Prev: Driving UK roads
Next: Rip off Kwik Fit
From: Tony Dragon on 9 Apr 2010 11:42 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 9 Apr 2010 13:50 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 10 Apr 2010 07:13 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 10 Apr 2010 07:17
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. |