[Press] The Pressure to Monitor

[Rob]

Source: http://www.autoweek.com (http://www.autoweek.com/)

(08:30 April 07, 2004)
The Pressure to Monitor


By STEVE THOMPSON (slthompson@crain.com)


http://autoweek.com/columnists/thompson.jpg
Though they’re far from common today, onboard tire-pressure monitoring systems (official acronym: TPMSs) will soon be required in all new passenger vehicles.

As part of the TREAD Act of 2000—triggered by the Ford/Firestone flap—Congress directed NHTSA to mandate TPMSs for all passenger vehicles below 10,000 pounds GVWR, the systems to be installed by the OEMs, and the sooner the better.

The problem these tire-pressure monitoring systems are supposed to solve is that, according to NHTSA, only about 25 percent of all passenger vehicles have properly inflated tires. Because it was successfully argued this was a significant factor in SUV loss-of-control incidents, Congress apparently believed drivers not checking their tires demanded a solution not only from the drivers, but also from the manufacturers. So our vehicles will soon all have TPMSs.

These systems either directly or indirectly monitor pressures in all four tires and signal the driver via a NHTSA-approved warning icon on the instrument panel whenever at least one of the tires is 25 percent or more below specified pressure.

When NHTSA issued the ruling in 2002, it ran into flak from the Office of Management and Budget’s review, as well as a lawsuit from Public Citizen (Ralph Nader’s organization) that succeeded in convincing a judge to vacate the ruling.

So along with the first take on the rule, the expected model-year intro for mandatory TPMSs—2004—was shelved. According to Joseph Scott, spokesman for NHTSA’s Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, the final rule could still be out in time for mandating some manufacturer compliance in model-year 2005.

The rule sets performance, not design, standards, with different standards kicking in at different times. (Go to www.nhtsa.dot (http://www.nhtsa.dot/). gov/cars/rules/rulings/TirePresFinal to read it in detail.)

A recent encounter with the TPMS in a Chrysler Crossfire convinced me that a single warning light is not the best solution for a really useful in-cockpit display. The first time I started the Crossfire’s engine, the TPMS yellow warning light wouldn’t go out. I verified that the tires were properly inflated. The light stayed lit. Turned out a previous driver had trashed a wheel and tire, requiring replacement of rubber and rim, as well as the pressure monitor. When the new sensor was installed, the TPMS computer could not, apparently, recognize the tire it was monitoring was nominally inflated. The glitch rendered the warning light useless, and will keep it that way until the bug in the system in that particular car is found and killed. According to the press-car prep shop, whenever the Crossfire TPMS warning light illuminates, a dealer has to reset the system, presumably (I wasn't given specifics) via OBD porting or some other method (maybe using the TPMS computer transceiver) to turn the light off and return the system to ready-to-warn status.

This experience makes the case for those who argue that the real value of a TPMS is not just in alerting the driver to a possible pressure loss in one or more tires, but in providing actual, real-time data on each tire. With either digital or analog display of the pressures, a driver can truly monitor the situation and respond more effectively. Not least because in the event of a false alarm, the individual pressure readouts will quickly show that the idiot light is validating its moniker.

There is a lot more to be said about TPMSs, and most of it will be once their costs, benefits and inevitable unintended consequences are clarified. Whether we like it or not, the advent of TPMSs will demand we learn what each system that meets NHTSA’s standards does and doesn’t do. How many drivers will actually learn the systems and then respond appropriately to system alerts? NHTSA thinks most will. Not me. My money’s on the same 25 percent who kept their tires up to spec without government-mandated onboard tire-pressure monitoring systems.

© 2004 Steven L. Thompson. All rights reserved.

[DRTH VTR]

I don't know....
Perhaps a driver brain function monitor would be a better idea. There could be a color coded system of alertness level.

Blue = exceptional, defensive driver, can repair own car
Green = competent, safe, takes car to good shop for timely repair
Yellow = preoccupied, distracted, takes car to shop when the car breaks down
orange = clueless, talking on cell phone, puts gas in car, has not checked oil ever
red = beyond redemption, applying make-up, reading, shaving, knows where the car key goes and where gas pedal is

The cars would each have a light on top, displaying the condition of the driver.

[DkBG]

Making cars perfectly safe without any thinking on the part of the user is a utopian dream . They will never be perfectly safe with chowder heads driving them and the cost of cars is getting way out of hand , due to the do gooders trying to make us all safe while we drive with our eyes closed . But if they do mandate them , I want to be able to reset them myself , not take it to a dealer . Cliff

[singledad_9]

Fantastic. I see a tremendous opportunity to make a lot of money. Considering the problems I've had with my TPMS system, just market those pay for air, pumps available at every gas station in the nation.

This is foolishness, I don't like having air bags in my car, now their going to mandate TPMS. Freedom to the people, get the government out from under our hoods !

[DHoskins]

We got the high mount third brake light because the government mandated it (at great expense to carbuyers). All this money because a few taxi companies thought it would be a good thing. Now a study shows that it has not made any difference in rear end collisions. Of course it may have helped because there is now a greater chance that one of the brake lights will actually not be burned out!
I think they are trying to solve the wrong problem. Sure the tires may have been underinflated but most of the SUV drivers also aren't used to the high center of gravity and don't know enough to compensate for it. Driving lessons anyone?
Maybe they should go back to solid rubber tires and have air as an option.:eyerole
I would bet that most of you Vette people with TPMS still have and use your tire gauges!

[Eric]

I voted no but with a caveat.

I, as well as most of you I'm sure, see cars on the highway everyday riding on tires that I know are low enough to have a noticable effect on steering/tracking of the vehicle. All of us here are car people and as such, most of us probably don't need a TPMS as we check regularly. As I said, we are car people so most things like this are not intended for us but I wouldn't mind having it for those sudden pressure losses.

Most people, however, are not car people and wouldn't know how to use a pressure gauge if they invented it. These are the folks that would ride on a rim and not realize it. While these, and most systems like them are subject to bugs and need a lot of work to become what they are intended to be, I would feel better knowing my wife's car had every possible safety precaution possible.

My vote of 'no' was on the fact that I don't think NHTSA should mandate it. At least they shouldn't unless there is a much more well planned, less fallible system.

JMHO

[DHoskins]

71Shark. All good points and I voted No for the same reasons. But the TPMS system will only solve part of the problem. I keep the runflats on my C5 because I didn't want my wife stranded on a highway with a flat. Maybe the solution is what we have on the C5 - a combination of run-flat tires and a TPMS system that will reset itself when the problem is corrected. I just get upset when a 'solution' to a real problem is half baked and legislated/mandated. I don't mind paying for real solutions but most of these 'fixes' are not well planned.