Yes Ford Management, the Intant Acceleration Phenomenom is real

[FordVictim1997]

To everyone on the Ford Motors Management Team, please read the following paper recently published by Dr. Anthony Anderson, a prominent electrical engineering consultant. Despite your best claims that there is no solid evidence to suggest that your cruise control units can and do fail causing accidents such as the one I was involved in ten years ago, science seems to be saying otherwise. You can continue to ignore your responsibilities and blame problems such as these on the cnsumer, your very customer base that supports you and your families, or you can break with tradition and do the right thing. How many more innocent victims will be maimed, or worse perish, before you realize that this problem is already larger than you ever hoped it would become.

CRES2007_0001_paper.pdf

[igor]

well 2 points

1) good article

2) "sudden acceleration" is extremely hard to prove .. BMW had issues with it and so did tons of other vehicles .. but because of the nature of the accidents it is hard to determine whether the acceleration was caused by the driver or the car .. and this is not only about the MANUFACTURERS .. but also the DRIVERS who get sued for damages etc ...

 

I agree with the paper, that it is time for a safety circuit to be added to CC modules.

 

Igor

[FordVictim1997]

well 2 points

1) good article

2) "sudden acceleration" is extremely hard to prove .. BMW had issues with it and so did tons of other vehicles .. but because of the nature of the accidents it is hard to determine whether the acceleration was caused by the driver or the car .. and this is not only about the MANUFACTURERS .. but also the DRIVERS who get sued for damages etc ...

 

I agree with the paper, that it is time for a safety circuit to be added to CC modules.

 

Igor

 

Thanks, trying to separate the driver's responsibility from the manufacturer's responsibility is what I have found the most frustrating given the difficulty of proving what really happened. Most people just blindly say it is the driver's fault because he paniced and did not respond as he should have. However, if the car was defective and that defect was what triggered the panic, then should not the manufacturer be held accountable? Should they not at least make the issue known rather than attempting to cover it up? Perhaps if the manufacturers would admit that the problem is real, they could develop some strategies for drivers to cope with the situation. In my case there were many things that the driver could have done to minimize the damage and injuries inflicted, but how many of us can honestly say that if placed in the same circumstances we would not have panicked as well? When something happens that quickly you usually tend to react from instinct with muscle response being governed by muscle memory; that is why extreme sports enthusiasts drill for all possible disaster contingencies, in the hopes that in the event of a real emergency they will be able to react without having to stop and think first. How many drivers on the roads today have similar training to fall back on?

[Deanh]

YOUR QUOTE..........However, if the car was defective and that defect was what triggered the panic, then should not the manufacturer be held accountable..............the words IF and WHAT are purely speculative......IF it WASN"T...and that was proven in a court of law....then what...do you still want them to be accountable....it was driver error...enough already.....jumping from one thread to another looking for sympatisers when one is exhausted paints a bad picture of the poster....

[ford4v429]

I just read that thing, but theres something I dont understand: they are saying a scratchy contact MAY look like speed sensor input, allowing cruise control to be engaged at very low speeds correct? or did I read it wrong?

 

most accidents Ive heard of involving 'sudden acceleration' were stopped cars that lunged forward into something...a neighbor rammed her crown vig under a trailer, wifes grandmother rode with a neighbor who drove thru her garage wall...both were from simple stepping on the wrong pedal type of things...I accidentally hit the gas in my mustang at the bank teller one day- luckily its a stick, and I put in it neutral before trying to get my wallet from my pocket(hear that causes a lot of bumps at drive thrus)...never ever heard of someone 'accidentally' hitting their cruise control 'resume' causing such a thing...seems like a far fetched concept If I read it right.

the other and even bigger flaw I see there is that if your car starts to accelerate what do you do? you hit the brakes, and as soon as you touch the pedal the cruise shuts off anyway, so its not like you would be fighting to hold back the engine power...

