Solving Toyota's Acceleration Problem

There hasn't been any mention of cruise control, it can take over, too.

I just loved the lady who slammed Toyota in the congressional hearing for blowing her complaint off. Let this be a lesson to the next pencil necked company man who thinks he can abuse the customer.

true that! ga

My thought is that the logical inputs to the computer(s) and resulting outputs rely on perfect machine and software integrity.

My home has had well over 100 appliance years of cpu controlled items. Twice (a vcr and a microwave oven) there has been a lockup condition. Both were restored by power cycling. I guess most on the thread will share the experience.

Only a minor worry with a microwave or vcr;but potentially lethal with a vehicle.

With 'fly by wire' aircraft treble redundancy is always required. Are there any on the thread who know if carmakers are that careful?

Or are they a mob of 1000,000,000 chamber Russian roulette players?

The one certainty is, if the car has a manual gearbox, the driver can put it in neutral and brake to a stop. Pity about the engine, but a life saver.

Who will guess that Toyota (and their competitors) are working night and day on that line?

You say: " The one certainty is, if the car has a manual gearbox, the driver can put it in neutral and brake to a stop."

Are there any cars with automatic transmissions that restrict you from moving to neutral while driving? I can't think of any?

Hi JBTardis,

The lady who enjoyed spontaneous slowing from 100mph and survived, recounted trying all automatic transmission positions, including reverse, without effect.

My explanation is the auto gearshift flew by wire too, do you have another explanation?

The manual box with a purely mechanical control would bypass the latched up computer.

My view is that system architecture, not software, must be the first focus of any remedy.

I wondered about that, too. It would be difficult for her to remember if neutral worked, I'm sure. A runaway is a handful. Happened to me once, throttle return spring came off just as I had the car floored to pass....whoa. Somehow I got that car to stop, but it was scary. Do they still have driver's ed in schools? Lesson number one.

I do not know if the gearshift is electronic or not, that could certainly explain it. Another possibility is that the woman was mistaken. Did she put it in neutral and apply pressure to the brake pedal with the car continuing to accelerate or not slow down? That's really difficult for me believe (though not impossible). Could be that she put it in neutral, and the engine kept going and only assumed that it had no effect or that she's lying. I think both of those scenarios are just as likely as any.

You say: "system architecture, not software, must be the first focus of any remedy"

I agree.

Try turning off the key.

There is no such thing as certainty. We live in a quantum multiverse, and probability rules. Therefore, for any given event, the probability that it will occur will never meet zero or one hundred. There is even a probability that what you think is historical fact, did not actually occur.

We are just assuming this is a manufacturer error, when there is a small possibility that it is not. On another note, there are people serving jail sentences who claim their throttles stuck open and the courts didn't believe. Do you think their cases should all be reviewed?

I definitely believe that there is a strong case to be made that Toyota is under attack, in order for other car companies to compete. Because what is really under attack is the beauty and elegance of the Toyota Production System. This is why I said that Toyota will get this one right, and put it to rest, forever.

If the choice of computer were susceptible to a guy on the roadside with a raygun, causing interference, then Toyota will put radiation hardened and shielded military grade computers in. They will not lose this war. We have much to learn from the TPS in ways that have not been tested. I look forward to watching with interest.

Chris

Chris, I agree with your comments here. In one aspect I do think that the government and most of the media which supports our current regime are focusing on Toyota to distract attention from our own current Auto Mfg. problems.

Also, I too am a believer and supporter of the Toyota Production System.

Best Regards,

ToolmakerG

Chris & ToolmakerG,

I agree that the timing of the American automotive collapse has augmented public interest in the Toyota acceleration problem. Now this might be my preferred naivety coloring my opinion but I do not think the government and the press are pushing this with a goal to prop up or support the American automotive corporations. That's just a little too Machiavellian for me.

machiavellian or not, the factors are unbalanced for a simple 'manufacturer error' answer to all the kerfuffle. Timing and several other factors indicate that there are dark forces afoot, and the goal is to simply tarnish the image of the TPS. imho.

but I acknowledge your opinion and concede that there might not be a conspiracy. Any good conspiracy is one that can't be proven.

The big 3 have not been renowned for their business niceties to other mfgs, not to mention other growing auto producing nations who sometimes show no hesitation to take things to the dark side.

Chris

Don't forget Toyota knew about this for over three years and yet did nothing about it. Since they are supposed to be known for their safety and QC control I say for the past couple of years they have been using a lot of smoke and mirrors hiding a whole lot of problems from the world. Just today Toyota had to make a public apology to China who's next?

If this was an American company, now after all the bail outs, all CEO's for that big three would find their collective heads on the chopping block. The public just won't stand for it any more.

I don't get the "floor mat theory." Like the floor mat reaches up and pulls the accelerator pedal down unexpectedly??

But then I've heard other engineering and geological "forensics" that sound weird.

