Toyota Throttle Electronics Easily Confused

Post by john
The floor mats and sticking pedal accounts for only 30% of the
problems. The true cause of sudden acceleration is still not known so
no real solution is possible. IMO it's the electronics.
"In earlier testimony, David Gilbert, a Southern Illinois University
professor, tells the panel he was able to produce in a lab environment
a sudden-acceleration incident using a Toyota vehicle, in essence by
introducing a short between two circuits.
Gilbert, whose research was sponsored by consumer advocacy firm Safety
Research & Strategies, says it was fairly simple to confuse the Toyota
electronics, but he has so far been unable to introduce a similar
failure in the electronic controls for a Buick Lucerne."
http://wardsauto.com/home/toyota_still_looking_100223/

Dick Cheney says, you are easily led, like a sheep, one person
purposely trying to make something fail probably can,
however your car probably crashed because your dear wife
stuck her hoof on the wrong pedal.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

Hachiroku ハチロク

2010-02-24 04:30:14 UTC

The floor mats and sticking pedal accounts for only 30% of the problems.
The true cause of sudden acceleration is still not known so no real
solution is possible. IMO it's the electronics.

Near as I can see, you're the only confused thing I can see around here.

IMO, of course.

jim beam

2010-02-24 05:13:11 UTC

"in your opinion"? are you a software engineer? are you an electrical
engineer? are you /any/ form of engineer?

Post by john
"In earlier testimony, David Gilbert, a Southern Illinois University
professor, tells the panel he was able to produce in a lab environment
a sudden-acceleration incident using a Toyota vehicle, in essence by
introducing a short between two circuits.
Gilbert, whose research was sponsored by consumer advocacy firm Safety
Research& Strategies, says it was fairly simple to confuse the Toyota
electronics, but he has so far been unable to introduce a similar
failure in the electronic controls for a Buick Lucerne."
http://wardsauto.com/home/toyota_still_looking_100223/

and we can find "witnesses" that will stand up and allege that their
vehicle's throttle, brakes, transmission and ignition all failed
simultaneously. but not as simultaneously as their credibility.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Kyle Miestor

2010-02-27 01:36:33 UTC

"in your opinion"? are you a software engineer? are you an electrical
engineer? are you /any/ form of engineer?

He has engineered a colossal waste of bandwidth if that counts?

johnny boy is indeed an epic douchebag.

ransley

2010-02-24 20:12:57 UTC

I thought it was 70% of complaints lodged going back to 02 or near,
not 70% of affected cars.

Im sure they know the reason why it happens, toyotas beancounters
just figure its cheaper to ignore it and too hard to prove. You see
eventualy all the defect cars will be totaled out and there wont be
any proof, the rest die by attrition, so the problem dissapears
magicly.

It just takes time, a bit of lobbying, and a few employees that used
to work for the NHTSA squash a few investigations, and its like it
never happened.

Tegger

2010-02-25 12:22:58 UTC

Or it's simple pedal misapplication, which is the most common cause of SUA
by far, and is essentially out of /any/ automaker's control.

Post by john

Post by john
"In earlier testimony, David Gilbert, a Southern Illinois University
professor, tells the panel he was able to produce in a lab environment
a sudden-acceleration incident using a Toyota vehicle, in essence by
introducing a short between two circuits.
Gilbert, whose research was sponsored by consumer advocacy firm Safety
Research & Strategies, says it was fairly simple to confuse the Toyota
electronics, but he has so far been unable to introduce a similar
failure in the electronic controls for a Buick Lucerne."

The lab that Toyota retained managed to reproduce Gilbert's result, but
said that they found it extremely unlikely that such an event could
actually occur in the real world.

--
Tegger

Vic Smith

2010-02-25 14:04:52 UTC

Or it's simple pedal misapplication, which is the most common cause of SUA
by far, and is essentially out of /any/ automaker's control.

Post by john

Post by john
"In earlier testimony, David Gilbert, a Southern Illinois University
professor, tells the panel he was able to produce in a lab environment
a sudden-acceleration incident using a Toyota vehicle, in essence by
introducing a short between two circuits.
Gilbert, whose research was sponsored by consumer advocacy firm Safety
Research & Strategies, says it was fairly simple to confuse the Toyota
electronics, but he has so far been unable to introduce a similar
failure in the electronic controls for a Buick Lucerne."

The lab that Toyota retained managed to reproduce Gilbert's result, but
said that they found it extremely unlikely that such an event could
actually occur in the real world.

I've been following this pretty closely. since I'm retired (-:
Watched hours of hearings, read many articles, etc.
A few points.
Exponent, the lab Toyota hired, is suspect, because their client is
Toyota. Just works that way. You need an independent lab.
Gilbert's findings, though he is sincere, are suspect, because they
haven't been tied to the real world.
The problem is - nobody has really defined a widespread problem.
Sure, the mats - that's been taken care.
The sticky pedals - that's been taken care of.
The need for brake over ride circuitry - that will happen.
The Lexus engine shutdown issue - don't know what's in the works, but
I expect that delayed button will be replaced with a positive instant
means to shot down - could still be a button.
What's left - from what I've seen - is a couple believable cases of
"unintended acceleration"
Where the engine revs on it's own to the limiter.
That weird stuff happened to the Smith woman who testified, and
it happened to a guy who testified on the second day.
These were clear cases of electronic wildly controlling the engine
with no human input.
Nobody has figured those out. Might have nothing to do with pedal
circuitry.
I've mentioned before I experienced this in '85 TBI 2.0 Cavalier.
Didn't go wide open, but would push the car to 50mph with no pedal
input. Brakes easily handled it.
Turned out it was the ECU, which failed entirely a maybe a week after
the problem started.
Most likely an attached scanner could have quickly found the issue,
because though it was intermittent, you didn't have to wait long for
it to happen, and it could be reproduced just by driving for about 5
miles.
But it is possible that a confluence of conditions messing with modern
design electronic signals, combined with hardware anomalies/tolerances
can make this kind of thing happen again, and it will be hell to
reproduce it.
That's why brake overrides and a simple means to shut down are
necessities.
My bottom line on this is the big problems are Toyota not jumping hard
on the mat and pedal problems, the Toyota memo about saving $100
million by forestalling recalls, the oily relationship between mfgs
and NHTSA because of revolving doors, and - the biggest of all - the
cell phone call from the car of the highway patrolman as he and his
family went to flaming death.
That cell phone call is what has really screwed Toyota.
But hell, the car was a loner from a Toyota dealership, the previous
driver had the same issue, and I think the mat issue was supposed to
be taken care of. So they bought that one with eyes wide open.
With millions of cars on the road this "unintended acceleration" won't
go away. Glitches are going to happen. But it can be contained.
Aside from that lame delayed Lexus shutdown, I certainly don't think
Toyotas are more dangerous than other cars,
But I'm not the general public or Congress.

--Vic

jim beam

2010-02-25 14:23:33 UTC

Post by Vic Smith

Or it's simple pedal misapplication, which is the most common cause of SUA
by far, and is essentially out of /any/ automaker's control.

Post by john

The lab that Toyota retained managed to reproduce Gilbert's result, but
said that they found it extremely unlikely that such an event could
actually occur in the real world.

Watched hours of hearings, read many articles, etc.
A few points.
Exponent, the lab Toyota hired, is suspect, because their client is
Toyota. Just works that way. You need an independent lab.
Gilbert's findings, though he is sincere, are suspect, because they
haven't been tied to the real world.
The problem is - nobody has really defined a widespread problem.
Sure, the mats - that's been taken care.
The sticky pedals - that's been taken care of.
The need for brake over ride circuitry - that will happen.
The Lexus engine shutdown issue - don't know what's in the works, but
I expect that delayed button will be replaced with a positive instant
means to shot down - could still be a button.
What's left - from what I've seen - is a couple believable cases of
"unintended acceleration"
Where the engine revs on it's own to the limiter.
That weird stuff happened to the Smith woman who testified, and
it happened to a guy who testified on the second day.
These were clear cases of electronic wildly controlling the engine
with no human input.
Nobody has figured those out. Might have nothing to do with pedal
circuitry.
I've mentioned before I experienced this in '85 TBI 2.0 Cavalier.
Didn't go wide open, but would push the car to 50mph with no pedal
input. Brakes easily handled it.
Turned out it was the ECU, which failed entirely a maybe a week after
the problem started.
Most likely an attached scanner could have quickly found the issue,
because though it was intermittent, you didn't have to wait long for
it to happen, and it could be reproduced just by driving for about 5
miles.
But it is possible that a confluence of conditions messing with modern
design electronic signals, combined with hardware anomalies/tolerances
can make this kind of thing happen again, and it will be hell to
reproduce it.

this is just vague hand waving and guesswork by people completely
unfamiliar with the reality.

Post by Vic Smith
That's why brake overrides and a simple means to shut down are
necessities.

they won't stop the incompetent pressing the wrong pedal and swearing it
was the car's fault.

Post by Vic Smith
My bottom line on this is the big problems are Toyota not jumping hard
on the mat and pedal problems, the Toyota memo about saving $100
million by forestalling recalls, the oily relationship between mfgs
and NHTSA because of revolving doors, and - the biggest of all - the
cell phone call from the car of the highway patrolman as he and his
family went to flaming death.

double-standard bullshit. frod bribed the entire congress into
accepting a lie about tires being at fault for a fundamentally flawed
vehicle design. where the heck were all you guys then?

Post by Vic Smith
That cell phone call is what has really screwed Toyota.
But hell, the car was a loner from a Toyota dealership, the previous
driver had the same issue, and I think the mat issue was supposed to
be taken care of. So they bought that one with eyes wide open.
With millions of cars on the road this "unintended acceleration" won't
go away. Glitches are going to happen. But it can be contained.
Aside from that lame delayed Lexus shutdown, I certainly don't think
Toyotas are more dangerous than other cars,
But I'm not the general public or Congress.
--Vic

here's the acid test: why haven't i experienced these problems when
i've been driving toyota's?

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Vic Smith

2010-02-25 15:19:54 UTC

Post by Vic Smith
But it is possible that a confluence of conditions messing with modern
design electronic signals, combined with hardware anomalies/tolerances
can make this kind of thing happen again, and it will be hell to
reproduce it.

this is just vague hand waving and guesswork by people completely
unfamiliar with the reality.

The ones familiar with the realty get to testify before Congress.

Post by Vic Smith
That's why brake overrides and a simple means to shut down are
necessities.

they won't stop the incompetent pressing the wrong pedal and swearing it
was the car's fault.

Nope. But it will largely cover the auto mgf's ass.

double-standard bullshit. frod bribed the entire congress into
accepting a lie about tires being at fault for a fundamentally flawed
vehicle design. where the heck were all you guys then?

"Us guys?" I don't drive Fords.

Post by jim beam
here's the acid test: why haven't i experienced these problems when
i've been driving toyota's?

Hey, that's been my acid test with Chevys.
You buy that, then the general public will buy what you're selling.

--Vic

C. E. White

2010-02-25 15:52:10 UTC

Post by jim beam
double-standard bullshit. frod bribed the entire congress into
accepting a lie about tires being at fault for a fundamentally
flawed vehicle design. where the heck were all you guys then?

You have to quit repeating this lie. Explorers were no more
"fundamentally flawed" than other mid sized SUVs from the 1990's. As I
have pointed out to you multiple times, the accident rates, injury
rates, rollover rates, etc. for Explorers were actually better than
for most competitive vehciels and far better than for 4Runners from
that period. Explorers actually had much lower injury rates that
"Average" vehciles in that time period. The facts are out there. You
prefer to ignore those and it makes you look like a lair.

Trying to deflect attention from the Toyota problems by lying is a sad
tactic.

Ed

Tegger

2010-02-25 22:47:57 UTC

The two vehicles are not really comparable. The Explorer and the 4Runner
attracted different markets, with the 4Runner's market being younger.
Younger is generally associated with higher accident claims.

I've never driven an Explorer, but I did spend two weeks driving an Escape,
a few years ago. I was quite impressed with the truck's handling. For such
a tall vehicle, it was surprisingly nimble and well-controlled. Had I been
in the market for a small domestic SUV, I think the Escape would have been
my choice.

--
Tegger

bob

2010-02-26 00:55:19 UTC

In article <***@208.90.168.18>, ***@invalid.inv
says...

The two vehicles are not really comparable. The Explorer and the 4Runner
attracted different markets, with the 4Runner's market being younger.
Younger is generally associated with higher accident claims.
I've never driven an Explorer, but I did spend two weeks driving an Escape,
a few years ago. I was quite impressed with the truck's handling. For such
a tall vehicle, it was surprisingly nimble and well-controlled. Had I been
in the market for a small domestic SUV, I think the Escape would have been
my choice.

Tegger,

The Escape is not a truck-based SUV. It's chassis is a modified version
of the old Mazda 626 from when Ford had a large share in Mazda. It's
also used in the Mazda Tribute. They are both made on the same assembly
line, although very few parts are interchangeable.

Bob

Tegger

2010-02-26 01:11:41 UTC

Post by bob
says...

Post by Tegger
I've never driven an Explorer, but I did spend two weeks driving an
Escape, a few years ago. I was quite impressed with the truck's
handling. For such a tall vehicle, it was surprisingly nimble and
well-controlled. Had I been in the market for a small domestic SUV, I
think the Escape would have been my choice.

Tegger,
The Escape is not a truck-based SUV.

But it is officially classed by the federal government as a "light truck",
so my terminology is accurate as far as the legal definitions are
concerned.

--
Tegger

bob

2010-02-26 03:31:22 UTC

In article <***@208.90.168.18>, ***@invalid.inv
says...

Post by bob
says...

Tegger,
The Escape is not a truck-based SUV.

But it is officially classed by the federal government as a "light truck",
so my terminology is accurate as far as the legal definitions are
concerned.

Tegger,

OK. Perhaps were should call it a compact cross-over SUV:-) At least
that's what most of the auto rags call it.

Bob

Tegger

2010-02-26 12:37:50 UTC

Post by bob
says...

Post by Tegger
But it is officially classed by the federal government as a "light
truck", so my terminology is accurate as far as the legal definitions
are concerned.

Tegger,
OK. Perhaps were should call it a compact cross-over SUV:-) At least
that's what most of the auto rags call it.

"Compact cross-over SUV" (or "CUV") it is, then. Amend my original reply to
say that instead of "truck".

--
Tegger

C. E. White

2010-02-26 04:57:10 UTC

I oartially agree. However, it should be noted that the Explorer model with
the worst safety record was the 2 Door Sport model, which also was
attractive to younger people (mostly because it was cheap). The accident
rate for the 2 Door 2WD Sport Model (which had a shorter wheelbase than the
4 door models) was particularly bad compared to the four door Explorer
models. If you compare 4 door 4 wheel drive mid-sized SUVs from the 1990's
Explorers did very well. The trial lawyer websites always seem to show
pictures of mid to late model 4 Door Explorers when trolling for clients,
yet these were among the safest mid-sized SUVs sold at the time. I do agree
that the population of owners does have a significant effect on the accident
statistics. But while 4Runners might have appealed to a younger crowd, I
suspect 4 Door Explorers appealed to a lot of middle aged women.....I doubt
they were the best equipped people to handle a top heavy SUV no matter who
made it. It is hard to find demographics on who was driving which SUVs that
rolled over, but two things are true - the mid-90's 4 door 4Runner had a
worse "rollover rating" (using the NHTSA calculation system) than the 4 door
Explorer and it had a weaker roof based on NHTSA tests. So I still content
that if you are going to rant and rave about how dangerous Explorers were,
then you need to rant and rave about 4Runners as well (and other also - like
2WD S10 Blazer).

Post by Tegger
I've never driven an Explorer, but I did spend two weeks driving an Escape,
a few years ago. I was quite impressed with the truck's handling. For such
a tall vehicle, it was surprisingly nimble and well-controlled. Had I been
in the market for a small domestic SUV, I think the Escape would have been
my choice.

I owned a 1996 4 Door 4 Wheel Drive Explorer for a year. It was OK, but I
never really was enthusiastic about it. It did have great seats (best OE
seats I ever had, they were the optional sports seats). My Explorer came
with Goodyear tires and I never had a problem. (1 year and 32,000 miles)
Around the same time, my Father had a Ranger that came with the infamous
Firestone ATX tires. Long before the recall he had already replaced two of
them because the treads split and He removed the other two and placed them
in the barn. The two that actually failed did not suffer from a tread
separation like the press talked about, the tread just split down the
middle. When Ford recalled the tires, we swapped the two in the barn for
something better. Even the cheap private brand tires my Father bought as
replacements held up better than those OE Firestone tires. I will never buy
the idea that Explorers were inherently dangerous (at least compared to
other vehicles in the class), but I do think Ford deserved to be roasted for
installing such crappy ties on their vehicles.

Ed

Tegger

2010-02-26 14:28:20 UTC

So I still content that if you are going to rant and rave
about how dangerous Explorers were, then you need to rant and rave
about 4Runners as well (and other also - like 2WD S10 Blazer).

And be willing to admit that any tall vehicle is, by its very nature, more
likely to roll over than any short vehicle, regardless of who made it.

It is not possible to drive a 6.5'-tall SUV like you would a 4.5'-tall
coupe, and expect to be able to keep the shiny side up all the time.

--
Tegger

C. E. White

2010-02-27 00:19:14 UTC

So I still content that if you are going to rant and rave
about how dangerous Explorers were, then you need to rant and rave
about 4Runners as well (and other also - like 2WD S10 Blazer).

And be willing to admit that any tall vehicle is, by its very nature, more
likely to roll over than any short vehicle, regardless of who made it.
It is not possible to drive a 6.5'-tall SUV like you would a 4.5'-tall
coupe, and expect to be able to keep the shiny side up all the time.

Naturally.

I never realy understood how truck based SUVs got to be popular with city
dwellers. I have a farm and actually needed to use the 4 wheel drive at
times. I liked the idea of an SUV vs a pick-up for two reasons - more
passenger room (when my kids were younger they often went with me to my
farm) and I could keep stuff dry in the back on rainy days. My kids are
grown up now, so I no longer have an SUV (just a 4WD pick-up for the farm).
I drive a car as my everyday vehicle. If I need a vehicle like an SUV, I can
just use my Mother's Highlander (which is really jsut a station wagon in my
mind).

Ed

Conscience

2010-02-27 01:20:04 UTC

On 2010-02-26 16:19:14 -0800, "C. E. White"

So I still content that if you are going to rant and rave
about how dangerous Explorers were, then you need to rant and rave
about 4Runners as well (and other also - like 2WD S10 Blazer).

And be willing to admit that any tall vehicle is, by its very nature, more
likely to roll over than any short vehicle, regardless of who made it.
It is not possible to drive a 6.5'-tall SUV like you would a 4.5'-tall
coupe, and expect to be able to keep the shiny side up all the time.

Naturally.

One exception: Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8. Skid pad of 0.93, if memory
serves. Not quite 6.5', but close.

Tegger

2010-02-27 02:20:57 UTC

Post by Conscience
On 2010-02-26 16:19:14 -0800, "C. E. White"

Post by Tegger
It is not possible to drive a 6.5'-tall SUV like you would a
4.5'-tall coupe, and expect to be able to keep the shiny side up all
the time.

Naturally.

One exception: Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8. Skid pad of 0.93, if memory
serves. Not quite 6.5', but close.

Skidpad doesn't tell all, unfortunately. Skidpad is steady-state. The real-
world is anything BUT steady-state.

Real-world drivers abruptly yanking the wheel around--often in conjunction
with panic and sudden braking--are what overturn or ditch even the most
well-behaved of motor vehicles.

--
Tegger

Conscience

2010-02-27 02:31:34 UTC

Post by Conscience
On 2010-02-26 16:19:14 -0800, "C. E. White"

Post by Tegger
It is not possible to drive a 6.5'-tall SUV like you would a
4.5'-tall coupe, and expect to be able to keep the shiny side up all
the time.

Naturally.

One exception: Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8. Skid pad of 0.93, if memory
serves. Not quite 6.5', but close.

Skidpad doesn't tell all, unfortunately. Skidpad is steady-state. The real-
world is anything BUT steady-state.
Real-world drivers abruptly yanking the wheel around--often in conjunction
with panic and sudden braking--are what overturn or ditch even the most
well-behaved of motor vehicles.

No disagreement there, but I'll stress that the SRT8 is definitely an
exception to SUVs.

Drive one, if you get the chance. Mind you, I'm not advocating owning
any Chrysler product.

jim beam

2010-02-26 04:08:52 UTC

only after you've massaged the numbers. the /real/ data, the nhtsa's
"single vehicle rollover fatalities per million driver miles" had the
exploder as a standout "winner" of the "kill your driver" contest by a
margin of about 3x.

Post by C. E. White
Explorers actually had much lower injury rates that
"Average" vehciles in that time period. The facts are out there. You
prefer to ignore those and it makes you look like a lair.

carefully selected bullshit ed. and you know it. because you're paid
to know it.

Post by C. E. White
Trying to deflect attention from the Toyota problems by lying is a sad
tactic.

oh, ed, i'm sad alright - i keep pointing out your hypocrisy, double
standards, deceit and bullshit.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

C. E. White

2010-02-26 05:29:47 UTC

Post by C. E. White
You have to quit repeating this lie. Explorers were no more
"fundamentally flawed" than other mid sized SUVs from the 1990's. As I
have pointed out to you multiple times, the accident rates, injury
rates, rollover rates, etc. for Explorers were actually better than
for most competitive vehciels and far better than for 4Runners from
that period.

LIAR. Provide a link to any statistic that backs this up. You won't becasue
it is a LIE.

From http://tinyurl.com/yf4e8r4

"But the agency concluded that "the data does not support Firestone's
contention that Explorers in general, or even model year 1995 and later
two-wheel drive Explorers in particular, are more likely to" cause a loss of
control following a rear tread separation and tire failure than other,
comparable SUVs."

Ed

jim beam

2010-02-26 05:46:20 UTC

LIAR. Provide a link to any statistic that backs this up. You won't
becasue it is a LIE.
From http://tinyurl.com/yf4e8r4
"But the agency concluded that "the data does not support Firestone's
contention that Explorers in general, or even model year 1995 and later
two-wheel drive Explorers in particular, are more likely to" cause a
loss of control following a rear tread separation and tire failure than
other, comparable SUVs."
Ed

working late tonight ed? can you smell crisis?

like i told you, this data was on nhtsa's web site until the rollover
story blew. then it was taken down and massaged into the kind of
non-specific bullshit you're regurgitating. isn't it convenient how
damaging statistics get pulled coincident to the arrival of someone like
you showing up in d.c. [just up the road from you, right ed?], with some
notes in a brown paper envelope?

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

C. E. White

2010-02-26 23:49:36 UTC

Post by C. E. White
From http://tinyurl.com/yf4e8r4
"But the agency concluded that "the data does not support Firestone's
contention that Explorers in general, or even model year 1995 and later
two-wheel drive Explorers in particular, are more likely to" cause a
loss of control following a rear tread separation and tire failure than
other, comparable SUVs."
Ed

working late tonight ed? can you smell crisis?
like i told you, this data was on nhtsa's web site until the rollover
story blew. then it was taken down and massaged into the kind of
non-specific bullshit you're regurgitating. isn't it convenient how
damaging statistics get pulled coincident to the arrival of someone like
you showing up in d.c. [just up the road from you, right ed?], with some
notes in a brown paper envelope?

Isn't convenient that this data doesn't exist (I am sure it never did) You
are just making up more lies to cover up your previous lie. And then
spinning out a ridiculous conspiracy theory to try to make your lies seem
credible.You are exactly the sort of "expert" that would fit in with the
Toyota Government relations group.

Here are some facts to chew over:

Toyota has been hiring former NHTSA employees to help quash investigations.
Toyota misled NHTSA in an effort to kill off the vehicle speed control
investigations. Toyota has been paying off people to try and hide the
existence of damaging documents related to 4Runner rollovers.

Read this and tell me how "honest" Toyota is:

From
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100226/RETAIL05/100229895/1289 :

"Toyota Motor Corp. “deliberately withheld relevant electronic records” that
it was legally required to produce in lawsuits over SUV rollover accidents,
the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said
today.

"Rep. Ed Towns, D-N.Y, said in a letter to the automaker that a review of
documents subpoenaed from former Toyota lawyer Dimitrios Biller also shows
Toyota may have “withheld substantial, relevant information” from federal
regulators."

Would you be dumb enough to brag about misleading NHTSA like the Toyota
Goverment Relations group did? I bet you would.

Ed

jim beam

2010-02-27 03:47:08 UTC

working late tonight ed? can you smell crisis?
like i told you, this data was on nhtsa's web site until the rollover
story blew. then it was taken down and massaged into the kind of
non-specific bullshit you're regurgitating. isn't it convenient how
damaging statistics get pulled coincident to the arrival of someone
like you showing up in d.c. [just up the road from you, right ed?],
with some notes in a brown paper envelope?

Isn't convenient that this data doesn't exist (I am sure it never did)

it's certainly convenient to frod's legal defense. and astroturfers
like you.

Post by C. E. White
You are just making up more lies to cover up your previous lie.

sadly for you ed, i'm not. nor am i paid to bullshit about facts.

Post by C. E. White
And then
spinning out a ridiculous conspiracy theory to try to make your lies
seem credible.

wow, says the paid astroturfer! doesn't your sense of irony give a
little twinge when you bullshit like that?

Post by C. E. White
You are exactly the sort of "expert" that would fit in
with the Toyota Government relations group.

unlike paid astroturfers that snow public fora with bullshit.

Post by C. E. White
Toyota has been hiring former NHTSA employees to help quash
investigations.

frod didn't bother - they paid the politicians that hired the nhtsa
executives.

Post by C. E. White
Toyota misled NHTSA in an effort to kill off the vehicle
speed control investigations.

frod lied to the nhtsa and congress and the families of the hundreds of
people they'd killed. even after their paperwork was subpoenaed.

Post by C. E. White
Toyota has been paying off people to try
and hide the existence of damaging documents related to 4Runner rollovers.

frod killed hundreds ed. hundreds. your despicable astroturfing is as
morally corrupt as the corporations you're defending.

Post by C. E. White
From
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100226/RETAIL05/100229895/1289

so, allegations create fact??? that's why allegations stand up as
evidence in courts of law is it? oh, wait, they don't...

Post by C. E. White
"Toyota Motor Corp. “deliberately withheld relevant electronic records”
that it was legally required to produce in lawsuits over SUV rollover
accidents, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee said today.

frod merely whitewashed congress and funded the contributions of
literally HUNDREDS of lobbyists to hush them up. they also perjured
themselves in congressional investigations by alleging tires were
responsible for rollovers when they weren't. [cabin crush was of course
conveniently forgotten also.]

Post by C. E. White
"Rep. Ed Towns, D-N.Y, said in a letter to the automaker that a review
of documents subpoenaed from former Toyota lawyer Dimitrios Biller also
shows Toyota may have “withheld substantial, relevant information” from
federal regulators."

allegation != fact ed.

Post by C. E. White
Would you be dumb enough to brag about misleading NHTSA like the Toyota
Goverment Relations group did? I bet you would.

why would i? i'm having enough fun with dumb-ass astroturfers that
aren't smart enough to get a real lobbying job.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

hls

2010-02-26 17:21:17 UTC

here's the acid test: why haven't i experienced these problems when i've
been driving toyota's?

We havent experienced the problems with either of our Toyotas. My wife's
2007 Avalon appears to have been made with a different elastomer in the
accelerator contact area...PPS, or polyphenylsulfide. It is apparently
better
than the polyamide material they used first, but probably not as good as a
properly designed and implemented metal unit.

MLD

2010-02-25 16:41:21 UTC

--Vic
<SNIP>

<SNIP>

My take on the sudden, uncontrolled acceleration is that it's root cause is
tucked away somewhere in the electronics. Has anyone ever got involved in
dealing with RFI (Radio Frequency Interference)? I've dealt with two
interesting cases where RFI caused a significant problem in aircraft. One,
complete loss of engine power. Cause was a radar signal that triggered the
closing of a fuel Shut-Off Valve. Happened every time an aircraft
(helicopter) flew past a particular radar station. The second, also a
helicopter, two engines: Every time the pilot pushed the transmit button on
his high frequency radio one engine rolled all the way back to its Idle
setting--it recovered as soon as he released the button. The cause of both
incidents was improper shielding of the aircraft wiring harnesses. The
aircraft manufacturer was sloppy in his design--improved shielding fixed
both problems. Cars now are more and more dependent on electronics and
somehow can't shake the feeling that spurious signals are causing some of
these unexplained incidents. As a side note; military electronics are
subjected to rigid testing; bombarded with all kinds of RFI signals to
determine if there is any undesirable behavior. I doubt if the automotive
industry comes anywhere close to that kind of testing or evaluation.
MLD

hls

2010-02-26 17:25:15 UTC

Post by MLD
My take on the sudden, uncontrolled acceleration is that it's root cause
is tucked away somewhere in the electronics. Has anyone ever got involved
in dealing with RFI (Radio Frequency Interference)? I've dealt with two
interesting cases where RFI caused a significant problem in aircraft.
One, complete loss of engine power. Cause was a radar signal that
triggered the closing of a fuel Shut-Off Valve. Happened every time an
aircraft (helicopter) flew past a particular radar station. The second,
also a helicopter, two engines: Every time the pilot pushed the transmit
button on his high frequency radio one engine rolled all the way back to
its Idle setting--it recovered as soon as he released the button. The
cause of both incidents was improper shielding of the aircraft wiring
harnesses. The aircraft manufacturer was sloppy in his design--improved
shielding fixed both problems. Cars now are more and more dependent on
electronics and somehow can't shake the feeling that spurious signals are
causing some of these unexplained incidents. As a side note; military
electronics are subjected to rigid testing; bombarded with all kinds of
RFI signals to determine if there is any undesirable behavior. I doubt if
the automotive industry comes anywhere close to that kind of testing or
evaluation.
MLD

This is a problem that Toyota has not totally ruled out. Phantom responses
to RF signals can be hell to find and correct.

bob

2010-02-26 22:41:37 UTC

Post by hls

This is a problem that Toyota has not totally ruled out. Phantom responses
to RF signals can be hell to find and correct.

Sounds like they might need to get some aviation fly-by-wire guys in
there to teach them how to do it right.

jim beam

2010-02-27 03:45:37 UTC

--Vic
<SNIP>

this is a great post. the most important point is exactly this - "it
happens every time [state condition and result]".

this is /not/ what is observed to be happening with toyota, otherwise
the results would be repeatable and investigatable. and occurring in
significantly greater numbers.

The
second, also a helicopter, two engines: Every time the pilot pushed the
transmit button on his high frequency radio one engine rolled all the
way back to its Idle setting--it recovered as soon as he released the
button. The cause of both incidents was improper shielding of the
aircraft wiring harnesses. The aircraft manufacturer was sloppy in his
design--improved shielding fixed both problems. Cars now are more and
more dependent on electronics and somehow can't shake the feeling that
spurious signals are causing some of these unexplained incidents.

good point, but if so, why are they not repeatable? people use cell
phones, cb radio, drive under power lines with gnarly harmonics all the
time - nothing. why would it suddenly happen to toyota just because
they stole gm's thunder in the cash-for-clunkers fiasco?

As a
side note; military electronics are subjected to rigid testing;
bombarded with all kinds of RFI signals to determine if there is any
undesirable behavior. I doubt if the automotive industry comes anywhere
close to that kind of testing or evaluation.

car electronics get all kinds of bombardment testing too - the "under
hood" environment is hugely hostile because of spark ignition
interference - the electronics have to not only survive, but survive well..

MLD

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

MLD

2010-02-27 14:23:25 UTC

<SNIP>

this is a great post. the most important point is exactly this - "it
happens every time [state condition and result]".
this is /not/ what is observed to be happening with toyota, otherwise the
results would be repeatable and investigatable. and occurring in
significantly greater numbers.

good point, but if so, why are they not repeatable? people use cell
phones, cb radio, drive under power lines with gnarly harmonics all the
time - nothing. why would it suddenly happen to toyota just because they
stole gm's thunder in the cash-for-clunkers fiasco?

MLD

Your comments are valid. Having said that--the problem of being susceptible
to any kind of electrical interference may not be a fundamental design issue
but rather inadequate, sloppy, careless work procedures (you pick the word)
during assembly/manufacture. That might account for why the total fleet has
not affected and why only random individual cars end up with the problem.
Purely speculation on my part.
One thing that is required in Military/Commercial aircraft engine Control
System design is a fault analysis that looks at each potential failure,
which is then classified with respect to its severity and potential impact
on the behavior of the engine/aircraft. Any failure that is classified as
Class 1--severe loss of engine power, overspeed etc must be eliminated.
Redesign is required to remove the Class 1 label.
I would imagine that something along a similar vein is conducted in any
system where safety and life is an issue--how rigorous and how much does
cost play into the equation is open to question.
MLD

jim beam

2010-02-27 15:20:40 UTC

<SNIP>

this is a great post. the most important point is exactly this - "it
happens every time [state condition and result]".
this is /not/ what is observed to be happening with toyota, otherwise
the results would be repeatable and investigatable. and occurring in
significantly greater numbers.

good point, but if so, why are they not repeatable? people use cell
phones, cb radio, drive under power lines with gnarly harmonics all
the time - nothing. why would it suddenly happen to toyota just
because they stole gm's thunder in the cash-for-clunkers fiasco?

MLD

i'd buy that, but the probability fades to practically zero when you
factor in driver error as a cause.

One thing that is required in Military/Commercial aircraft engine
Control System design is a fault analysis that looks at each potential
failure, which is then classified with respect to its severity and
potential impact on the behavior of the engine/aircraft. Any failure
that is classified as Class 1--severe loss of engine power, overspeed
etc must be eliminated. Redesign is required to remove the Class 1 label.
I would imagine that something along a similar vein is conducted in any
system where safety and life is an issue--how rigorous and how much does
cost play into the equation is open to question.
MLD

agreed.

however, as a hardware example that tegger will confirm, the number of
verified honda engine computers failures is single digits. no amount of
talking can get around that hard evidence that honda are taking
reliability very seriously. i see no evidence that toyota are any
different.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

MLD

2010-02-27 16:02:44 UTC

<SNIP>

this is a great post. the most important point is exactly this - "it
happens every time [state condition and result]".
this is /not/ what is observed to be happening with toyota, otherwise
the results would be repeatable and investigatable. and occurring in
significantly greater numbers.

good point, but if so, why are they not repeatable? people use cell
phones, cb radio, drive under power lines with gnarly harmonics all
the time - nothing. why would it suddenly happen to toyota just
because they stole gm's thunder in the cash-for-clunkers fiasco?

