VW cheat emissions test with "defeat device"

[strad]

I think you should quit feeding the trolls.

[bhall II]

This difference between the FIA test-rig vs on-track performance is perfectly analogous to EPA dyno-rig vs on-road performance.

Negative. In order to be in compliance with the Clean Air Act, it was incumbent upon Volkswagen to disclose...

(11) A list of all auxiliary emission control devices (AECD) installed on any applicable vehicles, including a justification for each AECD, the parameters they sense and control, a detailed justification of each AECD which results in a reduction in effectiveness of the emission control system, and rationale for why the AECD is not a defeat device as defined under §§ 86.1809-01 and 86.1809-10. For any AECD uniquely used at high altitudes, EPA may request engineering emission data to quantify any emission impact and validity of the AECD. For any AECD uniquely used on multi-fuel vehicles when operated on fuels other than gasoline, EPA may request engineering emission data to quantify any emission impact and validity of the AECD.

Auxiliary Emission Control Device (AECD) means any element of design which senses temperature, vehicle speed, engine RPM, transmission gear, manifold vacuum, or any other parameter for the purpose of activating, modulating, delaying, or deactivating the operation of any part of the emission control system.

Because the company didn't disclose the existence of the bypass algorithm when it applied for a "certificate of conformity," it violated the standards set forth in the CAA. That's the primary issue, not the test results.

[bill shoe]

This difference between the FIA test-rig vs on-track performance is perfectly analogous to EPA dyno-rig vs on-road performance.

Negative. In order to be in compliance with the Clean Air Act, it was incumbent upon Volkswagen to disclose...

I think the FIA regs undercut this argument again. The FIA regs say it is the responsibility of the competitor to prove their compliance with the regulations at all times. Logically this requires a competitor to disclose any active defeat-device (hinge) that allows a t-tray to pass the FIA rig-test but perform grossly differently in real-world conditions.

[turbof1]

This difference between the FIA test-rig vs on-track performance is perfectly analogous to EPA dyno-rig vs on-road performance.

Negative. In order to be in compliance with the Clean Air Act, it was incumbent upon Volkswagen to disclose...

I think the FIA regs undercut this argument again. The FIA regs say it is the responsibility of the competitor to prove their compliance with the regulations at all times. Logically this requires a competitor to disclose any active defeat-device (hinge) that allows a t-tray to pass the FIA rig-test but perform grossly differently in real-world conditions.

The teams prove their compliance just by that the flexing tests.

And in my book, a hinge is not an active defeat-device. Only if it is mechanically or electronically controlled, which in the case of the t-tray is not. It's not even a defear device since it behaves exactly the same during the test and on the road in conditions and window the same as the test. There's nothing in the rulebook that describes anything that comforms the test but 'flexes' outside the parameters of the test. Even the FIA was very clear on this in the past: you pass the flex test, the part is legal.

[bhall II]

I think they're on opposite ends of the spectrum. The presence of a hinged floor on a Formula One car is inconsequential as long as its functionality passes the designated tests. The same cannot be said of VW's bypass algorithm, because its functionality is completely irrelevant. The mere fact that it exists undeclared is the violation, and that would remain true even if it somehow improved emissions in everyday driving.

[strad]

I see no need to muddy the waters with these FIA /RBR comparisons.
The head of VW has admitted their guilt.

[DaveW]

The same cannot be said of VW's bypass algorithm, because its functionality is completely irrelevant. The mere fact that it exists undeclared is the violation, and that would remain true even if it somehow improved emissions in everyday driving.

I am tempted to reply that the law is an ass, but I guess most people know that already.

[bill shoe]

I see no need to muddy the waters with these FIA /RBR comparisons.
The head of VW has admitted their guilt.

I gonna disagree. Comparisons between VW/EPA and RB/FIA bring this thread back to F1 relevance, and they provide a useful perspective for the frequent rule interpretation issues that come up here on F1T.

FYI, I already understand VW is guilty. That angle is not interesting.

[djos]

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.

Well put Richard, that's exactly the point I've been making using the example of the illegal '94 Benetton traction control option hidden in their ECU.

[Richard]

If people insist on a RB wing analogy it would be RB fitting a compliant wings for the FIA test, then running a different wing on the track with 40x more downforce - ie the 40x higher emissions from some VW engines.

Or perhaps sending Albert Einstein to sit your physics exams under your name. Or sleeping with an escort but saying your marriage vows are intact because she had the same name as your wife.

[djos]

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!!!

That's not correct bill, the FiA specifies, in the case of the front wing, the maximum flex allowed for a given load.

However I do agree with you on the t-tray as that did include a "cheat device" that enabled a different behavior on track from off track.

The front wing on the other hand did not flex differently between the test rig and circuit. It merely increased flex at higher loads than the FiA tested for.

[R_GoWin]

Or perhaps sending Albert Einstein to sit your physics exams under your name. Or sleeping with an escort but saying your marriage vows are intact because she had the same name as your wife.

[Pieoter]

That's not correct bill, the FiA specifies, in the case of the front wing, the maximum flex allowed for a given load.

However I do agree with you on the t-tray as that did include a "cheat device" that enabled a different behavior on track from off track.

The front wing on the other hand did not flex differently between the test rig and circuit. It merely increased flex at higher loads than the FiA tested for.

No, the FIA states that flex is not allowed, but that it only tests compliance to this rule according to its tests.

What you are saying is that if the FIA suddenly said that it would give 24 hours before it weighed a car, it would be ok to run underweight and only stack weight for the test. Because it is the test that matters. This is wrong. Rules 2.4 - Automobiles must comply with these regulations in their entirety at all times during an Event.

You have to be in compliance to the regulations at all times, not just on the test stand.

[djos]

That's not correct bill, the FiA specifies, in the case of the front wing, the maximum flex allowed for a given load.

However I do agree with you on the t-tray as that did include a "cheat device" that enabled a different behavior on track from off track.

The front wing on the other hand did not flex differently between the test rig and circuit. It merely increased flex at higher loads than the FiA tested for.

No, the FIA states that flex is not allowed, but that it only tests compliance to this rule according to its tests.

What you are saying is that if the FIA suddenly said that it would give 24 hours before it weighed a car, it would be ok to run underweight and only stack weight for the test. Because it is the test that matters. This is wrong. Rules 2.4 - Automobiles must comply with these regulations in their entirety at all times during an Event.

You have to be in compliance to the regulations at all times, not just on the test stand.

Explain then how the rules define the max permitted flex for a given load test if no flex is permitted?

It's either one or the other!

You and others are confusing the ban on "movable aero parts*" with flex.

*DRS being the one exception.

[bill shoe]

I define “defeat device” as something that changes the real-world behavior of a system compared to its behavior during regulatory testing, and this change must occur within the range of evaluation that occurred during regulatory certification.

If you drive the VW diesel on-road with the same driving cycle (range of evaluation) that was used on the EPA chassis dyno then you get different emissions results (behavior of the system). It’s a defeat device, VW is guilty, simple.

F1 case 1, basic car

FIA test rig: An upward force is applied to the front center of the t-tray. The force is increased until it reaches the maximum test force, and the resulting deflection is within the allowable limit.

On-track: When the upward force on the front center of the t-tray is less than the maximum force from the test rig, the deflection is the same as on the test rig. When the force is larger than the test rig’s maximum force, the deformation continues roughly linearly.

The car’s on-track behavior does not deviate from its regulatory behavior. This car doesn’t have a defeat device.

F1 case 2, non-linear car

FIA test rig: Same as case 1.

On-track: When the upward force on the front center of the t-tray is less than the maximum force from the test rig, the deflection is the same as on the test rig. When the force is larger than the test rig’s maximum force, the deformation continues at an increasing rate (perhaps via a mechanism that buckles when a certain force is exceeded).

The car’s on-track behavior sometimes deviates from its regulatory behavior, but only when outside the range of evaluation (range of force) that occurred on the FIA test rig. This characteristic is not a defeat device.

F1 case 3, Hinged t-tray/floor system that’s constrained when car lifted by FIA test rig

FIA test rig: Same as case 1.

On-track: When the upward force on the front center of the t-tray is less than the maximum force from the test rig, the deflection is much greater than what occurred on the test rig.

This car deviates from its regulatory behavior by large amounts, and it deviates within the range of evaluation (range of force) that occurred on the test rig. By definition this characteristic is a defeat device, and is analogous to the VW defeat device.

If you don’t like this explanation then define “defeat device” in a way that can be applied to both road car emissions and F1 car technical regulations.