Car Guy
Post-Toyota Technology Transfer
Opting for more excessive, expensive technology to fix problems with the last batch.
Well, here we go again.
We’re about to get another layer of expensive, overly complicated technology to fix the problems created by the existing layer of expensive, overly complicated technology.
Mazda has announced it will fit all its new cars (beginning with the 2011 models) with an electronic brake override system to address consumer concerns about unwanted, out-of-control acceleration — which so far has been mainly a Toyota problem.
GM followed up by me-tooing Mazda, announcing on Monday that all its cars would have a similar system as well. And it’s entirely likely that federal regulators will make the technology mandatory, given the hysteria whipped up by the Toyota debacle.
Never let a crisis go to waste, as Rahm Emanuel instructed.
The brake override system works by cutting engine power when the brake pedal is depressed — in theory providing a fail-safe against unwanted acceleration.
The federal government is probably going to pass a law requiring that all new cars come equipped with this technology, which of course will add another layer of expense (no one knows yet how much) to the up-front costs of a new car as well as Elvis-knows-how-much to future repair and upkeep costs when the components involved begin to degrade and fail, as inevitably they will.
More wires and actuators, more software — more money. More hassle. And very possibly, more problems — none of them anticipated.
That’s after all what happens with complex systems, such as the drive-by-wire technology that is apparently at the root of the problem with Toyota’s cars. The mechanical cable connecting the gas pedal to the engine’s throttle — which controlled engine speed based on how much pressure the driver applied to the pedal — was replaced by sensors and software and various electronic controls that did the same thing, only with much greater complexity.
The problem (aside from the higher cost) of the more complex system is there’s more that can possibly go wrong — and it’;s typically much harder to determine what it might be.
With a cable, it’s either stuck or frayed or broken — or it’s not. A visual inspection will tell you what’s up within minutes. Then the problem can be fixed.
But when simple mechanical components are replaced with circuits and sensors and software code, there’s less (maybe nothing) to see — so it’s harder to determine what went wrong. Also, with software there are bugs — and these can be intermittent and wildly variable — making it exasperatingly hard to isolate the trouble, as Toyota is discovering for its own self.
And now we’re about to get another layer of gadgetry, to correct the problems with the previous underlying gadgetry.
What unexpected problems might crop up?
Well, it’s certainly possible that a system designed to momentarily kill engine power when the brake is applied might just shut off your engine not so momentarily — leaving you to coast to a stop by the side of some busy highway to await AAA. Maybe it will happen in a snowstorm, leaving you stuck with a dead car and no source of heat. Or in the middle of the desert. Or just the wrong part of town. An exaggerated fear? Maybe. But the bottom line fact is no one knows what may happen. So anything could happen.
About the Author
Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities: The Cars You Love to Hate (Motor Books International) and a new book, Road Hogs.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (50) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Eric Peters
More Articles From Car Guy
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/07/the-toyota-technology-fixation
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
philhoey| 4.7.10 @ 7:03AM
It it not be easier to go back to basics? With a FEW modern requirements. The 1955 Chevy was a fantastic car. Add air bags, computer control of a modern v6 and a CD player. Inexpensive, safe and appropriate to 90% of peoples NEEDS, not their wants.
JimP| 4.7.10 @ 10:38AM
I'm with Phil and Eric.
Stuart Koehl| 4.7.10 @ 12:01PM
I think I would like to have anti-lock brakes, a traction control system and an air conditioner that works. My parents had a '55 Chevy (I may have been conceived in the back seat), and like the rest of the 1950s, it looks better the farther away from the reality one gets.
Stuart Koehl| 4.7.10 @ 7:34AM
If aircraft can be designed with fly-by-wire controls, so a car can be designed with drive-by-wire controls. I personally doubt there is anything at all wrong with Toyotas regarding sudden acceleration that cannot be ascribed to DFO (Dumb F--king Operator) errors, but if you want more security, simply design redundant duplex or triplex systems.
Airplanes with fly-by-wire are much easier to fly than those with conventional mechanical control systems, and, moreover, can perform maneuvers beyond the ability of any pilot using mechanical controls. The pilot tells the computer what he wants to do, and it figures out how to do it. It can also be programmed to keep him from busting the airplane or departing the envelope.
