14 ms·

E.P.A. Finds More VW Cheating Software, Including in Porsches

257 points by peterkrieg 11y ago

marvel_boy 11y ago
VW sales are plummeting in Europe. You cannot trick the users all the time.
astrodust 11y ago
More shoes dropping.
Johnny555 11y ago
Clearly it's the fault of those pesky engineers again, how else could you explain the same type of cheating across multiple divisions of the company. They only other explanation would involve Management, and obviously that's not it. Though the fact that none of the other manufacturers spoke up about the violation of emissions standards when when they must have done their own tests to see how VW managed to get emissions so low, seems to point to the fact they they were all doing it to some degree. Perhaps not as brazenly as VW, but still no one wants to rock the boat they are in.
- dexterdog 11y ago
  It's all just a play to get us to accept always-on emissions checkers on every car complete with location logging, you know, for verification.
  - r00fus 11y ago
    Sure. But that doesn't pardon VW/Porsche of cheating when other vendors did not. Unless this is the tip of the iceberg and everyone is cheating but hasn't been caught yet...
    - Phlarp 11y ago
      Spoiler alert...
    - Alupis 11y ago
      > Unless this is the tip of the iceberg and everyone is cheating but hasn't been caught yet... Perhaps it's time to examine these standards. Perhaps the standard is what's unreasonable, not the vehicle's emissions. If these vehicles achieved greater horsepower and greater fuel economy, perhaps the long-term net pollution caused by these vehicles is equal-to-or-less-than the standard allows.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- bri3d 11y ago
  While I certainly don't buy the "pesky engineers" argument, it's actually somewhat plausible Porsche didn't know about the cheating (beyond what everyone knew, which was that the stated mileage and emissions were virtually impossible to achieve by any known mechanism). Since they dropped a VW manufactured engine (3.0 TDI) into a shared VW chassis (Touraeg) and built the Cayenne around that, there's a good chance the engine and engine management were treated as a black box and simply integrated at face value.
  - danjayh 11y ago
    While I'm certainly not making excuses for VW cheating, I think that maybe the EPA needs to revisit its diesel emission standards. The EPA standard is the strictest in the world, and they have successfully ruined many diesel powered devices. Examples: 1) I was recently looking at compact tractors. To meet the standards, new tractors are fitted with Diesel Particulate Filters. Even if they don't flat-out fail (which happens too often, and costs thousands of dollars to fix), these filters require "regeneration", which is code for "a light comes on on the dashboard, your tractor stops moving, and runs wide-open throttle for 20 minutes while you stare in bewilderment". Google Kubota B3350 Regeneration if you want lots of fun horror stories. 2) Diesel commercial trucks. My uncle drives a large cube van over the road. When his truck goes into regen mode, it doesn't require wide-open throttle like a compact tractor, but it does lose power and tops out at 40-50MPH. If you are on a freeway where the flow of traffice is at 80MPH, this is dangerous and a major problem. 3) Diesel pickup trucks: Many trucks, in an effort to avoid additional hardware above and beyond the DPF, have taken to injecting fuel during the exhaust stroke. The idea is to have the unburned fuel get pumped through the engine and on to the DPF, where it burns and increases the temperature to the point that the carbon burns out of the DPF. Problem is, when you inject fuel into an engine during the exhaust stroke, it dilutes the oil in the cylinder, reduces lubrication, and causes premature wear/engine failure. In the two cases I am familiar with, diesel motorhomes and diesel compact tractors, the value of used vehicles has increased quite a bit in response to the fact that all of the new ones suck. My Dad owns a gravel pit, and he (along with everyone else in the industry) buys and re-builds existing vehicles from the frame-up to avoid having to purchase new products, which are unreliable, sometimes dangerous, and uneconomical to maintain. Google "glider truck kits" -- it's basically the idea of purchasing all the parts of a new vehicle (except the powertrain), and then manually taking the powertrain from a worn-out truck, re-building it, and installing it into the glider kit. This is often done at an expense that is similar to that of purchasing an entirely new vehicle. Many equally horrible solutions to this problem are employed. Some designs incorporate a fuel burner directly into the exhaust design. Others require a separate tank of catalytic fluid that must be filled regularly. One thing that all of the designs have in common is poor performance and piss-poor fuel economy. Many vehicles from multiple manufacturers have had trouble with catching on fire due to emissions control systems. If the EPA wants to make tough rules that will force manufacturers to produce products with the best available technology and encourage development of new technologies, that's one thing. When the EPA makes rules that result in dangerous and/or non-functional product designs, I think it's time to back off just a bit until the technology has come closer to being able to reasonably achieve the regulated cleanliness levels. It's completely insane to make a truck that will force you to slow to 40mph while you're driving it, or to make a tractor that will force a farmer to take an unplanned break in the middle of the day (remember -- farmers work all day long, and daylight is a limited, precious commodity to them). EDIT: To be completely clear, if you are doing work with the tractor that can be done at full RPM, you don't necessarily need to park it. However, if you're doing something that requires lower RPM (using a PTO attachment that needs low RPM like a post-hole digger, or a spreader, etc ... or doing low-speed work on a tractor with a geared transmission), then it's time to go get some coffee. Personally, the two major things I want to do with a tractor are run a large snowblower and maintain our horse pasture. For the horse pasture it's not a big deal, but if I need to clear the driveway before leaving for work in the morning, an unplanned 20 minute wait is completely unacceptable.
- amelius 11y ago
  > Clearly it's the fault of those pesky engineers again Well, in any case, it shows that ethical codes will probably not work for engineering professions (or any profession for that matter).
- ChuckMcM 11y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised either way, but why would the Porche engineers, getting the engine control software from the common engine control group, spot check the emissions on the test track rather than in the globally approved testing setup? If you presume they are doing their job and not cheating, why would you cross check that your emissions were valid in both the dyno test and on the track? It requires that you assume your fellow workers are cheating, which is hard to do at most places.
- azernik 11y ago
  My impression is that the process was structured in a way to give higher levels deniability. I highly doubt direct orders were given from the top to cheat; instead it was made clear that the performance numbers would come out right AND the emissions standards would be met, or heads would roll. And lo and behold! The numbers and sales targets were met. And management can say "well, we don't know how they did it. We never asked!"
- oxryly1 11y ago
  It is the fault of those pesky engineers. Of course, these particular engineers were promoted to top management, so...
- addicted44 11y ago
  if those pesky engineers are looking for a job after getting fired from VW, I heard there is a young intern position available with the Donald Trump campaign.
CamperBob2 11y ago
Explains why one of the first heads to roll was that of Wolfgang Hatz, head of engine R&D at Porsche AG.
idbehold 11y ago
Why doesn't the EPA simply ban the sale of any car manufactured by VW until they start passing the new emissions tests? Even better, begin requiring previously purchased VW cars pass these emissions tests. If the cars don't pass the new emissions tests then VW is required to reimburse the blue book value of the car for false advertising, fraud, and acting in bad faith.
- drglitch 11y ago
  Blue book value that recently dropped because of the emissions scandal? ;) Requiring VW reimburse purchase price would make more sense, but still would not account for time spent having to look for new car etc. On the other hand, there are numerous reports of owners not wanting to return their cars for software updates out of fear that such fixes would change performance characteristics of their vehicle for the worse. In terms of banning sales, that would be an effective strategy to 'press' VW into acting faster but is likely to severely impact the co financially - something Germany simply can't allow due to huge numbers of people employed/at stake.
