Again, not to beat the Dead Horse or the drums too loudly, but ALL world wide regulatory agencies (not just CARB,EPA) should have been well aware of the potential for cheating on the approved software platforms. I would daresay that the OEMs could use their software platforms ONLY IF approved by the ruling worldwide regulating agencies.
Indeed, I am sure that all the OEMs have the software platforms copyrighted, and patented. It's a stretch of credibility to think that all the worldwide regulatory agencies walked around like the monkeys: see, hear, smell, touch, taste no evil .
I think they all want to claim the Sergeant Schulz model of regulatory response, but that is pure BS. AKA, I know nothing!
...ALL world wide regulatory agencies (not just CARB,EPA) should have been well aware of the potential for cheating on the approved software platforms. I would daresay that the OEMs could use their software platforms ONLY IF approved by the ruling worldwide regulating agencies.
Indeed, I am sure that all the OEMs have the software platforms copyrighted, and patented. It's a stretch of credibility to think that all the worldwide regulatory agencies walked around like the monkeys: see, hear, smell, touch, taste no evil .
I think they all want to claim the Sergeant Schulz model of regulatory response, but that is pure BS. AKA, I know nothing!
Car companies use proprietary software that is "secret." I don't think anyone outside of a company is allowed to look at it, not even regulatory agencies.
From the New York Times:
"Volkswagen’s Diesel Fraud Makes Critic of Secret Code a Prophet
SEPT. 22, 2015
By Jim Dwyer
A Columbia University law professor stood in a hotel lobby one morning and noticed a sign apologizing for an elevator that was out of order. It had dropped unexpectedly three stories a few days earlier. The professor, Eben Moglen, tried to imagine what the world would be like if elevators were not built so that people could inspect them.
Mr. Moglen was on his way to give a talk about the dangers of secret code, known as proprietary software, that controls more and more devices every day.
“Proprietary software is an unsafe building material,” Mr. Moglen had said. “You can’t inspect it.”
That was five years ago. On Tuesday, Volkswagen admitted it had rigged the proprietary software on 11 million of its diesel cars around the world so that they would pass emissions tests when they were actually spreading smog.
The breadth of the Volkswagen scandal should not obscure the broader question of how vulnerable we are to software code that is out of sight and beyond oversight....
“Intelligent public policy, as we all have learned since the early 20th century, is to require elevators to be inspectable, and to require manufacturers of elevators to build them so they can be inspected,” he said. “If Volkswagen knew that every customer who buys a vehicle would have a right to read the source code of all the software in the vehicle, they would never even consider the cheat, because the certainty of getting caught would terrify them.”
That is not how carmakers or even the E.P.A. see things. The code in automobiles is tightly protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Last year, several groups sought to have the code made available for “good-faith testing, identifying, disclosing and fixing of malfunctions, security flaws or vulnerabilities,” as Alex Davies reported last week in Wired.
A group of automobile manufacturers said that opening the code to scrutiny could create “serious threats to safety and security.” And two months ago, the E.P.A. said it, too, opposed such a move because people might try to reprogram their cars to beat emission rules."
All the more reason for testing ! Still asleep at the wheel ! The principle is again very simple, IF you must trust, ...verify. It is completely idiotic not to verify the gas, gas hybrid etc. If the stakes are SO high for the 3% diesels, how high must it be for the 98% gas, gas hybrid, etc. ?
I don't want the government looking at software. What, we need 1000 government engineers now to evaluate the millions of lines of code used in hundreds of industries? No thanks. What is needed are tests that greatly reduce the chance that software 'devices' can be used to cheat. Some sort of 'real world' driving test with random inputs (within normal ranges, of course).
"In wake of VW scandal, it's time to scrap self-certify era Richard Truett
Here are some ideas:
• Once an automaker violates the EPA’s rules, causing a rating to be restated or a vehicle to fail to meet emissions requirements, the company loses the right to self-certify. And going forward, it must pay all costs to certify each vehicle every year. Since the EPA does not have the equipment and manpower to do this, third-party companies such as AVL, FEV, Mahle, Bosch and Continental could do the testing with strict EPA oversight.
• The EPA could hire more engineers and station them permanently at automakers’ testing facilities to supervise testing.
• To reduce discrepancies and variability, tighter rules need to be written that specify and require that each automaker use the same testing machinery, calibrated the same way; that they use the same fuel from one single supplier; and that they test vehicles at the same altitude. All of these factors can cause fuel economy and emissions results to vary."
