New Nissan techs

[Ever Victorious]

http://news.moneycentral.msn.c...51870

OK, I REALLY don't like the sound of that.

I can tolerate drive-by-wire throttle, since if it goes dead, it just goes to 0% and the car stops.

But I am NOT going to trust a car where there is no physical linkage between the steering wheel and the steering rack, or no physical linkage between the brake pedal and brakes.

BAD Nissan! No donut!

[ZuZ]

well dude...i know for sure that the Citroen C4 has the steer-by-wire technology and its awesome, i test driven one and the handling is somehow different from the normal steering, but by time u get accustomed to it..

as for the safety measures, and trust issues!.. well what do u have to say for airplanes!.. technically they steer by wire! and statistics show that there is a wayyyy greater chance of being killed in a car accident rather than an airplane accident!!..

just my 2 cents!

[Ever Victorious]

I don't like airplanes either, I have to dope myself up on halcyon just to get on one.

Besides the fact that I would hate the feel of the system because it's a further disconnect from the road (which is the main reason you will never... EVER... see me buy a luxury car), I'd hate to see what happens to a car with such a system installed if its computer decided to either improperly register commands or just simply fail to register them at all.

If you've been reading the threads lately, you know that Driving Instructor's car has on a couple occasions completely disconnected the throttle from the computer, giving the car no response at all. My car has had a few instances where the computer was not properly registering the throttle. It wasn't a complete disconnect, but it was definitely not reading correctly, the car would almost not move.

It's annoying if your throttle stops responding.

It would be deadly if your brakes or steering stopped responding.

[Knightro2]

The only reason flying is safer than driving is that you have trained professional pilots with alot more regulation than on the highways. In cars you have to deal with 1.) More of them than planes 2.) More idiots driving the cars then flying planes. 3.) Planes are required to be inspected thoroughly (although as we've seen this can lapse ie, Southwest which I fly on every other week) for mechanical issues whereas cars don't.

[Great White Versa]

I agree. IF the computers/electronics go out, you'd be in really bad shape. Even though most systems today are power assisted, you still have control if everything goes wrong inside the car and can push really hard on the break pedal and fight the wheel

[bladesbravo]

yea, but i've had experience with cars breaking down 01 Taurus, air compressor seized and the belt broke (excuse my lack of car technical terms), i called my dad and we first figured that i could struggle to the repair shop, but then came to the realization that with the belt broken at least for ford the radiator was not running, which is bad for the car. so we towed it, sold it, and bought a versa

so even with a direct connection there are limitations to driving

[Knightro2]

"Ashes To AshesDust To DustIf It Wasn't For FordOur Tools Would Rust!"

That was my motto when I owned a 1990 Bronco II. I literally planned each Saturday around what I would have to fix on my truck next. It was my first car so couldn't get too bummed about it. Made me appreciate all the cars/trucks that I got after it.

[Great White Versa]

so even with a direct connection there are limitations to driving

What I was saying, and believe that EV was saying also, is that if you are in your car driving down the road and your systems fail... what then? With a direct connection you still have some ability to steer and brake the vehicle. If everything is solely electronically linked, the only control that you have is (possibly) the e-brake.

[Andrews Chalmers]

Computers perform more complicated calculations than handling braking & steering all the time. I'm not worried at the technology per se - as long as it is properly implemented.

Fly by wire is utilized in pretty much all modern fighter aircraft, which are increasingly designed to be inherently unstable in flight to make them more agile. The airframes will simply be unable to fly in a controlled manner without the onboard computer making constant adjustment to the flight surfaces & interpreting/adjusting the pilot's inputs.

The pilots don't lose control - but just need to learn how to fly differently. I'll suspect the learning curve for the drive-by-wire systems may be greater (as experienced divers will have to essentially recalibrate how they drive a car to match the car), but that's expected of any new car.

[keanucosmo]

Besides the fact that I would hate the feel of the system because it's a further disconnect from the road (which is the main reason you will never... EVER... see me buy a luxury car), I'd hate to see what happens to a car with such a system installed if its computer decided to either improperly register commands or just simply fail to register them at all.

Interesting tidbit. Force feedback technology used in some gaming controls such as joysticks & steering wheels originated because of the disconnection of the controls. The pilots needed some resistance for it to feel mechanically connected. Hopefully that will be included when the technology comes to cars if it ever does.

[Ever Victorious]

I still won't go for it. GWV understands what I mean, and why.

bladesbravo - That's not really pertaining to what I'm talking about here. As you're driving a car, you're not sitting there actively making adjustments to your fan or your cooling system to make sure they are operating, they are passive systems. This is talking about taking ACTIVE systems that you currently directly control, and passing controls to the computers. And what happens if your cooling system fails? Well, if you're paying attention, you pull the car over and have it towed before it suffers damage. If not, it over heats, and you lose power, and have to replace the engine. BUT YOU DON'T CRASH!

keanucosmo - I know that computers make far more difficult calculations as is. That's their job. I also know that computers crash or go wacky. I fix the damn things for a living. It's one thing for your throttle computer to just go into "huh?" mode, because your car will either not go, or will glide to a stop. But if you lose input to your brakes or steering, you will neither be able to slow nor turn the vehicle. How is that not dangerous?

And computer errors CAN occur in modern flight systems. What's the end result of this? Oh yeah, loss of control and eventual crash. If the pilot's lucky, he can eject. If not... well...