  - grandalf 11y ago
    The harm is against society as a whole, not really against the owners.
    - Alupis 11y ago
      How do we go about measuring this "harm"?
      - grandalf 11y ago
        I'm not sure. You could make several arguments. I think the idea that environmental regulations are reasonable presupposes that harm to society comes from environmental damage (negative externalities of other behaviors). A few such arguments might be that there were harms to: - peoples' lungs, wildlife, etc. - profits lost by firms that played by the rules - more cars sold than would have been (hence more environmental damage caused than with fewer overall cars on the road).
mzs 11y ago
the release itself: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/4a45a5661216e66c85257ef10061867b!OpenDocument http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac852... As alleged in the NOV, VW manufactured and installed software in the electronic control module of these vehicles that senses when the vehicle is being tested for compliance with EPA emissions standards. When the vehicle senses that it is undergoing a federal emissions test procedure, it operates in a low NOx “temperature conditioning” mode. Under that mode, the vehicle meets emission standards. At exactly one second after the completion of the initial phases of the standard test procedure, the vehicle immediately changes a number of operating parameters that increase NOx emissions and indicates in the software that it is transitioning to “normal mode,” where emissions of NOx increase up to nine times the EPA standard, depending on the vehicle and type of driving conditions. In other tests where the vehicle does not experience driving conditions similar to the start of the federal test procedure, the emissions are higher from the start, consistent with “normal mode.” I have not read a substantive response from any part of VW to today's allegations.
- roymurdock 11y ago
  There was a good This American Life episode recently [1] that walked through a few different alternatives for how VW could respond to this whole scandal. The host solicited feedback from 3 different marketing firms: One firm, run by the guy who saved Jack In The Box with the ubiquitous sphere-head Jack commercials after an E. Coli outbreak killed 4 kids, said that VW should run an ad of a new executive blowing up the boardroom to symbolize changing the old guard. Another firm suggested they crowdsource answers to how they can fix the problem/make it up to the public. The last firm said they should just shut up and not draw attention to themselves. They're not in a good position to say anything right now, and they should just let the collective public forget about it and move onto the next scandal. I'm assuming the third options is what VW's retainer-ed marketing firm has opted for. [1] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/569/put-a-bow-on-it http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/569/p...
  - blumentopf 11y ago
    Mercedes-Benz was in a similar position in 1997 when the newly introduced A-Class flunked the moose test. After a short period of denial they hired a specialist (Armin Töpfer), halted production for several months and retooled all cars with a different suspension and ESP. The ESP wasn't even necessary but put competitors under pressure to include it in their compact class cars as well. The crisis was eventually overcome and the car sold very well in Europe (1.1 million produced in 7 years). There's a fascinating book (sadly in German only) on this called "Die A-Klasse: Elchtest, Krisenmanagement, Kommunikationsstrategie." (http://www.amazon.com/dp/3472037997 http://www.amazon.com/dp/3472037997)
madengr 11y ago
Meanwhile there seems to be no enforcement of large diesel pickups "rolling coal" with modified emissions.
- rubberroad 11y ago
  Wut? What does this have to do with vehicle manufacturers programming their ECUs to defeat emissions tests? There isn't a single diesel truck that 'rolls coal' from the factory. Also, diesel trucks that emit black smoke do fail emissions test - in counties that actually have emissions tests.
  - knorby 11y ago
    Apparently a lot of people who make these sorts of modifications can pass emission tests. They hook up a settings swapper to the ECU, and when they need it to be clean, they put it into factory default mode. It is essentially the same sort of cheating as VW.
    - adventured 11y ago
      On a scale that isn't even remotely as large as what VW has done. The scale matters, a lot. You're talking about something affecting maybe tens of thousands of trucks, versus 11+ million vehicles including Porsche. It doesn't make sense to make the comparison.
      - knorby 11y ago
        I was comparing methods, not scale. The scale of an impact of one really bad car when it comes to certain emissions shouldn't be understated; it is important to remember that VW was simply seeking pollution they could get away with. Emissions tests are done on individual cars rather than a bulk standard by make/model for that exact reason. VW is the second largest auto-maker in the world...few comparisons are going to hold up if that's how you think.
        11y ago
Theodores 11y ago
Since Porsche do not use small diesels in their cars this looks to me like the scandal is a lot bigger than first thought. It isn't just the team working on the 1.8 litre diesel engine that fiddled the software, there is something more endemic going on as the 3 litre upwards size engines are implicated. The funny thing is this: Porsche could sue over £25 a day congestion charge (2008) http://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/feb/19/travelandtransport.carbonemissions http://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/feb/19/travelandtra... > The mayor's office responded saying the threatened legal action was "a double attack on Londoners". > "First Porsche are trying to deprive Londoners of their democratic right to decide in the mayoral election on 1 May whether they want gas guzzling and polluting cars to drive in London when there is absolutely no need for them to do so. Second they are trying to impose on all Londoners unnecessary levels of pollution and greenhouse gases by a tiny minority," said a spokesman for the mayor. > "No one is allowed to throw their rubbish in the street and Porsche should not be allowed to impose gas guzzling polluting cars on Londoners who do not want them." I hope Porsche get taken to the cleaners. Schadenfreude?
- aembleton 11y ago
  That article is from 2008.
  - Theodores 11y ago
    Since when is history not allowed? The point of that article is to show that Porsche are a company with total disregard for emissions, pollution and noise. It is in their DNA, it is what they do. Hence it is great that they finally get their comeuppance.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    VW emissions cheating is also from 2008, incidentally.
autobahn 11y ago
Are they testing other cars beside VW?
- maxerickson 11y ago
  There are at least going to be long term changes to how the testing is done.
  - mtgx 11y ago
    In Europe the Commission (likely also pushed by the Council/Germany/France/Spain/Italy) shamefully decided to raise the NOx limits by 2x until 2019 and 50% until 2021. It's the first time since they launched the emissions "euro" standard that they actually raised the limit. I guess they saw everyone cheats by at least 2x, as some reports have also said.
pasbesoin 11y ago
Meta: Earlier in the scandal, I recall reading that the engine management software is from Bosch. I should read further, looking for confirmation of this. If that is the case, then this is an example of the maxim: When you provide a feature, someone will use it to their own ends -- meaning, "misuse" it. Another example to wave in front of all those politicians and people advocating for encryption "back doors". If you put the feature in there, people will use it any way that suits them. Including and especially ways that you did not intend nor want. If it wasn't Bosch, perhaps there was nonetheless some "legitimate" argument within VW for adding this functionality. Enough to get the software folks -- particularly those not making big bucks off of the deal -- to implement this. But an observant engineer might nonetheless ask themself, 'what might hypothetically be done with this?' And the engineer with a little more real world experience ("the cynic" ;-) might assume that someone will do it, sooner or later. That was part of my reputation, for a while: Thinking of what was possible, and assuming -- or insisting -- it needed to be addressed. A year or two later, having done so would prove to have been of benefit. It would sometimes piss Management off, in the short term. But eventually, they came around. Anyway, looking from the outside or the inside: If it's there and can be used "that way", someone's going to get around to doing so.
