Honda "Drive by Wire" question... what if the power goes out?

Page 4 of 8  


That quote from Billy-Bob has nothing to do with advances in design utilizing differing technologies. That only has to do with capacity - he was basing his opinion because of the current state of capacity. The technology hasnt changed in computers, but the capacity of devices has, such as faster CPUs (with increasing cache size), higher- capacity drives, more RAM, and so on.
Higher capacity is required because of bloated operating systems and the bloated software written by lazy programmers.
The basic design of the computer is still the same: to move 0's and 1's around the bus to peripherals, all controlled by various chipsets.
--
remove MYSHOES to email

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

programmers.
Another short-sighted gent.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nice try. You obviously, regardless of gender, dont understand how to relate parallels.
:)
--
remove MYSHOES to email

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mst wrote:

Wow, have you told Intel, AMD, HDD manufacturers, etc., etc.?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

America, and indeed the world, pursue what is seen to be cutting edge technology just like codfish rush to bite an unbaited hook. Have things REALLY improved by quantum steps?
Software capabilities are not so greatly changed, and the chip technology - though greatly evolved - has developed solely to service the software which, indeed, has become bloated and glitchy.
You could run word processors, databases, spreadsheets, games, etc even on the old black and white Z80 machines. One company where I used to work ran the whole operation with two 10 megabyte harddrives and a Z80 network system.
Personal computers today do little that the old ones wouldn't do in some form or the other. Nor do they always do the job so terribly much quicker or better, although the microprocessors grunt along at multigigahertz speeds. We garbage mongers that feed the data into them are, oft as not, the limiting factor.
Mainframes had somewhat different requirements. They didnt have to cater to the executive gamer showoff computer-illiterate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Having written programs for x86 machines since DOS 3 was the hot ticket, I think you have a slanted view.
What is perceived as "bloat" by the public is a combination of two factors: increased packaged data and the overhead required for proper structure. When I started it was considered pretentious to refer to an accomplished programmer as a "software engineer," whereas that is the minimum expected of any modern programmer; the senior programmers are "software architects." (I am neither, since it was only a sideline for me and I couldn't ride the rocket. I am still a "cowboy coder" who can knock out small applications and utilities without making a big mess of it.)
Did you ever see a DOS machine run on a network? It was ugly - surely you recall the "share" TSR to make files multi-accessible. There were email readers in the DOS days, but do you recall a web browser?
The good old days were good mainly because we know everything came out okay. However, in this case, we can go back. You can still load DOS on any modern Windows capable box. Go for it and let us know how it works out.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@nospam.nix wrote:

Wow, do you have a cite for this?
> Have things REALLY improved by quantum steps?
The post to which I replied said "changed", not "improved" - that's more of a philosophical discussion.

Luxury! The first disk drives I worked with were the 2311s on the early IBM S/360s - 7.25 MB/pack (100 cyl x 10 heads, IIRC, 7,250 bytes/track).

True, and computers don't do anything that a bunch of guys with abacuses couldn't also do, but time is a major factor - imagine a moon shot without computers or a lot of modern medicine.

How'd you know I'm retired from the mainframe business (mostly programming them)?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:24:47 -0500 Sparky Spartacus

So tell us what innovations have happened with processors and hard drives? They've made processors speedier, and maybe added more to the instructions set, or have increased capacity from 32-bit to 64-bit, and have made hard drives with more CAPACITY at lower cost to the consumer.
Yes, we have new drive interfaces, such as SATA, but that is merely a higher rate interface that moves data at a HIGHER CAPACITY.
My argument still stands - there has not been any true innovation to computer hardware/peripheral components, they have only gotten speedier moving those 0's/1's around and they move MORE (re: CAPACITY) 0's/1's than predecessors.
--
remove MYSHOES to email

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mst wrote:

These are all changes to the technology involved - did you mean something other than "changed", e.g., "improved"?

Moving from a parallel interface to a serial one is certainly a *change* (your term, not mine).

Since when? Are you going back to the 8088 chips? IBM 650 computers, 701's, 7090's, etc.?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We have been served up a lot of dumb ideas in the past...ideas which were interesting, but not worth the cost and the risk.
I am sure we will continue to make firm advancements in transportation science. If Honda wants to spend the money to offer a solution to a problem that does not exist, go for it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

demonstrates
why
words
for
should
past...ideas
risk.
money
for it.
When someone posts a decent citation of whatever Honda is proposing be flown-by-wire, then comment will be worthwhile.
To categorically reject change because the "current system is good enough" is foolishness and demonstrates obliviousness to the many points in automotive history when of course the old way was "good enough," but the new way yielded some advantage, so it predominated.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I give you the pick-up and the platform frame SUV built on chasis and suspensions from 1950 that all the people in the country have flocked to dealerships like sheep and plunked billions of dollars on and to which the automobile companies have spent next to nothing on in technology.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You're not categorically rejecting change here.
-- Honda home studies: http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness
--

"Bob Palmer" < snipped-for-privacy@adelphia.net> wrote
> > To categorically reject change because the "current
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Palmer wrote:

and instead of investing that money on a DECENT small car design, they blow it.
meanwhile, the japanese took the money they made off selling excellent small cars and trucks, and invested it in making bigger trucks. the tundra is a really nice truck! course it should be, since the engine design was based on the lexus LS series.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

on chasis and

have flocked to

on and to which the

technology.
design, they

Do you think that car companies should produce what the companies think is right for the American consumer, or what consumers want?
These companies have obligations to shareholders and their employees to turn a pretty profit, or else.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Elle wrote:

You seem to be ignoring the <false> demand generated by skillful advertising.

So how much has GM made the past year? Ford? How about Honda & Toyota? Hmmm.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

country
car
what
skillful
I agree that marketing and advertising and making a buck play a huge role in design. I agree the outcome is most certainly not always a better design, engineering-wise. I could even stomach someone's argument that most design changes are not engineering oriented at all.
But America is also a revoltingly consumer-ist society. Which came first--the advertising blitzes pushing "bigger; more," or some sort of instinctual drive from Americans to insist on bigger more--is debatable.
So Americans want pickup trucks and SUVs which rarely satisfy any physical need and are merely to keep up with the Joneses. What's an auto company executive to do to keep food on his family's table? So to speak.
But safety, things like better fuel mileage or more Hp performance, are not ignored. Many improvements do lengthen the life of a car, etc.

their
Honda & Toyota? Hmmm.
Yes, I know. But I hesitate to say more without reading up on why GM and Ford has been going down the proverbial can the last several years. I thought it was more like labor problems: GM and Ford can't build a car cheaply. I dunno. Someone can post a citation on why they're failing while I guess Honda and Toyota are doing fine. 'Cause America still loves big, gas guzzling vehicles, from what I see.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Elle wrote:

<snip>
Advertising first, check out the history of GM.

Didn't the Japanese carmakers answer this question in the 70's?

Which safety innovations (after the rear view mirror, which was a racing innovation) were not mandated? The US automakers have fought every change tooth & nail (emissions as well as safety - Ford famously tried to sell safety in their '56 models & lost a bundle).

So, you don't want to comment until all the facts are in? (a famous quote by Gen Turgidson in "Dr. Strangelove"). ;)
The Japanese carmakers seem to be able to crank out cars profitably from their US plants, so I don't think it's primarily the cost of labor. Did you have anything specific in mind with "labor problems"?
"These companies have obligations to shareholders and their employees to turn a pretty profit, or else"
Leading to many very unhappy employees & shareholders as of late. ;)
One final observation - the price of every new GM car includes something like $1,500 for health care costs (plus another chunk for retirement), which foreign carmakers, Asian & European, don't incur because those countries have universal health coverage & retirement. Wouldn't it be ironic if it were the auto (and other) CEOs who lead the charge to universal health coverage in the US? <this is an auto related observation, not a political one, and I won't debate the politics of such a move>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I
"bigger;
to
I'll believe you. :-)

the
food
70's?
I don't know.
I think it's hard to compare the successes of two companies satisfying the same basic need, but also many others, operating in two different countries, with different cultures and mores and different governmental philosophies.

lengthen
which was a racing

fought every

famously tried

I reckon you're mostly right.
I think also of reports (or the cinemization) of lawsuits where car companies defend against making a certain design change, because the cost of the 'wrongful death' yada lawsuits is much lower than the cost of the design change.
Still, on a day to day basis with engineers, I don't buy that they are idiots who never object to certain proposed features as being inherently unsafe that will result in a car with many problems, threatening life and property. And so costing the company money, yada.

up
can
dunno.
I
still
(a famous

profitably from

of labor. Did

After I posted, I did notice one of the lastest articles on GM's problems said a major component was the cost of the company's health care plans.
Some are saying that's GM management's screwup, though.
So, no, I don't have all the facts. Surely there's a site or two that talks about why GM and Ford are doing so poorly, and how Honda manages in comparison.
As you suggest below, my suspicion is that some large companies are already starting to push somewhat for universal care. (I may have read as much.) They won't be gung-ho for it, I suppose, for some time (if ever), because their business ties in with that of insurers.
I'm not talking about a conspiracy, but more about how executives look out for each other; one hand washes the other; etc.

their employees to

of late. ;)

includes something

retirement),
because those

Wouldn't it be

charge to

related
politics of

Sure.
We'd then maybe have a two-pronged attack on current American cultural mores: With the ailing American car companies, more small cars would go on the road. With the ailing health insurance system, Americans would be more willing to accept catastrophic health insurance plans and not accept every last procedure/drug (efficacies being not clear) their doctor prescribed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I think the screwup was that they didn't support the "socialized medicine" push in the 1960s. Whether it was because they couldn't screw over their buddies at the country club or because they thought it was a communist plot to have *all* children vaccinated or it was just apathy, they are paying the cost of a private health care system.
Of course, the ultimate cost will be paid by the GM employees and retirees and all of the rest of us as we are gradually pushed out of the health care insurance system.

It is the best kind of conspiracy because there is never more then a wink or a nod between the conspirators.

Of course, they do incur those costs for their US factories. One advantage to Honda and Toyota is that they have relatively few US retirees and their workforce is younger (healthier) because the factories have only been running for 10 - 20 years. If we project current trends out another 20 - 40 years, Honda and Toyota US operations will be broke. But then again, everyone will be broke.

Actually, I think this is an issue who's time is coming fast.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.