I can see how drive-by-wire can accomplish similar things for cars by optimizing engine performance, gear ratios, steering and braking inputs. The driver uses the steering wheel not to move the front tires, but to tell the car the direction in which he wants to go. The accelerator does not feed more gas to the engine, but tells the car how fast the driver wants to accelerate, and the brake peddle does not send hydraulic fluid to the calipers, but tells the car how quickly the driver wants to decelerate. The car then determines how best to do those things, using the wheels, the engine and transmission, and the brakes either singly or in combination. It can also account for unexpected situations, such as a high-speed blowout or hitting black ice: as long as the driver indicates he wants the car to stay on the road, it will stay on the road, with the car compensating for the tendency to depart from the intended course.
Since the vast majority of people I encounter on the road are most definitely not of Indy or Formula One caliber, the quality of driving will certainly improve.
For those who want the thrill of "hands on" driving, install a manual reversion mode that simply turn the steering wheel into a steering wheel, the accelerator into the go-peddle, and the brake peddle into a brake peddle.
Dan Hirsch| 4.7.10 @ 8:50AM
Stu;
Back to basics: "Peddle" is a verb that means 'to sell.' You might do better with "pedal."
My 2006 ABS equipped Charger also has two levels of traction control. Every time I turn it on it reminds me that it cannot defy the laws of physics. Drive by wire may or may not be capable of delivering the car to any desired location/attitude when confronted with unforeseen traction, attitude, speed, or other unknowns, suggesting that it prevents idiot operators from getting into trouble is in the realm of "paperless office" , "too cheap to meter", and "user friendly..."
Grow up, take responsibility for yourselves, people! No one else cares as much about you as you do, and the more you expect them to, the less they will.
Stuart Koehl| 4.7.10 @ 12:07PM
Homer nodded. As for the rest, hey, I just extrapolate from my aerospace experience. I've flown in a Cessna 152, an A-37, and an FA-18. The Cessna was by far the most difficult to fly, requiring a lot of attention to the instruments and controls. The A-37 was in between, but things like auto-trim and a 2-axis autopilot certainly reduced the workload (as did the absence of torque from the prop). But the FA-18 was a revelation. Flying it required almost no thought at all, which allows the pilot to put all his attention on fighting. It also required fewer maintenance manhours per flight hour than the A-37, a very simple aircraft with pushrod controls and steam dial gauges in the cockpit.
Put it another way: a flintlock musket is a very simple gun, while an M16 is a very complex one. But the M16 is much more reliable and lethal weapon.
roger| 4.7.10 @ 8:55AM
And aircraft with fly-by-wire systems cost millions of dollars in part because of all the testing necessary to make sure there are a minimum of bugs in the software code. Adding the same level of testing and verification to automobile system software would increase the cost of the typical car to more than most people would be willing or able to spend.
Stuart Koehl| 4.7.10 @ 12:10PM
Actually, you can build a very cheap fly-by-wire aircraft as long as you don't integrate the flight control software and the mission software. And once you have deigned and tested the first fly-by-wire plane, the second is much easier and cheaper, because you can reuse a great deal of code. And there are added advantages in reliability and reduced weight, as well as reduced pilot workload, all of which amount to reduced operating costs.
So, you can trade off initial capital investment against life cycle cost. I wouldn't mind spending $30K for a car, if I knew the car would last for 20 years and get me 40 mpg with a V6 engine, and be virtually skid proof in the bargain.
c. j. acworth| 4.7.10 @ 5:40PM
Stu: Aern't you forgetting about pilot training? If the average driver had even 30% as much training as a pilot we'd see a lot fewer problems. It's all about personal responsibility and taking the time to learn how to operate your vehicle. When I learned to drive there was no fancy ABS brakes or cruise control. Hell, there was barely a reliable automatic transmission. Stability control meant not trying to take the curves on two wheels when there is an inch of wet ice on the roads. I'll take my dad's '68 Nova. We had to tinker with it a lot, but at least we could do it ourselves. Provided some good father-son time too.
Stuart Koehl| 4.7.10 @ 6:36PM
Well, I've got a VFR certificate, and found flying a plane much easier than driving a car (that I learned to fly years before I bothered to learn to drive might have something to do with that). But, with regard to flying, in general a modern jet is much easier to fly than a simple, single-engine prop plane. The computer flies the plane--can even land it--and the pilot monitors the systems ands tells the plane what he wants it to do. Granny can fly an FA-18 (maybe not use it as a weapon, but going from point A to point B is easy enough; she could land a 777 without any hassle.