- jonemo 11y ago
  I also read about Bosch's involvement but this story was based on a report by the Bild am Sonntag newspaper which is not trustworthy. [1] is an English language source that relays this report. The gist of the story was that Bosch supplied the software for R&D purposes and Volkswagen engineers decided to put it into production cars too. However, this was later rejected by Bosch who claim that writing additional code is required by the car manufacturer to get the emissions test detection feature [2]. [1] http://blog.caranddriver.com/report-bosch-warned-vw-about-diesel-emissions-cheating-in-2007/ http://blog.caranddriver.com/report-bosch-warned-vw-about-di... [2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/07/volkswagen-emissions-software-idUSL1N1270Q820151007 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/07/volkswagen-emissio...
alricb 11y ago
> new tests that were conducted on all diesel car models in the United States by E.P.A., the California Air Resources Board and the regulatory group Environment Canada. Environment Canada, a "regulatory group"? It's a department of the Government of Canada, yo.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  Which is how they have to authority to regulate things.
jonknee 11y ago
I'd love to get my car tested... Anyone know how I could do that? I have a 2015 Q5 TDI which while not specifically mentioned has the same size engine as several of the ones that are mentioned (3.0-liter). I would be shocked if they just started using the defeat device in the 2016 model year for the Q5 considering they were already getting pushback from the EPA before the 2016 models even got announced. I bought the diesel specifically because of the high mileage and supposedly clean emissions. What a crock.
- cvandebroek 11y ago
  You bought a Q5 3.0 Diesel for clean emmisions? Wait... What? I'm surely not going to defend VW or any of the associated companies for cheating. But it should be kind of obvious that a car with such an engine does all but clean emmisions.
  - jonknee 11y ago
    Yes. It's a 4500lb vehicle that averages 30mpg and supposedly passes the strictest emissions standards in the world... If I was in the market for a smaller car I would of course looked at models with a smaller engine (though I could have easily found myself in the same situation with a 2.0l TDI).
  - rspeer 11y ago
    I don't know much about the auto market, but it seems that until this year, "clean diesel" was something people said with a straight face.
- kuida0r3 11y ago
  From the EPA news release [0], your 2015 Q5 TDI seems to be safe: "on September 25th EPA initiated testing of all 2015 and 2016 light duty diesel models available in the U.S using updated testing procedures specifically designed to detect potential defeat devices". It's also possible that EPA just hasn't finished testing all of the vehicles yet and your particular car may get added to the list. Sorry about that. I actually test drove the Touraeg TDI that shares the same engine and almost bought one a couple of years ago... 0 - http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/4A45A5661216E66C85257EF10061867B http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/4A45A5661216E66C8...
jzd 11y ago
Blame it on the programmers! /sarcasm
hellcow 11y ago
It's worth noting that the newly replaced CEO of the VW group was the CEO of Porsche. The CEO of VW was just fired for allowing this scandal on his watch, and he was replaced by a guy guilty of (at the very least) the same exact thing.
yuhong 11y ago
From http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-2015-11-02.pdf http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-2015-11-02.pd... "the high temperatures heat the selective catalytic reduction system ("catalyst") and improves the catalyst's ability to reduce tailpipe NOx emissions" There has been recently http://www.thestar.com/autos/2015/09/30/canadian-trios-exhaust-emissions-breakthrough-could-be-a-game-changer.html http://www.thestar.com/autos/2015/09/30/canadian-trios-exhau... I wonder if this tech would work for SCR systems or not.
monkbroc 11y ago
Background: I used to be an automotive software engineer. I speak for myself only here. Whenever the topic of automotive software comes up on HN there are comments alongs the lines of "global variables bad", but not much construtive feedback. I want to explain some of the tradeoffs that lead to the architecture used in automotive software to get a better discussion going with HN readers about that architecture. tl;dr Given the hardware restrictions, real-time requirements and measurement capabilities required in automotive software, shared global variables without locks is a fast and safe way to share state between different software components as long as each variable is only written in one place in the program. The microprocessor has to run for 10+ years in a wide range of temperatures and be dirt cheap, so you end up with specs like 180 MHz, 4 MB of flash and 128 KB of RAM. The program must run deterministicly with respect to memory. There is no malloc/new in the code. All variables are statically allocated. Because the physical world doesn't pause, no code is allowed to block while waiting for resources, especially synchronization primitives like mutexes. The software architecture is in 2 main parts: basic software containing the real-time OS and hardware drivers, and the application layer which has the domain-specific code for controlling the engine, brakes, etc. The basic software is implemented using usual C programming techniques. It has an API provided by function calls and structs to hide implementation details of each microcontroller. The application software is where the programming model is different. To understand why, you need to know where automotive software comes from and what it is trying to acheive. Originally all controllers were mechanical: a valve opens proportionally to the vacuum in a part of the system. Then some controllers were implemented in analog electronics: take multiple voltages, feed them through an op-amp and use the output to control a valve. So automotive software reproduces this: get some inputs, compute the same physical equations at a regular rate and generate outputs. This is dataflow programming. Blocks of code have inputs and outputs. They are executed at a fixed rate that depends on the physical phenomena (air flow changes fast, temperature changes slowly). Different blocks are conneceted together in a hierachical way to form subsystems. Encapsulation is acheived by viewing these blocks as black boxes: you don't need to care how the block works if you are only interested in knowing which inputs it uses and outputs it produces. Here's an example component to control a gizmo. It might be implemented in a visual environment like Simulink by MathWorks, or it implemented by hand from a spec. #include "GizmoController_data.h" void GizmoController_100ms() { Gizmo_Gain = interpolate2d(Gizmo_Gain_MAP, EngineSpeed, CoolantTemp); } void GizmoController_10ms() { Gizmo_Error = Gizmo_PositionDesired - Gizmo_Position; Gizmo_DutyCycle = limit(Gizmo_Gain * Gizmo_Error + Gizmo_Offset_VAL, 0, 100); } It takes some inputs (EngineSpeed, CoolantTemp, Gizmo_PositionDesired, Gizmo_Position), has some intermediate values (Gizmo_Error), and outputs (Gizmo_DutyCycle). Those are implemented as global variables. It also uses some constants (Gizmo_Gain_MAP, Gizmo_Offset_VAL). It has 2 processes, running every 100ms and 10ms. All this information would be specified in an XML file. The header GizmoController_data.h is auto-generated at compile time by a tool from the XML file mentioned above. It will contain global variable definitions for the inputs, intermediates and outputs with the appropriate volatile, const, static and extern storage classes/type qualifiers. This ensures that the compiler will enforce that inputs can't be written to, intermediate values are private to the component and outputs can be read by other modules. Note that no explicit synchronization is needed to access inter-process variables like Gizmo_Gain or inter-component variables like Gizmo_Position. It's shared memory between 2 processes scheduled in OS tasks that can potentially interrupt each other, but since the write is atomic and happens only in one place, there is no data race. This is huge! Concurrent programming, without locks, with the best efficiency