MLD

i'd buy that, but the probability fades to practically zero when you
factor in driver error as a cause.

agreed.
however, as a hardware example that tegger will confirm, the number of
verified honda engine computers failures is single digits. no amount of
talking can get around that hard evidence that honda are taking
reliability very seriously. i see no evidence that toyota are any
different.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Again no issue with your comments--but strange things happen and if you've
been around long enough sooner or later you get to see some weird ones that
come out of the blue completely unpredictable. Case-in-point---Two ECUs
interconnected sending signals back and forth to each other. During
operation they happened to be in different temperature environments. The
flux residue on some solder joints actually created a millivolt signal as a
result of the difference in their ambient temperatures. The mv signal was
treated as a error signal that effected the behavior of the system.
I think that we both agree that something is going on that can't be
explained away by pointing to a stuck accelerator pedal and I don't think
that it is a mechanical issue.
MLD

jim beam

2010-02-27 16:19:13 UTC

Post by MLD

<SNIP>

this is a great post. the most important point is exactly this - "it
happens every time [state condition and result]".
this is /not/ what is observed to be happening with toyota, otherwise
the results would be repeatable and investigatable. and occurring in
significantly greater numbers.

good point, but if so, why are they not repeatable? people use cell
phones, cb radio, drive under power lines with gnarly harmonics all
the time - nothing. why would it suddenly happen to toyota just
because they stole gm's thunder in the cash-for-clunkers fiasco?

MLD

i'd buy that, but the probability fades to practically zero when you
factor in driver error as a cause.

agreed.
however, as a hardware example that tegger will confirm, the number of
verified honda engine computers failures is single digits. no amount
of talking can get around that hard evidence that honda are taking
reliability very seriously. i see no evidence that toyota are any
different.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Again no issue with your comments--but strange things happen and if
you've been around long enough sooner or later you get to see some weird
ones that come out of the blue completely unpredictable.
Case-in-point---Two ECUs interconnected sending signals back and forth
to each other. During operation they happened to be in different
temperature environments. The flux residue on some solder joints
actually created a millivolt signal as a result of the difference in
their ambient temperatures. The mv signal was treated as a error signal
that effected the behavior of the system.

then they should have been signaling digitally, not using analog.
millivolt differences are not digital signal thresholds.

Post by MLD
I think that we both agree that something is going on that can't be
explained away by pointing to a stuck accelerator pedal and I don't
think that it is a mechanical issue.
MLD

no, we don't agree on that because i don't accept the presumption that
"something is going on". the facts we have are very clear, despite all
the hyteria, bullshit and astroturf:

1. there have been only two cars involved in fatalities. and in both
cases, there is nothing to suggest there was a simultaneous failure of
the vehicle's brakes, ignition switch or transmission selector that
would have allowed the drivers to safely bring these vehicles to a halt.

2. we have a whitehouse getting directly involved in what should be an
agency's job after the debacle called "cash for clunkers" backfired.

this is a political systems failure dude, not electronics systems.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Bob Cooper

2010-02-27 18:33:59 UTC

Case-in-point---Two ECUs interconnected sending signals back and >>>

forth

to each other. During operation they happened to be in different
temperature environments. The flux residue on some solder joints
actually created a millivolt signal as a result of the difference in
their ambient temperatures. The mv signal was treated as a error signal
that effected the behavior of the system.

then they should have been signaling digitally, not using analog.
millivolt differences are not digital signal thresholds.

Total nonsense, said merely to say something.

I think that we both agree that something is going on that can't be
explained away by pointing to a stuck accelerator pedal and I don't
think that it is a mechanical issue.
MLD

MLD, though you have made some valid technical points, your judgement is
lacking in evaluating personalities.
You're are talking to a madman, and he won't agree with you.

Post by jim beam
no, we don't agree on that because i don't accept the presumption that
"something is going on". the facts we have are very clear, despite all
1. there have been only two cars involved in fatalities. and in both
cases, there is nothing to suggest there was a simultaneous failure of
the vehicle's brakes, ignition switch or transmission selector that
would have allowed the drivers to safely bring these vehicles to a halt.

There are many more than 2 Toyotas reported to have "unintentionally
accelerated."

Post by jim beam
2. we have a whitehouse getting directly involved in what should be an
agency's job after the debacle called "cash for clunkers" backfired.

This might help. Maintenance advice.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2352403_clean-tin.html
"Clean your tin hat with plain dish washing soap and a soft cloth. If
your tin gets dirty you can clean it with a little dish soap and a soft
cloth. Be sure to remove all of the soap and water with a dry cloth so
your tin will not rust."

Post by jim beam
this is a political systems failure dude, not electronics systems.

Dittohead.

jim beam

2010-02-27 19:04:12 UTC

Case-in-point---Two ECUs interconnected sending signals back and>>>

forth

then they should have been signaling digitally, not using analog.
millivolt differences are not digital signal thresholds.

Total nonsense, said merely to say something.

er, are you disputing the physical fundamentals, or are you just trying
to prove that you don't understand what's being said?

I think that we both agree that something is going on that can't be
explained away by pointing to a stuck accelerator pedal and I don't
think that it is a mechanical issue.
MLD

MLD, though you have made some valid technical points, your judgement is
lacking in evaluating personalities.
You're are talking to a madman, and he won't agree with you.

yeah, i'm completely insane - i just won't shut up when idiots keep
being ignorant in public or can't pay attention to the facts.

There are many more than 2 Toyotas reported to have "unintentionally
accelerated."

there are two involving fatalities. and zero distinguishable from
driver error.

Post by jim beam
2. we have a whitehouse getting directly involved in what should be an
agency's job after the debacle called "cash for clunkers" backfired.

why do you even have that bookmarked? is everyone that posts something
you can't understand or simply don't like automatically a tinfoil head?

Post by jim beam
this is a political systems failure dude, not electronics systems.

Dittohead.

that more than one person can call a spade a spade makes them
dittoheads? dude, you need a clue.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Bob Cooper

2010-02-27 20:32:54 UTC

Case-in-point---Two ECUs interconnected sending signals back and>>>

forth

then they should have been signaling digitally, not using analog.
millivolt differences are not digital signal thresholds.

Total nonsense, said merely to say something.

er, are you disputing the physical fundamentals, or are you just trying
to prove that you don't understand what's being said?

I understand enough of what he said not to spout off about signaling and
thresholds when he didn't specify any comm protocols, ECU
inputs/outputs, ADC, DAC, or thresholds at all.
But you have all the answers to dispute him, even if you have to make
them up.
I note you didn't ask him for the tech details. Easier to just go with
your facile assumption that electronic glitches are impossible in a
Toyota, spout some BS, and say he's all wrong.
I don't believe that such glitches are impossible, so you can call me
insane.

I think that we both agree that something is going on that can't be
explained away by pointing to a stuck accelerator pedal and I don't
think that it is a mechanical issue.
MLD

MLD, though you have made some valid technical points, your judgement is
lacking in evaluating personalities.
You're are talking to a madman, and he won't agree with you.

yeah, i'm completely insane - i just won't shut up when idiots keep
being ignorant in public or can't pay attention to the facts.

Anybody who believes all who don't agree with him are insane - is
insane.

Hachiroku ハチロク

2010-02-27 19:39:05 UTC

Post by jim beam
this is a political systems failure dude, not electronics systems.

Dittohead.

Boob. There. I corrected your name for you.

MLD

2010-02-27 20:52:34 UTC

Case-in-point---Two ECUs interconnected sending signals back and >>>

forth

then they should have been signaling digitally, not using analog.
millivolt differences are not digital signal thresholds.

Total nonsense, said merely to say something.

