electronic throttle

if you buy all this fear-mongering idiocy that electronic throttle is a
problem, and that brakes, transmissions and ignition kill switches can
all simultaneously fail causing a driver to lose control, it might be
worth auto manufacturers of all stripes to adopt a slightly different
implementation of electronic throttle [e.t.] - if not for mechanical
reasons, but to shut the idiots up.

first, lets understand e.t. functionality:

1. open the throttle when demanded
2. close throttle when demanded
3. allow "demand" to account for additional requirements like
a. de-throttle on shifting for automatics,
b. throttle appropriate to load at high demand [eg. full throttle at
low rpms can choke an engine and significantly reduce output - thus
de-throttle until revs support full open]

if we analyze the above [which is not exhaustive, but representative],
we find that in almost all situations, an e.t. needs to be more closed
than demanded, but seldom, if ever, more open. thus the "solution" to
the fear-mongering might be to have the throttle opened mechanically -
i.e. old fashioned cable linkage, but have the computer control a closer
device. thus, all the above can be implemented electronically, but
whenever the driver lifts their foot, the mechanical closure cannot be
over-ridden. and the throttle can never be more open than the
mechanical throttle command.

this would not only address the "potential" for a runaway failure
[although how exactly a computer is supposed to fail such that it won't
switch off, disables brakes, disables transmission select, but still
runs its injection code is something i have never seen explained, even
by the most strident "but it must be the electronics" crowd], but it
would also remove the single most annoying thing i have ever experienced
in any vehicle driving experience: chevy's idiot idea that they need a
multi-second delay between foot pedal movement and e.t movement. anyone
that's ever tried to drive a chevy hhr on a winding mountain road knows
what i mean.

y'all can now wait for at least 10 years for arrival, but i throw it out
there for what it's worth.

 

The lawyers, politicians, and news media can convince the public of the
impossible (failure even a totally fail safe system) any time they
decide to do it depending on political or monetary motivation. IOW -
the people and companies who do a good job of designing are going to get
punished anyway (unless they know how to play the game in a corrupt
system). There are people in our society whose life goal is to make
sure that that happens.

 

indeed. but given that, unlike ignorance, there's no cure for
stupidity, and that vehicle manufacturers have to be smart about
politics, not just engineering, i've been thinking the above is one of
those solutions both mechanically and politically acceptable.

 

Cable !!!!
That is soooo 1990's.
Reminds me of my old Pontiac. Cable opened the
throttle plate and computer controlled the
amount of fuel injected.

 

<snip rest>


Nothing you say after this makes any sense.

If you have a mechanical opening device -- cable for example -- then it is
by definition closed with another mechanical device -- a spring. The whole
point of e.t. is to remove the constraints that surround mechanical linkage
of the gas pedal to the throttle plate. If you are not going to remove the
constraints of a mechanical system by employing it for the opening of the
throttle, then you can use the return spring that any mechanical method
would require to return the mechanism to the home position. The same spring
that brings the gas pedal to home can also bring the throttle to home.

 

The functionality is even easier than that -- open the throttle plate when
the gas pedal is pressed and close the throttle plate when the gas pedal is
released. You can get bogged down in semantics if you want, but the
functiionality is really that simple Go when the pedal is pressed and stop
going when the pedal is released. At the end of the day, anything else is a
variation on pushing the pedal down or releasing the pedal so that it comes
back up.

When or why one might press or release the pedal has no bearing on the
discussion. The only thing that matters is the expecation that the car goes
faster when the pedal is pressed and stops going faster when the pedal is
held at a mid-point, and slows when the pedal is released.

When the throttle control system does those things, then it is doing its
job.

 

The cross posting sucks.. but you guys seem to like it....

Toyota is having trouble... Ford isn't (I'm reading this in a Ford NG and I
work at a Ford dealer).

Drive by wire throttle is a natural progression (if you can't see where the
future of the automobile is going - I feel sorry for you). It allows for
precise (hopefully) control of any electronic stability features, It allows
for torque limiting when appropirate... reducing the need for other traction
control measures (such as active brake booster application) when
necessary...

Fords system relies on redundancy... I'm not a Toyota tech so I can't tell
you what they do... Fords system has three inputs..(one of them is inversely
proportional). If the inputs aren't "coherent", the car will remain at
idle...

Have we seen problems with Fords drive by wire? A very few, but yes.... No
unintended accelerations have been (AFAIK) documented.

 

yeah, that meets conditions 3.a & 3.b. oh, wait, no it doesn't.

why is it that people that don't know what they're talking about insist
on having "opinions"?

 

Have we seen problems with Toyota outside of the US? Are they making
different cars for other markets?

 

I was wondering the same thing about you ...

You postulate stupid ideas that have absolutely no basis in reality.

The gas pedal has one job, make the car go. When the pedal is pressed the
car goes, when the pedal is not pressed the car stops going. It is not
expected to do anything more, or anything less. This function has taken
place for more than 100 years, and has never been a problem like what we
have today.

 

1. you snipped the important bit. apparently you don't understand why
that was so.

2. you don't know what a rhetorical question is. next time, i'll let
you know it's rhetorical so you don't waste any more electrons.

 

c'mon dude, don't ask difficult questions that expose the logical
fallacy of this ridiculous protectionist witch hunt.

 

This is the most important part?

It's nonsense! The gas pedal does two things, opens the throttle plate and
closes the throttle plate. Period.

You should ride the bus.

 

three inputs from the throttle pedal position sensor?

 

oh jeff...

logical disconnect. comprehension failure != system failure.

you've never bothered to look at this stuff apparently. with electronic
throttle, there is no connection between throttle and pedal. the whole
point of electronic throttle is that any throttle opening process is
controlled to give the desired engine output functionality.

you should stick to watching tv.

 

Nonsense? Where have I heard that before?
This is what you get if you're foolish enough to to let somebody who
names himself after a whiskey, whose logic is limited to the HTML
programming he's done for a Toyota fanboy website, and thinks EPS uses a
pump - design automobile throttling.
Don't worry, nobody in charge of such things is that foolish.
Well, maybe Toyota was. And look where it got them.

 

I converted my engine from a carburator to MPFI, so I'm retty sure I
understand what a gas pedal does. Do not lecture me on shit you know nothing
about.

I know perfectly well what the connection, or the lack of it, is in an
electronic throttle.

YOU (probably in a drunken stupor) said it is feasable to use a mechanical
linkage to open the throttle, then use the some other means to close it.
Sheer stupidity. YOU also postulated some bazzare combination of functions
that a gas pedal has to perform. Sheer nonsense.

 

Jim Beam. do you read the FT, or do you just like calling a spade a spade?

DAS

To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'

 

Yes, the Toyota recalls 'arrived' in the UK...

DAS

To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
--