VW in trouble over alleged US emission test manipulations

[heebeegeetee]

St John Smythe said:

Do you have to ask this question several times a day?

I don't.

Look, you might be perfectly happy to swallow what you're fed, but can't those of us who want to have a think and a discussion about what we're told do so?

[TA14]

heebeegeetee said:

Look, you might be perfectly happy to swallow what you're fed, but can't those of us who want to have a think and a discussion about what we're told do so?

It's really not that difficult a concept. If you drop a bomb on a town then you're likely to kill a lot of people. You don't know exactly which people and you don't know exactly where the bomb will fall but statistical evidence will give you a good idea about the likely results.

[AW111]

RDMcG said:

Whoa....the statements from the chairman of VW are very worrying indeed as to the future of VW:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-04/...

VW are desperately trying to look the underdog, to minimise any fines. Everyone including the Aus authorities are threatening fines.

[heebeegeetee]

TA14 said:

It's really not that difficult a concept. If you drop a bomb on a town then you're likely to kill a lot of people. You don't know exactly which people and you don't know exactly where the bomb will fall but statistical evidence will give you a good idea about the likely results.

Hmm. Normally after a bomb attack you can give every detail possible about who has been killed and how.

Can we not all give up with the ridiculous analogies please, and either answer the question or say nowt.

Am I asking a lot?

[funkyrobot]

AW111 said:

RDMcG said:

Whoa....the statements from the chairman of VW are very worrying indeed as to the future of VW:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-04/...

VW are desperately trying to look the underdog, to minimise any fines. Everyone including the Aus authorities are threatening fines.

The bit about cost cutting meaning they couldn't get the emissions down is not surprising.

[anonymous-user]

heebeegeetee said:

Am I asking a lot?

Erm....

[TA14]

heebeegeetee said:

TA14 said:

It's really not that difficult a concept. If you drop a bomb on a town then you're likely to kill a lot of people. You don't know exactly which people and you don't know exactly where the bomb will fall but statistical evidence will give you a good idea about the likely results.

Hmm. Normally after a bomb attack you can give every detail possible about who has been killed and how.

Can we not all give up with the ridiculous analogies please, and either answer the question or say nowt.

Am I asking a lot?

OK, what do you think about banning lead in petrol? Studies showed that there was a correlation between the amount of lead in the atmosphere and health. The general trend was down and banning lead in petrol accelerated that trend. No one knows how many lives were affected/saved/lengthened but it was generally thought to be a good thing. It's the same with the emissions from diesel engines. People study the statistics and it's generally thought that the emissions from diesel engines are not a good thing and adversely impact on people's health.

[Monkeylegend]

funkyrobot said:

AW111 said:

RDMcG said:

Whoa....the statements from the chairman of VW are very worrying indeed as to the future of VW:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-04/...

VW are desperately trying to look the underdog, to minimise any fines. Everyone including the Aus authorities are threatening fines.

The bit about cost cutting meaning they couldn't get the emissions down is not surprising.

If he said the company's future was assured the public would assume they were not taking it seriously and would be more inclined to defect to another manufacturer. I doubt he really believes what he is saying.

[gizlaroc]

St John Smythe said:

Not a cheat device I agree. But it still cheating the test in a way.

I disagree. They are setting up the car to get through the test, there is a big difference.

VW have said that they couldn't get their cars to pass the test, on budget, without cheating.

To me the test is causing real problems, because it is just not real world enough. Who drives downs the motorway at 33mph? No one. And whose doesn't need to let their car get up to temperature? Again no one.

Set the test to represent real world driving and let's see how polluting cars really are.

[Pesty]

gizlaroc said:

I disagree. They are setting up the car to get through the test, there is a big difference.

VW have said that they couldn't get their cars to pass the test, on budget, without cheating.

To me the test is causing real problems, because it is just not real world enough. Who drives downs the motorway at 33mph? No one. And whose doesn't need to let their car get up to temperature? Again no one.

Set the test to represent real world driving and let's see how polluting cars really are.

I wonder if they made the test so specific for a reason. I.e it was easy to pass. Window dressing so they can say look we are doing something.

I'm wondering what cars would be like if they had to hit these limits at various different speeds in different gears.

[NelsonP]

TA14 said:

generally thought

Hmm- how accurate are most things that are 'generally thought'. Turns out not very.....

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/re...

[Fastdruid]

gizlaroc said:

To me the test is causing real problems, because it is just not real world enough. Who drives downs the motorway at 33mph? No one. And whose doesn't need to let their car get up to temperature? Again no one.

Set the test to represent real world driving and let's see how polluting cars really are.

+1. Just so many issues with the test.
Ignoring the pumped up tyres, the taping of shut lines and removal of roof rails, trims etc. The speeds are too low, and the test is too easy to game. Special gear ratios with auto boxes and carefully selected gear rations, default all but unusable economy settings, stop start, the list goes on and on.

