> No thanks. What is it with car companies forever chasing technology for its
> own sake when there is no good reason to use it?
> And I loved this bit:
> ""If we are freed from that, we would be able to place the steering wheel
> wherever we like," said Masaharu Satou, a Nissan engineer.
> "Such as in the back seat, or it would be possible to steer the car with a
> joystick.""
> Mr Satou should get in touch with some Saab engineers from the 80s. They tried
> it - it was hopeless. I think he's spent too long with his playstation.
I had a car with hydraulic steering - there was a rack and pinion behind it, but in normal use that wasn't engaged. I quite liked it, but many people didn't - the self-centering when stationary was amusing.
Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Mr Satou should get in touch with some Saab engineers from the 80s. They
>tried
>> it - it was hopeless. I think he's spent too long with his playstation.
>I had a car with hydraulic steering - there was a rack and pinion behind >it, but in normal use that wasn't engaged. I quite liked it, but many >people didn't - the self-centering when stationary was amusing.
>Oh yes - it's 1970 technology.
And 1970s reliability probably. What would happen if the hydraulic fluid
leaked out while you were driving along - would the mechanical backup be
engaged or would you suddenly find yourself heading into the bushes?
On 17/10/2012 16:56, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:45:06 +0100
> Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Mr Satou should get in touch with some Saab engineers from the 80s. They
>> tried
>>> it - it was hopeless. I think he's spent too long with his playstation.
>> I had a car with hydraulic steering - there was a rack and pinion behind
>> it, but in normal use that wasn't engaged. I quite liked it, but many
>> people didn't - the self-centering when stationary was amusing.
>> Oh yes - it's 1970 technology.
> And 1970s reliability probably. What would happen if the hydraulic fluid
> leaked out while you were driving along - would the mechanical backup be
> engaged or would you suddenly find yourself heading into the bushes?
Have a guess - this was legal to use on the road.
"in normal use that wasn't engaged". If the hydraulics died, it engaged.
On 17/10/2012 20:40, damduck-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:04:37 +0100, Nightjar
> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>>> ""If we are freed from that, we would be able to place the steering wheel
>>> wherever we like," said Masaharu Satou, a Nissan engineer.
>>> "Such as in the back seat,
>> A new meaning for back seat driver?
> Being able to relocate the wheel and other controls from RHD to LHD in
> a minute or two could be useful for those who internationally.
You would also need to be able to move the instrument panel. Personally, I don't find it much of a problem driving on the right, although a forward looking camera on the left side of the car would sometimes make overtaking easier.
>>> or it would be possible to steer the car with a
>>> joystick.""
>> The Queen Mary 2 is steered with one hand, using a fairly insignificant
>> looking control knob.
> That would be wasted in a car until they get fitted with equivalents
> to the Azimuth pods and thrusters that would make entering a parking
> space sideways very easy....
That was demonstrated in the 1930s, with sideways wheels that lowered on jacks, although it never went into production.
In article <ZKudne-q6d8fT-PNnZ2dnUVZ7qadn...@brightview.co.uk>,
Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> I had a car with hydraulic steering - there was a rack and pinion behind > it, but in normal use that wasn't engaged. I quite liked it, but many > people didn't - the self-centering when stationary was amusing.
If you're talking about the SM, where did you get the idea the R&P
disengaged? And why would it need to? Providing powered self centring is
not difficult to do on a conventional power steering system.
-- *Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it*
Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>On 17/10/2012 16:56, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:45:06 +0100
>> Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Mr Satou should get in touch with some Saab engineers from the 80s. They
>>> tried
>>>> it - it was hopeless. I think he's spent too long with his playstation.
>>> I had a car with hydraulic steering - there was a rack and pinion behind
>>> it, but in normal use that wasn't engaged. I quite liked it, but many
>>> people didn't - the self-centering when stationary was amusing.
>>> Oh yes - it's 1970 technology.
>> And 1970s reliability probably. What would happen if the hydraulic fluid
>> leaked out while you were driving along - would the mechanical backup be
>> engaged or would you suddenly find yourself heading into the bushes?
>Have a guess - this was legal to use on the road.
So were dozens of models of dangerous heaps of shit in the 70s.
>If you don't like the idea, don't go anywhere by air, or sea.
I don't intend to.
>> What is it with car companies forever chasing technology for its
>> own sake when there is no good reason to use it?
>There is a very good reason for it. It sells cars.
No - they think it sells cars. Personally I don't think it makes a blind bit
of difference as the popularity of makes such as Dacia in europe demonstrates.
Sure, in the rep wars where every sad sack in a mondeo has to wave his willy
around and show how important he is it might matter, but I doubt most people
give a toss. They're far more interested in the ICE and related facilities.
>> or it would be possible to steer the car with a
>> joystick.""
