Motorists KILLED due to floor mat jamming up gas pedal, including anodfficer and his family

On 2009-10-08, LDC > wrote:

>
> Sorry Alan you are still wrong. I trust the accident investigators
> a lot more than someone who hasn't inspected the vehicle involved.
> Do you think they dismiss an incident that killed 4 people without a
> thorough investigation?

Where's the report? The news media usually doesn't cover such a story
long enough or bother to follow up. What we get is the first
impressions.

> Another hint: it's not a .9g stop if the
> car doesn't decelerate is it? Don't you think the manufacturer
> would be interested in learning it was another problem before
> recalling 3.8 million cars?

Some recalls are simply pre-emptive. I see the recall as an
understanding that the process is political, not technical.

In article >,
Alan Baker > wrote:
>
>I did it for you.
>
>For a 3000 lb vehicle travelling 60 mph, a .9g panic stop dissipates 432
>hp.

The units aren't right. You dissipate energy, not power.
The energy dissipated in that stop (regardless of deceleration) is
11616000 lb*ft^2/s^2. Or about 363000 foot-pounds. Plus whatever
energy the car's engine adds over the stop, minus aerodynamic losses.

The power required at the initial instant of the stop is
3000 * .9g * 88 = 237600 ft-lb/sec, which is presumably where you get
the 432hp figure from (237600/550). But you have to add to that the
extra power the engine is putting in. And you have to integrate that
over the length of the stop. If the car has a 150hp engine, that's an
additional 252000 foot-pounds -- 70% more energy dissipated -- to stop
the car at a constant .9g... IF it can do it.

Basically, the fact that a car can overpower its own engine at a
standstill does not mean it can overpower its own engine, plus all the
velocity it already has, for long enough to stop the car without brake
fade setting in.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.

In article > ,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> In article >,
> Alan Baker > wrote:
> >
> >I did it for you.
> >
> >For a 3000 lb vehicle travelling 60 mph, a .9g panic stop dissipates 432
> >hp.
>
> The units aren't right. You dissipate energy, not power.

The units are correct. When you dissipate energy at a certain *rate* per
second, that's units of power.

> The energy dissipated in that stop (regardless of deceleration) is
> 11616000 lb*ft^2/s^2. Or about 363000 foot-pounds. Plus whatever
> energy the car's engine adds over the stop, minus aerodynamic losses.

Now divided that by the time necessary to complete the stop and you'll
have the average power dissipation.

>
> The power required at the initial instant of the stop is
> 3000 * .9g * 88 = 237600 ft-lb/sec, which is presumably where you get
> the 432hp figure from (237600/550). But you have to add to that the
> extra power the engine is putting in. And you have to integrate that
> over the length of the stop. If the car has a 150hp engine, that's an
> additional 252000 foot-pounds -- 70% more energy dissipated -- to stop
> the car at a constant .9g... IF it can do it.

The point I was making is that the brakes can clearly generate enough
braking force to dissipate 432 hp *without* the engine power.

>
> Basically, the fact that a car can overpower its own engine at a
> standstill does not mean it can overpower its own engine, plus all the
> velocity it already has, for long enough to stop the car without brake
> fade setting in.

No, but the fact that in reality one can make repeated maximum braking
stops without serious brake fade pretty much shows that it can...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

On Oct 8, 9:08*pm, (Matthew Russotto)
wrote:
> In article >,
> Alan Baker > wrote:
>
>
>
> >I did it for you.
>
> >For a 3000 lb vehicle travelling 60 mph, a .9g panic stop dissipates 432
> >hp.
>
> The units aren't right. *You dissipate energy, not power.
> The energy dissipated in that stop (regardless of deceleration) is
> 11616000 lb*ft^2/s^2. *Or about 363000 foot-pounds. *Plus whatever
> energy the car's engine adds over the stop, minus aerodynamic losses.
>
> The power required at the initial instant of the stop is
> 3000 * .9g * 88 *= 237600 ft-lb/sec, which is presumably where you get
> the 432hp figure from (237600/550). *But you have to add to that the
> extra power the engine is putting in. *And you have to integrate that
> over the length of the stop. *If the car has a 150hp engine, that's an
> additional 252000 foot-pounds -- 70% more energy dissipated -- to stop
> the car at a constant .9g... IF it can do it.
>
> Basically, the fact that a car can overpower its own engine at a
> standstill does not mean it can overpower its own engine, plus all the
> velocity it already has, for long enough to stop the car without brake
> fade setting in.
> --
> The problem with socialism is there's always
> someone with less ability and more need.


let's sic some lawyers on this, pronto.

no, really, I'm not stepping out of character, I'm serious. If we can
convince manufacturers of the need to upsize brakes, I might not have
had warped rotors on both of my last two company cars (fairly non-
aggressively driven, although often I end up using the brakes harder
than I plan to due to the idiocy/aggressiveness of others...)

