David Gilbert Experiment on Toyota Throttle

A new argument has come up in the Toyota sudden unintended acceleration problem. (SUI). Professor David Gilbert of Sanford University has found a way to produce acceleration in a Toyota without recording a fault code in the engine. This test was done in a dramatization for ABC News, where it was claimed that this would not happen with any other automaker's fly by wire throttle system.

Toyota came back with results for several other automakers, where they showed that same thing happened on other fly by wire systems.

I'm certainly not surprised, since the way Gilbert rigged the system involved a 5 volt source, cutting several wires and reconnecting them with a specific resistor. In other words, simply reproducing a valid electrical signal to the engine without using the supplied gas pedal.

Toyota also pointed out that Gilbert's research was funded by the trial lawyers hoping to sue Toyota for billions of dollars in damages.

The discussions are found on these two web sites below, along with many comments that are actually more interesting than the work Gilbert did. By that I mean, Gilbert provided some insight into the inner workings of the Toyota engine management system. I did not know that they had a fault code set in case of a short in the throttle pedal, but it's quite logical that there should be one. But it is even more interesting to examine the many "brain faults" in the comments, reminding us that this is still essentially a case of mass hysteria. And even if one day it turns out that they find a real flaw that causes the Toyotas to accelerate, this issue will still be a great case study in mass hysteria, because of the number and variety of flawed arguments being presented.

Jalopnik and Autoblog

It is impossible to pick out a typical comment from online readers, but I felt like this one deserved to be printed in this blog simply because the Academy awards were presented last weekend, and I'm in an award giving mood. So this gets the Oscar for most incomprehensible comment in the category of self proclaimed professional expert in the online Toyota SUI debate. It was on the Jalopnik site, and you may have missed it because it was hidden, and also was in reply to another comment about the quality of education at SIUC (Southern Indiana University at Carbondale Home of the fighting Salukis). It is also quite instructive to see how far off topic people can get, but in this case, the name Sanford University carries a lot of weight in the minds of impressionable people, so I guess it was relevant to comment on whether or not Sanford was a legitimate institution of learning because one of the commenters applications was rejected. Also, I don't want to know what a Saluki is.

 BY mzs

03/08/10

@beercheck: It is indeed a fine school.

There still is something I do not get, why not reverse the VDC of one of the sensors, or run it through a logarithmic integrator. That way a bunch of this would could be noticed by the ECM. Also both are Hall effect sensors in a non shielded part and could pickup the same interference. Why not shield it or have one sensor be an optical slit counter? Another option would have been to use TP and a serial interconnect with parity, cksum, or CRC.

But my bet is that the trouble was in the firmware of the ECM. My guess is that the error cases were not exercised thoroughly enough in testing. My hunch is that there is a problem where when the ECU gets unlucky and gets an error condition under just the right conditions there is an off-by-one sort of bug in some innocuous error logging code and the ECM goes off into an infinite loop twiddling the word it needs to for the watchdog timer to think it is making forward progress. During this time the throttle is where it last was.

I say this since I had to put in logarithmic integrators, reverse voltage, use optical slit counters, add hardware watch dog timers, use R-485 then safety EPLC that supposedly would bring DACs to 0VDC automatically, and still had to fix a bug much like I described which was finally the actual mistake that cured that blasted system. I do industrial controls software for a living.

There is a possibility that America is approaching a point where buying a car becomes impossible for the middle and lower class. Like health care, where costs went up and access was reduced with the excessive lawsuits against doctors. Today, Americans may think that destroying Toyota will be good for them, but they do not realize that all car makers are in the same boat, and if you can destroy one car maker without proof of a fault, you can do the same to the rest of the low-cost car makers. Every car maker is trying to cut production costs, every one is forced to use electronics instead of mechanical linkages to save money and meet new standards. None will ever make a fool proof car.

There are a couple of other issues also pushing us away from universal car transportation. Running out of oil is one, global warming is the other. And now we can add a few more. Ever more incompetent drivers, greedy trial lawyers, and the never to be underestimated effect of mass hysteria.

Have We Got Enough Safety Gimmicks Yet?

One of the driving forces in making cars more complicated, is in the proliferation of safety devices. I guess it gets tiresome repeating this, but 50 years ago, these things were unheard of. You simply learned to drive properly or you had an accident and died. And it seems with all the safety improvements, we still have not significantly reduced the carnage on the roads.

We can learn something from the current Toyota crisis. Most experts seem to agree that the Toyotas lack a safety device that would bring the engine down to idle if the brake is pressed. Never mind the fact that when I was a teenager, pressing the brake and throttle at the same time in my father's V8 engined Dodge was the standard way to stage for the green light. Not at the drag strip, at the only traffic light in town, which luckily had two lanes set up going the same direction. When he was not in the car of course, and only if there was another driver in the next lane who needed to be out-accelerated.

So today, our cars are getting more and more safety features. Toyota has not been lagging behind in this regard, they were actually heavily involved in traction control systems. Instead of worrying about the occasional runaway acceleration, the Toyota safety researchers were working on the far more common problem of front wheel drive cars losing control on corners, especially on wet or icy roads, or with mediocre tires. And just as Toyota was rolling out stability control systems on every car down to the Yaris, they got hit with the runaway acceleration hysteria. Suddenly all that work on stability is forgotten, and any lives they might have saved through stability control is ignored because of other lives lost in runaway acceleration. I would personally prefer them to work on the stability control, and hopefully that is working now.

The fact that people in runaway Toyotas have died because of two other safety features is typically ironic. The reason that drivers can't turn off the engine of a runaway car, is because of the safety feature that prevents drivers from accidentally switching off the engine while driving. That safety feature is a built-in 3 second delay on the button, to make sure you really want to shut off the engine while driving. Similarly, the extra move of the gear shift lever needed to get it in neutral, is just to make sure you don't knock the lever into neutral accidentally while reaching for your CD collection on the floor.

Some other safety features that famously cause death are air bags, and seat belts that held people in the cars while they burned to death.

But basically the march of progress goes like this. One person develops an idea that can save lives. The idea is adopted by a car maker, as an extra safety feature. Other car makers also adopt the idea. Finally the last car makers to adopt the idea are forced into it, because people expect this feature to save their bacon, and can no longer drive safely without it. So the cars without this feature are looked on as almost defective. That how progress in safety sweeps everyone along. Today, tire pressure monitoring systems are an extra feature. Tomorrow, any car without them will be defective, because after all how could you expect a driver to check the tire pressure themselves, or even to notice a tire that looks low? What else might be mandatory? Backup cameras, for one. Anyone ever backed up over a child out there? You know it happens. There's actually lots more of these devices, the inventor's imagination is infinite.

Unfortunately, safety devices will never replace driver competence, as long as the driver is allowed to access the controls at any time. Often the only effect of the safety device is to reduce one type of accidental death while increasing another. And drivers who "feel safe" tend to drive more recklessly. This is one reason why this Toyota recall is bothering me. I keep hearing other people talking about driving "safe" American cars, and that Toyotas are "death traps". This is a classic case of false sense of security, which is actually one of the greatest dangers on the road.

We Buy Some Helmets

I already wrote a blog about checking out the helmets at the Toronto Motorcycle Show, which was a bit of a disappointment. Today, Mary Ann and I went out and each got a new helmet. Again, I was looking for helmet with the flip down inside sun shield, and Mary Ann agreed that it seemed like a worth while feature, although it limits the choices.

I decided to start the search at Zdeno's in Kitchener. I have been going there for 28 years, they are a motorcycle recycling yard, and sell accessories, gear and used motorcycles, all at reasonable prices. They also do repairs on motorcycles. They are one of the few remaining old school motorcycle shops, with plenty of "character", one of those things that is hard to explain, but you know the minute you walk in the door. For example, they allow you to watch as they work on the bikes. Ever seen that before? I also am a very big fan of places where they keep a lot of broken bikes out the back for spares, and they let you wander around to look for the parts you need. When and if you find it, they send someone out to help you remove it.

