Software for brakes, yah right

Ecomike

Ecomike

NAXJA# 2091
Location
MilkyWay Galaxy
I would have thought that some one would have learned a good lesson when GE cooked a number of patients years ago with MRIs that tried to use software limits for safety limits on the radiation dose levels, instead of hardware limits. Seems Ford and Toyota are relearning that lesson after using software on brakes.

Damn glad I have 85-89 hardware brakes on my Jeep Junk.

http://www.edn.com/blog/1690000169/post/630052463.html?nid=3351&rid=2920794
 
So far this year Toyota=FAIL! :doh:
 
I'm pretty happy with my 96 and 91 hardware brakes too.

Check the other Toyota thread going right now - similar thread of discussion.

EDIT: I also like the fact that I have hardware e-brakes that use a redundant control system, AND a way to force my transmission into neutral, AND a way to throw my transfer case into neutral if push really comes to shove. My parent's Exploder has a pushbutton transfer case, I wouldn't want something like that really, I prefer functionality over convenience.
 
Ecomike said:
http://www.edn.com/blog/1690000169/post/630052463.html?nid=3351&rid=2920794
Click to expand...
I know this wasn't your point but it struck me pretty hard

And this is a tragedy. Thirty years ago, work was well under way on the problem of formally proving software correctness. One company had designed a completely deterministic microprocessor—no interrupts, no indirect addressing—that made it possible to mathematically prove all of the possible trajectories of a code set. And computer scientists such as Edsger Dijkstra were making strides in methodology to create formally proven software. But along came C, UNIX, and the cult of the bemused hobby programmer, and the entire notion of formal correctness vanished under a smokescreen of hacking.
Click to expand...
Why do professional engineers always sneer at everybody else? I mean look, do the problems with Toyota have to do with "bemused hobby programmers" or professional engineers? Hrrmm? Say what asshole?
 
ehall said:
I know this wasn't your point but it struck me pretty hard


Why do professional engineers always sneer at everybody else? I mean look, do the problems with Toyota have to do with "bemused hobby programmers" or professional engineers? Hrrmm? Say what asshole?
Click to expand...

I am not sure which side you were taking? But I suspect most professionals and trades people look down on many or most other professions. It's just an ego thing. Mine is bigger than yours.:D

What struck you hard and why?

To me it is just about a safety perspective I have developed over 40 years of watch others go "OPPS".
 
Where is our pilot trainee, wonder how he feels about going ballistic by wire. :D :D :D
 
ehall said:
Why do professional engineers always sneer at everybody else? I mean look, do the problems with Toyota have to do with "bemused hobby programmers" or professional engineers? Hrrmm? Say what asshole?
Click to expand...

It's not just engineers- most people who wear ties to work, think they're better than people who don't. Just simple insecurity from folks who have no useful skills. A good engineer would be too busy making his project work to blame a bunch of tinkerers for pointing out that he did it wrong. edit- And in my experience, they're normally tinkerers themselves.
 
A software glitch? Great.

I read about the brake problem with the new(3rd?) generation Prius. I was wondering, what did they do to screw up the design after this long? Make 'em smaller? No, just screwed up the programming.
 
"Looking down on others" is natural--if you say you've never done it you are lying.

Take doctors for instance. Highly trained, intelligent, and the worst pricks to have to work on their cars. They always act like you don't know a thing, are ignorant hicks, and just want to overcharge them. And G*d forbid they have a random weird problem on their brand new "my P**** (rhymes with Enis) is too short" imported POS that is all brand new for the year and even the factory techs don't know what is wrong.

Human bodies have remained essentially unchanged for thousands of years and all those pricks can come up with is "take two aspirins and call back tomorrow", well, take two spark plugs and call me next week. Friggin' Croakers.

Everybody does it, all the time.
 
joe_peters said:
"Looking down on others" is natural--if you say you've never done it you are lying.