After watching the ABC special "investigative" report I wondered if the pedal had been changed on that particular vehicle and EXACTLY what this mechanic did to fool the computer, and a single circuit.

WHERE IS THE INFO?

Funny you should own a 2000 Tacoma. I had a 2000 step side Tacoma with a manual transmission and the V6. I added a TRD (Eaton) supercharger and had it just the way I wanted it.....until the frame rotted out and Toyota purchased it from me. I replaced it with a new 2009 Tacoma with V6 and 6 speed manual. The new truck is considerably larger and gets much poorer gas mileage. It is currently on its 3rd radio and is under a recall for defective floor mats. Given the opportunity, I'd rather have the 2000 back so I could weld the frame back together. By the way, the supercharger is for sale. As to your suggestion, I don't think most drivers would think of using a kill switch. They are second nature to race car drivers a but not the kind of control the average driver would think of using in time.

Ya,... every machine in a factory has a kill switch, and we don't think less of of the machine. So the notion that having a kill switch in a car gives the notion that the vehicle is 'less safe' is just bs. This is the 21st century, and auto-mobiles have been around for 125 years, so we need to put an end to certain myths relating to them.

Put a kill switch in. big friggin red knob. then you can hit it without spilling your coffee, and keep on texting, and the kids in the back of the minivan won't even know there was a problem til the towtruck arrives, that was called by OnStar when the switch was hit.

GA

Chris

Bingo

One thing I have not seen considered is that the problem is not the hardware or software but the quality of the voltage suppling the electrinic control package for the engine, transmission and brakes. While the controls work correctly under test and most situations, I have over the last 30 years seen countless times when accurate hardware and software have shown erratic and "ghost" (not reproduceable) problems when a switching voltage transient attacks and or damages a chip current path causing gates to reverse their decisions.

When this happens in electronics the reation can be mild or catastrophic, with many different types of erratic behaviors occuring.

The switching actions in turning items like headlights, brakelights, and electronicly controled relays and switches can and does cause transient voltages which could cause the type of actions these cars are showing.

Have a look at the signal effect between mobile phone towers and the EMS. Look at the location of the reported areas of each incident and correlate to location of any transmitter towers in the vicinity.

KennyT

Interesting. Even more so if discovered that the acceleration system is partially wireless.

Similar problem occured during the development of ABS brakes many years ago. It is worth a check on the EMS electronics of the effected vehicles.

KennyT.

Here's what an engineer at CTS had to say

I don't think it is anything to do with mechanical open throttle settings or temperature. As these are easily and continually tested. Approximately 20 years ago a company in England was paid to build a vehicle sized cabinet capable of throwing every type of electronic signal at all wavelengths at prototype vehicles to determine the effect on the electronic components employed within that vehicle. You would be surprised what the results where. This is where I think Toyota should look first. The EMS (engine management system) is now a very 'overtasked' piece of engineering.

KennyT

CTS is the company that builds the accelerator module for Toyota. The quote is from one of their engineers. The hysteresis he is referring to is an electronic multiple switching effect on the output. Depending on how the ems redunancy was configured the problem had to eventually start at the source. Whether internal or external forces were at play seems to be anybodys guess at the moment.

If the trouble prone accelerator unit technical, information by way of diagrams etc can be presented, the forum can discuss possible remedies.

Hope your inputs are needed.

My biggest problem with all the news reporting is that most reports leave the impression that there is nothing that the driver can do if the throttle gets stuck open.

I asked my daughters what they would do if that happened to them, my brother asked the same thing to his kids. They all passed by saying that they would shift out of drive or turn the ignition switch to the off position and not remove the key which would lock the ignition.

The news media should be doing a public service by interviewing the highway patrol or other experts on what can be done when faced with a failed throttle. But no. It is a better story if there is a totally helpless victim and a big bad company.

I remember that in 1967 Chevrolet had engine mounts that would fail and under the right conditions the engine would shift which could force the throttle open. The factory recall was not to replace the faulty engine mounts, but to install a cable (wire rope) from an exhaust manifold bolt and loop it around the upper suspension A-frame and back to the manifold on both sides.

Please don't let them turn off the ignition, because that will kill the power brakes and power sterring. I have drilled my family as follows:

If the engine decides to "run away" and braking does not stop it:

1. Shift into neutral (car will immediatley start slowing unless moving downhill).

2. Brake to slow to a safe margine with respect to other cars on the road.

3. Pick a safe spot to get out of traffic.

4. Steer and brake to get to a safe spot.

5. Turn off the ignition to stop the high RPM (hope that the engine was not destroyed, but don't worry about that!).

to woodward

the power steering is only needed when maneuvering,

the brakes though harder to push with no engine still work.

i know it probably wont help but if engine is running away if you disengange the engine it will without a load seize solid with a possible loud noise.

turning engine of would be my first choice as it is the cause of my problems

put hazards on, and all lights, head for side of road save braking until last moment.

