
Volkswagen Is Ordered to Recall Nearly 500k Vehicles Over Emissions Software - Amorymeltzer
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/business/volkswagen-is-ordered-to-recall-nearly-500000-vehicles-over-emissions-software.html
======
JorgeGT
I research for the auto industry and this was very well known by the
authorities. Fixed test cycles like the New European Driving Cycle
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Ne...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/New_European_Driving_Cycle.svg/640px-
New_European_Driving_Cycle.svg.png?1442593779002) were easy to detect, and
easy to optimize against. That's why coming regulations introduce more
realistic cycles like WLTC
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/WL...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/WLTC_class_3.svg/1024px-
WLTC_class_3.svg.png?1442593767685) and real road tests, where particle
emissions will be trapped and compared against the lab test, and only a
certain % of deviation will be allowed (last time I looked they didn't decided
this % yet).

~~~
1ris
I hope this gets fixed, although I don't believe it. I care about the noise
emissions. AFAIK they are measured on a real road, but only up to 50 km/h and
in a ridiculous narrow test.

Harley Davidson and other are known to optimise for this test with movable
parts in the exhaust pipes so these get much louder when the bikes goes faster
than 50 Km/h.

~~~
Raphmedia
Well, as much as a cheat it is, I'm happy that those bikes can go quiet on
slow (city) streets but as loud as possible on the highway (increase security
_and_ swag).

~~~
bardworx
I'm always surprised when people don't realize that large bikes are suppose to
be loud so that drivers can hear them coming. It's a necessary evil.

~~~
jboggan
I'm a motorcyclist and I'm downvoting this fallacy. If this were seriously the
case then good beginner bikes like the Ninja 250 and Honda CBR250R would be
unsafe, especially for new riders. Enjoy your loud pipes if you like (I do on
my throaty Aprilia) but don't pretend they give you any safety benefit to
balance the annoyance it causes some people.

~~~
bardworx
TL;DR - I stand by my comment, loud bikes helps people hear you but that
doesn't mean you have to be EXTRA LOUD to be cool.

I understand the point you are trying to make, and perhaps I wasn't very clear
in my off-hand comment. I agree that overly loud bikes are annoying, however,
as I stated before, sound is a necessary evil[0].

Do I believe that motorcycles should use straight pipes and increase their
sound output? NO, in fact its quite annoying. However, louder bikes will get
your attention.

In fact, in reference to [0], there is a standard that some vehicles had to
INCREASE their decibel output because of less risk to pedestrians. This isn't
an apples-to-apples comparison as this study was mainly geared towards
electric vehicles, but it did state that vehicles should have an output of ~
55dB for pedestrian safety (page 102).

Secondly, I couldn't find good stats on motorcycle decibel output, but I did
find a study of some motorcycles and their average output[1]. What I learned
is that most bikes are fairly equal with regard to output and all are at, or
above the, legal limit[2].

I took a single bike you pointed out `Honda CBR250R` and was curious how the
noise output performed to a Harley: `Honda CBR250R`: [3] \- With dB-Killer
fitted: 86 dB @ 4,250 rpm \- Without dB-Killer fitted: 94 dB @ 4,250rpm

2006 Softail Standard 1,400 cc: [4] \- 97 decibels at idle \- 102 decibels at
cruising speed \- 111 decibels revved

So what it appears to me is that most motorcycles are `roughly` the same
decibel output and that having a vehicle that outputs sound to make yourself
known to other riders is beneficial. Should you be increasing the sound trying
to be cool? No, I don't think so. In fact its annoying when the 5 Harleys are
sitting outside my window on Friday night revving their engines to be "cool".

[0] - [http://www.motorcycledaily.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/01/Qu...](http://www.motorcycledaily.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/01/Quiet_Vehicles_NPRM.pdf) [1] -
[http://audiologyworld.net/img/rnhposter.pdf](http://audiologyworld.net/img/rnhposter.pdf)
[2] -
[http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/266/266-59-a.ht...](http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/266/266-59-a.htm)
[3] - [http://www.autoevolution.com/news/honda-cbr250r-gets-
street-...](http://www.autoevolution.com/news/honda-cbr250r-gets-street-sport-
exhausts-from-yoshimura-36558.html) [4] -
[http://lic.abateflorida.com/Library/Library/cycle_news__nois...](http://lic.abateflorida.com/Library/Library/cycle_news__noise_study.htm)

