The Volkswagen Whee ..

[Lakewood90712]

Still unknown what action California AIR Resources Board will take, separate from US EPA. My guess is a re-flash , extended warranty , big ass fine, and VW will end up mitigating by paying for nox reduction equipment at some CA power plants to offset the nox emissions on the earlier cars that my not be able to meet standards with a re-flash.

I don't see a buy-back. The cars are still very popular here , with the gasoline / diesel fuel cost spread in CA. ( < 15 ppm diesel is still a lot less than CA gasoline).

They are a blast to drive , so much from so small an engine

 

[aja8888]

Good article from The Economist discussing the future of emissions and focusing on the EU about CO2 standards. This VW NOx issue sure has the potential to blow the lid off the auto industry.

HERBIE, a Volkswagen Beetle with a mind of its own in a series of Disney films launched in the 1960s, had its share of misadventures. But things had a way of ending up happily for both the car and its passengers. The German carmaker’s more recent attempts to give its cars the gift of thought have things headed in an altogether grimmer direction. Its use of hidden software to deceive American regulators measuring emissions from diesel-engined cars has plunged VW into crisis. And as the scandal provokes further investigations it seems likely to throw into question a wider range of claims about emissions and fuel efficiency. It could thus be a blow to much of the industry—one that might be large enough to reshape it.

A mucky business | The Economist

 

[timo2]

It seems clear that the German government will prop up VW as much as it needs to to keep it in business, so there is little danger that VW will go out of business.

 

[aja8888]

It seems clear that the German government will prop up VW as much as it needs to to keep it in business, so there is little danger that VW will go out of business.

Yes, kind of too big to fail since they appear to have an ownership interest in it.

 

[Walt34]

This is certainly devious engineering. I assume an employee blew the whistle, otherwise hard to believe it was discovered by some outside means.

No, actually it was discovered at West Virginia University:

How Engineers at West Virginia University Caught VW Cheating - IEEE Spectrum

 

[timo2]

Yes, kind of too big to fail since they appear to have an ownership interest in it.

and apparently from the news stories, some German government people may have known about the scheme

 

[ERD50]

Still unknown what action California AIR Resources Board will take, separate from US EPA. My guess is a re-flash , extended warranty , big ass fine, and VW will end up mitigating by paying for nox reduction equipment at some CA power plants to offset the nox emissions on the earlier cars that my not be able to meet standards with a re-flash.

...

Now that brings up an interesting angle.

I've talked before about how EVs just shift the pollution to the power source, and on average, the NOx emissions are several times higher per mile for an EV compared to tailpipe limits for conventional ICE powered cars (SOx is several hundred times higher!). The tailpipes of cars, with catalytic converters, and these advanced controls, are much cleaner than the coal plants.

So should EVs be fined?

As I recall, these numbers were fairly accurate (maybe overstated in one way, and understated in another?) but I might need to check again:

Is The Tesla Model S Green? - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha

The EPA reports in its eGRID report, which we previously referenced, that 1.122 lb of NOx are emitted by power generators per MWh of electricity produced, or 508.75g per MWh (.509g per kWh). ...

Adding in our estimated charging and idle losses, the 85 kWh Model S sedan effectively consumes .684 kWh of electricity per mile driven, effectively generating .35g of NOx per mile driven (.684 X .509) - 5X the EPA Tier 2 NOx limit. ...

-ERD50

 

[samclem]

I'm sure the decision to cheat wasn't a formal corporate one. Nobody built a decision briefing with the calculations of cost (incl likeliness of getting caught)/benefit and then pressed ahead. No rational person would consciously conclude that the deception would >never< be discovered (since that's the only way this whole scheme would help the bottom line. If it >ever< came to light, the damage would far outweigh the benefit).
Nope, this has to be one of those things that started small. But once it was in place, there was no easy road to undo it, and each person in on the secret went along with what was done the day before, hoping they would continue to reap the rewards and get transferred or retire before the bomb went off.
This will be a very interesting case study in corporate culture and decisionmaking (deliberate and by default) when the truth is known.

