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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Pete C. wrote:

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.

 

Pete C. wrote:

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 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?"

 

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 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?"

 

Thanks

Dave

 

Thanks

Dave

 

it's 0.47 microfarads. the oem part is $27 with all the wiring and
harness that accompanies it.

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.

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.

 

it's 0.47 microfarads. the oem part is $27 with all the wiring and
harness that accompanies it.

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.

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.

 

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.

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

 

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.

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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

 

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.

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

 

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.