[urq] Toyota UA debacle

[Grant Lenahan]

i was just pointing out that unqualified statements like that, used as part of logic, undermine your otherwise valid points.

Grant
On Feb 27, 2010, at 11:11 AM, qshipq at aol.com wrote:

> Grant, I read both those articles, found here:
> 
> http://www.caranddriver.com/features/08q3/the_power_to_stop-tech_stuff
> http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept
> 
> If you read my drivel carefully, I add the variable of brake fade.  When speaking to a 7 year old Camry, brake fade (with the exact same hardware as a 2010 camry) will occur sooner.  Possibly before coming to a 'safe' speed, if possible at all = Variable noted as Brake fade in my statement.  Again, looking at a real world event, is it really proper driver training, or could a whole host of variables come into play in the 'safety reaction', the biggest significance also possibly being brake fade?  Having experienced catastrophic brake fade in a 95 M3 at Waterford Hills, the thought of that experience while the car was 'also' at WFO throttle makes me think some of these proposed tests are accurate only unto themselves in 'test conditions' as described. 
> 
> Let's speak to a non-attuned driver, in the real world, under non-expected conditions coming into a world of WOT hell, on a city street, processing more than just 'hit the brakes at this cone and measure the stopping distancew with WOT".  Again, I don't care if you add 'brake' fade into the equation, with the integration of brake app = throttle cut, the significance of the brake hardware 'condition' (fade, pad quality, fluid change interval, etc ), that  correlation again approaches 0 with a simple safety feature programmed into the ecu.
> 
> What's left to debate?  What C/D trained testers experienced replicating a unexpected event in ideal conditions.  Your point gets lost in the reality of the other variables.  In my drivel, I pointed to fade as one of the reasons I don't accept the blanket statement "brakes will always overcome WOT".  
> 
> Scott J
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Lenahan <glenahan at vfemail.net>
> To: qshipq at aol.com
> Cc: benswann at verizon.net; quattro at audifans.com; urq at audifans.com; rmwoodbury at roadrunner.com
> Sent: Sat, Feb 27, 2010 8:44 am
> Subject: Re: [urq] Toyota UA debacle
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 27, 2010, at 9:39 AM, qshipq at aol.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >  don't believe for a second that braking can 'overcome' an engine at WOT
> 
> 
> 
> You make many good points, but you simply can't pepper it with erroneous "facts" 
> 
> such as this.
> 
> brakes are >> stronger than motors. C&D demonstrate it.  0->60 vs 60 --> 0 
> 
> distances prove it.  The only issues are *how* brakes are applied so that 
> 
> neither vacuum loss nor heat renders them inoperable.
> 
> 
> 
> or was this a typo?
> 
> 
> 
> Grant
>