possible, using a simple technique anybody can understand: only one place in the program is allowed to write to any global memory location. Calibration is another aspect of automotive software. In most software the constants either never change or can be set in some kind of configuration file. For an automotive controller, the value of constants (gains, offsets, limits, etc) depend on the vehicle so they must be configurable at run time during development. This is implemented in the C code by putting all constants in a memory area that is ROM in production units, but RAM in development units. The compiler enforces that application software cannot change constants, but the basic software includes code so that constants can be changed from the outside in development. This process is called calibration and is done by calibration engineers who are usually not the ones who wrote the software. Note that calibration can drastically affect the behavior of the software. What would happen if Gizmo_Gain_MAP is set to all zeros? Measurement of variables is essential to understanding what's going on inside the embedded controller. Having all that state available in global variables makes it possible for the calibration tool request the value of any variable in the software at a fixed rate and display it in a virtual oscilloscope. The measurement and calibration tool needs to know how to access the variables and constants. It uses a file that maps from names to addresses for a particular version of software. That file can easily be generated a compile time since all allocations are static. Going back to the architecture of the application software, let's look at where our gizmo controller fits. It is not the only component needed to make the gizmo work. You also need components to calculate the gizmo position from some external signal (let's say an analog voltage), to route the output signal to the powerstage driver on the PCB, to determine which position the gizmo should currently occupy. These would form the gizmo subsystem package. When the supplier releases gizmo 2.0 (TM) they upgrade the input signal to be a PWM input instead of an analog input. Modularity in the software allows the software team to simply replace the gizmo position component with one that reads a PWM instead of an analog voltage and keep the rest of the gizmo subsystem the same. In the future, projects that use gizmo 1.0 use one version of the gizmo subsystem and projects that use 2.0 use another. This is true at any level in the hierarchy: as long as the inputs and outputs are the same, a component or subystem package can be replaced by another. Version control in automotive software reflects this. Instead of having one tree of versions and releases like a typical software project, each component, subsystem package and software project has its own tree of versions. Each software project will reference the subsystem packages required for their engine type, vehicle platform, sensors and actuators, etc. This is how code reuse is acheived. Testing is a mix of simulation (the sensor/actuator is simulated in Simulink and connected to Simulink block diagram of the software component), hardware-in-the-loop (a computer simulates the vehicle, but the real electronic control unit is used) and vehicle testing. Thanks for reading. I hope this improves your understanding of how automotive software is structured. I'm hoping the discussion will bring examples from other fields like robotics, drones and aeronautics that have similar real-time requirements on how they architect their software.
S_A_P 11y ago
I definitely think management was involved here. However, its entirely possible that some management was not aware of the details. I doubt that more than some couple tens of people at VW group know intimate details of the VW diesel ECU. With badge engineering/platform sharing, its possible that Porsche/Audi/VW or whoever was not directly responsible for delivering the code could be in the dark about it. Im sure they even want it that way so there is plausible deniability. There are plenty of things that go on in the company I work for that I have no knowledge of. There are plenty of things in the software I customize/implement that I do not know about. Bottom line- VW group cheated, was caught, and Im sure has a few dozen scapegoats lined up in accordance with automotive scandal rules and regulations. People will use this as a platform to get their names in the spotlight as a crusader for the people, the managers that made the decision will go largely unpunished, and the world will move on. I think its crappy behavior, but in the scheme of things they did not directly murder anyone and people willingly participate in much more dangerous activities than breathing excessive NOX fumes... I think that they should just fine them make VW say "We are truly deeply heartfeltly sorry" and then we can worry about the bigger problems in life.
- throwaway2048 11y ago
  NOX fumes kill tens to hundreds of thousands of people every year, there isn't many "bigger problems in life" than things like that. Pollution has very diffuse, but very real human and ecological consequences. One of the reasons this fight is so hard is because they are so hard to reason about or even witness. It took systematic study of events like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_1952 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_1952 to realize how many people stuff like NOX emissions kill and disable. What if doing something took a day off of the life of every single person in the world. In terms of "days of life destroyed" you would have an event unparalleled by any genocide in history, but yet how many people would even care?
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  > people willingly participate in much more dangerous activities than breathing excessive NOX fumes What does that have to do with anything? If Alice chooses to wrestle sharks in her spare time, that's completely irrelevant to Bob being forced to breathe toxic fumes.
superuser2 11y ago
I'm conflicted. What do people think about the ethics of buying (non-diesel) Volkswagen cars at this point? Obviously new cars pad VW's profits and reward bad behavior. But what about used ones? Seems like prices will be plummeting. And if you like the cars, seems like a great time to buy.
- knieveltech 11y ago
  I have one of the cars that will be impacted by the recall. Performance and fuel economy are both top notch. The cabin fit and finish are on par with vehicles three times the price. I'll certainly be holding on to mine. If the used vehicle price plummets I'd definitely consider getting a 2nd one for my wife.
  - TheCondor 11y ago
    Will you comply with the recall?
    - knieveltech 11y ago
      I would like to but it depends. I intend to wait a few weeks and see what impact other owners report before I decide. I would be willing to trade some performance or economy for better emissions but if the software/hardware changes turn these cars into either a Geo Metro or an F150 (shitty performance and economy, respectively) I'm going to opt out, then take the car down to the local tune shop and have a stage 1 kit put in.
  - mikestew 11y ago
    Performance and fuel economy are both top notch. Considering it's doing the automotive equivalent of leaving a turd on the sidewalk everywhere it goes, I'd be really disappointed if its perf and mileage were merely average.
    - knieveltech 11y ago
      You're not the first to express this sentiment. It feels similar to having a random in a bar bitch at me about my carbon footprint when they hear I burn coal while blacksmithing on the weekend. I appreciate environmental awareness but are you sure you're maximizing your efforts? http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/07/article-2683735-1F75AC1C00000578-400_638x388.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/07/article-2683735-1F...
acd 11y ago
May I suggest that the government raid the ECU engine control unit supplier Bosch and examine their email servers which of their customers has cheated. "But even so, Bosch still supplied the “defeat” code EDC 16 engine management system at the heart of the #Dieselgate scandal"
tomohawk 11y ago
Pot, meet kettle: http://junkscience.com/2012/10/new-documents-prove-falsification-in-epa-air-study-junkscience-renews-retraction-request/ http://junkscience.com/2012/10/new-documents-prove-falsifica... They were experimenting on human subjects without informed consent and using the data to overstate results that favored the regulations they wanted to impose. These regulations set the particulate limits diesel powered vehicles must meet.
- tyho 11y ago
  Page 5 of the report: "The subject provided informed consent" The real problem is drawing any conclusion from a sample size of 1.

257 points by peterkrieg 11y ago

marvel_boy 11y ago

VW sales are plummeting in Europe. You cannot trick the users all the time.

astrodust 11y ago

More shoes dropping.

Johnny555 11y ago

Clearly it's the fault of those pesky engineers again, how else could you explain the same type of cheating across multiple divisions of the company. They only other explanation would involve Management, and obviously that's not it. Though the fact that none of the other manufacturers spoke up about the violation of emissions standards when when they must have done their own tests to see how VW managed to get emissions so low, seems to point to the fact they they were all doing it to some degree. Perhaps not as brazenly as VW, but still no one wants to rock the boat they are in.

dexterdog 11y ago
It's all just a play to get us to accept always-on emissions checkers on every car complete with location logging, you know, for verification.
- r00fus 11y ago
  Sure. But that doesn't pardon VW/Porsche of cheating when other vendors did not. Unless this is the tip of the iceberg and everyone is cheating but hasn't been caught yet...
  - Phlarp 11y ago
    Spoiler alert...
  - Alupis 11y ago
    > Unless this is the tip of the iceberg and everyone is cheating but hasn't been caught yet... Perhaps it's time to examine these standards. Perhaps the standard is what's unreasonable, not the vehicle's emissions. If these vehicles achieved greater horsepower and greater fuel economy, perhaps the long-term net pollution caused by these vehicles is equal-to-or-less-than the standard allows.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
bri3d 11y ago
While I certainly don't buy the "pesky engineers" argument, it's actually somewhat plausible Porsche didn't know about the cheating (beyond what everyone knew, which was that the stated mileage and emissions were virtually impossible to achieve by any known mechanism). Since they dropped a VW manufactured engine (3.0 TDI) into a shared VW chassis (Touraeg) and built the Cayenne around that, there's a good chance the engine and engine management were treated as a black box and simply integrated at face value.
- danjayh 11y ago
  While I'm certainly not making excuses for VW cheating, I think that maybe the EPA needs to revisit its diesel emission standards. The EPA standard is the strictest in the world, and they have successfully ruined many diesel powered devices. Examples: 1) I was recently looking at compact tractors. To meet the standards, new tractors are fitted with Diesel Particulate Filters. Even if they don't flat-out fail (which happens too often, and costs thousands of dollars to fix), these filters require "regeneration", which is code for "a light comes on on the dashboard, your tractor stops moving, and runs wide-open throttle for 20 minutes while you stare in bewilderment". Google Kubota B3350 Regeneration if you want lots of fun horror stories. 2) Diesel commercial trucks. My uncle drives a large cube van over the road. When his truck goes into regen mode, it doesn't require wide-open throttle like a compact tractor, but it does lose power and tops out at 40-50MPH. If you are on a freeway where the flow of traffice is at 80MPH, this is dangerous and a major problem. 3) Diesel pickup trucks: Many trucks, in an effort to avoid additional hardware above and beyond the DPF, have taken to injecting fuel during the exhaust stroke. The idea is to have the unburned fuel get pumped through the engine and on to the DPF, where it burns and increases the temperature to the point that the carbon burns out of the DPF. Problem is, when you inject fuel into an engine during the exhaust stroke, it dilutes the oil in the cylinder, reduces lubrication, and causes premature wear/engine failure. In the two cases I am familiar with, diesel motorhomes and diesel compact tractors, the value of used vehicles has increased quite a bit in response to the fact that all of the new ones suck. My Dad owns a gravel pit, and he (along with everyone else in the industry) buys and re-builds existing vehicles from the frame-up to avoid having to purchase new products, which are unreliable, sometimes dangerous, and uneconomical to maintain. Google "glider truck kits" -- it's basically the idea of purchasing all the parts of a new vehicle (except the powertrain), and then manually taking the powertrain from a worn-out truck, re-building it, and installing it into the glider kit. This is often done at an expense that is similar to that of purchasing an entirely new vehicle. Many equally horrible solutions to this problem are employed. Some designs incorporate a fuel burner directly into the exhaust design. Others require a separate tank of catalytic fluid that must be filled regularly. One thing that all of the designs have in common is poor performance and piss-poor fuel economy. Many vehicles from multiple manufacturers have had trouble with catching on fire due to emissions control systems. If the EPA wants to make tough rules that will force manufacturers to produce products with the best available technology and encourage development of new technologies, that's one thing. When the EPA makes rules that result in dangerous and/or non-functional product designs, I think it's time to back off just a bit until the technology has come closer to being able to reasonably achieve the regulated cleanliness levels. It's completely insane to make a truck that will force you to slow to 40mph while you're driving it, or to make a tractor that will force a farmer to take an unplanned break in the middle of the day (remember -- farmers work all day long, and daylight is a limited, precious commodity to them). EDIT: To be completely clear, if you are doing work with the tractor that can be done at full RPM, you don't necessarily need to park it. However, if you're doing something that requires lower RPM (using a PTO attachment that needs low RPM like a post-hole digger, or a spreader, etc ... or doing low-speed work on a tractor with a geared transmission), then it's time to go get some coffee. Personally, the two major things I want to do with a tractor are run a large snowblower and maintain our horse pasture. For the horse pasture it's not a big deal, but if I need to clear the driveway before leaving for work in the morning, an unplanned 20 minute wait is completely unacceptable.
amelius 11y ago
> Clearly it's the fault of those pesky engineers again Well, in any case, it shows that ethical codes will probably not work for engineering professions (or any profession for that matter).
ChuckMcM 11y ago
I wouldn't be surprised either way, but why would the Porche engineers, getting the engine control software from the common engine control group, spot check the emissions on the test track rather than in the globally approved testing setup? If you presume they are doing their job and not cheating, why would you cross check that your emissions were valid in both the dyno test and on the track? It requires that you assume your fellow workers are cheating, which is hard to do at most places.
azernik 11y ago
My impression is that the process was structured in a way to give higher levels deniability. I highly doubt direct orders were given from the top to cheat; instead it was made clear that the performance numbers would come out right AND the emissions standards would be met, or heads would roll. And lo and behold! The numbers and sales targets were met. And management can say "well, we don't know how they did it. We never asked!"
oxryly1 11y ago
It is the fault of those pesky engineers. Of course, these particular engineers were promoted to top management, so...
addicted44 11y ago
if those pesky engineers are looking for a job after getting fired from VW, I heard there is a young intern position available with the Donald Trump campaign.