I think that we both agree that something is going on that can't be
explained away by pointing to a stuck accelerator pedal and I don't
think that it is a mechanical issue.
MLD

MLD, though you have made some valid technical points, your judgement is
lacking in evaluating personalities.
You're are talking to a madman, and he won't agree with you.

There are many more than 2 Toyotas reported to have "unintentionally
accelerated."

Post by jim beam
2. we have a whitehouse getting directly involved in what should be an
agency's job after the debacle called "cash for clunkers" backfired.

Post by jim beam
this is a political systems failure dude, not electronics systems.

Dittohead.

After some thought I have come to the conclusion that what we have here is
the typical "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up".
True, there is nothing to suggest there were a simultaneous failures etc,
however, at the same time, there isn't anything (that we know about) to
suggest what did go wrong. I would find it interesting to see the logic and
functional diagrams of the various operating systems. There can be numerous
erroneous signal inputs that will trigger odd responses. For example, a
hard cruise control error signal that says "hey, you're way underspeed--go
faster!" And the car accelerates----stepping on the brake may or may not
cancel out this signal depending on where it is within the system. I don't
know exactly what information is recorded (in memory) in the car's
ECU--there should be some algorithms to detect when an exceedance of a limit
occurs, followed by a recording of pertinent key parameters (vs time) to be
retained in memory . Usually, the recording will begin several seconds
before the failure event began. I've seen normal operating (transient)
behavior trigger logic as a result of a perceived exceedance resulting in a
sequence of events that ultimately led to the failure of a jet engine. In
other words, you don't need a failure to get into trouble, just a control
system that takes you down that road.
Hmmm, I wonder if Beam is a frustrated Toyota PR guy.
MLD

C. E. White

2010-02-25 15:46:55 UTC

Post by Tegger
Or it's simple pedal misapplication, which is the most common cause of SUA
by far, and is essentially out of /any/ automaker's control.

Not really - software that recognized both pedals are pressed could
cut power to the engine. The shift interlocks that force you to press
on the brakes before shifting into gear were a "fix" for the Audi 5000
UA concerns. If the Safety Nazis get there way, there will be so many
fixes for potential/theoretical driver errors, that cars won't be
usable, or affordable.

Ed

Tegger

2010-02-25 22:54:16 UTC

Post by Tegger
Or it's simple pedal misapplication, which is the most common cause of SUA
by far, and is essentially out of /any/ automaker's control.

Not really - software that recognized both pedals are pressed could
cut power to the engine.

Which Toyota is doing.

But that doesn't affect pedal misapplication if only ONE pedal is
depressed. That situation covers the overwhleming majority of SUA
incidents.

Post by C. E. White
The shift interlocks that force you to press
on the brakes before shifting into gear were a "fix" for the Audi 5000
UA concerns. If the Safety Nazis get there way, there will be so many
fixes for potential/theoretical driver errors, that cars won't be
usable, or affordable.

And somebody, somewhere, will still find a way to make a car run away with
itself anyway. At some point you have to give SOME sort of control to the
driver. and ANY sort of control of ANY kind carries SOME degree of risk.

Life is dangerous. And it's imperfect. And it is risky. At some point you
have to accept those facts, be your own last line of defense, and stop
blaming others.

--
Tegger

jim beam

2010-02-26 04:11:05 UTC

Post by Tegger
Or it's simple pedal misapplication, which is the most common cause of SUA
by far, and is essentially out of /any/ automaker's control.

Not really - software that recognized both pedals are pressed could
cut power to the engine.

Which Toyota is doing.
But that doesn't affect pedal misapplication if only ONE pedal is
depressed. That situation covers the overwhleming majority of SUA
incidents.

And somebody, somewhere, will still find a way to make a car run away with
itself anyway. At some point you have to give SOME sort of control to the
driver. and ANY sort of control of ANY kind carries SOME degree of risk.
Life is dangerous. And it's imperfect. And it is risky. At some point you
have to accept those facts, be your own last line of defense, and stop
blaming others.

but ed's /paid/ to blame others...

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

C. E. White

2010-02-26 05:37:38 UTC

Post by jim beam
but ed's /paid/ to blame others...

I am no sure what that means. Who are the others you allege I am blaming?
Who is paying me (where can I pick up the check)?

I think Toyota has a problem. You apparently are dedicated to deflecting any
discussion of the Toyota problems by any and all means, including lying.

Instead of making up crap about other manufacturers, explain why Toyota
seems to have so many more UA incidents that any other major auto
manufacturer. I didn't create the statistics.

There is plenty of information out there to suggest there is a problem. Do
you think I made it all up?

Ed

jim beam

2010-02-26 05:53:56 UTC

Post by jim beam
but ed's /paid/ to blame others...

I am no sure what that means.

really? it means you're a paid shill ed. you're a lobbyist
masquerading as a member of the public. an astroturfer. confused now?

Post by C. E. White
Who are the others you allege I am
blaming? Who is paying me (where can I pick up the check)?

you're blaming who you're being paid to blame. how much do you cost ed?
maybe i could use a guy like you.

Post by C. E. White
I think Toyota has a problem.

yeah, you and your ethicsless ilk who'll say any old shit for money.

Post by C. E. White
You apparently are dedicated to deflecting
any discussion of the Toyota problems by any and all means, including
lying.

except that i'm not and you are. where were you on the frod rollover
fiasco ed? did we hear you baying for blood over the hundreds of
americans killed by frod executives anxious to avoid costly redesigns on
vehicles /proven/ faulty.

Post by C. E. White
Instead of making up crap about other manufacturers, explain why Toyota
seems to have so many more UA incidents that any other major auto
manufacturer. I didn't create the statistics.

i believe that - you're not smart enough. if you could do a /real/ job,
you'd be doing it.

Post by C. E. White
There is plenty of information out there to suggest there is a problem.

no there isn't. there's plenty of shit /alleging/ a problem -
fundamental difference, especially in the absence of corroborative fact,
the small detail you're paid to overlook.

Post by C. E. White
Do you think I made it all up?

no ed, i think you regurgitate shit for money.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

C. E. White

2010-02-26 23:53:16 UTC

Post by C. E. White
You apparently are dedicated to deflecting
any discussion of the Toyota problems by any and all means, including
lying.

LIAR.

Ed

Nate Nagel

2010-02-27 00:02:28 UTC

Post by C. E. White
You apparently are dedicated to deflecting
any discussion of the Toyota problems by any and all means, including
lying.

LIAR.
Ed

All tall, short, narrow, truck-based vehicles are more prone to rollover
than a passenger car. I have no doubt that my dad's old Scout was more
prone to a rollover than an Explorer. And somehow I drove it to high
school every day and didn't roll it. Probably because I KNEW not to try
to drive it like a GTI.

Now the Firestone thing, that was ugly, but blame can be shared. But
shame on Ford for trying to cover up the Explorer's fundamental
truckness by spec'ing low tire pressures. Should have just spec'd the
pressure properly and told complainers "hey, you bought a TRUCK. deal
with it."

Obviously, I am not in marketing.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

jim beam

2010-02-27 03:45:01 UTC

Post by C. E. White
You apparently are dedicated to deflecting
any discussion of the Toyota problems by any and all means, including
lying.

LIAR.
Ed

no i'm not ed. the frod evidence was subpoenaed on their own letterhead.

but this is why you're just an astroturfer, not a real lobbyist - you're
not smart enough to know what you can win and what you can't.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Tegger

2010-02-26 12:46:12 UTC

Post by jim beam
but ed's /paid/ to blame others...

I am no sure what that means. Who are the others you allege I am
blaming? Who is paying me (where can I pick up the check)?
I think Toyota has a problem. You apparently are dedicated to
deflecting any discussion of the Toyota problems by any and all means,
including lying.
Instead of making up crap about other manufacturers, explain why
Toyota seems to have so many more UA incidents that any other major
auto manufacturer. I didn't create the statistics.

What was discovered durng the Audi 5000 fiasco was that SUA incidents were
strongly tied to the demographic that drove the cars.

The people most likely to be involved in SUA incidents were overwhelmingly
elderly, and/or female, and/or occasional drivers.

Toyota may have a large number of such owners--possibly larger than Ford--
although this is a guess, and I do not know for sure.

I do know that Toyota has in the past acknowledged the existence of an
aging buyer-mix for their cars, and launched the Scion brand in an attempt
at wooing the "younger" crowd. It didn't really work, but the intent was
there.

Post by C. E. White
There is plenty of information out there to suggest there is a
problem. Do you think I made it all up?

All anyone has at this point is proxy data, and inconclusive proxy data at
that. That's why the current controversy: everybody's guessing. Much like
during the Audi 5000 debacle.

--
Tegger

Steve

2010-02-25 15:52:03 UTC

Post by Tegger
The lab that Toyota retained managed to reproduce Gilbert's result, but
said that they found it extremely unlikely that such an event could
actually occur in the real world.

The problem here is that people just don't understand the mathematics of
probability theory. Something that occurs once in 100,000 vehicles over
a 5 year period is "extremely unlikely," I think everyone can agree. But
if there are 8 million vehicles on the road, that is 8 million "tries"
and statistically the event should happen 80 times in 5 years.

No manufacturer is EVER going to make it 100% certain that the ECU
doesn't get a false wide-open throttle command for the simple reason
that there are electromechanical sensors involved which can fail, and
wiring can fail. That can be made very rare, but not absolutely impossible.

What every other manufacturer DOES do is put in logic so that touching
the brake pedal immediately overrides the wide-open throttle command and
brings the engine back to idle, even if its still getting a WOT command
from the (faulty) pedal mechanism or wiring.

ACAR

2010-02-25 03:27:28 UTC

super!
now ask Gilbert to reproduce his results on a Camry.
and/or
ask Gilbert to visit a factory to see if there's a chance that the
circuits may be shorted during assembly.

Neo

2010-02-25 12:02:16 UTC

From the preliminary report/testimony, Dr Gilbert had shorted out two
sensors to the accelerator making the ECU believe that the pedal was
being continually pressed. Dr Gilbert argues to Toyota that the
accelerator circuitry lacks and need a fail-safe system for when
this condition occurs. Toyota's engineers were able to reproduce
this condition but said that what Dr. Gilbert did amounted to
"cheating" ( that is to say that the conditions Dr Gilbert used
to induce acceleration could not happen on its own in
the real world without explicit human intervention). Dr Gilbert
argued that the condition he created in the two unnamed accelerator
sensor circuits could be caused by condensation which would
evaporate before crash investigators could identify it; however,
as of this time, there is no evidence to support this.

C. E. White

2010-02-25 15:55:42 UTC

The important question is - who is funding Dr. Gilbert's "research?
My understanding is that it is funded by trail lawyers. Trail lawyers
don't care about facts or truth, except as they can be twisted to suit
their purposes. They have no problems at all misrepresenting the facts
in an attempt to extort moeny from corporations (and of course,
eventually from "us").

Ed

larry moe 'n curly

2010-02-26 05:24:53 UTC

Post by C. E. White
The important question is - who is funding Dr. Gilbert's "research?
My understanding is that it is funded by trail lawyers. Trail lawyers
don't care about facts or truth, except as they can be twisted to suit
their purposes.

Are you calling trail explorer and attorney Daniel Boone a liar??? ;)

C. E. White

2010-02-25 14:56:59 UTC

Consider who is paying for this research....Trail Lawyers!

This is eerily like the Audi 5000 frenzy. When 60 minutes did their
hatchet job on the 5000, they produced an "expert" who "proved" that
the 5000's automatic transmission could force a kick down of the
accelerator pedal, resulting in sudden acceleration. Good old Ed
Bradly presented this as some sort of scientific proof. Only later did
we learn (and not from CBS) that the expert added an extra hydraulic
pump and external piping to demonstarte this "failure" mode.

There may or may not be an actual problem with the Toyota electronics.
But an "expert" that creates shorts to "prove" there is a problem is
not the sort of expert I trust.

Ed

jim beam

2010-02-26 04:08:23 UTC

Consider who is paying for this research....Trail Lawyers!

"trail" lawyers? com on ed, when you regurgitate the copy your minions
draft for you, you really should proof read it before you put your name
to it.

besides, since when was a lawyer's ability to subpoena factual evidence
the lawyer's fault? if frod hadn't done the math on cost of payouts to
the families of the bereaved vs. profits on a vehicle they knew to be
flawed, neither i nor any "trail" lawyer would be able to confront you
with reality.

Post by C. E. White
This is eerily like the Audi 5000 frenzy. When 60 minutes did their
hatchet job on the 5000, they produced an "expert" who "proved" that
the 5000's automatic transmission could force a kick down of the
accelerator pedal, resulting in sudden acceleration. Good old Ed
Bradly presented this as some sort of scientific proof. Only later did
we learn (and not from CBS) that the expert added an extra hydraulic
pump and external piping to demonstarte this "failure" mode.
There may or may not be an actual problem with the Toyota electronics.
But an "expert" that creates shorts to "prove" there is a problem is
not the sort of expert I trust.

that's because you're a paid shill ed, and you have no technical
expertise. seriously, if you could actually /do/ anything of societal
value, you'd be doing it rather than poisoning the interweb with
bullshit for money.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

C. E. White

2010-02-26 05:43:27 UTC

Post by C. E. White
There may or may not be an actual problem with the Toyota electronics.
But an "expert" that creates shorts to "prove" there is a problem is
not the sort of expert I trust.

So you htink what the guy is doing is legitimate ? Do you buy his suggestion
that the Toyota UA complaints might be casued by a faulty electronic
throttle control design? I thought you were of the opinion that anyone that
said anythiog bad about Toyotas was a paid shill.

Ed

jim beam

2010-02-26 06:02:06 UTC

Post by C. E. White
There may or may not be an actual problem with the Toyota electronics.
But an "expert" that creates shorts to "prove" there is a problem is
not the sort of expert I trust.

So you htink what the guy is doing is legitimate ? Do you buy his
suggestion that the Toyota UA complaints might be casued by a faulty
electronic throttle control design? I thought you were of the opinion
that anyone that said anythiog bad about Toyotas was a paid shill.

ed, you fail the duck test. you try not to look like a duck, but you
walk like a duck and you quack like a duck. that means you're a fuck
trying to deceive.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

hls

2010-03-01 16:40:57 UTC