Ah, you're quibbling. You are still holding on to a shred there, by suggesting that in spite of the car only malfunctioning in your hands, alone, repeatedly, that "environment" could be affecting the results. Now I didn't say houdini1 and I were taking your car to Antarctica. We'd be in your neighborhood on the same roads you drive.
If I can *never* light my Weber, and you come through the gate and light it for me every time, then it's me. Guilty as charged.
Did you read and understand the link I put in Post #1598? Well if not let me point it out. Then you can call Intel and tell them they shouldn't have mentioned their flaw, that it's just "quibbling".
"The design flaw affected four of six SATA (Serial ATA) ports in the chipset, which over time could cause problems in the performance of such PC peripherals as the SATA hard-disk drive or optical drive. Endpoint Technology Associates analyst Roger Kay noted that the problem affected the four 3G bps SATA ports, and not the two 6G bps ports that are most often used by consumers, so many end users will not have any issues down the road."
So keep rereading the last line, until you see that the flaw would not be noticed or detected by "many end users". If you Houdini, or I all operated that same machine neither of us may see or be exposed to the chip flaw! But the next person might, if they do somehting (access that port) which we haven't done in our operation! So Intel's flaw IS, IS, IS operator dependent. What the operator does or the sequence something is done in, does expose the flaw!! Otherwise the chip flaw lies dormant.
When billions of $$ are at stake, or peoples' or corporate reputations on the line; people will certainly be tempted to act in a borderline ethical or criminal manner.
Crooks come with all sorts of bank accounts. Doesn't necessarily follow that Bill Gates or Warren Buffet is going to rob widows and orphans. Donald Trump ... well, maybe. :shades:
"Also the Saylor relatives suing the car dealer should be interesting."
Now that one I am in agreement with for sure. We already know by the dealer's own admission that they doubled up the floor mats and the 2nd set didn't even belong/match that vehicles mats. Idiots. Yet, unless you live under a rock, could picture that very scenario happening. (trying to protect the original mats for some such reason..loaner car or something) Hindsight is always so acute.
But wait, wasn't it Saylor who stopped successfully once on the shoulder because of the mats? Then left them in place and headed out again? Nope, I take it back. I feel badly for his innocent family, but Darwin's theory could be applied here. Idiots..all of them..
No it isn't. Or at least not anymore than all the rest of the comments on this subject. That part has already come out and is old news already. At least that scenario is plausible and HAS been able to be replicated. You didn't even read all of my post did you?
Now here is a reporter throwing a party re. the NASA report. I would bet he is at least taken out to dinner by Toyota each week to give him updates. It appears he uses all complaints to show that others are worse than Toyota - no way is GM worse for sudden acceleration of drive-by-wire models: http://www.examiner.com/public-policy-in-louisville/we-were-right-toyota-vindica- ted excerpts A year ago, we ran a lengthy article under the headline, The truth about Toyota: They make safe cars. We received a fair amount of criticism for alleged “shilling” on behalf of one of Kentucky’s largest employers.
Edmunds even offered a one million dollar reward to anyone who could prove that some design or manufacturing defect in Toyotas caused the fictional “sudden acceleration” problem. They got no takers.
The "shiller" is wrong that EDMUNDS.com got no takers. The hosts should at least review the submissions and see if there is a snowball's chance in purgatory that an idea or a combination of ideas submitted should be sent to the National Academy still reviewing UA for all vehicles. see http://www.trb.org/PolicyStudies/UnintendedAccelerationStudy.aspx
Here is a contact to whom I sent information: email from: "Louis J. Lanzerotti"
Thank you for your message, copied below.
I have placed it in our committee’s correspondence file, and have also sent to the members.
That's not related to what I was proposing. In my scenario, the device ONLY malfunctions with one user and never malfunctions with any other user. (just like the Priuses with UA).
At what point do we cease "sampling" and decide that we have a probably result---that was my point.
How many times will you look in your pocket for your car keys, in other words, before you conclude they aren't in there?
In Daytona for the 24 hour we rented a full size Mercury, don't remember the model but it was rear drive. Throughout the week I continually had a problem bringing the car to a final, full, stop. As the vehicle slowed to a point almost stopped the engine would rev up and I would have to apply MORE braking to get it stopped. Sometimes the engine "up-rev" was strong enough it raised my concern level.
The first time it happened I checked the floor mat which was firmly anchored, and the clearance between the gas pedal, floor and brake pedal.
I am aware that I sometimes have a "lazy" foot, big, Wide, lazy foot and sometimes the right side of my foot, not fully centered on the brake pedal, inadvertently depresses the gas pedal with a long deep stroke of the brake pedal. I consciously was careful that was not the case.
When I turned the car into the rental agency I advised them of the problem.
Possibly an overly aggressive A/C step-up throttle solenoid? I have seen this too, and it is most noticeable on engines that have a lot of torque. I have only seen it on autos. (the reason being obvious).
But that said, I am not convinced there is no such thing as SUA, lest inaccurate presumptions are made on my stance.
In reading and keeping track of all these posts something comes to my attention.
There are a few of us here that have experience with software coding, technique, debugging, etc, and those of us seem to have an acceptance that the firmware might be at fault. In my case, could EASILY be at fault. Not only that, but the fault may be really hard to find/detect to the point that it may NEVER be found. Lets call "us" group "A".
Then we have group "B", those that have no background and experience with software coding.
Why is it, with group "B" that they are so unwilling, adamantly so, to accept the possibility we put forth..??
Is the general public so afraid of what might lurk behind that "software" current that they refuse to even peek behind the curtain...?
What I don't know can't hurt me...?
It that maybe why Toyota is so interested in proving otherwise, stearing the public "mind" from this being ever a minor possibility...?
Just in the past few weeks my team has had to rewrite a section of code due to random, once a month, failures, actual system lockup. After weeks of trying, exhaustively trying, to replicate the failure it was decided that it would be more productive to simply rewrite the code.
Only time will tell if the rewrite has solved the problem.
There are a few of us here that have experience with software coding, technique, debugging, etc, and those of us seem to have an acceptance that the firmware might be at fault. In my case, could EASILY be at fault. Not only that, but the fault may be really hard to find/detect to the point that it may NEVER be found. Lets call "us" group "A".
Then we have group "B", those that have no background and experience with software coding.
Why is it, with group "B" that they are so unwilling, adamantly so, to accept the possibility we put forth..??
Now, if that isn't an "over-generalization", then I don't know what is...
There are plenty of folks with technical backgrounds that simply apply the standards of their training and trade to UA. And, they walk away with the conclusion of...
Its possible, but I have seen no credible evidence to suggest it couldn't be human error or something else besides an "electronic" cause.
You (as are a couple of other posters here) are so far into (and have invested so much effort into) wanting to believe YOU know the cause that you can't see anything beyond it.
Most of us agree that its certainly possible, but the sheer number of events in relation to the number of "opportunities" weighs heavily against any such cause that may be electronically-related.
Even in Iowa, you may get bitten by a shark, but the odds are certainly against it...
That's the "long and short" of it in a nutshell...
Yes but your random once a month failures were observed by everyone. I wonder how your staff would react if it became apparent that only you experienced the failures. Don't you think they would at least bring up the subject of "what are you doing when it fails?"
While the investigators have never been able to cause any sua incidents, they have been able to figure out that most, if not all, of the incidents were caused by some form of operator error. Mostly hitting the gas when trying to hit the brakes.
I believe that most of the UA incidents are classified "operator error" when no other reason can be found, right? I mean what is the proof of that human error? does the black-box data-recording show that to be true?
I'm sure there are numerous cases where UA is human-error. Actually I got t-boned in Oct. by an 84-year old woman, who then sped away for 150 yards before crashing. So human error - yes.
Do I believe all UA is human error? NO. People can not mistake the brake and accelerator, at least those with normal senses, for an extended time. I believe many of these cases were not the 1-2 sec situations and then a crash. Human errors for a couple seconds - yes. Longer than that it's either fraud or a true problem. Was that cop who had UA long enough to call, committing fraud, before he decided to crash and kill himself and family? Do you think anyone who has UA is not after a few seconds going to look at their feet, or think to shift into N?
That's not related to what I was proposing. In my scenario, the device ONLY malfunctions with one user and never malfunctions with any other user. (just like the Priuses with UA).
Well consider the SW errors in MS Windows of the past. Millions of people use the software for months, and then a few people note a problem. MS issues a patch. Did the problem show itself right away? No. Did the majority of people experience the error even though they're using the exact same product? No. Why? Becasue many hardware and software problems only occur when certain features or commands are called on in a certain sequence, or used at the same time. As I said before if the error is in the ECU and only triggered when (example) the traction control is triggered while under full-throttle, with the cruise control on, at a speed below 20 mph, or some other such combination, then, ...
unless you happen to drive in such a manner, you are not going to experience UA. The driver that did experience UA may not experience aUA again for a while or ever, unless they repeat that set of events.
If you don't play the strings in the right order at the right time, you're not playing the song. If you don't push the buttons on your microwave in the right order, you've got cold food. And if you're not aware of how many issues electronics can have when certain features are activated in a scenario the software isn't designed for, then you really don't have much of a basis which to comprehend the problems that do exist with many of our devices.
Again - if you want to take the position that our technology in computers or cars or any other similar device is near-perfect, then I challenge you to explain why every organization has large technical-help centers, IT departments, and write so many troubleshooting guides? Everything we develop has flaws.
Its possible, but I have seen no credible evidence to suggest it couldn't be human error or something else besides an "electronic" cause.
Except that there are no instances or reports of it happening with manual transmissions. 20% of the Toyota fleet is simply returning no data, which wouldn't happen if human error were the only cause. Something else is at work here, though they have excluded the software. That means that it has to be the hardware. A short, corrosion, EM interference... the list is long, and that doesn't count simple crashes where the system hangs. My PC does this at least once a month.
My 99 Crown Vic that I'm currently driving just did it last month - the sensors went all weird when I put the key in (most of the error lights were suddenly on). I turned it off and on again and there's been no problem since. Just an odd electrical problem - probably due to the fact that it was crazy cold (coldest it's been in years that day - almost 20 degrees) that morning and some relay didn't trip properly. I've also had odd glitches over the years like hitting the cruise control and the entire car dying. (old Volvo), the door locks staying stuck down, and so on - odd stuff happens to cars all the time.
There's also group #3 - those who have never taken a statistics class and therefore lack the understanding of why it can't be solely human error. 20% of the (statistical sample) population simply doesn't return no data in such cases. Not unless there's a fundamental error in the initial hypothesis.
