Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the car industry hid the truth about diesel emissions

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 157 posts

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

#131

Post by topspin »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #80
topspin wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Excuse me, but what more did the author expect the government to do?" It is not some outrageous expectation that the $8,000,000,000+/year, 14,000+ employee EPA and/or DOT independently verify the real world emissions performance of passenger cars and other vehicles. The cars were so grossly out of compliance that anyone with a ordinary field emissions testing machine could have caught it. If, as is very likely the c…

I still shake my head at this. If you wrote laws that said manufacturers of a particular thing had to do X, and expected them to adhere to it internally, and then paid expert testing facilities to validate those results, why would you EXPECT that you would have to do additional testing to validate the validation? And further more, why would you think that merely testing the test would lead to a different result? You…

"what people are asking the EPA to have done was load up vehicles with mobile emissions equipment (which is a very difficult thing to do, by the way):

No, that's incorrect in several ways.

There was/is no need for mobile equipment; simply deviating from the test regime on a stationary emissions test machine was sufficient to expose the defeat device. The defeat device worked by detecting the test conditions and defeating that detection is easy. Turning the steering wheel while testing, for example, will inhibit the VW defeat device. Simply running the test long enough (at least 26 minutes) would have exposed it with some common models.

Also, mobile testing is not 'a very difficult thing to do.'

For a time in the early 90's I was certified to perform emissions tests. At that time the actual machine fit on a wheeled cart; two men could hoist it into the rear of light pickup in a few minutes. I actually did that when we needed to move one to another site to replace another that had failed. That wasn't strictly legal (the units were certified for operation at a designated site) but the station owner didn't give a damn; he needed a temporary replacement unit and was not above fudging the paper work.

So nigh on 30 years ago any given wrench monkey with a power inverter could have operated an exhaust analyzer from a moving vehicle. Today the units are even smaller; now we have HAND HELD exhaust analyzers[1].

We've also had remote sensing emission testing equipment available for at least 10 years now. Output is detected as the vehicle drives by the unit; no need for anything on board at all.

Face it. There is simply no excuse. The regulator failed utterly. The regulator publicly admitted their failure without qualification. Your faith is misplaced and your rationalizations do not work. This is, assuming intellectual honesty, the point where you adapt your worldview, because the one you have is simply wrong.

[1] https://thecarlsoncompany.com/products/infrared-industries-h...

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

#132

Post by xedeon »

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…

> People genuinely believing and insisting that car can drive itself. The result is the only driver fatalities while autonomously driving were in a Tesla.

This is hilariously false. Do you really want to prove this? Go on the teslamotorsclub.com forums or teslamotors subreddit and ask actual owners if they think the car can “drive itself”.

Link the post and I will PayPal you $1,000 if you’re right. Because at this point you’re just going around in circles.

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

#133

Post by xedeon »

close04 wrote: post #126
natch wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Unless the dashboard tells me why the Tesla website and marketing (not to mention its CEO) make all the false/misleading claims I don’t think we need to talk about anything else.

> Unless the dashboard tells me why the Tesla website and marketing (not to mention its CEO) make all the false/misleading claims I don’t think we need to talk about anything else.

Honest question. Do you have a short position on the stock?

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

#134

Post by xedeon »

natch wrote: post #104
close04 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

My point exactly. Yet he seem to have pretty stong and absolute (albeit skewed) opinions. A true armchair quarterback.

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

#135

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

topspin wrote: post #131
TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still shake my head at this. If you wrote laws that said manufacturers of a particular thing had to do X, and expected them to adhere to it internally, and then paid expert testing facilities to validate those results, why would you EXPECT that you would have to do additional testing to validate the validation? And further more, why would you think that merely testing the test would lead to a different result? You…

"what people are asking the EPA to have done was load up vehicles with mobile emissions equipment (which is a very difficult thing to do, by the way): No, that's incorrect in several ways. There was/is no need for mobile equipment; simply deviating from the test regime on a stationary emissions test machine was sufficient to expose the defeat device. The defeat device worked by detecting the test conditions and defea…

Didn’t know about those devices. Doubt they qualify for certification compliance, but I guess it would get you on paper.