By your logic, we should never have invented the internal starter or the automatic choke--manually retarding the spark and setting the mixture, not to mention cranking the handle, undoubtedly built character, and a trained monkey could fix it. Bring back the Model A, maybe even the Model T.
Nate| 4.11.10 @ 5:24PM
You are missing a key issue, well two actually, that differs between the multi-million dollar fly by wire plane and an automobile.
1. Most airplanes have nearly as many man hour in maintanence's hands as it does in the air. Cars tend to be expected run for thousands of miles (hours) without real work being done to them.
2. Road grime. An airplane that is dealing with road salt, ice preventatives, and gravel is having a really bad day. Those conditions are part of a very large number of folks' daily commute.
Add the two together and your much safer drive-by-wire vehicle is suddenly less so.
SC Mike| 4.7.10 @ 7:48AM
What’s silly is that Toyota’s electronics are probably fine. The problem in some cases may be mechanical (the accelerator’s pivot bearing or return spring is binding), but in most of the cases driver error is the culprit.
Here’s a description of the mechanical issue:
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/0.....elerator/2
The electronic part in question is a Hall-effect sensor to detect pedal movement.
http://www.popularmechanics.co.....47704.html
There are few devices more reliable than Hall-effect electronics; moreover, they use direct current and are therefore not susceptible to radio or other AC interference.
NASA’s involvement is showboating and will just drag the whole mess out and make it even more expensive.
Stuart Koehl| 4.7.10 @ 8:32AM
As I said, classic DFO errors.
As for NASA getting involved, well, when a government agency's principal mission is taken away, it doesn't die, it invents a new mission, even if it has nothing to do with with its original mandate. Look at the nuclear labs--when the Cold War ended, they didn't fold their tent (even though there was no money to develop new nuclear weapons), they got involved in different things from renewable energy to communications networking. OK, so they weren't very good at these things, at least they got to keep their jobs. And that's what it's all about, right?
Dan Hirsch| 4.7.10 @ 8:41AM
In the 198's the Audi 5000 was involved in 32 separate instances of unintended acceleration which were investigated by NTSB. They found that all of them were caused by operator error. Wrong pedal!!! So add all the crap in the world to the brake pedal and we will still have these incidents. Eventually they'll make extended pressure on any pedal stop the car. And eventually the bicycle...
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.."
Can't we all just say no? Please!
Majito| 4.7.10 @ 9:08AM
Yo Dan take a breather here...I owned a '84 Audi 5000 and it had an electropenumatic solenoid valve that controlled idle speed. When this valve began to malfunction, the engine idle would be erratic and will jump to 5,000rpms in seconds...then 5 cyl engine at this rpm will do easy 100mph and if you were at low speeds and this engine jumped to 5krpm, not only you'll leave thread marks on the road but due to fwd, it'll be almost impossible to steer during the sudden acceleration.
Now, maybe you'll like turn the engine off at 100mph and in so doing lose all hydraulic systems (ever saw that magnificent hydraulic servo that controlled steering? no power = no movement even if you're the hulk)...so before starting calling operators df, slow down...o i forgot my audi was a 5 speed (very unusual) but when the engine was crazed like that, the throwout bearing will not engage which meant no way to move the shift to neutral...
Amazing how now the europeans are coming out that they too experienced the toyota unintended acceleartion...i guess these folks are dfo too?
i still prefer holleys 4bbl carbs, linkage for trannys, pedals and throttle...any electronic component in an engine compartment, specially in Houston, will fail and soone than later...
Stuart Koehl| 4.7.10 @ 12:17PM
Actually, I experienced the opposite recently--sudden unintended DECELERATION while driving my Honda CR-V at about 85 mph on I-95 North just outside of Fredericksburg.
Everything was just fine, when suddenly I went from 3000 to 1000 rpm and the speed started to drop off rapidly. Application of the accelerator did nothing. The engine maintenance light went on, and I punched the emergency flashers while trying to maneuver from the left lane to the right shoulder.
I made it intact. A quick inspection revealed no fluids pouring out of the underside, no bad smells under the hood. I got towed to a nearby Honda dealer, who rapidly diagnosed the problem as a failed VTEC control valve switch. This locked the cam shaft in the position that allows both intake and exhaust valves to be open at the same time, resulting in a loss of compression.
