18 ms·

Instead of posting uninformed speculation, you can just Google it… > In 2017, the U.S.-based VW executive Oliver Schmidt, who oversaw emissions issues, was sen

Instead of posting uninformed speculation, you can just Google it… > In 2017, the U.S.-based VW executive Oliver Schmidt, who oversaw emissions issues, was sentenced to seven years in prison and fined $400,000, the maximum possible under a plea deal the German national made with prosecutors after admitting to charges of conspiring to mislead U.S regulators and violate clean-air laws. The US has charged nine people, and Germany at least five, though they aren't moving quickly with the prosecutions. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emissions/u-s-judge-approves-transfer-of-jailed-former-vw-executive-to-germany-idUSKCN24H367 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emissions/u-s-...

soperj 6y ago
and what about the ones at literally every other company that produces diesels?
- MrApathy 6y ago
  My own admittedly uninformed understanding is that there was cheating all around, but VW was by far the most flagrant. BMW and Mercedes diesels required DEF (diesel exhaust fluid), whereas VW did not. Marketing and/or executive leadership (again, as per my understanding) pushed the notion that the additive would make diesels appear to be less attractive and who wants to add a second liquid beyond fuel every few hundred miles? But weren't they all cheating? The diesels with DEF were still above the legal limits, albeit to a lesser degree than the VW's who didn't even bother with DEF because, I guess, if you're going to cheat anyway... How incorrect is my understanding?
  - davedx 6y ago
    Our VW Sharan required DEV.
- hinkley 6y ago
  How about 'rolling coal'?
  - Syonyk 6y ago
    What about it? No vehicle will do it from the factory, so I don't see how it's relevant here. It's the result of running a diesel massively, massively over-rich (with aftermarket tuning), and it's absolute hell on the engine - that amount of diesel in the cylinder washes down the cylinder walls and wipes off the lubricating film, so the cylinder wear is insane from even fairly short periods of it. Even in diesel truck circles, "the other 99.9%" of truck owners think it's just as stupid as everyone else does - in addition to being engine abuse, it tends to attract an awful lot of unwelcome attention, and there are people who won't distinguish between "You've modified your truck to belch a column of coal black smoke for attention" and "An older diesel puts out a bit of brown smoke if you get on it hard suddenly," which can lead to some nuisance emissions testing. My truck (24 years and change) will smoke a bit if I stand on it and the fuel flow outruns boost coming up, but it's also entirely emissions compliant and passes the tests cleanly - it's just something older diesels do under certain conditions. I try my best to avoid it, but if I need to get a trailer up to speed (especially quickly, if someone is coming up hard behind me), it'll put out a bit of brown smoke until the turbo gets spinning. None of that has anything to do with VW, though. They were burning clean, which any sort of modern high pressure injection system will typically do, they just had really high NOx emissions for their emissions tier.
    - yread 6y ago
      > My truck (24 years and change) will smoke a bit if I stand on it and the fuel flow outruns boost coming up, but it's also entirely emissions compliant and passes the tests cleanly - it's just something older diesels do under certain conditions I always thought that banning old diesels from centers of European cities was just silly (they passed their emissions after all so they can't be billowing smoke, right?), thanks for changing my opinion