CamperBob2 11y ago

Explains why one of the first heads to roll was that of Wolfgang Hatz, head of engine R&D at Porsche AG.

idbehold 11y ago

Why doesn't the EPA simply ban the sale of any car manufactured by VW until they start passing the new emissions tests? Even better, begin requiring previously purchased VW cars pass these emissions tests. If the cars don't pass the new emissions tests then VW is required to reimburse the blue book value of the car for false advertising, fraud, and acting in bad faith.

drglitch 11y ago
Blue book value that recently dropped because of the emissions scandal? ;) Requiring VW reimburse purchase price would make more sense, but still would not account for time spent having to look for new car etc. On the other hand, there are numerous reports of owners not wanting to return their cars for software updates out of fear that such fixes would change performance characteristics of their vehicle for the worse. In terms of banning sales, that would be an effective strategy to 'press' VW into acting faster but is likely to severely impact the co financially - something Germany simply can't allow due to huge numbers of people employed/at stake.
- grandalf 11y ago
  The harm is against society as a whole, not really against the owners.
  - Alupis 11y ago
    How do we go about measuring this "harm"?
    - grandalf 11y ago
      I'm not sure. You could make several arguments. I think the idea that environmental regulations are reasonable presupposes that harm to society comes from environmental damage (negative externalities of other behaviors). A few such arguments might be that there were harms to: - peoples' lungs, wildlife, etc. - profits lost by firms that played by the rules - more cars sold than would have been (hence more environmental damage caused than with fewer overall cars on the road).

mzs 11y ago

the release itself: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/4a45a5661216e66c85257ef10061867b!OpenDocument http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac852... As alleged in the NOV, VW manufactured and installed software in the electronic control module of these vehicles that senses when the vehicle is being tested for compliance with EPA emissions standards. When the vehicle senses that it is undergoing a federal emissions test procedure, it operates in a low NOx “temperature conditioning” mode. Under that mode, the vehicle meets emission standards. At exactly one second after the completion of the initial phases of the standard test procedure, the vehicle immediately changes a number of operating parameters that increase NOx emissions and indicates in the software that it is transitioning to “normal mode,” where emissions of NOx increase up to nine times the EPA standard, depending on the vehicle and type of driving conditions. In other tests where the vehicle does not experience driving conditions similar to the start of the federal test procedure, the emissions are higher from the start, consistent with “normal mode.” I have not read a substantive response from any part of VW to today's allegations.

roymurdock 11y ago
There was a good This American Life episode recently [1] that walked through a few different alternatives for how VW could respond to this whole scandal. The host solicited feedback from 3 different marketing firms: One firm, run by the guy who saved Jack In The Box with the ubiquitous sphere-head Jack commercials after an E. Coli outbreak killed 4 kids, said that VW should run an ad of a new executive blowing up the boardroom to symbolize changing the old guard. Another firm suggested they crowdsource answers to how they can fix the problem/make it up to the public. The last firm said they should just shut up and not draw attention to themselves. They're not in a good position to say anything right now, and they should just let the collective public forget about it and move onto the next scandal. I'm assuming the third options is what VW's retainer-ed marketing firm has opted for. [1] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/569/put-a-bow-on-it http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/569/p...
- blumentopf 11y ago
  Mercedes-Benz was in a similar position in 1997 when the newly introduced A-Class flunked the moose test. After a short period of denial they hired a specialist (Armin Töpfer), halted production for several months and retooled all cars with a different suspension and ESP. The ESP wasn't even necessary but put competitors under pressure to include it in their compact class cars as well. The crisis was eventually overcome and the car sold very well in Europe (1.1 million produced in 7 years). There's a fascinating book (sadly in German only) on this called "Die A-Klasse: Elchtest, Krisenmanagement, Kommunikationsstrategie." (http://www.amazon.com/dp/3472037997 http://www.amazon.com/dp/3472037997)

madengr 11y ago

Meanwhile there seems to be no enforcement of large diesel pickups "rolling coal" with modified emissions.

rubberroad 11y ago
Wut? What does this have to do with vehicle manufacturers programming their ECUs to defeat emissions tests? There isn't a single diesel truck that 'rolls coal' from the factory. Also, diesel trucks that emit black smoke do fail emissions test - in counties that actually have emissions tests.
- knorby 11y ago
  Apparently a lot of people who make these sorts of modifications can pass emission tests. They hook up a settings swapper to the ECU, and when they need it to be clean, they put it into factory default mode. It is essentially the same sort of cheating as VW.
  - adventured 11y ago
    On a scale that isn't even remotely as large as what VW has done. The scale matters, a lot. You're talking about something affecting maybe tens of thousands of trucks, versus 11+ million vehicles including Porsche. It doesn't make sense to make the comparison.
    - knorby 11y ago
      I was comparing methods, not scale. The scale of an impact of one really bad car when it comes to certain emissions shouldn't be understated; it is important to remember that VW was simply seeking pollution they could get away with. Emissions tests are done on individual cars rather than a bulk standard by make/model for that exact reason. VW is the second largest auto-maker in the world...few comparisons are going to hold up if that's how you think.
      - 11y ago

Theodores 11y ago

Since Porsche do not use small diesels in their cars this looks to me like the scandal is a lot bigger than first thought. It isn't just the team working on the 1.8 litre diesel engine that fiddled the software, there is something more endemic going on as the 3 litre upwards size engines are implicated. The funny thing is this: Porsche could sue over £25 a day congestion charge (2008) http://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/feb/19/travelandtransport.carbonemissions http://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/feb/19/travelandtra... > The mayor's office responded saying the threatened legal action was "a double attack on Londoners". > "First Porsche are trying to deprive Londoners of their democratic right to decide in the mayoral election on 1 May whether they want gas guzzling and polluting cars to drive in London when there is absolutely no need for them to do so. Second they are trying to impose on all Londoners unnecessary levels of pollution and greenhouse gases by a tiny minority," said a spokesman for the mayor. > "No one is allowed to throw their rubbish in the street and Porsche should not be allowed to impose gas guzzling polluting cars on Londoners who do not want them." I hope Porsche get taken to the cleaners. Schadenfreude?

aembleton 11y ago
That article is from 2008.
- Theodores 11y ago
  Since when is history not allowed? The point of that article is to show that Porsche are a company with total disregard for emissions, pollution and noise. It is in their DNA, it is what they do. Hence it is great that they finally get their comeuppance.
- mikeash 11y ago
  VW emissions cheating is also from 2008, incidentally.

autobahn 11y ago

Are they testing other cars beside VW?

maxerickson 11y ago
There are at least going to be long term changes to how the testing is done.
- mtgx 11y ago
  In Europe the Commission (likely also pushed by the Council/Germany/France/Spain/Italy) shamefully decided to raise the NOx limits by 2x until 2019 and 50% until 2021. It's the first time since they launched the emissions "euro" standard that they actually raised the limit. I guess they saw everyone cheats by at least 2x, as some reports have also said.

pasbesoin 11y ago

Meta: Earlier in the scandal, I recall reading that the engine management software is from Bosch. I should read further, looking for confirmation of this. If that is the case, then this is an example of the maxim: When you provide a feature, someone will use it to their own ends -- meaning, "misuse" it. Another example to wave in front of all those politicians and people advocating for encryption "back doors". If you put the feature in there, people will use it any way that suits them. Including and especially ways that you did not intend nor want. If it wasn't Bosch, perhaps there was nonetheless some "legitimate" argument within VW for adding this functionality. Enough to get the software folks -- particularly those not making big bucks off of the deal -- to implement this. But an observant engineer might nonetheless ask themself, 'what might hypothetically be done with this?' And the engineer with a little more real world experience ("the cynic" ;-) might assume that someone will do it, sooner or later. That was part of my reputation, for a while: Thinking of what was possible, and assuming -- or insisting -- it needed to be addressed. A year or two later, having done so would prove to have been of benefit. It would sometimes piss Management off, in the short term. But eventually, they came around. Anyway, looking from the outside or the inside: If it's there and can be used "that way", someone's going to get around to doing so.