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

#136

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

stefan_ wrote: post #113
TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still shake my head at this. If you wrote laws that said manufacturers of a particular thing had to do X, and expected them to adhere to it internally, and then paid expert testing facilities to validate those results, why would you EXPECT that you would have to do additional testing to validate the validation? And further more, why would you think that merely testing the test would lead to a different result? You…

Nobody charged the EPA with ensuring adherence to some made up test cycle, but to the emission limits. If the test cycle is your approximation of real world behavior, it is highly negligent to never confirm that real world results actually match the approximation! This is science 101.

I’m specifically arguing that the FTP cycle result IS, in fact, a real world result. So to me, claiming that the EPA needed to do their own verification would be silly. The only reason to do this would be to catch cheaters.

I know I’m naive, and very trusting. I would never have thought a company to have the utter stones to completely fake the results as VW did. If you’ve looked at the depths of their algorithms to do it, you see the effort that went into it. I just would never expect such behavior from one of the largest auto makers. It’s so far beyond the pale to my expectations that I can’t blame the EPA for not catching it.

YMMV.

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

#137

Post by natch »

xedeon wrote: post #133
close04 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless the dashboard tells me why the Tesla website and marketing (not to mention its CEO) make all the false/misleading claims I don’t think we need to talk about anything else.

> Unless the dashboard tells me why the Tesla website and marketing (not to mention its CEO) make all the false/misleading claims I don’t think we need to talk about anything else. Honest question. Do you have a short position on the stock?

Maybe just a few bricks short of a load. All their points have been refuted but they still don’t get it.

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

#138

Post by natch »

close04 wrote: post #128
natch wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Yes... it perfectly reasonable to make claims that even the supplier of your HW refutes. Really says a lot about your willingness to say whatever it takes to get more PR and push a few more sales. In the meantime Tesla is the only company with autonomous driving driver fatalities. Multiple. Unless you’re going to claim Tesla buyers are more predisposed to... laziness and inability to process information, then somethi…

They are not autonomous driving fatalities. They can’t be, because there is simply no autonomous driving. You are very confused. Autopilot is not autonomous driving.

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

#139

Post by elizabethholmez »

specialist wrote: post #87
topspin wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Excuse me, but what more did the author expect the government to do?" It is not some outrageous expectation that the $8,000,000,000+/year, 14,000+ employee EPA and/or DOT independently verify the real world emissions performance of passenger cars and other vehicles. The cars were so grossly out of compliance that anyone with a ordinary field emissions testing machine could have caught it. If, as is very likely the c…

We need better models of governance. One party arrangements (self-policing) ain't working. Two party arrangements (regulation) is hit or miss. Maybe add a third chair to each negotiation. Just like the US Constitution has three branches of government. What would that look like? Maybe incentivize competitors to narc on each other. What would it have taken for Mazda (for example) to blow the whistle?

1. massively weaken European defamation laws

2. make NDAs and noncompetes illegal

3. remove all taxes on journalists and jouranlistic organizations

4. force companies to put whistleblowers on their boards of directors.

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

#140

Post by adrianN »

clarry wrote: post #74
fulafel wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this reasoning pins down the wrong variables of the equation. You can pick your housing and location based on not owning a car (among other criteria). And it scales too. And for decision-makers it's responsible to nudge your citizenship to this direction.

> You can pick your housing and location based on not owning a car If all I ever wanted from life was to go to work and back to my apartment, via a grocery store. As a matter of fact, I can't choose where my friends and relatives live, and I'd probably have to drop some of my hobbies too if I were to live without a car.

You will probably have to drop some of your hobbies too if we don't manage to limit Global Warming to below 2 degrees.
Post reply on HN