From your link - "The EPA also randomly tests between 10 and 15 percent of new vehicles yearly for fuel economy and emissions at its Ann Arbor, Mich., lab."
All the more reason for 100% testing ! Still asleep at the wheel ! The principle is again very simple, if you must trust, ...verify.
You are advocating for higher funding for CARB and the EPA to move from a 90% "self-certify" system to a 100% "gov't certify" system.
I'm not sure 100% gov't testing is needed, but an increase is clearly in order.
???? A PRIVATE WV contractor blew this fiasco wide open? Was that missed ? Or are we more preoccupied with the chicken little aspects ?
Keep in mind we are entertaining all this chicken littleness with a 3 item sample, projected now onto 11M units from a ridiculous 500,000 AM market sample. !
All the more reason for 100% testing ! Still asleep at the wheel ! The principle is again very simple, if you must trust, ...verify.
You are advocating for higher funding for CARB and the EPA to move from a 90% "self-certify" system to a 100% "gov't certify" system.
I'm not sure 100% gov't testing is needed, but an increase is clearly in order.
???? A PRIVATE WV contractor blew this fiasco wide open? Was that missed ? Or are we more preoccupied with the chicken little aspects ?
Yes. I got that and have posted stories about it.
It seemed you were advocating 100% testing, I assumed by EPA. They don't have enough people or funding for that. Literally. There are not enough employees or enough equipment at the EPA for them to test 100% of the vehicles at this time.
As you imply, and I agree, it's a black eye for EPA and CARB that they didn't discover this on their own.
But hats off to Engineer Daniel Carder (and his colleagues). Carder is the head of the Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines and Emissions (CAFEE) at West Virginia University:
I'm not saying the sky is falling. It just seems to me that coming from different points of view the two of us once-in-a-while come to similar conclusions, as seemingly here.
In other words, I agree with you that gas engines need to be tested too.++
From your link - "The EPA also randomly tests between 10 and 15 percent of new vehicles yearly for fuel economy and emissions at its Ann Arbor, Mich., lab."
Again, why no TDI catch? Again asleep @ the wheel? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
I believe I have read the entire thread (I follow it). Can you please repost a link?
Here's one. Going back to original sources, this is the letter that CARB sent to VW on Sept. 18th saying that its software "fix" didn't work. It explains the steps that finally brought VW to admitting that it installed a defeat device. But this has been in several news stories as well.
Thanks for the link. That was one document I had not read, although I had read of the Dec 2014 VW "fix". However, I'm not sure this means that they could not simply change the software. VW was trying to game the system, leaving the cheat device in while making some small changes.
It is possible the fix may be harder than is thought, I take your point there. But I'm not sure VW was really trying to make it work - I think they were trying to preserve MPG and performance AND make it work at the same time. I fully expect some reduction in either (real world) MPG or performance, or more likely both.
Obviously it can be done, since the BMW passed testing.
BMW diesels have had AdBlue for several years. VW just added it for 2015 for the 2.0 diesel.
So, do you think VW could have just fixed this with a software update, but chose not to?
VW has said the fix is going to take substantial time and billions of dollars, which sounds like more that just a software update.
And since they were informed about this in 2014, we assume that to some degree VW has been working on it for almost a year already....
Their real problem is with the Jetta / Golf, which didn't use AdBlue.
I believe I have read the entire thread (I follow it). Can you please repost a link?
Here's one. Going back to original sources, this is the letter that CARB sent to VW on Sept. 18th saying that its software "fix" didn't work. It explains the steps that finally brought VW to admitting that it installed a defeat device. But this has been in several news stories as well.
Thanks for the link. That was one document I had not read, although I had read of the Dec 2014 VW "fix". However, I'm not sure this means that they could not simply change the software. VW was trying to game the system, leaving the cheat device in while making some small changes.
It is possible the fix may be harder than is thought, I take your point there. But I'm not sure VW was really trying to make it work - I think they were trying to preserve MPG and performance AND make it work at the same time. I fully expect some reduction in either (real world) MPG or performance, or more likely both.
Obviously it can be done, since the BMW passed testing.
BMW diesels have had AdBlue for several years. VW just added it for 2015 for the 2.0 diesel.
So, do you think VW could have just fixed this with a software update, but chose not to?
VW has said the fix is going to take substantial time and billions of dollars, which sounds like more that just a software update.