The average bread and butter passenger car has never had truly good
brakes, by the standards of either a "car guy" or mechanic, with few
exceptions...

nate

(well, OK, my tongue was a little bit in my cheek, but seriously, are
newer GM rotors made of compressed poop and fail?)

In article
>,
N8N > wrote:

> On Oct 8, 9:08*pm, (Matthew Russotto)
> wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Alan Baker > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >I did it for you.
> >
> > >For a 3000 lb vehicle travelling 60 mph, a .9g panic stop dissipates 432
> > >hp.
> >
> > The units aren't right. *You dissipate energy, not power.
> > The energy dissipated in that stop (regardless of deceleration) is
> > 11616000 lb*ft^2/s^2. *Or about 363000 foot-pounds. *Plus whatever
> > energy the car's engine adds over the stop, minus aerodynamic losses.
> >
> > The power required at the initial instant of the stop is
> > 3000 * .9g * 88 *= 237600 ft-lb/sec, which is presumably where you get
> > the 432hp figure from (237600/550). *But you have to add to that the
> > extra power the engine is putting in. *And you have to integrate that
> > over the length of the stop. *If the car has a 150hp engine, that's an
> > additional 252000 foot-pounds -- 70% more energy dissipated -- to stop
> > the car at a constant .9g... IF it can do it.
> >
> > Basically, the fact that a car can overpower its own engine at a
> > standstill does not mean it can overpower its own engine, plus all the
> > velocity it already has, for long enough to stop the car without brake
> > fade setting in.
> > --
> > The problem with socialism is there's always
> > someone with less ability and more need.
>
>
> let's sic some lawyers on this, pronto.
>
> no, really, I'm not stepping out of character, I'm serious. If we can
> convince manufacturers of the need to upsize brakes, I might not have
> had warped rotors on both of my last two company cars (fairly non-
> aggressively driven, although often I end up using the brakes harder
> than I plan to due to the idiocy/aggressiveness of others...)
>
> The average bread and butter passenger car has never had truly good
> brakes, by the standards of either a "car guy" or mechanic, with few
> exceptions...
>
> nate
>
> (well, OK, my tongue was a little bit in my cheek, but seriously, are
> newer GM rotors made of compressed poop and fail?)

Everything else on GM's products is...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-10-08, LDC > wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 02:57:03 -0700, Alan Baker
> wrote:
>>
>>>In article
>,
>>> enough > wrote:
>>>
>>>> If this happens to you, the best thing to do is throw the car in
>>>> NEUTRAL, so you keep your power brakes and steering, failing that,
>>>> turn off the ignition (note, the Lexus with push button Start requires
>>>> you to hold down the button for a few seconds to shut off the engine)
>>>
>>>Why not just use the brake pedal?
>>>
>>>No car anywhere -- with the possible exception of a nitromethane
>>>burning, top-fuel dragster -- can overpower the brakes with the engine.
>>>
>>>Not one.
>
>> Sorry Alan, that is not true. It might be true of a stopped vehicle
>> but is definitely wrong for a vehicle in motion.
>
> Put the myth busters on it. I've seen a car barely able to move because
> of the parking brake stuck on one drum brake. I find it hard to believe
> that a car with a braking system in good working order would continue to
> accelerate once the brakes were applied.
>
Sorry, but Mythbusters is primarily a comedy show, with the science
obviously being secondary, so I wouldn't give that show full credibility
whether or not they bust an alleged myth.

Recall that this incident involved a moving vehicle, not one starting from a
stationary start.

So then consider the following scenario:

1. Go down a grade, say about 6%.
2. Hold the accelerator in position.
3. Apply brakes while still holding down the accelerator... effectively
dragging the brakes.

Yes, your vehicle will begin slowing, but then the rotors will probably
start to heat up and you'll feel some braking vibration in the vehicle if
you continue riding the brakes. Keep going braking like that, you'll likely
permanently warp the rotors. Eventually, you'll start boiling the brake
fluid or glazing the brake pads. Glazed pads will require more pedal effort
to stop. Boiling brake fluid will eventually result in a very soft and
spongy brake pedal with very little braking effectiveness, could eventually
cause the pedal to go all the way down to the floor.

(Many years ago, I once overheated/boiled brake fluid when a brake shop used
too hard of a brake pad for the vehicle's rotors. The problem wasn't evident
until such time that I was in bumper to bumper traffic. Then the brake pedal
became softer and spongier each time the vehicle slowed to a stop, and I had
to exit the freeway immediately until the brakes and brake fluid could cool
down, or else I could have had the brake pedal all the way down to the
floor. Once the brake shop replaced the pads with a different brake pad, the
problem never occurred again.)

Now, then--consider that in this incident, it is reasonable to suspect that
the pedal was stuck in the floored (i.e., full down) position, since the 911
call transcript shows the caller mentioned going 120 (mph). It's also likely
the brake pedal was being pressed as hard as possible for as long as
possible to try to slow down the vehicle. So then it's also likely that the
brake system could not properly stop the vehicle at full sustained
acceleration, given that most passenger vehicles use DOT 3 or DOT 4 brake
fluid, not advanced/expensive DOT 5 or DOT 5.1 racing types of brake fluid.
Of course, those are all pure guesses on my part, but those guesses are also
reasonable considering what the news reports have stated.

[snip...]

In article >,
"Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > wrote:

> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 2009-10-08, LDC > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 02:57:03 -0700, Alan Baker
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article
> >,
> >>> enough > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> If this happens to you, the best thing to do is throw the car in
> >>>> NEUTRAL, so you keep your power brakes and steering, failing that,
> >>>> turn off the ignition (note, the Lexus with push button Start requires
> >>>> you to hold down the button for a few seconds to shut off the engine)
> >>>
> >>>Why not just use the brake pedal?
> >>>
> >>>No car anywhere -- with the possible exception of a nitromethane
> >>>burning, top-fuel dragster -- can overpower the brakes with the engine.
> >>>
> >>>Not one.
> >
> >> Sorry Alan, that is not true. It might be true of a stopped vehicle
> >> but is definitely wrong for a vehicle in motion.
> >
> > Put the myth busters on it. I've seen a car barely able to move because
> > of the parking brake stuck on one drum brake. I find it hard to believe
> > that a car with a braking system in good working order would continue to
> > accelerate once the brakes were applied.
> >
> Sorry, but Mythbusters is primarily a comedy show, with the science
> obviously being secondary, so I wouldn't give that show full credibility
> whether or not they bust an alleged myth.
>
> Recall that this incident involved a moving vehicle, not one starting from a
> stationary start.
>
> So then consider the following scenario:
>
> 1. Go down a grade, say about 6%.
> 2. Hold the accelerator in position.
> 3. Apply brakes while still holding down the accelerator... effectively
> dragging the brakes.
>
> Yes, your vehicle will begin slowing, but then the rotors will probably
> start to heat up and you'll feel some braking vibration in the vehicle if
> you continue riding the brakes. Keep going braking like that, you'll likely
> permanently warp the rotors. Eventually, you'll start boiling the brake
> fluid or glazing the brake pads. Glazed pads will require more pedal effort
> to stop. Boiling brake fluid will eventually result in a very soft and
> spongy brake pedal with very little braking effectiveness, could eventually
> cause the pedal to go all the way down to the floor.

My vehicle won't "begin slowing". It will come to a very quick stop. Not
quite as quick as if I let off the accelerator, but damn near.

>
> (Many years ago, I once overheated/boiled brake fluid when a brake shop used
> too hard of a brake pad for the vehicle's rotors. The problem wasn't evident
> until such time that I was in bumper to bumper traffic. Then the brake pedal
> became softer and spongier each time the vehicle slowed to a stop, and I had
> to exit the freeway immediately until the brakes and brake fluid could cool
> down, or else I could have had the brake pedal all the way down to the
> floor. Once the brake shop replaced the pads with a different brake pad, the
> problem never occurred again.)

Just how "many years ago" was that?

>
> Now, then--consider that in this incident, it is reasonable to suspect that
> the pedal was stuck in the floored (i.e., full down) position, since the 911
> call transcript shows the caller mentioned going 120 (mph). It's also likely
> the brake pedal was being pressed as hard as possible for as long as
> possible to try to slow down the vehicle. So then it's also likely that the
> brake system could not properly stop the vehicle at full sustained
> acceleration, given that most passenger vehicles use DOT 3 or DOT 4 brake
> fluid, not advanced/expensive DOT 5 or DOT 5.1 racing types of brake fluid.
> Of course, those are all pure guesses on my part, but those guesses are also
> reasonable considering what the news reports have stated.

If the brakes were function properly, then the stop would only take a
little longer than a normal stop.

