Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Unintended Acceleration - Find the Cause

1373840424346

Comments

  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    It should be remembered that Event Data Recorders are installed for the benefit of the manufacturer, not the owner. Indeed, their description is usually stuck in some nook in the back of the owner's manual, and then, its only mentioned there to avoid liability issues...

    Questions about all manufacturer's EDRs have been around for as long as EDRs have been around, so I'm sure there are unanswered questions regarding Toyota's as well.

    What I would like to see is NHTSA implement a standardization within EDRs so that one standard reader could access (not erase or modify, but just read) every manufacturer's EDR. And, indications are that we might be moving in that direction.

    From...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_data_recorder

    From 1998 to 2001, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) sponsored a working group specifically tasked with the study of EDRs. After years of evaluation, NHTSA released a formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2004. This notice declared NHTSA’s intent to standardize EDRs. It was not until August 2006 that NHTSA released its final ruling (49 CFR Part 563). The ruling was lengthy (207 pages), consisting of not only definitions and mandatory EDR standards, but also acted as a formal reply to the dozens of petitions received by NHTSA after the 2004 notice.

    Since there was already an overwhelming trend for voluntary EDR installation, the ruling did not require manufacturers to install EDRs in vehicles produced for North America. Based on its analysis, NHTSA estimated that by 2010, over 85% of vehicles would already have EDRs installed in them, but warned that if the trend did not continue, the agency would revisit their decision and possibly make installation a requirement.

    The mandate did, however, provide a minimum standard for the type of data that EDRs would be required to record: at least 15 types of crash data. Some of the required crash data include pre-crash speed, engine throttle, brake use, measured changes in forward velocity (Delta-V), driver safety belt use, airbag warning lamp status and airbag deployment times.

    In addition to the required data, NHTSA also set standards for 30 other types of data if EDRs were voluntarily configured to record them. For example, if a manufacturer configured an EDR to record engine RPM’s or ABS activity, then the EDR would have to record 5 seconds of those pre-crash data in half-second increments.

    Besides the requirement that all data be able to survive a 30 MPH barrier crash and be measured with defined precision, NHTSA also required that all manufacturers make their EDR data publicly available. As of October 2009, only General Motors, Ford and Daimler Chrysler had released their EDR data to be publicly read.

    In the August 2006 ruling, NHTSA set a time table for all vehicle manufacturers to be in compliance with the new EDR standards. The compliance date was originally set for all vehicles manufactured after September 1, 2010. NHTSA has since updated its ruling (49 CFR Part 563 Update) to give vehicle manufacturers until September 1, 2012 to be in compliance with the original ruling


    No doubt, an industry standard would have been very helpful in deciphering the Sikes' Prius episode.
  • frankok1frankok1 Member Posts: 56
    I agree - I was just pointing out that there was no proof for some of the 3000 Toyota complaints (some are very believable) that UA - with WOT - ever happened. That would show for sure what vehicles to invesigate more thoroughly. NASA selections weren't that great in my opinion.

    Example: the Haggerty case is discussed earlier in this forum but the parts are likely in Japan:
    Toyota Response: The Toyota dealer contacted Toyota’s regional representative in Caldwell, NJ who later inspected the vehicle, but did not provide details of this inspection to Haggerty. However, Toyota Motor Sales authorized replacement of the throttle body and accelerator pedal assemblies and sensors and paid for the $1700 repairs and rental car costs. The Toyota dealer told Haggerty that the vehicle’s computer had stored no error codes and they were unsure whether the repairs would fix the vehicle.

    Wonder if others including Ford's cruise control calamities stored error codes.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    In the Haggerty case is there any other viable theory outside the possiblity of a short in the hall effect sensor chip or chips...?

    As Dr. Gilbert proved, should the two sensor outputs short together in a certain way, to the 5 volt supply source, the short would not be detectable, and the 5 volts would indicate WOT.

    Any other theories, chime in, please.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    edited March 2011
    There was no one under the hood of any of these cars "shorting" sensors together.

    Don't underestimate the effect of Chaos in our world. Events do not occur in a linear, predictable fashion all the time. Maybe Toyota has a proble with cockroaches causing the shorts; which as we all know - cockroaches are almost impossible to detect. Why do spiders like Mazdas? :D

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/03/spider-infestation-- - - recall-web-mazda6-mazda/1

    This is just 1 extreme example why designs fail. I doubt any engineering team at Mazda would have listed "spiders" as a risk in their design. And if they had they would have been laughed-out of the exec. offices.
  • srs_49srs_49 Member Posts: 1,394
    "A 79-year old Queenstown man Wednesday morning drove into the side of the CVS Pharmacy in Chester three times. Richard Young was leaving the CVS on Piney Road in his new 2011 Ford F150 at about 9AM when he put the vehicle in drive instead of reverse..."

    Two things to note: An elderly driver, and a new vehicle.

    I didn't include the link because you need to be a subscriber to the paper to view.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    It looks like NASA couldn't find the "glitches" that they needed for their "IA - Intended Acceleration" either. I wonder if these guys could even get us back to the moon if we wanted to go again. :(

    http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2011-03-04-glory-satellite_N.htm
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    I wonder if these guys could even get us back to the moon if we wanted to go again.

    Probably not today.

    Then again, I doubt if any US company that contributed significantly to WWII production of arms could instantly restart churning out tanks, planes, ships...etc.

    Entering space is an extremely complicated function, and during the 1960's, the US pretty much gave NASA a single goal (take 3 ment to the moon and return them safely by 1970), and along with that, virtually unlimited resources to do that task.

    After that goal was accomplished, NASA's role became far more politically oriented and far less (specifically) task oriented (in other words, politicians liked NASA as long as it brought jobs/cash to their district).

    So, if the moon landing "task" was the equivalent of "Go to Sears and buy me a digital 1/2" drive torque wrench, 15-150 ft/lb. capacity with audible alarm", the post-moon-landing NASA has, in many ways become the "Go to the store and buy me a tool that does something that I might want to do sometime in the future...".

    In 1965, everyone knew and would agree what NASA's specific mission was... I doubt you would get anything even close to that today.
  • srs_49srs_49 Member Posts: 1,394
    That failed launch was due to the fairings on the Orbital Sciences (a private company) rocket failing to separate.

    Unfortunately, sometimes it just happens.
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    That failed launch was due to the fairings on the Orbital Sciences (a private company) rocket failing to separate.

    The difference between a rocket launch and an automobile....

    On a car, multiple failures can occur , yet one can still maneuver the car to the edge of the road for subsequent repairs.

    On a rocket, just about any failure can lead to disaster...
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    "..yet one can still maneuver..."

    No always, obviously.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    That failed launch was due to the fairings on the Orbital Sciences (a private company) rocket failing to separate.

    From the link: "The $424 million mission is managed by the NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.

    Friday's launch came after engineers spent more than a week troubleshooting a glitch that led to a last-minute scrub."

    To mean when you manage something, it means you're assuming responsibility for the design , risk analysis, and execution of the systems. This part of NASA doesn't sound like they are very competent these days.

    Unfortunately, sometimes it just happens.

    My point exactly about the feasibility of UA in more hastily developed and cheaper-sourced parts, of our personal vehicles.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    edited March 2011
    On a car, multiple failures can occur , yet one can still maneuver the car to the edge of the road for subsequent repairs.

    I would believe that of vehicles 20 years ago. Every device that is electronically controlled - has a computer chip, can lockup. If you tell me the circuits for the transmission, accelerator, and braking have electronic controls, and communicate with each other, and use software subroutines, for their DSC and TC systems, then you have a system interconnected that can lockup. Sure you might still have some control, but you'd still have the issue that if you can't get the car out of WOT then you really are hoping that you can bring the car to a stop before your brakes burn-up. Do you know how long your vehicle's brakes would last if your vehicle sped up to 90mph, and your 200hp engine continues to want to go. It's one thing to hold a car at a standstill while applying WOT, but the kinetic energy of a 3,500lb vehicle at 90 and accelerating, is a whole other matter.