servo will work on brakes for at least 3 pumps. so aim to apply brakes once car is at side of road.

get out of car and kick it

Dear Sir .

some solution can be of just doubling the COMPUTER control systems, same as it is appears in helicopters and airplanes.

two computers, that will control the engine systems (cheep and available)

two mechanical systems including doubling the brake systems ..(no any failure)

using springs to bring back the accelerating system. easier , and safe

using accelerating cables equiped with inside pipe made of "okolon" in order to reduce friction,

they must avoid the present banding , and sharp angels of the accelerating cable.(let the cables be longer and larger diameter ,

" invest more in the simplicity and you receive the safty you need".

their is a limmit you can save on matirials , the system just needs it for its safe operation

YOURS

J.Waldhorn

w.j.technologies.ltd@gmail.com

if throttle sticks open

WHY NOT TURN IGNITION OFF!!!!

dont take key out as it will lock steering, But why o why dont they just turn the engine off, then apply handbrake.

when vehicle stops, get it recovered to garage with fault present

SIMPLE

Keyless ignition system. Some tried turning off the engine only to have it accelerate.

Treble redundancy allows a vote for truth, dual redundancy a conservative stratagem.

In 1994 Blackpool's new roller coaster (then the world's tallest & fastest)had a colision on dual redundancy. It ran 'one loco in steam' after some months down, but next year was tripple radundant.

Several in this thread have recommended turning off the ignition. It's interesting to me how this may seem like an obvious thing to do, but isn't done or even thought of by someone is such a situation.

Most drivers don't get behind the wheel of a car and give their undivided attention to driving. So when something out of the ordinary occurs (stuck accelerator pedal, blow out, etc.) they panic.

I work in the flight simulation. Pilots spend a great deal of time training for emergency situations. When one occurs the pilot's reaction is almost second nature. Unfortunately, drivers don't get that level of training and spend a lot of their concentration on things other than driving (i.e. cell phones, grooming, chatting with passengers).

Congress is working on it. When they solve runaway acceleration, maybe they can start working on runaway spending.

Yes. I have a theory.

Toyota has repeatedly tested their software and have found no problems. My guess is that they have reviewed the code as it was written.

Now, the dealerships have the capability to update the software contained in the vehicle's computer. What if they unknowingly possess code that has been maliciously altered. It could've been downloaded from a Toyota database that was hacked or their own database that was altered via the internet.

I am assuming that the same equipment they use to read the vehicle's data via the OBD port is also used to update the vehicle's software by rewriting the flash memory.

Now, suppose a mechanic routinely reads the vehicles data and without knowing, the equipment rewrites the vehicle's program and inserts malicious code that can cause unattended acceleration? A virus, if you will.

Every vehicle that undergoes an annual inspection has data downloaded by the mechanic via the OBD port as part of the inspection. what if this equipment was capable of rewriting the program contained in the vehicle's computer?

Has Toyota scrutinized the code contained on vehicle's that have a history of unattended acceleration?

This test would be an easy one. Simply, read the checksum of the code contained on the vehicle's computer and compare it to whatever the code is that should be on the vehicle. If the code has been altered in any way, the checksum will be different.

Some hackers have been clever enough to make a checksum identical to the previous checksum. I'll grant you that this is likely true only with a carefully targeted hack of the Toyota code, but even paranoids have real enemies.

Bwahahaha

Good point, Redfred. I suppose the checksum could be duplicated by writing the malicious code so that its checksum results in a value identical to the original.

After examining the hardware design of toyota's throttle-by-wire system, I am in agreement with their engineers that their design contains adequate fail-safe measures. How this communicates with the software is a matter of speculation because, without access to the code, I cannot rule out software.

Toyota is pretty tight-lipped regarding this. There are conspiracy theories circulating that Toyota has indeed pinpointed a flaw in the code and are updating it as part of the recall - a fix without accepting responsibility.

It is my understanding that EMI could not be a factor as all these "systems are stringently tested during design" although I have heard this from manufacturers before. so, I am not comfortable with ruling out EMI either.

Another possibility is that the thousands of unattended acceleration complaints are lies? Not likely.......

All Toyota has to do now is admit that there is indeed an unattended acceleration problem, begin thinking outside the box, step up to the plate ,and pinpoint the source(s) of this problem. We have seen sophisticated systems fail when a variety events occur at precisely the correct time, order and magnitude. The automobile is no exception.

My motorcycle has a "kill" switch. Most annoying when it is selected accidently and you go to start! It also has a fuel shutoff. Also annoying when you don't think about it until you are on the highway! Even my table saw has a big red "panic" button on the side for, well when you panic!