Yes but people found it, identified it and fixed it. No such thing has ever happened with *one* Prius, much less all of them.
If your next epicycle is that every Prius has its *very own* unidentifiable problem, I'm just gonna surrender on you like the French infantry and go home
It does raise some interesting questions, for sure. But to date, the government's database has no instances with manual transmission vehicles. Of course, there are significant differences between manual and automatic transmissions. You can't put stability control on a manual transmission(this is huge, considering this feature also controls the throttle and brakes), there are two mechanical overrides for neutral (gear and clutch), and for the most part, there are few if any computers controlling it. ie - if you actually jam it into 2nd at 70mph, it will break something for most vehicles. Some have computers in the way, though - the way to tell is if you can push-start the thing.
Nobody seems to have found anything obvious, so that leaves a few critical things left, which are items like what happens if the stability control system freezes due to (insert external factor that's not Toyota's fault)? I know that on an Infiniti M45, when the ABS/stability/traction control system starts to develop problems (most will over time - it's a know defect), the car quickly becomes difficult to drive and does random things it shouldn't.
Since you can't have this integrated system on a manual vehicle, it's not put on. ABS and traction control are their own separate things that just work together.
It does raise some interesting questions, for sure. But to date, the government's database has no instances with manual transmission vehicles. Of course, there are significant differences between manual and automatic transmissions. You can't put stability control on a manual transmission(this is huge, considering this feature also controls the throttle and brakes), there are two mechanical overrides for neutral (gear and clutch), and for the most part, there are few if any computers controlling it. ie - if you actually jam it into 2nd at 70mph, it will break something for most vehicles. Some have computers in the way, though - the way to tell is if you can push-start the thing.
I find that odd, with zero reports in manual vehicles.
Statistically speaking, there should be at least a few due to mis-identification of UA by drivers, even in manual vehicles.
After all, with so many claims of UA, does it really make any sense that, with the large overall number of manual transmission Toyotas in operation, not a single driver that has been involved in an accident (in a manual vehicle) hasn't made the claim of UA?
Again, statistically speaking, that's almost an impossibility.
I find that odd, with zero reports in manual vehicles.
Statistically speaking, there should be at least a few due to mis-identification of UA by drivers, even in manual vehicles.
Maybe that means something. Your second comment implies that those that drive manuals are from the same driver/car owner population distribution as those that drive automatics.
That may not be the case. Having to constantly work 3 pedals with both feet with a manual in traffic requires a somewhat different skill set than just mashing the accelerator. Those drivers that can or like to do that should probably be considered a subset of the overall general driving population.
It is also instinctual to press both brake and clutch on a manual transmission car when trying to stop, so much less chance of a runaway, either by human error or mechanical/electronic problems. No software glitch is going to overcome a clutch pedal.
Well, I own both manual and automatic transmission vehicles, and I know quite a lot of others that do as well. And, I do agree that, as a whole, manual drivers are more "experienced" drivers. That said, I have seen some extremely lousy manual drivers... some I refused to ride with... In their case, if UA occurred, they would have crashed... no doubt about it, they would have gone into a panic.
And, while I agree with Mr_Shiftright's "instinctive" comments completely, that only resolves the issue of UA after the "event" has begun... It can still occur.
Speaking for me, I would report it the same as if it happened to me in an automatic, crash or no crash.
So, again, it begs the question... Why zero reports of UA in manual Toyota cars?
IMO, there are certainly enough folks out there willing to attempt a little "lite-extortion" by claiming it, even if it never really happened.
Therefore, I can only conclude...
1- The reports we are being shown have been refined, eliminating reports in some cases.
2- UA has occurred in manual vehicles and not been reported.
3- UA occurs only in Toyota products lines that only offer automatics.
4- No one has thought about filing a bogus report on a manual Toyota.
Once again, statistically speaking, if one considers the large base of manual transmission Toyota vehicles out there, its practically an impossibility that at least one driver/owner would not have claimed UA, regardless if it was actual or "made-up".
Frankly, I have been thinking about this for some time, but decided to wait until after the government's report was made public. If the researchers had indeed found something, then my thoughts in this regard would have meant nothing...
The "report" if any, for a manual transmission would NOT be UA, but an uncontrolable engine runaway to the rev limit,.... or beyond?No, that's a "weaseling out" statement.
UA is UA, regardless if a crash occurs or not. And, your description IS UA!
You're simply attempting to modify the data shown to support your conclusion, which is no different that those making the vaccination/autism connections.
Re-defining the same event occuring in two different types of vehicles does nothing to support your case of possible UA.
You represent yourself as being an experienced, competent, stick shift driver. In that case you would do EXACTLY as the clear majority of us would do, STAB the clutch to the fullest stroke the instant you realized the car was exceeding your speed or acceleration "target".
So why would YOU classify that as a UA, unintended acceleration...not a "simple", easily overcome, engine runaway...NON-EVENT..? Even more to the point, how, what would the dealer service "report" say..?
It is totally beyond my comprehension that anyone other than a person completely new to driving a stick shift would allow a runaway engine to remain in control of the drive train. Applying the clutch is simply too instinctive.
Have you ever taught anyone how to drive a stick shift..? In my experience the only problem they have is how to release the clutch, coordinate, clutch and gas, and often brake, clutch and gas.
