Airbus has also with mixed results. I personally have had throttle by wire go crazy in an aircraft and it was not pleasant. Once it rolled an engine to idle inflight and it never came back. We ended up landing single engine. Another time it oversped the engine and we had to use the fire handles to shut it down.
__________________
Mike
FFR Coupe #340, 2003 LS1 350 RWHP, TKO 500, QT BH, Champ 10 QT pan, 5 Lug and AC, Cobra Disc, SAI mod, Kumho XS 315's x4 ..Licensed for 28k..Just over 30k w/race tires and many mods http://s464.photobucket.com/albums/rr2/mmarshall01/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHtx7...1&feature=plcp
Build started - 8 Apr 2008
1st Autocross - 18 Oct. 2009 XP Class
2011 and 2012 St Louis region XP Champion
Last edited by mmarshall; 10-17-2012 at 10:00 PM..
Look, I'm sure that the control system is implemented in java on a microsoft embedded kernel by an outsourced software house (Ford MyTouch??) - what could possibly go wrong?
Eventually, hackers will figure out ways to remotely take control of your car or disable the electronics. Once they figure it out, terrorists will figure it out.
__________________
"Lotta people go through life doing things badly. Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting." - 1971, Steve McQueen, Le Mans
If Northrup Grumman designed the system instead if Nissan I might not be so opposed to it. Automotive manufacturers have very little experience in designing and implementing fault tolerant control systems. A proper control system requires specialized hardware as well as software. Look at the design of Tandem and Stratus systems to get an idea of what's involved.
A good example of a fail is the ABS system Ford used on their trucks in the early 90's. If the ABS computer got "confused" it would simply turn off ABS. It would do this in the middle of a braking maneuver causing the wheels to lock up without warning often resulting in an accident.
The Nissan system has a clutch that will engage returning manual control _if_ the computer detects a fault in the system. That's a big if.
__________________
An expert on the historical significance of cottage cheese.
"Under the new system, the driver's intentions are transmitted more quickly to the wheels because of the quick speed of electronic signals, Asai said." Electronics faster than a direct mechanical link??
"Drivers can also man oeuvre cars more easily as the system cuts out what it deems as unnecessary feedback from the tires to the driver."
I like to kind of reverse evolutionize things when people talk about the "dangers" of some new technology.
For instance, if the standard today was electric cars, and somebody just now discovered gasoline, does anyone really for a second believe that the "power that be" would allow all of us to speed around at 65+ MPH with tanks of explosives in our trunks?
Let's reverse engineer the DBW argument. If the standard was DBW and some said "hey I am going to connect up the throttle control with this linkage and don't need any computer control" I can just hear the arguments now. The cable will strecth, there is a possibility that something gets stuck in the linkage, it is not as controllable as the electronic butterfly in an emergency situation...
Get ready for all computer control of your transportation as IT IS COMING.
In my lifetime I expect that I will be able to get in my vehicle, program in the destination, and then do something other than drive the vehicle to that destination. Whether that is sleep, work on a computer linked to the internet, entertain my GF, whatever, but I won't be piloting my vehicle.
Quite frankly I can't wait as incidents, and particularly life threatening incidents, will decrease SUBSTANTIALLY. Sure there will still be some issues, just like there are now where people sue because the air bag injured them, but they would have likely been killed if it hadn't been there, but in the big picture of things it is coming and will improve safety.
A good example of a fail is the ABS system Ford used on their trucks in the early 90's. If the ABS computer got "confused" it would simply turn off ABS. It would do this in the middle of a braking maneuver causing the wheels to lock up without warning often resulting in an accident.
So what mode should the ABS system fail over to if it gets "confusing" data? No brakes at all?
Airbus has also with mixed results. I personally have had throttle by wire go crazy in an aircraft and it was not pleasant. Once it rolled an engine to idle inflight and it never came back. We ended up landing single engine. Another time it oversped the engine and we had to use the fire handles to shut it down.
From what I have heard, the Airbus electronics are not favored by pilots as compared to the Boeing systems. As I understand it, in the Airbus electronics it fails over to computer control and the pilots are left to make announcements to the passangers while they try and trick the computer into doing what they want. Whereas in the Boeing systems, a fault turns control over to the pilot(s). This was very much talked about early on and I would be surprised if Airbus didn't do a software update to address it as pilots were very much upset about it.
