If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Consultants say interference in vehicle electronics is possible
"dr_jeff" > wrote in message ... > Obveeus wrote: >> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message >> ... >>> In article >, TE Cheah > >>> wrote: >>>> 15 yr ago I read of 1 car in USA using auto cruise control drtve >>>> past a truck using CB radio, this car @ once got unintended >>>> acceleration, this driver switched off his auto cruise & ended this >>>> problem. He told medias to warn users of auto cruise control >>>> against CB radios. >>> It's not just cruise control... there are a huge number of trucks out on >>> the road that are violating the FCC emission regulations by three orders >>> of magnitude. Consequently anything that isn't very carefully shielded >>> with proper grounding design can have serious problems. >> >> But if this was the real issue it would be much more easily detected and >> repeatable. > > Wow! People are using CB radios with 12,000 W of power. That would require > a 1000 AMP alternator just for the radio (12 V x 1000 A = 12,000 W). Note: > the FCC limit is 12 W and 3 orders of magnitude is 1000 (10 x 10 x 10). I wasn't addressing the reality of such a CB setup. I was addressing the larger implication of any external signal (CB, overhead power line, 'noise' from a failing alternator on a passing car, the Whimshurst static machine at the local highschool, etc...) effecting the Toyota electronics. While 'sun spots' might be random and unrepeatable events (though I doubt focused/isolated to 'aim' at only one vehicle) the rest of these external signal events are likely to be traceable/repeatable. Even beyond being repeatable/traceable, I would guess that Toyota has tested for such extreme external forces; if not before the product was ever released, then certainly by now with all the bad press. I still think that it (if there is a real problem) is far more likely to be an internal electronic issue that puts the computer controls into an unstable/unknown state. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Consultants say interference in vehicle electronics is possible
There is, or was, a guy in Alabama who built and sold some really super
duper CB radios.I heard a guy on the radio talking about that, about fifteen something years ago.I heard that if somebody owned one of those CB radios, all he would need to do is aim the antenna at whichever vehicle and turn up the power and that vehicle would grind to a Halt, fry the electronics, whatever. cuhulin |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Consultants say interference in vehicle electronics is possible
E. Meyer wrote:
> On 3/25/10 8:52 PM, in article > , "dr_jeff" > > wrote: >> I am not saying that there weren't any cars that used engine speed >> rather than vehicle speed, but I would think that there are few. > Every car I have owned, starting with the 1960 Chrysler Imperial, has been > equiped with cruise control. They are/were all designed to regulate vehicle > speed, not engine speed. I can't remember any instance of a system that > attempted to regulate engine speed, though I do remember some aftermarket > kits in the 60's & 70's that were simple mechanical throttle controls. No one was claiming any factory cruise control worked by keeping engine speed fixed. Aftermarket cruise controls had that option though, and for cars with standard transmission it was a reasonable choice to tap off the coil signal rather than affix magnets to the driveshaft. The only down- side was if you set the cruise to 60 in 5th gear, and resumed in 4th you'd be doing 70 or so, depending on gear ratios. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Consultants say interference in vehicle electronics ispossible
On 3/26/10 8:06 AM, in article ,
"Mark Olson" > wrote: > E. Meyer wrote: >> On 3/25/10 8:52 PM, in article >> , "dr_jeff" > >> wrote: > >>> I am not saying that there weren't any cars that used engine speed >>> rather than vehicle speed, but I would think that there are few. > >> Every car I have owned, starting with the 1960 Chrysler Imperial, has been >> equiped with cruise control. They are/were all designed to regulate vehicle >> speed, not engine speed. I can't remember any instance of a system that >> attempted to regulate engine speed, though I do remember some aftermarket >> kits in the 60's & 70's that were simple mechanical throttle controls. > > No one was claiming any factory cruise control worked by keeping engine > speed fixed. Aftermarket cruise controls had that option though, and for > cars with standard transmission it was a reasonable choice to tap off the > coil signal rather than affix magnets to the driveshaft. The only down- > side was if you set the cruise to 60 in 5th gear, and resumed in 4th you'd > be doing 70 or so, depending on gear ratios. > All the aftermarket kits (as well as factory add-on kits) I encountered for manual shift cars all passed the speedometer cable through the unit for speed sensing and added a second cut off to the clutch pedal (along with the brake pedal cut off present on automatic trans units). |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Consultants say interference in vehicle electronics is possible
E. Meyer wrote:
> On 3/26/10 8:06 AM, in article , > "Mark Olson" > wrote: > >> E. Meyer wrote: >>> On 3/25/10 8:52 PM, in article >>> , "dr_jeff" > >>> wrote: >>>> I am not saying that there weren't any cars that used engine speed >>>> rather than vehicle speed, but I would think that there are few. >>> Every car I have owned, starting with the 1960 Chrysler Imperial, has been >>> equiped with cruise control. They are/were all designed to regulate vehicle >>> speed, not engine speed. I can't remember any instance of a system that >>> attempted to regulate engine speed, though I do remember some aftermarket >>> kits in the 60's & 70's that were simple mechanical throttle controls. >> No one was claiming any factory cruise control worked by keeping engine >> speed fixed. Aftermarket cruise controls had that option though, and for >> cars with standard transmission it was a reasonable choice to tap off the >> coil signal rather than affix magnets to the driveshaft. The only down- >> side was if you set the cruise to 60 in 5th gear, and resumed in 4th you'd >> be doing 70 or so, depending on gear ratios. >> > All the aftermarket kits (as well as factory add-on kits) I encountered for > manual shift cars all passed the speedometer cable through the unit for > speed sensing and added a second cut off to the clutch pedal (along with the > brake pedal cut off present on automatic trans units). I installed two kits such as I described in 1981 Dodge Colts, I can't remember the brand name, they had the option of putting magnets on the driveshaft (axle shaft in a FWD car) or picking the signal off the coil. I've also installed an Audiovox CCS-100 cruise control in a motorcycle, and it has the option of picking the speed signal off the coil or fitting a magnetic pickup to a driveshaft (not on a motorcycle obviously). installed a similar kit in a motorcycle |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Consultants say interference in vehicle electronics ispossible