Actually I know what wwest is driving at here---there are actually PLENTY of complaints about "runaway cruise control"--you can google that and see many instances on the Interenet----
the difference with those UAs though, is that in all cases the driver simply taps the brake pedal or the cruise 'set' button and that's the end of it.
So when the car crashes in a UA, the presumption is that it's something more sinister, some "defeat" of all the fail-safe systems.
Which of course, at this point it time seems to be an unprovable assumption.
Anyway, I'm certain that runaway cruise control problems are real and documented (and can be replicated, by the way).
Sorry, I take it for granted that Saylor did shift to neutral, but for some reason or another the transmission didn't "follow".
The engine/transaxle ECU firmware might have been "live-locked", as I proposed, in the CC "accel" mode or the extraordinary opposing torque on the drum clutch(es) gear teeth was simply too great for the return spring to overcome.
In any case, much like the instinctive application of the clutch in the case of a runaway engine it just seems to me that shifting into neutral would have been too obvious a solution, approaching instinctive, for Saylor to have not used it.
But no, again. If you successfully overcame a runaway engine by simply shifting into neutral I can't see ANYONE classifying that as a UA...
Shifting an auto into neutral is nowhere near as instinctual as pushing the clutch in on a manual. For one thing, most times an auto is in neutral, is only momentarily as the driver shifts past or through it into Reverse or Park. The mindset is on the final destination of the shift lever, be it Reverse, Drive or Park, not neutral. For one thing, the very reason many are driving an auto is because they lack the skills (or desire) to be more proactively involved with actually 'driving' the car. Going into neutral would require thought. Auto drivers don't want to have to think!
Now...factor in a panic situation, and that instinct (even if elusively present under normal circumstances) is not even on the same planet thinking of purposefully putting it into neutral, the way a manual driver would push in the clutch.
This particular aspect of the topic of UA is just such a no-brainer it doesn't really deserve any debate time whatsoever.
The only thing that flys in the face of your logic is TIME, plus probably 3 drivers in the car, and there is, of course, the clear implication that Saylor had two sequential UA events that day.
During the second event there was clearly enough time for the brother-in-law to make that 911 call. Initial panic, sure, but even in a panic the extended period of the UA would have given lots of time for other driver's, if not Saylor himself, to be making suggestions.
And how was the initial UA recovery accomplished...?
From what I understand so far, he used the brakes and made it to the shoulder of the road. This was the first super-heating of the brakes. I think the time-frame will be found that they had not sufficiently cooled nearly long enough to be up to the same standards of retardation ability on the second go-around. Do we even know what was responsible for the first UA? I thought it was determined it was the 2nd set of mats in the way. If not, a rational and capable thinking person (cop or not, they're not rocket scientists) would not risk starting out again until the cause of the original UA had been determined and verified.
I am having such a déjà vu here as these debates have gone in the exact same circles in this and other Toyota threads numerous times before.
IIRC, almost all police officers (who are assigned to patrol duty) are required to know how to drive manual transmissions, though, as part of their training. Shifting into neutral would be a very normal thing to consider for someone like Saylor. Much more than, say, a typical idiot driver who calls into a radio show and asks if they should take their car to a mechanic because it's pouring smoke out of the tail pipe.
So you guys don't think that NASA or any of the other myriad of investigators thought of not being able to shift into neutral? Assuming they did think of it, they must not have had any problems. Some of you are grasping at straws. This case is closed.
At one time or other I am sure I have shifted into neutral successfully in every(automatic) car I have owned. More than once at highway cruising speed. Never a problem. I have never had occasion to try it at WOT though.
The only actual "forensic" evidence that the floor mat was at fault is that the bottom of the gas pedal was burned in such a way that it was "welded" to the upper right corner, EXTREME upper right corner of the floor mat.
And I agree, given the seriously life threatening event from the initial UA it seems really improbable that Saylor would pull back out onto the highway without being satisfied that he had or could overcome whatever caused the initial UA.
Then of course he was able to use the brakes the first time. But on the other hand he just couldn't have missed the smoke rolling out from the front brakes and would know that was no longer a resource.
1) Just how many BRILLANT non-automotive expereince, design, scientist/investigators would think of the possibility that the drum clutches might not release under such high opposing torque on their gear teeth.
2) And even if they did consider the possibility of the firmware "live-lock" preventing the shift into neutral just who and how would they go about trouble-shooting the machine language code, or even finding undocumented faults in the computer itself.
Not to consider the possibility that the code NASA was given had already been corrected.
Not to consider the possibility that the code NASA was given had already been corrected.
You must really love conspiracy theories...
Could that be the case?
Of course, but it certainly doesn't explain the huge decrease in complaints since the pedal mechanisms "fix" was implemented.
No doubt, you may think the the dealers reflashed the ECM or some such nonsense when the cars were retrofitted with the new pedals.
The the problem migrates into 2 new ones...
1- Not every Toyota has been through the retrofit. No recalls of that magnitude reach 100%.
2- If that were the case, does anyone really think millions of reflashed ecm's were done and no one thought to mention it to the news media, NHTSA or the NASA researchers? Could any effort of that magnitude simply be "hiding in plain sight?"
Houdini is dead-on when he says we've been here many times...
This conversation just goes round and round, always ending back where it started.
If you believe UA happened, no amount of testing, evidence or testimony will change it.
If you're like most of the rest of us, you want to see something more than anecdotal evidence. Again, this is EXACTLY the scenario that you find in the vaccination/autism argument.
First, I have never taken a position in opposition to the floor mat or even the brake/gas confusion being the ABSOLUTE MAJOR cause of UA. The tip of the gas pedal getting trapped in the OEM carpet gets a maybe, as does the CTS vendor question.
But we're still left with three instances that appear, on a deeper analysis, to not fit those explanations.
And no, I don't expect that any fixes were applied to the source code pre-NASA would have been propagated to the field in any sort of "hurry up" fashion.
No, it's just that I do have first hand experience with Toyota (Lexus) doing a secret re-flash in order an adverse court decesion and thus likely to avoid bad publicity. I might also be a bit more familier with the Japanese culture in this vein than others.
I was thinking that they may have actually driven a few Toyotas up to speed and then shifted to neutral....not the mumbo jumbo you keep attempting to introduce.
But we're still left with three instances that appear, on a deeper analysis, to not fit those explanations.
So, now we are down to 3 cases out of.... how many Toyotas are suspect? 8 million or so?
No doubt more deaths are caused in the same vehicle population by broken tie-rod ends, etc. than UA.
It would seem, then, that a great deal of resources has been expended over virtually a non-existent issue.
Indeed, we should be far more concerned by the acknowledged (finally, after over 4 years of denial) BMW high-pressure-fuel-pump failures. At least those failures (which can be just as dangerous as any UA) have been duplicated time and time again.
According to a report from The Safety Record, on December 29, 2009, the driver of a 2007 Toyota Avalon experienced a bizarre case of sudden and unintended acceleration while driving on the highway, just miles from a local Toyota dealer. The driver managed to switch the vehicle between Neutral and Drive multiple times, while en route to the dealer in order to show the dealer the problem as it was still occurring.
The driver was able to reach the dealer, place the vehicle into neutral, and allow it to continue operating at wide open throttle. The dealer sent out a tech who verified that the floor mat was removed, and pushing the gas pedal had no effect on the acceleration. The dealer was unable to stop the wide open throttle and was forced to shut the vehicle off.
This incident was apparently not the first for the driver, either, who had been to the dealer before about the problem. The first time the unintended acceleration occurred, the driver was able to slow the vehicle with the brakes and switch the vehicle into neutral – where the engine continued to hit maximum rpms. At the time of the first incident, dealer diagnostics revealed no problems in the computer.
The dealer eventually offered to replace the throttle body, accelerator pedal and associated sensors free of charge for the driver after the second incident.
Comments
If I can *never* light my Weber, and you come through the gate and light it for me every time, then it's me. Guilty as charged.
"The design flaw affected four of six SATA (Serial ATA) ports in the chipset, which over time could cause problems in the performance of such PC peripherals as the SATA hard-disk drive or optical drive. Endpoint Technology Associates analyst Roger Kay noted that the problem affected the four 3G bps SATA ports, and not the two 6G bps ports that are most often used by consumers, so many end users will not have any issues down the road."
So keep rereading the last line, until you see that the flaw would not be noticed or detected by "many end users". If you Houdini, or I all operated that same machine neither of us may see or be exposed to the chip flaw! But the next person might, if they do somehting (access that port) which we haven't done in our operation! So Intel's flaw IS, IS, IS operator dependent. What the operator does or the sequence something is done in, does expose the flaw!! Otherwise the chip flaw lies dormant.
Crooks come with all sorts of bank accounts. Doesn't necessarily follow that Bill Gates or Warren Buffet is going to rob widows and orphans. Donald Trump ... well, maybe. :shades:
First trial over runaway Toyota allegations set for 2013 (Detroit News)
http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/green-tech/advanced-cars/lawyers-try-new-ang- le-against-toyota-in-sua-lawsuits
Also the Saylor relatives suing the car dealer should be interesting.
Now that one I am in agreement with for sure. We already know by the dealer's own admission that they doubled up the floor mats and the 2nd set didn't even belong/match that vehicles mats. Idiots. Yet, unless you live under a rock, could picture that very scenario happening. (trying to protect the original mats for some such reason..loaner car or something) Hindsight is always so acute.
But wait, wasn't it Saylor who stopped successfully once on the shoulder because of the mats? Then left them in place and headed out again? Nope, I take it back. I feel badly for his innocent family, but Darwin's theory could be applied here. Idiots..all of them..
Conjecture, purely.
http://www.examiner.com/public-policy-in-louisville/we-were-right-toyota-vindica- ted
excerpts
A year ago, we ran a lengthy article under the headline, The truth about Toyota: They make safe cars. We received a fair amount of criticism for alleged “shilling” on behalf of one of Kentucky’s largest employers.
Edmunds even offered a one million dollar reward to anyone who could prove that some design or manufacturing defect in Toyotas caused the fictional “sudden acceleration” problem. They got no takers.
The "shiller" is wrong that EDMUNDS.com got no takers. The hosts should at least review the submissions and see if there is a snowball's chance in purgatory that an idea or a combination of ideas submitted should be sent to the National Academy still reviewing UA for all vehicles.
see http://www.trb.org/PolicyStudies/UnintendedAccelerationStudy.aspx
Here is a contact to whom I sent information:
email from:
"Louis J. Lanzerotti"
Thank you for your message, copied below.
I have placed it in our committee’s correspondence file, and have also sent to the members.
Sincerely,
Louis J. Lanzerotti
Dr. Louis J. Lanzerotti
ljl@ADM.NJIT.EDU
At what point do we cease "sampling" and decide that we have a probably result---that was my point.
How many times will you look in your pocket for your car keys, in other words, before you conclude they aren't in there?
The first time it happened I checked the floor mat which was firmly anchored, and the clearance between the gas pedal, floor and brake pedal.
I am aware that I sometimes have a "lazy" foot, big, Wide, lazy foot and sometimes the right side of my foot, not fully centered on the brake pedal, inadvertently depresses the gas pedal with a long deep stroke of the brake pedal. I consciously was careful that was not the case.
When I turned the car into the rental agency I advised them of the problem.
Recovery from a too-long coastdown fuel cut....?
But that said, I am not convinced there is no such thing as SUA, lest inaccurate presumptions are made on my stance.
There are a few of us here that have experience with software coding, technique, debugging, etc, and those of us seem to have an acceptance that the firmware might be at fault. In my case, could EASILY be at fault. Not only that, but the fault may be really hard to find/detect to the point that it may NEVER be found. Lets call "us" group "A".
Then we have group "B", those that have no background and experience with software coding.
Why is it, with group "B" that they are so unwilling, adamantly so, to accept the possibility we put forth..??
Is the general public so afraid of what might lurk behind that "software" current that they refuse to even peek behind the curtain...?
What I don't know can't hurt me...?
It that maybe why Toyota is so interested in proving otherwise, stearing the public "mind" from this being ever a minor possibility...?
I think humans can over-think the problem to the point where they might be pushing themselves into a fog created by their intelligence.
To say something 'may never be found' while believing it is actually there, is not at all scientific, it seems to me to be "faith-based".
it's like saying the glitch in the Prius computer is like god or something---ineffable, beyond comprehension, yet manifest in all things.
LOL! I simply cannot do that.
Perhaps there is a compromise, if everyone says "well, possible, but probably not"
No, background experience and knowledge.
Just in the past few weeks my team has had to rewrite a section of code due to random, once a month, failures, actual system lockup. After weeks of trying, exhaustively trying, to replicate the failure it was decided that it would be more productive to simply rewrite the code.
Only time will tell if the rewrite has solved the problem.
Then we have group "B", those that have no background and experience with software coding.
Why is it, with group "B" that they are so unwilling, adamantly so, to accept the possibility we put forth..??
Now, if that isn't an "over-generalization", then I don't know what is...
There are plenty of folks with technical backgrounds that simply apply the standards of their training and trade to UA. And, they walk away with the conclusion of...
Its possible, but I have seen no credible evidence to suggest it couldn't be human error or something else besides an "electronic" cause.
You (as are a couple of other posters here) are so far into (and have invested so much effort into) wanting to believe YOU know the cause that you can't see anything beyond it.
Most of us agree that its certainly possible, but the sheer number of events in relation to the number of "opportunities" weighs heavily against any such cause that may be electronically-related.
Even in Iowa, you may get bitten by a shark, but the odds are certainly against it...
That's the "long and short" of it in a nutshell...
Kernick, doesn't that mean anything to you?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I'm sure there are numerous cases where UA is human-error. Actually I got t-boned in Oct. by an 84-year old woman, who then sped away for 150 yards before crashing. So human error - yes.
Do I believe all UA is human error? NO. People can not mistake the brake and accelerator, at least those with normal senses, for an extended time. I believe many of these cases were not the 1-2 sec situations and then a crash. Human errors for a couple seconds - yes. Longer than that it's either fraud or a true problem. Was that cop who had UA long enough to call, committing fraud, before he decided to crash and kill himself and family? Do you think anyone who has UA is not after a few seconds going to look at their feet, or think to shift into N?
Well consider the SW errors in MS Windows of the past. Millions of people use the software for months, and then a few people note a problem. MS issues a patch. Did the problem show itself right away? No. Did the majority of people experience the error even though they're using the exact same product? No. Why? Becasue many hardware and software problems only occur when certain features or commands are called on in a certain sequence, or used at the same time. As I said before if the error is in the ECU and only triggered when (example) the traction control is triggered while under full-throttle, with the cruise control on, at a speed below 20 mph, or some other such combination, then, ...
unless you happen to drive in such a manner, you are not going to experience UA. The driver that did experience UA may not experience aUA again for a while or ever, unless they repeat that set of events.
If you don't play the strings in the right order at the right time, you're not playing the song. If you don't push the buttons on your microwave in the right order, you've got cold food. And if you're not aware of how many issues electronics can have when certain features are activated in a scenario the software isn't designed for, then you really don't have much of a basis which to comprehend the problems that do exist with many of our devices.
Again - if you want to take the position that our technology in computers or cars or any other similar device is near-perfect, then I challenge you to explain why every organization has large technical-help centers, IT departments, and write so many troubleshooting guides? Everything we develop has flaws.
Except that there are no instances or reports of it happening with manual transmissions. 20% of the Toyota fleet is simply returning no data, which wouldn't happen if human error were the only cause. Something else is at work here, though they have excluded the software. That means that it has to be the hardware. A short, corrosion, EM interference... the list is long, and that doesn't count simple crashes where the system hangs. My PC does this at least once a month.