Gosh knows I would like to see a total re-design of automotive controls. Breathalyzer limiters are already in use as court mandated retrofits. "In car" cell phone dampers. Head tilt monitors to "wake people up", seat belts, particularly in the back where kids ride which MUST be clicked closed before you can start the car, backward facing rear seats, remote actuated speed limiters to reduce high speed chases and similar theft reduction technology, better lighting systems and heads up displays would address some of the needless death on the highways. You know, there are 118 people killed on US highways EVERY DAY! ONE HUNDRED and EIGHTEEN! EVERY DAY! Canada is in lockstep and in fact (possibly because of more severe weather conditions) is a little more dangerous to drive here.

I feel sorry for Mr. Toyoda who has become a lightning rod for the collective anger of a hundred and eighteen families every day who are touched by the crappy engineering which has resulted in so many needless deaths. What I truly hope will come from these congressional hearings is that Mr. Toyoda will take off his bean counter hat, put his engineering hat back on, and re-design a motor car which will reduce (eliminate?) the death toll which is a millstone around the neck of our collective "car culture".

Am I being imflamatory? I don't think so. This link shows how the death toll per population is better than it was, due largely to air bag technology, but it still has a long way to go. 2008 showed a five and a half percent increase, no doubt due to cell phone proliferation.

I bet a think tank like CR4 could come up with a lot of ideas, and right now, the auto makers are listening!

You say: " 2008 showed a five and a half percent increase, no doubt due to cell phone proliferation."

I agree cell phones are likely responsible for a great number of accidents and even deaths, but as cell phone use has progressively increasing, I would expect to see the death toll progressively increasing since the late 90s, but in the most recent 10 years (1998-2008) only 3 years showed an increase.

so avoid the accident of being Hispanic in Houston!

but seriously you are right. I have suggested something like that idea of limiters before, so you get my vote. _{^{(I'll try to dig up the older reference from 2006)}}

As far as Carleton U, maybe they should just ban cars...close the interesections on Bronson... make everyone take the Go train.. its much more peaceful

As for downtown.. its completely hopeless...close it all... make it like the sparks st. mall.

Chris

You state: "It is only in the last few years that the use of them really took off, right in lock-step with the death toll on the highways."

I agree that cell phone use may be more of a problem in the past few years. I think texting is much more widely utilized than it used to be. I still take issue with your statement regarding that trend being in lock-step with highway death tolls. Even in the past few years the death tolls do not show a down trend. Statistics can be misleading (or as you put it..a mugs game...i'm not sure what a mugs game is). But statistics can also be in error. If you look at the data in the link you provided (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year), the % change is incorrectly computed in the last two years. In year 2008, it appears that the calculation must have been the increase in actual deaths over the previous year (i.e. (year 2007 deaths - year 2008 deaths)*100/(year 2007 deaths) which equals 5.49%). But the % change for all years except 1975 (which was N/A), 2007 and 2008 the results is actually the percentage change in the fraction of the population that died. For year 2008, that would be an increase of 3.42% not %5.49%. I don't know what was used to come up with 2007s 3.85% decrease. It should either be a decrease of 3.71% (if comparing deaths) or a decrease of 3.22% (if comparing fraction of population).

If we plot the data for the change from year to year you can see for years 2007 and 2008 the difference that I pointed out (red line is where '07 and '08 are calculated the same way as all other years)(blue line is what's in the link). So while 2008 is still worse than 2007, it's not as bad.:

I think a more meaningful way to look at the trend is to view deaths as a percent of population:

This shows a continuing down trend in auto deaths as a percent of population with a few rises within the overall trend.

Please don't get me wrong, I do believe that cell phones are probably a significant factor, but I don't believe the data supports that the death trend is well correlated between increasing cell phone activity.

I am not entirely opposed to state (local or federal) intervening to protect me from others who driver irresponsibly. But what is the risk reduction vs. cost? While I sympathize with those injured or killed do to no fault of their own, is it good use of money to make vehicles so safe that no one is killed? While it's a noble goal, the costs to do so probably rise exponentially. Then what do we as a society do with all the people who can no longer afford to drive? For instance, if nothing was done by the government to improve highway/vehicle safety, then the death rate would be high. So cost to society (through taxes, fines, vehicle prices) would be close to zero and deaths would be high. If we go to the other extreme and force manufacturers to put in every known possible safety device that protects us from each other, ourselves, stupidity, acts of God, etc., then deaths would drop to zero, but the costs would be so high that no one could afford a car. Where is the happy middle ground? It seems to me that the most bang for the buck would be in cell phone damping and inhibiting alcohol/drug impaired individuals from driving.

well shure, if you want to get all scientific and such like.. (cue blonde miss america contestant)

I couldn't begin to figure it out... lol.. but a valiant effort. For myself.. I vote for less death on highways! ga

Chris,

Thanks. You said you will vote for less death on the highways...but are you willing to pay for it...and how much? What if the cost of a vehicle goes up 50% to make them safe? Is that worth it? And is there a more cost effective way to achieve the same reduction in deaths than making automobiles more complex? I don't know the answer.

