CNN tries to fabricate story about Toyota SUA

Coming from a company that does manufacturing of a consumer product, they do testing on various things. They even take input from customers to test product. So much so, I know one Customer Service guy who helps do beta testing our product has certain 'songs' that he has to play to hear what a customer hears with the product.

While this is not on the same level as the Toyota engineering issue, yes... I would like to know about possible issues with a product that can put my life in danger by simply being in it. But at the same time, I want to know actual, factual information before I go 'omg...' When the SUA thing came out, my parents had already gotten the Toyota Avalon and they had some concerns about the possible problems, but after a while, they were getting a little fed up with so many 'scares' cause some of them seem unverified or not-reproduceable.

At this time, it has to be a 'wait and see' and be wary. But right now, it isn't the 'run to the hills!' level.

 

Frankly, I have found Al Jazeera English to be the most "just the facts, ma'am" news source lately. Really.

 

"Lost in translation" applies not just Japanese to English, but also to translating engineer-speak to reporter-speak. I feel that CNN is conflating two different definitions of 'SUA'. The widespread SUA reports in the US refer to a sustained engine surge that disables the brakes and causes vehicle runaway, uncontrolled or uncontrollable by the driver. The Toyota test refers to something else, in a non-US non-production version, that did not disable the brakes, cleared in less than normal driver reaction time, did not cause vehicle runaway, did not disable the driver's use of the brakes, and did not cascade into an uncontrolled event. I'm sorry CNN, but despite the wording of the memo, this just doesn't fit the same meaning as the US SUA scenario.

While the prototype Adaptive Cruise Control did release its own hold of the brake, I see nothing to suggest that it interfered with the driver's use of the brake.

As for Tanya Spotts's ES-350 crash into her garage wall: I'm sorry Tanya, but your incident is virtually identical my SUA incident years ago in a Honda, and previously described in PriusChat several times. Absent certain actions I took, but you did not, I would be just as confident as you that there was no way I would have caused a 'pedal misapplication'. You believe that it was an electrical glitch somewhere, while mine pre-dated modern electronic controls.

How do you prove it? Two things I did but you didn't (one couldn't be done with your transmission, the other could but you didn't have the same reflex as me) halted the incident and gave glaring in-my-face evidence that my first perceptions were just plain wrong. So I must give credence to your black box recording showing that you, as did I, hit the wrong pedal.

I am saddened that CNN, in interleaving story segments of two distinct issues, doesn't recognize its own confusion.

I most certainly have. It is through this lens that I also see no smoke.

 

The point I am making is that it is too soon to really 'freak out'. While knowing the possibility is there, what I am reading right now is that it is highly subjective as the test is on something that the US does not have and is not currently in production.

It's a bit of a Chicken Little at the moment, not a Noah's Ark thing.

 

I know, and clearly understand that automotive manufacturers test their vehicles. They should, They Will, They Do.

But that isn't really the point.

The point isn't that Toyota tested their vehicle. The point is that they were involved in a huge NHTSA investigation. Supposedly cooperated with this investigation. Claimed all along that they had no evidence that there was any failure possible in their vehicle electronics or software.

Then in retrospect, we find that in their own testing they did discover a flaw...and did fix it.

That's all good. That's all how it should happen. But it does raise the question why did Toyota not reveal this truth? If it is as simple as Test..Result...Adjustment....then why is this paper that IS suggesting that a change needed to be made, just now showing up?

Listen, I am on Toyota's side.

My feeling has always been, especially on Toyota's level of manufacturing and sales, that there is really no way Toyota can hide a major defect. If one exists? It will eventually get revealed in the real world.

So nothing CNN has reported makes me believe there is a problem with Toyota's available products today.

I just think it's a little unfair to attack CNN,- trust me, I feel dirty defending them,- but it's a little unfair to attack them as fabricating a story, when basically they are just revealing an internal document Toyota did create. Toyota isn't denying the document, just denying the translation or what it means.

