4 ms·

The manufactures were required to "pass" the tests. They did. The tests were not fit for purpose. Fix the tests or GIVE UP. You will NEVER get the manufacture

The manufactures were required to "pass" the tests. They did. The tests were not fit for purpose. Fix the tests or GIVE UP. You will NEVER get the manufactures to act as moral entities -- they are amoral. They are profit machines and are required by law to be that way. The comparison to aircraft manufacturing only works if you are arguing aircraft manufactures and industry bodies design and implement similarly stupid tests -- they simply don't. Failing aircraft parts cause readily identifiable deaths, NOx requires large scale, organised statistical inference, which, lo, is also in the laps of the regulators. Sound, impartial, rational testing is the only way to improve the current situation -- I would argue the current situation is none of these things and was stillborn as a regime.

bkor 11y ago
The tests weren't the problem. VW made it so the car only passed during the tests. A test should be somewhat reproducible and that conflicts with not being able to cheat the test. The solution would be to throw some people in jail. Your suggestion that it was even mandatory for companies to behave this way is so weird that I cannot respond to that.
- ams6110 11y ago
  This story is not about the VW cheating, it's about diesel cars in general, and the tests that don't measure what they are supposed to be measuring.
- verytrivial 11y ago
  Your first two sentences seems to contradict one another. The assumption was the cars would behave the same in tests versus how they are driven by real drivers, but THAT WASN'T IN THE TEST! Test it! Randomly give them an 4 hour driving profile including resistance and acceleration generated from a model of drivers, fail if it diverges by X% from the reproducible baseline. This is what people are complaining about (largely), but it wasn't what was asked of the manufacturers. Companies are required to act in the interests of the shareholders. These companies were required to pass the synthetic tests. If the manufactures spent precious resources "wasting" R/D and manufacturing effort going beyond the requirements placed upon them to ship expensive but already conforming vehicles, they would be savaged in the markets, and executive open to litigation for dereliction. I'm not defending it, by the way -- this is how capitalism works.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > Companies are required to act in the interests of the shareholders. Leaving the company open to massive regulatory action doesn't feel like it's in the best interest of the shareholders.
  - oarsinsync 11y ago
    > Companies are required to act in the interests of the shareholders. These companies were required to pass the synthetic tests. If the manufactures spent precious resources "wasting" R/D and manufacturing effort going beyond the requirements placed upon them to ship expensive but already conforming vehicles, they would be savaged in the markets, and executive open to litigation for dereliction. I'm not defending it, by the way -- this is how capitalism works. We have an example in Apple that does exactly this, with a CEO that makes statements during quarterly earnings summary calls openly admitting exactly this, and there is no lawsuit. This is also how capitalism works.
tremon 11y ago
I don't disagree with your opinion on the tests. If the tests aren't fit for purpose, they must be replaced or removed. However, the tests as-is do serve one purpose: to provide an absolute comparison between different models across different years. However, regarding corporations: You will NEVER get the manufactures to act as moral entities -- they are amoral This attitude is part of what keeps them immoral. They are profit machines and are required by law to be that way So, change the law? I'm sure there's been many articles on HN where the prevailing opinion was "the law is wrong, and must be changed".
- LeifCarrotson 11y ago
  You wrote "immoral", but the parent wrote "amoral". There is a difference! ...or was that intentional?
Marazan 11y ago
They are not required by law to be amorral profit machines. Directors have to take into consideration company image and general well being in making decisions. They don't have to take into consideration profit.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  They are not required by law per se, but this is what evolutionary pressures (i.e. competition) demand of them. We won't have companies acting morally until we start expecting it from them - seriously enough that it starts to affect the profit calculation.
  - InclinedPlane 11y ago
    This is a well-worn sentiment, but I think it is at best only partially true. A substantial aspect to the way modern businesses run has little to do with sheer, naked profit seeking and much to do with culture. Specifically a culture of class distinctions, power, and "winning". There are countless instances of corporations doing dumb things that hurt their bottom line but are done anyway because it aligns with the culture and values system of those making the decisions.
  - Marazan 11y ago
    Whilst people continue to state the falsehood that corporations must legally pursue profit ahead of al other considerations I will continue to correct them. It is a common falsehood that is used to both justify outrageous corporation behaviour and to belittle those who criticise company actions as being ignorant of the law.
yellowstuff 11y ago
> They are profit machines and are required by law to be that way. People say this all the time, but it's not true. In the US managers at public companies do have an obligation to act in the best interest of the shareholders, but no court has ever said that means maximizing profit. On the contrary, managers had very broad rights to run a company as they see fit. In fact public companies forgo short-term profit all the time in favor of long-term goals such as improving their reputation with customers, politicians or regulators. Shareholders don't get any say in business decisions such as how to handle emissions regulations. There are some exceptions. You can't explicitly screw over the shareholders, such as by selling the company for cheap in a deal that guarantees big bonuses for management. That doesn't apply here. Craigslist got in trouble and the details of the case are kind of interesting, but it was an extreme and unusual case that also doesn't apply to VW. I'd assume the rules are similar in Germany. It wouldn't make sense to have a rule that corporations must maximize short-term profit all the time. No one could run a big business that way.
InclinedPlane 11y ago
You think that this: http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2015/09/vw-stock-sept-22.png.650x0_q70_crop-smart.jpg http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2015/09/vw-stock-s... is coercing a corporation to be an amoral entity? No, VW thought they could get away with cheating, and they were found out, with disastrous consequences to their bottom line. The obvious market serving behavior would have been to avoid cheating. When VW cheated they were serving neither the public nor their shareholders, they were just being dumb.
- rurban 11y ago
  First of all, they didn't caught VW cheating, they caught Audi cheating, amongst others. VW was using those Audi engines. The press just jumped on VW, because they were the biggest and can take the biggest hit. Second, the cheaters, and all of them were cheating as already presented at the CCC congress some months ago, used all the same Bosch ECU, which had the cheating option built-in with a misleading variable name, which did the detection of the test cycle. And any engine manifacturer can enable or disable this mode. Passing the test means the legally they are all fine. Because the european and non-US emission law just honors passing this test cycle. In the US it's different. Third, historically everybody was cheating with those NOx tests. The US companies starting with that, the Asians got caught, now everybody got caught, with the new VW and Audi A5 engines actually having the least emissions of all, together with Skoda Superb and BMW 3. Limiting the damage done to VW was a good marketing trick, and you are still falling for it.
  - oarsinsync 11y ago
    > First of all, they didn't caught VW cheating, they caught Audi cheating, amongst others. VW was using those Audi engines. The press just jumped on VW, because they were the biggest and can take the biggest hit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi Owner Volkswagen Group (99.55%)

bkor 11y ago

The tests weren't the problem. VW made it so the car only passed during the tests. A test should be somewhat reproducible and that conflicts with not being able to cheat the test. The solution would be to throw some people in jail. Your suggestion that it was even mandatory for companies to behave this way is so weird that I cannot respond to that.

ams6110 11y ago
This story is not about the VW cheating, it's about diesel cars in general, and the tests that don't measure what they are supposed to be measuring.
verytrivial 11y ago
Your first two sentences seems to contradict one another. The assumption was the cars would behave the same in tests versus how they are driven by real drivers, but THAT WASN'T IN THE TEST! Test it! Randomly give them an 4 hour driving profile including resistance and acceleration generated from a model of drivers, fail if it diverges by X% from the reproducible baseline. This is what people are complaining about (largely), but it wasn't what was asked of the manufacturers. Companies are required to act in the interests of the shareholders. These companies were required to pass the synthetic tests. If the manufactures spent precious resources "wasting" R/D and manufacturing effort going beyond the requirements placed upon them to ship expensive but already conforming vehicles, they would be savaged in the markets, and executive open to litigation for dereliction. I'm not defending it, by the way -- this is how capitalism works.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > Companies are required to act in the interests of the shareholders. Leaving the company open to massive regulatory action doesn't feel like it's in the best interest of the shareholders.
- oarsinsync 11y ago
  > Companies are required to act in the interests of the shareholders. These companies were required to pass the synthetic tests. If the manufactures spent precious resources "wasting" R/D and manufacturing effort going beyond the requirements placed upon them to ship expensive but already conforming vehicles, they would be savaged in the markets, and executive open to litigation for dereliction. I'm not defending it, by the way -- this is how capitalism works. We have an example in Apple that does exactly this, with a CEO that makes statements during quarterly earnings summary calls openly admitting exactly this, and there is no lawsuit. This is also how capitalism works.

tremon 11y ago

I don't disagree with your opinion on the tests. If the tests aren't fit for purpose, they must be replaced or removed. However, the tests as-is do serve one purpose: to provide an absolute comparison between different models across different years. However, regarding corporations: You will NEVER get the manufactures to act as moral entities -- they are amoral This attitude is part of what keeps them immoral. They are profit machines and are required by law to be that way So, change the law? I'm sure there's been many articles on HN where the prevailing opinion was "the law is wrong, and must be changed".

LeifCarrotson 11y ago
You wrote "immoral", but the parent wrote "amoral". There is a difference! ...or was that intentional?

Marazan 11y ago

They are not required by law to be amorral profit machines. Directors have to take into consideration company image and general well being in making decisions. They don't have to take into consideration profit.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
They are not required by law per se, but this is what evolutionary pressures (i.e. competition) demand of them. We won't have companies acting morally until we start expecting it from them - seriously enough that it starts to affect the profit calculation.
- InclinedPlane 11y ago
  This is a well-worn sentiment, but I think it is at best only partially true. A substantial aspect to the way modern businesses run has little to do with sheer, naked profit seeking and much to do with culture. Specifically a culture of class distinctions, power, and "winning". There are countless instances of corporations doing dumb things that hurt their bottom line but are done anyway because it aligns with the culture and values system of those making the decisions.
- Marazan 11y ago
  Whilst people continue to state the falsehood that corporations must legally pursue profit ahead of al other considerations I will continue to correct them. It is a common falsehood that is used to both justify outrageous corporation behaviour and to belittle those who criticise company actions as being ignorant of the law.

yellowstuff 11y ago

> They are profit machines and are required by law to be that way. People say this all the time, but it's not true. In the US managers at public companies do have an obligation to act in the best interest of the shareholders, but no court has ever said that means maximizing profit. On the contrary, managers had very broad rights to run a company as they see fit. In fact public companies forgo short-term profit all the time in favor of long-term goals such as improving their reputation with customers, politicians or regulators. Shareholders don't get any say in business decisions such as how to handle emissions regulations. There are some exceptions. You can't explicitly screw over the shareholders, such as by selling the company for cheap in a deal that guarantees big bonuses for management. That doesn't apply here. Craigslist got in trouble and the details of the case are kind of interesting, but it was an extreme and unusual case that also doesn't apply to VW. I'd assume the rules are similar in Germany. It wouldn't make sense to have a rule that corporations must maximize short-term profit all the time. No one could run a big business that way.

InclinedPlane 11y ago

You think that this: http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2015/09/vw-stock-sept-22.png.650x0_q70_crop-smart.jpg http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2015/09/vw-stock-s... is coercing a corporation to be an amoral entity? No, VW thought they could get away with cheating, and they were found out, with disastrous consequences to their bottom line. The obvious market serving behavior would have been to avoid cheating. When VW cheated they were serving neither the public nor their shareholders, they were just being dumb.

rurban 11y ago
First of all, they didn't caught VW cheating, they caught Audi cheating, amongst others. VW was using those Audi engines. The press just jumped on VW, because they were the biggest and can take the biggest hit. Second, the cheaters, and all of them were cheating as already presented at the CCC congress some months ago, used all the same Bosch ECU, which had the cheating option built-in with a misleading variable name, which did the detection of the test cycle. And any engine manifacturer can enable or disable this mode. Passing the test means the legally they are all fine. Because the european and non-US emission law just honors passing this test cycle. In the US it's different. Third, historically everybody was cheating with those NOx tests. The US companies starting with that, the Asians got caught, now everybody got caught, with the new VW and Audi A5 engines actually having the least emissions of all, together with Skoda Superb and BMW 3. Limiting the damage done to VW was a good marketing trick, and you are still falling for it.
- oarsinsync 11y ago
  > First of all, they didn't caught VW cheating, they caught Audi cheating, amongst others. VW was using those Audi engines. The press just jumped on VW, because they were the biggest and can take the biggest hit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi Owner Volkswagen Group (99.55%)