4 ms·

The whole controversy is over manufacturers reporting false numbers, i.e. lying. Saying a manufacturer deserves extra scrutiny can absolutely be inferred to be

by rnovak 11y ago

The whole controversy is over manufacturers reporting false numbers, i.e. lying. Saying a manufacturer deserves extra scrutiny can absolutely be inferred to be an accusation of them reporting false numbers, i.e. lying. My reading comprehension isn't at fault here. Secondly, it's still irrelevant. You would have to prove that an improvement at throttle position 0.10 over 5 years equates directly to an improvement at throttle position 0.40. How an engine performs in condition A has no inherent relation to its performance in condition B. So yes, I stand by what I said. Maybe before accusing people of "not paying attention", you should look at your own language and see if it's ambiguous?

kbenson 11y ago
> Saying a manufacturer deserves extra scrutiny can absolutely be inferred to be an accusation of them reporting false numbers, i.e. lying. > My reading comprehension isn't at fault here Except that I very clearly said "I can't discount the possibility of something else is going on, such as an influx of a different type of car for GM over that period, I haven't read yet how they normalized the study and accounted for things like that." > Maybe before accusing people of "not paying attention", you should look at your own language and see if it's ambiguous? You ignored clear text from me saying that it didn't necessarily indicate GM was at fault. What am I supposed to infer from that? As to the matter at hand, you still seem to be under the impression that driver habits can account for a change in the numbers we are talking about, when that would mean that GM drivers specifically drive very differently than all other car drivers in the report. We are talking about number across the industry, categorized by manufacturer. Everything listed on the graph in question shows automakers overreporting gains, which could be driver habits. GM specifically shows vastly different numbers from event every other manufacturer, not just the reported numbers. I fail to see how driver habit accounts for a specific manufacturer being so out of bounds with it's own reported numbers (keep in mind engines are often shared across multiple manufacturers). Have you looked at the graph on page 13 yet?
- rnovak 11y ago
  > You ignored clear text from me saying that it didn't necessarily indicate GM was at fault. What am I supposed to infer from that? I didn't ignore anything. I said the source of data is not irrelevant. That's my entire argument. And I was specifically refuting your thesis that the source of data is irrelevant. and, "as to the matter at hand", yes, driver habits can account entirely for the discrepancy in numbers. Flawed data can account for it. Poor sampling can as well. The report seems to have come from a self reporting site in the EU. Are you asserting that a US car manufacturer has sold a uniform distribution of make/model/engine cars across the globe? Are you also asserting that this site is getting a proper randomized sample of the car-buying population, such that they don't all have a similar complaint? In my experience, the people who report such things are one of two cases 1) Extremely Satisfied, or the much more common 2) Extremely Dissatisfied. Are you then also asserting that if GM optimizes for test conditions, which they believe to be similar to normal driving habits, that their engines would be optimized to perform well under conditions that people actually drive in? That's just sloppy. That's like comparing data from your Dev environment to that from Production, I believe there have been a few academic articles to refute that as well. But, ultimately, are you asserting that we should just accept the source of data as a source of truth, and never question whether or not that it's valid? Should I just go buy a bunch of tabloids and take that as my "new news", since.....the source is irrelevant, right?
  - kbenson 11y ago
    > And I was specifically refuting your thesis that the source of data is irrelevant. Please stop trying to tell me what my thesis is, as you've misunderstood my statements. The portion of the comment I was responding to is "In my anecdotal experience, drivers tend to get much lower than the manufacturer mileage because they optimize for things other than fuel economy (e.g., speed)." That, by itself, is irrelevant to the question as to why one manufacturer has vastly different numbers than another. As to testing methodologies, yes, this could entirely be testing error. I've never stated my opposition to that possibility. I have repeatedly stated my only intention was to say these numbers need more investigation. I'm done trying to discuss this with someone who ignores what I actually state in favor of what they decide I must be implying.
joe_the_user 11y ago
The whole controversy is over manufacturers reporting false numbers, i.e. lying. No, actually it isn't. The controversy is over manufacturers tuning their vehicles' engine behavior to give economy for the tests and for the tests only. By your criteria, that's not a problem but VW has already been bitten really hard by the revelation that they did this. ...You would have to prove that an improvement at throttle position 0.10 over 5 years equates directly to an improvement at throttle position 0.40.... The EPA has essentially said that if this isn't a least somewhat true, the manufacturers are breaking the law.
- rnovak 11y ago
  I'm not sure what your definition of alter is, but for me to alter means to lie. They weren't simply optimizing for test conditions, they were outright lying during test conditions. that's what the EPA is saying is against the law. Here's the thing, and this is my main point: If the EPAs test conditions reflected normal driving habits, there would be zero difference between Manufacturer reported numbers and real world reported numbers. If the EPAs test is completely different from normal driving, then it stands to reason that there is no inherent correlation between manufacturer numbers and reported numbers. IDK if you've ever been through an emissions test (like the ones GM actually goes through), but they're a complete joke as to simulating real world behavior. Edit:Format
  - hinkley 11y ago
    It's the old saw about the drunk looking under the light post for his keys, when he probably lost them in the alley; the light's better over here. If you make laws that can't be verified then you can't enforce them. So you test for things you think you can actually test and hope everything works out. Wiring up an exhaust sensor to everybody's car every time they need to renew their tabs and having them drive around the city is so infeasible as to be laughable. So they put your car on a dyno or even have you put it in neutral with the parking brake on and have you rev the engine a little bit and see if the tailpipe is a mess. Nevermind that a lot of cars belch smoke only under load.
  - semi-extrinsic 11y ago

