VW in trouble over alleged US emission test manipulations
Discussion
kambites said:
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. No. Because the list of caveats (you've already added a few) would be big enough to make a mockery of the idea.
Now please nswer my question.
kambites said:
George111 said:
Until you come to a hill 
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. Try pulling a bicycle, a car and a 44 ton truck up hill . . . which one takes more energy, that is basic physics.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.
But in many cases you don't go straight down, you go down a little bit at a time where the engine will still be required to provide some assistance, or perhaps zero assistance but you can't harvest energy from the motion without slowing the lorry down.
George111 said:
Going up you have to overcome losses (friction, rolling resistance, air resistance etc) + gravity and coming down you only gain, at the very theoretical best, gravity if the losses are equal - so you lose. You can't ever recover the losses you had to defeat going up the hill.
But in many cases you don't go straight down, you go down a little bit at a time where the engine will still be required to provide some assistance, or perhaps zero assistance but you can't harvest energy from the motion without slowing the lorry down.
True, but unless you've being very silly you're not comparing the "up and down" scenario to one where zero energy is used. You're comparing it to an otherwise equivalent journey in equivalent time on flat terrain, where all those other losses are present. Otherwise your conclusion is "to use the least energy, don't make the journey, or go very slowly with an appropriate engine", which is true, but not useful.But in many cases you don't go straight down, you go down a little bit at a time where the engine will still be required to provide some assistance, or perhaps zero assistance but you can't harvest energy from the motion without slowing the lorry down.
So it really comes down to a)where your engine is working the most efficiently, b)if you can avoid inducing extra friction losses (i.e. braking that you wouldn't do on a flat road) on the way down. It's theoretically possible with the right car/engine combo, road, driver, alignment of the planets, number of goats sacrificed, etc, for the hill to be more efficient. Though only really if the engine is truly terrible at light loads - the sort of car where the economy-obsessed will resort to "pulse and glide" on level roads. (It would, funnily enough, be a lot easier if you had a downhill followed by an uphill).
Oh dear. Suzuki it appears has found "discrepancies" in it's emissions testing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36319144
None of the cars that come over here though and they deny actual cheating.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36319144
None of the cars that come over here though and they deny actual cheating.
I see VW are garnering an impressive list of forthcoming lawsuits, from Norway to the US.
They also seem able to upset the German government by their recent 'restrained' executive pay too.
As for VW complaining about the US investigation taking too long; perhaps if you guys had fixed as the the US government had asked in the first place, you wouldn't be in this mess. At least the golden goodbyes for the executives made it all worthwhile.
They also seem able to upset the German government by their recent 'restrained' executive pay too.
As for VW complaining about the US investigation taking too long; perhaps if you guys had fixed as the the US government had asked in the first place, you wouldn't be in this mess. At least the golden goodbyes for the executives made it all worthwhile.
More VW revelations https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/oh-not-again-us...
Fastdruid said:
More VW revelations https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/oh-not-again-us...
People keep buying them though.
t, that's why. They just want a dull badge on the drive.Fastdruid said:
p1stonhead said:
How long did you take to choose your brand of washing machine? Were you at all interested in it if it worked the way you wanted it to?
About 2 months comparing spec's against price.....I took 20 minutes in the shop. Bought the one I thought was best after a very brief review of what they did.
'yep, this washes clothes'.
p1stonhead said:
Fastdruid said:
p1stonhead said:
How long did you take to choose your brand of washing machine? Were you at all interested in it if it worked the way you wanted it to?
About 2 months comparing spec's against price.....I took 20 minutes in the shop. Bought the one I thought was best after a very brief review of what they did.
'yep, this washes clothes'.
Still, it's quicker than buying cars, that's probably about a 6 month process involving comparing specs, prices, insurance costs and test drives.
Fastdruid said:
p1stonhead said:
Fastdruid said:
p1stonhead said:
How long did you take to choose your brand of washing machine? Were you at all interested in it if it worked the way you wanted it to?
About 2 months comparing spec's against price.....I took 20 minutes in the shop. Bought the one I thought was best after a very brief review of what they did.
'yep, this washes clothes'.
Still, it's quicker than buying cars, that's probably about a 6 month process involving comparing specs, prices, insurance costs and test drives.
For commuting cars (something economical and reasonably comfortable), I know nothing im buying will set the world on fire so as long as it does the job im happy.
'fun' car, yes, the search could be long.
Most people do not care, they don't feel ripped off. The world already knew that cars never did the mileage claimed and unless you really are an environmentalist the emissions is more about the US feeling dumb their test was so rubbish.
I do not know any VW owners who are worried, I know a few who would like some cash given if it comes but we are different to the US where Class actions are able to generate millions of dollars.
There are many more things to worry about than this for most people.
I do not know any VW owners who are worried, I know a few who would like some cash given if it comes but we are different to the US where Class actions are able to generate millions of dollars.
There are many more things to worry about than this for most people.
GroundEffect said:
Honestly, I don't think people care...because they don't know what they did, really. If the cars were breaking down or doing something tangible to the customer, they'd care. You can't see NOx.
I'd say people aren't bothered as they know most cars are the same - indeed in real world NOx tests VW's are better than many others.However owners are concerned about residual value impacts and the general turn against diesel.
Sheepshanks said:
indeed in real world NOx tests VW's are better than many others.
The point is that they're not as good or better than others, they turn off the emissions system so they emit more NOx than many other cars. Others are bad too but that doesn't excuse VAG. The test may be unrealistic but so far only VAG (IIRC) have been found to be actively defeating their emissions control system.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff