Video: Have Cars Become Too Smart?

is it just me or is this a correlation with a dumbing down on drivers abilities (road safety) also.

Electronic control, electric control, hydraulic control, and mechanical controls all fail. All you seem to have identified ( in particular with your example of putting oil on a mechanical control system) is that the populations has falling very far behind in their understanding of the operation and maintenance of systems, and to a lesser degree probably the proper design of the control system. It is not that one control is necessarily better, but that many people lack sufficient knowledge of the control systems. In the case of going back to analog systems. I am sure my grandfather prefers mechanical-hydraulic control systems as this was the new technology he grew up with as a child, and his father probably preferred direct mechanical control systems (Levers, Reins, etc..). It does seem that the recent technological advancements have greatly outpaced our societies lower class maintenance personnels and common hobbyists capacity to learn and keep pace, or maybe there is just less interest in learning. At one time car technologies were considered fairly advanced and it took the cream of our technical society to design, construct and repair cars, then mass production and static technological development for amny years made it fairly commonplace for a large cross-section of society incapable of high intellectual pursuits to take on the repair roles. Competition and advancements in technology have again driven the technical skill levels up to a state where a high school diploma and a whole lot of shop class may not be quite sufficient any more. Maybe we need to start cross training so there is some understanding of advanced technologies amongst the group of people we will be expecting to work on such things as our cars that could readily be implemented into our every day lives in such things as cars.

Oh and believe me the engineers who design the hardware learn analog before they learn digital, analog is the rudimentary introductory training since the theory and applications have become relatively mundane and well establish over the past 2 centuries (and is necessary to understand how the electronics can work in something that appears similar to a pure digital data stream). The programmers generally don't understand digital electronic anymore than analog electronics, they understand a how to organize commands in a coding language (that is neither digital or analog) but rather something allowing people correlate something similar to our language to a control command for a electronic system.

"electronics are infallible, despite the overwhelming evidence around us that we interact with daily that continually shows that electronics are very fallible, and once again its proving that its a bad idea to rely on full electronic control when its not actually necessary or needed." Succinctly stated, tcmtech! It seems there is fatal attraction to technology by auto and aviation designers as the electric systems offer unbelievable economic advantages, knowing fully well software bugs will arise and cannot be totally removed. Bugs are sections of code that start doing something different to what the programmer intended, usually when the code has to deal with circumstances the programmer didn't anticipate. All software is susceptible to bugs, so it must be tested under as many different circumstances as possible. Ideally, the bugs get discovered at this time and are removed before the software is actually used. This is very difficult in complex systems like aircraft because the number of possible scenarios - such as different combinations of air densities, engine temperatures and specific aerodynamics - is huge. Boeing's new 787 will have three on board computer networks, one for flight control, one for passenger Internet access and one for airline information. Because this is the first time that passengers will have access to a network within an aircraft, the Federal Aviation Administration ruled last month that Boeing must design the networks to "prevent all inadvertent or malicious changes". Boeing plans to do this by keeping the three networks physically separate and installing software controls that stop a passenger wirelessly accessing the flight systems. That may not be enough, however. Physical separation may be good,but how to test these software controls and guarantee them to be error-free? The complexity added will only add to the burden of verifying the plane's software. Investigators have been researching the near-crash of an Airbus A320 jet operated by Lufthansa in 2008 for nearly two years. Germany's Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation on Thursday released the following findings. Flight Computer Caused Near Crash The cause of the incident was a quirk in the Airbus A320's flight computer. On the first near-landing, it switched to ground mode -- which, among other things, limits the power of the ailerons and restricts the pilots' power to move them. They had to look on powerlessly as the flight computer took control and put the plane at the mercy of the storm. The cause of the incident was a quirk in the Airbus A320's flight computer. On the first near-landing, it switched to ground mode -- which, among other things, limits the power of the ailerons and restricts the pilots' power to move them. They had to look on powerlessly as the flight computer took control and put the plane at the mercy of the storm. Look at the case of Air France Flight 447 which vanished near Brazil during Feb 09. Ice built up and knocked out Pitot probe which feeds relative air speed causing turmoil in the flight computer and causing failure one after another, the autopilot, the automatic engine control system, and the flight computers, totally crippling the air craft. Computers on board aircraft have made flying safer, but when they encounter errors they can create turmoil. Engineers are pressing ahead with the automation of aircraft, but efforts to computerize jets are going too far and that diminished human control could create dangerous situations.

Actually, bugs are not just a issue for software control systems, there are bugs inherent to all control systems when they are utilized in a manner in which they were not intended, even direct mechanical control systems. The history of aviation is full of designs that can demonstrate many mechanical control systems bugs. It is just that in the couse of about 125 years we worked through many of them, then hydraulics followed, so we worked through many of those control systems bugs. It is the evolution of better technologies. I suspect you really dont want to go back to traveling by a means where their have been no control systems bugs in the technologies history, because it is very hard to walk everywhere.

The other main advantage you should consider for use of electronic control is the reduction in size and weight, which can increase fuel economy and performance. It just takes a good system reveiw when newer technologies are implemented to work through major bugs. A big problem there is that means greater expense on testing, and as you can easily see on any street in NYC, many people of moderate means want the cheaper knock off of a good quality product so they can create the image of wealth without having wealth. Which leads to other companies copying the technologies cheaply, and more often then not they have many unaccounted flaws. this creates pressures for the leading companies to get new advances out the doors faster and cheaper, with less efforted testing regimes.

I must protest... anyone who has had Plantar Fascitis, or arthritis or corns or.... will tell you that there are bugs in pedestrian systems as well...

A friend of mine was talking to me on this subject just a couple days ago. Apparently there was a government study done that indicated it was cheaper to make cars safer than to make drivers safer...

All I can say short of going on a book writing rant is 'cheaper isn't better'

Absolutely. The only mechanics that can work on my car are specialists or the dealer. You can't even access the engine unless you have special tools. Basically, it's a huge pain in the a$$.

However, If you consider the tools you consider standard for a mechanic, those are all specialty tools meant for working on specific types of vehicles that over many years have become standard for those mechanics, and through many years of standardization and repetitive design processes by engineers many of the designs borrowed the components from previous designs to such a degree that some tools have become nearly universal, but still only for autmotive mechanics work. A standard sized spark plug socket (Yes I know there actually many standard sizes for these tools) is still used for a very specific application on long standing design concept for gasoline engines. also, If you have ever worked on a big block muscle car, pretty much any of them, you realize there have always been many cars where access can be severely limited to many components (and frequently back then this wasn't so much an use of space optimization consideration so much as a attempt to reuse the nearly the same body with a much large engine and related components). consider that for the first 1/4 of the history of the automobile essential nothing was consistent or standard from vehicle to vehicle and all had to have extremely exprensive maintenance performed much more frequently just to keep them operating at all. You can not totally redesign the automobile with out substantially changing the supporting services industries that provide tools, equipment and labor to maintain the vehicles. To minimize the impact to the supporting industries you actually need to minimize the changes to the product over very long periods so the knowledge required doesn't change substantially over many generations.

Marriage between Electronics and Machines seems to me very dangerous. About 2/3 years back there was heavy rains and flooding in city of Mumbai and many cars were stranded on the roads. The door locks of the some of the cars got jammed as they were controlled by electronic circuit. It resulted in deaths of such people who could not come out of the cars as they even could not break the window glasses of the doors. I carry a hammer in the car so that I can break open the glasses of the car doors so that I can come out safely.

I've nothing against intelligent cars in the right context E.G ABS which must have saved many lives. And the sooner whe have cars which won't tailgate the one in front the better.
I'm sure I've bored you all rigid before with tales of the stupid electronics on my Nissan Micra which won't let me lock the doors because it has decided I havn't turned the ignition off.
The big driver for most of this electronic crap is
a) It's cheap
b) I can give the customer the impression of sophistication.
Customers think they want clever, sophisticated and packed with gizmos when in reality they want user friendly and reliable.

Bloke at work just got a new (not brand new but still under warranty) BMW, he proudly parked it out front of the factory but every 5minutes the wretched burglar alarm was going off .
Del

Friend of mine bought a BMW, he had it for about 2 years and got rid of it........maintenance was too expensive.

Re: "...sure I've bored you all rigid before with tales of the stupid electronics on my Nissan Micra which won't let me lock the doors because it has decided I havn't turned the ignition off." . . . "No", but...

"Amen" to that ; toss kitty a herring...!

Bought me a Camry (yeah, just BEFORE the recalls).

Already sick of its obnoxious "beep-beep-beep-beeping" every time I lock and unlock it. "Hey" toyota ; I ain't deaf! I can hear the locks "Click" open and closed, I don't need you SINGING to me, telling all the neighbors (at 2am) that I'm either coming or going...!

And yer danged "opinions" need to be SCRAPPED!! When I reach out my door on a freezing cold morning to unlock my car, I WANT IT UNLOCKED!!!!!!! I am sick-and-tired now of trying to "Beat-the-Engineers-countdown"...!

You know; unlock the car with the clicker ... grab the lunch-sack, the briefcase, the laptop, the glasses, the cell-phone, and race out into the blizzard, carefully pulling the house door closed behind me... get to the car with right index finger pointing "UP" from under the laptop's handle [TO GRAB THE CAR DOOR HANDLE & OPEN THE CAR]... only to hear the car auto-freekin-matically RE-LOCK itself just as I'm reaching for it...!

Ya DANGED S.O.B.s ... !

Just another example of some larger body of power deciding to take control of an individual rather than figuring out how to empower the individual. The people that design this type of garbage think they know more about driving the car than the individual owner.

With Toyoda planed fix for uncontrolled acceleration with brake override of the throttle control. There will be a lot people causing rear end accidents that drives with the right foot on the accelerator petal and "hover" there left foot over the brake petal.

The two footed drivers can be seen most of the time as they drive down the road there brake lights flash on/off or stay on for a longer time with out them slowing down or for any other road or traffic conditions where you would need to brake.

With Toyoda fix as soon as the two footed driver press on the brake petal the auto will slow because of the override function. You will see them slowing suddenly then accelerate just as quick when they realize there foot is pressing the brake petal.

I have had a few friends that were two footed drivers why they drive that way. They have told me the feel safer in a emergency because they can get the brakes applied faster than moving there right foot to the brake petal. I have discussed with them about wearing out the brake pads earlier and overheating the brakes. Also the un-safe action in an emergency where they would slam the brake and accelerator petals at the same time by bracing themselves with both legs.

Charles

RIGHT ON! One Minor Solar flash away from every car in the world going nuts at the same time!

I have this to say.

Chris