If Northrup Grumman designed the system instead if Nissan I might not be so opposed to it. Automotive manufacturers have very little experience in designing and implementing fault tolerant control systems. A proper control system requires specialized hardware as well as software. Look at the design of Tandem and Stratus systems to get an idea of what's involved.
You're not going to be driving any cars built since the '90s then are you? I mean what if your airbag suddenly activates, or your abs cuts in, or for some reason the EMU decides to put more fuel through the injectors, change gear, open the idle valve, or any other of those critical systems which can't have had proper design...
"I didn't build it - I'm rebuilding it.." Mark III FFR4331 - Ford Crate 4.6 DOHC, Accel Gen 7 Engine Harness, Quality Roadsters A/C System, Power Cobra R Brakes with Hydroboost, Power Steering, 275X17/315X17, BMW Titanium Silver with HOK Brandywine Stripes, Intake, and Valve Covers.
Personally I think this is the scarier portion of the article and explains why they are developing it
"Nissan also demonstrated a system that automatically steers a car away from an object if it detects a likely crash. It hopes to apply this in some cars in the next three to five years.
By using radars, laser scanners and a camera, the system automatically brakes if it senses a risk of crashing into a person, object or another car, then steers the car to a free zone if there is one, Nissan engineers said."
Think about it the car decides you are about to collide with something but gets the free zone wrong hitting a fast approaching motorcycle for example. Who is responsible for that accident? They are trying to make cars idiot proof and the fact is you cant out design an idiot. Kind of like trying to legislate prosperity
From what I have heard, the Airbus electronics are not favored by pilots as compared to the Boeing systems. As I understand it, in the Airbus electronics it fails over to computer control and the pilots are left to make announcements to the passangers while they try and trick the computer into doing what they want. Whereas in the Boeing systems, a fault turns control over to the pilot(s). This was very much talked about early on and I would be surprised if Airbus didn't do a software update to address it as pilots were very much upset about it.
Crash the Boeing systems are much better than the Airbus. That being said, both examples I gave earlier about throttle by wire failures were on Boeing aircraft. If you recall Boeing had several major issues with 737 rudder hardovers years back.
__________________
Mike
FFR Coupe #340, 2003 LS1 350 RWHP, TKO 500, QT BH, Champ 10 QT pan, 5 Lug and AC, Cobra Disc, SAI mod, Kumho XS 315's x4 ..Licensed for 28k..Just over 30k w/race tires and many mods http://s464.photobucket.com/albums/rr2/mmarshall01/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHtx7...1&feature=plcp
Build started - 8 Apr 2008
1st Autocross - 18 Oct. 2009 XP Class
2011 and 2012 St Louis region XP Champion
In 1958 a B-36 dropped a 10 mega-ton MK17 bomb on approach to Kirtland AFB killing a cow in the resulting non-nuclear explosion and spreading radioactive materials. Airframe flex is thought to have actuated the mechanical bomb release cable. The B-36's electrical bomb release system has never failed but the mechanical system was thought to be safer.
Mike
__________________
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Frequently the justification for doing nothing is the exaggeration of lesser evils.
I have a two problems with cranes having steer-by-wire technology on them:
1.) If automotive companies can't get it correct and they build tens of thousands of cars a year with it, then how can a crane manufactures get it correct. Crane manufactures will be lucky to build 1,000 cranes a year and that will be spread over at least 10 different models.
2.) The cranes are designed for European roads which almost every country there allows 27,500 pounds an axle. Each of our 50 states have their own laws. Most states do not allow over 22,000 pounds an axle. So the crane manufactures say you can run them with the boom over the rear in a boom dolly. The problem is German law doesn't allow boom dollies so the cranes aren't designed that way. Btw, almost all extra large cranes are designed and built in Germany.
In my opinion cranes would be extremely safer on the highways if states would build their bridges for European standard of 27,500 pounds an axle. Then there would be no need for boom dollies and the crane would be more compact, brake faster and more maneuverable.