And since they were informed about this in 2014, we assume that to some degree VW has been working on it for almost a year already....
Their real problem is with the Jetta / Golf, which didn't use AdBlue.
My 2009 Jetta TDI (aka no ADBlue) has been through two CARB required smog only inspections. I think this year it is due another. Again, why NO catches?
From your link - "The EPA also randomly tests between 10 and 15 percent of new vehicles yearly for fuel economy and emissions at its Ann Arbor, Mich., lab."
Again, why no TDI catch? Again asleep @ the wheel? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
You all are validating EVERYTHING I am saying!
They would not have caught it with 100% testing. The cars passed under EPA conditions.
The random testing just activated the cheat codes. That was the whole point of the cheat program - pass the tests, go back to high NOx when not on test.
My 2009 Jetta TDI (aka no ADBlue) has been through two CARB required smog only inspections. I think this year it is due another. Again, why NO catches?
Because VW cheated and fooled CARB.
??
I don't quite understand why are you asking this question.
Rhetorically?
CARB admits it was tricked by VW's software for years. They are now revising their testing procedures to include more real world tests.
If you're saying that CARB dropped the ball, then I think everyone would agree with that, including the people at the Air Resources Board.
From your link - "The EPA also randomly tests between 10 and 15 percent of new vehicles yearly for fuel economy and emissions at its Ann Arbor, Mich., lab."
Again, why no TDI catch? Again asleep @ the wheel? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
You all are validating EVERYTHING I am saying!
They would not have caught it with 100% testing. The cars passed under EPA conditions.
Finally someone caught this, the test is USELESS. It's a fraud perpetrated on the required public, by CARB & EPA. The monies need to be refunded with interest.
Well, that's #98 on the 'to do' list for EPA/CARB. First task - address the half million non-complying cars. If you or I are caught importing a non-complying car, the government takes it, no compensation...
The random testing just activated the cheat codes. That was the whole point of the cheat program - pass the tests, go back to high NOx when not on test.
Be that as it may, you have to ask the question, how did that "stupid" West Virginia PRIVATE contractor catch it in the first place ? Evidently, he was slightly awake .
The W. Virginia group caught it trying to get real world data to convince the EU that diesels really were clean, not just that VW's test data was good.
"West Virginia engineer proves to be a David to VW's Goliath MORGANTOWN, W.V. | BY DAVID MORGAN
Daniel Carder, an unassuming 45-year-old engineer with gray hair and blue jeans, appears an unlikely type to take down one of the world's most powerful companies....
Carder's team – a research professor, two graduate students, a faculty member and himself – performed road tests around Los Angeles and up the West Coast to Seattle that generated results so pronounced that they initially suspected a problem with their own research.
"The first thing you do is beat yourself up and say, 'Did we not do something right?' You always blame yourself," he told Reuters in an interview. "(We) saw huge discrepancies. There was one vehicle with 15 to 35 times the emissions levels and another vehicle with 10 to 20 times the emissions levels."
Despite the discrepancies, a fix shouldn't involve major changes. "It could be something very small," said Carder, who's the interim director of West Virginia University's Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines and Emissions in Morgantown, about 200 miles (320 km) west of Washington in the Appalachian foothills.
"It can simply be a change in the fuel injection strategy. What might be realized is a penalty in fuel economy in order to get these systems more active, to lower the emissions levels."
Carder said he's surprised to see such a hullabaloo now, because his team's findings were made public nearly a year and a half ago.
"We actually presented this data in a public forum and were actually questioned by Volkswagen," said Carder.
The ICCT's research contract to Carder's team was sparked by separate findings by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre, which showed a discrepancy between test results and real world performance in European diesel engines.
The diesel vehicles chosen for the West Virginia study were the VW Passat, the VW Jetta and the BMW X5. Unlike the VW vehicles, Carder said the BMW vehicle "performed very nicely – at, or below, the certification emission levels."
West Virginia University is not new to ground-breaking emissions research, having helped create the first technology to measure vehicle emissions on the road more than 15 years ago.
Carder belonged to a 15-member West Virginia University team that pioneered portable emissions testing as part of a 1998 settlement between the U.S. Justice Department and several heavy duty diesel engine makers including Caterpillar Inc (CAT.N) and Cummins Engine Co (CMI.N)."
