RE: Nissan calms steer-by-wire fears
Discussion
I will definatively NEVER buy another Nissan in my lifetime.
Ive owned a few of Nissan's and they were pretty enjoyable but this is taking the P.
These profit obsessed corporate organisations cant even make lights that dont blow the bulbs within 1 year so what will these cheap ESSENTIAL components be like in 6-8 years time?
F**K that!
Nissan and all the other greedy urchins who save beans by ruining cars can keep them.
Heres hoping the imminent flood of cheap Chinese cars will put them out of business, they should be ashamed.
Ive owned a few of Nissan's and they were pretty enjoyable but this is taking the P.
These profit obsessed corporate organisations cant even make lights that dont blow the bulbs within 1 year so what will these cheap ESSENTIAL components be like in 6-8 years time?
F**K that!
Nissan and all the other greedy urchins who save beans by ruining cars can keep them.
Heres hoping the imminent flood of cheap Chinese cars will put them out of business, they should be ashamed.
It was bad enough when BL made the Austin Allegro with a square steering wheel , this now with no shaft from steering to rack is asking for trouble, as we know modern car electrics can fail at the flick of a switch, for me its taken away your last piece of safety control, so no shaft no sale.
A lot of hand wringing and uncomfortably forced sheep like irateness going on here.
Nobody seemed to mind 4-wheel steering systems back in the day and there was no direct mechanical linkage to the steering wheel involved there. Just as much potential for it to go wrong and send you into the undergrowth though. Did it? No.
As it happens it turned out to not offer any particular advantages which is why you don't see it these days. However until it's been extensively tried and tested it's hard to reach those conclusions.
I don't for one second expect this system to be used on sporty performance cars (initially at least), however on more every day cars where steering feel at the best of times is non-existant it's probably a good idea to at least try it. Especially as just like fly-by wire systems it could prevent loss of control inducing steering inputs, and apply corrective action (in fact many systems already do the latter) to keep things in line.
Also as you don't have to worry about unpleasant NVH feedback to the driver, it could also mean that suspension and steering components can be much more rigidly mounted in relation to each other which has the obvious benefit of much sharper handling. Fully rose jointed supermini with a drift mode .....could be a tremendous amount of fun!
This steer by wire system may turn out to be great, or it may not. However I'd rather it was tried out to a meaningful level before simply writing it off as a non-starter.
Nobody seemed to mind 4-wheel steering systems back in the day and there was no direct mechanical linkage to the steering wheel involved there. Just as much potential for it to go wrong and send you into the undergrowth though. Did it? No.
As it happens it turned out to not offer any particular advantages which is why you don't see it these days. However until it's been extensively tried and tested it's hard to reach those conclusions.
I don't for one second expect this system to be used on sporty performance cars (initially at least), however on more every day cars where steering feel at the best of times is non-existant it's probably a good idea to at least try it. Especially as just like fly-by wire systems it could prevent loss of control inducing steering inputs, and apply corrective action (in fact many systems already do the latter) to keep things in line.
Also as you don't have to worry about unpleasant NVH feedback to the driver, it could also mean that suspension and steering components can be much more rigidly mounted in relation to each other which has the obvious benefit of much sharper handling. Fully rose jointed supermini with a drift mode .....could be a tremendous amount of fun!
This steer by wire system may turn out to be great, or it may not. However I'd rather it was tried out to a meaningful level before simply writing it off as a non-starter.
dvs_dave said:
it could prevent loss of control inducing steering inputs, and apply corrective action to keep things in line.
So you advocate a car ignoring the driver telling it to swerve, and keeping it in a straight line instead?! I think I know what you might mean, which is to apply only the amount of steering necessary to make the manouevre, but it still sounds dodgy territory to me. zebedee said:
dvs_dave said:
it could prevent loss of control inducing steering inputs, and apply corrective action to keep things in line.
So you advocate a car ignoring the driver telling it to swerve, and keeping it in a straight line instead?! I think I know what you might mean, which is to apply only the amount of steering necessary to make the manouevre, but it still sounds dodgy territory to me. Apply that to cars, and you get a car that will allow the driver to steer, accelerate or brake to the absolute limit of the tyres' capacity, but not to exceed that. ABS, TCS and ESP are more or less already doing this anyway. If you exceed a tyre's limit of grip you lose performance. A skidding tyre takes longer to stop than a rotating one, for instances.
There are instances where you can improve cornering performance by reducing grip at one end in order to maximise grip at the other (a slight touch of oversteer can help a car turn better for instance) but that's usually simply overcoming a weakness on one axis in the first place, i.e. overcoming natural understeer, and the ESP etc with individual wheel braking and so on are compensating for this already.
I can't in all seriousness see a scenario where a car's software would be designed to continue in a straight line when the driver attempts to swerve. That's extrapolation beyond the reasonable, IMO.
Pistonwot said:
I will definatively NEVER buy another Nissan in my lifetime.
Ive owned a few of Nissan's and they were pretty enjoyable but this is taking the P.
These profit obsessed corporate organisations cant even make lights that dont blow the bulbs within 1 year so what will these cheap ESSENTIAL components be like in 6-8 years time?
F**K that!
Nissan and all the other greedy urchins who save beans by ruining cars can keep them.
Heres hoping the imminent flood of cheap Chinese cars will put them out of business, they should be ashamed.
Businesses. The word you were looking for was businesses.Ive owned a few of Nissan's and they were pretty enjoyable but this is taking the P.
These profit obsessed corporate organisations cant even make lights that dont blow the bulbs within 1 year so what will these cheap ESSENTIAL components be like in 6-8 years time?
F**K that!
Nissan and all the other greedy urchins who save beans by ruining cars can keep them.
Heres hoping the imminent flood of cheap Chinese cars will put them out of business, they should be ashamed.
Alfanatic said:
I expect dave means more what FBW does. Takes the request from the pilot and complies as much as the vehicle's own limits will allow, but no more. FBW will allow a pilot to pull the absolute maximum G available if that's what the pilot wants, but will not allow the pilot to exceed that. In this way FBW ensures that the pilot always gets the best possible response, since stalling the wing by applying too high an angle of attack would reduce the performance of the manoeuvre.
Apply that to cars, and you get a car that will allow the driver to steer, accelerate or brake to the absolute limit of the tyres' capacity, but not to exceed that. ABS, TCS and ESP are more or less already doing this anyway. If you exceed a tyre's limit of grip you lose performance. A skidding tyre takes longer to stop than a rotating one, for instances.
There are instances where you can improve cornering performance by reducing grip at one end in order to maximise grip at the other (a slight touch of oversteer can help a car turn better for instance) but that's usually simply overcoming a weakness on one axis in the first place, i.e. overcoming natural understeer, and the ESP etc with individual wheel braking and so on are compensating for this already.
I can't in all seriousness see a scenario where a car's software would be designed to continue in a straight line when the driver attempts to swerve. That's extrapolation beyond the reasonable, IMO.
Pretty much. Allow maximum possible performance without loosing control, silly extrapolations of hypothetical situations not withstanding. Apply that to cars, and you get a car that will allow the driver to steer, accelerate or brake to the absolute limit of the tyres' capacity, but not to exceed that. ABS, TCS and ESP are more or less already doing this anyway. If you exceed a tyre's limit of grip you lose performance. A skidding tyre takes longer to stop than a rotating one, for instances.
There are instances where you can improve cornering performance by reducing grip at one end in order to maximise grip at the other (a slight touch of oversteer can help a car turn better for instance) but that's usually simply overcoming a weakness on one axis in the first place, i.e. overcoming natural understeer, and the ESP etc with individual wheel braking and so on are compensating for this already.
I can't in all seriousness see a scenario where a car's software would be designed to continue in a straight line when the driver attempts to swerve. That's extrapolation beyond the reasonable, IMO.
fatboy b said:
Pesty said:
Having worked for TRW who made EPAS for nissan they can f
k right off if they think this is a good idea.
I want a mechanical link.
Airliners have been doing it for years. Can't see the problem. Let's face it, only a small percentage of people really care about steering feedback, and it's been getting less and less any how over the years with the advances in power steering.k right off if they think this is a good idea.I want a mechanical link.
nobody would argue if it;s a truck or bus going fly-by-wire, but if you want a car to involve the driver, not having real steering feel is a no no.
Not saying 90% of drivers would notice or care though, but that's just showing another problem with the way people drive.
900T-R said:
I'm not even sure people 'don't care' about steering feedback. Remove it, and see how confident they are navigating the 2 metres outer lanes at roadworks past a semitrailer.
I drove a Cadillac Seville many years ago that had steering so light you just couldn't feel the road. I found myself drifting over to the right on many occasions because there was absolutely no feel at all. In fact i've had more feel from a Playstation steering wheel controller.The only thing that worries me about this system is what's it like in snow or ice, and when you come to a corner/bend with standing water or a motorway come to that with deep standing water, are you going to feel it aquaplane like you can with cars of today when the steering suddenly goes light.
900T-R said:
In short, you'd need the type of people that are now signing off aircraft after maintenance...
