Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs
Comments
UA is not only Toyota problem but many others even European brands that have a brake override in place. And some posters are insisting that UA is only Toyota problem!
Even in Audi 5000 fiasco, there were so claims of UA deaths, and the end NHTSA confirmed that all due to driver's error.
But...
I pity Toyota/NipponDenso in/for this case.
Replicating this seemingly extremely rare failure will be hard enough, but what if it has something to do with the surrounding environment, say driving through an area of numerous cell towers? Or even a combination of the surrounding environment and driver activity, say, simultaneous "set/accel" actuation and inadvertent braking due to left foot "resting" on the brake pedal.
Sometimes, in the end, you find that you simply cannot replicate the failures and then you have to go into fall-back mode, shot-gunning the problem. Make best guesses as to what/which might be the causative factors and begin applying "patchwork". In this case I would start by applying voltage snubber, "surge protector", networks to all of the inductive devices.
But then if you resort to this latter method just how long, how much (end-user..??)testing before you can say the problem is fixed, and which "patchwork" worked..??
Pity Toyota/NipponDenso, I wouldn't want to be in their position right now.
Ms Smith's UA incident started just as she was entering the highway, just about the time one might normally actuate "set/accel" mode. Then later the engine begins acting "normally" once the braking gets the speed down to ~35MPH, the approximate speed that cruise control is automatically disabled.
I have had instances myself wherein I felt the CC engagement was too "abrupt", too much "instant" acceleration, downshift/acceleration, for my "taste". And I almost always use the brakes to disable CC. Actually I don't even remember a time of using the CC "knob" to disengage CC, its simply too easy to "tap" the brake pedal lightly.
So if my brake light switch should ever fail I might find myself in BIG trouble.
Toyota's goal was never to get to the real fix. They've traded quality and safety for quantity. More disturbing, they've gone to great lengths to hide and cover up some known safety issues, all for money.
Time and time again, the opportunity for them to do the right thing has been presented....in their own alleged investigations, in their dealings with NHTSA, before Congress, and now back with the NHTSA.
Time and time again, they choose to hide information, make information inaccessible, and thwart efforts to get to the root causes.
As bad as it is for Toyota right now, it will get worse. They've got NHTSA rooting through their documents (if they haven't been destroyed already). They've got members ov Congress ready to level huge fines on them. They've got the SEC investigating them. They've got the FBI looking at their suppliers (which will eventually lead them right back to Toyota). They've got lawsuit on top of lawsuit being filed against them. Consumer complaints are coming fast and furious over a variety of problems. They've even got their home country government putting the squeeze on them to "come clean".
They could have avoided a good portion of this. They have chosen a different path.....one that's going to take them years if not an entire decade, to recover from.
I think Juries will be a bit more sympathetic to the consumers, with all the evidence of Toyota lying and hiding information. I know the family from San Diego has filed their suit. That should be a BIG one against Lexus and the Dealer. Both are responsible if Lexus did not make it clear to the Dealers on the Floor mat issue.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/biller-secret-toyota-documents-published-materi- al-pissing-match-breaks-out-in-congress/#more-347781
As for their study:
(1)Study Explanation vague - unclear how calculated, methods used, etc.. Can be challenged by analytical experts.
(2)Doesn't state which year they did this for??? Multiple years?? Etc.
(3) No clarification what they mean legally - saying "model year" & how they are using "model year"? What does this actually mean???
(4)Study Explanation does not explain if all SUA/UA included or not. When not stated definitively - problems & questions?
(5)What/why/how are they breaking down by model years???
(6)Who provided this info to NPR???
(7)If NPR did analysis - who did it???? Were they paid? Associations with who asked??
(8)How does it compare with other studies done?? Can it be compared?
(9)Can you clearly deduct info with presense of unknown issues??
(10)Etc.
Second glance I just thought it was for model year 2009. I was busy and did not analyze when I saw reports. Went back a 3rd time since I saw blogs going back and forth. Just questions you can ask yourself when evaluating any data study report & is food for thought.
tomjava I do thank you for submitting for all of us to review. Many data study reports available for SUA/UA do have a purpose, and must carefully break study down into an objective analysis format. And studies should have.
Appears more studies by groups are coming out. That is good.
Any rate - glad to see you have reviewed Dr Gilbert's preliminary report findings. Dr. Gilbert may be limited on how much further he proceeds ahead. University funding related aspects maybe? Toyota donated autos and also $100,000 - to his department. We shall see? And all depends on how University administration views, if any applied pressure from Toyota??
QUESTION - You do see some Toyota problem from reviewing Dr. Gilberts actual study, diagrams, etc.???
Seems like Toyota has already stated that what he did in no way indicates real world situations?? Exponent to give report on findings.
That's a profound statement on the part of toyota; but it says not what it appears.
To have a problem with the dual sensors not properly working would not be a real world situation either.
To have your car race out of control is not a real world situation either.
To have the brakes not work is not a real world situation. And reminds me of another question about the one-way valve to keep air from going into the vacuum booster when the intake manifold rises in pressure above the booster pressure. Is it possible those are not working? It's really odd people are saying the brakes don't work from the beginning. They DON'T say the brakes don't work as well the second or fifth time they depress the pedal: it's the brakes don't work.
2015 Cruze 2LT, 2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT
I agree with you, regarding Toyota's alleged statement. I have lots of questions.
....we were treated to Dr. David Gilbert of Southern Illinois University, also a guest of Mr. Kane's, who claimed to have found how Toyota's electronic system could totally malfunction, creating a runaway car—and claimed he'd found the error in less than four hours. Spoiler alert: Dr. Gilbert was assigned this work by Kane's safety advocacy firm, with at least partial funding by trial lawyers.
Here, too, is a problem: Dr. Gilbert said he relayed the results of that test and his concerns directly to Toyota. In short order Toyota looked into Dr. Gilbert's claims and found them not to be valid in terms of creating unintended acceleration. Then, to the company's surprise, it watched his appearance with Brian Ross on ABC News this past Monday night, Feb. 22.According to Toyota, it now appears that Dr. Gilbert had done something completely different in order to get a Toyota Avalon to accelerate under its own power. Toyota offered to evaluate Dr. Gilbert's Avalon, with ABC in attendance, and see what he did electronically to cause it to accelerate.
Additionally, Toyota is fairly adamant that Gilbert's "test evaluation" on ABC News was not the original "discovery" he relayed to them on Feb. 16.....
I have not heard anything since on him. I guess this what Exponent is studying?
So who do trust? Kane trial lawyer funding or a consultant Sharon doesn't trust?
"Dr. Gilbert's demonstration, as shown on the ABC News web site, amounts to little more than connecting three of the six pedal sensor wires to an engineered circuit to achieve engine revving," said Exponent, a research firm hired by Toyota, in a report obtained by CNN that was prepared for Toyota attorneys.
So how many automotive engineers does Exponent have on their staff? I know several here would like to discredit Kane's group for lack of expertise. How about putting the same scrutiny on Toyota and Exponent. Those interested in fair and balanced.
As why I see problems with Exponent. Here are some links that I have. At work during medical managers meetings we analyzed medical research studies with our so-called Champion MD Expert. Exponent was discussed and we reviewed their studies. Long before this all started I already knew of Exponent and who they were, type of work they do, and questions existing regarding their work. My professional work was medicine.
Here are some links re: some info on Exponent. I have more on other issues they were involved in also. I have had many bookmarked for several years. These links undeniably help undestand how corporations influence laws, views, etc. Drug companies also attempt to influence medical research. Helps reveal types of reports Exponent does. They are good at what they do. They win - no one investigates findings. If they lose - someone has fought back and researched their findings. Just providing only small sample.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-02-06-pge-settlement-brocko- vich_x.htm
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/IJOEH_1202_Egilman.pdf
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_5720/michaels_2008_CH5.pdf
http://www.ewg.org/featured/219
http://www.ewg.org/node/18401
http://www.ewg.org/node/21626
http://www.defendingscience.org/newsroom/upload/JLP_Michaels_Monforton_Aug07.pdf-
EXPONENT - TOBACCO DEFENSE REPORTS
UCSF medical center San Francsco mentioned in this article did indeed carefully avoiding legal liability issues make claim against Exponent that they are not a neutral firm because of their reports that showed smoking does not cause cancer. This University of California Medical Center San Francisco Cardiologist was interviewed on CNN and I saw the interview. Tobacco use and medical research are one of his areas of expertise. UCSF medical center is one of the top teaching medical centers in US.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-toyota-exponent18-2010feb18,0,6775660.stor- y
EXPONENT AND ASBESTOS - AUTO MANUFACTURERS
http://www.defendingscience.org/newsroom/upload/JLP_Michaels_Monforton_Aug07.pdf-
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket/pdfs/NIOSH-099/0099-050407-castleman_sub.pdf
http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/epa_acrylamide_letter.pdf
This is why I highly question any type of report Exponent produces for Toyota. Any firm that writes reports that say tobacco doesn't cause cancer, reports written that asbestos doesn't cause mesothelioma(similar to lung cancer), etc., writes & publishes proven fraudulant research study chromium 6 doesn't cause high rates of cancer, etc will always have questions about type of reports they write. And links I provided are only the "tip of the iceberg."
Hope this helps when bloggers evaluate Exponent. Why did Toyota hire Exponent?? I don't know?? But was quite disappointed when I heard this news. Someone here provided good insight - like getting exam question answers a day before exam taken. Already know what Exponent will most likely report. This firm is a litigation defense firm and their reports almost always defend their clients.