 

[Totoro]

That might work, but the "normal traffic" confirmation/check tests would still need to be somewhat consistent, else some manufacturers would be getting an advantage. And if we go this route, doesn't the "controlled" dyno test become meaningless? If we're, effectively, conceding that the companies are going to/can write their control codes to recognize when a controlled dynamometer emissions test is being done and then pass it, the car's performance in such a test is not relevant at all.

You do the normal traffic check only to confirm there is no such control code on a blatant level. Don't use the results or publish them otherwise. The highly controlled tests are still the reference.

Just the fact that there is such a normal traffic test already eliminates a lot of cheating potential.

Consistency in that test matters not that much, we're talking a factor x40 here in the case of VW. If a major discrepancy is found, withdraw certification and investigate deeper.

It's not about optimizing the test, it's about making sure the test is representative for actual real life performance. Sort of complementing an SAT exam with an internship to catch blatant cheaters, if you will

Not saying it's perfect. Ideally you want to monitor the entire deployed fleet of cars in real life continously (for several reasons). That might happen somewhere in the future.

 

[Totoro]

So should EVs be fined?

No. They didn't break any laws.

 

[ERD50]

RE: EVs and the NOx/SOx produced at the power plants to charge them, versus increased NOx from these non-compliant VW diesels:

Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
So should EVs be fined?

No. They didn't break any laws.

You are correct - I should not have used the word "fine" - that infers a punitive situation, and that does not apply to EVs in this case.

But in the context of the VW situation, the suggested payment to a power plant to buy equipment to offset the excess NOx produced by the vehicles in question is not really a punitive charge either. That was being discussed as just compensating for the damage they did - setting things right. Punitive charges would be in addition. At least, that is how I read it.

So from a logical (not a legal) POV - if EVs produce more NOx/SOx than compliant ICEs, then shouldn't they also be charged a fee (not a 'fine'), to offset the NOx/SOx damage they do? And if not, then why are we ALL paying a 'fee' (increased cost and reduced performance/mpg) for our ICE vehicles to keep these emissions low, while EV owners get a subsidy and other benefits while their emissions are higher? It makes no sense.

-ERD50

 

[6miths]

So I am asking myself, 'If I can't trust a German engineer, who can I trust?'.

I guess Scully and Mulder were right all along!

 

[samclem]

So from a logical (not a legal) POV - if EVs produce more NOx/SOx than compliant ICEs, then shouldn't they also be charged a fee (not a 'fine'), to offset the NOx/SOx damage they do? And if not, then why are we ALL paying a 'fee' (increased cost and reduced performance/mpg) for our ICE vehicles to keep these emissions low, while EV owners get a subsidy and other benefits while their emissions are higher?

True, but the EV owner can choose a "green" different electrical supplier (on paper--the power still comes from the same place, but they trade credits).
And, should the electric power that goes to fuel an EV be subject to different criteria/fees/costs than the same power used to run residential lighting? The arbitrary "max" limits on various pollutants drive other tradeoffs that may not ultimately be in an individual's/society's best interests. If the introduction of these pollutants to the atmosphere causes damage, then include the remediation costs/counterincentive fee into the price of using it. That, better than anything else, will align the interests of people with that of everyone.

 

[Midpack]

Like many discussions, repeated periodically.

You can almost always find a credible article to support whatever view you hold on the internet...

But there's a reason scientists aren't scrambling to write papers evaluating the precise present-day tradeoffs between electric cars and their internal-combustion counterparts. The present is short, and the future is long. Environmental trade-offs are changing all the time, mostly in electric cars' favor. Natural gas has already reduced coal's share of the national energy mix in recent years. And the new power added to the US grid each year is skewed much more heavily toward renewables than the current mix. If that trend holds, the Model S and other electric cars will only get cleaner. Besides, a lot of electric-car owners are already investing in solar power to charge their vehicles. Meanwhile, Tesla, Nissan, and other automakers are working feverishly to increase the efficiency and reduce the cost of batteries. The technology isn't advancing exponentially, as it has with computer processors, but it is advancing.

To use the nation's reliance on dirty coal as an argument against electric cars is to get things backward. Rather, the prospect of making cars far greener than they are today should count as yet another argument against the nation's continued reliance on dirty coal.

How Green Is a Tesla, Really? | Mother Jones

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[Lakewood90712]

So I am asking myself, 'If I can't trust a German engineer, who can I trust?'.