Today they were having a no-tax sale on all helmets. That's a good start (15%!). We started browsing on our own after being greeted at the counter by Janet, who later came over to help Mary Ann find the perfect helmet. The first one I showed Mary Ann was an aptly named Icon Speed Cretin helmet with crazy graphics and "Fin Kit" vents that looked like devil horns. She was not amused. After a little bit of browsing, she was ready to talk to Janet. Mary Ann does not make purchases like this quickly or often. Her previous helmet was an Arai that we bought in 1990.

Mary Ann wanted to know what makes some helmets so expensive. Janet explained that it was the brand names, and the certifications mainly. In the past I have occasionally gotten annoyed at some helmet salespeople, who seem to imply that buying anything but the most expensive helmet is gambling with your life. Janet was not like that at all, and seemed very interested in helmets, in fact was a motorcycle road racer herself, and had once fallen off at nearly 300 kph. People like that tend to have a more rational view of helmets, or at least a different view. Anyway Janet did explain that the certifications such as "Snell" added to the price of the helmets. But the DOT certification was the minimum required and probably adequate for most recreational motorcyclists.

Mary Ann put on one helmet and asked how it fit. Janet seemed to not like the way Mary Ann was moving her head while the helmet stayed still. She got a smaller one. Then Jerry (she is one of the owners of the shop) came over and reminded Janet that some people got headaches when they wore helmets as tight as motorcycle racers. Now in a normal modern motorcycle shop, this kind of exchange of view is impossible, or at very least would be a breach of ethics. Not at Zdeno's, where people often express their views whether you like it or not, but in the end everybody seems to enjoy working there, at least as far as I can tell, most of the time.

So we went back to the helmet fitting, and finally Mary Ann settled on an HJC IS-16 Medium size. Janet went to get a new helmet of that style and size, but came back saying the only new one they had was PINK. Mary Ann and Janet had already discussed pink helmets for ladies, and both seemed equally disgusted by the idea. Mary Ann took a look at the pink helmet and decided she would rather go with the matt grey demo model than wear a pink helmet.

Meanwhile I was trying on the HJC IS-16's and found that they felt completely wrong for my head. I even tried on a plain jane HJC CL-15. None of the HJC' felt right, which is very strange because my current helmet that I have worn for 6 years is an HJC CL12, and fits fine. So I decided to try on a Scorpion Exo-1000, which is about $120 more than the HJC IS-16. The Scorpion XL felt right for me, and I really did like the white "Apollo" graphic, which is mostly white with a few grey accents and a bit of red. And of course, it has the flip down sun visor.

The HJC flip down visor lever is on top of the helmet, and it retracts by spring when you touch a button, also on the top of the helmet. That should be fun for making Mary Ann mad when we are out for a ride and I'm passenger. Janet cautioned against doing that, because blinding the driver is not a good practice on a motorcycle. Nor is making Mary Ann mad, I reflect to myself. On the Scorpion, there is a simple up/down lever on the left side for the sun shield.

When we got home, we were checking out the features, and found that it was easier to remove the face shield and replace it on the HJC than on the Scorpion. Both were fast, but the Scorpion lost out because it took a few tries to snap back in place.

The $320 Scorpion was Snell and DOT approved, and also had a pump to inflate the cheek pads. The $200 HJC was only DOT approved. Except for the fact that the HJC felt all wrong on my head, I probably would have got it and saved about a hundred dollars. But The Scorpion does at least look like it's worth the extra money.

If you check the Snell website you will find that helmet manufacturers do not need to submit their helmets to the Department of Transport to get DOT approval, it is a self administered test. The Snell standard must be passed before selling the helmets with the Snell certification, and the test is done by the Snell foundation. So that finally explains why you can buy stupid helmets that are not DOT approved, then buy DOT stickers to put on them.

However, the well known brand helmets always conform to DOT standards, because even if HJC (for example) does not do the test right, another maker (Scorpion, for example) will test an HJC helmet themselves and report HJC to the Department of Transport, which then investigates. Anyway, you can kind of tell if a helmet is going to protect your head, just by looking at it. Hard plastic shell, thick styrofoam liner is way better than a tin bowl and a doo rag. And no helmet is going to save you if you hit a post at over 30 kph with your head.

One more thing Mary Ann wanted was the quick release catch from the Arai helmet, because she thinks it's a drag dealing with D rings. Because the quick release catch on the Arai was an accessory I added years ago, I took it off and put it on the HJC.

Picture: Clockwise from top left. Scorpion, Cretin front, Cretin Back, HJC. These were the styles and colours we ended up with. Except the Cretin of course.

Brakes 101

In 1969, the Honda CB750 motorcycle appeared on the market. It had two features that revolutionized motorcycling at the time. One was a four cylinder engine, and the other was a hydraulic disk brake. Of the two, I would argue that the hydraulic disk brake was more important. Honda did not have the first four cylinder engine, and today most motorcycles are not four cylinders. But you would be hard pressed to find any two-wheel motorized vehicle built today that does not have a hydraulic disk brake.

That introduces the subject of this entry, which is brakes. Until the Toyota runaway acceleration problem, I had no idea how many people did not understand the concept of brakes on a motor vehicle. When I was young, brakes failed so often that everybody knew how they worked. I guess when stuff fails, that's when you really find out how it works.

My first accident on my Honda CD175 was caused by brake failure. (Of course it could not have been driver error, because I was driving). I had gone down to the bar to pick up a "case of 24" (translation for non Canadians: beer) and had it strapped to the back seat. As I was heading home, and naturally this had to be right in front of the school, a goat jumped out in the road right in front of me, I hit the brakes. The front wheel locked up in the gravel and I went down. The damages were 5 broken bottles, and some road rash on my knees. My hands were OK because they were wrapped around the case of beer to protect it, or even more bottles would have broken. Several of my students witnesses the horrific crash and came over to help. Later on I discovered that the back brake was not working, so all the braking force was on the front, and that's why it skidded unexpectedly.

The Honda CD175's front brake was the now-obsolete cable operated drum with a single leading shoe. The rear was the same, but a little smaller and rod operated. As I tried to fix my rear brakes, I discovered this interesting fact. If you wash brake shoes in kerosene, they will be totally useless. But over the years I had that bike, and my next one, I did discover how to make those drum brakes work reasonably well. The most important thing to remember is lubrication. Some places need lubrication, and some cannot function if there is any lubrication at all. And in some places the "must lubricate" bits are alarmingly close to the "No lubricate" bits. Brake shoes, by the way, are "no lubricate" bits. And in case you have not guessed, kerosene is a lubricant. So is water.

Back in 2002, I was at the motorcycle rally in Sturgis South Dakota on my BMW, and I spotted an old guy pull into the campsite riding a Honda CB160, the precursor to my CD175. This immediately got my attention, and I went over to speak to him. I told him I had a CD175, and he said "You must mean the CB175", because that was by far the most popular of the two in the USA. No, I replied, I mean the CD with one carburetor. At that point, we seemed to connect, and next thing I knew he offered me his CB160 to go for a ride up the mountain road right next to the campsite, which I accepted. I reached the top with no sweat, and turned to go back, but at the first hairpin turn, I realized: "NO BRAKES". I manged to make it all the way back down, which was really not too scary once you are aware that you actually have no brakes. When I handed him back the bike, I thanked him and told him what a great ride it was, and casually mentioned that there were no brakes, which seemed odd since he had ridden the bike here from Salt Lake City, a good 500 miles. His response was "I thought you would have known. None of those bikes have any brakes". And I guess he should know because he had over 50 old vintage bikes. So it really was tricky to make those brakes work properly.

But apparently not everybody is an amateur mechanic like myself, and many people do not understand the basic principles of how a brake works, or even how to spell it. So here it is in course I call Brakes 101.