Mark my words: IF cheating is done on the diesel side, which is less than 2.5% in AM markets, how prevalent would it be on the 98% AM gasser side ??? Those with stakes really don't want Klieg lights on that issue. To say that nobody is cheating / has not cheated on the gasser side would be the height of naïveté . 98% of the passenger vehicles fleet, in light of the 54.5 miles per gallon standard is way behind (@optimistically 20 mpg).!!! But defacto, the truth might be closer to burn more, while saying you should burn less.
First note, the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard that I think you're talking about can't be directly compared to the EPA numbers on your window sticker. If you do a search there's a lot of good information but here's a quick document with some references to the differences.
To your other point of possible automaker cheater on gas emissions, the combustion differences and exhaust by-products produced in gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles are quite different. Given the emission standards for gasoline cars, with modern catalysts, evaporative emission components, engine management systems with precise fuel injection, EGR, variable valve timing, etc. it isn't anywhere near as tough to meet the gasoline emission standards. While there is a chance an automaker could be gaming the system with a gasoline powered vehicle it really isn't required.
On the other hand with the nature of diesel engines, combustion process and resultant exhaust by-products, its currently very tough to meet government emission standards, especially when the diesel regulations are getting nearly as stringent as gas requirements. I'd wager a significant amount that there is no massive gasoline emission conspiracy. If a government tried to significantly cut CO2 emissions for a gas engine (which would require burning less fuel) I could see an incentive to try gaming the system by making a vehicle burn less fuel on an emission test, but for the current CO, NOx, hydrocarbons, etc. it's fairly easy to meet the current gasoline standards. It still takes a lot of calibration (software tuning) work to ensure compliance under all operating conditions but nowhere near as challenging as some of the diesel requirements.
Also you keep mentioning the "100% testing" and assume that everyone knows what you're calling for but at least to me it isn't clear from the language of your posts. Are you proposing that the EPA go back and test every make and model in-house? If so, what test procedure? The same one that VW "passed" with the older 2.0L TDI vehicles? Are you talking about putting every single car in America on some emission test machine and gas analyzer? What would the test procedure be and what if the automaker like VW is still modifying the engine calibration to spoof and cheat on those tests? Are you calling for states emission (smog) checks for every car? Are you saying the news media or independent testing agencies should test every make/model/year? Do you want the agencies that have published these reports to test other models? Do we know that the government agencies or independent testing entities haven't already looked at other makes and models or verified on multiple vehicles?
The diesel vehicles chosen for the West Virginia study were the VW Passat, the VW Jetta and the BMW X5. Unlike the VW vehicles, Carder said the BMW vehicle "performed very nicely – at, or below, the certification emission levels."
What's interesting here is that the Passat was tested and failed. Doesn't this use the urea system that is on the 15 & 16 Golfs that has so far not been part of this investigation?
From your link - "The EPA also randomly tests between 10 and 15 percent of new vehicles yearly for fuel economy and emissions at its Ann Arbor, Mich., lab."
Again, why no TDI catch? Again asleep @ the wheel? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
You all are validating EVERYTHING I am saying!
They would not have caught it with 100% testing. The cars passed under EPA conditions.
Finally someone caught this, the test is USELESS. It's a fraud perpetrated on the required public, by CARB & EPA. The monies need to be refunded with interest.
I think I said that a couple hundred posts back. I want my $58 back from the thieves in Sacramento. EPA and CARB are nothing but Fraudsters.
....What's interesting here is that the Passat was tested and failed. Doesn't this use the urea system that is on the 15 & 16 Golfs that has so far not been part of this investigation?
What's strange is that even new diesel VW's with the AdBlue system have failed in real world testing. Probably the 2015 VWs haven't polluted as far beyond the rules as the earlier cars, but they still failed.
After Daniel Carder and CAFEE forwarded their results to VW, CARB, and the EPA, apparently all of them started to do real world tests of VWs, including 2015 cars. But still no dice.
Just speculating, but it might be that 2015 VWs with AdBlue can be fixed with a software update, while 2009-2014 vehicles will somehow need to have AdBlue installed, or, if that's not practical from a cost or engineering standpoint, will need to be bought back by VW.
I'm glad you finally posted the fact that the (West Virginia) team did the front part of the tests in and around Los Angeles, CA. As you can guess, that is why I posted the AQMD website and N0x slides goals and N0x expert. Because guess what, for those not seeing it , it's in Los Angeles. The agency is located in Diamond Bar, CA, to be exact.
