5 ms·
One way to reconcile these seemingly contradictory statements is the following. The actual programmer & designer of the software is the supplier of the engine
by bald 8y ago
One way to reconcile these seemingly contradictory statements is the following.
The actual programmer & designer of the software is the supplier of the engine control units (ECUs), in most cases Bosch. The software that they supply actually already contains these cheating routines. These routines are delivered as a part of the software packages, and can be turned on/off with some flags.
It is up to the auto company how to set these flags.
Source: Close relatives working in the car industry.
- okmokmz 8y agoSo is the issue that those routines are supported regardless of the configuration, or that they were delivered in a way that the routines can still be used?
- endymi0n 8y agoExactly. This very ambiguity makes it easy for both sides to just shift the blame to the other side in case this whole collusion gets discovered – which you can now nicely see in the wild. In the best case scenario for both companies, both just get away with it this way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability Obviously, no parts supplier would integrate these functions in the first place if nobody asked for it...
- gascan 8y agoTaking this a step further, presumably an honest vendor only need flash a new firmware at the dealer to the ECU with the unused cheating codeblocks removed, while a secretly cheating vendor is suddenly trapped.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- samatman 8y agoWhich is reasonable, for a narrow definition of reasonable. The emissions standards don't apply on a world-wide basis. Maybe they should. But disabling them for markets which don't require them, and gaining fuel efficiency, is at least not fraudulent behavior.
- greglindahl 8y agoSome of the software in question spots test conditions and makes the engine behave differently during them.
- sebazzz 8y agoMaybe it is a dumb question, but why couldn't the engine then always run like that?
- comex 8y agoBecause the polluting mode has marginally better performance and fuel efficiency.
- InternetOfStuff 8y agoI know you didn't insinuate that, but I would like to point out that there's nothing wrong with detecting test conditions, per se. It might have safety implications (e.g. deactivating airbags so they don't fire because of implausible-on-the-road vehicle states), or even enable certain tests in the first place (perhaps by disabling traction control systems confused by vastly differing speeds per axle). Using them in order to cheat, however, is clearly not nice at all. Speaking as a German, and as someone who has worked in the automotive industry, I'd really like for manufacturers to be punished hard on this. The amount of complacency and disdain for regulations on the part of the manufacturers is disappointing, and the collusion by the German government distasteful.
- yitchelle 8y agoWouldn't it make sense for the car manufacturers to request to have these cheating routines to be totally removed from the code itself?
- InternetOfStuff 8y agoIn a sense, yes. It might even be a good thing to remove dead code -- what isn't there can't possibly cause trouble. But it complicates product management: instead of a single binary and a bunch of feature flags, you now have a bunch of binary versions; and the number of permutations can get quite large quite quickly.
- Maybestring 8y agoThe cheating code is probably necessary. There are dozens of higher emission modes that an engine may go into to prevent damage in certain situations. E.g. low ambient pressure, high coolant temperature, slow wastegate response...