Not to sound like a Luddite, but every car I’ve owned that’s been loaded down with tons of fancy electronic doodads has developed all kinds of intermittent and annoying electrical problems, which either mechanics are helpless to repair, or will cost more than the value of the car to fix. Admittedly, I tend to have rather bad luck with cars, but everyone I know who has a new car, also ends up having the same kinds of problems sooner or later.
I know why they want to do this, they want to reduce the weight of the car by cutting out the hydraulic system weight, but this just isn’t an area where you want to play around with. I had the “joy” of losing all my brakes on a busy street during rush hour. Damn near got killed before I could pull the car over and get it stopped. This crap makes it into automobiles and a lot of people are going to get killed because of it. Mark my words.
I’m a little surprised they’re putting that kind of effort into developing brake-by-wire systems for hybrids and full-electric vehicles. I thought the real design goal for those was to use regenerative braking; turn the electric motor into a generator and recover energy, instead of losing it all to heat. Maybe the BBW-and-calipers are meant as a backup in case the regenerative fails.
Interesting… I’m not sure how this will play in the market. My car has a FBW accelerator. I don’t like it. Every now and then, the engine will stumble a bit under acceleration or desceleration (downshifts). It’s a brief stumble, but I find it highly annoying. Having the break system do the same is going to be downright unsettling. Also, if power brakes fail, you can still stop the car by standing on the peddal. I wonder how they will ensure you can still stop if the FBW brake system goes out. Redundant FBW systems would be my guess.
Something to consider. Many of the current F1 race cars use BBW. Many Airbus aircraft and the new Boeing 787 have or will use electric instead of hydaulic braking. Military aircraft have used it for years. And there were cars sold as late as the early 60’s that used mechanical instead of hydraulic brakes. In the 30’s, many folks did not trust “juice” braking and would not buy cars that had it. In 10 to 20 years it will become so common place folks will wonder how cars ever stopped with the old hydraulic technology.
Problem is that F1 cars and aircraft are constantly being worked on and inspected, and the repairs to them are being paid by large corporations with deep pockets, not by individual consumers who are going to have to eat the cost of repairs themselves.
The exact same thing was said about hydraulic brakes in the 30’s. Early Chevrolets required that the brakes be bled every 1000 miles or 30 days. Once it becomes a commonplace technology, we will think nothing of it.
Even mechanical brakes back then needed adjustments at the same interval, so it’s not like they were adding a serious amount of routine maintience back then, and if they can’t figure out how to keep a factory installed radio from shorting out after just a couple of years (as has happened with a number of my friends who have late model cars), how the bloody hell are they going to keep the brakes from shorting out? Especially when you consider that the wiring and electric motors for the braking system are going to be exposed to far harsher conditions than an in-dash radio. I’m not saying that it can’t be done, only that the fumbleheaded engineers at the automakers aren’t going to be able to get it right.
Hell, air ride suspensions have been around since the 1950s, but take a look at the ass end of Lincolns that are around a decade old or so. It’s not uncommon to see them sagging or cocked at some weird angle, and speaking from experience I can tell you that’s caused by the wiring going haywire, not a failure of the air bags in the suspension.
QuickSilver’s described the problems with his throttle-by-wire system (and no pilot would put up with that kind of crap) in his car, they can’t get that right, obviously, so I’m supposed to think that they’re going to be able to do better on the braking system? Sorry, I’m not buying it.
you’re far more generous than me then, the instant m$ produces software for critical automotive systems will be the day i stop purchasing new vehicles and only stay with pre-m$ vehicle systems
m$ car software is almost as bad as the old ford Nucleon prototype car, you can’t tell me that the idea of the ford motor company (motto; only some of our cars burn up) building a NUCLEAR REACTOR doesn’t fill you with sheer, unrelenting terror
(MacTech sees a horrible scene in his mind of the nations highways riddled with tiny mushroom clouds as the ford nuke reactors achieve uncontrolled critical mass)
i suppose it could be worse, they could have actually developed the Nucleon powerplant, and in their infinite “wisdom”, put it in the chassis…
of the Pinto…
so, put the Nucleon power plant in the car and have it controlled by m$ car software, and you have a disaster waiting to happen… only a matter of time…
A: I don’t like it, either. (Remember, one of my hats is automotive in nature.)
B: There damn well will be a backup system that is hydraulic in nature. Even if it’s E-Brake only.
C: When it works, it works really well, and assists the reactive/semi-active/active suspension in ways you can’t imagine. If you thought stability control was good before, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
D: Stability control has been shown, unexpectedly, to seriously cut down in accidents, unlike anti-lock brakes, which have not.
E: It comes in really handy for regenerative braking, too, as you have much finer control when blipping the brakes on and off.
That’s the first positive comment I’ve seen on stability control. Most of the reviews I’ve seen of it generally stop short of Godwinizing themselves, but just barely, in their description of what they think about stabilitity control. (I have read a few positive comments about it in regards to SUVs, though even those were backhanded in nature.)
I suppose you’d like a cite for that, Tuckerfan, am I right?
It’s not as much fun, and it’s not good for the involved or ‘semi-pro’ driver, but for Joe Commuter? It’ll save his ass in the wet. Long as you can turn it off, it’s all good.
Well, that wasn’t necessary, but thanks. It’s interesting. I’m not so sure about turning it off, though. Car & Driver reviewed a car, I think it was one of the 'Vettes, and said that even in the “off” position it sucked. I like to feel what all the components in the car are doing when I’m driving, and not having some computer tell me what it thinks I want to feel.
I don’t think Formula One allows brake-by-wire these days - perhaps they did in the early 90’s? Other series of racing might allow it, but F1 seems to require (relatively) low-tech braking systems. A summary, with text of the relevant rules, may be seen here, at formula1.com.
Current F1 braking systems, per the linked page, must be hydraulic, and must have dual circuits split front/rear for safety. Power boost and ABS are specifically banned.
My understanding is that such limitations in these and many other systems on those cars are motivated by both safety and cost. Whether or not it’s ultimately good for the sport is a debate all of its own.
There’s supposed to be an interlock which prevents the car from starting when it’s not in either Park or Neutral, but apparently, that’s not working, or the car’s slipping out of gear while the engine’s running. Judging by these comments
Apparently, no one she knows has enough of an understanding about cars to know that the problem is not with the remote starter, but in the tranny. If we’ve got people who can’t understand simple things like key fobs and starter interlocks (and apparently there’s bunches of folks who don’t grasp the interlock feature) what makes us think that they’re going to be able to accurately ascertain that their electronic brakes need fixing now?
(And, really, basic car repairs ought to be a requirement for getting one’s driver’s license, IMHO.)
The car in the link had a manual transmission. If it did have a clutch interlock, it was likely disabled if the car was equipped with an aftermarket remote start system. You can’t really fault anyone but the installer for that one.
Except we don’t know if it was an aftermarket job or not, and given that the installer was stupid enough screw up the install on something as simple as a remote starter, then they’re probably going to screw up any number things while trying to install something.