Pons and Fleischmann

 

[ERD50]

True, but the EV owner can choose a "green" different electrical supplier (on paper--the power still comes from the same place, but they trade credits).
And, should the electric power that goes to fuel an EV be subject to different criteria/fees/costs than the same power used to run residential lighting? The arbitrary "max" limits on various pollutants drive other tradeoffs that may not ultimately be in an individual's/society's best interests. If the introduction of these pollutants to the atmosphere causes damage, then include the remediation costs/counterincentive fee into the price of using it. That, better than anything else, will align the interests of people with that of everyone.

True, and I know we were warned to not turn this thread into a critique of the Govt agency, so I'll keep it brief, balanced, and relevant - First, I think the EPA has achieved a LOT of good. Our air is far cleaner than it has been in a long time, and I am happy about that. And I don't expect perfection or anything close. But you make a good point about 'big picture' - we have super tight regs on cars, while coal plants and big rigs are spewing out multiples of what our cars are.

Like many discussions, repeated periodically.

You can almost always find a credible article to support whatever view you hold on the internet...

Yes, but WADR, I really don't do that. I look for sources, and then review their numbers to see if they make sense, I don't just look for support for my view. It's a bit of an ad-hominem attack (and I don't mean that personally, either way) - just because it is commonly done, does not mean I'm doing it in this case. If you can challenge my numbers/logic and educate me, please go ahead.

As far as EVs and a future clean grid - As I've said before, just like when we review our investments we need to look at the marginal tax rates that apply, not the average tax rates. EVs add demand to the grid, we need to look at the pollutants from the marginal energy production to charge that added demand. So even an 80% renewable grid will need more power, and with the renewables maxed out at 80%, it is going to be almost all 'dirty' power charging those EVs.

The point in time when we have enough excess 'green' electricity to charge an EV fleet large enough to make up some significant % of miles driven is so far away, that I feel it is rather silly to promote EVs today.

It's like saying we should have all bought Osborne 'luggable' computers when they were on the market, because someday laptops will be small, light, cheap, and powerful.

By the time we can really see a path to excess 'green' electricity, we will have time to get EVs on the road. Most of the stories predicting a high % of green energy just hand-wave the very real issues of storage, and other issues.

I honestly feel that by the time we can see that, other technologies will actually lead us down a different path. Just like the unforeseen automobile saved big cities from piles of manure and dead horses in the street, in just a few decades.

-ERD50

 

[aja8888]

I know it's been beaten to death in the press, but VW does have some interesting technology from time to time........

 

[aja8888]

Guess who gets blamed!

So now the top brass at VW are blaming the code writers and engineers.....

Top-ranking Volkswagen officials on Friday cast blame for the company's large-scale diesel emissions-fixing scandal on a small number of unidentified and relatively low-level engineers and technicians.

In public statements issued at the company's headquarters in Wolfsburg, Germany, new CEO Matthias Müller condemned the "unlawful behavior of engineers and technicians involved in engine development."

Full article: Volkswagen Blames Emissions Cheating Scandal on Low-Level Technicians | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

 

[Alan]

When this story first broke I said to my wife and son that Dilbert, Alice and Wally would get the blame.

 

[jazz4cash]

So much good information is being shared here, I was hesitant to add anything and just be repetitive, but then I realized I have 1st hand experience with something very closely analogous to this, and some very direct (though brief) 1st hand experience with emission certification as well. But first:

I also would not be surprised if the CEO was kept in the dark. OTOH, he may have also given a wink and a nod, and just "make sure we pass that test", in such a way that the next level understood exactly what he meant. These people are (usually) too smart to put that in an email.

No, an outside company/University brought it to light - check the earlier links.



OK, earlier Midpack noted how the regulatory agencies (govt and private - like UL - this is not a political comment) have to rely on the data the company provides, though this is sometimes/often run through a 3rd party, if applicable. The agencies just don't have the resources to do all this testing themselves.