    There's a challenge for someone. Take your Camry or Highlander out to an airstrip, get up to 70 mph as if on a highway, smash the gas to the floor, and then a few seconds later start braking and try to bring the vehicle to a stop. Don't let up on the gas at all, while trying to pull over and come to a stop. Report back what happens. Even try and shift your vehicle into N or R while going 90 and braking. Take someone along to film it; you can post a link; that'd be fun and informative to see.
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    There's a challenge for someone. Take your Camry or Highlander out to an airstrip, get up to 70 mph as if on a highway, smash the gas to the floor, and then a few seconds later start braking and try to bring the vehicle to a stop. Don't let up on the gas at all, while trying to pull over and come to a stop. Report back what happens. Even try and shift your vehicle into N or R while going 90 and braking. Take someone along to film it; you can post a link; that'd be fun and informative to see.

    Why?

    Edmunds already has done your test...

    http://www.edmunds.com/car-safety/could-you-please-stop.html

    From the link...

    The third test simulated a racing engine causing the car to speed out of control and the driver reacting by just hitting the brake pedal as hard as possible. Even though in this case the brakes had to overcome the motive force of the engine, they did. The car came to a halt in 148.8 feet, a distance that perhaps a large, heavy-duty pickup might make under normal maximum braking. With practice (this is, after all, a non-standard test), Josh was able to whittle this distance down to 129 feet. In other words, even if the driver of a runaway car (well, a Camry, anyway) doesn't think to put the transmission into neutral before hitting the brakes, it is still possible to stop the car within a reasonable distance if sufficient pedal force is applied.

    The take-away from this is that it is possible to stop a runaway car (or at least a Camry) even if the racing engine is left powering the drive wheels. But to do so takes maximum-effort braking. As this isn't something people practice, they may think they're hitting the brakes hard enough when they're not. To overcome the engine's force, you must stand on the brakes for all you're worth. It's actually worse to just continuously use the brakes moderately hard, as this will not cause the car to stop; instead, the brakes will quickly overheat and fade, becoming ineffective. Think of somebody riding their brakes as they descend a long, steep hill — the telltale smell of burning brakes (and the subsequent fading of their ability) is unmistakable.
  • frankok1frankok1 Member Posts: 56
    Edmunds' test: .....if sufficient pedal force is applied.

    ...To overcome the engine's force, you must stand on the brakes for all you're worth....


    Not all have the worth - the strength to do that including weak old farts especially female who hit the right pedal. Again I ask why are drivers mainly applying wrong pedals in Toyotas compared to others?

    From all the publicity, the Saylor crash, Gilbert's tests, NHTSA hearings and forcing mat recalls and EDR access out of Toyota - besides faster use of brake override, more people know to check those mats, drive with one foot, make sure they know how to get into neutral and don't pump the brakes.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    edited March 2011
    Um, because 60 mph is a lot different then someone trying to brake a car from 90mph. If poeople are on any sort of a highway we can assume they are at 60mph or more even before UA begins. If I'm cruising along at 70 - 75mph, in 2-3 seconds by the time I realize what's happening I'm near 90 mph. What's the difference in energy between 60mph and 90 mph?

    I had a Firebird Formula, and I know I could hold the car with the brakes while stopped, and giving it almost full throttle. But I don't have much faith that if that vehicle is at 110mph + the additional torque from a WOT, that the standard brakes on that car would have stopped the car before overheating the brakes. and then you're back to accelerating. It doesn't take much to overheat the few pounds of brake material you have at each wheel.

    I believe some of these crashes were over 100 mph, right? Run the test at those speeds.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    Your Firebird was RWD, you could have TREMENDOUS engine torque applied to the rear wheels while holding the car stationary via the front, primary, most "robust", braking.

    Not so easy with a FWD or F/awd wherein the engine will drive, directly DRIVE, the front wheels in oppostion to your primary braking resource.

    Then add in the momentum, inertia, of a car moving along at 90MPH...
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    As you often seem to do, you are once again adding assumptions to support your argument.... basically, pulling hypotheticals out of thin air.