A brake uses friction to convert the vehicle's forward motion to heat. A car that is moving forward at speed has a lot of energy, and something must be done to that energy if you want the car to stop. This is because of a law of physics we call "The Law of Conservation of Energy". In other words, there is no device that can either create energy out of nothing, or make energy disappear into nothing. An engine makes forward motion energy from the energy stored in gasoline. The brakes removed forward motion energy by turning it into heat energy. It would be real nice if brakes could turn forward motion energy into gasoline energy, but that's not how it works yet. Although Toyota's hybrids are kind of working on that principle, using battery energy.

Hopefully this point is well understood, because it may save your life one day.

Brakes are designed to absorb a certain amount of motion energy as heat, and as they work they heat up, and their temperature rises. They are usually designed so that they can stop a car from top speed without getting too hot. And they can do that on a hot day, with the car loaded down with passengers, and going down hill. And they can repeat the entire test back to back a couple of times. But when they get too hot, eventually they will stop working. Usually the first thing to go is the brake fluid, which is a type of oil that is designed to transmit your foot pedal pressure to the brake pads that squeeze the rotating disk. Once this oil evaporates, or burns up, your brakes stop working. Or if the brake friction pads burst into flames, your brakes will suffer serious damage. Or if any metal thing melts down or lets go under pressure. You have to understand that the brakes will still work even when they are really hot, but there are ways to get them too hot and then, by definition, they will fail.

Now how can they get too hot? Say you are at the top of a 20 mile downhill run, pulling a big trailer. And you decide to hold the speed of the car with the brakes alone, in neutral, not using the engine. You may be OK for a mile or two, but you will smell burning at some point. Then your brakes are getting close to their limit.

Another way to make them fail, is to push the throttle all the way down at 60 mph, but hold your speed steady using the brakes. That would be worse than a 20 mile downhill run, especially with a powerful engine.

Now here is a strange part. If your car is standing still, and you apply the brakes really hard, the engine will not be able to get the car moving. Even with an automatic transmission in drive, you can keep your foot to the floor on the accelerator, and the brakes will not even begin to warm up. But your transmission will. That's because as the brakes are stopped, they are not creating friction or heat. But the energy from the engine has to go somewhere, and the only place to go is the transmission. Pretty soon your transmission will blow up. So that's a little tip for you people who want to do that type of thing just to see what blows up first.

If your car suddenly goes to full throttle and you can't control the engine, you can use the brakes to stop the car. But remember you only have a certain amount of time. The longer you drag the brakes before you pull off the road and stop, the more energy the brakes are absorbing, and some time soon they will reach the limit. Get stopped quickly or flames will be coming from the wheels, and your brakes will be totally useless, with the engine still pulling hard. Once that happens, you better know how to shut off the engine or how to put it in neutral or you could be the next victim of unintended acceleration. My advice is to point the car at some bushes or hedges or maybe a corn field. Not over a cliff or into a telephone pole. If you can get the car to roll over gently in the corn field by pulling a U-Turn as it slows down, you will stop, because the driving wheels will be spinning uselessly in the air. It's another way to put the car in neutral if you can't figure out how to use that stick between the front seats.

And another safety tip: Do not drive along with your foot always on the brake.  First, the rear bake light will be on all the time, meaning it is not signaling any useful information.  Secondly you are pre-heating your brakes, and now you understand why that is NOT good.  Try to not use the brakes unless you need them. And when you do need them, get on the brakes quickly and knock off some speed as soon as possible.  That's how brakes are most effective.

Picture: This is called a "Stoppie" as opposed to a "Wheelie". It is a stunt that uses the front brake to lift the rear of a moving motorcycle off the ground. Brakes did not do this back in the sixties.  Do I really need to add that this stunt is dangerous?

The Propaganda of Climate Change

Last week I came across an article about the Anti-Global Warming campaign on a website called Common Dreams. Originally it was posted on Tomdispatch.com on February 25, 2010, by Bill McKibben.

The reason I write this today, is because the Kitchener Record just printed the article. So thumbs up to the Kitchener Record!

And the original story

I was especially interested in the article because it is about the propaganda aspect of the debate, not the scientific aspect. I'm actually pretty much burned out on the science of Climate Change. Even though I studied science at University, I am nowhere near qualified to calculated the rise in global temperature from fossil fuels. I imagine the formula is something like this: iT = (Bob + CB + NGB + MCF)*x*Fe - Pwcu * Lopd

Where
iT = Increase in Temperature of Earth due to human related activity
Bob = Barrels of oil burned
CB = coal burned
NGB = natural gas burned
MCF = Methane from Cow Farts
x = constant to be figured out when it's too late by computer modeling
Fe = feedback effect
Pwcu = people who can't understand
Lopd = Loudness of pseudoscientific deniers.

I admit it, I do not have the scientific training to work through it and come up with the answer. So I have stopped taking the bait of arguments like "You are aware, aren't you, that Carbon Dioxide is only 4% of the total greenhouse gas effect?"

I don't mean to make a personal attack here, this applies to everyone. If anyone knows something about calculating the temperature of the Earth, they should take their case to a peer reviewed scientific process. Do not bring the argument to me. True, the scientific community may laugh at you and ignore you because you do not have a PhD. But I don't have too much sympathy for that. You get a PhD by working hard in university, and I happen to know many people do not work that hard and end up destroying their brain cells on beer and end up like George W. Bush.

Although I admit that I no longer have the brain cells required to calculate iT in the above formula, I can handle the math in the next formula, which is the Pottery Barn version of global warming. Simply stated, the premise is "We only have one planet to fool around with, and if we break it we all still have to live on it." The scientific formula goes something like this

NPE = 1 - Afabd

Where
NPE = Number of planet Earths that can support life
1 = Number of planet Earths in the known universe
Afabg = Any fooling around by deniers that results in destruction of biosphere whether inadvertent or intentional

That formula I can still work out for myself.

Picture: This is a picture where NPE = 1. I was not able to locate a picture where NPE was zero.

Two Canadian Symbols, the Flag and Anthem

Last night, watching the closing ceremonies, I noticed that many Canadian symbols were showcased, possibly even caricatured. Canoes, moose antlers, mounties, giant beavers all abounded. But two of the most traditional symbols were also there, the Canadian flag, and the national anthem.

However, at one point during the ceremonies, two alternate Canadian anthems were played, bringing back memories of what Canada used to be not so long ago and comparing it to what it has become today.

First was the "Polovetsian Dances" played as part of the Russian intro. (here is one from youtube, but not the one they did in the olympics)

I said to Mary Ann "Did you know this music is called the "Polovetsian Dances"? She said "If you can be believed." The reason I know it is because it was once the national anthem of English Quebecers. (actually more tongue in cheek, as it was also the music for the song "Stranger in Paradise"). Not too long after, Michael Buble came on stage singing a new version of "The Maple Leaf Forever". I said "Did you know that this song, with different lyrics was in contention to be Canada's national anthem?". Mary Ann said "Why don't you just send me the link sometime and let me watch the ceremonies now."

Not so long ago, we neither had the red Canadian flag nor a Canadian national anthem. In 1965, after a storm of controversy, the new Canadian flag was first raised over Canada. And we didn't have an official national anthem until 1980. Actually, we had two anthems, which is about the same as having none. "O Canada" was favoured by the French Canadians and had broad support across Canada. But "The Maple Leaf Forever" was preferred by the die hard British loyalists, who blocked the official adoption of "O Canada" until 1980. Although the actual tune of Maple Leaf forever was OK, those who loved the song never really understood what was wrong with the words to it, and as a recent comment on the internet explains "What isn't politically incorrect these days"?

So to set your minds at ease, here are the original lyrics of "The Maple Leaf Forever", and the tune is on youtube here.

In days of yore, from Britain's shore,

Wolfe, the dauntless hero, came
And planted firm Britannia's flag
On Canada's fair domain.
Here may it wave, our boast and pride
And, joined in love together,
The thistle, shamrock, rose entwine
The Maple Leaf forever!