My 99 Crown Vic that I'm currently driving just did it last month - the sensors went all weird when I put the key in (most of the error lights were suddenly on). I turned it off and on again and there's been no problem since. Just an odd electrical problem - probably due to the fact that it was crazy cold (coldest it's been in years that day - almost 20 degrees) that morning and some relay didn't trip properly. I've also had odd glitches over the years like hitting the cruise control and the entire car dying. (old Volvo), the door locks staying stuck down, and so on - odd stuff happens to cars all the time.
There's also group #3 - those who have never taken a statistics class and therefore lack the understanding of why it can't be solely human error. 20% of the (statistical sample) population simply doesn't return no data in such cases. Not unless there's a fundamental error in the initial hypothesis.
An interesting angle....
I wonder if UA incidents in other brands have also been exclusively in cars with automatics?
Or, is it just simple instinct to depress the clutch if UA is suspected?
Or, are drivers with 3 pedals in the floor much less likely to mistake one pedal for another?
Or, do we really know that NO UA incidents have been reported in cars without auto transmissions?
I wonder...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41537165/ns/business-bloomberg_businessweek/
If your next epicycle is that every Prius has its *very own* unidentifiable problem, I'm just gonna surrender on you like the French infantry and go home
Nobody seems to have found anything obvious, so that leaves a few critical things left, which are items like what happens if the stability control system freezes due to (insert external factor that's not Toyota's fault)? I know that on an Infiniti M45, when the ABS/stability/traction control system starts to develop problems (most will over time - it's a know defect), the car quickly becomes difficult to drive and does random things it shouldn't.
"Problem: Engine speed variations, engine ringing, poor driving behavior."
Since you can't have this integrated system on a manual vehicle, it's not put on. ABS and traction control are their own separate things that just work together.
I find that odd, with zero reports in manual vehicles.
Statistically speaking, there should be at least a few due to mis-identification of UA by drivers, even in manual vehicles.
After all, with so many claims of UA, does it really make any sense that, with the large overall number of manual transmission Toyotas in operation, not a single driver that has been involved in an accident (in a manual vehicle) hasn't made the claim of UA?
Again, statistically speaking, that's almost an impossibility.
Statistically speaking, there should be at least a few due to mis-identification of UA by drivers, even in manual vehicles.
Maybe that means something. Your second comment implies that those that drive manuals are from the same driver/car owner population distribution as those that drive automatics.
That may not be the case. Having to constantly work 3 pedals with both feet with a manual in traffic requires a somewhat different skill set than just mashing the accelerator. Those drivers that can or like to do that should probably be considered a subset of the overall general driving population.
Then you should advise a LOT of design engineers of that restriction, since its being done, PSM by Porsche at least since 2000.
Engine either destroyed itsself in which case replication is not possible or dealer service personell cannot reproduce the symptom.
In any case no "UA" to report.
And, while I agree with Mr_Shiftright's "instinctive" comments completely, that only resolves the issue of UA after the "event" has begun... It can still occur.
Speaking for me, I would report it the same as if it happened to me in an automatic, crash or no crash.
So, again, it begs the question... Why zero reports of UA in manual Toyota cars?
IMO, there are certainly enough folks out there willing to attempt a little "lite-extortion" by claiming it, even if it never really happened.
Therefore, I can only conclude...
1- The reports we are being shown have been refined, eliminating reports in some cases.
2- UA has occurred in manual vehicles and not been reported.
3- UA occurs only in Toyota products lines that only offer automatics.
4- No one has thought about filing a bogus report on a manual Toyota.
Once again, statistically speaking, if one considers the large base of manual transmission Toyota vehicles out there, its practically an impossibility that at least one driver/owner would not have claimed UA, regardless if it was actual or "made-up".
Frankly, I have been thinking about this for some time, but decided to wait until after the government's report was made public. If the researchers had indeed found something, then my thoughts in this regard would have meant nothing...
UA is UA, regardless if a crash occurs or not. And, your description IS UA!
You're simply attempting to modify the data shown to support your conclusion, which is no different that those making the vaccination/autism connections.
Re-defining the same event occuring in two different types of vehicles does nothing to support your case of possible UA.
You would NOT...!!
You represent yourself as being an experienced, competent, stick shift driver. In that case you would do EXACTLY as the clear majority of us would do, STAB the clutch to the fullest stroke the instant you realized the car was exceeding your speed or acceleration "target".
So why would YOU classify that as a UA, unintended acceleration...not a "simple", easily overcome, engine runaway...NON-EVENT..? Even more to the point, how, what would the dealer service "report" say..?
It is totally beyond my comprehension that anyone other than a person completely new to driving a stick shift would allow a runaway engine to remain in control of the drive train. Applying the clutch is simply too instinctive.
Have you ever taught anyone how to drive a stick shift..? In my experience the only problem they have is how to release the clutch, coordinate, clutch and gas, and often brake, clutch and gas.
If I'm driving an automatic and the engine revs out of control, and I then shift to neutral.... That's NOT UA?
If that's your definition, then there are a helluva lot less cases of UA INSTANTLY!
Again, you are simply attempting to try to define the "event" so that it backs your pre-determined conclusion.
No more, no less....
