3 ms·
Why couldn't a third party just take a production car and do the testing? This is how it works for most compliance testing. This whole situation seems needlessl
by deelowe 11y ago
Why couldn't a third party just take a production car and do the testing? This is how it works for most compliance testing. This whole situation seems needlessly complex. Or, probably more aptly, it reeks of crony capitalism and politics.
Testing and compliance is an engineering problem. It should treated as such.
- mikekchar 11y agoAlthough keep in mind that requiring 3rd party, independent auditors creates a market for crappy/soft auditors. I learned that from ISO 9000 work. Companies don't want to hire someone who will fail their product/process, so they hire someone who will conveniently look the other way. Probably the only way is to have government testing... which brings us full circle to the potential of crony capitalism and politics.
- deelowe 11y agoIndustrial certifications like ISO 9000, six sigma, etc... are kind of a joke. What happens to those companies if they fail to maintain an acceptable standard? Quality goes down? Who cares? There's no liability. A better comparison would be something like UL or FCC. Make the standards and testing body liable for their claims. Require PEs to be part of the organization and personally responsible for signing off. This is a solved problem. We build bridges and electronics that don't kill people using similar methods.
- intrasight 11y agoThe difference is that those two examples have insurance/liability implications and therefore there is an incentive by some party (insurance industry) to do the certification. There is no equivalent insurance or tort market for emissions.