      - Syonyk 6y ago
        No problem. If your concern is the particulate matter, then, yes, banning old diesels makes some sense. They don't have the particulate filters - those started showing up in the 2000-2010 era. However, I would rather see that implemented as tighter standards, and if you can meet them with a retrofit kit, you can continue driving the older ones. We saw this with noise kits for older jets (retrofit kits that reduce the noise to the new standards), and if the concern is specifically emissions, then if you can make an older vehicle meet the newer standards, there's no reason to keep them out. I'm not a fan of arbitrarily destroying old but operational equipment. My truck is a '97, and I believe the smoke opacity limit for emissions testing is 40% (it's allowed to block/scatter 40% of the light going through the exhaust). I believe commercial trucks of the same age are held to roughly the same standards. That's a good bit of smoke in the exhaust. But until you get into the high pressure common rail stuff (up at 30k+ psi, multiple injections per cycle), you'll get some smoke under certain conditions.
kbenson 6y ago
More recently, he has been released on parole after roughly half his term served.[1] Interestingly, the article says: In Germany, inmates can be released after serving two thirds of their term. Parole after only half of the time is rare, but can be granted to first time offenders who demonstrated good behavior and are deemed unlikely to commit crimes in the future. I don't doubt he exhibited good behavior. I'm not sure I believe he's unlikely to commit a crime in the future. I wonder if he thinks he was singled out for something everyone in the industry was doing, and thus it wasn't his fault. He wouldn't be wrong about the first thing, but he would about the second. It's admittedly speculation on my part though. 1: https://www.autonews.com/executives/ex-vw-manager-schmidt-gets-early-release-prison-diesel-case https://www.autonews.com/executives/ex-vw-manager-schmidt-ge...
- amenod 6y ago
  It is still quite likely he won't be repeating the mistake though. Prison is something else than just money.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    I think that depends on what he thinks the mistake was. To him, was the mistake cheating, getting caught, or being in position to be made an example of? He may no make the mistake again, but I'm not sure that means he won't cheat again in a similar way, given the chance.
    - Cullinet 6y ago
      can I prosecute ex parte the rest of the taxpayers and citizens and asthmatics the administrators supposed to have been in charge of ensuring compliance with emissions standards for failing so incredibly to do their jobs? or is there no responsibility held by whoever we place in office responsible for seeing our futures aren't squandered? how is it possible to ignore that obligation and duty when we've only just started to admit that we have to act against such universal polluting? or has the last encumbant of 2000 Pensylvania Av. just pulled off the brilliant trick of assuming all the blame for the failure of government future and past as well? (brit with American family and too embarrassed to speak of our politicians presently)
azernik 6y ago
> The US has charged nine people, and Germany at least five, though they aren't moving quickly with the prosecutions. Including the then CEO, who is under indictment in both countries.
hellbannedguy 6y ago
Countries need to ties fees/fines to income level and assets. It kills me when I read about these paltry fines most wealthy men probably laugh at. A poor man get a $600 traffic ticket, it could affect rent. A rich man get the same ticket, and it’s dinner conversation.

