How the car industry hid the truth about diesel emissions • Hacker News Board

Re: How the car industry hid the truth about diesel emissions

#101

Post by projektfu » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 1:31 PM UTC

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #96

blattimwind wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Filtering airborne particulates is pretty much the baseline reason to use masks ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (However surgical masks aren't meant to do that, they're only meant to catch things expelled from you, not the other way around. So I guess your interjection is somewhat correct in that running around with a surgical mask does pretty much nil to improve the quality of the air you inhale.)

Doctors also have masks to protect them from external things (for example, when they deal with patients that have tuberculosis), although I've just learned from Google that they are not technically called masks, but respirators (N95 respirators). They are quite uncomfortable to wear, though. You can breathe just fine for extended period of time but it feels (at least to me, a layman in these things) like you get less…

I've worked in one and I got used to it, wearing it for an hour at a time for 4-5 hours per day. For comfort, a positive pressure air purifying respirator (PAPR) is preferable but looks like you're on a biohazard scene.

Re: How the car industry hid the truth about diesel emissions

#102

Post by natch » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 1:32 PM UTC

akanet wrote: post #42

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why "unfortunately"? Would it be better if every company that does a bad thing was forced to just close shop? If that be the case I'm pretty sure we'll have to shut down Tesla within a couple of years over their "Autopilot"/"Full Self Driving" claims.

"Do a bad thing" is a pretty major understatement of the degree of criminality we're talking about here. Over-representing the capabilities of Autopilot is a totally different thing that embedding a defeat device to defraud every national regulatory agency.

>Over-representing the capabilities of Autopilot is a totally different thing

Citation needed. They didn’t do that.

Re: How the car industry hid the truth about diesel emissions

#103

Post by lscotte » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 1:45 PM UTC

vvillena wrote: post #72

blub wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were they having technical trouble or just having trouble finding a cost-efficient solution? AFAIK the technical solution (Urea injection) works fine, but it's expensive and VW didn't want to include it in all cars.

VW uses urea injections, but they wanted to make it transparent to the end user. The urea was to be refilled during maintenance, and disconnecting the system was the only way to make the tank last that long.

Not all TDI that were part of the emissions mess use urea, they also have a system that injects diesel into the particulate trap and burns out all the particulates at high temperature. Look up DPF regen. Note: I owned one of these cars, this is firsthand knowledge.

Re: How the car industry hid the truth about diesel emissions

#104

Post by natch » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 1:45 PM UTC

close04 wrote: post #98

xedeon wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t have to prove anything You can’t just make bold claims and not back them up... Makes you look imprudent. > Many drivers (ask the dead) are/were under the impression that the car can drive itself. Everytime you engage Autosteer. You get a warning that says “Always keep your hands on the steering wheel” and “Be prepared to take over at any time”. More importantly, each driver assistance update also explicitly…

> You can’t just make bold claims and not back them up That's not how the burden of proof works. Tesla is claiming the following: > All new Tesla cars have the hardware needed in the future for full self-driving in almost all circumstances. > The future use of these features without supervision is dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as…

It’s hard to discuss these things when both sides don’t have all the facts.

Just as a basic background for what happens, please try this: sit in a recent Tesla, engage autopilot, and read what it says on the screen. Also try ignoring the advice the screen gives you (pretend you didn’t read the “fine” print as you call it, and see what happens when you try to let the car drive with no input.)

Do this, then we can talk about this stuff, OK?

Re: How the car industry hid the truth about diesel emissions

#105

Post by xkcd-sucks » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 1:55 PM UTC

fulafel wrote: post #88

xkcd-sucks wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And for decision-makers it's responsible to nudge your citizenship to this direction Is the flip side of this "People who want to live in solitude are not qualified to make decisions"?

You can live in solitude quite ecologically without a car too of course. Nudge =! force

"Nudge" is the 21st century version of "force", as it's been realized that "force" provokes backlash

Re: How the car industry hid the truth about diesel emissions

#106

Post by close04 » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 1:55 PM UTC

natch wrote: post #95

close04 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They state very clearly They state it in the fineprint. This is what the Tesla Autopilot page used to say for years (this is a 1+ year old screenshot) [0]. Which part of that is accurate? How clear are they about the limitations and the real capabilities of the system? Tesla took the narrow areas where those systems can do a reasonably good job and extrapolated to the whole self-driving experience, blaming regulati…

No, you are just proving my point. The screenshot is talking about future functionality that is not released yet, but you are mistakenly evaluating it as patently false when you have absolutely no way to know, since it isn’t released yet. “System B will do X” is not invalidated by observing that System A does not currently do X.

> but you are mistakenly evaluating it as patently false when you have absolutely no way to know, since it isn’t released yet.

What makes it patently false is that Tesla hasn't proved it even after claiming "next year" for several years now. Even worse, they still don't and can't know if the system will ever be able to perform as described or if the hardware is enough as claimed. If the party making a claim doesn't have the proof for themselves then how can the statement be true today, when they claim it? They are selling today's assumption as a certainty. It doesn't say "we hope" or "be believe" or "it might". They say "it will" with no reservation and no proof available anywhere. That is the falsehood.

And just as a sidenote, the company that was providing Tesla with the hardware and knowhow when the statements were originally made, Mobileye, ended the partnership in 2016 because they did not believe their own systems are able to fulfill the promise. That shows that promises were already made once without Tesla having any proof.

Any other company doing this and people would be all over them with accusations. But Tesla has great PR, it is actually working for a better future, and people love a good cause enough to disregard the dirt under the rug.

Re: How the car industry hid the truth about diesel emissions

#107

Post by lscotte » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 1:57 PM UTC

benj111 wrote: post #28

carboy wrote: post #26

I could never understand how something that was less refined, diesel, meaning that it had more unnecessary “stuff” could produce less emissions. Diesel always did, and always will, as far as I’m concerned he snake oil when it comes to emissions.

Its less refined in the sense of less cracking. It contains more energy for a given volume, so you get better fuel economy than with petrol. It might not be better for the particulates and NOx that we are now optimising for, but its better for CO2, that we were optimising for. So I don't think the snake oil label is warranted.

Diesel engines are also significantly more efficient at converting that energy into usable torque. That's why an idling diesel consumes almost no fuel - it isn't doing any work.

Re: How the car industry hid the truth about diesel emissions

#108

Post by Someone1234 » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 1:59 PM UTC

fulafel wrote: post #97

Yaggo wrote: post #15

European here. My next car will be electric, likely a Tesla. The dieselgate is the reason why I'm not even considering Volkswagen's upcoming 'ID' family of electric cars. I've similar feeling about the whole traditional auto industry.

Teslas are still huge in mass (2000+ kg) and space/dimensions compared to what's needed from a car, and have a correspondingly big carbon footprint from building the thing and batteries. We should aim for 500 kg cars. We could do a 4 person 500 kg car in 1957 after all (Fiat 500).

> We should aim for 500 kg cars.

So you want a Tesla without batteries?

A single battery cell weights approx. 200 lbs (90 kg). The Model 3 has four. The total weight of the batteries is thought to exceed 1000 lbs (inc. housing, harnesses) or about 500 kg.

Then add on all the legally mandated safety technology a vehicle from 1957 wouldn't have (front airbags, seat belts, windshield defroster/washer, taller seats, and much higher crash absorption/roll support).

You could absolutely build a 500 kg kit-car that has 1957 safety. But no commercial vendor can sell you a vehicle even in that ballpark.

Re: How the car industry hid the truth about diesel emissions

#109

Post by natch » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 2:19 PM UTC

close04 wrote: post #106

natch wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you are just proving my point. The screenshot is talking about future functionality that is not released yet, but you are mistakenly evaluating it as patently false when you have absolutely no way to know, since it isn’t released yet. “System B will do X” is not invalidated by observing that System A does not currently do X.

> but you are mistakenly evaluating it as patently false when you have absolutely no way to know, since it isn’t released yet. What makes it patently false is that Tesla hasn't proved it even after claiming "next year" for several years now. Even worse, they still don't and can't know if the system will ever be able to perform as described or if the hardware is enough as claimed. If the party making a claim doesn't h…

This is all a bunch of fake outrage. Words are written. Some people skip reading important parts of those words, and then blame Tesla for their own laziness or poor reading skills. This is basically what you’re doing, although maybe more as an apologist for others who don’t care to read or pay attention.

I’m not even talking about fine print. The stuff that covers this is all very straightforward and not fine print at all. People should take responsibility and read what is actually said.

The outrage should be directed at people who make wild misinterpretations of perfectly reasonable statements.

Re: How the car industry hid the truth about diesel emissions

#110

Post by maxxxxx » Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 2:22 PM UTC

hjk05 wrote: post #94

sidcool wrote: post #41

This happens in almost all industries. Big oils' repetitive attempts to kill EVs, Big Pharmas, insurance and hospitals lobbying against healthcare reforms, Big Banks working against finance regulations etc.

Big Parma is lobbying FOR healthcare reforms.

Not for anything that may reduce profits though.