Again given that the TDI population in and around Los Angeles and mirrors California's total of 2.5%, diesel PVF, or so. Diesels PVF are not even on the mention list ( 11top generators). Let alone the fact that it is probably close to immeasurable . However N0X levels from cars,SUVs and like trucks ( to include gas, gas hybrid, etc,) is very high and is one of the top generators.
And while EPA is fine tuning their emissions. Why not force RUG/PUB vehicles to put out less of the silent killer CO (carbon monoxide)? Comparable sized diesel engines put out about 50% less CO than gassers. Same for CO2 that is causing Global Warming. Gassers put out about 33% more CO2 than diesels. From the outset this has been a war against diesel vehicles. While gassers are the real cause of Global Warming that Obama says is the largest threat to our existence. Seems they should lighten up on diesels that are MORE environmentally friendly.
How is VW putting in a cheat code the EPA's/CARB's fault?
Because they get $Billions of tax dollars to protect the environment. They should be smarter than the automakers. As much as CARB hates diesels I cannot imagine they never thought to actually take one on the road and test it. Or maybe they are a bunch of fat lazy bureaucrats.
How is VW putting in a cheat code the EPA's/CARB's fault?
Agree with you here, as do probably the vast majority of people out there.
ruking1 does seem at times to want to blame the gov't for VW's self-inflicted woes.
But I do agree with him on some issues. For instance, more vehicles need to be tested in real world conditions, including gas cars.
I have got speeding tickets when the whole bunch of cars in front of me were speeding at the same MPH. But I got caught and half a dozen cars escaped. That does not make me innocent. I don't blame the trooper for going after me selectively while letting the others go scott free. Maybe other troopers down the road will catch them. VW got caught committing a fraud. Accept it and live with it
From your link - "The EPA also randomly tests between 10 and 15 percent of new vehicles yearly for fuel economy and emissions at its Ann Arbor, Mich., lab."
Again, why no TDI catch? Again asleep @ the wheel? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
You all are validating EVERYTHING I am saying!
They would not have caught it with 100% testing. The cars passed under EPA conditions.
Finally someone caught this, the test is USELESS. It's a fraud perpetrated on the required public, by CARB & EPA. The monies need to be refunded with interest.
I think I said that a couple hundred posts back. I want my $58 back from the thieves in Sacramento. EPA and CARB are nothing but Fraudsters.
Yes you did! I was both amazed and surprised that almost nobody else caught it. I don't want to get my tester in trouble, but even they said it. I then joked about a discount !
How is VW putting in a cheat code the EPA's/CARB's fault?
Because they get $Billions of tax dollars to protect the environment. They should be smarter than the automakers. As much as CARB hates diesels I cannot imagine they never thought to actually take one on the road and test it. Or maybe they are a bunch of fat lazy bureaucrats.
AMEN x5 there! The CARB & EPA are welcomed to be asleep @ the wheel, just not on the taxpayers dime! Oops BILLIONs$$$.
Can't find the link right now, but earlier today I read a detailed bullet point VW memo that a reporter had received from the recent VW executive board meeting. The essence of it was this: they are conducting an internal investigation, and many of the engineers and execs who worked on and knew about the defeat device, or should have known, are going to be thrown under the diesel bus asap. Furthermore, as of now, they seem to intend to give internal VW information that might be useful to prosecutors in Germany to pursue possible court cases. If they follow through with this, it seems like it's going to be something of a blood bath in the short term, but longer term I assume VW will eventually emerge from this....
I'm glad you finally posted the fact that the (West Virginia) team did the front part of the tests in and around Los Angeles, CA.
"Drivers put about 1,500 miles on each of the first two cars in the study, a Volkswagen Jetta and BMW X5, along California roadways. For their final car, a Volkswagen Passat, they wanted even more mileage. So they took the car on a road trip from Los Angeles to Seattle and back again, collecting data from more than 2,000 miles of testing." (MSN)
Not only should the Passat have been the lowest "spewer", it wasn't exclusively driven in California.
How is VW putting in a cheat code the EPA's/CARB's fault?
Agree with you here, as do probably the vast majority of people out there.
ruking1 does seem at times to want to blame the gov't for VW's self-inflicted woes.
But I do agree with him on some issues. For instance, more vehicles need to be tested in real world conditions, including gas cars.
Well no. I thought I was very clear about this. IF they're asleep at the wheel, are not doing the job, not protecting the public health, making us comply with useless testing, and having to pay for it, why do we need Em?