jonemo 11y ago
I also read about Bosch's involvement but this story was based on a report by the Bild am Sonntag newspaper which is not trustworthy. [1] is an English language source that relays this report. The gist of the story was that Bosch supplied the software for R&D purposes and Volkswagen engineers decided to put it into production cars too. However, this was later rejected by Bosch who claim that writing additional code is required by the car manufacturer to get the emissions test detection feature [2]. [1] http://blog.caranddriver.com/report-bosch-warned-vw-about-diesel-emissions-cheating-in-2007/ http://blog.caranddriver.com/report-bosch-warned-vw-about-di... [2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/07/volkswagen-emissions-software-idUSL1N1270Q820151007 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/07/volkswagen-emissio...

alricb 11y ago

> new tests that were conducted on all diesel car models in the United States by E.P.A., the California Air Resources Board and the regulatory group Environment Canada. Environment Canada, a "regulatory group"? It's a department of the Government of Canada, yo.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago
Which is how they have to authority to regulate things.

jonknee 11y ago

I'd love to get my car tested... Anyone know how I could do that? I have a 2015 Q5 TDI which while not specifically mentioned has the same size engine as several of the ones that are mentioned (3.0-liter). I would be shocked if they just started using the defeat device in the 2016 model year for the Q5 considering they were already getting pushback from the EPA before the 2016 models even got announced. I bought the diesel specifically because of the high mileage and supposedly clean emissions. What a crock.

cvandebroek 11y ago
You bought a Q5 3.0 Diesel for clean emmisions? Wait... What? I'm surely not going to defend VW or any of the associated companies for cheating. But it should be kind of obvious that a car with such an engine does all but clean emmisions.
- jonknee 11y ago
  Yes. It's a 4500lb vehicle that averages 30mpg and supposedly passes the strictest emissions standards in the world... If I was in the market for a smaller car I would of course looked at models with a smaller engine (though I could have easily found myself in the same situation with a 2.0l TDI).
- rspeer 11y ago
  I don't know much about the auto market, but it seems that until this year, "clean diesel" was something people said with a straight face.
kuida0r3 11y ago
From the EPA news release [0], your 2015 Q5 TDI seems to be safe: "on September 25th EPA initiated testing of all 2015 and 2016 light duty diesel models available in the U.S using updated testing procedures specifically designed to detect potential defeat devices". It's also possible that EPA just hasn't finished testing all of the vehicles yet and your particular car may get added to the list. Sorry about that. I actually test drove the Touraeg TDI that shares the same engine and almost bought one a couple of years ago... 0 - http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/4A45A5661216E66C85257EF10061867B http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/4A45A5661216E66C8...

jzd 11y ago

Blame it on the programmers! /sarcasm

hellcow 11y ago

It's worth noting that the newly replaced CEO of the VW group was the CEO of Porsche. The CEO of VW was just fired for allowing this scandal on his watch, and he was replaced by a guy guilty of (at the very least) the same exact thing.

yuhong 11y ago

From http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-2015-11-02.pdf http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-2015-11-02.pd... "the high temperatures heat the selective catalytic reduction system ("catalyst") and improves the catalyst's ability to reduce tailpipe NOx emissions" There has been recently http://www.thestar.com/autos/2015/09/30/canadian-trios-exhaust-emissions-breakthrough-could-be-a-game-changer.html http://www.thestar.com/autos/2015/09/30/canadian-trios-exhau... I wonder if this tech would work for SCR systems or not.

monkbroc 11y ago

Background: I used to be an automotive software engineer. I speak for myself only here. Whenever the topic of automotive software comes up on HN there are comments alongs the lines of "global variables bad", but not much construtive feedback. I want to explain some of the tradeoffs that lead to the architecture used in automotive software to get a better discussion going with HN readers about that architecture. tl;dr Given the hardware restrictions, real-time requirements and measurement capabilities required in automotive software, shared global variables without locks is a fast and safe way to share state between different software components as long as each variable is only written in one place in the program. The microprocessor has to run for 10+ years in a wide range of temperatures and be dirt cheap, so you end up with specs like 180 MHz, 4 MB of flash and 128 KB of RAM. The program must run deterministicly with respect to memory. There is no malloc/new in the code. All variables are statically allocated. Because the physical world doesn't pause, no code is allowed to block while waiting for resources, especially synchronization primitives like mutexes. The software architecture is in 2 main parts: basic software containing the real-time OS and hardware drivers, and the application layer which has the domain-specific code for controlling the engine, brakes, etc. The basic software is implemented using usual C programming techniques. It has an API provided by function calls and structs to hide implementation details of each microcontroller. The application software is where the programming model is different. To understand why, you need to know where automotive software comes from and what it is trying to acheive. Originally all controllers were mechanical: a valve opens proportionally to the vacuum in a part of the system. Then some controllers were implemented in analog electronics: take multiple voltages, feed them through an op-amp and use the output to control a valve. So automotive software reproduces this: get some inputs, compute the same physical equations at a regular rate and generate outputs. This is dataflow programming. Blocks of code have inputs and outputs. They are executed at a fixed rate that depends on the physical phenomena (air flow changes fast, temperature changes slowly). Different blocks are conneceted together in a hierachical way to form subsystems. Encapsulation is acheived by viewing these blocks as black boxes: you don't need to care how the block works if you are only interested in knowing which inputs it uses and outputs it produces. Here's an example component to control a gizmo. It might be implemented in a visual environment like Simulink by MathWorks, or it implemented by hand from a spec. #include "GizmoController_data.h" void GizmoController_100ms() { Gizmo_Gain = interpolate2d(Gizmo_Gain_MAP, EngineSpeed, CoolantTemp); } void GizmoController_10ms() { Gizmo_Error = Gizmo_PositionDesired - Gizmo_Position; Gizmo_DutyCycle = limit(Gizmo_Gain * Gizmo_Error + Gizmo_Offset_VAL, 0, 100); } It takes some inputs (EngineSpeed, CoolantTemp, Gizmo_PositionDesired, Gizmo_Position), has some intermediate values (Gizmo_Error), and outputs (Gizmo_DutyCycle). Those are implemented as global variables. It also uses some constants (Gizmo_Gain_MAP, Gizmo_Offset_VAL). It has 2 processes, running every 100ms and 10ms. All this information would be specified in an XML file. The header GizmoController_data.h is auto-generated at compile time by a tool from the XML file mentioned above. It will contain global variable definitions for the inputs, intermediates and outputs with the appropriate volatile, const, static and extern storage classes/type qualifiers. This ensures that the compiler will enforce that inputs can't be written to, intermediate values are private to the component and outputs can be read by other modules. Note that no explicit synchronization is needed to access inter-process variables like Gizmo_Gain or inter-component variables like Gizmo_Position. It's shared memory between 2 processes scheduled in OS tasks that can potentially interrupt each other, but since the write is atomic and happens only in one place, there is no data race. This is huge! Concurrent programming, without locks, with the best efficiency possible, using a simple technique anybody can understand: only one place in the program is allowed to write to any global memory location. Calibration is another aspect of automotive software. In most software the constants either never change or can be set in some kind of configuration file. For an automotive controller, the value of constants (gains, offsets, limits, etc) depend on the vehicle so they must be configurable at run time during development. This is implemented in the C code by putting all constants in a memory area that is ROM in production units, but RAM in development units. The compiler enforces that application software cannot change constants, but the basic software includes code so that constants can be changed from the outside in development. This process is called calibration and is done by calibration engineers who are usually not the ones who wrote the software. Note that calibration can drastically affect the behavior of the software. What would happen if Gizmo_Gain_MAP is set to all zeros? Measurement of variables is essential to understanding what's going on inside the embedded controller. Having all that state available in global variables makes it possible for the calibration tool request the value of any variable in the software at a fixed rate and display it in a virtual oscilloscope. The measurement and calibration tool needs to know how to access the variables and constants. It uses a file that maps from names to addresses for a particular version of software. That file can easily be generated a compile time since all allocations are static. Going back to the architecture of the application software, let's look at where our gizmo controller fits. It is not the only component needed to make the gizmo work. You also need components to calculate the gizmo position from some external signal (let's say an analog voltage), to route the output signal to the powerstage driver on the PCB, to determine which position the gizmo should currently occupy. These would form the gizmo subsystem package. When the supplier releases gizmo 2.0 (TM) they upgrade the input signal to be a PWM input instead of an analog input. Modularity in the software allows the software team to simply replace the gizmo position component with one that reads a PWM instead of an analog voltage and keep the rest of the gizmo subsystem the same. In the future, projects that use gizmo 1.0 use one version of the gizmo subsystem and projects that use 2.0 use another. This is true at any level in the hierarchy: as long as the inputs and outputs are the same, a component or subystem package can be replaced by another. Version control in automotive software reflects this. Instead of having one tree of versions and releases like a typical software project, each component, subsystem package and software project has its own tree of versions. Each software project will reference the subsystem packages required for their engine type, vehicle platform, sensors and actuators, etc. This is how code reuse is acheived. Testing is a mix of simulation (the sensor/actuator is simulated in Simulink and connected to Simulink block diagram of the software component), hardware-in-the-loop (a computer simulates the vehicle, but the real electronic control unit is used) and vehicle testing. Thanks for reading. I hope this improves your understanding of how automotive software is structured. I'm hoping the discussion will bring examples from other fields like robotics, drones and aeronautics that have similar real-time requirements on how they architect their software.

