anyone here still own a Prius?
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: John Tserkezis on 10 Mar 2010 16:34 On 11/03/2010 8:22 AM, Doug Jewell wrote: > There is no reason for it to be bad. Aircraft have had fly-by-wire for > decades now, where it is controlling many more variables than just the > throttle. Of course there is the old adage "if it ain't Boeing i'm not > going", but Airbus's issues are to do with the programming of the FBW, > not the reliability of the hardware. Also note they are at least dual redundant (hardware and software) arrangements. Is the Priarse dual redundant in its accelerator/brake controls? Or ANYTHING for that matter?
From: Jason James on 10 Mar 2010 16:53 "John Tserkezis" <jt(a)techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote in message news:4b980f80$0$11336$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > On 11/03/2010 5:50 AM, Jason James wrote: > >> There are parameters which deal with this type of thing ie MTBF >> (Mean time between failures)which have been around for ages. > > Ahem. Doesn't hold much. If the manufacturer is aiming for high reliability in a critical control such as FBWire, MTBF should mean a lot if he has performed proper testing. Similarly, after the system has been adopted, MTBFs recording should be mandatory. The system used to calculate the number is > different for each manufacturer, and sometimes between products. That's OK, provided his method of fault monitoring makes sense :-) And > certainly doesn't translate to serviceable life either. Perhaps,..depends on how he is testing his cct. Year ago, GMH and Nissan used to pay drivers to continually drive examples of their cars around the clock out west. Everytthing had sensors attached feeding recording gear. At the other end, they may just put the cct in question thru a couple of 100,000 operations,....spend more money, get more accurate results. > In other words, unless you're comparing same brands, you're not going > to get anything useful on which is more reliable. Regarding FBWire, we dont need comparison tests,.rather a close as possible to reality *reliability* test. Jason > In any case, it doesn't give you a real-life figure of X-years N-months > from new before it's likely to fail figure anyway.
From: Clocky on 10 Mar 2010 17:32 John Tserkezis wrote: > On 10/03/2010 4:05 PM, tipsy(a)beerlover.com.au wrote: > >> In 1989 I purchased a new Sharp HiFi VCR. It is still functioning >> today. > > I've wondered about that. > *ALL* DVD players I've owned have never lasted as long as any of our > VCRs in the past. And VCRs are dogs as far as mechanicals go. DVD's are electromechanical and electronic dogs too, but on a much smaller scale and lasers wear out.
From: Clocky on 10 Mar 2010 17:40 Noddy wrote: > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor(a)rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:7vntnpFs0iU1(a)mid.individual.net... > >> **By those comments, I assume that you will not purchase any car >> manufactured after (say) 2015 - 2020. Electronic throttle control >> will be ubiquitous by that time. Same as electric power steering, >> electrically operated valve trains, electrically operated >> clutchs/gearboxes, etc, etc. Like it or not, electronic controls >> allow manufacturers considerable freedoms and considerable potential >> to lower manufactured costs. > > That doesn't mean they're great. > > Drive by wire as currently fitted to some vehicles is *appallingly* > bad, and electric steering assistance has already shown itself to be > less than stellar in the reliability stakes. Which vehicles? I can't say that I have driven a vehicle where the drive-by-wire system was obviously appallingly bad so which ones are you speaking of? As far as electric power steering goes in my experience with different manufacturers they have been uber-reliable so once again which vehicles?
From: hippo on 10 Mar 2010 18:54
John Tserkezis wrote: > > On 11/03/2010 8:22 AM, Doug Jewell wrote: > > > There is no reason for it to be bad. Aircraft have had fly-by-wire for > > decades now, where it is controlling many more variables than just the > > throttle. Of course there is the old adage "if it ain't Boeing i'm not > > going", but Airbus's issues are to do with the programming of the FBW, > > not the reliability of the hardware. > > Also note they are at least dual redundant (hardware and software) > arrangements. > > Is the Priarse dual redundant in its accelerator/brake controls? Or > ANYTHING for that matter? > > It's got two motors (well, one motor and one engine) :) -- Posted at www.usenet.com.au |