Chorus:
The Maple Leaf, our emblem dear,
The Maple Leaf forever!
God save our Queen and Heaven bless
The Maple Leaf forever!

etc.

As for what's wrong with it, as they say in the Jeep world, if I need to explain, you wouldn't understand.

If you watched the "Maple Leaf Forever" video, you also got a peek at Canada's old flag. It says "used until 1922", so by 1964 it was way past its "Best before" date . There was a nationwide flag designing contest, and several designs were put forward over the objections of the die hard (why is it they always have to die hard?) patriots who would hang on to the old flag until it was pried from their cold dead fingers. After all, they had fought for that flag in two world wars.

The new Canadian flag was actually a surprise to everyone. Although the general layout was popular, some people wanted the side bars to be blue, to represent the two oceans, and have three leaves, not one (not sure why though). And there was some concern that a red leaf meant it was going to fall off soon and winter was coming, so there were people who preferred green leaves. Check out the "Pearson Pennant" and see if you think it looks better than the actual flag that was chosen. The Pearson Pennant was the front runner until almost the last minute.

The choice of the simpler colour scheme and single maple leaf was an artistic one, putting aside the militaristic "red white and blue" in favour of a more peaceful colour scheme reminiscent of the neutral Swiss cross or the inverse "Red Cross". Howls of protest were raised that the new Canadian flag, from a distance, if you squinted, resembled Peru's flag. Quebec has a blue provincial flag that competes fiercely with the red Canadian Maple leaf inside Quebec. Most Canadians are unaware of this flag battle still going on in Quebec. But even during the Quebec section of the Olympic torch relay I saw a good number of Canadian flags, so maybe its a sign of the new times.

In 1965 the new Canadian flag went up for the first time, and now we have had 45 years to get used to it. The simplicity of the flag has lent itself to many imaginative and original applications that enhance the symbol's value.

The two most basic Canadian symbols the flag and the anthem are kind of recent. But they suit the new image of an independent, multicultural Canada so much better than the divisive and exclusive British empire colonial symbols. It's a new image, and a renewed country that pulls together the best of the new and the old. And hopefully leaves behind some of the old animosities that dragged on for way too long, honestly.

Vancouver 2010 Olympic Wrap-Up

After the gold medal hockey game that ended the Vancouver Winter Olympics, I heard there was a poll that most people thought this hockey series was more significant than the previous all-time historic series, the 1972 Canada-Soviet Summit.

Well I was luckily around for both, so let me compare the two.

In the summer of 1972, I had just arrived back in Canada after three years in Sierra Leone. I had completely lost touch with hockey during those three years and I still remember my amazement on the airplane, reading about the planned hockey series pitting our best professional hockey players against the Soviet Union. This was a first, because for many years our Olympic team had been getting clobbered regularly by the USSR. By the rules of those days, no professional athletes were allowed to compete. Canadians had to be content with telling themselves that if our pro players ever played the USSR, the tables would be turned. And now it was going to happen.

As I continued to read the newspaper story, I realized just how out of touch I was. A brief mention that Bobby Hull was to be banned from the Canadian team. Apparently Bobby was playing for the Winnipeg Jets now. I never heard of this team, so I guess they added a new team while I was away. But next, I read the Winnipeg Jets were not an NHL club, but a rival league called the World Hockey Association, that I also never heard of before. It was this technicality that was causing Bobby to be left off the Canadian team. Can this much crazy stuff can happen in only three years? I was worried about what else had changed, and I had not even landed in Canada yet.

The hockey series took place in September, and ended with Canada winning in a cliffhanger in the last game.

But now to compare it to the significance of the 2010 Olympics. In 1973, the hockey series was an end to Canada's national myth of the superiority of our professional players. It also got ugly in several different ways. The Canadian fans were booing their own players in the games played in Canada. And when the series moved to the USSR, the Canadian team and the Canadian fans were harassed by the Soviet police and media. The whole series was not exactly sportsmanship at its finest. The clash of cultures. Differences in playing styles. The dismantling of Canada's long cherished national myth of hockey superiority.

Not only was Bobby Hull banned from playing, but also Canada's greatest player of the time, Bobby Orr sat out the series, to the dismay of both the Soviets and the Canadians.  And the reason Orr sat out was because of injuries caused by the rough style of play in the NHL, which also prematurely ended his career.  The Soviets started getting the idea that we had held back our best players and sent over a bunch of goons to beat up their players.

On the bright side, was the grit and determination of the Canadian team that in spite of bitterness from fans and foes alike, managed to claw their way back and win in the last game in the last minute. The drama was unmatched in hockey history, but it didn't reflect well on all of us or them.
Now for the Vancouver Olympics. Canada by 2010 has had many years to get over ourselves and we understand that we do not own the game any more. Since 1956, we have won Gold in ice hockey only once, in 2002. The Last time we hosted the Winter Olympics in 1988, we came fourth in hockey, and did not make it to the top ten in the overall standings. 

Our top professionals now regularly play in the Winter Olympics, but many of the NHL players are actually Russian, Slovakian, Swedish and from many other nations. The USSR, our old nemesis, has broken up, and the USA is also quite a powerhouse of hockey. In the 2010 Vancouver games, the stakes were higher than just hockey. The games were held in Canada, and by the time the last hockey game was ready to be played, Canada had more Olympic gold medals than any other country. Not only that, but if we won the gold in men's hockey, Canada would have more gold medals than any other country in a single Winter Olympics since they started.

This time our rivals in hockey were not the hated communists, but our friends to the south, the USA. Just to highlight the changes since 1973, look at one of the players in the big game, Zach Parise. He is the son of J.P. Parise who played on the Canadian Team in 1972. Except that Zach is playing for the USA. His father played for Minnesota, and the's where Zach was born. In this gold medal game, Zach scored the tying goal for the USA with seconds left to go, to rob Canada of the Gold medal. Temporarily, anyway.

So to get back to the USA-Canada rivalry now. Canada has for a long time been in the shadow of the USA, our super patriotic, brash, loud, gun-toting, god-fearing neighbor to the south with ten times the population of Canada. Ever since World War Two, the entire world has looked to the USA for an example of freedom, and as leaders of the world both economically and culturally. Canadians have been modest and self effacing cousins, up here in Canada freezing our asses off, and wishing we were Americans.

But over the last 10 to 20 years, Canada has begun to develop a new personality. We have gradually set aside the debilitating bitterness between the French and English. No longer is Canada under constant threat of being torn in two by separatists on one hand and British loyalists on the other. Our economy is growing stronger, and so is our standard of living. In fact we seem to now be pulling ahead of the USA in both those areas, with a well regulated financial sector, and a health care system that the USA can only dream of. Our currency is pulling even with the US dollar also. Canada has also become well known and well respected in the rest of the world too, not just for a strong economy, but for our efforts at peacekeeping, our achievements in multiculturalism, and our stand on human rights. All is not perfect, but still appealing compared to what a pariah the USA has become.

The Vancouver Olympics turned an international spotlight on Canada at a time when the US image of freedom was waning, and the world was looking around to see who else had any new ideas to offer.

So I would say the 2010 hockey gold, and the Olympic gold record, and the showcase of the Vancouver Winter Games, all together, is indeed a bigger and more significant event. For the sport of hockey itself, I hope it helps put an end to the idea that the fighting  in regular NHL games is necessary. For the way this will help pull Canadians, both old and new together, and help us to stop thinking of ourselves as losers in sports and second best to the USA or anyone else. And for the way the rest of the world may take more notice of us as we continue to evolve into a really decent country (as soon as we get rid of our present government).

After the game, Mary Ann and I went for a walk. A young girl was standing on the corner of Belmont and Highland with a Canadian flag, and every car passing by was honking its' horn. Apparently spontaneous demonstrations were breaking out all over the country. The 1972 series was meaningful and memorable in its own way, but I really think this one is more positive for Canada as a whole.