 

One thing I've suggested long ago in these forums was that they cut the freakin gain in the cruise...there is NO WAY EVER that the cruise control should be able to 'floor' the car in my opinion...our windstar does exactly that on the highway hills, and wastes a lot of gas by kicking into low and revving like mad to hold that 1mph or so...kinda silly. I still think a huge reduction in gain would only allow a few mph variation with huge MPG improvements on hilly terrain. if the cruise output max was limited to 25% throttle, that would suffice also, even if the gain not reduced- as a second benefit not nearly as much worry about cruise runaway, as power would be dramatically reduced...

 

the new mustangs throttle feels funny with its lag and all, but they did it for rpm limiting and true traction control, but I still worry about 'what if' a servo screws up...I work rebuilding/retroffitting CNC's, fly r/c airplanes/heli's and have seen my fair share of servo issues believe me...nothing lasts forever...but with electronics, they can at least monitor for failures. I had a throttle spring on a carb break once- only once as every other carb Ive owned got an extra one after that talk about instant acceleration!

 

scratchy sensors can be a pain- I almost wrecked our windstar because of one- the thing had about 4000 miles on it, was going under an overpass that musta dropped lots of salt on the roadway over the winter, as the road was extremely chipped up...at 25 mph hit the brakes, going over the bumps, and the abs kicked in, car was barely slowing(like 100 feet from 25 mph or less), stood on the pedal AND pulled ebrake at last second (locked rears which probably made it worse) skidded a couple feet, just barely missing the car in front of us...brake pedal was pulsing as if I was in deep snow, not on hot/dry/clean(but rough) cement roadway... took it immediately to dealer, I was kinda pissed off to boot, told them how on the bumps it went into antilock mode- probably a loose wire or something, but very nearly caused a lowspeed rearend collision... they looked and found one of the front wheel sensors was loose in the hub or something, letting it bounce around...crap happens, and the more complex it is, the more failure modes can pop up...I still cant understand why if one front sensor was giving garbage signal, why the other front wasnt still braking???perhaps a 'safety' feature to prevent wheel pull, but with the short scrub radius/huge offset on ABS equipped cars, doubt it would pull that much...

[joihan777]

One thing I've suggested long ago in these forums was that they cut the freakin gain in the cruise...there is NO WAY EVER that the cruise control should be able to 'floor' the car in my opinion...our windstar does exactly that on the highway hills, and wastes a lot of gas by kicking into low and revving like mad to hold that 1mph or so...kinda silly. I still think a huge reduction in gain would only allow a few mph variation with huge MPG improvements on hilly terrain. if the cruise output max was limited to 25% throttle, that would suffice also, even if the gain not reduced- as a second benefit not nearly as much worry about cruise runaway, as power would be dramatically reduced...

 

Good idea. Iv'e had several cars in the last few years and the CC did the same thing on the Toyota, Isuzu, Daewoo, & Dodge. For about a year I was a supercommuter..... 95miles EACH way, for a YEAR! I have quite a bit of experience with the CC!

 

I can only add that perhaps the throttle/ gain could be user selectable.... or even gyroscopically triggered.

[FordVictim1997]

I just read that thing, but theres something I dont understand: they are saying a scratchy contact MAY look like speed sensor input, allowing cruise control to be engaged at very low speeds correct? or did I read it wrong?

 

most accidents Ive heard of involving 'sudden acceleration' were stopped cars that lunged forward into something...a neighbor rammed her crown vig under a trailer, wifes grandmother rode with a neighbor who drove thru her garage wall...both were from simple stepping on the wrong pedal type of things...I accidentally hit the gas in my mustang at the bank teller one day- luckily its a stick, and I put in it neutral before trying to get my wallet from my pocket(hear that causes a lot of bumps at drive thrus)...never ever heard of someone 'accidentally' hitting their cruise control 'resume' causing such a thing...seems like a far fetched concept If I read it right.

the other and even bigger flaw I see there is that if your car starts to accelerate what do you do? you hit the brakes, and as soon as you touch the pedal the cruise shuts off anyway, so its not like you would be fighting to hold back the engine power...

 

One thing I've suggested long ago in these forums was that they cut the freakin gain in the cruise...there is NO WAY EVER that the cruise control should be able to 'floor' the car in my opinion...our windstar does exactly that on the highway hills, and wastes a lot of gas by kicking into low and revving like mad to hold that 1mph or so...kinda silly. I still think a huge reduction in gain would only allow a few mph variation with huge MPG improvements on hilly terrain. if the cruise output max was limited to 25% throttle, that would suffice also, even if the gain not reduced- as a second benefit not nearly as much worry about cruise runaway, as power would be dramatically reduced...

 

the new mustangs throttle feels funny with its lag and all, but they did it for rpm limiting and true traction control, but I still worry about 'what if' a servo screws up...I work rebuilding/retroffitting CNC's, fly r/c airplanes/heli's and have seen my fair share of servo issues believe me...nothing lasts forever...but with electronics, they can at least monitor for failures. I had a throttle spring on a carb break once- only once as every other carb Ive owned got an extra one after that talk about instant acceleration!

 

scratchy sensors can be a pain- I almost wrecked our windstar because of one- the thing had about 4000 miles on it, was going under an overpass that musta dropped lots of salt on the roadway over the winter, as the road was extremely chipped up...at 25 mph hit the brakes, going over the bumps, and the abs kicked in, car was barely slowing(like 100 feet from 25 mph or less), stood on the pedal AND pulled ebrake at last second (locked rears which probably made it worse) skidded a couple feet, just barely missing the car in front of us...brake pedal was pulsing as if I was in deep snow, not on hot/dry/clean(but rough) cement roadway... took it immediately to dealer, I was kinda pissed off to boot, told them how on the bumps it went into antilock mode- probably a loose wire or something, but very nearly caused a lowspeed rearend collision... they looked and found one of the front wheel sensors was loose in the hub or something, letting it bounce around...crap happens, and the more complex it is, the more failure modes can pop up...I still cant understand why if one front sensor was giving garbage signal, why the other front wasnt still braking???perhaps a 'safety' feature to prevent wheel pull, but with the short scrub radius/huge offset on ABS equipped cars, doubt it would pull that much...

 

One of the orignial contentions made by Ford engineers was that the cruise could not be activated at slow speeds. Our early contention was that circuit degradtion could cause this to happen, and even after Ford reproduced the results they continued to hold steady that despite the unit having power to it as soon as the ignition is turned on, the unit would not engage until a certain speed. The paper shows that once the unit is degraded it can send itself false readings; the damaged connectors are just means of making this possible.

[FordVictim1997]

YOUR QUOTE..........However, if the car was defective and that defect was what triggered the panic, then should not the manufacturer be held accountable..............the words IF and WHAT are purely speculative......IF it WASN"T...and that was proven in a court of law....then what...do you still want them to be accountable....it was driver error...enough already.....jumping from one thread to another looking for sympatisers when one is exhausted paints a bad picture of the poster....

 

I guess we should be glad that no one thought that way when Columbus stated that he thought the world was round, and IF he was correct it would mean shorter trade routes. Yes, IF is a highly subjective operator but that is no reason to stop researching. How many advancements in technology, medicine, and other areas have been made possible simply by someone posing a question beginning with "IF". If you don't like me or what I write, I can assure you that you are not the first nor will you be the last. Here I am ten years after the incident, about to have more surgery done (yes, related to the accident) and add to the scars, so do you really think I am concerned with how somone such as yourself might view me painted? Hopefully you will never find yourself in a similar situation, but if by chance you do, give me a call.

[ANTAUS]

First and foremost, just like political research I must do all the time. I would first ask, What is Dr.Anthony Anderson's involvement in all this. His personal background, is anyone paying him off behind the scenes, what credibility he has in other words, does he have a dog in the track, etc. and why aren't there others who stand behind him in his same research, and who they are, their credibility, etc.etc.

