Gordon McGrew

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 07:46:42 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>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???

Is there a problem with the idle control? If so, the interlock won't
help. But if the problem is and always was idiots [and others] not
operating the car correctly, the interlock reduces the problem.

Gordon McGrew

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 07:55:49 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> 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???

Because, as we both agreed three posts ago, the engine computer isn't
the problem. The problem is people accidentally hitting the gas
instead of the brake. The first defense against this is good
ergonomic design to minimize the chance of this happening. The second
defense is the interlock which is cheaper, more quickly implemented
and more easily mandated by law, if necessary.

Gordon McGrew

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:35:34 -0600, Dave Kelsen
<invalid@invalid.invalid> 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.

I think the problem was pretty much confined to AT cars.




>
>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

jim beam

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 07:46:42 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> 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???
>
> Is there a problem with the idle control? If so, the interlock won't
> help. But if the problem is and always was idiots [and others] not
> operating the car correctly, the interlock reduces the problem.
>
>

it would be more effective to put an i.q. interlock on the ignition.

speedy

Jeff wrote:
> Your evidence, please.

How about that the interlock is only on US cars?

-SP