~~~
jboggan
One, decibels are a logarithmic unit. Two, you are comparing factory exhausts
on the Harley meant to comply with noise regulations with top of the line
aftermarket race exhausts for the Honda (which is probably as loud as you
could make the Honda without removing the pipes entirely). They are not
anywhere near each other - and the data in [1] really makes that point, I'm
not sure how you concluded that most motorcycles are anywhere near each other
in sound output.

~~~
bardworx
> One, decibels are a logarithmic unit.

That's not a good statement. Just because a number is logarithmic does not
make sound logarithmic...Here is a video that shows two different exhaust with
similar dB output:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax6W-V9bsmg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax6W-V9bsmg)

As a side note, opening a can of coke will record 101.5 dB from one meter
away:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAd2BUB6XqQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAd2BUB6XqQ)

> Two, you are comparing factory exhausts on the Harley meant to comply with
> noise regulations with top of the line aftermarket race exhausts for the
> Honda (which is probably as loud as you could make the Honda without
> removing the pipes entirely). They are not anywhere near each other - and
> the data in [1] really makes that point,

Honda are subject 1 and 3, Harley are 5 and 6.

Subject 1 - 105 dB A, Subject 3 - 99 dB A.

Subject 5 - 101.8 dB A, Subject 6 - 106.7 dB A.

The two Hondas are not the same one you mentioned in your original post,
However, stock exhaust is 72dB at idle and 86dB at half throttle on Honda
CBR250R. [http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/2013/03/article/2013-honda-
crf...](http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/2013/03/article/2013-honda-
crf250l-comparison/)

------
dayjah
When I last bought a VW (2008) I was concerned due to a clunking noise after
first starting it up and driving a few miles; I called the VW service dept and
they explained that there was a compressor which captured exhaust fumes and
released them at a lower rate for the first few miles of each journey -- to
help them meet EPA emissions standards. I was assured there was nothing to
worry about.

While this is a different case, it struck me then that the emissions
guidelines were being gamed by manufacturers. We're regularly reminded that
barriers will be circumvented; what is the correct approach here? Like
performance enhancing drugs in sports, too stiff of a fine and manufacturers
are encouraged to find more subtle ways to beat the system, unenforced you
leave a polluting industry to destroy our environment..

~~~
CurtHagenlocher
There is a more charitable interpretation.

When engines are colder, they burn less efficiently and produce "worse"
emissions. A system that treats the warmup period differently than the steady-
state of running a hot engine is potentially quite reasonable.

~~~
izacus
If you output those same emissions at a different time you haven't really done
a lot for environment (except if they're cycled through catalyc converter or
DPF filter which are usually less effective on cold start) - you're just
gaming the system to get better eco ratings.

~~~
toomuchtodo
If you're recirculating exhaust back into the engine, you're able to attempt
to reburn any fuel that wasn't burned on the first pass, while also exposing
any emissions to higher temperatures on the second pass (higher temperatures =
easier to break down when those emissions reach the emissions control system).

~~~
refurb
_If you 're recirculating exhaust back into the engine, you're able to attempt
to reburn any fuel that wasn't burned on the first pass_

That's not what EGRs do.

EGRs take exhaust, which is relatively inert (combustion having already taken
place) and injects it into the combustion chamber to _lower combustion
temperatures_. The reason you want low temperatures is that NOx (nitrogen
oxides) form at high temperatures.

~~~
toomuchtodo
It appears I was mistaken!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas_recirculation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas_recirculation)

"In internal combustion engines, exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) is a nitrogen
oxide (NOx) emissions reduction technique used in petrol/gasoline and diesel
engines. EGR works by recirculating a portion of an engine's exhaust gas back
to the engine cylinders. This dilutes the O2 in the incoming air stream and
provides gases inert to combustion to act as absorbents of combustion heat to
reduce peak in-cylinder temperatures. NOx is produced in a narrow band of high
cylinder temperatures and pressures.

In a gasoline engine, this inert exhaust displaces the amount of combustible
matter in the cylinder. In a diesel engine, the exhaust gas replaces some of
the excess oxygen in the pre-combustion mixture.[1] Because NOx forms
primarily when a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen is subjected to high
temperature, the lower combustion chamber temperatures caused by EGR reduces
the amount of NOx the combustion generates (though at some loss of engine
efficiency).[2] Gasses re-introduced from EGR systems will also contain near
equilibrium concentrations of NOx and CO; the small fraction initially within
the combustion chamber inhibits the total net production of these and other
pollutants when sampled on a time average. Most modern engines now require
exhaust gas recirculation to meet emissions standards."

------
United857
The tech industry has been guilty of this in the past as well. Example: Nvidia
and AMD drivers detected if you were running certain benchmarks or games, and
would cheat by downgrading various rendering settings that had minimal effect
visually.

Often this was a simple check to get the process's executable name; simply
renaming the .exe would get you significantly different perf results.

~~~
MBCook
Yeah that was how I first learned about this with ATI cheating on Quake III in
2001, as discovered by HardOCP. Here's a link to an article about it (original
article doesn't seem to be around anymore):

[http://techreport.com/review/3089/how-ati-drivers-
optimize-q...](http://techreport.com/review/3089/how-ati-drivers-optimize-
quake-iii)

~~~
kbrosnan
Wayback has it
[http://web.archive.org/web/20020223144052/http://www.hardocp...](http://web.archive.org/web/20020223144052/http://www.hardocp.com/reviews/vidcards/ati/8500/quack/)
along with a link to a German site that points out some of the quality loss in
the ATI driver.
[http://alt.3dcenter.org/artikel/2001/10-24_a.php](http://alt.3dcenter.org/artikel/2001/10-24_a.php)

------
tlb
This was a longstanding practice to make diesel engines more efficient while
passing the official emissions test. There was a similar enforcement against
Caterpillar and other truck makers in 1998:

[http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/caterpillar-inc-diesel-
engin...](http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/caterpillar-inc-diesel-engines-
settlement)

And against Ford in 1998:

[http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents...](http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/defeat.pdf)

along with a clear ruling that defeat devices were illegal.

