VW cheat emissions test with "defeat device"

[djos]

It's also as others have pointed out "active cheating", front wings are a passive device and RedBull's front wings only bent at loads greater than the FiA tests regardless of the car being on or off track.

I don't understand this logic. The Red Bull wings were actively designed to pass the deflection test and in real world conditions flex much beyond what the test was intended to allow for.

RedBull wings preformed the same regardless of being on or off track e.g. if the wing experienced the same load load as the FiA test on the circuit then the deflection would be the same as when tested.

Like I keep saying, vw cheated just like Benetton did in '94, both broke the rules by implementing hidden ecu software to make an illegal performance gain.

[djos]

And that relevant question was worth a downvote, is that the purpose of the voting system moderator?

I didnt down vote you but it was a stupid question, dont come in posting dumb stuff like that without bothering to read at least one or two of the myriad of articles published clearly explaining VW's illegal behaviour.

And just who might you be, the forum's new moderator, or perhaps the opinion-police?

Keep up the belligerent "spoon feed me" attitude and I will down vote you.

[djos]

[ ... it was a stupid question, dont come in posting dumb stuff like that without bothering to read at least one or two of the myriad of articles published clearly explaining VW's illegal behaviour.

I have searched in vain for one of the "myriad of articles". I would be helpful, to me at least, if you could post a reference to such an article, one that explains VW's illegal behaviour.

You're kidding right?

Even here in Aus it's easy to find a good explanation of vw's illegal behavior.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-2 ... rs/6793652

Seriously, learn to use Google!

[R_GoWin]

[ ... it was a stupid question, dont come in posting dumb stuff like that without bothering to read at least one or two of the myriad of articles published clearly explaining VW's illegal behaviour.

I have searched in vain for one of the "myriad of articles". I would be helpful, to me at least, if you could post a reference to such an article, one that explains VW's illegal behaviour.

There you go:

This is the US EPA notice of violation clearly defining the laws governing the violation, what's prohibited, what the alleged violation was by VW and the resulting enforcement.

http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents ... -18-15.pdf

[R_GoWin]

[ ... it was a stupid question, dont come in posting dumb stuff like that without bothering to read at least one or two of the myriad of articles published clearly explaining VW's illegal behaviour.

I have searched in vain for one of the "myriad of articles". I would be helpful, to me at least, if you could post a reference to such an article, one that explains VW's illegal behaviour.

...and the official communication from Califronia Air Resource Board to VW:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/in_use_co ... letter.htm

[djos]

[ ... it was a stupid question, dont come in posting dumb stuff like that without bothering to read at least one or two of the myriad of articles published clearly explaining VW's illegal behaviour.

I have searched in vain for one of the "myriad of articles". I would be helpful, to me at least, if you could post a reference to such an article, one that explains VW's illegal behaviour.

Oh look, the New York Times have covered it too, wow who'd have thought it!

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/ny ... ?referrer=

[bhall II]

The comparison to Red Bull's flexible wings creates a false dichotomy. Where the FIA technical regulations specify a standard that's wholly defined by a single test, the Clean Air Act specifies a series of standards, a series of tests and inspection procedures, and it specifically prohibits the installation of any "parts or components" that "bypass, defeat, or render inoperative any device or element of design installed...in compliance with regulations." As such, the increased level of emissions that result from VW's "algorithmic bypass" is irrelevant; the issue is the bypass itself...

(a) Violations

Any person who violates sections 7522(a)(1), 7522(a)(4), or 7522(a)(5) of this title [§ 7522 - Prohibited acts] or any manufacturer or dealer who violates section 7522(a)(3)(A) of this title shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $25,000. Any person other than a manufacturer or dealer who violates section 7522(a)(3)(A) of this title or any person who violates section 7522(a)(3)(B) of this title shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $2,500. Any such violation with respect to paragraph (1), (3)(A), or (4) of section 7522(a) of this title shall constitute a separate offense with respect to each motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine. Any such violation with respect to section 7522(a)(3)(B) of this title shall constitute a separate offense with respect to each part or component. Any person who violates section 7522(a)(2) of this title shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 per day of violation.

If the technical regulations had the CAA's teeth, images like this...



...could be used in a court of law against Red Bull as evidence of an illegal anisotropic carbon fiber layup.

[Richard]

There's a much more direct analogy.

VW use an ECU that had an algorithm that passed the emission testing but uses a different algorithm on the road. That's like an F1 team with an ECU that passed FIA scrutiny for driver aids but the driver could use a completely different algorithm on track, I guess you'd call it something silly like "option 13".

So if people do want to use a flex wing analogy, it'd be like RB swapping wings between testing and racing.

[R_GoWin]

The AdBlue tank on my Passat (the new Euro6) was running dry after 5000miles....so in Europe they are not cheating and most European cars (everything below 170hp) do not even have the SCR technology.

Are you sure you did this on a road legal car and the car ran just fine?

The trouble with urea based SCR systems is that drivers could choose to not fill Adblue. There is no in-use testing in EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 or Euro 6. But EPA tackles this with lights and warnings on the dashboard, and leaves it to the user to act. So in effect you could run around spitting out NOx from your back. But in Euro - your car WILL BE torque limited. It is a mandatory requirement of all Euro certified diesels that the ECM limits the torque to 50 or 60% - until you fill up Adblue to clean your exhausts.

[Tommy Cookers]

thanks to R Go for these 3 or so very useful posts !!

[olefud]

I suspect my past three cars are also cheating. The fuel mileage I got does not at all comport with that supposedly realized on the official tests.

[MadMatt]

Concerns are now reaching BMW who is suspected of cheating, but in Europe. I don't think this story will end anytime soon!

[DaveW]

You're kidding right?
Seriously, learn to use Google!

Thank you for that....

thanks to R Go for these 3 or so very useful posts !!

Agreed....

[bill shoe]

The comparison to Red Bull's flexible wings creates a false dichotomy. Where the FIA technical regulations specify a standard that's wholly defined by a single test, the Clean Air Act specifies...

FIA technical regulations have a single wing-flex test, but the FIA regulations also state that all aero parts must be rigid with no degrees of freedom. This is analagous to an emissions regulatory body having a specific dyno test procedure, but also stating there cannot be defeat devices.

Further, remember two or three years ago when someone (was it Scarbs?) revealed the t-tray trick where the underfloor was actively hinged in a location that would keep the t-tray rigid when the car was on the FIA's test stand (supported by the floor), but would allow the t-tray to flex freely on the hinge when the car was on the track (supported by its wheels)? This difference between the FIA test-rig vs on-track performance is perfectly analogous to EPA dyno-rig vs on-road performance.

I declare your false dichotomy to be false. In the words of Lisa Simpson: The comparison is apt, it's APT!!!

[olefud]

The America legal system is a bit of a hindsight system. What’s the regulation for ignition key torque? When I read that heavy keychains were turning off GM ignitions my thought was that you reach down and turn it back on. But apparently drivers are too concerned with other activities to attend to vehicle operation and the manufacturers should know that. No regulation. No foreseeability. Just liability.

VW diesels were sold to rather sanctimonious save-the-earth types that will demand that their legislators/regulators extract a pound or ten of flesh, jurisprudence be damned.

This forum is a bit too logic-centric to handle this sort of issue.