CNN themselves aren't saying the document proves anything, outside of what their translation of the document seems to say.

I believe the truth will rise up.

I also believe that when hysteria get's created, everyone grabs onto extremes. CNN is lying and fabricating! vs. Toyota is innocent and blameless! I suspect the truth is well between these two extremes.

I believe no automanufacturer wants to create a dangerous product. I believe they want all their vehicles to be safe.

I do believe Toyota should of shared existence of this testing with the NHTSA..and shared the results, during the investigation. Would this of made a difference in the ultimate results of the investigation? I sincerely doubt it. But IMO it still should of been shared.

 

Ofcourse they can, and they have gotten fined for it when they got caught. Did you you watch fight club? Who did the narrator work for?

IMHO they didn't make up a story. They took a story and twisted it, convoluted it, and made it imply something that isn't remotely factual. Kinda like when NBC heard pintos caught fire, so they faked one catching on fire and called it news.
"It Didn't Start With Dateline NBC" (National Review 6/21/93)

I can't see any there there with this investigative report. You can read the cnn translations and toyota responses in the other thread.
http://priuschat.com/forums/prius-hybrid-ev-alt-fuel-news/104284-sua-here-we-go-again.html

 

Fair enough. I wouldn't deny that CNN isn't spinning the discovery of this document, in the usual sensational way. But they are careful enough not to make any statements about the document itself that aren't at least debatable...if not true.

Coupling the document with the rehash of the past..and another Unintended Vehicle Acceleration story is spin.

But being in Prius Chat, and concievably within an audience primarily made of Toyota supporters and owners? Lets at least admit that we are also watching CNN's report with a degree of pre-placed prejudice.

Trust me, I hate CNN...I'll admit that. I feel like I have to go take a 45 minute shower just because I'm saying maybe they're not totally in the wrong here...

But I do have to say..if CNN's translation(s) of the document are correct? IMO that test, and the results should of been part of the shared information of the NHTSA investigation of Toyota Software and Electronics. I concede that is a big IF.

Ultimately my guess is this whole issue fades into the background. With or without the information the document may or may not reveal, my understanding was the NHTSA investigation was complete and thorough.

CNN get's to interview a lady with a Lexus in her garage, Show some stock footage...and CNN runs another "shocking" headline.

I....I have to strive to look at both sides....and take a long hot shower.

 

I received a PM about this issue, including:

I found what appears to be the Spotts's EDR report, showing more detail than CNN chose to highlight. On page 7, both a Brake Position and Accelerator Rate (V) are listed.

A quick interpretation is that data was recorded at one second intervals, and also at the time of impact, which occurred 0.4 second after the last normally scheduled data point.

1.4 seconds before impact, driver foot was off both pedals, and the car was moving 6 km/h. 0.4 seconds before impact, foot was on the gas pedal, RPM had jumped to 1600, and speed increased to 8 km/h. By the moment of impact, the foot had moved off the gas pedal and on to the brake, RPM had decayed a bit to 1200, but speed had risen to 14 km/h. So it appears that the driver hit the wrong pedal, then moved to the correct pedal before impact, but not in sufficient time to prevent the impact.

A closer review of this report is still in order.

 

But my bottom line question is does Toyota's Black Box information tangibly reveal or have a way of revealing what pedals are depressed? Or is it just revealing RPM's and Speed, and Toyota and ourselves simply speculate that pedals are being pressed.

Because in the case of SUA....obviously the supposed victims aren't disputing that RPM's increase or even decrease...they are disputing that they had their foot on the accelerator.

So I guess what I'm asking is does that Accelerator Rate..prove that the Accelerator was actually physically pressed? Or does it only prove that the engine was running at a certain RPM? Because one scenario Proves the Owner wrong....the other? Still leaves it open to interpretation and question.

Interesting. There is a bullet point in Data Definitions on Accelerator Rate that says the Accelerator Rate has two recording specifications, one being percentage of Accelerator Pedal depressed.

