electronic throttle
in [Technical]
|
From: PeterD on 15 Mar 2010 13:39 On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 07:16:14 -0700, jim beam <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >On 03/15/2010 06:08 AM, Bob Cooper 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. > >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. Huh? Have you lost your mind? Electronic controls on diesel engines are relatively new, within the last 15-20 years. Prior to that *ALL* diesels had direct control of fuel, and even today many still do. Me thinks you have been sampling too much of your name sake. > should we get rid of control on all diesels? of course not. > >there is absolutely nothing wrong with the principle of using a control >system. oh, and mechanical systems are much more unreliable than >electrical. Any properly designed system is capable of being reliable.
From: PeterD on 15 Mar 2010 13:43 On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:49:38 -0500, Bob Cooper <bc(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >I want to hear the justification - in concrete technical language - of >why pedal/sensor/ecu/servo motor throttle control is in any way better Consider issues of time lag, fuel mix coordination, etc. >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. worse than what? >Eliminate a cable and spring for mass confusion? Seems only a few are confused, certainly not the masses. And 'fly by wire' has been around for a very long time, and worked very well in most cases. >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. So now computer engineers are incompentent? OK... >I'll bet there was a big fight at Toyota between the geeks and the >drivers about that one. And not just at Toyota. Bet there wasn't... >Anything separating physical feedback is bad enough, but taking over >control of the basic driving actions is a re-incarnation of HAL 9000. Bwa-ha-ha-ha... Now that's funny. Noting beats a confusion between (old) science FICTION and reality. Nothing at all.
From: PeterD on 15 Mar 2010 13:46 On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:22:57 +0000 (UTC), "Rodan" <Rodan(a)Verizon.NOT> wrote: >"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. > > Beam is an idiot, best ignored for his ignorance about diesel engines.
From: Bob Cooper on 15 Mar 2010 15:32 In article <r8ssp5dka698va7vhhnu27dq9ovc8r67u0(a)4ax.com>, peter2 @hipson.net says... > > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:49:38 -0500, Bob Cooper <bc(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > > >I want to hear the justification - in concrete technical language - of > >why pedal/sensor/ecu/servo motor throttle control is in any way better > > Consider issues of time lag, fuel mix coordination, etc. > Nothing the TPS can't signal a microsecond later. Haven't seen anything that shows a difference, and I doubt it exists. Face it, they just want to replace the cable/hardware and the hole. Cables can be greasy and icky. The biggest actual measurable "benefit" is to eliminate cruise control hardware. BTW, speaking of lag, a friend notices a lag when punching down the gas pedal up his '06 F-150 with throttle-by-wire. Hasn't caused him problems, but he likes to befuddle the computer now and then, even if it's only between half a second and a second. Cheap thrills. I've read that lag is noticed by many drivers. Maybe the ECU is "considering" other issues than what the driver wants. > >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. > > worse than what? > Than the pedal/sensor/ecu/servo motor elements I mentioned. A schematic of the electron flow through wires, sensors, resistors, etc, and the lines of code contolling actions taken by demand from a foot, compared to a throttle cable schematic has to make you scatch your head and say "Why did they do this?" > >Eliminate a cable and spring for mass confusion? > > Seems only a few are confused, certainly not the masses. And 'fly by > wire' has been around for a very long time, and worked very well in > most cases. > > >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. > > So now computer engineers are incompentent? OK... > Didn't say that. What I said is what I said. I'm sure Toyota is happy with the competence of those who designed a throttle system that is now costing them billions. That was a great collaboration of computer, electrical and mechanical engineers brought together to overthrow the humble cable and spring. > >I'll bet there was a big fight at Toyota between the geeks and the > >drivers about that one. And not just at Toyota. > > Bet there wasn't... > You may be right. But I hope I'm not the only one who wants direct throttle control. > >Anything separating physical feedback is bad enough, but taking over > >control of the basic driving actions is a re-incarnation of HAL 9000. > > Bwa-ha-ha-ha... Now that's funny. Noting beats a confusion between > (old) science FICTION and reality. Nothing at all. Does that mean you believe an ECU is always obedient? Not my experience. But I do like the ECU that that adjusts fuel/air ratio on my FI car, and it's nice enough to toss a code now and then to tell me what to fix. I'm all in with most recent car innovations that aren't fluff. I like to control throttle all by my lonsesome. Like manual windows too. Just because there's no electrics to fail.
From: Clive on 15 Mar 2010 16:14
In message <ts2dncwHgrWW3APWnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net>, jim beam <me(a)privacy.net> writes >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? After looking at the workshop manuals for both my 02 Nissan Almera diesel and my 09 Toyota Auris SR180 diesel, I see that both are electronically controlled. My Nissan uses a pump injection system with a primary injection (to reduce the noise) of 180 bar, my Toyota on the other hand uses a common rail injection system with a pressure of 2000 bar. -- Clive |