Agree on your overall sentiment, though I’d say it is a bit more complicated than that for car doors. You don’t want it to fail and come open while moving, for example, especially if the car is coming to a stop and inertia forces the doors fully open. That Boeing door failed open and it was not very safe.
Vehicle doors should be fail functional rather than open to fail safe. As in designed to be very unlikely to fail and/or still functional even if one or several components do fail.
Edit: I normally avoid commenting on my downvotes (you win some, you lose some) but this one is baffling. What’s controversial or unpopular about what I said?
Car doors that aren’t on teslas don’t fail open, they are reliable enough that I can’t think of hearing about any failures that don’t involve a collision and deforming of the door (in which case it’s a fail closed and they use the jaws of life to get people out, or another door).
An electronic latch is either engaged or it isn’t. Fail open would mean that in the absence of an electronic signal saying it should be closed, the latch will default to not being engaged, which would mean there’s nothing holding the door closed if another force acts on it.
Don’t assume any benefit of the doubt about Tesla’s. I made no comment one way or another about what I think of their doors vs other doors. For the record, I agree completely that they fucked up this part of the design. The purpose of my comment was to say that taking that design and adding “fail open” to it won’t fix it. Fail open and fail closed both have problems with an electronic latch and the only way to fix it without causing other big problems is to design it in a way that still functions as a door that can be open or latched closed whether or not the electronic part of the latch is working.
And I’m “deliberately misinterpreting” what fail open means? I’m having trouble understanding how it can mean anything other than how I’m interpreting it, even with your clarification, given the disagreement about other car doors failing open. Maybe it’s a misnomer that I’m misinterpreting but why are you assuming I’m doing this in bad faith?
The downvotes themselves don’t matter, I asked because I wanted to know the reasoning behind them, well aware that bringing them up at all will probably result in more of them.
Sure, for the electrical part. But the door as a whole should Fail Open. You can pull over with an open door. You should not have to break the door to escape after a failure.
I think the point, though, is there should be a redundant system to handle failures, like a mechanical-only door handle.
Another example: your dashboard touchscreen fails, there should still be a button to turn on the AC. Or off. Whatever makes this analogous to the safety concern about doors.
your statement comes off a bit ignorant - a failsafe would just pop the latch (and up and down motion) and wouldn’t be impacted by braking forces (front and back motion)
you weren’t explicitly saying bad things about Elon Musk
But the general idea of things still working despite failure is the essence of what the OP was saying. People seem to not like comments that refine what others say (I have plenty of experience there), they prefer comments that either correct or blatantly support the parent comment. I don’t get it, but whatever.
For the fail-safe bit, if the latching system fails to an unlatched position, then the inertia of the door itself could cause it to open on braking and turns (or if someone leans on it or bumps it), since nothing else would be holding it in place.
Obligatory fuck Elon Musk lol.
It’s not generally as bad here as it is on Reddit. I still see the occasional comments that make me wonder if their author has any reading comprehension skills, but Reddit seemed to have representation from those kinds of posters in most comment threads. Even on the topics where Lemmy has general biases for, comments can still go off the beaten trail without getting crucified.
Though with the smaller sample size of voters, I think Lemmy might see more cases where a comment initially goes one way and then swings the other way, which seems to be the case with my comment above, at least for now (and is part of the reason why I try to refrain from ever commenting on the votes, but usually there’s also a spicy or bolder part of my comment where I’m not as surprised if it goes negative).
Agree on your overall sentiment, though I’d say it is a bit more complicated than that for car doors. You don’t want it to fail and come open while moving, for example, especially if the car is coming to a stop and inertia forces the doors fully open. That Boeing door failed open and it was not very safe.
Vehicle doors should be fail functional rather than open to fail safe. As in designed to be very unlikely to fail and/or still functional even if one or several components do fail.
Edit: I normally avoid commenting on my downvotes (you win some, you lose some) but this one is baffling. What’s controversial or unpopular about what I said?
deleted by creator
Car doors that aren’t on teslas don’t fail open, they are reliable enough that I can’t think of hearing about any failures that don’t involve a collision and deforming of the door (in which case it’s a fail closed and they use the jaws of life to get people out, or another door).
An electronic latch is either engaged or it isn’t. Fail open would mean that in the absence of an electronic signal saying it should be closed, the latch will default to not being engaged, which would mean there’s nothing holding the door closed if another force acts on it.
Don’t assume any benefit of the doubt about Tesla’s. I made no comment one way or another about what I think of their doors vs other doors. For the record, I agree completely that they fucked up this part of the design. The purpose of my comment was to say that taking that design and adding “fail open” to it won’t fix it. Fail open and fail closed both have problems with an electronic latch and the only way to fix it without causing other big problems is to design it in a way that still functions as a door that can be open or latched closed whether or not the electronic part of the latch is working.
And I’m “deliberately misinterpreting” what fail open means? I’m having trouble understanding how it can mean anything other than how I’m interpreting it, even with your clarification, given the disagreement about other car doors failing open. Maybe it’s a misnomer that I’m misinterpreting but why are you assuming I’m doing this in bad faith?
The downvotes themselves don’t matter, I asked because I wanted to know the reasoning behind them, well aware that bringing them up at all will probably result in more of them.
Sure, for the electrical part. But the door as a whole should Fail Open. You can pull over with an open door. You should not have to break the door to escape after a failure.
I think the point, though, is there should be a redundant system to handle failures, like a mechanical-only door handle.
Another example: your dashboard touchscreen fails, there should still be a button to turn on the AC. Or off. Whatever makes this analogous to the safety concern about doors.
Yes, I agree with that.
Two options:
But the general idea of things still working despite failure is the essence of what the OP was saying. People seem to not like comments that refine what others say (I have plenty of experience there), they prefer comments that either correct or blatantly support the parent comment. I don’t get it, but whatever.
For the fail-safe bit, if the latching system fails to an unlatched position, then the inertia of the door itself could cause it to open on braking and turns (or if someone leans on it or bumps it), since nothing else would be holding it in place.
Obligatory fuck Elon Musk lol.
It’s not generally as bad here as it is on Reddit. I still see the occasional comments that make me wonder if their author has any reading comprehension skills, but Reddit seemed to have representation from those kinds of posters in most comment threads. Even on the topics where Lemmy has general biases for, comments can still go off the beaten trail without getting crucified.
Though with the smaller sample size of voters, I think Lemmy might see more cases where a comment initially goes one way and then swings the other way, which seems to be the case with my comment above, at least for now (and is part of the reason why I try to refrain from ever commenting on the votes, but usually there’s also a spicy or bolder part of my comment where I’m not as surprised if it goes negative).