Trully objective account of current Toyota problems

That article is a load of self-aggrandizing drivel. Mostly, this is because it should be called, "Toyota's Self-Created Perfect Storm." Toyota is no more the victim of misperception than Lehman Brothers or AIG. They knew there were anomalies with their drive-by-wire systems six years ago, but instead of addressing them then they chose a path of influence peddling, obfuscation and denial. What really happened is the hubris of the company went overboard as it adopted the worst components of American corporatism and left its founding principles by the wayside.

No one really can pinpoint the exact cause of their drive-time control failures, not even Toyota. I live not too far from the corporate headquarters, and one person I know of who works there plainly admitted such. In fact, they've known about it for years, but it's much cheaper to run wires than it is to run cables, so c'est la vie. The problem was addressed not with the moral authority of safety improvements, but in the cynical space of politics, media relations and special connections. State Farm insurance found in statistical analyses of Toyotas from as far back as 2003-2004 that the unintended acceleration accident rate had gone haywire. Toyota knew and let it go, anyway. Not only were they confronted with driver complaints that they dismissed, they dismissed basic analytic reason and logic, too. The math behind the problem doesn't lie about its history.

State Farm says it warned NHTSA on Toyota in 2007 - Yahoo! News

Toyota, it seems, was taken over by the short-term profiteers, whose tangled web of deceit finally crashed in on itself. The only problem is that their actions ruined many people's lives -- from the immigrant man in Minnesota imprisoned because his ultra-reliable car obliterated an entire family at a stop light to the old woman careening out of control down a lazy city street at 100 MPH whose last moments were spent in an unimaginable terror as she labored to save her soul from the burden of killing those around her.

Not that I'm against Toyota. I'm not, actually. I judge all enterprise by the same standards, and my verdict is in. Toyota can redeem itself, but it will be extremely difficult. They will have to fundamentally change as an organization, rework themselves and alter they way they do things. It may take a generation. I am optimistic that they are great and can do this, and I still have faith that Mr. Akio Toyoda will do the right things to make Toyota excellent again.

It's just really irritating to read this dismissive nonsense repeated like a broken record.

 

as always, a very well written article by Hobbit. not much to add really.

on the accident, having reviewed the area it happened and considering the skills of the driver, a few things "seem" clear.

due to terrain and elevation changes, its very conceivable that when the accelerator became stuck (probably by the floor mats) which would be normal since there are several valleys or ups and downs as the road skirts across the side of a hill (even has a labeled "viewpoint" which most likely means a view over a cliff.)

so the driver would have accelerated to climb a grade, not noticing the pedal is stuck and as he crested the hill and started down the other side and not experiencing the slowdown as he took his foot off the accelerator would have alarmed him simply because the car probably went from 60 mph to over 100 mph in less than 3 seconds.

even a trained driver would be taken off guard and with 100% of his concentration on keeping the car on the road, its easy to see why he would not have noticed that the accelerator pedal was hung up on the floor mat. add to that, his family most likely screaming with terror. that is a lot on anyone's plate.

now the fact that a cellphone call was made, simply is baffling. obviously the car slowed enough as it crested another hill (there is probably at least 4-6 elevation changes within 2-3 miles of the accident scene. i am guessing the event probably covered nearly that much distance)

and on the braking "issue" which is not an issue since a real issue would be detectable by both driver AND passenger. i have not seen a single passenger yet complain about the issue

 

Nice read of the situation.

I find that most things that say "truely objective" aren't. Hobbit writes well, and I am thankful of this explanations of technical things. But this link really is an opinion piece, very short on facts, and not addressing those that have come out from toyota itself recently. Facts reported in this weeks businessweek (the news included in print, not the opinion in the online online version) include - toyota did not properely collect and look into customer complaints. toyota admitted that they have not identified the cause of most of the unintended acceleration complaints and can not be confident it is confined to floor mats, sticky throttles, and driver error.

 

Good write up. As usual, hobbit hits the nail on the head, especially in his technical analysis.

