This is why you leave space in front of you when off-roading

If any of you watch or follow Formula 1 racing, the brake by wire system in those cars goes haywire now and then. Doesn't inspire confidence at 220 MPH. But it's COOL!

 

So many of the expensive luxury cars have electric e-brake. Some, like a Land Rover I have been in are automatic release! Scary if it would decide to do that at the wrong time.

 

Fortunately the 4Runner isn't available with a manual transmission, because I can't count on the in-hat parking brake to do jack all in an emergency.

 

And it's not just emergencies - on a manual, I find the handbrake very useful when starting from a stop on an uphill.

 

C8 Corvette doesn't have brake-by-wire. It has GM's eBoost, which first appeared on the 2019 Cadillac XT4 and is used in several GM crossovers: https://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/0...ever-to-use-electro-hydraulic-braking-assist/

The system is like your 4Runner's electronic booster, which Toyota has been using for the past 21 years but GM just got to it 5 years ago. Most Toyota hybrids use it to maintain consistent braking feel between normal braking and regen braking. Here's a Prius with electronic booster:



GM previously used "hydroboost", using power steering pump pressure to assist the brakes. A leak in the line takes out both power steering and power brakes... Toyota never had it.

 

Using the clutch like that does wear on it a little.

 

Hope you avoid flying, because guess what modern planes use.

It’s not the brake by wire that is the failure point, it’s the hydraulics that are the issue. Hydraulic failures happen fairly often - brake by wire isn’t a common failure point.

 

Of all the things that could fail on an airplane, I think brakes would be one of the least concerning.

 

Check this out from around the 4:15 mark…

 

Ummm…. I mean the control stick. Could have clarified, but I thought folks knew about fly by wire.

 

Lightweighting. It’s all about the weight savings it provides vs traditional.

Done properly, it’s actually a solid concept. But there in lies the rub. Don’t get the engineering/controller firmware right and it becomes a major failure point & safety risk.

 

The climb in the YouTube video wasn't even that bad. There's a more aggressive one in Holly Oaks off road park that my Tacoma climbed without issue following a RZR. Maybe the Range Rover's short wheelbase made it more tippy.

 

Comparing apples to watermelons here. Automobiles can and do lose power way more easily than an airplane does. If a car loses the alternator, then the brakes are basically done if it's completely brake-by-wire, although I've read that in the event of power failure there is enough pressure to come to a safe stop supposedly. But airplanes have multiple fail safe options and these systems have been in place since the late 80s. Also, the money factor, planes costs tens of millions of dollars and have to follow more strict safety and manufacturing guidelines than automakers do. Statistically, you're wayyy safer in an airplane than a vehicle. The reliability of a $90 million machine vs a $80k sports car is astronomical difference.

 

Excellent video with a lot of good comments! Thanks for posting that! It really pays for all drivers to understand the machines they are using. That really helps us know when we should be scared and break out the winch or straps to help stabilize things. It’s scary how things can get out of hand sooo quickly when you are dealing with hills. I think flatlanders like me sometimes fail to conceptualize the amount of stored acceleration/energy height represents. These videos are good reminders.

In the first video of the Bronco, the comments shows the driver doesn’t even know if he has an emergency brake! That’s a problem. But it’s also a problem that manufacturers make it so difficult to understand what their vehicles are doing and how it accomplishes basic functions. Manufacturers should never cover up how the vehicle accomplishes normal braking or emergency braking with overcomplicated design or by overlaying electronic gizmos that make function reliant on programming decisions. And emergency brake systems should never be designed with failure points shared with the primary braking system!!!!

Simplicity and honest engineering/design is important in any car, but especially in a 4x4. To me, that’s what gives a vehicle value, not the G.O.A.T. or MTS software trinkets that seem to be selling points. That said, even a simple well designed car will require a little bit of studying by the driver in order to understand its function…especially in off roading situations where it’s VERY likely you will need this knowledge!

Case in point, the 4runner emergency brake brake (I refuse to let toyota off the hook by calling it a parking brake, lol). I spent some time messing with it so I understood it’s limitations. Only with good adjustment will it function in a (barely) passable manner. Off the lot, it was completely useless even as a parking brake to back up the transmission park pawl. I know what to expect out on the trail now.

Speaking of which, I saw a recent 4x24-7 episode where somebody had an automatic stall the engine on a steep climb. Would the auto transmission still provide engine braking in gear if the engine is off? I don’t have a convenient hill to try it out lol. Also, Im not sure if it’s bad for the transmission to play around with it like that.

 

To be fair, even professional airline pilots don’t always understand what’s happening with fly by wire systems. That airbus that dropped from cruise altitude to the ocean surface in a full aerodynamic stall the whole…way…down….About 10 years ago out of rio de janeiro.

 

The pitot tubes failed because they froze, so the altimeters were completely off and the stick shaker did not activate because the computers didn't recognize the stall. Wasn't so much the fly-by-wire controls, but just the instruments that feed information really.

 

You think 99% of the trophy wives / soccer moms that drive Land Rovers use the e-brake / parking brake?

Not "get away with". Automakers developed electric parking brakes because the majority of the driving public with automatic transmissions don't use the parking brake at all. They put the shifter in P and get out. So having an electric parking brake that engages without driver intervention is actually a safety improvement for the masses.

 

Engine not running > transmission pump not providing pressure > not really "in gear".

If you stall in a climb, just hold the brake pedal. Don't need much pedal pressure to hold position on a grade. It's a lot less demanding than slowing from highway speeds. For technical climbs you should be left foot braking for smoothness and avoiding rollback anyway.

 

I was just being a smart-ass.

But, the posts you quoted both referred specifically to brakes.

I'm pretty sure nobody assumed that there was an actual throttle cable in an airplane.

Aside from all of that, I'm pretty sure the materials used in an airplane are manufactured to a higher standard than the crap they use in passenger cars. At least, I really hope they are!

 

It’s worse than it looks. It’s known as “Widowmaker” and it’s in Coff’s Harbor in Australia.

Plenty of rollover videos with the same hill.

 

Electronic parking brakes are probably deployed in auto start/stop applications.

Also, with some vehicles you can get auto-hold going, which simulates one pedal driving - at least from a standstill.

 

I had one of those Broncos, questionable valves. It never grenaded but the fuel pump died on me in a remote Oregon desert with less than 10k on the clock. Continued build quality issues, warranty work, and recalls had me swapping to a 4Runner as soon as I felt the fuel pump studder again.

Origional thread was posted here https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/threads/bronco-free-rolls-falls-off-steep-hill.84304/

The e-brake was dumb as hell. Awesome vehicle on paper but executed piss poorly.

 

Can't believe you "downgraded" to a 4Runner!

 

Pilots should be able to recognize when instruments have failed, at least after a while of studying what the airplane is doing and how other instrumentation systems are responding. The control law of the flight control computer also goes into alternate law whenever it see garbage data, which removes some flight envelope protections and allows the pilot to fly however necessary based on their own human understanding of the situation. Alternate law is basically the computer saying to the pilot, “you need to fly the plane, because I not getting the right information to keep safe speeds/attitude/altitude .”

If I recall the details of investigation report, at least one of the three pilots on the flight deck recognized the loss of data from the pitot system and understood exactly what was happening, with enough time to correct the situation. The other pilot did not.

The pilot that took corrective action to lower the nose using the little airbus joystick noticed his stick was not responding how it should have. The other pilot (who didn’t understand they were not actually overspeeding) was doing the opposite, pulling back trying to raise the nose to slow the airplane down.

Airbus logic dictates (for good reason) that when the input on the two joysticks is different, the output to the computer handling the physical control surfaces is averaged out. One pilot had full nose up, the other had full nose down…the fly by wire system read zero input, and the control surfaces did not response in any way.

The pilot taking corrective action saw what the other pilot was doing, and yelled to him to let go of the stick several times. The other pilot was was so confused or task saturated, he kept pulling back on the stick in response to the airspeed data. They slowly fell like an airbus-sized aluminum leaf, all the way to the oceans surface.

In any accident there are many interconnected causes. In this case, the fly by wire could not have anticipated this situation. But things happen. Fly-by-wire (vs physically connected controls) always require programming. The programming is not transparent or as easily understood as a physical system. The flight essentially crashed because the fly by wire system did not allow the airplane to be corrected in this situation. Where big fat interconnected yokes would have.

 

Beautiful choice of 4R my friend

 

What a freakin word wall
TL,DR: Programmers design the fly- by-wire interface based on how they expect the vehicle will be and should be used. They also need to essentially “interpret” any possible human input for any and all situations. That’s impossible. This applies to cars or airplanes.

Operators that innately understand how their controls actually work, can do amazing things to recover from impossible situations. But understanding the logic of how someone else decided to interpret your input…that is the definition of complicated. It’s kinda turns into the goblet scene from princess bride

 

No. That's Deep Creek 4 in Aberfeldy, Victoria, according to the comments. Coff’s Harbor is 850 miles north. Widowmaker climb has a wide lot at the bottom and is actually right by a smooth dirt road.

Widowmaker has a steep ledge about 1/3 the way up that rigs with small tires try to go around and sometimes roll. That Range Rover with its small tires and no lockers wouldn't have been able to climb past it.

 

Ah! Good catch.

Straya looks like a blast. Too bad it's filled with deadly spiders and drop bears.