Even ignoring the test cycle being too easy just look at how horrendous diesels are on mpg in winter until they warm up in comparison to in summer as a classic example. I mean the test is performed at between 20-30 degrees when the average in the UK is 12 for a start!

Personally I would think that instead of a "standard" test cycle it would be better to individually test each element of expected use and come up with a figure. eg test mpg and emissions at a constant 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70 mpg along with stationary and then acceleration between 0-60 at a set minimum time (eg using enough throttle to achieve a 10s time or full throttle which every is less), then coast down from 60 to 0 and then come up with an mpg "score" via some weighting for each part of the test.

[ZedLeppelin]

What I want is an emissions test which tests the upper limits of any car's outputs and the emissions at those outputs. I want to know what the car is producing in terms of emissions as both minimums and maximums.

Trying to simulate 'real world' results in best case scenario testing, not worse case scenario testing.

[GroundEffect]

So how would you like to make a 'real world' test for the X million km of European and probably Y Billion km of global roads?

1) Gradients
2) Corners
3) Wind
4) Drivers generally being awful at efficient driving
5) Ambient temps ranging from -40C to +50C

And so on and so on

[Mr GrimNasty]

For people that believe the 'diesels are killing x thousand a year' nonsense, here is something that might educate you, it's specifically about EPA ozone limits - but the same concepts/fallacies/dishonesty apply to all 'pollutant' death claims/limits.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/04/new-climate-...

[Mr2Mike]

Mr GrimNasty said:

For people that believe the 'diesels are killing x thousand a year' nonsense, here is something that might educate you, it's specifically about EPA ozone limits - but the same concepts/fallacies/dishonesty apply to all 'pollutant' death claims/limits.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/04/new-climate-...

There are some good articles on wattsup, but I'm not sure that is one of them. It's arguing that smog is fine because visitors to a national park where smog production is accelerated by terpenes emitted by trees don't tend to die prematurely.

1) Visiting a place for a day and living in it for most of your life are rather different.
2) It conveniently neglects to mention that NOx is required to form smog in the first place, and that isn't released by trees.

[FiF]

Mr2Mike said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

For people that believe the 'diesels are killing x thousand a year' nonsense, here is something that might educate you, it's specifically about EPA ozone limits - but the same concepts/fallacies/dishonesty apply to all 'pollutant' death claims/limits.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/04/new-climate-...

There are some good articles on wattsup, but I'm not sure that is one of them. It's arguing that smog is fine because visitors to a national park where smog production is accelerated by terpenes emitted by trees don't tend to die prematurely.

1) Visiting a place for a day and living in it for most of your life are rather different.
2) It conveniently neglects to mention that NOx is required to form smog in the first place, and that isn't released by trees.

Point of order reference comment 2) above.

Biogenic soil emissions of NOX are estimated to be 5.5 Tg with a range of 3.3-7.7 Tg (Teragrams)
- Yienger, J. J., and H. Levy II, Empirical model of global soil biogenic NOx emissions, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 11,447-11,464.

A significant factor within this is anthropogenic estimated as 40%, fertilisers, burning for clearance, canopy reduction, but by implication 60% is not, eg aerobic and anaerobic activity.

Also noteworthy is that Yienger and Levy predictions are lower than those of Davidson by a factor of four which can't be easily explained due to differences in the studies. - Davidson, E. A., 1991, Fluxes of nitrous oxide and nitric oxide from terrestrial ecosystems, in Microbial Production and Consumption of Greenhouse Gases: Methane, Nitrogen Oxides, and Halomethanes, J. E. Rogers and W. B. Whitman (eds), American Society for Microbiology, Washington, p 219-235

Of course the naturally occurring emissions are, globally, much smaller than the largely wholly anthropogenic sources from burning of fossil fuels, and burning of biomass.

Hope you don't mind the slight correction. If you do mind, not much can do about that.

[Mr2Mike]

FiF said:

Hope you don't mind the slight correction. If you do mind, not much can do about that.

That's very interesting information, but could you point me to the bit that shows that trees emit NOx?

[FiF]

Mr2Mike said:

FiF said:

Hope you don't mind the slight correction. If you do mind, not much can do about that.

That's very interesting information, but could you point me to the bit that shows that trees emit NOx?

You are the sort of person that ruins PH with that sort of response. Trees grow out of the ground, the work relates to the forest floor as an integral part of the environment. The trees do not exist without a medium in which to grow.

If you don't wish to accept that clarification as relevant and just want to consider trees in isolation to the environment within which they exist it's pointless to continue.

Of course you may have been joking, your response was certainly laughable.

[tumble dryer]

Eight out of Ten in the 'OO-ya-fecker-scale-of-bh-slapping'.