    The car came to a halt in 148.8 feet, a distance that perhaps a large, heavy-duty pickup might make under normal maximum braking. With practice (this is, after all, a non-standard test), Josh was able to whittle this distance down to 129 feet. In other words, even if the driver of a runaway car (well, a Camry, anyway) doesn't think to put the transmission into neutral before hitting the brakes, it is still possible to stop the car within a reasonable distance if sufficient pedal force is applied.


    So, we know the stops were done multiple times... On the same car. Since there is no mention that pads/rotors were serviced/changed during the testing, there is no indication that the braking system was damaged in a way to prevent it from doing the same thing at a higher speed..... say, 90 MPH.

    Add to that, the increased forces working against a car's speed at 90 MPH .vs. 60 MPH...

    The onus is on you to prove the car wouldn't be stopped at a higher speed and that the Edmunds test doesn't apply.

    However, Frankok1 made an excellent point. For this to work, it means the driver must really exert a tremendous amount of force on the brake pedal, and keep it there until the car stops.

    I have personally been at the BMW Performance Center during braking demonstrations (showing the braking features to new owners) and seen drivers thinking they had full force on the pedal, when in fact they did not. Most were able to do so after a few tries, but I think its doubtful that many drivers would apply the necessary force in a panic situation to stop a runaway vehicle.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    "...I think its doubtful...necessary force.."

    That's why BA has been pretty much standard for a number of years now.

    Detect(***) when the driver is reacting to a panic situation and activate BA, Brake Assist, to apply FULL braking.

    Detect: Rapid foot movement from gas pedal to brake..? Initial rate of depression of the pedal..? Others...?

    But Edmunds or not, I'm still not buying into the idea that at 60MPH and WOT the brakes can bring a FWD vehicle to stop in anything like an reasonable distance in comparison to a normal stop with the engine at idle.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    How many times would Edmunds have to repeat the test before you believed it? Ten? Twenty? There should be some number which gives you confidence.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    To answer - a car going 90 mph has 225% of the energy of a car going 60 mph. A car going 120 mph has 400% of the energy of a car going 60 mph.

    Let me see proof, just as you guys have asked of us, that someone going 90 mph with the throttle held WO can bring a vehicle to a stop and then get out of it, without resorting to Evel Knievel type maneuvers or wearing a flak-jacket and all sorts of padding. The Edmunds test at 60 mph is not anywhere near the worst case of what people have experienced.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    edited March 2011
    How many times would Edmunds have to repeat the test before you believed it? Ten? Twenty?

    Why repeat it? it was shooting fish-in-a-barrel. Did Toyota sponsor it, and give you their prepped vehicle, too?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    from WIKIPEDIA:

    n, ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    Just my opinion here, but we have run this banner up and down the flagpole how many times now???

    In the end, even if you demonstrate clearly that the brakes on a Toyota would safely stop it at full throttle at 200 MPH, the counter argument you would most likely get would be .... "Yeah, but that assumes a completely functional braking system, and we all know that electronic UA would prohibit that from being the case...".

    Its impossible to have a reasonable discussion when reason is eliminated from that same discussion...
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    Why repeat it? it was shooting fish-in-a-barrel. Did Toyota sponsor it, and give you their prepped vehicle, too?

    Are you serious???
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Just my opinion here, but we have run this banner up and down the flagpole how many times now???

    So, we're moving from ad hominem to ad nauseum? :shades:
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    Somebody...QUICK!!!

    Give that gentleman a cigar!!!!

    No more calls, please.... We have a winner!
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Jedipedia: "Who's more foolish, the Fool, or the Fool who follows him?"
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    Convince me that the throttle was "wired" or mechanically blocked wide open and I'll believe. I just can't see a human driver doing something so un-natural as keeping one foot firmly on the gas pedal and the other, LEFT foot, firmly on the brakes.

    I'm pretty sure I couldn't do that without hours of repetitive practice to unlearn 50 years of driving history.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    "...electronic UA would prohibit.."

    I don't know that anyone has taken that position. Other than maybe the HSD system, I know I certainly haven't.

    And other than Sike's Prius none of the 5 well reported/covered UA incidents indicate a failure of braking.

    The Prius braking comes into question since frictional braking is completely disabled until/unless it is determined that regen braking is inadequate for the level of braking required.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I don't see any reason why Edmunds would not do precisely what it said it did--if anything, proving critics right about the car not being able to stop would be a far juicier story than proving them wrong.

    I don't know as anyone needs special training to stomp on two pedals at once...

    Let's face it guys---the attack on Toyota's UA is completely in shambles at this point. For every clay pigeon put up (so far) by critics, some tester or another has shot it down "in the real world".

    However, invisible targets have been elusive, I must admit.
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    edited March 2011
    Well, I would say thats's certainly been the implication, even if not stated specifically.

    If the demonstrations show that the car's brakes will repeatedly stop the car under full acceleration going 60MPH, there are only 2 options...

    1-The test is invalid, and at some point, the car's speed will overpower the brake's capability to stop it. That speed must be greater than 60MPH...is it 61MPH? 62MPH? 90MPH? 120MPH?

    2-The test is valid, and a car can be stopped effectively by using full braking force alone even under full acceleration.

    One can take the position that the tests Edumunds performed was "loaded" or somehow done incorrectly, or disagree that a car that could be stopped at 60MPH could also be stopped at 90MPH. Judging by the repeated braking events done in the Edmunds test, however, that's a real "stretch".

    Clearly, the burden of proof is on anyone making the claim the car being tested could overcome the full braking force at some speed above 60MPH.

    Adding in the fact that it takes a lot more energy to keep a car moving at 90MPH that it does at 60MPH, and you have physical laws working in conjunction with the driver to slow the car down.

    Stand behind a jet engine exhaust and one can get some idea of the resistance a car encounters at 90 MPH.

    That's why a car will get better MPG going 55 than 85.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,325
    Remember, these cars did not suddenly go from 50 mph to 90 mph in a split second. It takes time to get there and one has to assume that as soon as the car takes off, the driver is on the brakes (or the gas pedal).

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • frankok1frankok1 Member Posts: 56
    And other than Sike's Prius none of the 5 well reported/covered UA incidents indicate a failure of braking.

    I don't know for sure who originally made that statement but please provide the link to those five incidents.

    Thanks
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Safety Research probably has at least five.

    The link's storyline is "Another Attack of the Killer Floor Mats: Sarasota Edition".

    Discuss. :D
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    My thoughts...

    I pressed the brake pedal harder and the car continued to pull against the brakes. As I approached the end of Crockers Lake Blvd I had both feet on the brakes and the car was slowing, however the engine was “screaming” and the tachometer was approaching to “red-line”.

    Well, obviously something happened to this fellow.

    I do find the underlined section of the quote a bit strange, however. I've never seen a modern automatic transmission (at least, one in good working order) that would allow an engine to hit the rev-limiter while engaged and under "drag" (braking conditions).

    I mean, get into any car, put it in gear, hold the brakes securely and floor the gas. RPM's will definitely increase, but not to "red-line" levels... unless wheel spin is occuring.

    Now, it could be that its just the way the article is worded that creates the confusion for me. These reports all too often only hit the high spots, leaving the reader wondering about the details of the event.

    In the end, however, the article once again demonstrates that the car could be stopped with the vehicle's brakes, which is another piece of evidence supporting Edmund's "braking" test.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I thought it was interesting for being another example of someone with SUA who gets back in the car with the intention of continuing to drive it.

    But I'd hate sitting there waiting for a tow too....
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    edited March 2011
    Let's say that a given car, FWD, normally stops in 128 ft from 60 MPH, accelerator pedal fully released.

    What would be "your" guess of the increased distance it would take with the same engine operating at WOT previous to and during, throughout, the braking period...?

    That's what bothers me about the Edmunds test, the results are simply not within reason, does not compute.

    And just who was responsible for rebuilding that transaxle after it was used for that testing sequence, repetitively used...?

