3 ms·

I still shake my head at this. If you wrote laws that said manufacturers of a particular thing had to do X, and expected them to adhere to it internally, and th

I still shake my head at this. If you wrote laws that said manufacturers of a particular thing had to do X, and expected them to adhere to it internally, and then paid expert testing facilities to validate those results, why would you EXPECT that you would have to do additional testing to validate the validation? And further more, why would you think that merely testing the test would lead to a different result? You can say that the Euro V is "not representative" (as someone else did in this thread) of normal driving, but the FTP test's torque and RPM curves were lifted from real-world driving through hilly areas. It most definitely is representative. I don't know about the Euro V. So I don't get it. In this scenario, what people are asking the EPA to have done was load up vehicles with mobile emissions equipment (which is a very difficult thing to do, by the way), and validate that the TEST ITSELF correlated with real-world driving. Granted, this is an interesting exercise, but one that I would expect the EPA to - again - pay someone else to do. Given the engineering that went into the spec on the US side, I wouldn't expect that this was something they should have needed to do. You can say that they were the regulatory body in charge of this, and therefore should be responsible for catching cheaters, but I don't see how a reasonable person can find that the EPA was intentionally negligent in this matter.

stefan_ 8y ago
Nobody charged the EPA with ensuring adherence to some made up test cycle, but to the emission limits. If the test cycle is your approximation of real world behavior, it is highly negligent to never confirm that real world results actually match the approximation! This is science 101.
- ip26 8y ago
  I'm not a test engineer but work closely with them- two of their core ongoing job functions are monitoring real world performance to find test escapes, and adapting the tests to more closely drive real world performance.
- TheRealDunkirk 8y ago
  I’m specifically arguing that the FTP cycle result IS, in fact, a real world result. So to me, claiming that the EPA needed to do their own verification would be silly. The only reason to do this would be to catch cheaters. I know I’m naive, and very trusting. I would never have thought a company to have the utter stones to completely fake the results as VW did. If you’ve looked at the depths of their algorithms to do it, you see the effort that went into it. I just would never expect such behavior from one of the largest auto makers. It’s so far beyond the pale to my expectations that I can’t blame the EPA for not catching it. YMMV.
topspin 8y ago
"what people are asking the EPA to have done was load up vehicles with mobile emissions equipment (which is a very difficult thing to do, by the way): No, that's incorrect in several ways. There was/is no need for mobile equipment; simply deviating from the test regime on a stationary emissions test machine was sufficient to expose the defeat device. The defeat device worked by detecting the test conditions and defeating that detection is easy. Turning the steering wheel while testing, for example, will inhibit the VW defeat device. Simply running the test long enough (at least 26 minutes) would have exposed it with some common models. Also, mobile testing is not 'a very difficult thing to do.' For a time in the early 90's I was certified to perform emissions tests. At that time the actual machine fit on a wheeled cart; two men could hoist it into the rear of light pickup in a few minutes. I actually did that when we needed to move one to another site to replace another that had failed. That wasn't strictly legal (the units were certified for operation at a designated site) but the station owner didn't give a damn; he needed a temporary replacement unit and was not above fudging the paper work. So nigh on 30 years ago any given wrench monkey with a power inverter could have operated an exhaust analyzer from a moving vehicle. Today the units are even smaller; now we have HAND HELD exhaust analyzers[1]. We've also had remote sensing emission testing equipment available for at least 10 years now. Output is detected as the vehicle drives by the unit; no need for anything on board at all. Face it. There is simply no excuse. The regulator failed utterly. The regulator publicly admitted their failure without qualification. Your faith is misplaced and your rationalizations do not work. This is, assuming intellectual honesty, the point where you adapt your worldview, because the one you have is simply wrong. [1] https://thecarlsoncompany.com/products/infrared-industries-handheld-exhaust-gas-analyzer https://thecarlsoncompany.com/products/infrared-industries-h...
- TheRealDunkirk 8y ago
  Didn’t know about those devices. Doubt they qualify for certification compliance, but I guess it would get you on paper.

stefan_ 8y ago

Nobody charged the EPA with ensuring adherence to some made up test cycle, but to the emission limits. If the test cycle is your approximation of real world behavior, it is highly negligent to never confirm that real world results actually match the approximation! This is science 101.

ip26 8y ago
I'm not a test engineer but work closely with them- two of their core ongoing job functions are monitoring real world performance to find test escapes, and adapting the tests to more closely drive real world performance.
TheRealDunkirk 8y ago
I’m specifically arguing that the FTP cycle result IS, in fact, a real world result. So to me, claiming that the EPA needed to do their own verification would be silly. The only reason to do this would be to catch cheaters. I know I’m naive, and very trusting. I would never have thought a company to have the utter stones to completely fake the results as VW did. If you’ve looked at the depths of their algorithms to do it, you see the effort that went into it. I just would never expect such behavior from one of the largest auto makers. It’s so far beyond the pale to my expectations that I can’t blame the EPA for not catching it. YMMV.

topspin 8y ago

"what people are asking the EPA to have done was load up vehicles with mobile emissions equipment (which is a very difficult thing to do, by the way): No, that's incorrect in several ways. There was/is no need for mobile equipment; simply deviating from the test regime on a stationary emissions test machine was sufficient to expose the defeat device. The defeat device worked by detecting the test conditions and defeating that detection is easy. Turning the steering wheel while testing, for example, will inhibit the VW defeat device. Simply running the test long enough (at least 26 minutes) would have exposed it with some common models. Also, mobile testing is not 'a very difficult thing to do.' For a time in the early 90's I was certified to perform emissions tests. At that time the actual machine fit on a wheeled cart; two men could hoist it into the rear of light pickup in a few minutes. I actually did that when we needed to move one to another site to replace another that had failed. That wasn't strictly legal (the units were certified for operation at a designated site) but the station owner didn't give a damn; he needed a temporary replacement unit and was not above fudging the paper work. So nigh on 30 years ago any given wrench monkey with a power inverter could have operated an exhaust analyzer from a moving vehicle. Today the units are even smaller; now we have HAND HELD exhaust analyzers[1]. We've also had remote sensing emission testing equipment available for at least 10 years now. Output is detected as the vehicle drives by the unit; no need for anything on board at all. Face it. There is simply no excuse. The regulator failed utterly. The regulator publicly admitted their failure without qualification. Your faith is misplaced and your rationalizations do not work. This is, assuming intellectual honesty, the point where you adapt your worldview, because the one you have is simply wrong. [1] https://thecarlsoncompany.com/products/infrared-industries-handheld-exhaust-gas-analyzer https://thecarlsoncompany.com/products/infrared-industries-h...

TheRealDunkirk 8y ago
Didn’t know about those devices. Doubt they qualify for certification compliance, but I guess it would get you on paper.