Actually, you have touched a nerve with me on this point, because (call me a conspiracy theorist now) I firmly believe that the multi billion dollar insurance companies have a vested interest in the status quo, along with the police who rake in billions from tickets. (the establishment, not the individual officers, who may believe in their contribution thoroughly) I also believe that the large auto manufacturers do not commit to real change, because if they perfected the auto for accident free operation, they would lose significant income. a million accidents a year with fifty percent written off, means half a million cars to be profited from. accidents are money makers... its all explained very clearly by Zorg (Gary Oldman) in the movie "The Fifth Element"

Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg: Oh, Father, you're so wrong. Let me explain. Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos. Take this empty glass. Here it is, peaceful, serene and boring. But if it is... [pushes glass off table] destroyed... [robot cleaners move to clean broken glass] Look at all these little things. So busy now. Notice how each one is useful. What a lovely ballet ensues, so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people who'll be able to feed their children tonight so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny weeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain... of life. You see, Father, by creating a little destruction, I'm actually encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business. Cheers. [drinks water with cherry and starts to choke on cherry stuck in his throat]

There are better ways, but they are resisted. In this case, death and mayhem are tremendously profitable. You and I can both think of many improvements... ever wonder why things seem so... unchanging? Certain powerful elements in the market resist change.

Chris

You have quoted one my favorite movies, and an excellent part of the movie too.

I'm not sure about the conspiracy theories, but I do think that organizations and interaction of organizations (auto industry, government, insurance companies, etc.) tend to almost become self aware and work toward their own survival.

Do the heads of insurance companies sit around and actively pursue keeping things as they are so they can increase their profits? Most auto policies have a reduced rate for cars with air bags and anti lock brakes, good driver discounts, etc. Insurance companies are discouraging behaviour and vehicles that will require them to pay a claim.

I've read somewhere (on CR4?) that ticketing by police doesn't add revenue and most police departments consider it an annoyance. I don't know whether to believe that or not.

That being said, I used to work for a company who manufactured a sensor as a minor piece to go along with the primary product. The sensor is in a harsh environment and after about a year needs to be replaced. It was possible to make the sensor serviceable (allowing the customer to clean it), but the company chose not to do that. The sensors had a high profit margin and there was no requirement to have reusable sensors. The replacement sensor were not very expensive. I saw it as a waste and somewhat taking advantage of the customer. Perhaps that's why I'm not an executive.

a computer response that listen's for "Eject' Eject" Eject!"

I don't think that adding an additional kill or panic switch to the already available ignition switch, transmission neutral position and just the simple application of the brakes (all of which can, if utilized in time during a panic condition, stop the vehicle even in a full throttle condition) actually solves the problem. Adding an additional broad-spectrum disable is actually an admission that the problem cannot be solved. Toyota already fooled themselves once into thinking that they solved this acceleration problem with the floor mats. That was shameful enough. I don't see them surrendering to this engineering task by adding a new control switch and telling the public we have to learn how to properly use this new safety feature. To admit this kind of a defeat would be catastrophic to any sense of integrity for the company.

They must solve this by a real understanding of the root cause of these accelerations. I suspect that there is multiple causes to this problem with poorly designed floor mats and accelerator pedals being just a few of them.

Dear redfred,

its a machine...

machines fail...

training the operator is helpful, but vastly more expensive.

the kill switch is an effective immediate solution to the problem and requires very little training, and saves lives.

There are millions of kill switches installed in machinery all over the world, and nobody says that engineers don't understand the root cause of failure modes.

I think that is the point. You can't predict everything, but you have control (as much as possible) regardless.

keyswitches are complicated and not fast enough reacting in panic mode.

but mostly what you are saying is right. They must do the root cause analysis. but that does not change the kill switch effectiveness.

Chris

Chris,

My apologies, I did not mean at all that a panic or kill switch would not work. It most certainly would work. I applaud and approve any aftermarket installer or tinkerer to install a kill switch for anyone so hyped into excessive worry about an uncontrollable acceleration with a Toyota or any other manufacturer's car.

My point is that after Toyota found only one plausible reason for some of these acceleration incidents, they took the easy route of thinking that this solved this lethal problem. Toyota should not now take the next available easy solution of installing a kill switch now. They must do a very exhaustive search of all causes and solve them in reasonable fashions. With the possible exception of offering an interim temporary kill switch, Toyota must do a sound engineering design and a free retrofit recall to regain their good reputation.

Redfred

agreed.

If you want to stop any liquid fueld vehicle without damage the most effective way is to install a switch in the wire powering the fuel pump (they are all electric now) and provid a way to shut off the power to the pump. With mechanical or electronic controls the engine will not run without fuel!

I used to have two tanks on my truck with a mechanical fuel line valve under the seat (on the floor). I could turn it to either tank or in between where it would only alow the engine to run for 1/4 mile then shut down .

With all the redunduncies you can build in a voltage spike can apear as a failure or a software problem which could negate all the redunduncy you built in. It would operate similar to a virus causing lockup or erratic operation either permantly or intermittantly.

