Honda Car Forum

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:31:50 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <dMydnfIoiLx1VTnanZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> > Based on the frequency which this type of accident occurred with the
>> > 5000, something was wrong with it. Might have been 100% ergonomic but
>> > there was a problem and it wasn't unique to Audi. The shift interlock
>> > was a good solution.
>>
>> no it wasn't. the only way the engine can rev, outside of the throttle
>> being pressed, is by a malfunction in the idle control system. and a
>> shift interlock does damn-all to address this.
>
>If there was a problem with the car itself, and if many people were
>having the problem, and if it wasn't solely an Audi problem, then the
>potential for the problem is still there.
>
>That is, once the car is out of Park and into a gear, then the car could
>still accelerate unintendedly.
>
>So they mandate that the car can't go out of Park unless the brake pedal
>is pressed--and the problem went away completely??
>
>Which tells us that the problem wasn't the car at all, that there is no
>such thing as unintended acceleration. The problem is and always was
>idiots not operating the car correctly.

Which is why the interlock was a good solution.

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 15:21:27 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article <dMydnfIoiLx1VTnanZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Based on the frequency which this type of accident occurred with the
>>>> 5000, something was wrong with it. Might have been 100% ergonomic but
>>>> there was a problem and it wasn't unique to Audi. The shift interlock
>>>> was a good solution.
>>> no it wasn't. the only way the engine can rev, outside of the throttle
>>> being pressed, is by a malfunction in the idle control system. and a
>>> shift interlock does damn-all to address this.
>>
>> If there was a problem with the car itself, and if many people were
>> having the problem, and if it wasn't solely an Audi problem, then the
>> potential for the problem is still there.
>>
>> That is, once the car is out of Park and into a gear, then the car could
>> still accelerate unintendedly.
>>
>> So they mandate that the car can't go out of Park unless the brake pedal
>> is pressed--and the problem went away completely??
>>
>> Which tells us that the problem wasn't the car at all, that there is no
>> such thing as unintended acceleration. The problem is and always was
>> idiots not operating the car correctly.
>>
>
>indeed.
>
>unfortunately, this whole sorry episode is symptomatic of the way
>detroit "competes". when it does so, it's not by addressing product
>competence, it always does it politically. because it's cheaper.
>[while that buys time, ultimately, it will be the cancer that kills the
>us domestic vehicle manufacturing industry.]

Was the Audi 5000 a domestic product? I seem to recall that the
interlock appeared on all cars - foreign and domestic -
simultaneously.

>red rear turn signals? amber ones cost a little more, so a few bucks
>invested in lobbying ensures the nhtsa shut up and freeway fatalities
>caused by signaling confusion are quietly forgotten.

So you favor a government mandate on lens colors to protect idiots who
are easily confused by flashing lights?

>suv rollovers? simply lobby for financial relief using inflated costs of product
>redesign vs. the cost to gdp of killing the wage earners that typically
>drive them. [and blame a tire manufacturer who's not smart enough to
>grease palms.]

Industry will always do what is cheapest, at least in the short run.
The Interlock was the cheapest solution to the unintended acceleration
problem. Lobbying against it would have been more expensive and would
have done nothing to reduce the problem.

SUVs are (were?) a cash cow and the redesign is expensive and
interferes with their intended use (i.e. looking macho and tough and
sitting high above other traffic.) So industry went the lobby route
on this one.

> want to nix a spectacular new product that would crush
>the highly profitable 4wd market [which the japanese were mostly not at
>that time interested in]? create a product scare about it and threaten
>recalls! easy.

SUVs flipping over is a real problem. The media helped promote the
idea that these vehicles were safer than cars while sweeping real
safety concerns under the rug.

>audi created a sensation in europe with their 4wd quattro. it was a
>major threat to detroit if sold here. that threat had to be eliminated.

Are you talking about the Audi 5000 incident? SUVs were a niche
market back then and the quattro was hardly a threat to the Bronco.

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:31:50 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <dMydnfIoiLx1VTnanZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Based on the frequency which this type of accident occurred with the
>>>> 5000, something was wrong with it. Might have been 100% ergonomic but
>>>> there was a problem and it wasn't unique to Audi. The shift interlock
>>>> was a good solution.
>>> no it wasn't. the only way the engine can rev, outside of the throttle
>>> being pressed, is by a malfunction in the idle control system. and a
>>> shift interlock does damn-all to address this.
>> If there was a problem with the car itself, and if many people were
>> having the problem, and if it wasn't solely an Audi problem, then the
>> potential for the problem is still there.
>>
>> That is, once the car is out of Park and into a gear, then the car could
>> still accelerate unintendedly.
>>
>> So they mandate that the car can't go out of Park unless the brake pedal
>> is pressed--and the problem went away completely??
>>
>> Which tells us that the problem wasn't the car at all, that there is no
>> such thing as unintended acceleration. The problem is and always was
>> idiots not operating the car correctly.
>
> Which is why the interlock was a good solution.
>

if the car has a problem, say with idle control, and starts
accelerating, how does an interlock stop that happening???

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:47:52 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 08:53:23 -0600, Dave Kelsen
>>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/2/2008 6:45 AM Jeff spake these words of knowledge:
>>>>
>>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <bcb7635f-309c-4f6f-8bb2-37f4e8bfd320@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>> mindfulnessnow@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi, I just had my 2007 Civic lock itself in park several times and I
>>>>>>> was barely able to get it back to Drive so I could get to and from
>>>>>>> work today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I dug through the manual and found the little trick called the Shift
>>>>>>> Lock Release, which is a little slot right above the shift lever. You
>>>>>>> remove this cover - about 1/8" x 3/4" and push the key into it and
>>>>>>> then you can move the lever into neutral, start the car, then put it
>>>>>>> into reverse or drive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My question is, how common is this problem, what causes it, and why is
>>>>>>> it SO common that Honda even put this little slot there so you can
>>>>>>> deal with the problem relatively easily? Apparently this is a problem
>>>>>>> they have been having for some time, so they invented this little slot
>>>>>>> to help the owner over-ride the problem at least temporarily. So how
>>>>>>> long has this been going on?
>>>>>> Um....let's see.....over 20 years now, ever since 60 Minutes
>>>>>> manufactured the Audi "problem" so they could sell advertising.
>>>>> They didn't manufacture the problem. They reported it. And, I think,
>>>>> having the lock is a good idea.
>>>> I personally owned a 1979 Audi 5000S, and a little later a 1980 Audi
>>>> 5000S. As a result, I got to know a fair number of other Audi owners
>>>> and drivers. I never once had a problem, nor did I ever hear of anyone
>>>> else who had a problem with 'unintended acceleration' outside of the
>>>> news stories.
>>>>
>>>> This is anecdotal, I understand. But it seemed clear to me that there
>>>> wasn't any problem with the cars; the problem, if it existed, was with
>>>> the drivers. It seemed to me.
>>> It may well have been the drivers - probably was. But that is scant
>>> consolation when you just crushed your kid to death.
>>>
>>> Based on the frequency which this type of accident occurred with the
>>> 5000, something was wrong with it. Might have been 100% ergonomic but
>>> there was a problem and it wasn't unique to Audi. The shift interlock
>>> was a good solution.
>> no it wasn't. the only way the engine can rev, outside of the throttle
>> being pressed, is by a malfunction in the idle control system. and a
>> shift interlock does damn-all to address this.
>
> The only way for you to hit the windshield is to drive the car into
> something. Seat belts do damn-all to address this.

wow!!! potm!!!



>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> Cheap, effective and it in no way interferes
>>> with normal operation of the car (barring mechanical failure which can
>>> occur with any system in the vehicle). Note that unintended
>>> acceleration accidents have practically disappeared from the news. How
>>> many lives have been saved by the 60 Minutes expose, even if the
>>> actual cause was not strictly mechanical?
>>>
>>> Some people just like to bitch and moan about how this is
>>> idiot-proofing, but as long as we are allowing idiots to drive cars...
>>> If this (idiot-proofing) is really such a problem, we should ban
>>> automatic transmissions altogether. If you are too stupid,
>>> incapacitated or uncoordinated to drive a manual transmission, take
>>> the bus.
>>>

Gordon McGrew wrote:
<snip crap>
> Industry will always do what is cheapest, at least in the short run.
> The Interlock was the cheapest solution to the unintended acceleration
> problem.