Sorry, but do the math.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

On 2009-10-09, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2009-10-08, LDC > wrote:
>>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 02:57:03 -0700, Alan Baker
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article
>,
>>>> enough > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If this happens to you, the best thing to do is throw the car in
>>>>> NEUTRAL, so you keep your power brakes and steering, failing that,
>>>>> turn off the ignition (note, the Lexus with push button Start requires
>>>>> you to hold down the button for a few seconds to shut off the engine)
>>>>
>>>>Why not just use the brake pedal?
>>>>
>>>>No car anywhere -- with the possible exception of a nitromethane
>>>>burning, top-fuel dragster -- can overpower the brakes with the engine.
>>>>
>>>>Not one.
>>
>>> Sorry Alan, that is not true. It might be true of a stopped vehicle
>>> but is definitely wrong for a vehicle in motion.
>>
>> Put the myth busters on it. I've seen a car barely able to move because
>> of the parking brake stuck on one drum brake. I find it hard to believe
>> that a car with a braking system in good working order would continue to
>> accelerate once the brakes were applied.
>>
> Sorry, but Mythbusters is primarily a comedy show, with the science
> obviously being secondary, so I wouldn't give that show full credibility
> whether or not they bust an alleged myth.

No humor at all...

> Recall that this incident involved a moving vehicle, not one starting from a
> stationary start.

> So then consider the following scenario:
> 1. Go down a grade, say about 6%.
> 2. Hold the accelerator in position.
> 3. Apply brakes while still holding down the accelerator... effectively
> dragging the brakes.

> Yes, your vehicle will begin slowing, but then the rotors will probably
> start to heat up and you'll feel some braking vibration in the vehicle if
> you continue riding the brakes. Keep going braking like that, you'll likely
> permanently warp the rotors. Eventually, you'll start boiling the brake
> fluid or glazing the brake pads. Glazed pads will require more pedal effort
> to stop. Boiling brake fluid will eventually result in a very soft and
> spongy brake pedal with very little braking effectiveness, could eventually
> cause the pedal to go all the way down to the floor.

I didn't know lexi had such crappy brakes. That's what I might expect
from an old Ford Tempo or a neglected chevy cobalt. Ever leave a
parking brake on enough to stop the car from rolling but not enough on
that it stopped the car from moving under engine power? All such a thing
does is some accelerated wear... no superheated brake fluid or glowing
rotors or wheel well parts on fire...

> (Many years ago, I once overheated/boiled brake fluid when a brake shop used
> too hard of a brake pad for the vehicle's rotors. The problem wasn't evident
> until such time that I was in bumper to bumper traffic. Then the brake pedal
> became softer and spongier each time the vehicle slowed to a stop, and I had
> to exit the freeway immediately until the brakes and brake fluid could cool
> down, or else I could have had the brake pedal all the way down to the
> floor. Once the brake shop replaced the pads with a different brake pad, the
> problem never occurred again.)

Sounds like a pretty marginal brake system to me.

> Now, then--consider that in this incident, it is reasonable to suspect that
> the pedal was stuck in the floored (i.e., full down) position, since the 911
> call transcript shows the caller mentioned going 120 (mph).

This is where the problem is behind the wheel. Nobody should even get to
a 120mph with a stuck throttle to begin with.

> It's also likely
> the brake pedal was being pressed as hard as possible for as long as
> possible to try to slow down the vehicle. So then it's also likely that the
> brake system could not properly stop the vehicle at full sustained
> acceleration, given that most passenger vehicles use DOT 3 or DOT 4 brake
> fluid, not advanced/expensive DOT 5 or DOT 5.1 racing types of brake fluid.
> Of course, those are all pure guesses on my part, but those guesses are also
> reasonable considering what the news reports have stated.

DOT 4 is significantly high temp. DOT 5 really isn't a good idea in
street cars for the most part because of it's own drawbacks.

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 06:48:58 -0700, Scott in SoCal
> wrote:


>Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon!

I'll file that right up there with never cross the streams...

--
Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a. SFB) admits to being
a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler:

"> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit?

Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5
years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in
cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open
stretch could be 25, i thought."

Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers
Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002
Message-ID: >
http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg

Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM:
See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj

enough > wrote:

> If this happens to you, the best thing to do is throw the car
> in NEUTRAL, so you keep your power brakes and steering,
> failing that, turn off the ignition (note, the Lexus with
> push button Start requires you to hold down the button for a
> few seconds to shut off the engine)

I had the pedal stick wide open once when accelerating out of a highway
toll booth. The successful reaction was to turn off the ignition, then
hit the brakes and hold them down until stopped.

The brakes will have enough accumulated vavuum in the boost cylinder
for a single, prolonged application. Pumping the brakes is NOT a good
idea, though.

Power steering will be available until the engine stops, and steering
will be available after tit stops, though with greater effort. Little
steering input will be needed -- just enough to guide the car to the
side of the road.

Your primary concern is to stop. If you hit something, it's best to be
going as slow as possible.