That'll be people like me then - I think it's a really stupid idea. You cannot compare fly by wire aircraft with cars. Aircraft operate in a strictly controlled, highly regulated environment. Maitenance is rigourous & time based, aircraft do not get parked in muddy puddles or left for "just another month" between services. When an Airbus crashes, there is a FULL investigation carried out to phorensic standards if need be, to establish the exact cause & have it rectified throughout the fleet. It's not just dragged onto a low-loader & taken to the nearest crusher.Also, the systems used on Airbuses are extremely reliable & if "flight critical" they're triple redundant - that's three systems, all programed by different teams & monitored to make sure thier outputs are near identical. You think a Nissan will have that level of safety? Three separate computers in diferent parts of the car to do the same function? Then there's the pilots. A lot of the Airbuses that have crashed, failed because the pilot got used to the idea that the computer was flying the plane & took it to an area of the flight envelope where the computer was no help. I'm thinking of (among others) the one that crashed into trees at an airshow & the one where the aircraft was actually being flown by the pilot's 16 year old son. These were highly trained, regularly re-qualified professionals, car drivers are not.
Back off Nissan, this is technology for it's own sake.
Dear Nissan
Please point me in the direction of ANY modern car with a FBY throttle system that does not have any discernible throttle delay. I have yet to come across one.
Obviously somebody else has the patent on variable gear ratio steering so Nissan are trying develop then next nearest thing, how any engineer can tell us a non direct link is a better than a direct link (when you have to have one of these anyway!!) is talking out of their backside.
Keep it Simple Stupid
Please point me in the direction of ANY modern car with a FBY throttle system that does not have any discernible throttle delay. I have yet to come across one.
Obviously somebody else has the patent on variable gear ratio steering so Nissan are trying develop then next nearest thing, how any engineer can tell us a non direct link is a better than a direct link (when you have to have one of these anyway!!) is talking out of their backside.
Keep it Simple Stupid
zebedee said:
dvs_dave said:
it could prevent loss of control inducing steering inputs, and apply corrective action to keep things in line.
So you advocate a car ignoring the driver telling it to swerve, and keeping it in a straight line instead?! I think I know what you might mean, which is to apply only the amount of steering necessary to make the manouevre, but it still sounds dodgy territory to me. Any Toyota/Lexus with VGRS & VDIM, Hyundai I40's, Ford Focus's, many new Volvo's, the list is pretty big.
SSBB said:
Pistonwot said:
I will definatively NEVER buy another Nissan in my lifetime.
Ive owned a few of Nissan's and they were pretty enjoyable but this is taking the P.
These profit obsessed corporate organisations cant even make lights that dont blow the bulbs within 1 year so what will these cheap ESSENTIAL components be like in 6-8 years time?
F**K that!
Nissan and all the other greedy urchins who save beans by ruining cars can keep them.
Heres hoping the imminent flood of cheap Chinese cars will put them out of business, they should be ashamed.
Businesses. The word you were looking for was businesses.Ive owned a few of Nissan's and they were pretty enjoyable but this is taking the P.
These profit obsessed corporate organisations cant even make lights that dont blow the bulbs within 1 year so what will these cheap ESSENTIAL components be like in 6-8 years time?
F**K that!
Nissan and all the other greedy urchins who save beans by ruining cars can keep them.
Heres hoping the imminent flood of cheap Chinese cars will put them out of business, they should be ashamed.
See you next Tuesday ---- The word I was looking for was C**T
boundary1840 said:
It was bad enough when BL made the Austin Allegro with a square steering wheel , this now with no shaft from steering to rack is asking for trouble, as we know modern car electrics can fail at the flick of a switch, for me its taken away your last piece of safety control, so no shaft no sale.
There is a shaft connecting the steering wheel to the rack, but it's connected by a clutch. Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant though Fury1630 said:
Also, the systems used on Airbuses are extremely reliable & if "flight critical" they're triple redundant - that's three systems, all programed by different teams & monitored to make sure thier outputs are near identical. You think a Nissan will have that level of safety? Three separate computers in diferent parts of the car to do the same function?
Yes, Nissan will. Functional Safety is not a concept that's unique to aerospace:- rail; defence; medical; power generation (especially nuclear) and automotive all have their appropriate standards...IEC61508 was a catch-all Functional Safety standard for Electrical/Electronic systems that was being applied in the automotive industry years ago - and with the increasing reliance on electrical systems for safety critical functionality in road vehicles this spawned an automotive specific standard in ISO26262. For highly safety critical functions redundancy in both software and hardware is required, and the design; development and validation processes need to be carefully controlled and independently reviewed.
I think the press releases mention the steer-by-wire functionality being similar to aerospace simply to try to alay fears that this is scary new technology, but IMO it's not a great comparison to draw for audiences like this one! Design & Development costs for any safety critical system are going to be expensive in either case, but in aerospace you have low volumes and high unit costs when compared to automotive. So just because an automotive ECU is cheaper than an aerospace one, it doesn't mean it's crap... In practice that means a £10k electronic control unit produced at a rate of a few hundred per annum vs a similar set of hardware costing sub-£500 because hundreds of thousands are churned out each year.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff