Was Runaway Prius Really A Runaway? Or Just A Prank?

[BillyGates]

Bob Eld wrote:

"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b3fd7078-e8b8-4f1f-b7ff-d7da0a141a31@k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
A few years ago I was looking at a minivan with defective ABS and I
turned to an astute ex used car dealer and said incredulously,
"there's no way a big auto company would design a car without any
back up brake system . . ."

The astute ex used car dealer didn't say a word.


Bret Cahill


To me it has the ear marks of a in fuel-accelerator computer system
problem. It's as though the processor goes into la-la land for no
apparent reason into a full, max on failure mode. When the techs look
at it, they can't replicate the problem. The processor never does it
again, at least while anyone is looking. We've never seen software do
that have we? No!

Someone forgot to check for an overflow error... common engineering mistake
by those engineers who think they are the shit. Who cares if it costs a life
or two?

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"Jasen Betts" <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hnfobv$rtg$1@reversiblemaps.ath.cx...

On 2010-03-11, Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:
To me it has the ear marks of a in fuel-accelerator computer system
problem.
It's as though the processor goes into la-la land for no apparent reason
into a full, max on failure mode. When the techs look at it, they can't
replicate the problem. The processor never does it again, at least while
anyone is looking. We've never seen software do that have we? No!

But the real problem is Toyota's secrecy, not allowing any third party
to
examine their documentation even to the point of defying court orders.
They
have blown smoke up each other's butts with attempted fixes, floor mats
and
accelerator mechanical fixes but likely to no avail. Failures keep
coming
and Toyota believes their own propaganda. It's time for an independent,
third party look into the problems including Toyota's engineering and
documentation without a connection to Toyota but with full openness on
their
part. Otherwise, maybe we should forbid them from selling in the US
until
they are more open.

The San Diego Prius should be impounded by the TSA and examined by them
just
as an airplane would be.

It's hard to believe that a brake system designed to take the car from
60 - 0 in 3 seconds cannot prevail against a drive train that can only
put out a fourth that much power.

with the throttle wide open the manifold vacuum is not there
so there's no power assist on the brakes.

if the driver is somewhat feeble it's conceivable that they will not be
able to stop the car using the brakes.

Also, if the car has ABS, it will be activated by mashing the brake pedal.
That will prevent any of the wheels from locking up, so it will purposely
reduce pressure on the brakes. The Prius has an electric motor as well as an
ICE, and it is more powerful (60kW=80HP) in newer models. An ICE would stall
if the brakes were locked, and starting torque is more limited, but an
electric motor has a lot more low end torque. I think there are some fairly
obvious factors that have been overlooked and perhaps some redundant safety
features may have been phased out to cut costs.

Here is an excerpt from the specs on the 2010 Prius:
"Star Safety System: Regenerative Anti-Lock Brakes (ABS) with Brake Assist
(BA), and Electronic Brakeforce Distribution (EBD) Vehicle Stability Control
(VSC) and Traction control (TRAC)"
http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/toyota/document/2010_Prius_Product_Info_FINAL.pdf

So some of these safety features may conspire to create an unsafe condition.
I doubt that engine vacuum is used for the power assist, as the ICE is not
always running, and much of the motive power is derived from the electric
motor.

There is also a recall for an ABS software problem:
http://www.toyota.com/recall/abs.html?srchid=K610_p280864904

The following indicates that the power assist for brakes is electrical. It
also describes in some technical detail how the ABS, VSC, and EBD adjust
braking pressure. And there may also be an issue with the Regenerative
Braking Control. It states that the MG2 is mechanically connected to the
front wheels and used to provide regenerative braking under normal
deceleration requests. But it is only a little change of motor control
software that makes the motor operate as a generator. And all of these
software systems, AIUI, are activated only by the resistive sensors on the
throttle and brake pedal position sensors. I don't think there is a backup
pressure switch or end travel switches to detect extreme conditions and
activate any sort of mechanical override or electrical kill switch.

http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/Hybrid16.pdf

All of these fancy controls are wondeful when working properly, but unlike
mechanical systems they do not tend to fail gradually and gracefully so that
problems can be noticed by the driver. Things can get dangerous if something
goes wrong...goes wrong...goes wong..go on...go on...go go go go go!!!