    That's the only thing that keeps me from trying the test myself, the transaxle in my '01 F/awd RX300, now at 80K, is already "suspect" for premature failure.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    1. Haggerty, who returned the car to the dealer while the engine was still in the "UA" state.
    2. Barnard, who drove the Saylor loaner car and had a UA due to the floor mat.
    3. Mrs. Smith, TN or TX, was able to get the UA car slow enough to pull off the road.
    4. Saylor.
    5. Sikes.
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    That's what bothers me about the Edmunds test, the results are simply not within reason, does not compute.

    Clearly, the implication is that the test was either rigged or not performed at all.

    Seems like an incredibly stupid thing for an entity like Edmunds to do, since it could be repeated at any time, and fairly easily.

    While most individuals don't have the free cash to toss around destroying car drive trains/braking systems, at an entity at Edmunds level, that factor doesn't really come into play.

    If Toyota thought it would help the PR and sales efforts, they would gladly give a dozen cars to any respected entity for testing, knowing full well the cars would be trashed.

    Automakers trash cars every day in safety tests...Its simply a costs of doing business...
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    edited March 2011
    "..increditably stupid for an entity like Edmunds..?

    "..If Toyota thought it would help the PR and sales efforts..."

    On the other hand what if Toyota did supply the car(s) for this testing and knew beforehand that the results would more likely than otherwise be adverse? Might they "rig" the cars with a simple brake over-ride, newly available firmware revision, "reflash", prior to handing them over. ..?

    You bet...!
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    edited March 2011
    Well, isn't that a strange turn of events. Turns out Edmunds is in my corner on this.

    Skip to 3:34 in the clip.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u53oRzkRIbY

    Not that the entire clip isn't worth watching, it most definitely is.
  • frankok1frankok1 Member Posts: 56
    That video must be the one I remembered when I commented about the difficulty of many to apply enough brake pedal force.

    I also wonder why Edmunds didn't use the 2009 Lexus ES350 they had to see how easy it is to get it in neutral with WOT at high speed. (best if it had been the same 2007 that Saylor had - the one that reached 120 mph with toasted brakes).

    Can the hosts ask the test driver Mr. Dan Edmunds?

    Does he have an '07 ES350 to test again?

    As an aside - report on two idiots with some good and idiotic comments, see:
    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/03/03/l-i-cops-clock-drag-racers-going-145-mph-- before-spectacular-crash/

    The Mitshuibishi driver stopped but the Neon couldn't.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Dismissing a source as fraudulent and then citing it in support is an illogical form of argumentation. If Edmunds is a cheat and in the pocket of Toyota, why would you trust anything we say, just because it seems to support your argument in another instance?

    And why couldn't someone in the forum turn the tables on you and say you are in the pocket of attorneys and are being paid to post here?

    That would probably insult you.

    So you see how all that leads nowhere.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    edited March 2011
    "..source as fraudulent.."

    Not at all, I simply presume that the video I referenced above was made prior to the Edmunds test that seemingly proved otherwise.

    So the "earlier"video simply stated, as would be expected, a reflection of my own feelings on the subject, remaining feelings in my case. Couldn't any one of us have made that statement made by Edmunds in the presumably earlier video..?

    But what if the car Toyota supplied was "rigged" via a reflash, no dishonesty involved on either part.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    Is the video showing a quick stop at WOT still available..?

    I couldn't find it via Google or Youtube searches.
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    edited March 2011
    Well, isn't that a strange turn of events. Turns out Edmunds is in my corner on this.

    Skip to 3:34 in the clip.


    Really???

    Exactly where did he say in the video that the brakes couldn't stop the car under WOT?

    He did state the obvious....It would take a longer distance to stop... Well, duh!

    Now, lets go back to the original article on the test Edmunds performed...

    As the first test was a standard stopping test, there was no drama — accelerate to 60 then mash the brake pedal. The stopping distance was 119.9 feet.