by rnovak 11y ago

kbenson 11y ago

> Saying a manufacturer deserves extra scrutiny can absolutely be inferred to be an accusation of them reporting false numbers, i.e. lying. > My reading comprehension isn't at fault here Except that I very clearly said "I can't discount the possibility of something else is going on, such as an influx of a different type of car for GM over that period, I haven't read yet how they normalized the study and accounted for things like that." > Maybe before accusing people of "not paying attention", you should look at your own language and see if it's ambiguous? You ignored clear text from me saying that it didn't necessarily indicate GM was at fault. What am I supposed to infer from that? As to the matter at hand, you still seem to be under the impression that driver habits can account for a change in the numbers we are talking about, when that would mean that GM drivers specifically drive very differently than all other car drivers in the report. We are talking about number across the industry, categorized by manufacturer. Everything listed on the graph in question shows automakers overreporting gains, which could be driver habits. GM specifically shows vastly different numbers from event every other manufacturer, not just the reported numbers. I fail to see how driver habit accounts for a specific manufacturer being so out of bounds with it's own reported numbers (keep in mind engines are often shared across multiple manufacturers). Have you looked at the graph on page 13 yet?

rnovak 11y ago
> You ignored clear text from me saying that it didn't necessarily indicate GM was at fault. What am I supposed to infer from that? I didn't ignore anything. I said the source of data is not irrelevant. That's my entire argument. And I was specifically refuting your thesis that the source of data is irrelevant. and, "as to the matter at hand", yes, driver habits can account entirely for the discrepancy in numbers. Flawed data can account for it. Poor sampling can as well. The report seems to have come from a self reporting site in the EU. Are you asserting that a US car manufacturer has sold a uniform distribution of make/model/engine cars across the globe? Are you also asserting that this site is getting a proper randomized sample of the car-buying population, such that they don't all have a similar complaint? In my experience, the people who report such things are one of two cases 1) Extremely Satisfied, or the much more common 2) Extremely Dissatisfied. Are you then also asserting that if GM optimizes for test conditions, which they believe to be similar to normal driving habits, that their engines would be optimized to perform well under conditions that people actually drive in? That's just sloppy. That's like comparing data from your Dev environment to that from Production, I believe there have been a few academic articles to refute that as well. But, ultimately, are you asserting that we should just accept the source of data as a source of truth, and never question whether or not that it's valid? Should I just go buy a bunch of tabloids and take that as my "new news", since.....the source is irrelevant, right?
- kbenson 11y ago
  > And I was specifically refuting your thesis that the source of data is irrelevant. Please stop trying to tell me what my thesis is, as you've misunderstood my statements. The portion of the comment I was responding to is "In my anecdotal experience, drivers tend to get much lower than the manufacturer mileage because they optimize for things other than fuel economy (e.g., speed)." That, by itself, is irrelevant to the question as to why one manufacturer has vastly different numbers than another. As to testing methodologies, yes, this could entirely be testing error. I've never stated my opposition to that possibility. I have repeatedly stated my only intention was to say these numbers need more investigation. I'm done trying to discuss this with someone who ignores what I actually state in favor of what they decide I must be implying.

joe_the_user 11y ago

The whole controversy is over manufacturers reporting false numbers, i.e. lying. No, actually it isn't. The controversy is over manufacturers tuning their vehicles' engine behavior to give economy for the tests and for the tests only. By your criteria, that's not a problem but VW has already been bitten really hard by the revelation that they did this. ...You would have to prove that an improvement at throttle position 0.10 over 5 years equates directly to an improvement at throttle position 0.40.... The EPA has essentially said that if this isn't a least somewhat true, the manufacturers are breaking the law.

rnovak 11y ago
I'm not sure what your definition of alter is, but for me to alter means to lie. They weren't simply optimizing for test conditions, they were outright lying during test conditions. that's what the EPA is saying is against the law. Here's the thing, and this is my main point: If the EPAs test conditions reflected normal driving habits, there would be zero difference between Manufacturer reported numbers and real world reported numbers. If the EPAs test is completely different from normal driving, then it stands to reason that there is no inherent correlation between manufacturer numbers and reported numbers. IDK if you've ever been through an emissions test (like the ones GM actually goes through), but they're a complete joke as to simulating real world behavior. Edit:Format
- hinkley 11y ago
  It's the old saw about the drunk looking under the light post for his keys, when he probably lost them in the alley; the light's better over here. If you make laws that can't be verified then you can't enforce them. So you test for things you think you can actually test and hope everything works out. Wiring up an exhaust sensor to everybody's car every time they need to renew their tabs and having them drive around the city is so infeasible as to be laughable. So they put your car on a dyno or even have you put it in neutral with the parking brake on and have you rev the engine a little bit and see if the tailpipe is a mess. Nevermind that a lot of cars belch smoke only under load.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago