electronic throttle
in [Technical]
|
From: clare on 15 Mar 2010 12:13 On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 06:22:41 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote: >Rodan wrote: >> This electronic throttle thing is great. If you believe everything that >> could be invented has already been been invented, do this: Replace >> something already invented with something else already invented >> and call it a new invention. >> >> This has been successfully done in automobiles by throwing away the >> familiar throttle cable and replacing it with a whole new system of >> electromechanical parts;... > >Is it not true that the drive-by-wire systems have a cable connecting >the accelerator pedal to the first electronic part? If so, a chain is >only as strong as its weakest link - literally in this case. If that's >the case, they'd be foolish to say that one benefit of the hi-tech >solution is the elimination of the cable. I can believe some of the >claims of better control of engines systems for power and emissions and >possibly enhanced safety if it's done right, but they should leave out >the part about eliminating the mechanical linkage. None that I've seen have the cable you mention.
From: clare on 15 Mar 2010 12:14 On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:08:09 -0500, Bob Cooper <bc(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >In article <806g3mFtd8U1(a)mid.individual.net>, bptn(a)kinez.net says... >> >> Rodan wrote: >> > This electronic throttle thing is great. If you believe everything that >> > could be invented has already been been invented, do this: Replace >> > something already invented with something else already invented >> > and call it a new invention. >> > >> > This has been successfully done in automobiles by throwing away the >> > familiar throttle cable and replacing it with a whole new system of >> > electromechanical parts;... >> >> Is it not true that the drive-by-wire systems have a cable connecting >> the accelerator pedal to the first electronic part? If so, a chain is >> only as strong as its weakest link - literally in this case. If that's >> the case, they'd be foolish to say that one benefit of the hi-tech >> solution is the elimination of the cable. I can believe some of the >> claims of better control of engines systems for power and emissions and >> possibly enhanced safety if it's done right, but they should leave out >> the part about eliminating the mechanical linkage. > >The real issue is giving sensors, computers, servos, etc, control over >throttle opening, instead of a direct and simple mechanical link to the >human foot. >Cruise control, simple as it is, has had plenty of issues over the >years. And that is asked to handle only one parameter. >Fortunately, you have to turn it on, so most have no problem turning it >off if it goes haywire. Besides, on most cars it is little used. >Emissions and any other excuse for for removing direct throttle control >from the driver's foot is nonsense. >Because then you're saying the driver doesn't control the throttle. >Simple as that. >A throttle position sensor works fines. >Drive by wire in a car is caused either by beancounting or letting the >wrong engineers run the show. >It is an abomination. >Ask Toyota. That's all the proof you need. >Case closed. >Prediction: Toyota and others who have tossed out throttle cables will >be putting them back. I very much doubt that.
From: Rodan on 15 Mar 2010 12:22 "jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote; dude, you're utterly clueless. this is about control systems. diesels have had control systems from day one. have you any idea /why/ they're always used? what would you have us do to them? ______________________________________________________________ Please ask an experienced diesel mechanic that question. Surely he/she will tell you that diesels have no throttle plate to control, therefore no use for a throttle plate cable. As you gain experience as a devil's advocate, please try to keep your demurrals related to the subject at hand, lest your sincere postings be mistaken for trolling. Rodan.
From: Bob Cooper on 15 Mar 2010 12:49 In article <3sednTevSOmy3APWnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net>, me(a)privacy.net says... > > On 03/15/2010 06:08 AM, Bob Cooper wrote: > > The real issue is giving sensors, computers, servos, etc, control >>over throttle opening, instead of a direct and simple mechanical link >>to the human foot. > > no it's not. there is not a single diesel ever used that gives an > operator direct link to fuel injection - it's all done via a control > module. should we get rid of control on all diesels? of course not. > Dance around with semantics all you want. Sensible people know the difference between a direct mechanical link to engine speed control and a sensor in the footwell sending signals to an ECU, blah, blah. > there is absolutely nothing wrong with the principle of using a control > system. oh, and mechanical systems are much more unreliable than > electrical. > Right. Tell it to Toyota. > > > Cruise control, simple as it is, has had plenty of issues over the > > years. And that is asked to handle only one parameter. > > Fortunately, you have to turn it on, so most have no problem turning it > > off if it goes haywire. Besides, on most cars it is little used. > > Emissions and any other excuse for for removing direct throttle control > > from the driver's foot is nonsense. > > Because then you're saying the driver doesn't control the throttle. > > Simple as that. > > A throttle position sensor works fines. > > Drive by wire in a car is caused either by beancounting or letting the > > wrong engineers run the show. > > It is an abomination. > > no it's not. but, that apparently won't stop info-tards bleating about > stuff for which they have not the slightest clue on usenet. > For somebody calling others "info-tards" and Luddites, you sure don't present any convincing arguments for your position. Hard to do though, given the reality facing Toyota. That's just how it is. I don't intend to slam Toyota. Others will take care of that. I read the tech group. I want to hear the justification - in concrete technical language - of why pedal/sensor/ecu/servo motor throttle control is in any way better or safer than pedal/cable/spring throttle control with TPS feedback to the ECU. And I dumbed up throttle-by-wire there - it's worse. Eliminate a cable and spring for mass confusion? That's what happens when you let computer geeks design control systems overriding the normal seat of the pants, hand/eye coordination and foot control which is the essence of car driving. I'll bet there was a big fight at Toyota between the geeks and the drivers about that one. And not just at Toyota. Anything separating physical feedback is bad enough, but taking over control of the basic driving actions is a re-incarnation of HAL 9000. You go ahead with your pseudo-technical and thoroughly unconvincing arguments. If it wasn't Toyota, you'd be singing a different song. You call somebody here a pimp for Ford when they make reasonable comments. I suspect you are the one with goldfish in your platform shoes.
From: cuhulin on 15 Mar 2010 13:18
Have you ever seen the fuel control on a mid 1960s Mercedes Benz 4 cylinder Diesel engine? I own such an engine I bought from J.C.Whitney back in the 1970s. cuhulin |