From: Tony Dragon on
Mrcheerful wrote:
> Doug wrote
>
> . Also another driver who seemed
>>>>> to be unable to comprehend "switching the ignition off" or
>>>>> "putting it in neutral".
>>>> If you knew anything at all about the subject you would know that
>>>> doesn't always work.
>>> How does turning the ignition off not stop the engine?
>>>
>> Either it is bypassed by the computer or hot particles in the
>> combustion chamber ignite the fuel.
>
> In the old days of carburettors it was possible for an engine to continue
> running at low speed by a process known as self ignition, which is caused by
> hot particles igniting fuel mixture, which the carburettor could continue to
> supply indefinitely. But this would be at a low engine speed with little
> power. Carburettors have not been on any car that I can think of in recent
> years, the last I can find was in 92, and that was a real dinosaur. On
> modern vehicles the ignition system will stop supplying sparks when the
> ignition is turned off, ALSO the injection system stops supplying fuel, so
> there is nothing to be ignited by hot particles. As vehicles do not have a
> HAL2000 computer system then I think that can be discounted. So unless
> there is some massive malfunction of electrics/electronics (which should be
> reproducible) then the ign. switch will work.
>
> A recent case in the states found that the driver had alternately pressed
> the brake and accellerator more than 250 times in succession, which sounds
> to me like someone attempting to create a fault in order to have a claim, he
> had not realised that the onboard computer stores so much information and
> has gone very quiet about his story that the car raced away and could not be
> stopped.
>
>

Doug will either go silent, keep digging or try to twist the thread.
Place you bets now ladies & gentlemen.

--
Tony Dragon
From: Adrian on
Tony Dragon <tony.dragon(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

> So a modern car engine is something else you don't understand.

Hardly "modern". We've got one car with electronic injection (1990), two
with carbs & stop solenoids (1990 and 1984ish) and as for the rest - I
think the chances of "the computer overriding" the ignition switch is,
well, minimal.
From: The Medway Handyman on
Doug wrote:
> On 8 Apr, 09:47, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were saying:
>>
>>> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/
>>
>> engineering/article7047177.ece
>>
>>
>>
>>> Note this only applies to unintended acceleration and not additional
>>> brake or computer faults.
>>
>> 43 incidents.
>>
>> Across a decade.
>>
>> Yet, bizarrely, only 11 of those were reported in the 9.5yrs before
>> the publicity started and there was the possibility of not only
>> passing the buck but getting in on a nice lucrative lawsuit.
>>
> I think you will find that Toyota hushed them up for years and...
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1252454/I-left-coma-90mph-Toyota-crash-TWO-YEARS-safety-recall.html
>
> "I was left in a coma by 90mph Toyota crash TWO YEARS before safety
> recall"

Wow. The crumple zones, body shell, air bags, seat belt tensioners etc must
have been absolutely excellent if she survived a 90mph head on crash.
Excellent job Toyota - well done.

Oh, BTW fuckwit - you 'forgot' to mention it was a 1999 Yaris which has
cable operated accelerator

Liar, liar, pants on fire.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.


From: The Medway Handyman on
Tony Dragon wrote:
>
>
> Doug will either go silent, keep digging or try to twist the thread.
> Place you bets now ladies & gentlemen.

Looks like he's adopted the 'go silent' option.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Prev: Driving UK roads
Next: Rip off Kwik Fit