So that sure sounds like the fox guarding the hen-house. Checks and balances? Well, the products I worked on were subject to a very similar sort of govt health and safety regulation. I can say from 1st hand experience, our MegaCorp took this very seriously. I worked with the dept that did this test, and the other engineers that interfaced with them. There was a bit of a "Chinese Wall" between us and the actual testers, they didn't want some error or wrong thought process going across the two, that was a sort of check and balance. And we had to pass the test with some margin. It was a very difficult test to perform, took very specialized equipment, and was subject to variation depending on exactly how the test was performed. We didn't want to 'fail' due to a little test variation. I don't know, but we might have then sent it out to a 3rd party for independent testing, to submit those results to the agency, but we tested in house to have the confidence that the design would pass a 3rd party test.

During a critical point where we thought we might have had a few days of production of some of a product that might be slightly out of spec due to a slip up in our production process, they called in the guy that ran the test on that product from vacation, because the QC VP didn't want to take any risk that someone else might repeat the test in some slightly different fashion (though it was all carefully documented). They were serious about this stuff.

I could not imagine our MegaCorp cheating on this test. Not because of ethics - we used to say some of these guys would run over their grandmothers to get a shipment out the door and get it on the books for the quarter. But failing this test would bring similar negative press as VW (maybe worse). Checks and balances? Our competitors performed this test as well. We tested their products, they tested ours, that was a given (to learn from them as much/more than 'checking up' on them). If we were out of spec, they would have managed to get word to the media. I'm sure we would have done the same.

I'm a little surprised that VW competitors didn't see this. True, if they ran the strict EPA test profile, they'd get the same results. But they would be smart enough to do some other 'real world' tests. Some think that the other companies are guilty as well, but so far I don;t think these tests have shown problems with other vehicles.

My other 1st hand experience - I actually viewed an EPA emissions test run in the 80's. I knew an automotive engineer that worked on pollution controls, and went into work with him for a day. This wasn't a final certification test, but just an intermediate test, the engineers were just trying to validate the performance of some of the changes they made. The car's on a dyno, a driver has to follow a chart to keep the vehicle speed right within a certain range on this chart. Several cycles of accel, braking, idle, etc. The driver was like a skilled video game player. He knew just how to 'play' the pedals to keep it in range, and not get the equivalent of a TILT alarm, but still drive such to keep things as low as possible.

Since this was a test run, they had scopes and meters and dataloggers hooked up to everything, i addition to the actual tailpipe measurement. It was interesting to see. Yes, a computer/robot could replace that driver for even more consistency.

One more observation - if VW had just cheated by a little, they could have gotten away with it, because any 'real world' test will have variation compared to a dyno test. They got 'greedy' by emitting multiples (5x to 40x?), rather than just 20% more or something. That was just stupid.

-ERD50

I had the same job your friend had in the 80's. I worked with some of the guys that developed the test procedure and equipment required to perform the test. Like many gov't mandates, in the beginning no one knew how to achieve and/or measure the performance in a repeatable standardized fashion so private industry collaborated to achieve an acceptable solution. We shared the data tables (fuel maps, emission settings, etc.) with the gov't. I disagree with your conclusions about a competitor running a real world test. Most manufacturers are too busy keeping thier own products up to spec to do much exploratory testing of a competitor so I expect they would just run the standard test, especially since diesel emissions in passenger cars are really only significant to MB and VW. I wonder if the language difference may have led to the length of time for this to be discovered. The dyno test is very much as you describe but the driver has very little impact on the test results. These days I would be surprised they are using human operators.



Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[travelover]

I had the same job your friend had in the 80's. I worked with some of the guys that developed the test procedure and equipment required to perform the test. Like many gov't mandates, in the beginning no one knew how to achieve and/or measure the performance in a repeatable standardized fashion so private industry collaborated to achieve an acceptable solution. We shared the data tables (fuel maps, emission settings, etc.) with the gov't. I disagree with your conclusions about a competitor running a real world test. Most manufacturers are too busy keeping thier own products up to spec to do much exploratory testing of a competitor so I expect they would just run the standard test, especially since diesel emissions in passenger cars are really only significant to MB and VW. I wonder if the language difference may have led to the length of time for this to be discovered. The dyno test is very much as you describe but the driver has very little impact on the test results. These days I would be surprised they are using human operators.

Similar experience and conclusions here.

