6 ms·

Absolutely this. I’m still one of those who think that what Volkswagen did wasn’t cheating anything. They basically “studied for the test” in order to pas it.

Ihfhcub 7y ago
Yea that's why 6 executives are being charged with criminal fraud because all they were doing was studying for a test
- VBprogrammer 7y ago
  While I think that 'studying for a test' is a pretty charitable interpretation of events I think the parent has a point. While making it clear to car makers that there is a line which they can't cross is a good thing; I think serious though should have gone into making the test less easy to game in the first place. I suspect similar cheats are employed all over the industry. For example my motorcycle has a dead spot which people have been known to bypass the clutch switch to avoid. The reason for the dead spot is that the noise test is carried out at a specific speed and by programming a dead zone in the fuel map they can make it pass the test. The only real difference between this an the VW emissions scandal is that everyone has to suffer the consequences of cheating the test!
  - vageli 7y ago
    > While I think that 'studying for a test' is a pretty charitable interpretation of events I think the parent has a point. While making it clear to car makers that there is a line which they can't cross is a good thing; I think serious though should have gone into making the test less easy to game in the first place. > I suspect similar cheats are employed all over the industry. For example my motorcycle has a dead spot which people have been known to bypass the clutch switch to avoid. The reason for the dead spot is that the noise test is carried out at a specific speed and by programming a dead zone in the fuel map they can make it pass the test. Can you go into more specifics about this? I used to ride and am embarrassed that I have no idea about this "dead spot" you are referring to.
    - VBprogrammer 7y ago
      Just a little dip in the power output. I can't say I've ever noticed it but it's apparently visible on a Dyno trace. It only happens in first and second gear from what I remember.
- dang 7y ago
  "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - arbitrage 7y ago
    Oh shit, you quoted the rules! You'll definitely get an apology, now.
toss1 7y ago
That is just the sort of thing could come down to the details of how the law was written. Example A: "Each model of this type of car must pass Test X with numbers lower than listed in Table Y" Example B: "The cars must have emissions lower than listed in Table Y. The standard test may be Test X" If it is written like Example A, then sure, the entire specification is the test, they merely designed to the rule. But if it's more like Example B, then they are toast. The cars clearly don't ordinarily have emissions lower than Table Y, they are merely engineered to appear to do so during the specific conditions of Test X. If there is one thing I've learned about the law from the excellent attny who will soon also be my wife, it is that you cannot reason about the law without reading it. Logic and assumptions will not help you -- you have to look at the law itself. It is actually a lot like software. Our guesses about the behavior might be OK for very limited purposes, but we really don't know jack until we trace it in a debugger or read the source. (tracing & reading source might be considered analogous to reading the cases and reading the law & regs)
JaRail 7y ago
That's like only installing airbags in the cars you send to accident testing.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  More like having airbags that only go off at forces at or above the test forces. Consumers are happy because of reduced cost of ownership but the regulators and the safety crowd hand wring over the unnecessary black eyes it causes.
hef19898 7y ago
There is a difference so. Other car makers used temperature based exceptions in their motor control software. All of them also optimize for fuel consumption tests using different tires, barebone cars, tire pressure etc... Thing is all this test optimization is actually legal and covered by the rules. Since everyone is doing it test results are comparable as well. VW did something different. They installed defeat devices that are explicitly illegal. And they knew it as shown in documents and mails. VW also pled guilty in the US already. So, while both things are on the surface similar they are yet fundamentally different.
- rurban 7y ago
  No, VW did nothing. They have no business with engine control software, they get their engines from the mothership: Audi. And if you still don't know it, every single Diesel engine with this most common Bosch ECU has this cheating SW. The problem is only if you use it or not. 80% do use it. From all European cars only Fiat didn't use it, if I remember correctly. Most Asians did use it also. You are saying VW installed it. No, Bosch installed it on their devices. And it was written by Audi.
  - Xixi 7y ago
    Audi belongs to Volkswagen Group. That makes Volkswagen Group ultimately responsible for everything it ships, whether it's done internally, by Bosch, or by an outsourcing firm in Elbonia.
    - rurban 7y ago
      Now who's the owner of the Volkswagen Group? For some time there was a struggle between Audi and Porsche, but eventually Audi won. They are the mothership. Who's responsible? You still are of the impression that only VW uses this cheating device. Everyone is using it. Responsible for this device is Bosch.
      - hef19898 7y ago
        Audi is, and was for a long time now, a 100% subsidiery from VW. The struggle you mention was one between Porsche SA and VW as much as it was one between the two Porsche family branches, Porsche and Piech. In the end VW kind of won and Porsche the automaker joined the VW group while the Porsche Holding became the (biggest) shareholder of VW group (including brands like Audi, Bugatti, Skoda, Seat, VW, Scania and MAN). Audi was a major supplier of Diesel engines for the whole group, especially the larger ones which also ended up in Porsche Cayennes. The smaller Diesel engines came AFAIK from VW. True, the software came from Bosch and can arguably be used for development purposes. The exact role of Bosch in all of this is still not clear. The only companies found to be using the Bosch supplied software as an illegal cheat device is VW so far. Maybe Mercedes did as well. BMW was, as if now, more or less cleared of illegal wrong doing. They still had to pay fines, so. Other car makers are, as far as we now today, "only" using the legal loop holes. Still shitty behavior but at least legal. PSA (Peugeot, Citroen, DS and as of last year Opel) are themselves a major Diesel engine supplier and while they paid fines as well, if I remember correctly, they didn't use defeat devices. EDIT: For clarity, PSA wasn't found to use defeat devices. They had to pay fines in France AFAIK.