>The Queen Mary 2 is steered with one hand, using a fairly insignificant >looking control knob.
The queen mary doesn't have to go around bends every 30 seconds and probably
has half a dozen people on the bridge to help navigation. A better example
would be a speedboat. Let me know when they're steer by wire.
damduck-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>If hybrids or electric transmissions come in a big way with hub motors
I'm just guessing but I suspect there could be potential for nasty torque
steer with wheel mounted motors unless very precisely controlled. Also they
add to unsprung weight which won't do much for ride quality.
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:51:08 +0100, Nightjar wrote:
> On 17/10/2012 20:40, damduck-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:04:37 +0100, Nightjar
>> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>>>> ""If we are freed from that, we would be able to place the steering
>>>> wheel wherever we like," said Masaharu Satou, a Nissan engineer.
>>>> "Such as in the back seat,
>>> A new meaning for back seat driver?
>> Being able to relocate the wheel and other controls from RHD to LHD in
>> a minute or two could be useful for those who internationally.
> You would also need to be able to move the instrument panel. Personally,
> I don't find it much of a problem driving on the right, although a
> forward looking camera on the left side of the car would sometimes make
> overtaking easier.
Last 3 cars I have owned had the instrument panel in the middle of the dash. It's almost like the manufacturers cut down on the work to run LHD and RHD production lines.
Jethro_uk <jethro...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>Last 3 cars I have owned had the instrument panel in the middle of the >dash. It's almost like the manufacturers cut down on the work to run LHD >and RHD production lines.
I couldn't get used to a mid mounted dash. I want the instruments in as
convenient a location as possible, not down and to the left and further
away than normal.
> In article <ZKudne-q6d8fT-PNnZ2dnUVZ7qadn...@brightview.co.uk>,
> Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> I had a car with hydraulic steering - there was a rack and pinion behind
>> it, but in normal use that wasn't engaged. I quite liked it, but many
>> people didn't - the self-centering when stationary was amusing.
> If you're talking about the SM, where did you get the idea the R&P
> disengaged? And why would it need to? Providing powered self centring is
> not difficult to do on a conventional power steering system.
Not just the SM. The pinion isn't engaged with the rack in normal use. There's a little bit of play, and the hydraulics keep it in the middle when running.
> If the road is bumpy and has ruts then I want to know so I can adjust my
> driving accordingly.
I want to be able to steer round them easily.
> It's also one reason why I'm useless at driving games
Games deprive more than touch through the wheel.
> at any sort of speed, I don't drive solely on visual feedback.
> When I first
> drove a car with power steering I hated it because there was almost no
> feedback from the road and I had to concentrate much harder on everything
> else.
I find feel is much better with a gentle touch, which a firm grip and the
need to steer from the shoulders doesn't provide. When I changed from a
Citroen BX without to one with, the newer car needed noticeably less road
space.
> Either I've got used to it or the technology has improved in the last
> 25 years.
Maybe you have learnt to relax. Electric PAS doesn't seem as good as
hydraulic for some reason.
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:51:08 +0100, Nightjar wrote:
>> On 17/10/2012 20:40, damduck-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:04:37 +0100, Nightjar
>>> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>> ""If we are freed from that, we would be able to place the steering
>>>>> wheel wherever we like," said Masaharu Satou, a Nissan engineer.
>>>>> "Such as in the back seat,
>>>> A new meaning for back seat driver?
>>> Being able to relocate the wheel and other controls from RHD to LHD in
>>> a minute or two could be useful for those who internationally.
>> You would also need to be able to move the instrument panel. Personally,
>> I don't find it much of a problem driving on the right, although a
>> forward looking camera on the left side of the car would sometimes make
>> overtaking easier.
> Last 3 cars I have owned had the instrument panel in the middle of the
> dash. It's almost like the manufacturers cut down on the work to run LHD
> and RHD production lines.
I wouldn't have thought that necessary with modern manufacturing techniques. The Mercedes production line at Stuttgart produces just two of their models, with, according to the tour guide, a possible 90,000 different configurations.
>> If you don't like the idea, don't go anywhere by air, or sea.
> I don't intend to.
>>> What is it with car companies forever chasing technology for its
>>> own sake when there is no good reason to use it?
>> There is a very good reason for it. It sells cars.
> No - they think it sells cars.
More accurately, they have a lot of research data that tells them what sells cars.
> Personally I don't think it makes a blind bit
> of difference as the popularity of makes such as Dacia in europe demonstrates.
I owned a Dacia once. I can't say I was impressed by anything except the price.
> Sure, in the rep wars where every sad sack in a mondeo has to wave his willy
> around and show how important he is it might matter, but I doubt most people
> give a toss. They're far more interested in the ICE and related facilities.
I recall people saying much the same when ABS first appeared on a production car.
>>> or it would be possible to steer the car with a
>>> joystick.""
>> The Queen Mary 2 is steered with one hand, using a fairly insignificant
>> looking control knob.
> The queen mary doesn't have to go around bends every 30 seconds and probably
> has half a dozen people on the bridge to help navigation. A better example
> would be a speedboat. Let me know when they're steer by wire.
Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>> No - they think it sells cars.
>More accurately, they have a lot of research data that tells them what >sells cars.
Until they actually put them on sale all the market research is just hot air.
What people say they'll buy and what they'll actually pay for when they have to part with hard earned money arn't always the same.
>> Sure, in the rep wars where every sad sack in a mondeo has to wave his willy
>> around and show how important he is it might matter, but I doubt most people
>> give a toss. They're far more interested in the ICE and related facilities.
>I recall people saying much the same when ABS first appeared on a >production car.
ABS is a safety feature, steer-by-wire is a gimmick just like drive-by-wire.
>> The queen mary doesn't have to go around bends every 30 seconds and probably
>> has half a dozen people on the bridge to help navigation. A better example
>> would be a speedboat. Let me know when they're steer by wire.
On 18/10/2012 16:37, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:14:32 +0100
> Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
...
>> I recall people saying much the same when ABS first appeared on a
>> production car.
> ABS is a safety feature, steer-by-wire is a gimmick just like drive-by-wire.
Steer by wire a step closer to autonomous vehicles, which is the ultimate safety feature.
On 17/10/2012 20:40, damduck-...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> If hybrids or electric transmissions come in a big way with hub motors
> it wouldn't be that difficult to engineer to turn all wheels 90
> degrees and would be a useful feature for vehicles aimed for use in
> busy areas . Some of the early "Horseless Carriages" used a Tiller
> but a wheel quickly became the usual method. Wonder if use of steering
> wheels has ever been written into C and U regulations or could a
> manufacturer still use a tiller?
You can still drive track laying vehicles on roads, so a steering wheel is not required.
> Off the public highway a school
> holiday job many years ago in a nursery garden was enlivened by having
> to use a 3 wheel Dumper with a tiller steered rear wheel.
Modern dumpers vary the angle between the front and rear halves.
Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>On 18/10/2012 16:37, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:14:32 +0100
>> Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>....
>>> I recall people saying much the same when ABS first appeared on a
>>> production car.
>> ABS is a safety feature, steer-by-wire is a gimmick just like drive-by-wire.
>Steer by wire a step closer to autonomous vehicles, which is the >ultimate safety feature.
Yeah , right. And of course fly by wire aircraft have never crashed have they.
In article <k5r3bn$3g...@speranza.aioe.org>,
<boltar2...@boltar.world> wrote:
> >Steer by wire a step closer to autonomous vehicles, which is the > >ultimate safety feature.
> Yeah , right. And of course fly by wire aircraft have never crashed have
> they.
And of course non 'fly by wire' aircraft never crash?
Dave Plowman <d...@davesound.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <k5r3bn$3g...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> <boltar2...@boltar.world> wrote:
>> >Steer by wire a step closer to autonomous vehicles, which is the >> >ultimate safety feature.
>> Yeah , right. And of course fly by wire aircraft have never crashed have
>> they.
>And of course non 'fly by wire' aircraft never crash?
Sure, but thats not the point - which is that anyone who thinks computer
controlled cars will be some sort of safety panacea are deluding themselves. There might be fewer crashes but there will still be plenty because software
isn't infallable and the programmers can't account for every single possible
eventuality.
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:41:01 +0100
> Dave Plowman <d...@davesound.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <k5r3bn$3g...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>> <boltar2...@boltar.world> wrote:
>>>> Steer by wire a step closer to autonomous vehicles, which is the
>>>> ultimate safety feature.
>>> Yeah , right. And of course fly by wire aircraft have never crashed have
>>> they.
>> And of course non 'fly by wire' aircraft never crash?
> Sure, but thats not the point - which is that anyone who thinks computer
> controlled cars will be some sort of safety panacea are deluding themselves.
> There might be fewer crashes but there will still be plenty because software
> isn't infallable and the programmers can't account for every single possible
> eventuality.
They only need to be safer than human drivers for there to be a benefit.
Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>> Sure, but thats not the point - which is that anyone who thinks computer
>> controlled cars will be some sort of safety panacea are deluding themselves.
>> There might be fewer crashes but there will still be plenty because software
>> isn't infallable and the programmers can't account for every single possible
>> eventuality.
>They only need to be safer than human drivers for there to be a benefit.
I guess we'll have to wait and see. The problem is that when software goes
wrong it tends to go badly wrong, so there may be fewer crashes but when they
happen they could be much worse - eg computer attempts to do 180 on motorway
at full throttle.