Paul

 

[Jamie]

Paul E. Schoen wrote:

"Jasen Betts" <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hnfobv$rtg$1@reversiblemaps.ath.cx...

On 2010-03-11, Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

To me it has the ear marks of a in fuel-accelerator computer system
problem.
It's as though the processor goes into la-la land for no apparent
reason
into a full, max on failure mode. When the techs look at it, they can't
replicate the problem. The processor never does it again, at least
while
anyone is looking. We've never seen software do that have we? No!

But the real problem is Toyota's secrecy, not allowing any third
party to
examine their documentation even to the point of defying court
orders. They
have blown smoke up each other's butts with attempted fixes, floor
mats and
accelerator mechanical fixes but likely to no avail. Failures keep
coming
and Toyota believes their own propaganda. It's time for an independent,
third party look into the problems including Toyota's engineering and
documentation without a connection to Toyota but with full openness
on their
part. Otherwise, maybe we should forbid them from selling in the US
until
they are more open.

The San Diego Prius should be impounded by the TSA and examined by
them just
as an airplane would be.


It's hard to believe that a brake system designed to take the car from
60 - 0 in 3 seconds cannot prevail against a drive train that can only
put out a fourth that much power.


with the throttle wide open the manifold vacuum is not there
so there's no power assist on the brakes.

if the driver is somewhat feeble it's conceivable that they will not be
able to stop the car using the brakes.


Also, if the car has ABS, it will be activated by mashing the brake
pedal. That will prevent any of the wheels from locking up, so it will
purposely reduce pressure on the brakes. The Prius has an electric motor
as well as an ICE, and it is more powerful (60kW=80HP) in newer models.
An ICE would stall if the brakes were locked, and starting torque is
more limited, but an electric motor has a lot more low end torque. I
think there are some fairly obvious factors that have been overlooked
and perhaps some redundant safety features may have been phased out to
cut costs.

Here is an excerpt from the specs on the 2010 Prius:
"Star Safety System: Regenerative Anti-Lock Brakes (ABS) with Brake
Assist (BA), and Electronic Brakeforce Distribution (EBD) Vehicle
Stability Control (VSC) and Traction control (TRAC)"
http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/toyota/document/2010_Prius_Product_Info_FINAL.pdf


So some of these safety features may conspire to create an unsafe
condition. I doubt that engine vacuum is used for the power assist, as
the ICE is not always running, and much of the motive power is derived
from the electric motor.

There is also a recall for an ABS software problem:
http://www.toyota.com/recall/abs.html?srchid=K610_p280864904

The following indicates that the power assist for brakes is electrical.
It also describes in some technical detail how the ABS, VSC, and EBD
adjust braking pressure. And there may also be an issue with the
Regenerative Braking Control. It states that the MG2 is mechanically
connected to the front wheels and used to provide regenerative braking
under normal deceleration requests. But it is only a little change of
motor control software that makes the motor operate as a generator. And
all of these software systems, AIUI, are activated only by the resistive
sensors on the throttle and brake pedal position sensors. I don't think
there is a backup pressure switch or end travel switches to detect
extreme conditions and activate any sort of mechanical override or
electrical kill switch.

http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/Hybrid16.pdf

All of these fancy controls are wondeful when working properly, but
unlike mechanical systems they do not tend to fail gradually and
gracefully so that problems can be noticed by the driver. Things can get
dangerous if something goes wrong...goes wrong...goes wong..go on...go
on...go go go go go!!!

Paul


well maybe the E-Brake which should be a cable driven device via the

operator should have a kill switch in it..! It solves 2 problems.
Driving with the brake on and being able to kill it incase of runaway..

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"BillyGates" <Bill.Gates@Microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:hnh6tm$sh$1@news.eternal-september.org...

Bob Eld wrote:
"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b3fd7078-e8b8-4f1f-b7ff-d7da0a141a31@k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
A few years ago I was looking at a minivan with defective ABS and I
turned to an astute ex used car dealer and said incredulously,
"there's no way a big auto company would design a car without any
back up brake system . . ."

The astute ex used car dealer didn't say a word.


Bret Cahill


To me it has the ear marks of a in fuel-accelerator computer system
problem. It's as though the processor goes into la-la land for no
apparent reason into a full, max on failure mode. When the techs look
at it, they can't replicate the problem. The processor never does it
again, at least while anyone is looking. We've never seen software do
that have we? No!

Someone forgot to check for an overflow error... common engineering
mistake by those engineers who think they are the shit. Who cares if it
costs a life or two?

Actually, management probably figured they could save a few bucks and get
some hot shot young engineers at half the salary and lower insurance costs
than their old pros whom they turned out to pasture. Old age, treachery, and
experience will always trump the young and impetuous. Or something like
that.

The fledgeling engineers right out of school probably show off their flashy
talents for visual effects more than content, and dazzle the upper
management with empty promises of quick, cheap, and highly attractive new
designs. It's more pleasing to their egos than warnings from "old coots" who
promote caution and costly back-up systems and vigorous testing. I can hear
the mumblings of "I told you so" from the rocking chairs of the porches of
recently downsized senior engineers.

Paul

 

[sparky]

On Mar 10, 10:39 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Two items - one personal, one only secondhand.

1. My 2008 Tacoma puckup is under the "floormat" recall.  I noticed
the assembly was wrong whe I bought the truck.  The Toyota-provided
overlay mats have grommeted holes for hooks to keep the mats from
moving.  However, the hooks are only installed on the passenger side
of the truck - maybe they thought it was to be right hand drive?

2. A woman my wife works with had a new (2010) Corolla.  She had not
ecperienced any of the litany of problems, but took it in for the
"sudden acceleration fix".  10 days later, her brother was driving the
car and she ws riding with him when the car experienced a sudden
acceleration event.  Her "fix" was successful - she went directly to a
Honda dealer and traded it in on a new Accord.

At this point, I don't plan to take my truck in for the "floormat fix"
and the "courtesy" brake override fix (hitting the brakes above 30 MPH
returns the throttle to idle).  I don't believe that Toyota knows
which way is idle in the throttle control unit (bit X or inverted bit
X - which is pretty basic electronics ;-)

It adds significantly to the seriousness of this problem when people such as
yourself tell of experiences such as this. I don't really trust the
electronic drive-by-wire systems. The closest thing I have experienced with
this sort of problem was with my 1998 Saturn, where sometimes the idle speed
would increase from its normal 800 RPM to 1500 or even 2000 RPM. It's a five
speed manual, so I only noticed it when I changed gears or held in the
clutch or put it in neutral. I think the problem was a bad temperature
sender which told the computer that the engine was cold.

Also, I think the electronic system had only limited control over the
accelerator, so it could only affect idle speed by cracking the accelerator
perhaps 10%. It used a cable which connected to the air horn, so it could
not provide full power position and the brakes probably would overpower the
engine. Besides, being a manual transmission, if there was any sign of
unintended acceleration, I would have instinctively taken it out of gear.
I've always had M/T vehicles since 1970, and I really don't want an
automatic.

It is a bit scary when we allow mechatronic systems to take over things that
have previously been performed with manual control, perhaps with a bit of
power assist, but always overridable manually.

My current 1989 Toyota 4WD Pickup is under recall notice for a defective
steering relay rod, but I haven't taken it in. I have owned several Toyotas,
and I have been fairly well impressed with the quality and lack of major
problems. But I had a 1982 Toyota LongBed that had some potentially deadly
steering problems.

Once, when I was pulling out of a parking space, the steering wheel suddenly
became very loose. My first thought was that it was on a sheet of ice. But
the steering mechanism ball joint had popped out of the socket, which would
have been really interesting if I was maneuvering in high speed traffic!

And not long after that, I had pulled into a snow-covered dirt parking area,
and I found I had problems steering, which I assumed was caused by ice. But
when I looked, one wheel was pointed in one direction, and the other was
pointed elsewhere. A tie rod end had come loose. I was able to pop it back
in and secure it with baling wire until I gingerly drove to the shop. But,
again, fortunate that I was not going fast. It had almost 200,000 miles on
it, and it was probably time for a major steering overhaul.

I really don't trust electronics to drive my vehicle for me. And I don't
need to have it park itself. Imagine if that procedure got called when you
were just rolling along on the Interstate with 18-wheelers all around you!

Automation is good as long as there is an override and everyone knows
how to use it.

NPR SDSU just had some commentator claim that every vehicle including
every hybrid electric has a neutral.  If you don't know where the
neutral is you shouldn't be on the road in the first place and ought
to get a ticket for not knowing how to drive your vehicle.

Almost true !

Except that if the computer is not working a fly by wire vehicle will
not go into neutral since you are giving a command to the computer to
tell the transmission to shift into neutral.

 

[Bob Masta]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:24:45 -0500, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net>
wrote:

well maybe the E-Brake which should be a cable driven device via the
operator should have a kill switch in it..! It solves 2 problems.
Driving with the brake on and being able to kill it incase of runaway..

Can't the user just shut off the ignition key? Or
is that interlocked "as a safety feature" when the
car is moving? Or when in Drive, which might be
interlocked for some reason?

Back in the day (early '70s) when I was a young
engineer at GM's Cadillac division and most cars
still had carburetors, if you shut off the
ignition at expressway speeds while in Drive, the
engine would "windmill" and continue to pull in
air... and fuel, of course, from the carburetor.
But since the ignition was off there was no spark,
so the raw mix went straight to the catalytic
converter where it burned so hot that the
converter melted in a few seconds.

No interlock back then... ahh, the good old days!


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v5.10
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
DaqMusic - FREE MUSIC, Forever!
(Some assembly required)
Science (and fun!) with your sound card!

 

[Jamie]

Bob Masta wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:24:45 -0500, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net
wrote:


well maybe the E-Brake which should be a cable driven device via the
operator should have a kill switch in it..! It solves 2 problems.
Driving with the brake on and being able to kill it incase of runaway..


Can't the user just shut off the ignition key? Or
is that interlocked "as a safety feature" when the
car is moving? Or when in Drive, which might be
interlocked for some reason?

Back in the day (early '70s) when I was a young
engineer at GM's Cadillac division and most cars
still had carburetors, if you shut off the
ignition at expressway speeds while in Drive, the
engine would "windmill" and continue to pull in
air... and fuel, of course, from the carburetor.
But since the ignition was off there was no spark,
so the raw mix went straight to the catalytic
converter where it burned so hot that the
converter melted in a few seconds.

No interlock back then... ahh, the good old days!

That was fun then, you do that for a short time and turn

the ignition back on! POW!

 

[Fred Abse]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:25:35 -0600, BillyGates wrote:

Someone forgot to check for an overflow error... common engineering
mistake by those engineers who think they are the shit. Who cares if it
costs a life or two?

Common mistake by those who work for your namesake

--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
(Stephen Leacock)

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:30:29 GMT, N0Spam@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:24:45 -0500, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net
wrote:

well maybe the E-Brake which should be a cable driven device via the
operator should have a kill switch in it..! It solves 2 problems.
Driving with the brake on and being able to kill it incase of runaway..

Can't the user just shut off the ignition key? Or
is that interlocked "as a safety feature" when the
car is moving? Or when in Drive, which might be
interlocked for some reason?

Yes, it's interlocked. ...to the steering wheel - bad plan.

<...>

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:25:35 -0600, "BillyGates" <Bill.Gates@Microsoft.com>
wrote:

Bob Eld wrote:
"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b3fd7078-e8b8-4f1f-b7ff-d7da0a141a31@k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
A few years ago I was looking at a minivan with defective ABS and I
turned to an astute ex used car dealer and said incredulously,
"there's no way a big auto company would design a car without any
back up brake system . . ."

The astute ex used car dealer didn't say a word.


Bret Cahill


To me it has the ear marks of a in fuel-accelerator computer system
problem. It's as though the processor goes into la-la land for no
apparent reason into a full, max on failure mode. When the techs look
at it, they can't replicate the problem. The processor never does it
again, at least while anyone is looking. We've never seen software do
that have we? No!

Someone forgot to check for an overflow error... common engineering mistake
by those engineers who think they are the shit. Who cares if it costs a life
or two?

Hell no. Engineers design saturating logic so overflows *cannot* happen.
Programmers, on the other hand...

 

[Fred Abse]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:02:50 -0500, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:30:29 GMT, N0Spam@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:24:45 -0500, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

well maybe the E-Brake which should be a cable driven device via the
operator should have a kill switch in it..! It solves 2 problems.
Driving with the brake on and being able to kill it incase of runaway..

Can't the user just shut off the ignition key? Or is that interlocked
"as a safety feature" when the car is moving? Or when in Drive, which
might be interlocked for some reason?

Yes, it's interlocked. ...to the steering wheel - bad plan.

...

