Turning the X5 off in an Emergency

[JCL]

Originally Posted by X5rolls

I think this is good advice but I don't agree with the order you have, I think delaying putting it into neutral could cause the driver to crash.

Attempting to hit the brakes (some engines can easily over power the brakes or the brakes might not be in top order, they are hot already, or substantially worn) and steer to the side of the road could make you lose control.

I think it is up to the driver in any case. The problem with shifting while driving is you might not get neutral (see the example in this thread of the BMW that drove into a house, and then drove out of it. That was shifter confusion on the part of the driver).

Engines can not easily over power the brakes, if the brakes are functioning. We are talking about braking systems that are three to four times as powerful as engines. Simple check: How many seconds to stop from 60 mph? How much hp would you need to accelerate that quickly to 60? We have 1000 - 1200 hp braking systems, until they overheat. Yes, if the brakes fail at the same time as the accelerator fails, then all bets are off. I would agree that if you are travelling at 80+ mph, then the brakes may overheat so putting it in neutral first would be a good idea. But in traffic, or close quarters, the fastest way to get control is to apply the brakes.

[mbarrett635]

Originally Posted by RTC

"Drive-by-wire" is nothing new, it is already a couple of years old and millions of cars worldwide are using this. One of Toyota's suppliers apparently messed things up, so I wouldn't worry too much.
Never heard of a problem with a BMW regarding this.

My '96 850Ci is drive by wire; all the 8 series have been, since they were first developed in 1989. So were all the V12 seven series cars (-1988 on). Not a single incidence of unintended acceleration in any of them, that I've ever heard of.

[ABMW]

Originally Posted by mbarrett635

My '96 850Ci is drive by wire; all the 8 series have been, since they were first developed in 1989. So were all the V12 seven series cars (-1988 on). Not a single incidence of unintended acceleration in any of them, that I've ever heard of.

You said "that I've ever heard of" in your remarks above. That's a key statement.

You never heard of unintended Toyota accelerations until August when floor mats were recalled, despite rumblings about it since 2004.

Single individuals can only make so much noise, and "investigative reporters" on the nightly news are usually local in nature.

It took 400 complaints before Toyota informed the world there was an issue.

I don't know if 1989 model cars were Drive-by-wire (DBW) equipped, but things like the Internet have sped communication drastically. If there was a problem in 1989, one would have had to write the NHTSA a type written letter, on a type writer or by hand, look up the mailing address at a library or call information and document their complaint.

That's quite a bit of effort. How then would the next person who had such an incident know about it, back in 1989? They would likely have had to make a formal request for information, and would have had information send back to them via snail mail. Point being, times have changed.

Many similar issues may have taken place, without the knowledge of the public due to issues with the dissemination of information.

[ABMW]

Originally Posted by JCL

Why all the nationalistic fervour? Hasn't it been clearly established that the throttle component was built by CTS, an American company? In this case, the CTS plant it came from was in Canada. Regardless, the design was a Toyota design, not a CTS design. It would appear to be a design issue, not a manufacturing issue. CTS also makes these parts for many other vehicle manufacturers. I would be surprised if any automobile manufacturer made their own throttle pedal assemblies.

Now, to make it interesting, the CTS part has an apparent issue with a slow return, which is very different than a throttle application. CTS has a press release out which further clarifies the situation.

It is obvious that we still don't know what the cause is.

CTS News Release

There's no nationalistic favorism taking place. I clearly stated that if Airbus was having its parts made in the U.S., I would expect the French to monitor American workers.

It's obvious, there was no intent to show malice, but to demonstrate a point: when a company outsources a part, they have a duty to monitor the quality of that component. It appears that duty was violated.

I mentioned China, due to the fact that NPR reported last week the part was made in China and also used in one Ford Product.

If the gentleman who I listened to on NPR was incorrect, so be it, and I retract my statement about the country. Simply delete China and replace it with Canada. It makes no material difference to the meaning of my thread.

That's quite obvious, and it is beyond refute that I was not attempting to be nationalistic given that I mentioned Airbus monitoring American workers.

So, in all fairness, and respect, your question is out of line. But I will correct my thread, once I confirm the part was made in China and not Canada.

China is capable of making some of the most technologically advanced products in the world. I happen to be typing on one right now: My Macbook Pro.

[ABMW]

Originally Posted by London Lad

I don't think we are far away from black boxes in cars that store data for the previous few minutes on a rolling basis. In fact we may already have them. For instance Audi know if you have over revved a car during the running in period and the max speed it has travelled at and when.

Yes London Lad, this has been in place for some time. Chevy was the first, I believe. They installed a device that measured the last 7-seconds of a vehicle's speed, throttle position, and brake pedal position, prior the deployment of airbags.

It's protection against unnecessary litigation. I'm sure there will be case law over the next few years, that clearly defines what car company's can use and what they can't, in the case of such systems. It's a unique situation, in that the system is owned by the operator of the vehicle.

Legally, what takes place if he refuses to hand over the part of the vehicle? What if he destroys it instead? It's a question for another thread, but it's technology that is clearly on its way, in the not too distant future.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by ABMW

Legally, what takes place if he refuses to hand over the part of the vehicle? What if he destroys it instead?

I believe that is called destroying evidence. If person "A" stabs person "B" with a knife you own while in your house, I think you'd be in a lot of trouble if you destroyed the knife, since you "owned it."

While a car accident typically is not that extreme (although they often involve deaths), ownership does not give you a license to destroy relevant evidence.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by ABMW

There's no nationalistic favorism taking place. I clearly stated that if Airbus was having its parts made in the U.S., I would expect the French to monitor American workers.

It's obvious, there was no intent to show malice, but to demonstrate a point: when a company outsources a part, they have a duty to monitor the quality of that component. It appears that duty was violated.

I mentioned China, due to the fact that NPR reported last week the part was made in China and also used in one Ford Product.

If the gentleman who I listened to on NPR was incorrect, so be it, and I retract my statement about the country. Simply delete China and replace it with Canada. It makes no material difference to the meaning of my thread.

That's quite obvious, and it is beyond refute that I was not attempting to be nationalistic given that I mentioned Airbus monitoring American workers.

So, in all fairness, and respect, your question is out of line. But I will correct my thread, once I confirm the part was made in China and not Canada.

China is capable of making some of the most technologically advanced products in the world. I happen to be typing on one right now: My Macbook Pro.

I didn't say 'favourism', meaning special treatment. I said 'fervour', meaning ardour or zeal. Favourism puts a value judgement into the discussion, when I was simply asking why it mattered where the part was made.

I asked partly because the parts for most vehicles are made globally, and partly because we simply don't know what the problem is at this point.

[ard]

Originally Posted by Penguin

I believe that is called destroying evidence. If person "A" stabs person "B" with a knife you own while in your house, I think you'd be in a lot of trouble if you destroyed the knife, since you "owned it."

While a car accident typically is not that extreme (although they often involve deaths), ownership does not give you a license to destroy relevant evidence.

Although one might point out that it isn't 'evidence' until there is a 'crime'. And pressing a button to erase your on board data recorders after you have an accident might or might not be destroying evidence of a crime. Indeed the data you destroy might be what is needed to establish a crime occurred.

What if one purchased a 'flash' that actually re-wrote the software to eliminate any history recording? (Or at least the relevant portions) Surely we can decide how our own cars work, no? (Provided of course that said programing doesn't increase emissions.)

A

[mbarrett635]

Originally Posted by ABMW

You said "that I've ever heard of" in your remarks above. That's a key statement.

You never heard of unintended Toyota accelerations until August when floor mats were recalled, despite rumblings about it since 2004.

Single individuals can only make so much noise, and "investigative reporters" on the nightly news are usually local in nature.

It took 400 complaints before Toyota informed the world there was an issue.

I don't know if 1989 model cars were Drive-by-wire (DBW) equipped, but things like the Internet have sped communication drastically. If there was a problem in 1989, one would have had to write the NHTSA a type written letter, on a type writer or by hand, look up the mailing address at a library or call information and document their complaint.

That's quite a bit of effort. How then would the next person who had such an incident know about it, back in 1989? They would likely have had to make a formal request for information, and would have had information send back to them via snail mail. Point being, times have changed.

Many similar issues may have taken place, without the knowledge of the public due to issues with the dissemination of information.

I did qualify my remarks with "that I have heard of" because I cannot claim to be familiar with ever single car BMW has produced -- except that with regard to the 8ers, I've been actively involved in the 8 series world for the past nine years. Really actively involved, to include membership on the Board of Directors of the 8-Fest organization. Believe me, if there was ONE incident of unintended acceleration involving an 8 series car, I'd have heard of it.

And, yes, 1989 model BMWs were drive by wire equipped -- the V12 models. The 1988 750il was, as were all 8 series cars that came after beginning in 1990 (1991 in the US). In fact, BMW is the largest producer of V12 powered cars in the world (did you know that?), and they have all been drive by wire.

This internet thing, it just might catch on, you know? I know I've been using it to interact with other interested enthusiasts since at least 1989. While forums such as this one have gained in popularity and numbers in more recent years, the internet has been around a lot longer. Before these forums, there were email digests, and usenet groups. Information was available for those who sought it. The simple fact is that BMW drive by wire systems work as intended, without problems, and have for many, many years.

[London Lad]

Ahh...usenet.. :-) Those were the days