I like the term 'root cause analysis'. On one part, I see a lot of dummies who don't know to put a runaway vehicle in neutral. Who taught them to drive? On the other part I see auto makers putting such bells and whistles as keyless start/stop and wireless throttle control. I don't think I would buy a vehicle with either. Lose that fancy fob, and the car won't start for nobody. New car keys are expensive enough with alarm and latch controls, you can't copy that at the local hardware. The impulse to get fancier and fancier just runs up the cost, and makes the car unfixable by the average mechanic. The dealers just love that, don't they.

"I see a lot of dummies who don't know to put a runaway vehicle in neutral"

thats the nature of "Panic". Training is the only thing that even begins to help overcome it. Training is usually shorter rather than longer when it comes to drivers.

I am very grateful for having grown up on a farm and learned how to drive everything from lawn tractors to snowmobiles to big tractors with wagons, long before I had a driver's licence. It has saved me on the road numerous times, because my reflexes to being out of control were automatic, more or less. I also practice four wheels skids and donuts in the season's first snowfalls. just to re-train and re-orient my winter driving skills. One gets very complacent driving in summer, especially in Alberta where the roads are long and straight and high speeds are comfortable.

Chris

The Air Force called it "cause and effect" ..I call it "What caused that effect". It is a shame it all has to come down to shody something. Even my antique HD, with kickstart and mag, fails.....and it's mostly my fault, not the machine.

Good thought Chris, in Racing we call it "A thought as an action" Saved me too. Riding two wheels for 40 years ,,,,,,,,Whew, some call it butt puckering.

Have you seen the setup they are using? They have a sensor that detects how much a person is depressing the pedal. That transmits an electronic signal (via the computer) to the throttle and a servo actually determines the amount of fuel injected into the system.

Designers depend too much on computers in automobiles. This isn't a stealth bomber. Go back to the old way of having a cable actually do the work. Probably costs one tenth as much and is 10 times more durable.

First time I tore down an MC1 quadrajet (1982 Camaro) I said "what is this electric plug going to my carb". Little did I know it was a throttle position sensor (TPS). It worked under severe conditions and just failed when old. BUT i could see how that system could have failed and gone WFO. Even race cars have throttle cable failure, Kyle Petty's son for example. The modern convieniences all are, and have, issues. Mechanical or Electrical.

as thinkers we do our best....but sometimes it is not even close to enough

Hi Chrisg288, You raise many philosophical issues about the relationship of vendors to customers as well as quality and the idea of what is "perfect." I think that your postulate of negative value in the absence of continuous improvement is Genius. Thanks for posting this, I'd like to have a dialog on this with you, either off line, or as a separate thread. No point in hijacking this one. We've already chatted on another thread about value disciplines... and how you can't truly master more than one... Your ideals seem to insist that toyota master all three milo

Hi Chris

You have made a good point or better a few good points. Kudos for being able to see things in a different light or better perspective.

If systems would be treated like organisms and would indicate their flaws by either eating to much or not enough or blowing fuses and learning how to avoid that in the future, that would constitute a living organism.

Like many others before, I have, by instinct, relied on inspiration from nature when it comes to design and even choice of materials. Her perfection is based on complete chaos but is of such splendor and generosity that not even time seems to matter. In the short period of human race we have achieved huge advances but are still struggling to love our neighbor and to recognize that even a completely controlled tight nit family can explode out of nowhere.

It is a big cycle and if it concerns the function of a system, one has to strive to get away from the chaos and make it become at least 'predictable', for a certain time. Nature deals with this by always producing more off spring than is needed and leaving the weak bits out next time around.

As long as the bean counters rule the roost these little changes (evolution) stay unrecognized in the system. Only catastrophic failures will cause them to change their ways, for a short while. Because profit is at stake, it will never change not even after such a disaster. The golden calf will be danced around even after the cows have come home.

Nature is showing some major cancers, caused by humans, much more dangerous than a part in a car not doing what it is supposed to do. This little part is only the tip of the iceberg and if to perfect mechanical systems alone and not humanistic failings then we are doomed to be ruled by people or organizations who are only looking after the share holder. This is moving a bit off topic so I'll leave that for another time.

Very inspiring Chris! Thanks, Ky.

very thoughtful Ky.. (but then I knew that you were a very organic thinker.)

Cheers,

Chris

Chris,

A really impressive essay.

A lot of it I agree wholeheartedly with.

I don't share some of your vision. Physics dictates that I see "the forest from a different angle" to you. It's a given, in life. I still, nevertheless, admire your 'view'

Your Toyota example is interesting to me, and as you have used it, I must commend you read the book "Against All Odds", the story of the Toyoda Family's rise to prominence in Automotive manufacturing, from its beginnings, in the making of Looms.

I know you'll find it fascinating.

I've read much on the present woes of the said company, and can only sympathise with them. The problem shouldn't have arisen, but it did. Due, in most part, (imho) to lack of communication between the Company and it's suppliers. Mr Toyoda said that they'd fix it, and I believe him.

I have heard audio of a fatal crash involving the 'problem', perpetrated by those who would sensationalise the incident for their own celebrity. Disgusting. Whatever eventuates as the solution to the problem at the factory end, there exists a strategy the driver of a 'runaway car' can, and should, adopt, just as I've had to in years past. Turn off the ignition switch. The vehicle will coast to a stop. Braking will be restored due to the restoration of manifold vacuum. Steering doesn't lock if the key is not withdrawn from the mechanism. Call for assistance.

Not sure I share your enthusiasm for machines which will learn and evolve as we have. Having had to find solutions to 'computer errors' over the years and finding that they mostly were human 'typos', not sure we humans are really up to it, in the great scheme of things. Analogue or digital??? There is still a place for analogue (imho).

I'd be against a situation such as the 'cradle to grave approach' you propose from a maker of consumer products. Just me, I guess. The great diversity of personal needs being one of the stumbling blocks. Hard for me to see it being an economic success whist preserving the rights of the individual. To succeed, it must be an economic success, first of all. To not be, imposes the responsibility of care onto those who would supply only a 'service'. In my book, one should shoulder the responsibilities of life oneself, and teach the 'kinder' to perpetrate this. It's an extension of the 'your own backyard first' philosophy I'm constantly accused of preaching.

Having said all of that, I must question whether I've read the intent of you proposal correctly.

Back in 1985, when asked about what I thought the future of marine manufacturing was hereabouts, I publicly stated that to succeed, the boat manufacturers needed to emulate the auto industry. Produce a boat for a market, have a multiplicity of models for the market to aspire to, trade the older models back into the factory system and refurbish for resale. The idea was soundly rejected as unworkable.

The most successful and indeed the largest producer of motor 'yachts', here, now does exactly as I predicted.

In a 'think tank' exercise in 1999 I predicted that auto manufacturers would need to develop a lease based supply system for car 'ownership', so that they could remain in total control of the vehicle the whole of it's useful life.

This not really what I wanted to see happen, but merely thought that it would be the 'devil 'of neccessity.

Produce goods for a market, controll the servicing so as to keep them within the laws of pollutant emissions, and when the designed-in service life is reached, totally recycle the goods to new uses/products. The 'ownership' I proposed was that of an ongoing fixed periodical payment. Stop paying, lose the goods. Don't service the goods, loose 'em.

This, to me, smacks much of 'big brother' and doesn't sit well with me personally.

I'd find a way to beat the system. That's just me, I guess.

Anyway, 'nuff of that.

Good thinking, well written.

Cheers,

Stu

Thank you Stuey,

To answer a few questions; my thinking stems from a few sources.

I studied electronics and robotics back in the early 90's, and am a fan of Asimov, and have no problem thinking of robots as thinking learning entities in support of humans. (I've even written my own versions of the Asimov's 3 laws of robotics)

At any rate, I was quite fascinated by the concepts involved in programming automatons, embodied in the game of Life. (I had a book on it.. it had a BASIC program that you could type in and simulate. very informative) (I have taught myself VB over the years as a result of those beginnings)

Also having worked in Control systems for HVAC/PLC for 14 years, I did have to opportunity to study and think about control systems. Basically, we are on the verge of making smart cars with learning computers I'm quite certain it can happen, and Toyota has an opportunity to be the first...

As for the Whole Cost and Cradle to Grave approach, I agree with you that at first blush, the way I wrote it, does not clarify the freedoms involved. my bad.

but I think that such a paradigm can ONLY work in the context of a free market! Certainly the customers would have the opportunity to choose amongst different vendors. Let me ask a question. Once auto insurance became mandatory, do you feel better having the opportunity to choose amongst insurance vendors?... sure.. in a sickly kind of way..

I am just saying that if you extend the concept of 'customer satisfaction' and customer care, that you will end up with large vendors amalgamating a suite of products into their offerings. Do you have large companies now offering you credit along with your groceries? banks offering insurance? etc.. It is synergy at work. The end result with the automotive industry, is that if they could eliminate all the bad stuff, and consciously grow, that is where they would be ending up. imho.

First we have to eliminate the greed and other wastes, and have the spirit of customer satisfaction really take hold... then after Toyota has walked through this bed of coals, they will be reborn... and hopefully do it right.

I don't think it will be a bad thing. As for 'big brother'... we are a bit late. sorry.

Chris

OK! I see what you're smokin'.

I guess that being from the previous 'analog' generation and having seen and used perfect analog solutions to conundrums, goes part way to my distrust of really complex digital solutions.

I do agree that there are good digital solutions. I was dismayed to discover that the great push to digital was driven by the need to value add another income stream by most of those involved.

You see, I'm one of those who wants a telephone to 'just make phone calls'. Simple. Do it well. In transport, I need a comfy seat, quiet ride, not get wet when it rains, and not have to shovel the horsch. ( I do enjoy to go quickly). Simple. I enjoy simplicity. The perfect function of simplicity.

As for 'big brother'... we are a bit late.

You should come and live here. Follow me. I'll show you.

No! I'm no smarter than most. I've merely come to the realisation of what I want out of life and I'm 'very focussed', as they say in the classics.

FREEDOM is what's offered, and that's what I want for me and mine. Of course as an equal and opposite realm is RESPONSIBILITY. It's my firm contention that that's what's missing in most, today. I see it as a key tenet in security and fulfilment. Think about that.

First we have to eliminate the greed and other wastes

Absolutely. It begins with toilet training. And you're never to let up 'till you hit the grave. For me, If I hit the grave with the true love from my kids, and the respect of my peers, I'll have been supremely successful. It's NOT money.

www.storyofstuff.com should be compulsory viewing for all, on a regular basis from about 4yrs onward. Imho. ( you'll need 20 mins tho'). I'd consider starting a religion based on that little movie.

Gotta go,

Cheers Mate,

Stu

Hi Stuey,

I watched the whole presentation.. awesome... exactly what I meant by "Whole Cost" production. Every quantifiable and knowable resource that is consumed in production (or by the system) must be identified and paid for. An equation pivots on the equals sign. Any unidentified input is still and always a cost to that production. It will have to be paid eventually. Nothing is free. (sorry Milo, but i'm sure you will agree )

Chris

I attempted to watch video. I may go back and finish at some point. I suppose I got turned off at the start when she described government as being 'of the people, by the people and for the people' (which I don't disagree with) and then states that the government is supposed to take care of us. WHAT?!!! IMHO, no they aren't. We should be taking care of ourselves...

I also thinks she overstates some issues. For example the implication that we (where 'we' is used generically, but sort of means the US) are taking resources from other countries. While much of the raw resources and labor may come from other countries, how are we (the US or any other industrial country) taking them? By force? By deception? It's my understanding that there is trade between countries. If South Africa can sell it's material (steel is what I think she used regarding the $4.99 radio from Radio Shack) to another country for more money then more power to them. No one is forcing them to sell to the US or any other country.

Many resources are renewable (i.e. trees) and those that aren't do not necessarily disappear...but may become more expensive. For instance, the steel used in manufacturing an automobile originally comes from ore in a mine and eventually may end up in a junk yard. That doesn't mean the steel is forever lost. As iron ore becomes more expensive due to reduction in the supply of easily obtained iron, the use of recycled metals will become more economically feasible.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor or raping our planet and wasting resources at all. But what I'm not in favor of is lopsided generalized propaganda. I have commented on CR4 (I don't recall which thread though) about the idea of requiring suppliers to be responsible for disposal of their products (i.e. excess packaging from a widget could be returned to Walmart who would in turn return it to the widget manufacturer who could reuse it).

Yes you are correct. She did have a decidedly US based point of view. It was definitely a 'victim' oriented view of the government. (as in, they are doing it to us) I didn't comment on it because I occasionally think in similar terms . You are correct that there was glossing over at many points, such as renewable materials. As for third world 'taking', and here she was referencing Corporations as the guilty party, I think she was correct. At the end of the show, she mentions there are other organizations doing things differently, and that includes corporations.. (I think)

It is spin doctoring to make a point. After feeling the 'knife' go in for so long, in my life it actually feels okay with me to stick it to 'them'...lol Maybe this was made during the Bush/Cheney years... it is a solid reaction to that sickness really imho. I do not dispute your call for accuracy... but my overall gut reaction was "Yeah!"... but perhaps I'm too Hollywooded.

good call

Chris

Chris,

I want to commend you on your essay. Nice job.

I can understand the point of view of corporations taking what they can get. However, I don't think Exxon or other multi-national corps just row up to a country and start sucking the oil out from under the ground or grabbing whatever they can get their hands on. Do they? I don't doubt there is bribery and other unethical practices in going after resources. I don't condone such action. But is that the norm? For all the unethical cases we hear about, how many businesses are operating ethically? Is China being abused by our corporations setting up shop there? Seems like China is doing that to itself. One may argue that's it's because of all the consumers. But no one is forcing China to sell...as a matter of fact, the evidence indicates that China not suffering because of it.

I guess I just don't see a huge difference between corporation's bending the truth (deceit) to get ahead, government's bending the truth to hold onto their power, and those fighting for noble causes (how can anyone be against wanting to save our planet) bending the truth. To me it's all dishonest.

Near the end of part 1, in this post, I suggested an enclosed place for the vehicles to learn about driving..

it seems to be coming true.

http://www.newequipment.com/industry-trends/future-driverless-car-found-rosies-old-factory?NL=NED-003&Issue=NED-003_20170826_NED-003_173&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPG03000004774741&utm_campaign=21519&utm_medium=email&elq2=2275a21264174d73bfe64f44c2209624