Half a million VWs recalled, sneaky emissions software.

[Burwood]

Munter said:

Burwood said:

seriously, talk to the dealer. Everyone will be asking the same obvious questions and they will have a solution.

I bet you right now that the dealers have no information on anything. I'd expect them to have a fixed statement of "VW will contact you if you car is affected. We have no other information. VW customer service can be reached on <phone number>"

Until either VW decide what they are doing, or the Gov forces them to do a specific something, I expect the dealers will not be able to say anything.

To be fair on the dealers it must be a nightmare. 9 out of 10 calls must be about this st.

[Burwood]

Hitler spoofed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKef1JFpiCA

[KTF]

Burwood said:

Hitler spoofed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKef1JFpiCA

The video clip that keeps on giving....

[andy-xr]

I find it comical that VW owners are frothing away, getting ready to issue VW with not fit for purpose letters or some other such self important tosh.

This will be smoothed over very quickly with a take it or leave it option for owners as part of a recall notice. They've already got your money, you're not getting it back, they're not taking the car back, you'll have to live with -10hp and more soot on the roads.

VW in Corporate terms, very different. They're probably going to be bummed hard by various Inquiry teams who dont really understand what they're asking and what the answers are, but will be determined to somehow fine VW once they get a handle on how to do it

[Munter]

CocoPops said:

Response from dealer:

---

Dear Mr CocoPops,

We are currently awaiting the details of the proposed action to be taken by the Brand in regard to this issue.

Further, not all vehicles will be subject to any modifications required, and as such you will be contacted by the Brand directly should your vehicle be affected.

I am sorry I cannot be clearer at this juncture but more information will be available in the near future.

Kind regards

Mr Service Manager.

---

I'd say that was pretty close to what I thought would be the case.

It's going to be some time before this settles down into a clear course of action.

[GuitarTech]

Burwood said:

Hitler spoofed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKef1JFpiCA

Well made, and funny too..but unfortunatly ruined for me due to speaking fluent German. I hear what they're saying, and read the english undertitles, and keep on thinking: he didn't say that at all..

[Pan Pan Pan]

MarshPhantom said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

As has the number of people arriving on the planet (up to 345 thousand net new humans per day) an increasing proportion of whom, will want to burn things so that they can move around.
China and India and South America each with vast populations, which up to now have been countries largely based on low tech agriculture, are now doing their best to change into modern industrialized vehicle using, consumer based countries.
An already colossal and rapidly growing global population, that will want to increase its uptake of all resources, set against a finite planet with finite resources.
Interesting times lay ah
ead.
In reality it may make no difference how clean / economical we make vehicles, if we counter those improvements with huge increases in the numbers of additional vehicles /users, the end result for resource uptake and increased waste and emissions can only go one way.

My point was you can't do anything MMGW but you can tackle local air quality issues. You seem to be suggesting that as China has poor air quality we should suck it up too.

Since pollution does recognize boundaries, national or otherwise, we probably are sucking it up at this very moment.

[MarshPhantom]

Pan Pan Pan said:

MarshPhantom said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

As has the number of people arriving on the planet (up to 345 thousand net new humans per day) an increasing proportion of whom, will want to burn things so that they can move around.
China and India and South America each with vast populations, which up to now have been countries largely based on low tech agriculture, are now doing their best to change into modern industrialized vehicle using, consumer based countries.
An already colossal and rapidly growing global population, that will want to increase its uptake of all resources, set against a finite planet with finite resources.
Interesting times lay ah
ead.
In reality it may make no difference how clean / economical we make vehicles, if we counter those improvements with huge increases in the numbers of additional vehicles /users, the end result for resource uptake and increased waste and emissions can only go one way.

My point was you can't do anything MMGW but you can tackle local air quality issues. You seem to be suggesting that as China has poor air quality we should suck it up too.

Since pollution does recognize boundaries, national or otherwise, we probably are sucking it up at this very moment.

Pollution is very local. You get smog in cities, not in the countryside.

[Pan Pan Pan]

MarshPhantom said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

MarshPhantom said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

As has the number of people arriving on the planet (up to 345 thousand net new humans per day) an increasing proportion of whom, will want to burn things so that they can move around.
China and India and South America each with vast populations, which up to now have been countries largely based on low tech agriculture, are now doing their best to change into modern industrialized vehicle using, consumer based countries.
An already colossal and rapidly growing global population, that will want to increase its uptake of all resources, set against a finite planet with finite resources.
Interesting times lay ah
ead.
In reality it may make no difference how clean / economical we make vehicles, if we counter those improvements with huge increases in the numbers of additional vehicles /users, the end result for resource uptake and increased waste and emissions can only go one way.

My point was you can't do anything MMGW but you can tackle local air quality issues. You seem to be suggesting that as China has poor air quality we should suck it up too.

