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.

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

On 3/25/10 8:52 PM, in article
, "dr_jeff" >
wrote:

> wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:28:15 -0500, dbu'' >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>> Maybe fifteen years ago, but EMI suppression has advanced since then in
>>> the automotive industry and many other industries too.
>> There was ONE model of cruise control I heard about that was
>> extra-fussy about CB Radio interference and IIRC it was OK with a 4
>> watt unit installed in the vehicle, but a 100 watt Linear amp in a
>> vehicle within a couple hundred feet could "jam" it.
>>
>> Those cruise control units were VERY primitive compared to anything on
>> the market today. The affected unit was made by ARA if I remember
>> correctly and the problem only occurred if using the engine speed
>> sensor option instead of the magnets on the driveshaft - and that was
>> closer to 20 or 25 years ago (very early 1980s - early Chevy Citation
>> comes to mind.
>
> Cruise control usually used vehicle speed rather than engine speed. If
> the car kicks in a lower gear (e.g., when going up hill), then the car
> would slow down to keep the engine speed constant.
>
> 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.
>
> Jeff

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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."

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."

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>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.

Hams (amateur radio operators) can legally run 1500 watts in the US.
And many do so using homebrew mobile installations. At this power
level if the installation is not done correctly the car electronics
can not only malfunction but be damaged.

But RF can be unpredictable and cause problems at low power also. I
have had my cruise control affected with as little as 5 watts when
using a VHF or UHF frequency (144, 220 or 440 MHz). Rerouting of
cables and/or better grounding usually fixed it.