@benjaminh, supposedly getting thrown under the bus will be (initially) Audi’s R&D chief Ulrich Hackenberg, Porsche’s head of engines Wolfgang Hatz, VW Chief Development Officer Heinz-Jakob Neusser and U.S. CEO Michael Horn, per Jalopnik which is referencing "Germany’s well-sourced Bild newspaper".
How is VW putting in a cheat code the EPA's/CARB's fault?
Agree with you here, as do probably the vast majority of people out there.
ruking1 does seem at times to want to blame the gov't for VW's self-inflicted woes.
But I do agree with him on some issues. For instance, more vehicles need to be tested in real world conditions, including gas cars.
Well no. I thought I was very clear about this. IF they're asleep at the wheel, are not doing the job, not protecting the public health, making us comply with useless testing, and having to pay for it, why do we need Em?
Because without some strict rules and oversight on pollution our air in America would be as bad as it is today in China....
How is VW putting in a cheat code the EPA's/CARB's fault?
Agree with you here, as do probably the vast majority of people out there.
ruking1 does seem at times to want to blame the gov't for VW's self-inflicted woes.
But I do agree with him on some issues. For instance, more vehicles need to be tested in real world conditions, including gas cars.
Well no. I thought I was very clear about this. IF they're asleep at the wheel, are not doing the job, not protecting the public health, making us comply with useless testing, and having to pay for it, why do we need Em?
Because without some strict rules and oversight on pollution our air in America would be as bad as it is today in China....
What you see in China now is what the EV crowd and gasoline people advocate, RU/PUG, clean coal & clean nuclear! There's very little Diesel passenger cars in China. So according to your picture/video of China Post, how's that working out?
You would think something this big would have produced at least one whistle blower. As big as this is it does not come close to the GM ignition switch crime. I don't think anyone has gone to prison for that. 14 years of cover up. Didn't that reach pretty high as well. I agree spewing pollution is bad and wrong. People dying as a direct result of a known faulty part, should have put someone in prison. I have a hard time getting as upset about a few tons of extra NOx, compared to people being killed outright.
General Motors will pay $900 million to settle criminal charges related to its flawed ignition switch that has been tied to at least 124 deaths.
Comments
I don't think this'll result in re-world testing of all cars, but it sure is pushing real-world certification along.
https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/bmw-mercedes-bmw-gm-could-cheating-emissions-tests-153019787.html
Again, not to beat the Dead Horse or the drums too loudly, but ALL world wide regulatory agencies (not just CARB,EPA) should have been well aware of the potential for cheating on the approved software platforms. I would daresay that the OEMs could use their software platforms ONLY IF approved by the ruling worldwide regulating agencies.
Indeed, I am sure that all the OEMs have the software platforms copyrighted, and patented. It's a stretch of credibility to think that all the worldwide regulatory agencies walked around like the monkeys: see, hear, smell, touch, taste no evil .
I think they all want to claim the Sergeant Schulz model of regulatory response, but that is pure BS. AKA, I know nothing!
In the meantime, the BHO administration continues to oversee the destruction of middle-class jobs .
http://www.wsj.com/articles/caterpillar-cuts-jobs-revenue-outlook-1443100742
From the New York Times:
"Volkswagen’s Diesel Fraud Makes Critic of Secret Code a Prophet
SEPT. 22, 2015
By Jim Dwyer
A Columbia University law professor stood in a hotel lobby one morning and noticed a sign apologizing for an elevator that was out of order. It had dropped unexpectedly three stories a few days earlier. The professor, Eben Moglen, tried to imagine what the world would be like if elevators were not built so that people could inspect them.
Mr. Moglen was on his way to give a talk about the dangers of secret code, known as proprietary software, that controls more and more devices every day.
“Proprietary software is an unsafe building material,” Mr. Moglen had said. “You can’t inspect it.”
That was five years ago. On Tuesday, Volkswagen admitted it had rigged the proprietary software on 11 million of its diesel cars around the world so that they would pass emissions tests when they were actually spreading smog.
The breadth of the Volkswagen scandal should not obscure the broader question of how vulnerable we are to software code that is out of sight and beyond oversight....
“Intelligent public policy, as we all have learned since the early 20th century, is to require elevators to be inspectable, and to require manufacturers of elevators to build them so they can be inspected,” he said. “If Volkswagen knew that every customer who buys a vehicle would have a right to read the source code of all the software in the vehicle, they would never even consider the cheat, because the certainty of getting caught would terrify them.”