Ihfhcub 7y ago

Yea that's why 6 executives are being charged with criminal fraud because all they were doing was studying for a test

VBprogrammer 7y ago
While I think that 'studying for a test' is a pretty charitable interpretation of events I think the parent has a point. While making it clear to car makers that there is a line which they can't cross is a good thing; I think serious though should have gone into making the test less easy to game in the first place. I suspect similar cheats are employed all over the industry. For example my motorcycle has a dead spot which people have been known to bypass the clutch switch to avoid. The reason for the dead spot is that the noise test is carried out at a specific speed and by programming a dead zone in the fuel map they can make it pass the test. The only real difference between this an the VW emissions scandal is that everyone has to suffer the consequences of cheating the test!
- vageli 7y ago
  > While I think that 'studying for a test' is a pretty charitable interpretation of events I think the parent has a point. While making it clear to car makers that there is a line which they can't cross is a good thing; I think serious though should have gone into making the test less easy to game in the first place. > I suspect similar cheats are employed all over the industry. For example my motorcycle has a dead spot which people have been known to bypass the clutch switch to avoid. The reason for the dead spot is that the noise test is carried out at a specific speed and by programming a dead zone in the fuel map they can make it pass the test. Can you go into more specifics about this? I used to ride and am embarrassed that I have no idea about this "dead spot" you are referring to.
  - VBprogrammer 7y ago
    Just a little dip in the power output. I can't say I've ever noticed it but it's apparently visible on a Dyno trace. It only happens in first and second gear from what I remember.
dang 7y ago
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- arbitrage 7y ago
  Oh shit, you quoted the rules! You'll definitely get an apology, now.

toss1 7y ago

That is just the sort of thing could come down to the details of how the law was written. Example A: "Each model of this type of car must pass Test X with numbers lower than listed in Table Y" Example B: "The cars must have emissions lower than listed in Table Y. The standard test may be Test X" If it is written like Example A, then sure, the entire specification is the test, they merely designed to the rule. But if it's more like Example B, then they are toast. The cars clearly don't ordinarily have emissions lower than Table Y, they are merely engineered to appear to do so during the specific conditions of Test X. If there is one thing I've learned about the law from the excellent attny who will soon also be my wife, it is that you cannot reason about the law without reading it. Logic and assumptions will not help you -- you have to look at the law itself. It is actually a lot like software. Our guesses about the behavior might be OK for very limited purposes, but we really don't know jack until we trace it in a debugger or read the source. (tracing & reading source might be considered analogous to reading the cases and reading the law & regs)

JaRail 7y ago

That's like only installing airbags in the cars you send to accident testing.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
More like having airbags that only go off at forces at or above the test forces. Consumers are happy because of reduced cost of ownership but the regulators and the safety crowd hand wring over the unnecessary black eyes it causes.

hef19898 7y ago

There is a difference so. Other car makers used temperature based exceptions in their motor control software. All of them also optimize for fuel consumption tests using different tires, barebone cars, tire pressure etc... Thing is all this test optimization is actually legal and covered by the rules. Since everyone is doing it test results are comparable as well. VW did something different. They installed defeat devices that are explicitly illegal. And they knew it as shown in documents and mails. VW also pled guilty in the US already. So, while both things are on the surface similar they are yet fundamentally different.

rurban 7y ago
No, VW did nothing. They have no business with engine control software, they get their engines from the mothership: Audi. And if you still don't know it, every single Diesel engine with this most common Bosch ECU has this cheating SW. The problem is only if you use it or not. 80% do use it. From all European cars only Fiat didn't use it, if I remember correctly. Most Asians did use it also. You are saying VW installed it. No, Bosch installed it on their devices. And it was written by Audi.
- Xixi 7y ago
  Audi belongs to Volkswagen Group. That makes Volkswagen Group ultimately responsible for everything it ships, whether it's done internally, by Bosch, or by an outsourcing firm in Elbonia.
  - rurban 7y ago
    Now who's the owner of the Volkswagen Group? For some time there was a struggle between Audi and Porsche, but eventually Audi won. They are the mothership. Who's responsible? You still are of the impression that only VW uses this cheating device. Everyone is using it. Responsible for this device is Bosch.
    - hef19898 7y ago
      Audi is, and was for a long time now, a 100% subsidiery from VW. The struggle you mention was one between Porsche SA and VW as much as it was one between the two Porsche family branches, Porsche and Piech. In the end VW kind of won and Porsche the automaker joined the VW group while the Porsche Holding became the (biggest) shareholder of VW group (including brands like Audi, Bugatti, Skoda, Seat, VW, Scania and MAN). Audi was a major supplier of Diesel engines for the whole group, especially the larger ones which also ended up in Porsche Cayennes. The smaller Diesel engines came AFAIK from VW. True, the software came from Bosch and can arguably be used for development purposes. The exact role of Bosch in all of this is still not clear. The only companies found to be using the Bosch supplied software as an illegal cheat device is VW so far. Maybe Mercedes did as well. BMW was, as if now, more or less cleared of illegal wrong doing. They still had to pay fines, so. Other car makers are, as far as we now today, "only" using the legal loop holes. Still shitty behavior but at least legal. PSA (Peugeot, Citroen, DS and as of last year Opel) are themselves a major Diesel engine supplier and while they paid fines as well, if I remember correctly, they didn't use defeat devices. EDIT: For clarity, PSA wasn't found to use defeat devices. They had to pay fines in France AFAIK.