Foosh

Yes, it would be helpful. However, I view both this and the possibility of being struck by lightning tomorrow, as highly unlikely.

Yes, faults do occur, and sometimes electrical harnesses aren't connected properly. If you read that account, GM concluded it was a connector problem not a system software "glitch."

Pat07c6z

You are going to die...do not drive that car.

kawal

I agree, Foosh, on both of your comments, but I found the following quote interesting. It came from Vettewrench, one of the Master Techs at corvettemechanic.com, when I asked about the location of the EBCM, so I could check my connector (if it was easy):

"It is located in the left front engine area on a bracket in front of the engine.Also keep it in mind I think it was more of a component issue (ebcm) than a connection issue.Which would have been first on my list to replace for the problem.I know what they said but you also notice they replaced the ebcm as well.which was the correction me and Chick had decided on at first when the problem was reported.I am a stand alone type of tech i do not consult before i take action.I figure after a customer puts out 70 plus grand fast action should take place with any problem."

(Chick is the other Master Tech, who correctly diagnosed the problem area of Zorvette's incident.)

As at least one other reader said, we have probably beat this subject to death without any more information (codes) from ICU812. Without those codes, just about anything could have caused ICU812's accident.

kawal

Actually, (if I'm quoting Zorvette accurately) the codes were first correctly diagnosed by the Technicians at corvettemechanic.com, but the diagnosis was either the yaw sensor or the EBCM. The Technicians wanted the dealer to replace both parts, but the dealer only replaced the yaw sensor. After the last incident (a 720 on the interstate), the GM engineers flew out and replaced the EBCM and found the connector to it (not at the steering wheel) not pushed in properly.

vetteship

I re-read the various posts and you're correct. Sounds like a EBCM issue with "ECU812", of course without facts (code), we can't be sure.

Foosh

Thanks Kawal.....very informative.

outnumbered

So it turned out to be the wiring connection. Which means the car itself is to blame for the accident.

Is the connection a bad design or a workmanship issue form the factory?

Foosh

Dan, not in the incident that started this thread. We don't have any info.

Apparently, there is one documented case (ZORVETTE) in a C6 of a bad EBCM and/or connector. It was posted on another forum (link somewhere above).

outnumbered

Okay. I have been reading a lot of info on the subject and got confused.

Does this connection have anything to do with the steering wheel harness?
Mine was repaired after having the service message and it has been fine since.

bernrex

There have also been some isolated problems with the A/H in C5 vettes ... that caused some accidents / close calls.

I recall reading 3-4 threads on forum about these events in the last several yrs. I once was a big fan of A/H ... but, over time am increasingly having doubts.

There is no substitute for driver input. Having the A/H -T/C on can allow one to develop sloppy driver skills. When we race ... we usually turn it off anyways.

IMO ... its better to know how your car will react under various conditions from 'consistent' driving skills learned over time in cars.
Going back and forth between on/off settings..... does not give one that consistency.

Especially disconcerting however is to find yourself unexpectedly fighting a computer gone berserk. Now thats a scary prospect that I don't wish to risk ... even at lightning strike probabilities.

Foosh

OK, I'm a strong believer in personal choice.

But, if the entire population of Corvette drivers behaved as you do, I suspect the car would be "uninsurable," and the only way around the problem would be to design it so it couldn't be disabled by the driver.

I'd hate to see that, or maybe I wouldn't given the relatively large skill deficit in the majority of the population.................

bernrex

Engineering gives us some amazing safety aids. Some are active (seat belts), some are passive (air bags) ... now converted to active (passenger side) due to injuries they caused in small children/infants.

Not every federal safety mandate is good in all situations. The driver still needs to think.

Gov. pressured cig manufactures to do filters on smokes. What happens ... in some cases a 1 pack/day smoker will become a 2 pack smoker to compensate for reduced nicotine hit to the brain. Net result on that smoker's health ... probably a wash, ... but RJ Reynolds makes more in profit off them.

Often depends on your/their political mindset .... liberal vs conservative.

Often the American way is to mandate rather than educate. Thanks GM for giving us the choice

Z Fast

Exactly! Couldn't have said it better myself. I always have all TC/AH turned off anytime I am driving spiritedly, unless it is extremely cold or wet, but then again, I don't drive her hard in those conditions. The first time I turned off all TC/AH on the track, I spent the first half of a session testing the cars limits, because I wasn't sure if the electronic nannies were saving my but or not. I found it much more comfortable without TC/AH.

But Foosh is right, if we didn't have these control for some, there could be a higher number of incidents.

Foosh

We will only have the choice as long as people use it responsibly.

Question: Why do you think these systems evolved in the first place? Answer: A large percentage of people don't act responsibly in high-performance cars (or any cars for that matter), and don't have adequate skills.

If it becomes apparent that a large group of people are turning them off on a routine basis and having accidents, then the choice will be taken away.....count on it, and it's probably just a matter of time anyway.

How would you propose we educate the "unwashed masses" unless it's mandated. Do you think "voluntary" education is the solution. If so, I have a bridge to offer you at a reasonable price.

Toxic Z

I think that it is clear, if we give the choice to goverment, they will take it away from us, the users... Obviously, GM wants their customers to have that freedom.. but when the govnerment ties their hands.. that is always it.

Therefore, a little prudence goes a long way to avoid the tyranny that government always introduces to the mix...

Pat07c6z

Great points. What other viable option is there..requiring a training course before purchase? That would ~never~ work. Bottom line, you push the button and the DIC says "traction control off" Translation: Don't blame the General if you do a 720* spin in Vegas. You guys that track your cars every weekend should try a lap without pushing the button and see what your time difference is...I'm curious. I have never tracked my car but I know taking common corners fast I give it more throttle and have more confidence with the nanny on. With it off I go slower because I know I'm going to have to control the inevitable drift...which is fun as well.

bernrex

So ... in which mode do you think you are safer ?

We know which mode is more fun

Glad to see you returned to discuss topic of day

Actually, it was someone else you were arguing axle weight effects with.

Z Fast

If you are drifting through corners, trail braking, etc. I can tell you from personal eperience, it is faster around the track without AH/TC. In addition to that, the faster laps are more comfortable, as I don't feel like I am fighting the computer nannies. I have run with and without on tha same day to experiment with it, and I can tell you that the brakes will take less of a beating without them. I measured temps on the front rotors running in Comp mode and there was a 110 degree difference between left and right rotors. Very next run, with TC/AH turned off completely, I ran faster times and after that session, the fronts rotors were within 10-15 degrees of each other.

bernrex

And why does the general public drive so poorly ? Did not their driving skills decline in conjunction with an increase in Gov. 'engineering' safety mandates ?

The worst drivers by far are the teens and geezer groups. Lets give grandma a vette with A/H ... Or lets give Junior a Viper ... which has happened in quite a few cases ...

Yes ... education/experience is always the key. Everyone needs to attend driving school before getting their license. We need more Spring Mountains in every state ... and lower-level schools for the masses But, let private sector run them ... not the gov.

Foosh

No, I don't agree that driving ability has declined because of Gov. mandates, and the dramatic reduction in highway deaths and injuries per capita is the best argument in the world for the success of the safety mandates. There is no question that they have been effective as a matter of public policy.

Agreed on training, but how do we "require" people to go?

How many have been to a school like Spring Mountain? I've been to several, including SM, as have you, but we are in a tiny minority. Most people aren't willing to spend $2-3K for such training. It would have to be "required", which would be another mandate that you seem to be arguing against. It's not a question of whether they are run by the private sector or not, it's a question of it being mandated.