to a bumblebee. Huh? (I'm aware that according to early engineering estimates bumblebees should not be able to fly) > > The F-16 - Proof that even a brick will fly if you can cram a big enough > > engine into it... > > Tell it to a bumblebee. Why - your mention of a urban legend is just that: legend... http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/aero/wellman/bumblebee.html Signatureremove MYSHOES to email [SNIP] >(By way of illustration, a few years ago in europe, a "fly by wire" >plane decided it knew more than the pilots - Pilots said "We gotta [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >with getting into a machine that might decide at any time that what >they're trying to do is "off limits".) If you're talking about the Airbus A320 crash at Paris air show in 1988, http://www.linienmc.dk/video/crashplane/2-Airplane%20Crash%20A320.mpeg the cause of it is still being disputed. Signature/"\ Jan Kalin (male, preferred languages: Slovene, English) \ / http://charm.zag.si/eng/, email: "name dot surname AT zag dot si" X ASCII ribbon campaign against HTML in mail and postings. / \ I'm a .signature virus. Copy me to help me spread. > [SNIP] > >(By way of illustration, a few years ago in europe, a "fly by wire" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > http://www.linienmc.dk/video/crashplane/2-Airplane%20Crash%20A320.mpeg > the cause of it is still being disputed. No, I don't think it was the airbus. In fact, if it was 1988, then it COLDN'T have been, since the one I'm thinking of happened sometime in the mid-to-late '90s. Something in my memory is saying it was a newer, "exotic" type - maybe that VTOL bird that the Marines keep crashing? I plain forget what kind of aircraft it was, though. I'll have to ask my landlord (works for the FAA, and has a "morbid interest" streak when it comes to oddball crashes) if he recalls it so that I can "zero in" on the exact incident. I do recall hearing snippets from cockpit recorder tapes on the nightly news that clearly revealed that the pilots were "freaking" (albeit very calmly, as pilots are wont to do) because the plane wouldn't let them do what needed to be done. I believe the cockpit-to-tower chatter was also pretty clear that they were trying like hell to do what was needed as they went down, but the plane wasn't responding to it. SignatureDon Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist, or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow" somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info > [SNIP] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > http://www.linienmc.dk/video/crashplane/2-Airplane%20Crash%20A320.mpeg > the cause of it is still being disputed. There were two other situations- one merely an incident that was overcome and the plane landed safely, and another in the Alps that did result in a fatal crash, that were blamed on the fly-by-wire. The problem was not the idea of FBW by itself, but the poor implementation of it by Airbus. The problem was in requiring pilot to fix a problem, or change modes, by typing in numbers and settings on a keypad, which is not an instinctive response of a pilot. There was no simple way to disable computers and fly by command inputs only. >I have always gotten a laugh out of such a foolish system. > > The way I understand it, basically if the power fails when you are at > speed, you crash, just like on an airplane. I guess you could also put > your head between your legs and kiss your a.s good-bye like they do on > planes too... ;-) The Civic drive by wire system is just for the throttle. If it fails, you'll just coast to a stop. You'll be able to steer just like most other cars can when the engine dies. Ed > >I have always gotten a laugh out of such a foolish system. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Ed So it is a misapplication of the drive-by-wire term to electronic throttle control. Presumably something the marketing folks dreamed up. Pete C. > So it is a misapplication of the drive-by-wire term to electronic > throttle control. Presumably something the marketing folks dreamed up. They acutally call it "Drive-by-Wire Throttle SystemT" Steve > > So it is a misapplication of the drive-by-wire term to electronic > > throttle control. Presumably something the marketing folks dreamed up. > > They acutally call it "Drive-by-Wire Throttle SystemT" > > Steve Sure sounds like the marketing department drivel to me. The engineers were probably cringing. Pete C. Perhaps teh seat cushions are floatation devices in these cars! ;-) > Perhaps teh seat cushions are floatation devices in these cars! ;-) If I crash into water I do not want my "flotation device" to be something I've been farting into for the past couple of years! > Hi there. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > David ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Tuesday night we had some interesting weather. Real heavy lightening. A friend was comming back from Hazard on the Mt. Parkway and had a nearby lightening strike. His engine car died and he was able to pull offto the side safely. It wouldn't restart. The engine wouldn't even crank.The EMP from the nearby lightning strike killed the ECM, igniton system, alternator diodes and regulator, fuel pump and the fancy after market radio/sound system. It was a 2003 Civic. I don't want to think what would happen if it was a "die by wire" system. Terry r2000swler wrote: > Tuesday night we had some interesting weather. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Terry A friend of mine had a similar incident with her 2003 Hyundai Accent. Lightning struck the car and damaged the computer module and stereo I am skeptical of electronics in place of mechanicals for transmissions, throttle, etc. Electronics and software do not always equate into greater reliability. I am doing whatever I can to keep my '93 Accord going forever. At least my car is a mostly stripped down base model with a minimum of electronics. > I am skeptical of electronics in place of mechanicals for transmissions, > throttle, etc. Electronics and software do not always equate into greater > reliability. Which is why boats still have points. > Which is why boats still have points. Well the newest 4 stroke outboard I bought does not have points. But then neither did the two stroke it replaced. And if you want reliability in a boat, a diesel seems like the way to go. Ed "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:Rtpff.1725 And if you want reliability in a > boat, a diesel seems like the way to go. > > Ed I think this is pretty much true... Our survival craft in the North Sea had diesel engines in the early days. 'In theory' they would start without batteries, no ignition to degrade, etc. I see no real need for the system described here as drive by wire. It would seem to add a layer of complexity, and therefore potential failure, without offering any obvious advantage. > Which is why boats still have points. Where do you people come up with this crap!? Twenty-five years ago, me and my buddies spent 5 hours stranded in the middle of a huge lake because the electronic ignition on the state-of-the-art motor took a digital dump. nb >>Hi there. >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > I don't want to think what would happen if it was a "die by wire" > system. Do you wear seat belts or do you worry about being trapped in your vehicle in the 0.0001% of the time that's an issue? > >>Hi there. > >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Do you wear seat belts or do you worry about being trapped in your > vehicle in the 0.0001% of the time that's an issue? Bad comparison, seat belts do not have the ability to cause accidents like a failing drive-by-wire or ABS system or airbag can. Pete C. > Hi there. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Can you turn the steering wheel to adjust your wheels when you push the > car? Only drive by wire tech I can find on the Honda is a Throttle System. I would hope that if there is a loss of power that the system supplies a small throttle input until you pull off the road and shut the car down??? <snip> > Only drive by wire tech I can find on the Honda is a Throttle System. > I would hope that if there is a loss of power that the system > supplies a small throttle input until you pull off the road and shut > the car down??? I am slightly puzzled why everyone seems to assume "drive by wire" has anything at all to do with the steering. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I am slightly puzzled why everyone seems to assume "drive by wire" has > anything at all to do with the steering. That's because of the car shows on TV. They show the prototype drive by wire vehicles as basic body modules you can just plug into one platform. You know, drive the sports body for the week and drop the SUV body on for the weekend type trip... Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/index.html?id=2120343242 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/index.html?id=2120343242 > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) No, it's because fly-by-wire technology has been around for quite a while and is relatively well known in aircraft. The misapplication of the term drive-by-wire to electronic throttle control which has been around in the heavy diesel world but not hyped as "drive-by-wire" confuses people. Pete C. > the term drive-by-wire to electronic throttle control which has been > around in the heavy diesel world but not hyped as "drive-by-wire" > confuses people. It's old news in cars, too. I recall being completely amazed upon reading the Helm manual for my girlfriend's 2 yr old '87 Cad De Ville and learning I could access and read and manually manipulate all the car's control voltages from the environmental control display. And sure enough, the throttle valve opening was a 0-10 volt range from all the way closed to all the way open. My first look at the wide world of car computers! Quite the revelation for me at the time. nb > > the term drive-by-wire to electronic throttle control which has been > > around in the heavy diesel world but not hyped as "drive-by-wire" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > nb I think you're referring to the Throttle Position Sensor, a.k.a. TPS, not electronic throttle. Engine computers have had sensors to monitor throttle position for years, at least since the advent of fuel injection. This has nothing to do with electronic throttle control where the computer actually has control of the throttle position. Pete C. > I think you're referring to the Throttle Position Sensor, a.k.a. TPS, > not electronic throttle. Engine computers have had sensors to monitor > throttle position for years, at least since the advent of fuel > injection. This has nothing to do with electronic throttle control where > the computer actually has control of the throttle position. I stand corrected. Thanks for clearing that up. :) nb > And sure enough, the throttle valve opening was > a 0-10 volt range from all the way closed to all the way open. Zero to five volts. Toyota MDT in MO > I am slightly puzzled why everyone seems to assume "drive by wire" has > anything at all to do with the steering. Likely because "driving" involves/requires steering as well as throttle. Calling something "drive-by-wire" would imply that all systems required/necessary in order to "drive" (i.e. brakes, throttle, steering) are *all* involved in the "drive-by-wire" system. Honda used a very poor description of the "feature". >> I am slightly puzzled why everyone seems to assume "drive by wire" has >> anything at all to do with the steering. >Likely because "driving" involves/requires steering as well as throttle. >Calling something "drive-by-wire" would imply that all systems >required/necessary in order to "drive" (i.e. brakes, throttle, steering) are >*all* involved in the "drive-by-wire" system. Honda used a very poor >description of the "feature". Uh huh. Please name a single car with such steering. One example should be enough. >>Likely because "driving" involves/requires steering as well as throttle. >>Calling something "drive-by-wire" would imply that all systems [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Uh huh. Please name a single car with such steering. One example should >be enough. The Automatomobile, which is featured in several Isaac Asimov stories. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >>>Likely because "driving" involves/requires steering as well as throttle. >>>Calling something "drive-by-wire" would imply that all systems [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>Uh huh. Please name a single car with such steering. One example should >>be enough. >The Automatomobile, which is featured in several Isaac Asimov stories. Fiction doesn't count as an example. If you haven't a single real world example, perhaps it's time to put your strawman argument away. >>>Likely because "driving" involves/requires steering as well as throttle. >>>Calling something "drive-by-wire" would imply that all systems [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The Automatomobile, which is featured in several Isaac Asimov stories. I remember that one - and if you put in a nickel it gives you a piece of pie, too. > >> I am slightly puzzled why everyone seems to assume "drive by wire" has > >> anything at all to do with the steering. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Uh huh. Please name a single car with such steering. One example should > be enough. OK. A couple months back, one of the major news networks had a "Car of the future" thing talking about future concepts, and one of them was a fully fuel cell car, which had adaptable body/interior features, very spacious interior (It looked like it skimped on safety to do so, being a prototype, and might have been intended for a world where everything went 20-30 mph, though it was underprotected even so IMO) So there are such projects out there, and aircraft have done this for some years. Long story short, it had a full steer by wire/drive by wire system that the demonstrator gushed over. I don't like the idea. "Autodrive" cars they are working on aren't my thing either. When the Honda salesperson said "No mechanical, it is all drive by wire" I figured it was like the one I had seen on TV,and the salesperson basically seemed to agree when I asked. So since the dealership person was saying it I figured I would ask on here, because I have had experience with a car losing power at speed and it is not fun, even with residual steering left after power steering fails, With drive by wire it could be worse. If the sales line the dealers are using is wrong, thank you for informing me. I wish Honda would, because I am going on their word here. > >> I am slightly puzzled why everyone seems to assume "drive by wire" has > >> anything at all to do with the steering. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Uh huh. Please name a single car with such steering. One example should > be enough. OK. A couple months back, one of the major news networks had a "Car of the future" thing talking about future concepts, and one of them was a fully fuel cell car, which had adaptable body/interior features, very spacious interior (It looked like it skimped on safety to do so, being a prototype, and might have been intended for a world where everything went 20-30 mph, though it was underprotected even so IMO) So there are such projects out there, and aircraft have done this for some years. Long story short, it had a full steer by wire/drive by wire system that the demonstrator gushed over. I don't like the idea. "Autodrive" cars they are working on aren't my thing either. When the Honda salesperson said "No mechanical, it's drive by wire" I figured it was like the one I had seen on TV,and the salesperson basically seemed to agree from the jist of the conversation. So since the dealership person was saying it I figured I would ask on here, because I have had experience with a car losing power at speed and it is not fun, even with residual steering left after power steering fails, With drive by wire it could be worse. So, from the details I had heard, this is what I felt it was; a true drive by wire, which I would be wary of due to my experience. >>> I am slightly puzzled why everyone seems to assume "drive by wire" has >>> anything at all to do with the steering. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Uh huh. Please name a single car with such steering. One example should > be enough. What does naming any car with drive by wire system have anything to do with Honda's description of the "feature" as it relates to their implementation? >>>> I am slightly puzzled why everyone seems to assume "drive by wire" has >>>> anything at all to do with the steering. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> Uh huh. Please name a single car with such steering. One example should >> be enough. >What does naming any car with drive by wire system have anything to do with >Honda's description of the "feature" as it relates to their implementation? It isn't a steering by wire system. The insane rant (which I notice you snipped) was about steering by wire, something which doesn't exist. Do try to follow the thread. Behaving like you have a damaged short term memory isn't all that cool. >>> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:52:17 -0500, James C. Reeves >>> <jcnospam@nospam.com> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > It isn't a steering by wire system. So when you "drive" you don't steer as part of the process? > The insane rant (which I notice you > snipped) was about steering by wire, something which doesn't exist. Perhaps true, but irrellivant. The name chosen implies that it does exist for those customers that may not be up on technology (or even understand what technology is available). > Do try to follow the thread. Behaving like you have a damaged short term > memory isn't all that cool. Check out the chevy malibu it is drive by wire steering >Check out the chevy malibu it is drive by wire steering No it's not. It has an electric power steering, but that just replaces the ususal hydraulic power steering. The steering wheel is still physically connected to the steering mechanism. Steer-by-wire would imply *no* physical connection between the steering wheel and the wheels, i.e., a computer would measure the position of the steering wheel and command a hydraulic or electric actuator that would then turn the wheels. AFAIK no such car exists on the market today precisely because and electrical failure would leave you with absolutely no control over the vehicle <shudder>. Signature/"\ Jan Kalin (male, preferred languages: Slovene, English) \ / http://charm.zag.si/eng/, email: "name dot surname AT zag dot si" X ASCII ribbon campaign against HTML in mail and postings. / \ I'm a .signature virus. Copy me to help me spread. >Check out the chevy malibu it is drive by wire steering The chevy malibu doesn't use drive by wire steering. It is merely electricaly assisted mechanical steering. http://www.delphi.com/pdf/ppd/chsteer/is_col_assist.pdf > I am slightly puzzled why everyone seems to assume "drive by wire" has > anything at all to do with the steering. Because "drive by wire" means everything like throttle, brakes, steering, etc. Honda marketing is misleading people. > Because "drive by wire" means everything like throttle, brakes, > steering, etc. Honda marketing is misleading people. And I thought GM and Crapsler were bad for misleading advertising. > Hi there. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Can you turn the steering wheel to adjust your wheels when you push > the car? The "drive by wire" refers to throttle butterfly control, not the steering. The usual connection between throttle and accelerator pedal is accomplished with a cable firmly affixed between the two. In the new "drive by wire" setup, the computer determines how to operate the throttle butterfly depending on several factors, only one of which is your foot. If your car dies, it will feel no different from what you're used to. Luckily, the steering still consists of solid metal connections. >The "drive by wire" refers to throttle butterfly control, not the >steering. Thank you for actually answering OP's question! J. > > The "drive by wire" refers to throttle butterfly control, not the > > steering. > > Thank you for actually answering OP's question! It's a dirty job, but somebody had to do it... > > > The "drive by wire" refers to throttle butterfly control, not the > > > steering. > > > > Thank you for actually answering OP's question! > > It's a dirty job, but somebody had to do it... Thanks :) Dave I think you are operating under the mistaken impression that the "drive by wire" system is referring to the steering gear. It does not. The only part that is "drive by wire" is the throttle. Instead of having a conventional linkage or cable between the accelerator pedal and the throttle plate in the intake, the accelerator pedal is connected to a rheostat which feeds positional information to the car's engine management computer. The computer then uses this information to open or close the throttle based on all the inputs. Toyota, Ford, GM, BMW, and others have been using such systems for several years in an effort to improve engine performance, reduce emission, and increase fuel economy. I see some complaints from Toyota owners about lagging response in their fly by wire systems. I have a Ford with a fly by wire system and did not even realize it until I looked through the shop manual. Failure of the fly by wire throttle system is not more dangerous, or likely, than the failure of a traditional throttle cable (I've had two of those fail in my life). The most likely failure mode is the engine dropping back to idle. I feel certain that you'll be able to control the car if this happens. See http://automobiles.honda.com/models/engineering_overview.asp?ModelName=Civic+Sedan Regards, Ed White > Hi there. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > David > Failure of the fly by wire throttle system is not more dangerous, or likely, > than the failure of a traditional throttle cable (I've had two of those fail > in my life). The most likely failure mode is the engine dropping back to > idle. I feel certain that you'll be able to control the car if this happens. Too many years ago (high-school years), I went to pick up a friend to go to school. As I pulled into their driveway, which was on an incline, I had to tap the gas pedal to get up the driveway. I hadnt realized it, but one of the motor mounts was broken, and when I tapped the pedal, the engine twisted up on one side, "pulling" on the throttle linkage, and thereby going wide-open-throttle. I immediately locked the brakes and turned the key off just a couple of feet away from their garage door :) Signatureremove MYSHOES to email > > Failure of the fly by wire throttle system is not more dangerous, or likely, > > than the failure of a traditional throttle cable (I've had two of those fail [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -- > remove MYSHOES to email With the electronic throttle control servo failing in the WOT position and ABS second guessing your braking, you would likely have gone right through the garage, both the front door and the back wall. Pete C. > With the electronic throttle control servo failing in the WOT position > and ABS second guessing your braking, you would likely have gone right > through the garage, both the front door and the back wall. That would have ruined their breakfast !!! Signatureremove MYSHOES to email >> With the electronic throttle control servo failing in the WOT position >> and ABS second guessing your braking, you would likely have gone right >> through the garage, both the front door and the back wall. > > That would have ruined their breakfast !!! I woudln't go that far but you would have at least spilled some milk. > With the electronic throttle control servo failing in the WOT position > and ABS second guessing your braking, you would likely have gone right > through the garage, both the front door and the back wall. But the traction control system would keep the car going in a straight line. =) >> With the electronic throttle control servo failing in the WOT position >> and ABS second guessing your braking, you would likely have gone right >> through the garage, both the front door and the back wall. > > But the traction control system would keep the car going in a straight > line. =) Yea, even if you didn't want it to. >>>Failure of the fly by wire throttle system is not more dangerous, or likely, >>>than the failure of a traditional throttle cable (I've had two of those fail [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and ABS second guessing your braking, you would likely have gone right > through the garage, both the front door and the back wall. Do you have a cite for this assertion? I was taught this once, but like other stuff we don't use, you forget it go in a general since, it works like this: In the GM throttle body, it has 3 electronic signals to compare to, one being a mirror of itself. If it looses two of them then there may be an issue (I believe) If you were to have an catastrophic failure, the car goes to limp home mode and gives you a crawl speed. > Hi there. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > David > I was taught this once, but like other stuff we don't use, you forget it go > in a general since, it works like this: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > issue (I believe) If you were to have an catastrophic failure, the car goes > to limp home mode and gives you a crawl speed. I've not seen any redundant sensors in any GM vehicle I've worked on. My current '97 truck with the 7.4l Vortec V8 certainly has no redundancy in it's sensors. A single sensor each for throttle position, intake air temperature, mass air flow, etc. Certainly if it looses one of the sensors to the extent it can detect it, it will enter limp mode, but absent redundant sensors, there are failure modes that the computer has no way to detect. Pete C. Were talking the electronic throttle body=no throttle cable. and it sends the 3 signals along the same wire (I believe Now I'm gonna have to find that book... SignatureStephen W. Hansen ASE Certified Master Automobile Technician ASE Undercar Specialist http://autorepair.about.com/cs/troubleshooting/l/bl_obd_main.htm http://www.troublecodes.net/technical/ >> I was taught this once, but like other stuff we don't use, you forget it >> go [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Pete C. >Hi there. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >David I see that my original reply (with the quote) was incomplete, and open to different interpretations. I have no direct knowledge of what Honda has, or has not, marketed as "Drive-By-Wire." I interpreted that to mean ALL of the driver's controls. It's true that throttle-by-wire has been around on some models for a while. Real "Drive-By-Wire" has not yet made its debut in production. As a matter of fact, that is EXACTLY what many automotive manufacturers are planning to implement. The engineering journals are full of information on development of systems which include STEERING and BRAKES operated only by means of electronic signals. No mechanical linkage between the driver's input device and the servos and links that actually move the machinery. And what disturbs me is that in all the reading I have done over the last few years, it appears that there are no plans for backup systems in case of the inevitable failure. When electronic ignition systems were brand-new to production vehicles, I worked in an automotive service shop. One of our customers had her new (few weeks old) car towed in when it died as she was on her way to work. When we turned the key, it started and ran without fault. We could find nothing wrong, and she went on her way. The next morning the same thing happened, within fifty yards of the same location. The ignition module was replaced on this second round, and the car never had the same problem again. Do you want to drive a car steered solely by means of your input through an electrical joystick? What happens when some semiconductor device reaches some critical temperature and stops functioning, as in the example above? Or when moisture causes corrosion and a bad electrical connection? Engineers who dream up this crap are mesmerized by the possibility that they CAN do it. I want them to consider whether they OUGHT to. The statement about "pointless engineering masturbation" is still applicable. <snip drivel> > The statement about "pointless engineering masturbation" is > still applicable. ok, so you /are/ a troll - i rated you as only 99% before [allowing for a small margin of ignorance]. now we know your troll coefficient = 1.0. clearly you have /no/ idea of the much superior reliability stats of efi compared to conventional fuel management/delivery. similarly, electronic ignition knocks conventional ignition out of the park. and now you're bleating about a small incremental change that allows the elimination of a significant engine management hurdle, one that allows significant perfomance benefits, control benefits /and/ reliability benefits? [rhetorical] clearly not as you're trolling from a position of utter ignorance. ><snip drivel> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >benefits? [rhetorical] clearly not as you're trolling from a position >of utter ignorance. "Clearly" you have not read or understood what I wrote. I have no objection to the electronic engine-management systems in use. I agree that they are far superior to the mechanical systems used in the past. But we weren't discussing electronic engine management. Pay attention. What I won't agree to is the use of electrical devices in place of mechanical operators, when there is no advantage, and there is a significant hazard involved. Devices fail, whether mechanical or electronic. And only the "utterly ignorant" would advocate their use with no backup in place. As to my being ignorant: I'll be the first to admit that I don't know everything there is to know. But I have about forty years' experience working in the industry, with vehicles and industrial engines. And a baccalaureate degree in automotive technology. And some common sense gained in real-world experience. Get the hell off your high-horse. >><snip drivel> >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > some common sense gained in real-world experience. > Get the hell off your high-horse. What sort of person gives drugs to his horse? Shocking! > one that allows > significant perfomance benefits, control benefits /and/ reliability > benefits? ******What significant performance, control, and reliability benefits do you see from the by-wire system ( as it has been defined as applying to the Honda application)? >> one that allows >>significant perfomance benefits, control benefits /and/ reliability [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Honda > application)? you're tooling along at 20% throttle, 2k rpm. you want to accelerate and go to 100% throttle. but your engine's only good for wot above 4k rpm. you need to shift. but it's a stick and you don't. but you do get some pull up to about 60% throttle. why throw away 40% that's not being utilized? electronic control saves you gas. ok, so you don't drive a stick, but you have an old hydraulic automatic. again, you want to go up a steepish hill and because it won't pull at low rpm's, you need the transmission to shift. it won't until you kick it to the floor because the transmission can't detect load, only whether you've operated the kickdown. sure, you can manualy over-ride, but why? electronic controls know exactly the engine load and can therefore determine the grade of hill. selection of gear ratio and throttle position is /much/ better. besides, what's with this misconception that we need direct throttle linkage? anyone here ever worked on diesels? anyone here know that the diesel govenor does? there's no direct linkage to fuel injection on a diesel - it's all done by the govenor. if that thing fails, you have ZERO engine control. diesels have been like this from day 1. > ok, so you don't drive a stick, but you have an old hydraulic automatic. > again, you want to go up a steepish hill and because it won't pull at > low rpm's, you need the transmission to shift. it won't until you kick > it to the floor because the transmission can't detect load, only whether > you've operated the kickdown. Wrong. Remember the vacuum operated modulator valve? They worked great until the diaphram broke and ATF got sucked into the engine. Those were the days, man, those were the days.... sure, you can manualy over-ride, but why? > electronic controls know exactly the engine load and can therefore > determine the grade of hill. selection of gear ratio and throttle [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > diesel - it's all done by the govenor. if that thing fails, you have > ZERO engine control. diesels have been like this from day 1. "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message news:BYCdnbjNyIqly- > you're tooling along at 20% throttle, 2k rpm. you want to accelerate > and go to 100% throttle. but your engine's only good for wot above 4k [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > diesel - it's all done by the govenor. if that thing fails, you have > ZERO engine control. diesels have been like this from day 1. Few use manual transmissions now, and even if they did, the 'by wire' technology would not change a thing. Even with diesels, 'by wire' actuation does nothing unique. IF automated highways ever became a reality, then a totally electronic system might be the way to go...collision avoidance, route selection, traffic flow optimization, police interception, etc...all might be controlled by computer... I think I will stay home if that ever happens... > "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message news:BYCdnbjNyIqly- > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I think I will stay home if that ever happens... Just think, though, no more speeding tickets. > > "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message news:BYCdnbjNyIqly- > > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Just think, though, no more speeding tickets. OK, Sparky... You've been itching for it, so here it is - *MY* application of "ain't technology wonderful?!?": <PLONK> (It's called a killfile - It's a sort of "storage area" for morons and fools who have nothing useful to say, but insist on running their clueless mouths anyhow - Say "buh-bye", Sparky... You no longer exist in my world. Which is a great improvement over 5 minutes ago.) SignatureDon Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist, or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow" somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info >>>"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message news:BYCdnbjNyIqly- >>> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > clueless mouths anyhow - Say "buh-bye", Sparky... You no longer exist in > my world. Which is a great improvement over 5 minutes ago.) How nice - so you're no longer in mine, either. Your overreaction to my posts has been noted. > ******What significant performance, control, and reliability benefits > do you see from the by-wire system ( as it has been defined as > applying to the Honda > application)? I'm not sure about the Honda system, but the GM system allows the computer to use the throttle to make other things that are happening transparent to the driver. I know that the new v-8's with the 4-8 cylinder technology use the electronic throttle to make the shift from 4-8 cylinder transparent. The electronic throttle is also used to "improve" tranmission shift quality. There are bound to be all sorts of good reasons why you want to control the throttle. Personally, as a tech that works on the vehicles, I hate the fact that I can no longer "blip" the throttle under the hood. I can use a scan tool to change rpm, but there is no way, other then using a helper, to rev the engine quickly anymore. I also find that many of the vehicles have a very "disconnected" feeling from the throttle. Some are better then others, so I'm sure it's just a matter of tweaking the calibrations. Now when it comes to "steering by wire".....I'm not sure that I'd be in favour of that. Ian > Hi there. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > David I wouldn't worry about not having a mechanical connection. We have had electronic throttles for a long time with very few problems. We have also had hydraulic brakes since the 1930's with very very few problems of total failure. > > Hi there. > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > problems. We have also had hydraulic brakes since the 1930's with very > very few problems of total failure. Yet brakes still fail now and then, from lines going bad, slipping, etc. My only question, however, was regarding the steering should power be lost. I have had experience with an engine going offline while at speed, and would prefer to maintain some steering control if I ever found myself in a similar situation! Dittos for you or anyone else hwo happened to be out on the road with me. I still am not sure about whether Honda has or is going to have DBW steering, and as for throttle, I asked at another dealership today. None of the sales staff really had any specifics on how DBW throttle works, or if they are going to do steering that way. The write up book I saw on the features and specifications for the forthcoming Honda SI Civic (Which I had heard would have it at the other place) had no mention at all of any DBW throttle or features. If they are trying to "slip it in there" like that at Honda, that's pretty sneaky. Truth be known, if the one salesperson hadn't told me, I might never have known to ask. David |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.