------
cmurf
I wonder if the primary control code should be open source. That's without
respect to right to modify or reuse the code, just whether it should be
mandatory that it be published. And it'd exclude things like user space apps
and UI/UX stuff. But any of the code that controls or affects steering,
acceleration, ignition, braking, and lighting, really seems like it's not OK
to just consider it a black box, subject to DMCA, copyright, and trade secrets
laws and thus risky (or flat out illegal) to reverse engineer and understand
how it works. And right now a significant part of an automobile is a black
box, and you do not fully own it.

It was supposed to be that patenting required you to fully disclose all the
details of an invention. The idea was to not only make clear what you had a
monopoly for, but so that others could learn from your invention and make
something different that was better.

~~~
yason
If it's just published you can't be sure it's the same code that runs in the
car. You should be able to compile the code and inject your locally compiled
firmware to the ECU if you want to verify that the car engine is doing what
it's supposed to be doing.

~~~
_yosefk
If you can do it, chances are an attacker can, too. I prefer hardware that
won't load unsigned software in such places.

~~~
336f5
Then use reproducible builds. You inspect the source code, and if it does what
it's supposed to, compile it reproducibly, and compare the binary with the
official one which has a signature. If they match, then everything is kosher.

~~~
cmurf
Difficult unless the compile tools are free and open source, and the
manufacturer documents the exact version of what compiler they're using, and
what feature flags are enabled, etc. Otherwise the exact same source code can
produce many different binaries, each of which hash differently.

I don't know the solution, but the black box approach we have right now I do
not like. As a pilot this is a bit weird for me to say because those systems
are also completely proprietary as well, full on black box - and not the d/v
recording type. And I'm even wondering if that's overdue for a change as well.

------
organsnyder
This is actively malicious. There had better be criminal charges filed.

~~~
zardo
I expect at the least they are going to get hit with the maximum
administrative fine, 37,500 per vehicle.

~~~
McGlockenshire
That maths out to somewhere in the ballpark of eighteen billion dollars.

In 2012, the EPA issued $252 million in fines, total. Kia & Hyundai were fined
$300 million total in 2014.

I don't see them hitting VW with eighteen billion.

e: Eh, that might not be so unreasonable after all. In 2012, VW made about $28
billion in profit on $250 billion of sales.

~~~
CamperBob2
If the cars can't pass smog testing without cheating, then they also need to
be forced to buy each and every one of them back. $18 billion sounds
reasonable to me. This needs to _hurt_.

~~~
Asbostos
I'm sure the patch will allow them to pass the tests. It'll just reduce
driving performance as well.

~~~
DanielDent
Likely true; the problem with that is the owner ends up with a car with lower
specs than they agreed to when they bought it. The owner of the car needs to
be compensated.

------
eisa01
Anyone know if this "defeat device" would be a violation of the various Euro*
regulations in Europe? It's been widely reported [1] that diesel cars emit
more NOx than the specification allows, but so far no consequences. More than
50% of all cars sold in the EU are diesel fueled, and many countries are
breaching the EU air quality limits. This causes an estimated 400,000
premature deaths each year [2]

[1] [http://www.theicct.org/news/press-release-new-icct-study-
sho...](http://www.theicct.org/news/press-release-new-icct-study-shows-real-
world-exhaust-emissions-modern-diesel-cars-seven-times) [2]
[http://www.euractiv.com/sections/health-consumers/eu-
sends-b...](http://www.euractiv.com/sections/health-consumers/eu-sends-
belgium-and-bulgaria-court-over-air-quality-315532)

~~~
justincormack
Apparently made illegal at least by 2007 regualtions (maybe adopted later, not
expert in EU law)

[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:320...](http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32007R0715)

------
bpodgursky
What actually incentivizes a customer to take their car to a shop to get this
fixed though? It's not causing harm to individual car owners, and it's not
like they can get collections agencies to sieze them.

Seems like they're going to have trouble getting compliance here...

~~~
joshrotenberg
I've got a 2013 Golf TDI and was thinking about this as well. If it isn't a
safety related recall, I'm not sure how you get people to comply aside from
some other action related to, say, their next years registration (i.e. if your
VIN doesn't have this fix applied, you can't reregister your car). Not sure if
that's a thing, though.

I'd personally plan to take my car in "real soon now" to get the fix.

~~~
dougb
I wonder how you car will drive after the "fix." I suspect you won't be very
happy with it.

~~~
joshrotenberg
Yup, quite possibly thinking about bailing on the car sooner rather than
later. I have no idea if this kind of thing significantly affects resale
value, but I'm not sure I want to wait around to find out.

~~~
ams6110
There will be aftermarket kits to remove the controls. Just like there are now
for all diesel engines.

------
CodeWriter23
I don't understand how California detected this. The one time I had to take my
2010 Jetta turbo diesel for a smog check, the inspection was ENTIRELY visual.
The inspector did not insert a probe into the tailpipe. He did plug the test
rig into the OBD-II port under the steering column and turn the key to the
accessory position (presumably to electronically capture the VIN), but that's
it. I even asked him at the end if it was an entirely visual inspection and he
said, puzzled, yes but that's what the computer told him to do.

~~~
ryandrake
California's CARB is the gestapo of car emissions. If anyone has the
motivation, expertise, and evil disposition to detect this, it's the state of
California. I've never lived in a state like this. Bi-yearly tailpipe sniffs
and visual inspections. Even if your car's emissions are cleaner than their
ridiculous requirements, they'll still fail your car if it has parts on it
that are not stock. I ended up having to sell my car to someone out of state
because I'm not going to swap in and out my carefully customized (and clean)
intake and exhaust system every two years just so they can shine a flashlight
in and see stock parts.

I'm not shocked that California is a part of this.

~~~
kuschku
More interestingly: Did the German TÜV not detect this? They have even
stricter rules.

~~~
xxpor
Europe doesn't have stupid emissions rules biased against diesels.

~~~
dubyah
On the contrary, California emission standards held diesel passenger vehicles
to the same standards as gasoline/petrol passenger vehicles. Whereas in
Europe, diesel emission standards were much more lax compared to their petrol
counterparts.

I suppose one could say that being more concerned with the more directly
harmful and smog forming emissions(NOx and PM) over CO2 would constitute
'bias' against diesels. But, conversely, there's a rather compelling argument
that the more lax European diesel regulations spurred diesel adoption and
protect their domestic manufacturers.

[https://www3.nd.edu/~jthurk/Papers/MMT.pdf](https://www3.nd.edu/~jthurk/Papers/MMT.pdf)

~~~
brc
A lot of jurisdictions in Europe are rethinking their diesel prioritisation a
precisely because of particulate and Nox emissions.

In the case of Volkswagen, the TSi engines are a much better buy than the TDi
engines. Better power delivery, clean running and nearly as good fuel economy.

------
amadeusw
They even made commercials to prove how clean the cars are.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNS2nvkjARk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNS2nvkjARk)
I own a TDI VW and fell into believing that the ride is indeed clean. Now it
looks like their software hacks are even more refined than the combustion
tech.

~~~
thrownaway2424
Of course this is a major part of their marketing. If the EPA makes them
reflash my ECU and as a result my fuel consumption goes up noticeably I'm
going to expect them to buy the car back. They sold them on false claims.

This also pretty much guarantees that I will never buy another VW.

~~~
pc86
> If the EPA makes them reflash my ECU and as a result my fuel consumption
> goes up noticeably I'm going to expect them to buy the car back.

Good luck with that.

~~~
thrownaway2424
If they face a choice between having to pay an EPA fine equal to the original
sale price of the car, or buying them back at depreciated values, I can
imagine which one they'd prefer.

------
draw_down
If the ultimate and only resolution to this is that VW has to pay a fine, or
other outgoing monies due to the recalls, in an amount that is not significant
to the operation of their business, nobody should be surprised that this
happened, nor question whether it can happen again.

------
flippyhead
I don't quite understand how the car can known it's getting an emissions test.
I thought you just pulled up and revved the engine. Or do they plug the
computer in nowadays?

~~~
toyg
Tests have fixed usage patterns. You detect those while total mileage is low,
and you assume it's a test. After X thousand miles, you stop detecting. Job
done.

~~~
notwhereyouare
eh, not really. In atlanta, it was once a year, around your birthday. Where I
am, outside savannah, it's never. So my car would have no idea if it's being
tested or not

~~~
zardo
That's not the test we're talking about here. This is the official test to get
a certificate of compliance and sell a vehicle in the US.

------
oppositelock
The NYT is being disingenuous in presenting this as VW detecting the EPA test
cycle and doing something to cheat. I think they've confused open loop and
closed loop engine operation.

VW's 4-cylinder engines which failed the EPA tests are all turbo engines.
Turbo engines run hotter than naturally aspirated engines and so, they produce
more NOx, since it's one of the high temperature byproducts. In fact, EGR
(exhaust gas recirculation) systems inject exhaust into the intake to lower
combustion temperatures and NOx output. All engines do this, turbo or not.

Whatever NOx makes it out of the engine can be catalyzed in the catalytic
converter if there is enough O2 for the catalyst. All the engine's intake air
and temperature sensors, and pre-cat and post-cat O2 sensors exist to balance
the gases coming into the catalytic converter to optimize the catalytic
reaction.

When the engine is using all of these sensors to fine tune the amount of air,
fuel and EGR to maximize catalyst efficiency, it's running in something called
"closed loop" mode. The sensors and inputs work in a closed loop to balance
the system. This is what happens when you're cruising on the highway or
driving around at relatively fixed throttle.

Give the car a lot of gas, and something else happens. All of a sudden, a LOT
more air enters the engine. The sensors can't change reading fast enough (mass
air flow sensor, for example) or their readings are now out of the sensor's
useful sensitivity band (for O2). The engine code knows that sensor
capabilities have been exceeded, and it goes into "open loop" mode. In this
mode, rather than using sensor readings, the engine reverts to pre-programmed
maps, usually indexed by RPM, throttle position, engine load, and boost level.
These maps are designed for relatively clean combustion and engine safety, but
they will not generate optimal catalyst input gases, and so, the catalyst
efficiency drops off tremendously. Furthermore, performance cars will often
burn rich (too much gas for amount of air) in order to prevent engine
destroying pre-detonation.

Most of the EPA test cycle will happen in closed loop mode. Most high throttle
acceleration or "fun" driving will happen in open loop mode. There's the
source of the discrepancy between EPA test cycle and real world driving. VW
got caught, but every car does this, as we don't have wide-band, high-rate
sensors yet at a price point even close to where it would need to be for
consumer cars.

(Next time you see someone racing off from a stop light, in pretty much any
car, watch the exhaust pipe, you'll see dark smoke. I guarantee you they're
running rich in open loop mode).

~~~
tzs
> The NYT is being disingenuous in presenting this as VW detecting the EPA
> test cycle and doing something to cheat. I think they've confused open loop
> and closed loop engine operation.

The NYT is not at all confused. The cars in question have software in the ECM
_specifically_ meant to detect testing. The software looks at various inputs,
including steering wheel position, speed, duration of operation, and
barometric pressure. The values it looks for precisely track the parameters of
the federal test procedure use for EPA certification.

When the software detected this, it switched to a mode that VW actually called
"dyno calibration". At all other times, it used a mode VW called "road
calibration".

Source: [http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-
caa-09-18-15....](http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-
caa-09-18-15.pdf)

~~~
rakingleaves
Wow. From the source:

"VW continued to assert to CARB and the EPA that the increased emissions from
these vehicles could be attributed to various technical issues and unexpected
in-use conditions. VW issued a voluntary recall in December 2014 to address
the issue. CARB, in coordination with the EPA, conducted follow up testing of
these vehicles [...] to confirm the efficacy of the recall. When the testing
showed only a limited benefit to the recall, CARB broadened the testing to
pinpoint the exact technical nature of the vehicles' poor performance"

I remember spending half a day at the dealership to deal with this recall,
which was required to get my CA registration renewed. Can't believe it was
just a BS update that didn't really fix anything. Shocking and extremely
disappointing behavior from VW

------
krapp
How would this benefit Volkswagen? The article says the device activates
emissions control systems when it detects the car is being tested... so it's
not as if they're saving money by emulating a system they're not
manufacturing.

~~~
gnoway
Don't the emissions systems affect performance? I have a 2012 Golf TDI and
really like it, one of the advantages over one of the hybrids is that I get
pretty great fuel economy for the kind of driving I do, but it doesn't feel
like I'm driving a weed eater.

This really pisses me off. It doesn't surprise me I guess but it never
occurred to me that a car manufacturer could get away with something like this
for, apparently, 6 model years.

~~~
JorgeGT
Yes, a common strategy is to inject more EGR (exhaust gas) into the fresh
intake air. As EGR is already burned, it is inert, so it negatively affects
the combustion, lowering the temperature. With lower combustion temperature
you get less NOx... but less power for each amount of fuel, so your
efficiency/performance is lower, and also non burned products (CO, C)
increase. You then trap those with the Diesel Particulate Filter... it's a
very complicated game with very small margins, that's the reason of so much
cheating.

~~~
thrownaway2424
Since this EPA action is about NOx, it seems VW will need to lower combustion
temperature, leading to higher soot and therefore more particulate filter
cycles. That will also increase fuel consumption.

~~~
zardo
In addition to the recall, and likely upcoming penalty, VW can now look
forward to a class action suit regarding vehicle fuel economy.

------
ChuckMcM
I guess this is the automaker equivalent to a CPU detecting its running
benchmark code.

------
doughj3
> The software was designed to conceal the cars’ emissions of the pollutant
> nitrogen oxide, which contributes to the creation of ozone and smog.

Is this an error in the article or is creating ozone a bad thing?

~~~
jandrese
Ozone production at ground level won't reach the upper atmosphere. It is too
reactive. So all it's doing is burning people.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Ozone production at ground level won't reach the upper atmosphere. It is too
> reactive.

And, also, heavier than air.

------
jonknee
I have an Audi TDI, but luckily not one of the affected models. I would be
furious, especially if post-update performance was noticeably different. If so
they are going to be up to their eye balls in class action suits demanding
buybacks and the like (not unprecedented, Dodge just did a buyback).

------
aidenn0
I drive a mazda, and my car definitely runs rich (visible buildup on tailpipe,
the exhaust smells like gasoline when the engine is cold), but it just passed
its first emissions test (at 6 years old) showing no detectable gasoline. I
wonder if there's some gaming going on there too.

~~~
grecy
From the factory all vehicles run rich - it helps immensely with longevity as
the extra fuel cools and lubricates the engine.

~~~
lutorm
Vehicles run rich _when cold and at full throttle_. No engine would pass
emissions checks if they didn't run stoichiometric mixture during idle and
low-throttle operation.

~~~
grecy
> _stoichiometric mixture during idle and low-throttle operation._

I don't believe I've ever seen a factory tuned vehicle run less than 16:1,
most are 17 or 18 : 1

------
daniel-levin
Many of the comments in this thread follow a similar pattern. They are all
essentially derivatives of Goodhart's law. [0]

>> Once a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

It's quite useful to have a name - a label - for this sort of behaviour. In
this case, the means by which VW optimised for this metric was crafty computer
software! A metric is only as good as the cost of the unintended consequences
that come with imposing it on people, in particular large corporations.

I am not surprised that this is done by many corporations as mentioned
elsewhere in the comments (ATI/Nvidia etc). This is because regulations and
benchmarks that can be gamed, such as engine efficiency, _will_ be gamed
because the incentives of corporations work out that way:

(I hope this isn't perceived as an anti-corporate rant because it's not. Just
a way of framing facts).

For regulations imposed on large corporations in general (think EPA admissions
standards):

1) Regulations are mandated by a government to effect some purpose (stop
destroying Earth)

2) Executives - the people running the corporations - are _bound by legal
responsibility_ \- their fiduciary duty [1] - to create value for their
shareholders (selling lots of cars, and profitably).

3) Regulations can obstruct the activities of a corporation by making them do
things they don't want to (making efficient cars is hard and costly and
affects the bottom line - its cheaper to manufacture a car with less platinum
[2] in it)

4) Companies are incentivized to minimize the time and money spent on adhering
to regulations

5) Once a regulation is standardised and codified, it becomes possible to
follow the letter of it, while ignoring the spirit of it. All a corporation
has to do is meet the metrics in the specification to abide by the regulation
- in other words - game the system.

Given these incentives, we have seen that corporations prefer to abide by
regulations in the maximally efficient way: gaming them. Thus reducing a well-
meaning government initiative to gamesmanship.

Kudos to the EPA for calling VW out on this. This kind of incident reinforces
(in me at least) the idea that environmental legislation is an extraordinarily
difficult thing to get right.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law)

[1]
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty)

[2] Catalytic convertors

~~~
zardo
>This kind of incident reinforces (in me at least) the idea that environmental
legislation is an extraordinarily difficult thing to get right.

And the more detailed you make the regulation to prevent gaming, the harder it
is for new competitors to enter the industry. Also good god having read and
interpet their frequently self contradicting regs is a nightmare. Hell, Tesla
got hit with an EPA penalty early on because they didn't certify the
roadster's non-existant emissions.

------
spdmn
Seems very UnGerman to patch over a flaw instead of rooting out the problem
from the ground level and engineering a solution. I'm just saying deceitfully
patching over the problem seems uncharacteristic of the cultural
norm/stereotype that I know.

------
smsm42
How anybody at VW would think it's a good idea? Sure, it's a clever trick, but
when they get caught - and it's assured they will - they'd probably get it
pretty hard. I mean, Toyota got hit for $1.2 bln for problems that were mostly
imaginary[1], how much _this_ would cost?

[1] [http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/justice-
departme...](http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/justice-departments-
unjust-toyota-fine)

------
Hermel
If these controllers were open source, drivers could decide on their engine
settings themselves. That could be an interestimg strategy for VW as it would
move responsibility to the drivers.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
It's my understanding that there's plenty of aftermarket opportunities
available for this kind of tuning.

~~~
selimthegrim
VW denies you warranty repairs if you do this tuning if the damage can be
traced to ECU modifications. Class action lawsuit in 3...2...1...

~~~
lutorm
That's a perfectly reasonable policy.

------
acd
There is also quite some lies "optimism" in the EU regarding stated mpg
L/100km from the manufacturer and real world measured mpg.

Is it the same software that the car companies use during EU drive cycle tests
vs real world production cars? If you were a cheating manufacturer you would
tune your car lean for the tests and more sporty with slightly higher
consumption for the real world production run.

~~~
usrusr
Sure, the real challenge must lie in quickly recognizing the different test
setups for consumption vs pollution, because they certainly "require" very
different engine parameters. I would not be surprised if (or rather: I'd be
surprised if not) consulting industry experts managed to sneak some easily
detectable patterns into the initial part of the standardized "test scripts".
It's not like these kinds of optimizations are in any way brand exclusive, or
it was impossible to know of them before these news (the only way to not know
about them, assuming a moderate interest in all thing car related, was
deliberately turning a blind eye for the sake of believing in progress)

------
kevin_thibedeau
That's okay. They just need to grow the wheelbase a bit and reclassify all
their cars as "light trucks". Problem solved.

------
devicenull
I'm wondering how this is going to be implemented.. it doesn't seem like a
thing that's really fixable here.

~~~
joshrotenberg
Total speculation based solely on experience as a consumer (and I own a 2013
VW Golf TDI, so it affects me), but my guess is that the fix would be updated
software to apply the stricter emissions controls all the time, presumably at
the expense of engine performance.

EDIT: And reducing fuel economy, which is a huge selling point of the TDI in
the first place. No idea "by how much" though, and typically TDI numbers are
understated, so its possible that a reduction in economy will still be in line
with their claims.

~~~
devicenull
Yea, I have a 2015 Jetta which is why I was curious. I wonder if this explains
why my car sounds really weird for the first few minutes of running.

~~~
joshrotenberg
I think that's just a diesel thing.

~~~
devicenull
I don't have a diesel, but it sure sounds like I do!

------
thrownaway2424
This is interesting. VW has already been performing a nationwide ECU reflash
on all MkIV TDI cars this year. Was that part of this action, or was it the
cause of this action?

------
johnny99
Given the low cost and ubiquity of sensors nowadays, you'd think it would be
feasible to require car makers to test emissions in real time, in the real
world.

~~~
ibarrajo
We already have that, It's called OBDII.

Besides error codes, OBDII has 8 emissions monitors. In California all cars
after 2001 are checked by means of a visual and these 8 readiness monitors:
catalyst, heated catalyst, EVAP, SAI, O2, O2 Heater, EGR/VVT, AC

Source: I work on my two Audis

~~~
sokoloff
If you need to, you can beat most O2 monitors with a 555, most O2 heater
monitors with a $0.45 resistor (or an O2 heater from a neutered O2 sensor), an
EGR sensor monitor with a diode and couple resistors. Many catalyst monitors
are just downstream O2 sensors that detect cycling (another 555 will defeat).

OBD2 monitoring, without fairly careful visual inspection, isn't a full
solution. It's used because it's cheap, easy, and close to good enough, but
enthusiasts are easily able to defeat it, for "off road use only", of
course...

~~~
invaliddata
Until recently O2 sensors were not used on diesels. There are a host of
reasons for this, one of the main ones being that until recently, diesel fuel
in most places had high levels of sulfur, which is a known poison for Pt and
some of the other metals which are used in both catalysts and O2 sensors.

As for EGR monitoring, most OBD2 systems I've seen monitor the presence of the
egr solenoid by looking for the back emf. So you'd need an inductor or a
solenoid for that. Additionally, they usually will often do a test of the
manifold pressure while cycling the valve, to confirm the flow rate (obviously
this can only be done of the engine in question has a MAP sensor). And if the
MAP sensor is the primary sensor for doing fuel monitoring (ie, no MAF
sensor), then there would be no easy way of defeating this monitor without
messing up the normal performance of the engine. So in my experience,
defeating EGR and passing the EGR related OBD2 monitors is non trivial. But
then, since there is usually an allowance (in the current CA smog check
schemes) for some of the monitors to not have completed running while still
passing the test, it doesn't matter too much in practice (can't disconnect the
EGR valve, but the egr readiness monitor is moot). The EGR monitor is usually
the last one to run anyway, so this makes passing the smog check with what
would otherwise be a egr related OBD2 failure, fairly easy.

Beating O2 monitors is actually much more difficult in practice. First of all,
an increasing number of O2 sensors in cars are wideband sensors which don't
output the traditional switching signal one could simulate with a 555. Even
some older cars use wideband O2 sensors (I have personal experience with two
MY 1998 Toyotas [california cars] for which this is the case). Secondly, even
if you do have all narrowband O2 sensors on a car, the way the O2 monitors
work is that the downstream (of the catalyst) O2 sensor(s) output is compared
to the upstream (of the catalyst) O2 sensor(s) to see, not whether the O2
sensor is working, but that the catalyst efficiency is above some threshold.
Simply simulating one or both signals with a naive switching circuit will trip
the catalyst efficiency monitor. And why would you want to disable the
upstream O2 sensor(s) anyway, it's main job is to provide an error signal to
the fuel system which would otherwise be a completely open loop system?
Without a working feedback loop your fuel system won't be running very well,
and usually falls back to a super conservative fuel mapping because of the
danger of unknowingly running lean (obviously a concern for gas engines only,
not diesels).

Defeating OBD2 monitoring in these sorts of ways is not an issue in any
meaningful sense. Enthusiasts often will replace their ECUs wholesale with an
aftermarket one. When the ecu hardware and its programming is completely
outside of the manufacturer's control, who can say anything about the validity
of it's outputs for emissions compliance purposes?

~~~
sokoloff
EGR back EMF is simulated with a resistor bridge (for the "EGR not engaged"
signal) and a diode to alter the effective resistor bridge (for the "EGR
engaged").

Agree that it's totally counterproductive to remove an upstream O2 sensor for
a road application. (For an off-road application, the only reason is to allow
the use of TEL (leaded) fuel additive as an octane booster and an open loop
controller and any such application would drive so few miles per year that it
doesn't need to be worried about. The reason to eliminate a downstream is to
remove (or dramatically reduce) the catalyst function. I have not experienced
a car that did a "compare downstream to upstream"; I'm sure they exist, but
manufacturers have an incentive to reduce nuisance MILs, so most controllers
are designed to detect gross defects and typical failure modes of installed
components, assuming all specified parts are installed, not to detect all
possible types of intentional tampering.

I agree with you that this isn't a significant issue in terms of pollution
levels, as the enthusiast market that will mod their cars to this extent isn't
large in numbers, but based on the amount of poorly modified cars I see
(gassers with tailpipes so sooted up they look like diesels, diesels modified
so they can better "roll coal", people who think "more fuel must be better"
when changing ECU maps, etc), I wonder how many regular cars' emissions are
equally by some of these poorly modded enthusiast cars.

(I love and have no philosophical objection to auto enthusiasts and modded
cars. Despite my hands-on experience above, I now drive an electric LEAF,
which is not exactly an enthusiast car, but does payback the environment for
some of my youthful transgressions...)

------
cmurf
2009-2015, I'm surprised it's only 1/2 million vehicles.

~~~
smchang
It's only the diesel models, which are still only a small fraction of the cars
being sold today.

------
ams6110
I'm keeping my old Mercedes diesels with no computers at all.

~~~
CamperBob2
That's OK, I probably use more clean air than I need anyway.

------
ju-st
The technical debt of petrol engines is becoming apparent.

~~~
BorgHunter
The technical debt of petrol engines is not relevant to this article:

> The allegations cover roughly 482,000 diesel passenger cars sold in the
> United States since 2009.

~~~
ju-st
Sorry, I'm not a native speaker. I thought the word "petrol" includes diesel,
too!

~~~
BorgHunter
No worries! "Internal combustion engines" might be the best phrase to use,
then.

------
anonu
This reminds me of gaming hardware benchmarks.

------
gregwtmtno
I can't believe such a large company would cheat like that. I think there must
be more to this. Maybe a rogue employee?

~~~
barkingcat
More like a Rogue CEO and Board. Decisions of this magnitude going over so
many years likely were made by the people at the top.

Recall that VW Chairman Ferdinand Piech resigned earlier this year
[http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/04/25/uk-volkswagen-
ceo-c...](http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/04/25/uk-volkswagen-ceo-chairman-
idUKKBN0NG0N920150425)

The board was quoted: "The members of the steering committee came to a
consensus that, in the light of the past weeks, the mutual trust necessary for
successful cooperation was no longer there"

What likely happened was that the EPA filed suit against VW in April, and in
uncovering the evidence needed to support the suit, VW chair Ferdinand knew
that he needed to go in order to let VW continue to be a company. Or,
Ferdinand could have been the ethical one and blew the whistle.

Either way, let out the stink. Corporations aren't nearly the kind of flawless
entities you think they are.

~~~
baakss
Corporations aren't flawless, but it definitely isn't a given that the people
at the top have any clue what is going on with their software either. I can
think of two instances that I've personally seen very similar to the
referenced story where someone in middle to middle-upper management made the
call, and only 1-2 devs/analysts had any idea what was done.

If anything that should go to show the lack of sophistication a lot of these
projects have. There often is no project manager, no code reviews, and a messy
codebase where snippets of very unethical logic can hide for years.

------
nissehulth
While this seems to be made on purpose, my gut feeling is that car makers
shouldn't do software...

~~~
joosters
Who should write the software then? People who don't know anything about cars?

~~~
lmm
People who know software, sitting in the same room as people who know cars.

I fear a big company would find it impossible, but that's how you get good
software.

~~~
ArchReaper
Are you under the impression they don't hire programmers to write their
software? I don't understand your point.

------
neves
Funny coincidence, reading the article we see that the american gov just
punishes foreign companies.

~~~
tyrust
What is coinciding with what?

------
blondie9x
DDOS VW shall we?

------
denzil_correa
Does HN not detect duplicates? I submitted the same article 3 minutes before
OP.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10239985](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10239985)

There's also another submission 15 minutes after OP's submission too.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10240106](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10240106)

~~~
metasean
It does to a point.

 _The OP 's link after .html:_ ?_r=0

 _Your link after .html:_
?module=Notification&version=BreakingNews&region=FixedTop&action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=50913528&pgtype=Homepage

 _The 3rd link after .html:_ ?referrer=

In this case, while the links may lead to the same article, they are NOT the
SAME link.

edited: to make url differences more visible

------
TootsMagoon
Is this an example of software becoming a hindrance or more beneficial to the
industry?

------
whistlecrackers
Good for Volkswagen.

------
swang
I love the look/feel/drive of a VW, but I will never again own one.

My parents bought a 2002 VW which I mostly drove and the maintenance costs
were through the roof. There have been at least 3-4 recall notices, one time
while parked on an incline, it rained and flooded the back of the car with
water. When I went to VW, they said that I had to manually clean out some
drainage underneath the car. How the hell am I going to do that?

Then the coolant leaks, engine belts, cracked radiator. You name it I probably
had to get it fixed.

Never again.

~~~
izacus
Interesting, since here in EU the VAG group cars (Seat, Škoda, VW, Audi) are
widely perceived as the most reliable and there's a huge amount of people
buying nothing else.

~~~
meatysnapper
Perhaps it's where they are built. I assume most US-bound VWs are from Mexico
or US proper due to NAFTA and auto-import regulations.

~~~
ams6110
Yes, VWs made outside of Germany are basically junk.

~~~
rconti
As was my German-built Corrado in the 90s. Of course, is that stopping me from
buying another one this year? Nope, it just took me 15 years ago to get over
it.

------
Alex3917
Instead of fining the manufacturer, just fine everyone who owns one. If every
VW owner was forced to pay 20k or so, the problem would fix itself.

~~~
dragonwriter
Well, sure, if auto purchasers were at risk of massive fines if they received
a vehicle where the manufacturer had done something that the average user
wouldn't have the skill to detect, no one subject to the government imposing
such fines would ever buy a _car_ again, which would solve the problem quite
completely.

OTOH, destroying the entire auto industry in the subject jurisdiction _might_
not be considered an _optimal_ means of resolving the problem. (And, indeed,
might be so suboptimal to the population as to have catastrophic political
consequences for the government imposing it.)

~~~
Alex3917
> destroying the entire auto industry in the subject jurisdiction might not be
> considered an optimal means of resolving the problem.

I don't see how passing the costs along to future car purchasers is better
than extracting the costs from the people who were actually harming others.

