Honda "Drive by Wire" question... what if the power goes out?

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.

 

Why - your mention of a urban legend is just that: legend...
http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/aero/wellman/bumblebee.html

 

Why - your mention of a urban legend is just that: legend...
http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/aero/wellman/bumblebee.html

 

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.

 

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.

 

the fly wrote:

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.

 

the fly wrote:

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

"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.

 

"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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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 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.

 

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.