At least CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN tell the truth MOST of the time…while Fox is hovering around 18%…
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/
http://www.alternet.org/media/four-absurd-and-dangerous-lies-fox-news-told-about-muslims-week
http://aattp.org/category/fox-news-lies-2/
If this one wasn’t so true…it’d be funny…
I know that some of those were old…so here’s a more recent one…
I do give some credit to Fox though…They ADMIT they lie, and are allowed to lie because they are entertainment.
Cars need the brake signal to go through the body ecu for several reasons. ABS, SRS, cruise control, eletric power steering and stability control systems all look at the brake input.
Signal to the ECU is one thing…having the ECU controlling the brakes is something different.
Traction control can apply the brakes to prevent that wheel from slipping and transfer torque to the one with traction. There are also systems that apply brakes if an object is ahead of the car. These calculation and decisions are done in the ABS/TCS/ESC ECU with data inputs from elsewhere. The ABS ECU should block commands to apply the brakes from outside the ABS ECU but if the input can be faked the brakes could be applied.
Electric assisted steering gives a nice boost to MPG’s and those cars that can park themselves may have those calculations done in another ECU and sent to the steering ECU, Easy to fake the input over the CAN bus,
Multiple ECU’s and shared sensors send data across the communications network (CAN bus) and are vulnerable.
Signal to the ECU is one thing…having the ECU controlling the brakes is something different.
Since any new car is now required by law to have ABS and Vehicle Stability Control there really isn’t any way to accomplish these things other than having the ECU operate them. How else would you have the car modulate braking and throttle and steering?
Things aren’t run by a computer on a car just because they can be, it’s because they need to be.
There are so many items and systems that are used, wanted, or needed on a car that having some sort of electronic control module is inevitable. You can’t just have a simple headlight on/off switch because you need the lights to flash when you unlock the door with your key fob. You need the lights to flash along with the horn when someone tries to enter the car without a key. You need the DRLs to come on when the engine is started, but to turn off when the parking brake is set with the engine running. And so on, and so on…
I’m not railing for or against any of these systems or processes. I don’t design or build the cars, I just try to maintain and fix them when they break. And my take on that is things are usually easier to fix than most people think, and cars are by far easier to work on today than they were 25 years ago.
Personally though, I find it amazing how far(?) we’ve come in a short time. 150 years ago people were walking and pushing hand carts across the Great Plains in search of a better life. Today, we can’t be bothered to pull a minivan door closed behind us.
I meant brake lights. There have been posts here where everything in the brake light system was working order, except that they went into the BCM, but not out. But no matter, a computer should NOT override the operator when it comes to brakes or steering, and in the tease, the brakes would NOT work when applied by the driver.
I could see the BCM monitoring the brake lights to see if they are working, but that could be through a sensing wire, not running the signal through the computer. While cars are getting safer, there are a few things that I question. Its like two steps forward, one back. We’re still making progress, but not as much as we could.
Things aren't run by a computer on a car just because they can be, it's because they need to be.
Just because they’re connected, doesn’t mean that they can automatically do all functions. The key is in the software…NOT the hardware. If there’s a way to hack the brakes through the ECU…then that’s an extremely poor software design. It seems to me the manufacturers took ZERO security precautions. This shouldn’t be able to happen.
I meant brake lights. There have been posts here where everything in the brake light system was working order, except that they went into the BCM, but not out.
Of course the brake lights go in and out of the BCM. The same circuitry for the brake lights is also for the turn signals, hazard lights, and alarm chirp. You want 4 separate systems controlling one circuit or one. Just have a switch tell the BCM what to do and have the BCM do it. Much simpler than having 4 different switches wired together and hoping they do what they are supposed to.
But no matter, a computer should NOT override the operator when it comes to brakes or steering
I agree with you there but that is exactly what Antilock Brake Systems, Traction Control, and Vehicle Stability Control do–they can override the driver when it comes to brakes and throttle control. And since carmakers are legally required to put these systems on cars sold in this country there’s little you can do about it. Your quarrel shouldn’t be with carmakers or technology, but with your senator, representative, governor, etc.
I agree with you there but that is exactly what Antilock Brake Systems, Traction Control, and Vehicle Stability Control do--they can override the driver when it comes to brakes and throttle control.
I know how ABS works…to put it simply…it should be in it’s own little sub system…that is isolated from any other external influence.
Example…You have a computer at home… Part of that system is set of software called device drivers that control the communication to the disk drives. Even though you have complete control of your system you CAN NOT take over control of those device drivers and have it start doing things it shouldn’t be doing.
Looks like they’re going to have to re-architect their software to fix this. It’s a shame. It’s not that difficult to do when you design these security features up front…instead of back filling them in.
I know how ABS works…to put it simply…it should be in it’s own little sub system…that is isolated from any other external influence.
Forever and ever it was. But since the advent of traction and stability control, the car has to have the throttle and braking systems working in concert. In other words, just because you have the gas pedal to the floor that doesn’t mean the brakes shouldn’t be actuating at the same time.
I think car makers are stuck in the middle of a 3-way tug-of-war and I don’t envy them. You have demanding consumers who want every conceivable bell and whistle in the car short of wiping their butts, you have economy-minded consumers who would be happy in a car with automatic nothing, roll-down windows and no power steering, and you have the government mandating safety feature on top of safety feature all the while demanding increased fuel mileage.
asemaster
Of course the brake lights go in and out of the BCM. The same circuitry for the brake lights is also for the turn signals, hazard lights, and alarm chirp. You want 4 separate systems controlling one circuit or one. Just have a switch tell the BCM what to do and have the BCM do it. Much simpler than having 4 different switches wired together and hoping they do what they are supposed to.
I don’t think you understand. The brake lights did not get simpler, they got more complicated. Instead of a fuse, brake light switch, wiring to the brake lights, bulbs and ground, you now have a computer inserted in the wiring between the switch and the bulbs whose only purpose seems to be to cost the customer $850 when the brake lights stop working. Same for the fuel gauge. You still have the sending unit, wiring and gauge, plus an $850 computer to break down so you don’t know how much gas you have.
I believe this is called the Rube Goldberg School of Design.
Ok, I understand how on star can control the computer and maybe turn the mic on to hear conversations but there is no camera that I know of. Don’t know how the could see inside the cabin? Also understand how the brakes could be applied via abs but can’t see how the mechanical brakes could be disabled so they couldn’t be applied.
At any rate just another example of how far behind our laws are as far as electronics and privacy goes. Cameras everywhere, license plate readers that the Feds wanted to turn into a nation wide system, emails treated differently than phone conversations, and on and on. We really need to get a better handle on this whole area.
It’s not more complicated. Once you understand it, it becomes elegant in design.
Your fuel gauge example is an excellent example. A sending unit, wire, and gauge serves the purpose just fine. For the gauge. But since the car is federally mandated to not only keep fuel vapors from venting out, but also mandated to actively test and monitor that system that does that, the onboard computer needs to know how much fuel is in the tank and how much pressure or vacuum the fuel in the tank is exposed to. How is the floating sending unit going to accomplish that?
The brake light system did get simpler. Much simpler. People used to complain about electrical problems decades ago when they didn’t understand that the brake lights didn’t work (but the turn signals did) because the turn switch in the column was bad.
That 3157 bulb in the brake light needs to come on when the brake pedal is pushed. Also when the turn signals are on. Also when the hazards are turned on. Also when someone is trying to steal the car. And when you use your key fob to unlock the doors. And more wiring at the brake switch to kill the cruise control and trans lockup when you press the brake. And all these switches and wiring had to carry the electrical load of the lamps. So you’ve got 14ga wiring running all over the place spliced here and there making a mess of things and making it incredibly difficult to trace a problem if and when there is a malfunction.
Now you have a central module controlling these functions and all the switches (brake, turn, hazard, disarm) are simple on/off switches with 22ga wiring that carry an imperceptible load. Less wiring, less wear and tear since the switches don’t carry an electrical load, and much simpler diagnosis.
I can now hook up to a plug under your dash and tell you that your washer pump not working is caused by a blown fuse and that your left brake light is out and that the low/reverse clutch in your transmission is about worn out. All without opening the hood or trunk or looking at a single fusebox or bulb. How cool is that?
Cars today are much more reliable and easier to work on than cars of the 80’s and 90’s.