    The second test mimicked what anyone should do if their car's engine unexpectedly races and causes unintended acceleration. And that is to stay calm and quickly put the transmission into Neutral to disengage the racing engine from the drive wheels. This allows you to slow down and stop the car in a semi-normal fashion (albeit with the high-revving engine creating a harmless racket) as the brakes won't be fighting the motive force of a racing engine connected to the drive wheels. The stopping distance was, not surprisingly, essentially the same as the "normal" braking test — 120.5 feet.

    The third test simulated a racing engine causing the car to speed out of control and the driver reacting by just hitting the brake pedal as hard as possible. Even though in this case the brakes had to overcome the motive force of the engine, they did. The car came to a halt in 148.8 feet, a distance that perhaps a large, heavy-duty pickup might make under normal maximum braking. With practice (this is, after all, a non-standard test), Josh was able to whittle this distance down to 129 feet.

    In other words, even if the driver of a runaway car (well, a Camry, anyway) doesn't think to put the transmission into neutral before hitting the brakes, it is still possible to stop the car within a reasonable distance if sufficient pedal force is applied
    .

    Notice the embolden printed phrases.... Exactly what we would expect to see... a longer stopping distance under WOT, but still able to stop...more than once.

    I find the accusations of fraud hilarious.
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    "..increditably stupid for an entity like Edmunds..?

    "..If Toyota thought it would help the PR and sales efforts..."

    On the other hand what if Toyota did supply the car(s) for this testing and knew beforehand that the results would more likely than otherwise be adverse? Might they "rig" the cars with a simple brake over-ride, newly available firmware revision, "reflash", prior to handing them over. ..?

    You bet...!


    Reminds me of cold water fusion claims....

    Just as in that case, the test could easily be reproduced... Without Toyotas knowledge, since there are literally millions of cars to choose from...

    There's an abyss of a hole in your logic.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    "..He did state the obvious...It would take a longer distance to stop.."

    That's a pretty radical, extremely radical, simplification of what was actually said in the video.

    I made no accusations of fraud.

    I did question the accuracy of the Edmunds video indicating a fairly reasonable stopping distance at WOT. Absent having seen the video or know of the results I doubt if even you would be taking the stance that a FWD vehicle could stop with WOT in anything less than twice the normal distance.

    And lastly it is well known that Toyota is now providing brake over-ride firmware for ALL models. Did Edmunds check to be sure the car that they tested did or did not have the brake over-ride (TSD..?) update...?
  • frankok1frankok1 Member Posts: 56
    I would bet braking the pedal depressed 1/3'rd likely was done by EDMUND's test drivers to check override. They would have heard the engine go to idle.

    http://www.lexus.com/recall/
    What is the function of the "brake override system"?

    Although an owner might never experience its operation, this braking system enhancement will automatically reduce engine power when the brake pedal and accelerator pedal are applied simultaneously under certain driving conditions.

    The Brake Override System operates when these conditions are met:

    a) The throttle opening is greater than 1/3

    b) Vehicle speed is above 5 mph

    c) Brakes are applied firmly

    d) The accelerator pedal is applied before the brake pedal


    I understand wwest's concern as brake override was installed on recalled vehicles and read a report that you can get it for free on those not recalled if the computer had enough memory. It was installed on 2009 recalls but they do not say they will on this year's mat recall. I would insist on it.

    Also when you read reports that Toyota purchased suspect vehicles, and along with the floor mat official recall delays and refusal of access to EDR data at first - just makes you wonder.
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490

    On the other hand what if Toyota did supply the car(s) for this testing and knew beforehand that the results would more likely than otherwise be adverse? Might they "rig" the cars with a simple brake over-ride, newly available firmware revision, "reflash", prior to handing them over. ..?


    You call it what you like, but knowingly equipping the test vehicle with items that would directly affect the test results is FRAUD.

    You're just attempting to weasel out of the claims you made earlier.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    And lastly it is well known that Toyota is now providing brake over-ride firmware for ALL models. Did Edmunds check to be sure the car that they tested did or did not have the brake over-ride (TSD..?) update...?

    The answer for that is obvious. If it had the brake over-ride feature, all stopping distances would have been within a few feet of each other...virtually the same distance.
Sign In or Register to comment.