Computer hardware and software programs are designed and manufactured by humans, who are flawed. You cannot have an end product that is more perfect than the mind that conceived it. You can refine them to the point that they RARELY fail, but not to the point that they NEVER fail. Now consider how many fighter jets exist vs. how many passenger cars. Multiply the failure rates by the difference to see how many vehicles, using military grade hardware, would fail and likely crash. Then increase that number by, say, 200-300%, because you KNOW that kind of hardware is not going to exist in a common passenger car. It will be the cheapest hardware built by the lowest bidder.

Really, guys. In less than 2 years of the Versa being around, we've seen computer-related failures causing problems with throttle control, TPMS systems, window regulation, and CVT transmission lockups. Do you REALLY want to throw the POSSIBILITY of brake and steering system failures into that?

As for "Force Feedback" technology.... it's all crap, there's still a disconnect. In fact, it makes the disconnect WORSE because the timing is incorrect due to computer processing delay, and feedback isn't always given at the correct levels, so it tells you either too much or not enough. When playing racing games I choose a standard controller over a force feedback wheel because it's actually MORE confusing to try to "drive" with the "realistic feedback".

I'm VERY surprised that any of you are actually DEFENDING this technology. I make a living off of technology.. the more of it there is around, the better living I make. But this is one thing that even disgusts *me*.

[feloniousmonk]

It's annoying if your throttle stops responding.

Drive by wire throttle is pretty sophisticated. And it's not brand new untested technology. I've got it in my bimmer, 6 of them, and it's fantastic. After market turbocharging on a drive by wire throttle car with the right software tuning — phenomenal.

Not all progress is bad.

Versa is a low end car, can't expect it to be 100% perfect. If Nissan used the higher end components to make the Versa they wouldn't be able to price it where it is now.

I hear you, but by your argument it sounds like you really want a Ford model T. But, they weren't all that reliable either, were they?

Since there are obvious safety concerns with servo steering... I don't think Nissan's engineers would be stupid enough to not: 1) test the hell out of the system before implementing it, 2) include a fail safe back up system in case the unthinkable happens. Drive by wire planes all have backup systems.

[Ever Victorious]

Great. Thanks for making up stuff I didn't actually say. I appreciate it.



if the point of your posting in here is to try to convince me of how great this system will be, stop. hit your back button now and go read another thread. I will not listen, I will never be swayed.

If you want to discuss the technical merits/demerits of such a system, then by all means post.

As for the not 100% perfect... what percentage of perfection is acceptable? What number of people are you going to intentionally put in harm's way for an unnecessary technological convenience for your own pleasure?

If just 1% of all systems have a failure, well.. crunch the numbers. The Versa alone sold in the neighborhood of what, 54,000 units for the 2007 model year? If 1% of all of these vehicles sustained a system failure, that is 540 failures.

Ok, so 1% is probably unrealistic. But 0.1% is NOT an unrealistic figure. That's 54 units. Of one model produced for one year.

If you want to make this technology widespread, don't forget that the automotive industry sells MILLIONS of cars a year in the US alone. If just 1,000,000 vehicles were sold for a given year, a 0.1% failure rate would result in 1,000 vehicles failing. 1,000 people that would not be able to stop or steer. 1,000 people putting not only their own lives, but the lives of everyone on the street around them in jeopardy.

Is that acceptable for you, so that you don't have to feel the occasional pothole in the road? Because, let's face it... the claim of weight reduction is pure bull. The amount of weight you are saving by removing the steering column is almost completely overcome by having to put in all of the electronics and motors for the system. How much weight are you REALLY going to save? 5 pounds? 10 pounds? 20 pounds? None of those are acceptable amounts of weight to save to make this system worthwhile.

The whole steering system, including rack, pump, and knuckles, doesn't weigh more than a couple hundred pounds in most cars. And the rack, knuckes, and wheel will still need to be present in an XBW system to make them function. What are you eliminating? Not likely the pump, because the steering motors will likely need those to assist. Unless the motors themselves are burly enough to move the rack, which means that the motors probably weigh as much as or more than the pump. Ok... so what does that leave? The steering shaft itself. One of the least significant sources of weight in the whole system.

And how much weight can you REALLY save from the braking system by going electronic? You still have to have the rotors, calipers, and pads. Probably the master cylinder too. Seems to me that you'd actually be ADDING more junk to the system, and not being able to remove any of the actual heavy parts. Something here makes me think an XBW system for brakes would actually weigh MORE than the traditional, tried-and-true, hydraulic brake system.

Do I have faith that the Nissan engineers would test the system thoroughly enough to be dead reliable before release?

Not on your life.

I have, between my two Versas, put 30,000 miles on them.

I have now made a total of 8 trips to the dealership for service between the two. Some of them for crap that should have been mastered DECADES ago, like a simple door seal. If they can't make a door seal that won't peel off a door after 21,000 miles, I have precisely NO faith that they can make a bulletproof electronic control system for ALL of the car's systems. Especially not when I had *3* TPMS system failures in 7,000 miles on one of the vehicles. If they can't make a system to read air pressure and turn on a light work correctly, I am NOT going to let them make me an electronic system that makes the car turn or stop.

You guys here always like to bag on Kia and Hyundai, but my Versas now officially have a failure rate 12 times as bad as my Hyundai. Great reliability there, huh? That must have been some fantastic engineering and testing that Nissan did.

Do I even have to reiterate the fact that you CANNOT compare this system to an aircraft's system, just due to sheer cost?

A multi-million dollar Boeing aircraft has more budget for the flight systems than the entire COST of a family car. Are you proposing that we simply double the price of a car so that we can have a reliable enough system?

So again... aircraft = car is an invalid argument. Period.