4 ms·

This is such a defeatist attitude that lets VW off the hook. We may yet find that everyone was doing it but this isn't it. No one has been found to be doing lar

This is such a defeatist attitude that lets VW off the hook. We may yet find that everyone was doing it but this isn't it. No one has been found to be doing large-scale cheating like VW so far. And the technology to make diesel cleaner has always been there. The VW scandal is exactly that they cheated to make the cars cheaper by avoiding having extra emissions hardware. Even after all the scrutiny diesel cars are still being sold and as far as we know pass emissions.

Retric 7y ago
Not just hardware but also just using less adblue fluid. That seems even crazier on the surface. Let’s kill a few people so our users don’t have to refill a tank as often.
- legitster 7y ago
  Yeah, I scratch my head on that one. Is a DEF system that expensive for the end user? It seems like it would have been a trivial thing to include.
DoctorOetker 7y ago
I seem to remember that after the VW scandal, at some point the emissions tests were made less stringent "to keep things realistic", so it wouldn't surprise me at all if you are right that >after all the scrutiny diesel cars are still being sold and as far as we know pass emissions.
- pedrocr 7y ago
  As far as I know the opposite is true and emission tests have only gotten stricter. The test cycle has been updated to be more realistic[1] and the standard has lowered allowed values across the board[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Harmonised_Light_Vehicles_Test_Procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Harmonised_Light_Veh... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Emission_standards_for_passenger_cars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Em...
  - DoctorOetker 7y ago
    Consider the following quote from your reference [2]: (here "conformity factor" CF is the relative violation, so "0% conformity factor" means at the original limit, "100% conformity factor" means twice the original limit!) >In 2017, the European Union will introduce testing in real-world conditions called Real Driving Emissions, using portable emissions measurement systems in addition to laboratory tests.[24] The actual limits will use 110% (CF=2.1) "conformity factor" (the difference between the laboratory test and real-world conditions) in 2017, and 50% (CF=1.5) in 2021 for NO x ,[25] conformity factor for particles number P being left for further study. Environment organizations criticized the decision as insufficient,[26][27] while ACEA mentions it will be extremely difficult for automobile manufacturers to reach such a limit in such short period of time.[28] In 2015 an ADAC study (ordered by ICCT) of 32 Euro 6 cars showed that few complied with on-road emission limits, and LNT/NOx adsorber cars (with about half the market) had the highest emissions.[29] At the end of this study, ICCT was expecting a 100% conformity factor.[30] EDIT: adding; to me it seems like the regulators knew all along about the defeat mechanisms, and the VW scandal is just the first step: removing plausible deniability of the regulator. Next steps will be when people realise the conformity factor of their car is increasing over time as the laws get stricter? ;) Then people will start seriously questioning the regulators who formally accept such nomenclature!
    - pedrocr 7y ago
      What you are describing is yet another way to make the testing stricter. Legally optimizing for the driving cycle will always be possible so adding an extra measurement that compares the test cycle with some real world driving is yet another hurdle to pass. You are somehow assuming that the conformity factor will increase over time but the quote says that it should go down from 2.1x to 1.5x, once again making the test even stricter. I don't see any evidence that they "knew all along" but this discussion is very common. We've seen it as well with the financial crisis. A set of people get discovered committing fraud and yet the discussion quickly shifts to how the regulators didn't do enough to stop it. Regulators are often inept and regulatory capture does exist. But if regulators were asleep or even worse complicit does not in any way excuse VW. In fact the complete opposite is true. If the industry somehow subverted regulation then that's an additional crime and not in any way a reason to throw up our hands and say "everyone was doing it, the regulators knew all along, that's life".
netsharc 7y ago
If the diagram on this page is to be trusted, yes everyone was doing it: https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/dieselgate-1st-anniversary-all-diesel-car-brands-europe-are-even-more-polluting-volkswagen https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/dieselgate-1st-an...
- pedrocr 7y ago
  From your link: found that not one single brand complies with the latest air pollution limits (‘Euro 6’) for diesel cars and vans in real-world driving The important bit is "real-world driving". As far as we know everyone optimized for the test and yet the driving cycle was not realistic. That is not illegal and supposedly the test has now been improved. What VW was caught doing is much worse than that, it's actually cheating during the test. Emissions testing has been shown to be highly fallible but what VW was caught doing is on another level.