 

[ERD50]

I had the same job your friend had in the 80's. I worked with some of the guys that developed the test procedure and equipment required to perform the test. Like many gov't mandates, in the beginning no one knew how to achieve and/or measure the performance in a repeatable standardized fashion so private industry collaborated to achieve an acceptable solution. We shared the data tables (fuel maps, emission settings, etc.) with the gov't. I disagree with your conclusions about a competitor running a real world test. Most manufacturers are too busy keeping thier own products up to spec to do much exploratory testing of a competitor so I expect they would just run the standard test, especially since diesel emissions in passenger cars are really only significant to MB and VW. I wonder if the language difference may have led to the length of time for this to be discovered. The dyno test is very much as you describe but the driver has very little impact on the test results. These days I would be surprised they are using human operators.

Well, my experience dates back to the 80's - so I would not be surprised if the driver is replaced by a robot now, but that's not really the issue - I was just relating what I saw at the time.

We can agree to disagree, I but suspect that competitors would be very curious as to how VW managed to pass the standard test, and not need advanced systems, yet still get the performance they did.

In our business, we routinely did 'tear-downs' of competitor's products, and tested them to figure out if they had some 'secret sauce' that we just had not figured out. I wouldn't expect the auto business to be much different in that regard.

In our industry, it would be near impossible to cheat on the test itself, it was too 'closed-loop'. It would be like if you could sum up the 'driving experience' of a car in the 0-60 mph time, and the emission test was performed during the 0-60 mph time. So if they cheated in such a way that reduced emissions, but hampered performance, the 0-60 time would have dropped. The cheat would be exposed.

In our industry, cheating would be more along the lines of using cherry-picked products to submit to the test, while the average production run wasn't held to those tolerances, so the typical product might be out of spec, and only the cherry picked samples passed. That is why our compliance department randomly selected a sample of our products to test, and we had no knowledge of when/where they got their samples (separate from our regular hour-to-hour, day-to-day QC checks).

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

So now the top brass at VW are blaming the code writers and engineers.....

Full article: Volkswagen Blames Emissions Cheating Scandal on Low-Level Technicians | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

I'll second (or third?) your 'rolleyes".

As the article states:

"This is ridiculous," Drum argued. "What incentive do low-level engineers and technicians have to do this on their own?"

Exactly - this had to be pushed from higher levels. Heck, it isn't until you get to the higher levels that anyone has overall responsibility for the emission test results, the low level coders are just working on their piece of the puzzle. They couldn't coordinate something like that. Not that I can see anyway.

My earlier explanation is a better fit - there are controls (debug flags) in the code for evaluation testing purposes that could be manipulated by some 'cheat' code at a higher level. The lower level programmers would not be aware that those debug flags were being used as a cheat. They already exist for valid purposes. "Hiding in plain site" as JoeWras put it.

-ERD50

 

[Midpack]

Yes, but WADR, I really don't do that. I look for sources, and then review their numbers to see if they make sense, I don't just look for support for my view. It's a bit of an ad-hominem attack (and I don't mean that personally, either way) - just because it is commonly done, does not mean I'm doing it in this case. If you can challenge my numbers/logic and educate me, please go ahead.

WADR, a different POV in itself is not an "attack." You've read the Seeking Alpha article. If you read the equally well written article I linked, you can decide for yourself - it's that simple.

I'll never own a Tesla Model S (too $), but I suspect their owners are capable of evaluating whether or not they are reducing their overall environmental footprint. If they live where natural gas, nuclear or hydro are the primary power plant fuels, their total footprint is less. Or if they rely on solar and/or wind for electricity. It appears to be closer to a push where coal is the sole source. Where those cities, states, regions are is well documented (and have been posted here before).

 

[travelover]

So now the top brass at VW are blaming the code writers and engineers......................

I was thinking about this last night in the context that VW knew the jig was up a year and a half ago when the researchers initially reported back to VW with their findings. In the subsequent interval, VW threw up smoke and mirrors to try to explain the difference, all the while (I suspect) furiously tracing back through internal documents and sign offs to understand exactly how it all came down.

So, what we are seeing now is not a spontaneous as it would appear. They have had plenty of time to figure out what happened and to strategize next steps.

Oh to be a fly on those walls.........