If this is part of the definition...then that would seem to suggest to me that Accelerator Rate is MORE than just an RPM evaluation, and that it does include evidence that the pedal itself is being depressed.

 

Oh for the love of Pete. I'm sure Toyota found thousands of failure modes in their software over the course of development. This particular one related to radar CC, not SUA. There is absolutely no reason that this memo is relevant to SUA, other than to show that Toyota does testing.

Tom

 

I would argue it's simple disclosure. It might not be relevant to SUA...but I think it is argueably relevant to an NHTSA investigation of Toyota's Electronic and Software systems.

 

????

The Accelerator Rate here is the output voltage of the accelerator pedal module, not anything to do with measuring the engine RPM.

You ignore the Brake Switch position. Are you going to be another EDR skeptic who demands a video camera recording of the driver's foot position before and during crashes?

 

No I'm just a skeptic who wants to know if the black box has any way of knowing if the accelerator pedal was actually pressed.

Seems to me that's key to determining whether it's pedal misplacement as Toyota contends, or something else happening, which supposed victims of this event contend.

I'm not ignoring anything. Explain to me why Brake Switch Position illuminates that the Accelerator was pressed? And...

"The Accelerator Rate here is the output voltage of the accelerator pedal module, not anything to do with measuring the engine RPM."

??? Wouldn't that output voltage then tie directly into the RPM's of the engine? Isn't that how it works?

And I'm not contending that the Accelerator Rate measures engine RPM. In reading the report you presented one of the bullet points concerning definition of Accelerator Rate, seemed to suggest degree of pedal depression was measured.

If I'm wrong about that, I'm wrong.

YOUR PRESENTED INFORMATION:

Under DATA DEFINTIONS:

* "Brake Switch" indicates open/closed state of the brake switch circut.

(I'm not ignoring that...but I don't see how the open/closed state of the brake switch circut does anything to prove whether the accelerator is being depressed)

And

Under DATA DEFINITIONS:

* "Accelerator Rate" has TWO recording specifications. Both the recorded values increase as the driver depresses the accelerator.

-Percentage of Accelerator pedal depressed (recorded as 0-100(%))
-Output Voltage of Accelerator module (recorded as 0-5(v))

Again my query was never whether The Black Box measured or offered information on engine RPM...it clearly does...

My query was does it have anyway of validating whether the accelerator pedal was physically depressed.

The Data Definitions of "Accelerator Rate" seem to suggest to me that it does.

If I'm wrong I'm wrong...but I'm just reading the information as presented.

I'm not calling for camera's video anything...but it seems to me tangible proof either recorded by a black box...or through a video, are about the only way to prove whether acceleration is caused by the pedal being physically depressed or by some other unknown and yet undiscovered glitch.

 

The edr records that it has a signal from the accelerator. You can test after a crash if you think this was a phantom signal generated by the electronics. To record if it was a foot or a floor mat or a stuck pedal you need install a camera. The timing of changes in accelerator pedal position indicate that if there was something like a floor mat or stuck pedal issue someone actively removed it, which the driver did not say she did. These edr recordings would have look quite different in the real SUA cases, caused by pedal entrapment or bad pedals, if they had been available at the time.

 

I'm little sorry to have to pick this apart, but..

With DBW, E-throttles, the throttle plate position, and thus engine RPM, may, or may NOT, correlate to/with gas pedal position. Use of CC to accelerate to a new set speed, for instance. Or with the Prius, being on the brakes and at the same time with teh gas pedal depressed, even fully depressed, the throttle plate SHOULD remain closed. That is, of course, assuming no firmware flaws.

As you may have already noticed, during Trac or VSC activation the throttle plate NEVER fully reacts to gas pedal position.

Think about how many lines of software source code might be required to execute correctly to be sure that the throttle plate is always acting in full accordance with the design specifications. Tens of thousands at the very least.