My Jeep has the key interlocked to the shifter. You can't remove it,
except in Park.

The steering lock only engages when the key is *physically* removed.

Hence you can't put the steering lock on with the vehicle moving.

--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
(Stephen Leacock)

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:27:39 -0700, Fred Abse <excretatauris@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:02:50 -0500, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:30:29 GMT, N0Spam@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:24:45 -0500, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

well maybe the E-Brake which should be a cable driven device via the
operator should have a kill switch in it..! It solves 2 problems.
Driving with the brake on and being able to kill it incase of runaway..

Can't the user just shut off the ignition key? Or is that interlocked
"as a safety feature" when the car is moving? Or when in Drive, which
might be interlocked for some reason?

Yes, it's interlocked. ...to the steering wheel - bad plan.

...

My Jeep has the key interlocked to the shifter. You can't remove it,
except in Park.

The steering lock only engages when the key is *physically* removed.

Hence you can't put the steering lock on with the vehicle moving.

You certainly can (switch the car off and lock the steering column) with every
car I've owned in the past 20 years. As I said, bad plan!

 

[Jon]

"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote in message
news:lF5nn.10454$ao7.5744@newsfe21.iad...

That was fun then, you do that for a short time and turn
the ignition back on! POW!

Ha! The resonator on my mom's caddy exploded on startup once.
Quite a surprise to say the least.




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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:25:35 -0600, "BillyGates" <Bill.Gates@Microsoft.com
wrote:

Bob Eld wrote:
"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b3fd7078-e8b8-4f1f-b7ff-d7da0a141a31@k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
A few years ago I was looking at a minivan with defective ABS and I
turned to an astute ex used car dealer and said incredulously,
"there's no way a big auto company would design a car without any
back up brake system . . ."

The astute ex used car dealer didn't say a word.


Bret Cahill


To me it has the ear marks of a in fuel-accelerator computer system
problem. It's as though the processor goes into la-la land for no
apparent reason into a full, max on failure mode. When the techs look
at it, they can't replicate the problem. The processor never does it
again, at least while anyone is looking. We've never seen software do
that have we? No!

Someone forgot to check for an overflow error... common engineering mistake
by those engineers who think they are the shit. Who cares if it costs a life
or two?

Hell no. Engineers design saturating logic so overflows *cannot* happen.
Programmers, on the other hand...

Are named Maynard...


--
Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'

 

[Jamie]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:25:35 -0600, "BillyGates" <Bill.Gates@Microsoft.com
wrote:


Bob Eld wrote:

"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b3fd7078-e8b8-4f1f-b7ff-d7da0a141a31@k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

A few years ago I was looking at a minivan with defective ABS and I
turned to an astute ex used car dealer and said incredulously,
"there's no way a big auto company would design a car without any
back up brake system . . ."

The astute ex used car dealer didn't say a word.


Bret Cahill


To me it has the ear marks of a in fuel-accelerator computer system
problem. It's as though the processor goes into la-la land for no
apparent reason into a full, max on failure mode. When the techs look
at it, they can't replicate the problem. The processor never does it
again, at least while anyone is looking. We've never seen software do
that have we? No!

Someone forgot to check for an overflow error... common engineering mistake
by those engineers who think they are the shit. Who cares if it costs a life
or two?

Hell no. Engineers design saturating logic so overflows *cannot* happen.
Programmers, on the other hand...



Are named Maynard...


Excuse me pecker head?

yes, that is what I called you. The name is fitting. Exactly!.


Go back in that corner and beat your head against the wall, you
haven't yet got it straighten out..


Look, I don't want to get in a battle of wits with you, I don't like
fighting with an unarmed man!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jamie wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:25:35 -0600, "BillyGates" <Bill.Gates@Microsoft.com
wrote:


Bob Eld wrote:

"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b3fd7078-e8b8-4f1f-b7ff-d7da0a141a31@k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

A few years ago I was looking at a minivan with defective ABS and I
turned to an astute ex used car dealer and said incredulously,
"there's no way a big auto company would design a car without any
back up brake system . . ."

The astute ex used car dealer didn't say a word.


Bret Cahill


To me it has the ear marks of a in fuel-accelerator computer system
problem. It's as though the processor goes into la-la land for no
apparent reason into a full, max on failure mode. When the techs look
at it, they can't replicate the problem. The processor never does it
again, at least while anyone is looking. We've never seen software do
that have we? No!

Someone forgot to check for an overflow error... common engineering mistake
by those engineers who think they are the shit. Who cares if it costs a life
or two?

Hell no. Engineers design saturating logic so overflows *cannot* happen.
Programmers, on the other hand...



Are named Maynard...


Excuse me pecker head?

yes, that is what I called you. The name is fitting. Exactly!.

Go back in that corner and beat your head against the wall, you
haven't yet got it straighten out..

Look, I don't want to get in a battle of wits with you, I don't like
fighting with an unarmed man!

Then quit abusing yourself.


--
Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'

 

[Fred Abse]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:37:38 -0500, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:27:39 -0700, Fred Abse
excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:02:50 -0500, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:30:29 GMT, N0Spam@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:24:45 -0500, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

well maybe the E-Brake which should be a cable driven device via the
operator should have a kill switch in it..! It solves 2 problems.
Driving with the brake on and being able to kill it incase of
runaway..

Can't the user just shut off the ignition key? Or is that interlocked
"as a safety feature" when the car is moving? Or when in Drive, which
might be interlocked for some reason?

Yes, it's interlocked. ...to the steering wheel - bad plan.

...

My Jeep has the key interlocked to the shifter. You can't remove it,
except in Park.

The steering lock only engages when the key is *physically* removed.

Hence you can't put the steering lock on with the vehicle moving.

You certainly can (switch the car off and lock the steering column) with
every car I've owned in the past 20 years. As I said, bad plan!

Bad plan indeed.

An interesting thought has emerged. The Jeep has provision for flat
("recreational") towing (say on an A-frame), with the transfer case in
neutral. The manual says the transmission should be in
Park when doing this. I don't know whether the key needs to be in, or
whether the (electric) steering lock comes off automatically. I don't have
an RV, so I never needed to try it. I shall have to find out.

I hate being stuck behind some monster RV with an SUV in tow!

--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
(Stephen Leacock)

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:53:05 -0700, Fred Abse <excretatauris@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:37:38 -0500, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:27:39 -0700, Fred Abse
excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:02:50 -0500, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:30:29 GMT, N0Spam@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:24:45 -0500, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

well maybe the E-Brake which should be a cable driven device via the
operator should have a kill switch in it..! It solves 2 problems.
Driving with the brake on and being able to kill it incase of
runaway..

Can't the user just shut off the ignition key? Or is that interlocked
"as a safety feature" when the car is moving? Or when in Drive, which
might be interlocked for some reason?

Yes, it's interlocked. ...to the steering wheel - bad plan.

...

My Jeep has the key interlocked to the shifter. You can't remove it,
except in Park.

The steering lock only engages when the key is *physically* removed.

Hence you can't put the steering lock on with the vehicle moving.

You certainly can (switch the car off and lock the steering column) with
every car I've owned in the past 20 years. As I said, bad plan!

Bad plan indeed.

An interesting thought has emerged. The Jeep has provision for flat
("recreational") towing (say on an A-frame), with the transfer case in
neutral. The manual says the transmission should be in
Park when doing this. I don't know whether the key needs to be in, or
whether the (electric) steering lock comes off automatically. I don't have
an RV, so I never needed to try it. I shall have to find out.

Don't know about Jeep but a friend has a Saturn that he tows behind his land
yacht, "four down". IIRC he has to leave the key in the ignition to unlock
the column. There may be a position where he can remove it, don't remember.

I hate being stuck behind some monster RV with an SUV in tow!

No worse than an 18-wheeler.

 

[Bret Cahill]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/business-15749628/runaway-prius-mystery-18628847;_ylt=Ak1TULg4Kmy9JYOEdk7ChRuz174F;_ylu=X3oDMTE3YWtqY2JkBHBvcwMzBHNlYwNtb3N0LXBvcHVsYXIEc2xrA3J1bmF3YXlwcml1cw--#video=18628847

I'm shocked! SHOCKED!

You could knock me over with a feather!


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/business-15749628/runaway-prius-mystery-1...

CHP is now claiming it was an honest mistake.

I don't really give a rat's behind if I get killed by a motorist
making an "honest mistake" or a vicious murderer trying to kill me.

I just don't want it to happen.

The price of these "honest mistakes" has been and should be stiff
fines.


Bret Cahill