Drive-by-wire may make sense in some types of vehicles, but in a car/suv I am not so sure. Especially if it going to have a mechanical back-up in case of power failure.
The potential weight savings and packaging/design flexiblilty seems like it would be lost by installing mechanical linkage as well.
I have a two problems with cranes having steer-by-wire technology on them:
1.) If automotive companies can't get it correct and they build tens of thousands of cars a year with it, then how can a crane manufactures get it correct. Crane manufactures will be lucky to build 1,000 cranes a year and that will be spread over at least 10 different models.
2.) The cranes are designed for European roads which almost every country there allows 27,500 pounds an axle. Each of our 50 states have their own laws. Most states do not allow over 22,000 pounds an axle. So the crane manufactures say you can run them with the boom over the rear in a boom dolly. The problem is German law doesn't allow boom dollies so the cranes aren't designed that way. Btw, almost all extra large cranes are designed and built in Germany.
In my opinion cranes would be extremely safer on the highways if states would build their bridges for European standard of 27,500 pounds an axle. Then there would be no need for boom dollies and the crane would be more compact, brake faster and more maneuverable.
Too bad we can't just build cranes in the USA that can perform as well and then the problem would be solved!
Too bad we can't just build cranes in the USA that can perform as well and then the problem would be solved!
The USA used to make the best cranes in the world in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Then all the US companies quit spending any money into research and development. This allowed the German's to take over this industry.
Eventually, hackers will figure out ways to remotely take control of your car or disable the electronics. Once they figure it out, terrorists will figure it out.
My question is why? What is wrong with steering systems that we need to change them? Throttle by wire is one thing, but I don't see any advantage to eliminating physical connections in any other systems.
My question is why? What is wrong with steering systems that we need to change them? Throttle by wire is one thing, but I don't see any advantage to eliminating physical connections in any other systems.
Because it is the stepping stone to a fully automated vehicle. THAT is where this is going.
Anyone seen the Volvo (?) auto-braking test video where the car never braked for the stopped vehicle it was supposed to use its collision avoidance radar mumbo-jumbo for? Same idea. Relying on a computer versus human input/output. People WANT automation so they can eat their damn breakfast on the highway, or text, or put on makeup (or all three at once, which I've seen before!). People need to put the phones down and drive! Then automakers wouldn't spend the engineering time and money on it. Self-parallel parking? How about mandatory driving classes in school so you can LEARN how to do it!
And yes, I do drive a 22 year old car (with just a driver's airbag) with NO ABS, NO traction control, NO stability control, NO EPAS, NO DBW, etc. It's man and machine. The phone goes in the console and I have two hands on the wheel and I do nothing but drive. Is it that hard people?
2006: 2/14 Delivery by Stewart Transport, 8/15 becomes a roller, 8/26 drivetrain installed, 10/15 first engine start, 12/23 wiring completed, 12/31 body test fit
2007: 2/25 first go-cart, 4/15 leaves for paint, 8/24 paint prep begins, 12/10 paint work completed
2008: 1/7 home from paint, 2/1 titled, tagged, and insured, 3/15 interior complete, 6/2 alignment, 6/4 Graduation
Welcome to FFCars! The
representations expressed are the representations and opinions of
the FFCars.com forum members and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions and viewpoints of the site owners, moderators, Factory Five
Racing, Inc. or Ford Motor Company. This website
has been planned and developed by FFCars.com and its forum members
and should not be construed as being endorsed by Factory Five
Racing, Inc. or Ford Motor Company for any
purpose. "FFR", "Factory Five", "Factory Five Racing", and the
Factory Five Racing logo are registered trademarks of Factory Five
Racing, Inc. FFCars.com forum members agree not to
post any copyrighted material unless the copyrighted material is
owned by you. Although we do not and cannot review the messages
posted and are not responsible for the content of any of these
messages, we reserve the right to delete any message for any reason
whatsoever. You remain solely responsible for the content of your
messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold us harmless with
respect to any claim based upon transmission of your message(s).
Thank you for visiting the FFCars.com Forum dedicated to Factory
Five.
2011 Factory Five Roadster
2011 FFCar 
Electronics faster than a direct mechanical link?? 
Factory Five Mk 3
G
Linear Mode