Speaking of Ms. Smith, NTHSA bought that car from a second owner at full MSRP (lucky [non-permissible content removed]). link title
So Ms. Smith drove the car for 3000 miles, had a scary UA, and sold it. The second owner drove the same car for 30,000 miles and never had a single incident of UA. I am glad NHTSA bought that car to prove that she's full of it.
Now compare to what Toyota pays Exponent. In hearing Toyota declined to answer this question to committee. Toyota has used them in other legal lawsuits. Reports seen have estimated at least $1,000,000+ each year if not more paid to Exponent by Toyota.
So who do we believe??? The defense firm??? Or Dr Dave Gilbert a University Professor??? You must relaize Dave Gilbert has lots to lose, Toyota donates autos and gave $100,000 to university auto technology department where he works. Why would he want to hurt his program for only a small amount of money?? Dave Gilbert has always maintained he is not out to harm Toyota. His pursuit is to help Toyota and all other manufacturers address SUA/UA.
source 1
source 2
Since VW has brake override feature more people are able to control UA and survive.
Dead people do not log complaints with NHSTA.
Just a theory.
Krzys
Gilbert explained in his study quite well how each model was selected. There were four moels. He also investigated other manufacturers as well. His report did not get into those findings. ABC news reports did report Gilbert as saying some other manufacturers autos had better fail safe systems. Toyota was the easiest system to enter. Gilbert introduces error problem electronically all the time to enhance teaching diagnostic problem solving for students. Always teaches no code registered, does not mean problem does not exist.
Please review provided prior posting blog w links regarding testimony & actual written study reporrt.
You think NHTSA reporting is bogus then the whole thing about UA is garbage.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124276771&ps=rs
There are several studies out there and we must attempt to fairly analyze each study. Edmunds has done two excellent data studies. CR has data study. Etc.
As I said before, I do thank you for providing the links. Always good to review these data studies. I did however, have some valid questions regarding their study.
Subpoenaed Toyota documents cause partisan rift on House Oversight committee
You may remember last Friday that House Oversight and Government Reform committee chairman Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) accused Toyota of improperly withholding documents that would have allowed liability lawsuits against the company to go forward. The accusations, based on documents subpoenaed from a former top Toyota lawyer-turned-whistleblower, included references to Toyota's secret and ominous-sounding "Books of Knowledge" that contained trade secrets.
The accusations came in a letter from Towns to Toyota North America president Yoshimi Inaba.
Well, moments ago, the Republican minority of the committee, led by ranking member Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) delivered a letter to Towns saying that those accusations contained "factual misrepresentations" about the documents and that Issa and the Republican minority should have been consulted before Towns wrote his letter.
Stronger still, the letter may undercut the credibility of the Toyota whistleblower, Dimitrios Biller, who claims his documents show that Toyota did the wrong thing while handling lawsuits from people who had been injured in accidents involving Toyota vehicles.
This letter from Issa to Towns represents the first visible rift in the committee's grilling of Toyota on its recall issue. Issa told me in an interview last week that he enjoys working with Towns and that "has kept his word to me." This rift could strain relations between the committee's two leaders and its two sides.
In the letter to Towns, Issa writes that a Texas lawyer had examined BIller's documents last year in connection to 17 cases he had reopened based on the documents. "I did not see any pattern of concealment, destruction or pattern of discovery abuse," wrote the lawyer, E. Todd Tracy. "I believe Biller, in his own mind, probably thinks something's there. But the documents just don't support it."
Issa writes: "We have not identified an individual instance in the Biller documents...where Toyota flouted its discovery obligations. This contradicts the understanding of the situation expressed in the Towns" accusations.
Issa also accuses Towns of inserting language into one of the documents to change the meaning and make Toyota look bad.
In his conclusion to Towns Issa writes: "Based on staff review and analysis of the documents made available to the committee as a result of the subpoena issued Feb. 18, 2010, the letter sent by Chairman Towns to Yoshimi Inaba is not based on a fair reading of the evidence. In fact, Chairman Town's [sic] letter frequently misquotes and mischaracterizes the underlying material, in one extreme case, actually altering the subject of the underlying document."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2010/03/subpoenaed_toyota_documen- ts_ca.html
My complaint with the NPR study which is extensive. Is they include similar complaints which muddies the water some. What are "similar complaints" that they included in this study?
NPR analyzed some 15,000 sudden acceleration and similar complaints consumers filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Here, you can find out about complaints for each brand and model year going back to 1990 models.
Why has it taken 9 years for Toyota to address their problems with UA? Again from your posted NPR analysis"
"Toyota's problems seemed go back to 2002," Benincasa said. "That's a few years before these recalls we've been hearing about with the floor mats and the sticky gas pedals. So back in 2002, they had about 10 percent of the U.S. auto market and they had about 19 percent of the complaints on acceleration."
Is this part of the Toyota cover-up that Congress is trying to unravel??