Take doctors for instance. Highly trained, intelligent, and the worst pricks to have to work on their cars. They always act like you don't know a thing, are ignorant hicks, and just want to overcharge them. And G*d forbid they have a random weird problem on their brand new "my P**** (rhymes with Enis) is too short" imported POS that is all brand new for the year and even the factory techs don't know what is wrong.

Human bodies have remained essentially unchanged for thousands of years and all those pricks can come up with is "take two aspirins and call back tomorrow", well, take two spark plugs and call me next week. Friggin' Croakers.

Everybody does it, all the time.
Click to expand...

LOL, docs would have a whole new ballgame if they had to learn 5 new models of Humans every year. Vets though, thats another story, they have a whole bunch of different 'models' to work on.
 
ehall said:
milspec is a whole 'nother world
Click to expand...

Isn't it also built by the lowest bidder? (LOL, thinking of the Armagaden movie line as the shuttle takes off)
 
joe_peters said:
"Looking down on others" is natural--if you say you've never done it you are lying.

Take doctors for instance. Highly trained, intelligent, and the worst pricks to have to work on their cars. They always act like you don't know a thing, are ignorant hicks, and just want to overcharge them. And G*d forbid they have a random weird problem on their brand new "my P**** (rhymes with Enis) is too short" imported POS that is all brand new for the year and even the factory techs don't know what is wrong.

Human bodies have remained essentially unchanged for thousands of years and all those pricks can come up with is "take two aspirins and call back tomorrow", well, take two spark plugs and call me next week. Friggin' Croakers.
Click to expand...

I think the term is Quacks?:laugh3: My older brother is a retired Quack. Funny thing is my father and I never had any use for them, so my brother with his PhD in Physics can't find work, so he into goes to med school at 39, and becomes a quack. :laugh3: He was already p*ick before med school, LOL!

LOL. My father is still rolling over in his grave.

I needed a good laugh or 2 today, did not expect to find it in this thread.

I can't wait for the new all electronic joy stick / software steering controls to come out.
 
This is kind of entertaining, and almost makes me feel sorry for the guys at Toyota,...

The avionics system in the F-22 Raptor, the current U.S. Air Force frontline jet fighter, consists of about 1.7 million lines of software code. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, scheduled to become operational in 2010, will require about 5.7 million lines of code to operate its onboard systems. And Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner, scheduled to be delivered to customers in 2010, requires about 6.5 million lines of software code to operate its avionics and onboard support systems.

These are impressive amounts of software, yet if you bought a premium-class automobile recently, ”it probably contains close to 100 million lines of software code,” says Manfred Broy, a professor of informatics at Technical University, Munich, and a leading expert on software in cars. All that software executes on 70 to 100 microprocessor-based electronic control units (ECUs) networked throughout the body of your car.
Click to expand...

Link to article at Discovery.
 
FBW isn't a bad thing when you've got multiple controllers - say, a five-layer control system with a "three of five" verification process.

The Space Shuttle is totally FBW (Space Cowboys got that one wrong. If the onboard computers all fail, the STS really is a flying brick - until it hits something. More like a "falling brick," actually. But, it's got seven layers of flight control electronics with a "four of seven" verification process, I believe.)

MIL-spec may be "built by the lowest bidder," but they get really cranky about control setups (open-market small arms are usually better than process-bought, tho. Open-market personal gear in general is usually better than process-bought...)

But, how much backup happens in a roadway vehicle? Look at the difference in control setups - why do road vehicles have more control code (by an order of magnitude!) than an aeronautical vehicle that has to move in three dimensions vice only two?

And, how much of that crap can therefore be safely deleted, in an effort to simplify the VOS? Somehow, I'd be willing to bet that "An awful lot of it" can be axed - or separated from vital controls (creature features don't need to share clocks with brakes & steering, y'ask me. Put them on an entirely separate system, starting with a separate u-processor... And a separate data bus. Don't mix vital systems with non-essentials!)

And just why is it we need 70-100 u-processors in a vehicle anyhow? Does, say, an F/A-18 have that many on board - including in the "smart weapons" in a full loadout? Just wondering...
 
I think I'll stick with the 2 dollar bicycle cable, thanks,...

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top