15 ms·

Any details on the defeat device? VW's code looked for things like (lack of) steering input, the fact that the car is stationary during the tests, etc. What d

Any details on the defeat device? VW's code looked for things like (lack of) steering input, the fact that the car is stationary during the tests, etc. What did Cummins' device do? If their statement is that they saw "no evidence that anyone acted in bad faith", is there any reasonable way that could possibly be true? We didn't let VW get away with any statements like that.

janice1999 3y ago
> is there any reasonable way that could possibly be true? No. Automotive development is cost and time sensitive while also having a large regulatory compliance overhead. Every fraction of a cent matters. Every man hour spent on development and testing matters. Designs are peer reviewed. Processes are tracked and logged. A "feature" that significantly alters the performance of a component under certain conditions does not secretly or accidentally get designed, tested and deployed. Every modern component and system is modeled, characterized and tested thoroughly.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I don't think you can make that claim with no details on the nature of the feature.
  - janice1999 3y ago
    The charge against them is very clear. The feature is changing the performance which enabled excess emissions. Whether is it software or hardware does not really matter. > Today, the Justice Department reached an initial agreement with Cummins Inc. to settle claims that, over the past decade, the company unlawfully altered hundreds of thousands of engines to bypass emissions tests in violation of the Clean Air Act. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-merrick-garland-agreement-principle-cummins-settle-alleged https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-me...
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      But it lacks details. Emission defeat devices may be as simple as an unsecured maintenance port enabling people to flash their ECU. To your parent point, that would be an absence of a feature or a feature that takes less development.
      - josephcsible 3y ago
        If giving truck owners the ability to modify their own software is against the law, then I'd rather have emissions laws repealed entirely.

janice1999 3y ago

> is there any reasonable way that could possibly be true? No. Automotive development is cost and time sensitive while also having a large regulatory compliance overhead. Every fraction of a cent matters. Every man hour spent on development and testing matters. Designs are peer reviewed. Processes are tracked and logged. A "feature" that significantly alters the performance of a component under certain conditions does not secretly or accidentally get designed, tested and deployed. Every modern component and system is modeled, characterized and tested thoroughly.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I don't think you can make that claim with no details on the nature of the feature.
- janice1999 3y ago
  The charge against them is very clear. The feature is changing the performance which enabled excess emissions. Whether is it software or hardware does not really matter. > Today, the Justice Department reached an initial agreement with Cummins Inc. to settle claims that, over the past decade, the company unlawfully altered hundreds of thousands of engines to bypass emissions tests in violation of the Clean Air Act. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-merrick-garland-agreement-principle-cummins-settle-alleged https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-me...
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    But it lacks details. Emission defeat devices may be as simple as an unsecured maintenance port enabling people to flash their ECU. To your parent point, that would be an absence of a feature or a feature that takes less development.
    - josephcsible 3y ago
      If giving truck owners the ability to modify their own software is against the law, then I'd rather have emissions laws repealed entirely.