Tom

 

Toyota has not helped matters with their continued stonewalling and hiding behind legal privilege. I wonder how long it will be before they 'get it'?

 

I don't share your conclusion based AS YOU SAY on uncertainty. What if you are wrong? I felt that Hobbit went into considerable technical detail if you include his references. I did not consider it to be "drivel".

Toyota openly holds open the possibility of as yet undiscovered problems. This is not an admission of anything. It is what it is. They have designed check safe systems which should work in virtually all situations and when they don't, should shut down the engine. It is conceivably possible that some kind of failure or intervention might happen to overcome these fail safe systems. The most likely is the "loose nut behind the wheel". But in EXTREMELY rare situations, this might not be the case.

There is a proposal to require brake over-ride systems on all cars like I have on my 2006 Prius. That is fine 1) if it has not been defeated by some flaw and 2) if the driver steps on the brake rather than the accelerator. Absolute perfection is probably not possible just as drivers are not perfect.

Reasonable people need to seek reasonable answers for the good of all. It serves no useful purpose for anyone to do otherwise.

 

One of the big concerns I have is this tweaking of the tried-and-true driver interface that developed over 100 years plus. So (ironically, despite all my b**ching) I am against brake overrides. I am against it because it does away with the power-brake concept and just wipes out another driving technique that a solid driver might want in certain situations.

So I've come up with the "E-Brake Cutoff". I want stomping (or in other models) pulling of the emergency brake to kill the drivetrain via a mechanical disconnect.

I think this is a way better solution: (1) It creates a built-in kill switch. (2) The e-brake is for emergencies -- One would not engage the e-brake unless they absolutely wanted the car to stop! (3) Less impact than ditching power braking. (4) It does not impact the other primary use of the e-brake which is parking when the motor is off. This is the most direct, least invasive and tangible safety fix that can be integrated into existing systems.

It should use a mechanical cutoff that disengages a pull switch with a cable. That way the e-brake will definitively kill all electronic systems in a car. It then matters not if the electronics go haywire when the e-brake is pressed.

Outside of that, I would like to drive a stick shift.

 

The trouble with a mechanical disconnect is that it won't work when you need it. Since it will only be used in an emergency, it will sit there slowly rusting into place, drying out, and filling with junk. It will become useless without warning. Only a very nasty surprise will tell you that it no longer functions.

Tom

 

I just don't know of any real circumstances where a driver would need the gas and brakes at once. Yes, a stunt driver can do some neat things with brakes and gas at once but not average driver of the Camry. The good of a brake activated throttle cut out far supersedes the bad. Most sports cars will not have this feature as those drivers may still want total control.

 

Don't think so. Corvette and BMW (two I have personal experience with) provide a mechanism for the driver to disable the electronic nannys. But absent driver intervention, the nannys are there every time the car is started. The driver will have to actively disable the override. Just like there is a facility to actively disable VSC - you have to press a button and hold it (or press it 3 times in quick succession, or...). There will be a requirement for an active decision by the driver to disable the function (and the act of disabling the function is recorded in the data recording function on the car).

 

So every time I park the cable is pulled and the switch activated? Then how do I get the car going the next time I want to drive it?

 

I sure hope that stick shifts be exempt from this switch.

No, I demand such an exemption.

 

It ain't gonna happen. There is a well-defined mechanism that doesn't involve pulling the parking-brake. You can continue to operate the car using the parking-brake to hold the car on hills and when parking.

This is starting to sound like a game of Telephone.

 

Its in the Porsche I drove too.

If anyone believes the FUD that throttle cut off will hurt your driving experience, please test drive a performance car, then tell me a camry has better brake and throttle feel because there is not feedback. Its a rare instance that a driver will intentially hit the brakes and throttle in an unsafe manner. It is even rarer for them to intentionally disable a throttle lock in this condition.

This is all about cost savings instead of safety. Toyota has finally relented its pr campaign and will put this safety feature in their newer cars.