It took an hour to fix, and cost me nothing due to the warrantee. Would I want to go back to carbureted engines with distributers? No, not really. I would have experienced far more failures over the time I have owned the car, even though the carburetor and distributer are much "simpler" systems. Any time you can eliminate moving parts, things get more reliable.
Greg| 4.7.10 @ 8:53AM
Regardless of the cause of an open throttle, the brakes will stop the car. Professing that the brakes did nothing actually suggest that the driver hit the wrong pedal, or barely grazed the brake pedal while holding down the throttle. Real world examples: http://www.caranddriver.com/fe.....-tech_dept
Stuart Koehl| 4.7.10 @ 12:19PM
It is easy to prove this: put your left foot on the brake, put your right foot on the accelerator, put the car in gear, and gun it.
It won't do wonders for your engine or transmission, though.
tdiinva| 4.7.10 @ 10:00AM
Brilliant article Mr. Peters.
Except that many automakers, i.e., BMW, VW, Mercedes and even Chrysler, already have implemented a protocol in their ECU that drops fuel input to the engine to idle speed when the brake is applied or the clutch is depressed. It's not that hard and it is not that complicated.
You are a technophobe who thinks about how cars were better sometime in the distant past. 70's cars whether they were Toyotas or Chevys were POS compared to the worse cars of today.
And one more thing; that’s a neat trick fixing the accelerator cable with a screwdriver and WD-40 while your hemi-powered Charger Daytona is accelerating past 150mph when the cable sticks!
RacerJim| 4.7.10 @ 10:41AM
Well tdiinva,
Who knows how many different makes and models of cars with a throttle-cable I've driven during the past 50+ years, but I know for a fact that not ONE of them ever, EVER, exhibited "sudden unintended acceleration". And one final thing: I've never, EVER, had to use a screwdriver and/or WD-40 to unstick the throttle-cable of any car at any speed; from my air-c00led 1947 Volkswagen Bug that would barely hit 60mph going downhill with a 50mph tailwind to my 440 Magnum powered 1972 Dodge van that would easily hit 120mph while towing a trailer with my racecar on it!
tdiinva| 4.7.10 @ 10:46AM
RacerJim:
You obviously are too dense to catch the sarcasm. I was taking aim at Mr. Peter's poor logical construction. The idea of fixing a stuck accelerator cable while roaring down the highway (that's they way it reads) is amusing.
What he meant to say was "after gaining control of the vehicle and bringing it safely to a stop I could fix it with a screwdriver and WD-40."
chester arthur| 4.7.10 @ 11:17AM
Let's see,I've got cars from the 50's,60's,and 70's,which cost very little to maintain,and don't have expensive electronic systems that fail at the worst possible time.I've owned one newer vehicle from the 90's that cost more to maintain and had more failures in the first ten years than all the others over the last 30 combined.Which is the POS?Being a computer guy,I'm not a 'technophobe',(whatever that really means,since everything in the modern world uses some type of technology)but I know what works,electronic or mechanical,do my own work on all the cars,and simply prefer reliability over trendy toys.I don't care what someone else drives,it's none of my business.But that someone makes a different choice seems troubling to the commenter.I guess some people buy the newest gimmick to impress others with their pseudo-sophistication.
tdiinva| 4.7.10 @ 1:57PM
Cost little to maintain? you are probably thinking in then years dollars when you could do an oil change for $3 . Of course you were making 5 dollars an hour and were very happy with it. You also had your car in for maintainence every 2500 miles. You had tune the car at least once a year. If you added up all the money you put into the car for normal maintainence and adjusted it for price changes you would shocked at how much you paid to keep your car running.
I had some wonderful cars growing up but I will take the worst car I had in the past twenty years over the best car I had growing up.
CAPT JP| 4.7.10 @ 10:53AM
I can think of at several unintended consequences already. What about those persons who drive with their left foot on the brake pedal or use their left foot for braking? In the first case the engine will be cutting in and out and the person will be into the shop a lot until the mechanic realizes that what is happening is OPERATOR ERROR, hopefully before another electronic device is mandated. In the second case I can envision a panic situation where the driver is trying to accelerate and has their other foot on the brake preventing the acceleration.
Stuart Koehl| 4.7.10 @ 12:21PM
Either they should have their left leg amputated, or buy a car with manual transmission, so their left foot can have something to keep it occupied.