exactly how??? it doesn't affect throttle or idle control in any way.
it doesn't over-ride the engine computer in any way. what is the
mechanism for /how/ this is supposed to address a so-called "unwanted
acceleration" problem???

jim beam wrote:
> Gordon McGrew wrote:
> <snip crap>
>> Industry will always do what is cheapest, at least in the short run.
>> The Interlock was the cheapest solution to the unintended acceleration
>> problem.
>
> exactly how??? it doesn't affect throttle or idle control in any way.
> it doesn't over-ride the engine computer in any way. what is the
> mechanism for /how/ this is supposed to address a so-called "unwanted
> acceleration" problem???
>

I think you hit the nail on the head, Jim... The so-called "unwanted
acceleration" problem with the Audi (et al) WASN'T. It occurred due to
either driver error or, possibly, ergonomic design. Kinda like gun
deaths. It ain't the gun that kills, it's the person in whose hands it
lies that does the killing - intentional or otherwise.

Those "accidents" occurred when the vehicle was placed into gear and the
drivers, thinking they were putting their foot on the brake, instead
placed them on the accelerator. The interlock, requiring that the brake
pedal is depressed before the transmission can be moved from Park to
Drive or Reverse, at least insures that the "loose nut" behind the
steering wheel has their foot on the brake rather than the gas. What
happens after they get the car in gear and remove their foot from the
brake pedal is on them.

Anyone ever hear of a documented case of a car running wild after the
interlocks were made standard or, alternatively, somebody driving
peacefully down the road at 45 m/h and have their car suddenly red line
for no apparent reason?

Say What? wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> <snip crap>
>>> Industry will always do what is cheapest, at least in the short run.
>>> The Interlock was the cheapest solution to the unintended acceleration
>>> problem.
>>
>> exactly how??? it doesn't affect throttle or idle control in any way.
>> it doesn't over-ride the engine computer in any way. what is the
>> mechanism for /how/ this is supposed to address a so-called "unwanted
>> acceleration" problem???
>>
>
> I think you hit the nail on the head, Jim... The so-called "unwanted
> acceleration" problem with the Audi (et al) WASN'T. It occurred due to
> either driver error or, possibly, ergonomic design. Kinda like gun
> deaths. It ain't the gun that kills, it's the person in whose hands it
> lies that does the killing - intentional or otherwise.
>
> Those "accidents" occurred when the vehicle was placed into gear and the
> drivers, thinking they were putting their foot on the brake, instead
> placed them on the accelerator. The interlock, requiring that the brake
> pedal is depressed before the transmission can be moved from Park to
> Drive or Reverse, at least insures that the "loose nut" behind the
> steering wheel has their foot on the brake rather than the gas. What
> happens after they get the car in gear and remove their foot from the
> brake pedal is on them.
>
> Anyone ever hear of a documented case of a car running wild after the
> interlocks were made standard or, alternatively, somebody driving
> peacefully down the road at 45 m/h and have their car suddenly red line
> for no apparent reason?

yes, absolutely. and the interlock did damn-all to prevent it. my
grandmother had an intersection crash with her lincoln continental.
part of the dash panel in the footwell fell down and was bridging the
gas and brake pedals. the motor is stronger than the brakes.
inspection reveals this could easily happen on any of these vehicles.
neither ford corporate nor the local dealer would return her calls or
letters.

has anyone launched a smear campaign to stop them importing their filthy
"market-dominating, profit competing innovations" from mexico? no,
they're "domestic"! has there been a move for legislation to connect
the gas pedal to the child safety locks to prevent recurrence [or
something equally unrelated]? no. and both are totally unrelated to
ford's prolific lobbying...

On 2/3/2008 9:55 AM jim beam spake these words of knowledge:

> Gordon McGrew wrote:
> <snip crap>
>> Industry will always do what is cheapest, at least in the short run.
>> The Interlock was the cheapest solution to the unintended acceleration
>> problem.
>
> exactly how??? it doesn't affect throttle or idle control in any way.
> it doesn't over-ride the engine computer in any way. what is the
> mechanism for /how/ this is supposed to address a so-called "unwanted
> acceleration" problem???

The interlock means you can't shift in to gear without holding down the
brake.

The car can't surge forward from a standing start with the brake
applied. It's just that simple.

I don't believe there was a problem with non-driver initiated
acceleration. But there apparently was some problem with unintended
acceleration. At the time, we Audi owners speculated it had to do with
pedal placement, particularly on manual transmission vehicles.

However the acceleration occurred, it was made impossible by the
interlock. Irrespective of the cause of the acceleration, the interlock
worked, because the driver had his foot on the brake.

RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which
differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are
even incapable of forming such opinions." -- Albert Einstein

Dave Kelsen wrote:
> On 2/3/2008 9:55 AM jim beam spake these words of knowledge:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> <snip crap>
>>> Industry will always do what is cheapest, at least in the short run.
>>> The Interlock was the cheapest solution to the unintended acceleration
>>> problem.
>>
>> exactly how??? it doesn't affect throttle or idle control in any way.
>> it doesn't over-ride the engine computer in any way. what is the
>> mechanism for /how/ this is supposed to address a so-called "unwanted
>> acceleration" problem???
>
> The interlock means you can't shift in to gear without holding down the
> brake.
>
> The car can't surge forward from a standing start with the brake
> applied. It's just that simple.
>
> I don't believe there was a problem with non-driver initiated
> acceleration. But there apparently was some problem with unintended
> acceleration. At the time, we Audi owners speculated it had to do with
> pedal placement, particularly on manual transmission vehicles.

eh??? on a stick??? now you're really losing all contact with reality.



>
> However the acceleration occurred, it was made impossible by the
> interlock. Irrespective of the cause of the acceleration, the interlock
> worked, because the driver had his foot on the brake.

you're not analyzing the facts. fact: the brake switch is activated
before there is any serious braking starts to happen. unless there are
two switches, one for the brake lights and one for the interlock that
operates only when the brake is full on, there's no way an interlock can
prevent the vehicle rolling. and interlocks work on the brake switch.
this ignores, of course, the question of whether there is any throttle
surge in the first place.

jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:ErqdnfY67fXSkzvanZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:

> Dave Kelsen wrote:
>> On 2/3/2008 9:55 AM jim beam spake these words of knowledge:
>>
>>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> <snip crap>
>>>> Industry will always do what is cheapest, at least in the short
>>>> run. The Interlock was the cheapest solution to the unintended
>>>> acceleration problem.
>>>
>>> exactly how??? it doesn't affect throttle or idle control in any
>>> way. it doesn't over-ride the engine computer in any way. what is
>>> the mechanism for /how/ this is supposed to address a so-called
>>> "unwanted acceleration" problem???
>>
>> The interlock means you can't shift in to gear without holding down
>> the brake.
>>
>> The car can't surge forward from a standing start with the brake
>> applied. It's just that simple.
>>
>> I don't believe there was a problem with non-driver initiated
>> acceleration. But there apparently was some problem with unintended
>> acceleration. At the time, we Audi owners speculated it had to do
>> with pedal placement, particularly on manual transmission vehicles.
>
> eh??? on a stick??? now you're really losing all contact with
> reality.
>
>
>
>>
>> However the acceleration occurred, it was made impossible by the
>> interlock. Irrespective of the cause of the acceleration, the
>> interlock worked, because the driver had his foot on the brake.
>
> you're not analyzing the facts. fact: the brake switch is activated
> before there is any serious braking starts to happen. unless there
> are two switches, one for the brake lights and one for the interlock
> that operates only when the brake is full on, there's no way an
> interlock can prevent the vehicle rolling. and interlocks work on the
> brake switch. this ignores, of course, the question of whether there
> is any throttle surge in the first place.
>

"unintended accelleration"(UA) occurred when the driver started the car
with their foot on or hovering over the GAS pedal instead of on/over the
brake,and when the car lurched forward,they stomped on the GAS instead of
the brake they -thought- they were stomping on,and the car accellerated
instead of stopping. "left-foot" brakers are more susceptible to this UA
problem.

Thus,even if their foot was not pressing enough to actvate the braking,the
foot was still OVER/on the brake pedal if the car lurched,so they would
stomp on the BRAKE instead of the gas.(right-foot brakers)

I've never heard of any manual shift cars in UA crashes.(because the car
doesn't lurch when shifting into gear,the clutch has control.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net