That is not how carmakers or even the E.P.A. see things. The code in automobiles is tightly protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Last year, several groups sought to have the code made available for “good-faith testing, identifying, disclosing and fixing of malfunctions, security flaws or vulnerabilities,” as Alex Davies reported last week in Wired.
A group of automobile manufacturers said that opening the code to scrutiny could create “serious threats to safety and security.” And two months ago, the E.P.A. said it, too, opposed such a move because people might try to reprogram their cars to beat emission rules."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/nyregion/volkswagens-diesel-fraud-makes-critic-of-secret-code-a-prophet.html
I'm not sure 100% gov't testing is needed, but an increase is clearly in order.
"In wake of VW scandal, it's time to scrap self-certify era
Richard Truett
Here are some ideas:
• Once an automaker violates the EPA’s rules, causing a rating to be restated or a vehicle to fail to meet emissions requirements, the company loses the right to self-certify. And going forward, it must pay all costs to certify each vehicle every year. Since the EPA does not have the equipment and manpower to do this, third-party companies such as AVL, FEV, Mahle, Bosch and Continental could do the testing with strict EPA oversight.
• The EPA could hire more engineers and station them permanently at automakers’ testing facilities to supervise testing.
• To reduce discrepancies and variability, tighter rules need to be written that specify and require that each automaker use the same testing machinery, calibrated the same way; that they use the same fuel from one single supplier; and that they test vehicles at the same altitude. All of these factors can cause fuel economy and emissions results to vary."
http://www.autonews.com/article/20150922/BLOG06/150929959/in-wake-of-vw-scandal-its-time-to-scrap-self-certify-era
Keep in mind we are entertaining all this chicken littleness with a 3 item sample, projected now onto 11M units from a ridiculous 500,000 AM market sample. !
It seemed you were advocating 100% testing, I assumed by EPA. They don't have enough people or funding for that. Literally. There are not enough employees or enough equipment at the EPA for them to test 100% of the vehicles at this time.
As you imply, and I agree, it's a black eye for EPA and CARB that they didn't discover this on their own.
But hats off to Engineer Daniel Carder (and his colleagues). Carder is the head of the Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines and Emissions (CAFEE) at West Virginia University:
http://cafee.wvu.edu/
I'm not saying the sky is falling. It just seems to me that coming from different points of view the two of us once-in-a-while come to similar conclusions, as seemingly here.
In other words, I agree with you that gas engines need to be tested too.++
You all are validating EVERYTHING I am saying!
Because VW cheated and fooled CARB.
??
I don't quite understand why are you asking this question.
Rhetorically?
CARB admits it was tricked by VW's software for years. They are now revising their testing procedures to include more real world tests.
If you're saying that CARB dropped the ball, then I think everyone would agree with that, including the people at the Air Resources Board.
But as you say, more companies may well have gone down this road of cheating.
The EPA, like CARB, is now redesigning its tests to include more real world conditions.
It seems like sometimes you feel people are disagreeing with you, when perhaps we agree on a little more than you might expect.
Again, I think everyone agrees that the government agencies working on this need to do a better job, including the people who work at EPA and CARB.
Didn't pan out that way.
"West Virginia engineer proves to be a David to VW's Goliath
MORGANTOWN, W.V. | BY DAVID MORGAN
Daniel Carder, an unassuming 45-year-old engineer with gray hair and blue jeans, appears an unlikely type to take down one of the world's most powerful companies....
Carder's team – a research professor, two graduate students, a faculty member and himself – performed road tests around Los Angeles and up the West Coast to Seattle that generated results so pronounced that they initially suspected a problem with their own research.
"The first thing you do is beat yourself up and say, 'Did we not do something right?' You always blame yourself," he told Reuters in an interview. "(We) saw huge discrepancies. There was one vehicle with 15 to 35 times the emissions levels and another vehicle with 10 to 20 times the emissions levels."
Despite the discrepancies, a fix shouldn't involve major changes. "It could be something very small," said Carder, who's the interim director of West Virginia University's Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines and Emissions in Morgantown, about 200 miles (320 km) west of Washington in the Appalachian foothills.
"It can simply be a change in the fuel injection strategy. What might be realized is a penalty in fuel economy in order to get these systems more active, to lower the emissions levels."