According to you, this link refers to an event that you would not consider UA...
http://www.leftlanenews.com/toyota-avalon-displays-unintended-acceleration-witho- - ut-floor-mat.html
the difference with those UAs though, is that in all cases the driver simply taps the brake pedal or the cruise 'set' button and that's the end of it.
So when the car crashes in a UA, the presumption is that it's something more sinister, some "defeat" of all the fail-safe systems.
Which of course, at this point it time seems to be an unprovable assumption.
Anyway, I'm certain that runaway cruise control problems are real and documented (and can be replicated, by the way).
The engine/transaxle ECU firmware might have been "live-locked", as I proposed, in the CC "accel" mode or the extraordinary opposing torque on the drum clutch(es) gear teeth was simply too great for the return spring to overcome.
In any case, much like the instinctive application of the clutch in the case of a runaway engine it just seems to me that shifting into neutral would have been too obvious a solution, approaching instinctive, for Saylor to have not used it.
But no, again. If you successfully overcame a runaway engine by simply shifting into neutral I can't see ANYONE classifying that as a UA...
Ask around.
Now...factor in a panic situation, and that instinct (even if elusively present under normal circumstances) is not even on the same planet thinking of purposefully putting it into neutral, the way a manual driver would push in the clutch.
This particular aspect of the topic of UA is just such a no-brainer it doesn't really deserve any debate time whatsoever.
During the second event there was clearly enough time for the brother-in-law to make that 911 call. Initial panic, sure, but even in a panic the extended period of the UA would have given lots of time for other driver's, if not Saylor himself, to be making suggestions.
And how was the initial UA recovery accomplished...?
Do we even know what was responsible for the first UA? I thought it was determined it was the 2nd set of mats in the way. If not, a rational and capable thinking person (cop or not, they're not rocket scientists) would not risk starting out again until the cause of the original UA had been determined and verified.
I am having such a déjà vu here as these debates have gone in the exact same circles in this and other Toyota threads numerous times before.
At one time or other I am sure I have shifted into neutral successfully in every(automatic) car I have owned. More than once at highway cruising speed. Never a problem. I have never had occasion to try it at WOT though.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
And I agree, given the seriously life threatening event from the initial UA it seems really improbable that Saylor would pull back out onto the highway without being satisfied that he had or could overcome whatever caused the initial UA.
Then of course he was able to use the brakes the first time. But on the other hand he just couldn't have missed the smoke rolling out from the front brakes and would know that was no longer a resource.
2) And even if they did consider the possibility of the firmware "live-lock" preventing the shift into neutral just who and how would they go about trouble-shooting the machine language code, or even finding undocumented faults in the computer itself.
Not to consider the possibility that the code NASA was given had already been corrected.
You must really love conspiracy theories...
Could that be the case?
Of course, but it certainly doesn't explain the huge decrease in complaints since the pedal mechanisms "fix" was implemented.
No doubt, you may think the the dealers reflashed the ECM or some such nonsense when the cars were retrofitted with the new pedals.
The the problem migrates into 2 new ones...
1- Not every Toyota has been through the retrofit. No recalls of that magnitude reach 100%.
2- If that were the case, does anyone really think millions of reflashed ecm's were done and no one thought to mention it to the news media, NHTSA or the NASA researchers? Could any effort of that magnitude simply be "hiding in plain sight?"
Houdini is dead-on when he says we've been here many times...
This conversation just goes round and round, always ending back where it started.
If you believe UA happened, no amount of testing, evidence or testimony will change it.
If you're like most of the rest of us, you want to see something more than anecdotal evidence. Again, this is EXACTLY the scenario that you find in the vaccination/autism argument.
But we're still left with three instances that appear, on a deeper analysis, to not fit those explanations.
And no, I don't expect that any fixes were applied to the source code pre-NASA would have been propagated to the field in any sort of "hurry up" fashion.
No, it's just that I do have first hand experience with Toyota (Lexus) doing a secret re-flash in order an adverse court decesion and thus likely to avoid bad publicity. I might also be a bit more familier with the Japanese culture in this vein than others.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
So, now we are down to 3 cases out of.... how many Toyotas are suspect? 8 million or so?
No doubt more deaths are caused in the same vehicle population by broken tie-rod ends, etc. than UA.
It would seem, then, that a great deal of resources has been expended over virtually a non-existent issue.
Indeed, we should be far more concerned by the acknowledged (finally, after over 4 years of denial) BMW high-pressure-fuel-pump failures. At least those failures (which can be just as dangerous as any UA) have been duplicated time and time again.
UA hardly seemed worth the effort.
The driver was able to reach the dealer, place the vehicle into neutral, and allow it to continue operating at wide open throttle. The dealer sent out a tech who verified that the floor mat was removed, and pushing the gas pedal had no effect on the acceleration. The dealer was unable to stop the wide open throttle and was forced to shut the vehicle off.
This incident was apparently not the first for the driver, either, who had been to the dealer before about the problem. The first time the unintended acceleration occurred, the driver was able to slow the vehicle with the brakes and switch the vehicle into neutral – where the engine continued to hit maximum rpms. At the time of the first incident, dealer diagnostics revealed no problems in the computer.
The dealer eventually offered to replace the throttle body, accelerator pedal and associated sensors free of charge for the driver after the second incident.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/toyota-avalon-displays-unintended-acceleration-witho- - ut-floor-mat.html