soperj 6y ago

and what about the ones at literally every other company that produces diesels?

MrApathy 6y ago
My own admittedly uninformed understanding is that there was cheating all around, but VW was by far the most flagrant. BMW and Mercedes diesels required DEF (diesel exhaust fluid), whereas VW did not. Marketing and/or executive leadership (again, as per my understanding) pushed the notion that the additive would make diesels appear to be less attractive and who wants to add a second liquid beyond fuel every few hundred miles? But weren't they all cheating? The diesels with DEF were still above the legal limits, albeit to a lesser degree than the VW's who didn't even bother with DEF because, I guess, if you're going to cheat anyway... How incorrect is my understanding?
- davedx 6y ago
  Our VW Sharan required DEV.
hinkley 6y ago
How about 'rolling coal'?
- Syonyk 6y ago
  What about it? No vehicle will do it from the factory, so I don't see how it's relevant here. It's the result of running a diesel massively, massively over-rich (with aftermarket tuning), and it's absolute hell on the engine - that amount of diesel in the cylinder washes down the cylinder walls and wipes off the lubricating film, so the cylinder wear is insane from even fairly short periods of it. Even in diesel truck circles, "the other 99.9%" of truck owners think it's just as stupid as everyone else does - in addition to being engine abuse, it tends to attract an awful lot of unwelcome attention, and there are people who won't distinguish between "You've modified your truck to belch a column of coal black smoke for attention" and "An older diesel puts out a bit of brown smoke if you get on it hard suddenly," which can lead to some nuisance emissions testing. My truck (24 years and change) will smoke a bit if I stand on it and the fuel flow outruns boost coming up, but it's also entirely emissions compliant and passes the tests cleanly - it's just something older diesels do under certain conditions. I try my best to avoid it, but if I need to get a trailer up to speed (especially quickly, if someone is coming up hard behind me), it'll put out a bit of brown smoke until the turbo gets spinning. None of that has anything to do with VW, though. They were burning clean, which any sort of modern high pressure injection system will typically do, they just had really high NOx emissions for their emissions tier.
  - yread 6y ago
    > My truck (24 years and change) will smoke a bit if I stand on it and the fuel flow outruns boost coming up, but it's also entirely emissions compliant and passes the tests cleanly - it's just something older diesels do under certain conditions I always thought that banning old diesels from centers of European cities was just silly (they passed their emissions after all so they can't be billowing smoke, right?), thanks for changing my opinion
    - Syonyk 6y ago
      No problem. If your concern is the particulate matter, then, yes, banning old diesels makes some sense. They don't have the particulate filters - those started showing up in the 2000-2010 era. However, I would rather see that implemented as tighter standards, and if you can meet them with a retrofit kit, you can continue driving the older ones. We saw this with noise kits for older jets (retrofit kits that reduce the noise to the new standards), and if the concern is specifically emissions, then if you can make an older vehicle meet the newer standards, there's no reason to keep them out. I'm not a fan of arbitrarily destroying old but operational equipment. My truck is a '97, and I believe the smoke opacity limit for emissions testing is 40% (it's allowed to block/scatter 40% of the light going through the exhaust). I believe commercial trucks of the same age are held to roughly the same standards. That's a good bit of smoke in the exhaust. But until you get into the high pressure common rail stuff (up at 30k+ psi, multiple injections per cycle), you'll get some smoke under certain conditions.

kbenson 6y ago

More recently, he has been released on parole after roughly half his term served.[1] Interestingly, the article says: In Germany, inmates can be released after serving two thirds of their term. Parole after only half of the time is rare, but can be granted to first time offenders who demonstrated good behavior and are deemed unlikely to commit crimes in the future. I don't doubt he exhibited good behavior. I'm not sure I believe he's unlikely to commit a crime in the future. I wonder if he thinks he was singled out for something everyone in the industry was doing, and thus it wasn't his fault. He wouldn't be wrong about the first thing, but he would about the second. It's admittedly speculation on my part though. 1: https://www.autonews.com/executives/ex-vw-manager-schmidt-gets-early-release-prison-diesel-case https://www.autonews.com/executives/ex-vw-manager-schmidt-ge...

amenod 6y ago
It is still quite likely he won't be repeating the mistake though. Prison is something else than just money.
- kbenson 6y ago
  I think that depends on what he thinks the mistake was. To him, was the mistake cheating, getting caught, or being in position to be made an example of? He may no make the mistake again, but I'm not sure that means he won't cheat again in a similar way, given the chance.
  - Cullinet 6y ago
    can I prosecute ex parte the rest of the taxpayers and citizens and asthmatics the administrators supposed to have been in charge of ensuring compliance with emissions standards for failing so incredibly to do their jobs? or is there no responsibility held by whoever we place in office responsible for seeing our futures aren't squandered? how is it possible to ignore that obligation and duty when we've only just started to admit that we have to act against such universal polluting? or has the last encumbant of 2000 Pensylvania Av. just pulled off the brilliant trick of assuming all the blame for the failure of government future and past as well? (brit with American family and too embarrassed to speak of our politicians presently)

azernik 6y ago

> The US has charged nine people, and Germany at least five, though they aren't moving quickly with the prosecutions. Including the then CEO, who is under indictment in both countries.

hellbannedguy 6y ago

Countries need to ties fees/fines to income level and assets. It kills me when I read about these paltry fines most wealthy men probably laugh at. A poor man get a $600 traffic ticket, it could affect rent. A rich man get the same ticket, and it’s dinner conversation.