Carder said he's surprised to see such a hullabaloo now, because his team's findings were made public nearly a year and a half ago.
"We actually presented this data in a public forum and were actually questioned by Volkswagen," said Carder.
The ICCT's research contract to Carder's team was sparked by separate findings by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre, which showed a discrepancy between test results and real world performance in European diesel engines.
The diesel vehicles chosen for the West Virginia study were the VW Passat, the VW Jetta and the BMW X5. Unlike the VW vehicles, Carder said the BMW vehicle "performed very nicely – at, or below, the certification emission levels."
West Virginia University is not new to ground-breaking emissions research, having helped create the first technology to measure vehicle emissions on the road more than 15 years ago.
Carder belonged to a 15-member West Virginia University team that pioneered portable emissions testing as part of a 1998 settlement between the U.S. Justice Department and several heavy duty diesel engine makers including Caterpillar Inc (CAT.N) and Cummins Engine Co (CMI.N)."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/23/us-usa-volkswagen-researchers-idUSKCN0RM2D720150923
http://www3.epa.gov/fueleconomy/documents/420b14015.pdf
To your other point of possible automaker cheater on gas emissions, the combustion differences and exhaust by-products produced in gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles are quite different. Given the emission standards for gasoline cars, with modern catalysts, evaporative emission components, engine management systems with precise fuel injection, EGR, variable valve timing, etc. it isn't anywhere near as tough to meet the gasoline emission standards. While there is a chance an automaker could be gaming the system with a gasoline powered vehicle it really isn't required.
On the other hand with the nature of diesel engines, combustion process and resultant exhaust by-products, its currently very tough to meet government emission standards, especially when the diesel regulations are getting nearly as stringent as gas requirements. I'd wager a significant amount that there is no massive gasoline emission conspiracy. If a government tried to significantly cut CO2 emissions for a gas engine (which would require burning less fuel) I could see an incentive to try gaming the system by making a vehicle burn less fuel on an emission test, but for the current CO, NOx, hydrocarbons, etc. it's fairly easy to meet the current gasoline standards. It still takes a lot of calibration (software tuning) work to ensure compliance under all operating conditions but nowhere near as challenging as some of the diesel requirements.
Also you keep mentioning the "100% testing" and assume that everyone knows what you're calling for but at least to me it isn't clear from the language of your posts. Are you proposing that the EPA go back and test every make and model in-house? If so, what test procedure? The same one that VW "passed" with the older 2.0L TDI vehicles? Are you talking about putting every single car in America on some emission test machine and gas analyzer? What would the test procedure be and what if the automaker like VW is still modifying the engine calibration to spoof and cheat on those tests? Are you calling for states emission (smog) checks for every car? Are you saying the news media or independent testing agencies should test every make/model/year? Do you want the agencies that have published these reports to test other models? Do we know that the government agencies or independent testing entities haven't already looked at other makes and models or verified on multiple vehicles?
25 NX 450h+ / 24 Sienna Plat AWD / 23 Civic Type-R / 21 Boxster GTS 4.0
I think I said that a couple hundred posts back. I want my $58 back from the thieves in Sacramento. EPA and CARB are nothing but Fraudsters.
After Daniel Carder and CAFEE forwarded their results to VW, CARB, and the EPA, apparently all of them started to do real world tests of VWs, including 2015 cars. But still no dice.
Just speculating, but it might be that 2015 VWs with AdBlue can be fixed with a software update, while 2009-2014 vehicles will somehow need to have AdBlue installed, or, if that's not practical from a cost or engineering standpoint, will need to be bought back by VW.
Again given that the TDI population in and around Los Angeles and mirrors California's total of 2.5%, diesel PVF, or so. Diesels PVF are not even on the mention list ( 11top generators). Let alone the fact that it is probably close to immeasurable . However N0X levels from cars,SUVs and like trucks ( to include gas, gas hybrid, etc,) is very high and is one of the top generators.
ruking1 does seem at times to want to blame the gov't for VW's self-inflicted woes.
But I do agree with him on some issues. For instance, more vehicles need to be tested in real world conditions, including gas cars.
VW got caught committing a fraud.
Accept it and live with it
Not only should the Passat have been the lowest "spewer", it wasn't exclusively driven in California.
Oh, here's a blast from the past .
General Motors will pay $900 million to settle criminal charges related to its flawed ignition switch that has been tied to at least 124 deaths.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/17/news/companies/gm-recall-ignition-switch/