 

Not saying that his point isn't true...It's just when your dealing with such huge factors and money, anyone can be bought off quite easily if they get a slice of the pie.

[boegey]

You can continue to ignore your responsibilities and blame problems such as these on the cnsumer, your very customer base that supports you and your families, or you can break with tradition and do the right thing. How many more innocent victims will be maimed, or worse perish, before you realize that this problem is already larger than you ever hoped it would become.

 

I won't repeat many of the arguments already posted. I feel this is an extremely difficult case to prove and leave that to more intelligent people than I, however I do believe Ford on more than one occasion has done the 'right thing'.

 

1) When the Rouge Plant had a boiler explosion many years ago, Bill Ford was at the scene and the hospital with the families of the victims. Ford lawyers about had a heart attack and recommended Bill stay far far away. Whether anything was accomplished by his presence is unimportant. His show of respect and condolences was important.

 

2) The great Firestone Tire debacle that Ford took a black eye over, both in the media and financially. In case you haven't heard, thanks to the media deciding not to report it, the defects were found to be the sole responsibility of Firestone and not the Ford Explorer design. Yet, after Firestone refused to do the 'right thing', Ford did! They stepped up out of concern for the safety of their customers which as you say 'support them'. Not only did they protect Explorer owners, they went further and made sure all customers who took delivery of a vehicle with those tires were taken care of.

 

3) Lastly and closer to home, Ford's Way Forward buyouts. I used to work at at the Twin Cities Assembly Plant, it is slated to close. Believe it or not, Ford could have waited until Sept. when the contract expires and said "Have a nice day, We don't need you anymore." Instead, Ford went above and beyond what was required and offered many packages to aid employees after the plant closed. Buyouts, early retirements, and educational plans all aided UAW employees to carry on with their lives during a very difficult situation.

 

Yes these buyouts aid Ford's recovery, hence the Ford wide offer of buyouts rather than buyouts just for closing plants. Sure, I know more than a few disgruntled workers who don't see it my way, but I repeat Ford could have met us at the door one day in September and told us to go home. Anderson Windows did just that to more than 500 employees here in Minnesota a few months ago.

 

I believe Ford goes far above the average company to do the 'right thing'. In your case, it is just too difficult to find culpability.

 

Boegey

[Mark8LSC CE0464]

Have any of you ever done a burnout? You hold your foot on the brake, give it a load of gas. The car stays in place, yet the drive wheels spin.

 

If the car mysteriously accelerated all by itself, the brakes would easily be able to handle the situation (if applied).

 

My uncle used to race in the baja 1000, he has a saying:

 

"There is no such thing as an accident, there is only the point where you ran out of talent......"

Edited August 8, 2007 by Mark8LSC CE0464

[MERKURXR4Ti]

Ford Victim, I'm sorry for your injuries and the hell you clearly have gone through. I'm sure we've all been through nasty accidents but nothing quite like yours. Though I feel compelled to ask, why are you here?

I understand that you've exhausted other means of contact with Ford, but is running from thread to thread on a fan site really going to gather money for you? I find many points surrounding the whole mess to be fishy, and some details to be downright impossible in my (less than expert) opinion. And while this does prove to be good reading, your blind accusations of Ford, their management, and engineers for something the driver confessed to is insane. At worst the engineering team that made this CC would be following standard practices. Even the management after reading your story would still be drawn to the fact that the driver took full responsibility! As evil as a company is, I feel few people would openly take responsibility for nearly killing someone if they were not actually at fault. I digress... to suggest that frank the ford employee who works on cc modules to feed his family should pay you because the standard engineering practices didnt account for a fault is nuts. And this is assuming it is defective....ah so many questions.

 

I hate to say it, but if you have no other options than sit there and badmouth the company to fans, (trying to save us?) then why bother. Give Sally or Maury a call, and best of luck there, but right now you might be in the wrong place.

[J-150]

is this ambulance chaser still looking for cash?

 

I suppose you'll be voting for Edwards, eh?