Retric 7y ago

Not just hardware but also just using less adblue fluid. That seems even crazier on the surface. Let’s kill a few people so our users don’t have to refill a tank as often.

legitster 7y ago
Yeah, I scratch my head on that one. Is a DEF system that expensive for the end user? It seems like it would have been a trivial thing to include.

DoctorOetker 7y ago

I seem to remember that after the VW scandal, at some point the emissions tests were made less stringent "to keep things realistic", so it wouldn't surprise me at all if you are right that >after all the scrutiny diesel cars are still being sold and as far as we know pass emissions.

pedrocr 7y ago
As far as I know the opposite is true and emission tests have only gotten stricter. The test cycle has been updated to be more realistic[1] and the standard has lowered allowed values across the board[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Harmonised_Light_Vehicles_Test_Procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Harmonised_Light_Veh... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Emission_standards_for_passenger_cars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Em...
- DoctorOetker 7y ago
  Consider the following quote from your reference [2]: (here "conformity factor" CF is the relative violation, so "0% conformity factor" means at the original limit, "100% conformity factor" means twice the original limit!) >In 2017, the European Union will introduce testing in real-world conditions called Real Driving Emissions, using portable emissions measurement systems in addition to laboratory tests.[24] The actual limits will use 110% (CF=2.1) "conformity factor" (the difference between the laboratory test and real-world conditions) in 2017, and 50% (CF=1.5) in 2021 for NO x ,[25] conformity factor for particles number P being left for further study. Environment organizations criticized the decision as insufficient,[26][27] while ACEA mentions it will be extremely difficult for automobile manufacturers to reach such a limit in such short period of time.[28] In 2015 an ADAC study (ordered by ICCT) of 32 Euro 6 cars showed that few complied with on-road emission limits, and LNT/NOx adsorber cars (with about half the market) had the highest emissions.[29] At the end of this study, ICCT was expecting a 100% conformity factor.[30] EDIT: adding; to me it seems like the regulators knew all along about the defeat mechanisms, and the VW scandal is just the first step: removing plausible deniability of the regulator. Next steps will be when people realise the conformity factor of their car is increasing over time as the laws get stricter? ;) Then people will start seriously questioning the regulators who formally accept such nomenclature!
  - pedrocr 7y ago
    What you are describing is yet another way to make the testing stricter. Legally optimizing for the driving cycle will always be possible so adding an extra measurement that compares the test cycle with some real world driving is yet another hurdle to pass. You are somehow assuming that the conformity factor will increase over time but the quote says that it should go down from 2.1x to 1.5x, once again making the test even stricter. I don't see any evidence that they "knew all along" but this discussion is very common. We've seen it as well with the financial crisis. A set of people get discovered committing fraud and yet the discussion quickly shifts to how the regulators didn't do enough to stop it. Regulators are often inept and regulatory capture does exist. But if regulators were asleep or even worse complicit does not in any way excuse VW. In fact the complete opposite is true. If the industry somehow subverted regulation then that's an additional crime and not in any way a reason to throw up our hands and say "everyone was doing it, the regulators knew all along, that's life".

netsharc 7y ago

If the diagram on this page is to be trusted, yes everyone was doing it: https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/dieselgate-1st-anniversary-all-diesel-car-brands-europe-are-even-more-polluting-volkswagen https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/dieselgate-1st-an...

pedrocr 7y ago
From your link: found that not one single brand complies with the latest air pollution limits (‘Euro 6’) for diesel cars and vans in real-world driving The important bit is "real-world driving". As far as we know everyone optimized for the test and yet the driving cycle was not realistic. That is not illegal and supposedly the test has now been improved. What VW was caught doing is much worse than that, it's actually cheating during the test. Emissions testing has been shown to be highly fallible but what VW was caught doing is on another level.