Since pollution does recognize boundaries, national or otherwise, we probably are sucking it up at this very moment.

No you get pollution and smog wherever large numbers of people cram themselves together in a relatively small area, the pollution does not just come from cars, but also buses, trains, houses, factories, shops and other business and of course the people themselves. that is why places in India where car use is relatively low also suffers from poor air quality and pollution. There is virtually no way of containing city generated airborne pollution. As I have seen spreading many miles downwind from London on occasion.

We can confine smog and other airborne pollution to the area it was created, no more than we can confine the pollution from a volcano.
You may remember the pollution from the recent Greenland volcano eruption which spread over the Northern hemisphere shutting down flights, How do you suggest that might be kept local to the place which created it?

[IainT]

Pan Pan Pan said:

MarshPhantom said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

MarshPhantom said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

As has the number of people arriving on the planet (up to 345 thousand net new humans per day) an increasing proportion of whom, will want to burn things so that they can move around.
China and India and South America each with vast populations, which up to now have been countries largely based on low tech agriculture, are now doing their best to change into modern industrialized vehicle using, consumer based countries.
An already colossal and rapidly growing global population, that will want to increase its uptake of all resources, set against a finite planet with finite resources.
Interesting times lay ah
ead.
In reality it may make no difference how clean / economical we make vehicles, if we counter those improvements with huge increases in the numbers of additional vehicles /users, the end result for resource uptake and increased waste and emissions can only go one way.

My point was you can't do anything MMGW but you can tackle local air quality issues. You seem to be suggesting that as China has poor air quality we should suck it up too.

Since pollution does recognize boundaries, national or otherwise, we probably are sucking it up at this very moment.

No you get pollution and smog wherever large numbers of people cram themselves together in a relatively small area, the pollution does not just come from cars, but also buses, trains, houses, factories, shops and other business and of course the people themselves. that is why places in India where car use is relatively low also suffers from poor air quality and pollution. There is virtually no way of containing city generated airborne pollution. As I have seen spreading many miles downwind from London on occasion.

We can confine smog and other airborne pollution to the area it was created, no more than we can confine the pollution from a volcano.
You may remember the pollution from the recent Greenland volcano eruption which spread over the Northern hemisphere shutting down flights, How do you suggest that might be kept local to the place which created it?

Very different types of "pollution" delivered into the atmosphere in very different ways and utterly incomparable. Localised pollution is affected significantly by wind speed and direction, precipitation, etc. Clearly pollution in urban areas dissipates over time but, on calm days, it builds up in the local areas. Some cities are more prone than others - e.g. ones in natural bowls/surrounded by hills that act as wind-breaks.

MP wasn't suggesting we can keep it local (that is take an action to do so) but it is worst around the source.

[KTF]

TTAC thinks VW wont be paying $18bn in fines: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/09/volkswage...

[Mr GrimNasty]

IainT said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

MarshPhantom said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

MarshPhantom said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

As has the number of people arriving on the planet (up to 345 thousand net new humans per day) an increasing proportion of whom, will want to burn things so that they can move around.
China and India and South America each with vast populations, which up to now have been countries largely based on low tech agriculture, are now doing their best to change into modern industrialized vehicle using, consumer based countries.
An already colossal and rapidly growing global population, that will want to increase its uptake of all resources, set against a finite planet with finite resources.
Interesting times lay ah
ead.
In reality it may make no difference how clean / economical we make vehicles, if we counter those improvements with huge increases in the numbers of additional vehicles /users, the end result for resource uptake and increased waste and emissions can only go one way.

My point was you can't do anything MMGW but you can tackle local air quality issues. You seem to be suggesting that as China has poor air quality we should suck it up too.

Since pollution does recognize boundaries, national or otherwise, we probably are sucking it up at this very moment.

No you get pollution and smog wherever large numbers of people cram themselves together in a relatively small area, the pollution does not just come from cars, but also buses, trains, houses, factories, shops and other business and of course the people themselves. that is why places in India where car use is relatively low also suffers from poor air quality and pollution. There is virtually no way of containing city generated airborne pollution. As I have seen spreading many miles downwind from London on occasion.

We can confine smog and other airborne pollution to the area it was created, no more than we can confine the pollution from a volcano.
You may remember the pollution from the recent Greenland volcano eruption which spread over the Northern hemisphere shutting down flights, How do you suggest that might be kept local to the place which created it?

Very different types of "pollution" delivered into the atmosphere in very different ways and utterly incomparable. Localised pollution is affected significantly by wind speed and direction, precipitation, etc. Clearly pollution in urban areas dissipates over time but, on calm days, it builds up in the local areas. Some cities are more prone than others - e.g. ones in natural bowls/surrounded by hills that act as wind-breaks.

MP wasn't suggesting we can keep it local (that is take an action to do so) but it is worst around the source.

In the UK when the ludicrously low politically set pollution limits are broken, it is the source air from the European continent (industry mainly) that is at the root of the problem, our government's own figures show that banning diesel cars from UK cities would generally make no significant difference 99% of the time.

We don't know what air pollution is in the UK - take a look abroad if you want to see real air pollution.

[rohrl]

I heard a guy earlier on Radio 5 who said he was so disappointed that VW had lied to him about the emissions on his current car that next time he changed his his car he would switch brands - to an Audi.

[MarshPhantom]

IainT said:

MarshPhantom said:

the number of diesel vehicles has increased exponentially since the early 90s.

digging around for information on this and it's a little inconclusive but what's clear is that this has not happened. Share of the market has increased and this varied widely by country but the number of diesels hasn't increased exponentially. The growth is, with a few blips and slow downs, pretty linear. Diesel is ~60% of car sales.

No way of finding figures but I'd say my post is correct ref the UK, diesels were fairly uncommon back in the day, mostly because they were still a bit crap.

For example, BMW didn't even sell diesels in the UK in the 80s, they did in Europe. Now the vast majority of BMs are diesels. Diesel just wasn't on the radar for most people back then.

[anonymous-user]

KTF said:

TTAC thinks VW wont be paying $18bn in fines: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/09/volkswage...

Good spot. Thanks

[Pan Pan Pan]

IainT said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

MarshPhantom said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

MarshPhantom said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

As has the number of people arriving on the planet (up to 345 thousand net new humans per day) an increasing proportion of whom, will want to burn things so that they can move around.
China and India and South America each with vast populations, which up to now have been countries largely based on low tech agriculture, are now doing their best to change into modern industrialized vehicle using, consumer based countries.
An already colossal and rapidly growing global population, that will want to increase its uptake of all resources, set against a finite planet with finite resources.
Interesting times lay ah
ead.
In reality it may make no difference how clean / economical we make vehicles, if we counter those improvements with huge increases in the numbers of additional vehicles /users, the end result for resource uptake and increased waste and emissions can only go one way.

My point was you can't do anything MMGW but you can tackle local air quality issues. You seem to be suggesting that as China has poor air quality we should suck it up too.

Since pollution does recognize boundaries, national or otherwise, we probably are sucking it up at this very moment.

No you get pollution and smog wherever large numbers of people cram themselves together in a relatively small area, the pollution does not just come from cars, but also buses, trains, houses, factories, shops and other business and of course the people themselves. that is why places in India where car use is relatively low also suffers from poor air quality and pollution. There is virtually no way of containing city generated airborne pollution. As I have seen spreading many miles downwind from London on occasion.

We can confine smog and other airborne pollution to the area it was created, no more than we can confine the pollution from a volcano.
You may remember the pollution from the recent Greenland volcano eruption which spread over the Northern hemisphere shutting down flights, How do you suggest that might be kept local to the place which created it?

Very different types of "pollution" delivered into the atmosphere in very different ways and utterly incomparable. Localised pollution is affected significantly by wind speed and direction, precipitation, etc. Clearly pollution in urban areas dissipates over time but, on calm days, it builds up in the local areas. Some cities are more prone than others - e.g. ones in natural bowls/surrounded by hills that act as wind-breaks.

MP wasn't suggesting we can keep it local (that is take an action to do so) but it is worst around the source.

Simple solution : Stay out of cities, that way, not only will we not be subject to the foul conditions there, but we will not be adding to the build up of pollution from all sources there.
Complaining about the pollution in cities, is like jumping into a cesspit, and then complaining about smelling of sh*t.

[tumble dryer]

fblm said:

KTF said:

TTAC thinks VW wont be paying $18bn in fines: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/09/volkswage...

Good spot. Thanks

Well explained. +1

[IainT]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Complaining about the pollution in cities, is like jumping into a cesspit, and then complaining about smelling of sh*t.

Not really. One can easily avoid the latter, avoiding cities isn't possible for everyone nor is it practical - business requires cities, cities generate wealth, they concentrate people which supports the arts. Complaining about pollution in cities puts pressure on legislators to take measures to tackle it.

[Pan Pan Pan]

IainT said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Complaining about the pollution in cities, is like jumping into a cesspit, and then complaining about smelling of sh*t.

Not really. One can easily avoid the latter, avoiding cities isn't possible for everyone nor is it practical - business requires cities, cities generate wealth, they concentrate people which supports the arts. Complaining about pollution in cities puts pressure on legislators to take measures to tackle it.

They already have, it didn't really work. the fact that you feel complaining about pollution is still required is testament to the fact it did not work.
If several million people want to cram themselves into a relatively small area for whatever reason, it will (like it always has) be a polluted place.

[turbobloke]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/wellbeing/health-advice...