VW in trouble over alleged US emission test manipulations

VW in trouble over alleged US emission test manipulations

Author
Discussion

Sheepshanks

32,540 posts

118 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
k-ink said:
VW never handed anything out in the US either. They were FORCED to.
I don't know that's not correct, but the initial compensation was given to US owners almost instantly after the news came out, so it seems unlikely there could have been any force applied in that time-scale.

98elise

26,381 posts

160 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
jshell said:
98elise said:
jshell said:
Oilchange said:
400,000 pre orders for the new Tesla, that's promising.

I suspect if VAG had its way Tesla would be driven into bankruptcy like the Oil producers are trying to do to the shale prospectors...
Tesla are bankrupt, at least without mega-borrowing.

Anyone who thinks that Tesla is 'green' is fking deluded!

Musk took a green concept, luxury-ised out of the park and is building something that will save no planet. Especially given the strip-mining it takes to make the batteries and electronics.

Electric cars were envisioned as little eco-boxes, not high performance luxury barge-sized limos.
Electric cars don't need to be little, and unlike ICE's they can be high perfromance and economical. The most powerful Teslas have a similar efficiency as the lowest power ones in like for like driving.

The "luxury barges" are what paid for the R&D on the model 3 which is a small to medium family saloon car. Musk has always been aiming for a mass market cars.
If the UK grid is to support charging of large EV's then it will need serious, serious upgrading.

If Teslas were 'green' then that guy wouldn't have had to pay $11,000 for emissions fines in Singapore!
The grid does not need upgrading. This gets said on every EV thread yet the average driver would use 7kWh per day.Thats like running a hob for an hour, so why would the grid need upgrading? If I install a hob or an electric shower I can do that without any issues. Then consider that I can actually charge over night then were taking about half a kettle, or a halogen flood light.

One bloke in singapore does not mean they are not green. The fugures used were simply wrong.

In the Uk we get 20% of our electricity from renewables, and 25% from nuclear, so thats 45% with no emissions. Then add to that the efficiency of an EV vs ICE. Then add to that emissions from ICE's are actually much higher then the official figures, and ICE are looking very bad.

k-ink

9,070 posts

178 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
Sheepshanks said:
I don't know that's not correct, but the initial compensation was given to US owners almost instantly after the news came out, so it seems unlikely there could have been any force applied in that time-scale.
It was only ten days ago that VW announced a proper plan for compensation, by buying back half a million US cars. Despite the fact they were ordered to do so on Sep 18th. They still have not done this. At the moment it is merely talk. They were forced to do this as the bodge fix offered was not considered good enough.

I note there are 11 million affected cars worldwide. So the compensation could be many times higher than the current predicted outcome for just the US. It will be interesting to see how this finally pans out.


Timeline details
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/10/vo...

http://www.reuters.com/video/2016/04/21/vw-expecte...

Flibble

6,470 posts

180 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
98elise said:
Electric cars don't need to be little, and unlike ICE's they can be high perfromance and economical. The most powerful Teslas have a similar efficiency as the lowest power ones in like for like driving.

The "luxury barges" are what paid for the R&D on the model 3 which is a small to medium family saloon car. Musk has always been aiming for a mass market cars.
Hmm. scratchchin
A smaller, lighter car will always be more efficient than a larger heavier one, assuming both are designed with efficiency in mind. Pretty simple physics there.

kambites

67,462 posts

220 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
Flibble said:
Hmm. scratchchin
A smaller, lighter car will always be more efficient than a larger heavier one, assuming both are designed with efficiency in mind. Pretty simple physics there.
Depends on usage; at constant speed longer objects generate less drag for the sale frontal area. smile

EVs do also have less of a penalty for weight around town because, unlike pure ICE powered cars, they can regain some of their kinetic energy as they slow down. Obviously the penalty is still there though, regenerative braking is a very long way from 100% efficient.

Sheepshanks

32,540 posts

118 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
k-ink said:
It was only ten days ago that VW announced a proper plan for compensation, by buying back half a million US cars. Despite the fact they were ordered to do so on Sep 18th.
Where does it say they were ordered to buy back the cars on Sep 18th?

Until recently VW America were talking about setting up mini-factories to retro-fit Ad-Blue systems to meet the lower Nox levels in the US. As I understand it the latest status is VW will buy it back at unaffected market value, or modify the car. I gather there's still uncertainty about how they'll do the mods and whether it makes sense.

At lease American's got something very quickly - VW UK just dismissed compensation out of hand here. VW seem to have judged it well - sales did fall initially in UK, but March was pretty well back on track.

Globally VW's WW sales were up in 1Q16 vs 1Q15, and that's with China in some difficulty. Missus has an EU6 Tiguan and I noticed Tiguan sales in the US were up 78% in Feb. They're only slightly down overall as they can't sell diesels..

98elise

26,381 posts

160 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
Flibble said:
98elise said:
Electric cars don't need to be little, and unlike ICE's they can be high perfromance and economical. The most powerful Teslas have a similar efficiency as the lowest power ones in like for like driving.

The "luxury barges" are what paid for the R&D on the model 3 which is a small to medium family saloon car. Musk has always been aiming for a mass market cars.
Hmm. scratchchin
A smaller, lighter car will always be more efficient than a larger heavier one, assuming both are designed with efficiency in mind. Pretty simple physics there.
For any given speed the only energy being used is to ovecome wind resistance and rolling resistance. Weight doesn't really come into it. It is a factor in acceleration, so for ICE's bigger engines less efficient engines are needed. As you say, simple physics.

Flibble

6,470 posts

180 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
98elise said:
For any given speed the only energy being used is to ovecome wind resistance and rolling resistance. Weight doesn't really come into it. It is a factor in acceleration, so for ICE's bigger engines less efficient engines are needed. As you say, simple physics.
But acceleration is a big factor for actual cars; you can't just ignore it by saying at a fixed speed it doesn't matter, since cars are mostly not driven at a fixed speed.

MiggyA

193 posts

99 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
98elise said:
In the Uk we get 20% of our electricity from renewables, and 25% from nuclear, so thats 45% with no emissions.
Renewables are not all emissions free, so it's more like 11%, and ~20% for nuclear. Unless you are calculating for imported power somehow, which would be fair enough as it does make up a big proportion..

George111

6,930 posts

250 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
98elise said:
For any given speed the only energy being used is to ovecome wind resistance and rolling resistance. Weight doesn't really come into it. It is a factor in acceleration, so for ICE's bigger engines less efficient engines are needed. As you say, simple physics.

Until you come to a hill smile Try pulling a bicycle, a car and a 44 ton truck up hill . . . which one takes more energy, that is basic physics.

kambites

67,462 posts

220 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
George111 said:
Until you come to a hill smile Try pulling a bicycle, a car and a 44 ton truck up hill . . . which one takes more energy, that is basic physics.
As much as I hate to point out the obvious, you get it back going back down the other side.

Obviously you do need more energy to move a heavier car, all sorts of minor things get less efficient with weight. But it's not by a huge margin.

Flibble

6,470 posts

180 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
kambites said:
As much as I hate to point out the obvious, you get it back going back down the other side.
You never get as much back as you put in though.

kambites

67,462 posts

220 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
Flibble said:
kambites said:
As much as I hate to point out the obvious, you get it back going back down the other side.
You never get as much back as you put in though.
That depends on how you define "get back". If the hills are gentle enough that you don't need to brake down the other side, the extra energy requirement for going up a hill and then down the other side rather than maintaining the same speed on the flat is pretty small (of the order of a few percent). If you have to run a generator to bleed off excess speed on the down-hill side, it's more like 20-30% loss of that part of the energy.

mollytherocker

14,365 posts

208 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
kambites said:
Flibble said:
kambites said:
As much as I hate to point out the obvious, you get it back going back down the other side.
You never get as much back as you put in though.
That depends on how you define "get back". If the hills are gentle enough that you don't need to brake down the other side, the extra energy requirement for going up a hill and then down the other side rather than maintaining the same speed on the flat is pretty small (of the order of a few percent). If you have to run a generator to bleed off excess speed on the down-hill side, it's more like 20-30% loss of that part of the energy.
Nope, you do not get it back. Otherwise we would have perpetual motion.

kambites

67,462 posts

220 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
mollytherocker said:
Nope, you do not get it back. Otherwise we would have perpetual motion.
Sorry? You're going to have to explain what you mean there. I'm not saying that it uses no energy to move a car from A to B, I'm saying that moving a car from A to B over a hill fundamentally uses no more energy than moving it from A to B without going over a hill.

It's just a matter of which route puts the drive train at its most efficient over the course of the journey. The energy state at the end is the same either way and if you're travelling at the same speed for the whole trip your aerodynamic and frictional losses are the same (ignoring the fact you're actually travelling slightly further if you're going over a hill).

Edited by kambites on Saturday 30th April 19:07

Escapegoat

5,135 posts

134 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
kambites said:
Sorry? You're going to have to explain what you mean there. I'm not saying that it uses no energy to move a car from A to B, I'm saying that moving a car from A to B over a hill fundamentally uses no more energy than moving it from A to B without going over a hill.

It's just a matter of which route puts the drive train at its most efficient over the course of the journey. The energy state at the end is the same either way and if you're travelling at the same speed for the whole trip your aerodynamic and frictional losses are the same (ignoring the fact you're actually travelling slightly further if you're going over a hill).

Edited by kambites on Saturday 30th April 19:07
Any chance that you've got a well-conducted bit of empirical data for this claim?

No. Because the list of caveats (you've already added a few) would be big enough to make a mockery of the idea.

mollytherocker

14,365 posts

208 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
kambites said:
mollytherocker said:
Nope, you do not get it back. Otherwise we would have perpetual motion.
Sorry? You're going to have to explain what you mean there. I'm not saying that it uses no energy to move a car from A to B, I'm saying that moving a car from A to B over a hill fundamentally uses no more energy than moving it from A to B without going over a hill.

It's just a matter of which route puts the drive train at its most efficient over the course of the journey. The energy state at the end is the same either way and if you're travelling at the same speed for the whole trip your aerodynamic and frictional losses are the same (ignoring the fact you're actually travelling slightly further if you're going over a hill).

Edited by kambites on Saturday 30th April 19:07
Its just not that simple I am afraid. The energy used climbing a hill, ie countering gravity is way more than what you believe.

The steeper the hill, the greater the energy expended. The down hill bit offsets that, but only to a limite degree.

The ultimate efficiency is on a flat surface.

kambites

67,462 posts

220 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
Escapegoat said:
Any chance that you've got a well-conducted bit of empirical data for this claim?

No. Because the list of caveats (you've already added a few) would be big enough to make a mockery of the idea.
Perhaps you'd like to explain where you think the extra losses are incurred? This extra energy can't just vanish, it's got to go somewhere.

kambites

67,462 posts

220 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
mollytherocker said:
Its just not that simple I am afraid. The energy used climbing a hill, ie countering gravity is way more than what you believe.
I know exactly how much energy is used to climb a hill compared to travelling the same distance on the flat. In SI units it's the mass of the object in kg times the height differential in meters times the gravitational constant. I also know how much is returned going back down the hill again - exactly the same amount.

Bhuvsta

234 posts

161 months

Saturday 30th April 2016
quotequote all
kambites said:
I know exactly how much energy is used to climb a hill compared to travelling the same distance on the flat. In SI units it's the mass of the object in kg times the height differential in meters times the gravitational constant. I also know how much is returned going back down the hill again - exactly the same amount.
Wouldn't the inefficiency of the drivetrain mean that you would use more energy than you would get back?