@asemaster said: “Cars today are much more reliable and easier to work on than cars of the 80’s and 90’s.”
And that goes double if not more for cars of the 60’s. 100,000 miles on a mid 60’s car was a big, big deal. The odometers only went to 99,999 and then reset to 00000. Valve jobs at 40,000, ring jobs, new ball joints at 50,000. A 6 or 7 year old car with 75,000 was worth very little then. Today that’s all different. Today’s cars are so much better in every way. They start in cold wet weather, they stop well, they drive straight. I’ll bet if the average driver today had to get behind the wheel of a mid 60’s Ford Galaxie they would be scared to death with sloppy handling, terrible brakes and stinky exhaust.
This business about hacking cars is just another popular press scare. If it’s so dangerous, line your hat with aluminum foil and pull out your fillings in your teeth.
In reality, there are few network news shows left and even the print media that aren’t there for entertainment. A comedian is welcome to say just about anything for a laugh and if it has a punch line, anyone, including a politician can just say they were joking. I am amazed how some news broadcasters can say what they do and not show any signs of deception. These people would make great CIA agents as far as keeping secretes is concerned…and even perhaps render water boarding useless as a way extracting the truth.
Heck…even the weatherman seems to be lying around here when he calls for good weather. We are at 50 inches and counting in just the last couple of snow filled weeks. The keep telling us spring is just around the corner and the temps will see the north side of 20, some time. . Where is Al when you need him for a little warmth.
Btw, good post @MikeInNh
My car has electric power steering, but it’s not “steer by wire”. With the key off, you can still turn the wheel, it just takes some muscle.
The same is true of power brakes.
Maintaining the expensive hydraulic braking system does allow you to have brakes should you loose power. But, in a modern car, when everything is working, the brakes might as well be “braking by wire”.
Your foot determines the “message and intent” you send but whether the force is exerted on the brakes is under the total control of the computer. If it “decides” to close the valves completely to some or all of the wheels, or modulate them to allow the hydraulic fluid to pass through at “it’s” discretion, there is nothing more you can do.
ABS takes over total control and like your throttle, response to your “suggestions” in a manner of it’s choosing. Heck, your brakes work without any pedal intervention with traction and stability control. It’s just a matter of time before the “too expensive” set up we have will just give way to “braking” by wire but with a cheaper mechanical back up…like a more glorified parking brake.
We have cars that park themselves and some that “take over” to keep in your lane. If that is not akin to steering by wire, we are getting real close to doing it in practice like we are braking.
I hate to point it out, but there may be another reason why all the systems have to go through the computers now; to collect and maintain data. This began for studies of crash data, but now it’s been expanded to be used in lawsuits, insurance investigations, the feds just admitted that they track vehicles initially to fight drugs but now for the NSA.
Because they go through ONE ECU does NOT mean they can’t be separate isolated pieces of software. On your computer at home you have many many isolated pieces of software that work together with all the other pieces of the software and hardware. Isolating does not mean shutting out. There is absolutely no reason what-so-ever the systems have to be so integrated that they can’t make it secure from hacking. It’s just lazy programming. Now to fix the problem it’s going to cost them lot more money.
ase, the problem is that I do understand it and it is not always elegant. I have been into computers since 1969 and all to often they are used for tasks just because they can be used for a task, not because the perform the task better.
Yes, sometimes computers are better suited for a task, I would not want to go back to the days before the PCM, or even before OBDII. But there is absolutely no reason for the gas gauge to go through the BCM other than the gauge in the dash was operated by a PCM signal instead of a reference voltage.
On my Saturn, I frequently found the gauge on E, even right after filling the tank. Usually it would be correct the next time I started the engine. It was an annoyance but I wasn’t going to spend $850 for a new BCM. The sending unit does not send pressure information or any other information other than fuel level, and if it was so important that the information just HAD to go to the BCM, how come I didn’t get a MIL when it didn’t work. And what does the BCM have to do with engine emissions anyway, that the function of the PCM.
I was fortunate that the Saturn used a DLR relay. If something happened, it was only about $7.50 for a new relay instead of $270 for a BCM that the later model cars need.
Its just that engineers see a computer that has excess capacity, so they look for things to keep it busy.