S_A_P 11y ago

I definitely think management was involved here. However, its entirely possible that some management was not aware of the details. I doubt that more than some couple tens of people at VW group know intimate details of the VW diesel ECU. With badge engineering/platform sharing, its possible that Porsche/Audi/VW or whoever was not directly responsible for delivering the code could be in the dark about it. Im sure they even want it that way so there is plausible deniability. There are plenty of things that go on in the company I work for that I have no knowledge of. There are plenty of things in the software I customize/implement that I do not know about. Bottom line- VW group cheated, was caught, and Im sure has a few dozen scapegoats lined up in accordance with automotive scandal rules and regulations. People will use this as a platform to get their names in the spotlight as a crusader for the people, the managers that made the decision will go largely unpunished, and the world will move on. I think its crappy behavior, but in the scheme of things they did not directly murder anyone and people willingly participate in much more dangerous activities than breathing excessive NOX fumes... I think that they should just fine them make VW say "We are truly deeply heartfeltly sorry" and then we can worry about the bigger problems in life.

throwaway2048 11y ago
NOX fumes kill tens to hundreds of thousands of people every year, there isn't many "bigger problems in life" than things like that. Pollution has very diffuse, but very real human and ecological consequences. One of the reasons this fight is so hard is because they are so hard to reason about or even witness. It took systematic study of events like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_1952 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_1952 to realize how many people stuff like NOX emissions kill and disable. What if doing something took a day off of the life of every single person in the world. In terms of "days of life destroyed" you would have an event unparalleled by any genocide in history, but yet how many people would even care?
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
> people willingly participate in much more dangerous activities than breathing excessive NOX fumes What does that have to do with anything? If Alice chooses to wrestle sharks in her spare time, that's completely irrelevant to Bob being forced to breathe toxic fumes.

superuser2 11y ago

I'm conflicted. What do people think about the ethics of buying (non-diesel) Volkswagen cars at this point? Obviously new cars pad VW's profits and reward bad behavior. But what about used ones? Seems like prices will be plummeting. And if you like the cars, seems like a great time to buy.

knieveltech 11y ago
I have one of the cars that will be impacted by the recall. Performance and fuel economy are both top notch. The cabin fit and finish are on par with vehicles three times the price. I'll certainly be holding on to mine. If the used vehicle price plummets I'd definitely consider getting a 2nd one for my wife.
- TheCondor 11y ago
  Will you comply with the recall?
  - knieveltech 11y ago
    I would like to but it depends. I intend to wait a few weeks and see what impact other owners report before I decide. I would be willing to trade some performance or economy for better emissions but if the software/hardware changes turn these cars into either a Geo Metro or an F150 (shitty performance and economy, respectively) I'm going to opt out, then take the car down to the local tune shop and have a stage 1 kit put in.
- mikestew 11y ago
  Performance and fuel economy are both top notch. Considering it's doing the automotive equivalent of leaving a turd on the sidewalk everywhere it goes, I'd be really disappointed if its perf and mileage were merely average.
  - knieveltech 11y ago
    You're not the first to express this sentiment. It feels similar to having a random in a bar bitch at me about my carbon footprint when they hear I burn coal while blacksmithing on the weekend. I appreciate environmental awareness but are you sure you're maximizing your efforts? http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/07/article-2683735-1F75AC1C00000578-400_638x388.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/07/article-2683735-1F...

acd 11y ago

May I suggest that the government raid the ECU engine control unit supplier Bosch and examine their email servers which of their customers has cheated. "But even so, Bosch still supplied the “defeat” code EDC 16 engine management system at the heart of the #Dieselgate scandal"

tomohawk 11y ago

Pot, meet kettle: http://junkscience.com/2012/10/new-documents-prove-falsification-in-epa-air-study-junkscience-renews-retraction-request/ http://junkscience.com/2012/10/new-documents-prove-falsifica... They were experimenting on human subjects without informed consent and using the data to overstate results that favored the regulations they wanted to impose. These regulations set the particulate limits diesel powered vehicles must meet.

tyho 11y ago
Page 5 of the report: "The subject provided informed consent" The real problem is drawing any conclusion from a sample size of 1.