toyota electronic throttles vindicated by NHTSA

So you're saying the NASA engineers who alerted higher-ups to the safety problem of the tank coating falling off and hitting the shuttle, damaging tiles, were lazy? Were they still lazy when they hid a camera in the SRB to show proof? Or does that just show that they're trouble makers?

That is the single STUPIDEST statement I have ever read on GRM. Slow clap for a new low, even for you.

Javelin wrote: So you're saying the NASA engineers who alerted higher-ups to the safety problem of the tank coating falling off and hitting the shuttle, damaging tiles, were lazy? Were they still lazy when they hid a camera in the SRB to show proof? Or does that just show that they're trouble makers? That is the single STUPIDEST statement I have ever read on GRM. Slow clap for a new low, even for you.

What is interesting is my statement is lost on you because you have no experience in a production environment. Buddy, you have shown in this thread 2 things..

1. You do not understand how cars are designed and tested.
2. you do not understand an industrial environment, the safety concerns in such an enviornment, and how those "concerns" are used to bludgeon management into allowing people to get out of doing work.

There is a distinct difference between what I posted before and those who bring up legitimate safety concerns. but as shown above.. you cannot understand them. I suggest you tone down the rhetoric and get a job at a Ford.. Whole lotta shoes you need to walk in..

As a further testament to how incorrect you are... I've worked in plants that were so dangerous that one person died per year. I've pulled people out of engine lathes that have become entangled in them and I've had to answer to OSHA when people have seriously injured themselves.

Rustspecs13 wrote: That's not hard to predict. If you complicate something, it becomes more prone to failure.

That's only part of the equation. Which is more complex, the earliest internal combustion engines, or the latest? Now, which is more reliable? I'm not suggesting that new complexities don't introduce new possibilities for problems, I'm just observing that these can be overcome, that they generally are overcome, and for these reasons I don't think it makes sense to say a new technology will always have a higher failure rate. Especially when we haven't established that it ever did.

I'm talking about word of mouth, talking to techs and people swapping engines. Not official results. I was going a little far with the more failures to date thing, but look at my point. That being between now and when DBW t/B's were put on the road, DBW has more failures whether they made made news or statics or not.

For drawing my own conclusions, I just can't be satisfied with word of mouth. It suffers from small sample size, and the basic problem of the lack of word of mouth about lack of problems. That's just not how I want to approach this. You have every right to be convinced by this, regardless of what I think. Moreover, if it's someone you know, then that carries more weight. If I gave a bunch of credence to your story, I would literally be saying "Yeah, I guess DBW is unreliable, because I talked to a guy on the Internet whose friend had one fail." So it would be much worse for me to do that than for you, even though it's the same incident.

I know if you unplug or move a DBW TB on a new nissan, you have to get it reprogrammed by nissan. it can't self learn. It will not return to idle/closed on its own until then either. Wheres the springs in that to return it to closed? Dumb design huh?

You have correctly identified one more annoying design decision by one manufacturer. I do think that sucks, but I believe that future DBW implementation can be better. I doubt there's an automotive system or technology in history that hasn't been abused or just done badly by some manufacturer at some point...

Ignorant wrote:

Javelin wrote: So you're saying the NASA engineers who alerted higher-ups to the safety problem of the tank coating falling off and hitting the shuttle, damaging tiles, were lazy? Were they still lazy when they hid a camera in the SRB to show proof? Or does that just show that they're trouble makers? That is the single STUPIDEST statement I have ever read on GRM. Slow clap for a new low, even for you.

What is interesting is my statement is lost on you because you have no experience in a production environment. Buddy, you have shown in this thread 2 things.. 1. You do not understand how cars are designed and tested. 2. you do not understand an industrial environment, the safety concerns in such an enviornment, and how those "concerns" are used to bludgeon management into allowing people to get out of doing work. There is a distinct difference between what I posted before and those who bring up legitimate safety concerns. but as shown above.. you cannot understand them. I suggest you tone down the rhetoric and get a job at a Ford.. Whole lotta shoes you need to walk in.. As a further testament to how incorrect you are... I've worked in plants that were so dangerous that one person died per year. I've pulled people out of engine lathes that have become entangled in them and I've had to answer to OSHA when people have seriously injured themselves.

BINGO! What we have here is a "consultant". Has an opinion on everything, experience in nothing. Carry on.

It's sad to see how toxic/mean/insulting you guys have gotten in this thread.