EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations • Hacker News Board

Re: EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

#31

Post by TylerE » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 6:07 PM UTC

saulrh wrote: post #20

wonder_er wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there'd be no incentive to lie if the EPA wasn't forcing these "standards" on them. Now, there's no reason to innovate because someone spends big bucks to actually do what everyone else is lying about. This isn't damming of private industry - it's damming of the regulation. (Er, to me. Obviously you might come to a different conclusion. Just wanted to throw in how this article can be read both ways.)

Without the regulation they wouldn't be doing anything , because any attempt at limiting emissions is more expensive than none at all. Regulations aren't perfect, but perfect is the enemy of good enough.

The standards escalated way too fast though. They were asking for essentially multiple orders of magnitude improvement in a single generation.

Even the dirtiest of the cheating VWs would have passed the previous standards (from not that many years ago) with flying colors.

Re: EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

#32

Post by blakeyrat » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 6:10 PM UTC

dsp1234 wrote: post #27

blakeyrat wrote: post #11

Note: they mean exceeding in the bad direction, not the good direction. At first I thought this was some kind of spoof article, or Chrysler marketing effort. It should probably read "exceeding limits" not "exceeding standards". EDIT: actually the press release doesn't even say that really. It says Fiat Chrysler installed software that could impact emissions testing but didn't tell the EPA about it, which is considere…

FTA: "This testing revealed that the FCA vehicle models in question produce increased NOx emissions under conditions that would be encountered in normal operation and use."

Wow. Someone needs to tell the EPA about the inverted pyramid.

You can't blame me for missing that when they bury the lede in the very last paragraph.

That aside, the headline here still says the opposite of what it means to say. Exceeding the standard is a good thing. Exceeding the emissions limit is a bad thing.

Re: EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

#33

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 6:13 PM UTC

Volkswagen, a German company, admitted wrongdoing, is paying $4.3bn in fines and will see its executives, domestic and overseas, jailed by the U.S. government [1]. Curious if Fiat Chrysler will see those checkboxes--admission of wrongdoing, material fines and jailed executives--filled.

[1] http://abcnews.go.com/US/volkswagen-pleads-guilty-pays-43-bi...

Re: EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

#34

Post by gwbas1c » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 6:15 PM UTC

dplgk wrote: post #6

cptskippy wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The release doesn't actually state that they violated emissions standards. It just says that they failed to notify the EPA of the presence of software that can alter the vehicle's emissions profile. Do trucks and SUVs in the US even have emissions standards? I know they're exempt from emissions tests in many states which is part of the reason for their popularity.

That's not why they're popular. They're popular because the average American thinks bigger is better and they also want a bigger car for when they have an accident, they can kill the other person instead of themselves.

Have you ever driven in a snowstorm? They're popular in areas with snow because the drivetrain handles better in the snow, and the higher ground clearance means that they can handle unplowed roads.

Re: EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

#35

Post by icantdrive55 » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 6:17 PM UTC

cptskippy wrote: post #4

rubidium wrote: post #2

You think they would've done something after the Volkswagon disaster... this is either extreme ignorance (we don't really know what our code does) or malicious intent (let's hope we don't get caught like them).

The release doesn't actually state that they violated emissions standards. It just says that they failed to notify the EPA of the presence of software that can alter the vehicle's emissions profile. Do trucks and SUVs in the US even have emissions standards? I know they're exempt from emissions tests in many states which is part of the reason for their popularity.

Every state has their own commitment to testing Emission standards.

Califirnia is too strict in my opinion. (CARB--require your Smog Technicians to have two ways of verifying the Visual Inspection. Most Shops only have a inexpensive Motor Emmission Manual to verify components. It is filled with errors. The better Smog Testing Stations have Mitchell Manuals online--which are spot on.)

While, only 13 counties in Texas, require biannual emmission tests. After 24 years--no smog checks.

While in CA, it's 1974, or earlier.

(I went to automotive school, and still have had issues Smoging too many vechicles I have owned, and worked on. In all, but one case, it was a technician's error, or an error in the refrence material.)

Re: EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

#36

Post by enraged_camel » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 6:19 PM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #31

saulrh wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without the regulation they wouldn't be doing anything , because any attempt at limiting emissions is more expensive than none at all. Regulations aren't perfect, but perfect is the enemy of good enough.

The standards escalated way too fast though. They were asking for essentially multiple orders of magnitude improvement in a single generation. Even the dirtiest of the cheating VWs would have passed the previous standards (from not that many years ago) with flying colors.

>>The standards escalated way too fast though.

Um, no. The EPA didn't pull the numbers out of their asses. They worked with the auto industry to come up with requirements that were stringent but realistic.

Government agencies are commonly criticized for regulating industries that they have no expertise in. In reality though, things don't work that way. Either the regulators themselves have industry experience (what is commonly referred to as "revolving doors") or they consult experts.

Re: EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

#37

Post by woofyman » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 6:19 PM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #31

saulrh wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without the regulation they wouldn't be doing anything , because any attempt at limiting emissions is more expensive than none at all. Regulations aren't perfect, but perfect is the enemy of good enough.

The standards escalated way too fast though. They were asking for essentially multiple orders of magnitude improvement in a single generation. Even the dirtiest of the cheating VWs would have passed the previous standards (from not that many years ago) with flying colors.

The urea injected Diesel engines meet the standards.

Re: EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

#38

Post by alfalfasprout » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 6:20 PM UTC

afterburner wrote: post #10

avn2109 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you've ever been near a major automaker's test engineering lab, you quickly realize that ~all of them are doing shady things to hit their numbers. This is a result of the cold hard engineering fact that our current level of technology is insufficient to hit the numbers without raising costs significantly. But once one automaker starts to fudge the numbers at a given price point, all the others must do the same thi…

"This is a result of the cold hard engineering fact that our current level of technology is insufficient to hit the numbers without raising costs significantly. But once one automaker starts to fudge the numbers at a given price point, all the others must do the same thing or they fall behind." I'm going to have to remember to bring this up as an example whenever people claim private industry can police/regulate them…

Well, the problem here is also in a way with the EPA's testing methodology. I think you have to go into it thinking that someone will try to cheat so the tests need to be designed differently (eg; don't just accept whatever comes through the ODB2 port as true).

Re: EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

#39

Post by Shivetya » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 6:22 PM UTC

afterburner wrote: post #10

avn2109 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you've ever been near a major automaker's test engineering lab, you quickly realize that ~all of them are doing shady things to hit their numbers. This is a result of the cold hard engineering fact that our current level of technology is insufficient to hit the numbers without raising costs significantly. But once one automaker starts to fudge the numbers at a given price point, all the others must do the same thi…

"This is a result of the cold hard engineering fact that our current level of technology is insufficient to hit the numbers without raising costs significantly. But once one automaker starts to fudge the numbers at a given price point, all the others must do the same thing or they fall behind." I'm going to have to remember to bring this up as an example whenever people claim private industry can police/regulate them…

well a lot of issues arise because of conflicting and unclear regulation. this certainly isn't limited to the auto industry or environmental concerns.

industries as whole do a great job of self regulation because its not profitable to be caught and everyone gets caught. the trouble is that with conflicting agencies involved you can even with the best intents get caught between two.

there are also times when someone who is responsible for passing something up the chain forgets and no one follows up. that is a process failure and again these things get fixed because its not profitable to be fined, investigated, etc

Re: EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations

#40

Post by Zak » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 6:22 PM UTC

mikestew wrote: post #17

dplgk wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not why they're popular. They're popular because the average American thinks bigger is better and they also want a bigger car for when they have an accident, they can kill the other person instead of themselves.

Though I see a slight grayish tint to your comment indicating some down votes, you're spot on. Does anyone really think someone's automotive buying decision goes something like, "yeah, it's hard to park and the mileage sucks, but at least I don't have to take 30 minutes out of my day once every few years to go get emissions tested. That'll make the rough ride and the hundreds of extra dollars in fuel expenses worth i…

Big cars were always popular in the US. Until the mid 1970s when fuel economy standards and an oil crisis or two changed the market. The oil crisis passed, but the economy standards did not.

Trucks weren't held to the same standards as cars, so manufacturers started making more carlike trucks to meet consumer demand for larger vehicles. The improved visibility and image of toughness and independence also helps drive truck and SUV sales.