Stuart Koehl| 4.7.10 @ 12:25PM
In fly-by-wire aircraft, you can bollix the flight control system by trying to fly as if it was an ordinary mechanically controlled aircraft. For instance, inputting rudder while trying to roll and F-16 causes the plane to mush about--the computer has already put in the right amount of rudder, and telling it to put in more rudder just confuses it. New pilots are sometimes told to take their feet off the rudder pedals (see, I can be taught!) until they learn to use the side-stick controller for most maneuvers.
Northern Rebel| 4.7.10 @ 11:18AM
I'm all for simpler and cheaper. I remember the days when you could repair your own vehicle.
I once had a '74 Oldsmobile Omega, with a straight six, and a 3 speed transmission, that would still be around, if the body didn't betray me.
I couldn't help but notice the record fine given to Toyota, and wondering what would have happened if government run GM had had the same problem.
How can a company recieve a fine from it's competitor?
Only in Obama world!
Tim| 4.7.10 @ 11:26AM
Inside 20 years cars will drive themselves. In 20 more, only whackjobs and eccentrics will want to drive at all.
Stuart Koehl| 4.7.10 @ 12:26PM
Probably not true. Driving will be free to become a leisure activity, much as horseback riding did after the car was introduced. At which point, the utilitarian aspect of the automobile can be pushed into the background in favor of raw performance.
Tim| 4.7.10 @ 1:18PM
Raw performance ? Good luck. I doubt the computer will let you do any of the following:
Spin tires
Exceed the posted speed Limit
rev engine
pass other vehicles
drive off road
And if you try it will report you to the Federal Car Police, headquartered at the Barrack H. Obama Federal Building.
Stuart Koehl| 4.7.10 @ 1:48PM
Well, if cars are just for sport and recreation, then they would probably have the same sorts of exemptions as experimental aircraft, which do not have to comply with many FAA regulations.
There are two types of fly-by-wire systems: those that absolutely constrain the pilot and do not allow him to depart the envelope under any circumstances (Airbus uses that type); and those that allow the pilot to override the flight control computer by yanking hard on the stick (Boeing uses that one). And a number of aircraft have adjustable flight control systems, including the option of converting the FBW into an electronic analogue for a mechanical system. I don't see why you couldn't design an automotive control system that would, when selected, simply send raw control inputs to the engine, the brakes and the steering system.
Bram| 4.7.10 @ 3:52PM
I still drive cars with manual transmissions. I don't really care what you do to Grandma's couch on wheels with auto-everything. Just don't tell me I can't heel-toe my next sports car.
Tim S| 4.7.10 @ 4:02PM
I may be off base here. But isn't something like this already done in relation to the Speed Control in most new cars? Tap the brake and/or clutch, and the control is released.
Or is that just too simple.
Or is it too easy to turn the car off, or shift to neutral. (the engine may overrev and be damaged, but you will coast to a stop)
I was involved in a runaway that was caused by a broken engine mount, the torque caused the unfettered engine to twist and the cable was pulled to full open. Shutting off the engine stopped the car. So, being old school is not an answer either. Let's face it, life is dangerous. Who knows, I might be hit by a meteor on the way home. Where's NASA when you need them?
Dustoff| 4.7.10 @ 4:50PM
Stuart Koehl
++++++++++++++
Do you remember the early days of AirBust. Their fly by wire had problems. If I remember right they had a few AD's for fixing this.
Stuart Koehl| 4.7.10 @ 6:42PM
Indeed, I remember--I particularly remember how their latest model some years back crashed into the trees off the end of Le Bourget in front of hundreds of reporters, because the flight control system would not allow the pilot to exceed the maximum angle of attack in order to clear the trees.
If the pilot had been flying a fine Boeing product like a 757 or 767, he could have given an extra honk on the yoke, hoisted the nose up, cleared the trees, and then pushed the nose back to recover from the incipient stall.
In flying school, they taught us about short field takeoffs; apparently the Airbus engineers figured a huge, twin-engine airliner would always have more than enough runway.
They figured wrong.
Finger| 4.7.10 @ 9:39PM
skechers shape ups skechers shape ups
True Religion | 4.8.10 @ 3:26AM
We launched the 2010 latest and most fashionable True Religion jeans
on our shop, welcome you to patronize.Here are many discounts for you.
Our aim is to provide high-quality products and excellent after-sales
service.
http://www.jeanushop.com