On 3/26/10 9:00 AM, in article ,
"Mark Olson" > wrote: > E. Meyer wrote: >> On 3/26/10 8:06 AM, in article , >> "Mark Olson" > wrote: >> >>> E. Meyer wrote: >>>> On 3/25/10 8:52 PM, in article >>>> , "dr_jeff" > >>>> wrote: >>>>> I am not saying that there weren't any cars that used engine speed >>>>> rather than vehicle speed, but I would think that there are few. >>>> Every car I have owned, starting with the 1960 Chrysler Imperial, has been >>>> equiped with cruise control. They are/were all designed to regulate >>>> vehicle >>>> speed, not engine speed. I can't remember any instance of a system that >>>> attempted to regulate engine speed, though I do remember some aftermarket >>>> kits in the 60's & 70's that were simple mechanical throttle controls. >>> No one was claiming any factory cruise control worked by keeping engine >>> speed fixed. Aftermarket cruise controls had that option though, and for >>> cars with standard transmission it was a reasonable choice to tap off the >>> coil signal rather than affix magnets to the driveshaft. The only down- >>> side was if you set the cruise to 60 in 5th gear, and resumed in 4th you'd >>> be doing 70 or so, depending on gear ratios. >>> >> All the aftermarket kits (as well as factory add-on kits) I encountered for >> manual shift cars all passed the speedometer cable through the unit for >> speed sensing and added a second cut off to the clutch pedal (along with the >> brake pedal cut off present on automatic trans units). > > I installed two kits such as I described in 1981 Dodge Colts, I can't remember > the brand name, they had the option of putting magnets on the driveshaft > (axle shaft in a FWD car) or picking the signal off the coil. I've also > installed an Audiovox CCS-100 cruise control in a motorcycle, and it has the > option of picking the speed signal off the coil or fitting a magnetic pickup > to a driveshaft (not on a motorcycle obviously). > > > installed a similar kit in a motorcycle You're about 15 years newer than my generation. I guess it all depends on when you did it. The most exciting ones were the Perfect Circle units in use in the 60's. The '60 Imperial and the '63 Olds both had the same unit. Mechanical throttle linkage & electronic servo, none of this wimpy vacuum stuff. Every once in a while it would have a brain fart and just slam the pedal to the floor. If you could get the edge of your shoe under it you could pull it back, but you had to be quick & since both of those cars had huge V8's, the other foot would be immediately firmly planted on the crappy drum brakes. Just to make it more fun, the cruise didn't have to be engaged for this "feature" to work. Definitely added a degree of excitement to driving. Reports of little old ladies plowing through the back of their garages prompted the first round of fail-safes and controls on these things. As far as I know now, the cruise functionality is handled by the ECM on pretty much all new cars, which leads us right back to software. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Consultants say interference in vehicle electronics is possible
Obveeus > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message ... >> In article >, TE Cheah > wrote: >>>15 yr ago I read of 1 car in USA using auto cruise control drtve >>>past a truck using CB radio, this car @ once got unintended >>>acceleration, this driver switched off his auto cruise & ended this >>>problem. He told medias to warn users of auto cruise control >>>against CB radios. >> >> It's not just cruise control... there are a huge number of trucks out on >> the road that are violating the FCC emission regulations by three orders >> of magnitude. Consequently anything that isn't very carefully shielded >> with proper grounding design can have serious problems. > >But if this was the real issue it would be much more easily detected and >repeatable. Yup. And because it's a serious and well-known issue, just about all cars sold in the US go through aggressive EMI testing. If only they would test other consumer products as well. Toyota is actually better about that than most manufacturers, although they issue a whole lot of warnings about not installing high power radio equipment in their cars and they won't provide support if you do. Contrast that with Ford, which has a whole support organization to help folks putting high power radio gear into fleet vehicles (mostly due to the police market). --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Consultants say interference in vehicle electronics is possible
dr_jeff > wrote:
>Wow! People are using CB radios with 12,000 W of power. That would >require a 1000 AMP alternator just for the radio (12 V x 1000 A = 12,000 >W). Note: the FCC limit is 12 W and 3 orders of magnitude is 1000 (10 x >10 x 10). Nope, FCC limit is FOUR watts. And I have sadly seen Alabama Pillboxes in the 6KW range. Really nasty output waveform too. And yes, they require a seperate alternator and aren't normally run off a 12V system. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Consultants say interference in vehicle electronics is possible
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Free Prescription Help Provided By American Consultants Rx | rm1p9dav[_2_] | Jeep | 0 | December 23rd 07 07:16 AM |
Not For Profit Assistance Provided By American Consultants Rx | efp90uzd | Saturn | 0 | November 15th 07 04:17 AM |
Not For Profit Assistance Provided By American Consultants Rx | t5oml3qe | Simulators | 0 | November 15th 07 03:16 AM |
Not For Profit Assistance Provided By American Consultants Rx | e5x9573c | Audi | 0 | November 14th 07 11:24 PM |
Free Discount Cards Provided By American Consultants Rx | t5oml3qe | 4x4 | 0 | November 5th 07 09:23 PM |