
E.P.A. Finds More VW Cheating Software, Including in Porsches - peterkrieg
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/business/some-porsche-models-found-to-have-emissions-cheating-software.html?_r=0
======
Johnny555
Clearly it's the fault of those pesky engineers again, how else could you
explain the same type of cheating across multiple divisions of the company.
They only other explanation would involve Management, and obviously that's not
it.

Though the fact that none of the other manufacturers spoke up about the
violation of emissions standards when when they must have done their own tests
to see how VW managed to get emissions so low, seems to point to the fact they
they were all doing it to some degree. Perhaps not as brazenly as VW, but
still no one wants to rock the boat they are in.

~~~
bri3d
While I certainly don't buy the "pesky engineers" argument, it's actually
somewhat plausible Porsche didn't know about the cheating (beyond what
everyone knew, which was that the stated mileage and emissions were virtually
impossible to achieve by any known mechanism). Since they dropped a VW
manufactured engine (3.0 TDI) into a shared VW chassis (Touraeg) and built the
Cayenne around that, there's a good chance the engine and engine management
were treated as a black box and simply integrated at face value.

~~~
danjayh
While I'm certainly not making excuses for VW cheating, I think that maybe the
EPA needs to revisit its diesel emission standards. The EPA standard is the
strictest in the world, and they have successfully ruined many diesel powered
devices. Examples:

1) I was recently looking at compact tractors. To meet the standards, new
tractors are fitted with Diesel Particulate Filters. Even if they don't flat-
out fail (which happens too often, and costs thousands of dollars to fix),
these filters require "regeneration", which is code for "a light comes on on
the dashboard, your tractor stops moving, and runs wide-open throttle for 20
minutes while you stare in bewilderment". Google Kubota B3350 Regeneration if
you want lots of fun horror stories.

2) Diesel commercial trucks. My uncle drives a large cube van over the road.
When his truck goes into regen mode, it doesn't require wide-open throttle
like a compact tractor, but it does lose power and tops out at 40-50MPH. If
you are on a freeway where the flow of traffice is at 80MPH, this is dangerous
and a major problem.

3) Diesel pickup trucks: Many trucks, in an effort to avoid additional
hardware above and beyond the DPF, have taken to injecting fuel during the
exhaust stroke. The idea is to have the unburned fuel get pumped through the
engine and on to the DPF, where it burns and increases the temperature to the
point that the carbon burns out of the DPF. Problem is, when you inject fuel
into an engine during the exhaust stroke, it dilutes the oil in the cylinder,
reduces lubrication, and causes premature wear/engine failure.

In the two cases I am familiar with, diesel motorhomes and diesel compact
tractors, the value of used vehicles has increased quite a bit in response to
the fact that all of the new ones suck. My Dad owns a gravel pit, and he
(along with everyone else in the industry) buys and re-builds existing
vehicles from the frame-up to avoid having to purchase new products, which are
unreliable, sometimes dangerous, and uneconomical to maintain. Google "glider
truck kits" \-- it's basically the idea of purchasing all the parts of a new
vehicle (except the powertrain), and then manually taking the powertrain from
a worn-out truck, re-building it, and installing it into the glider kit. This
is often done at an expense that is similar to that of purchasing an entirely
new vehicle.

Many equally horrible solutions to this problem are employed. Some designs
incorporate a fuel burner directly into the exhaust design. Others require a
separate tank of catalytic fluid that must be filled regularly. One thing that
all of the designs have in common is poor performance and piss-poor fuel
economy. Many vehicles from multiple manufacturers have had trouble with
catching on fire due to emissions control systems.

If the EPA wants to make tough rules that will force manufacturers to produce
products with the best available technology and encourage development of new
technologies, that's one thing. When the EPA makes rules that result in
dangerous and/or non-functional product designs, I think it's time to back off
just a bit until the technology has come closer to being able to reasonably
achieve the regulated cleanliness levels. It's completely insane to make a
truck that will force you to slow to 40mph while you're driving it, or to make
a tractor that will force a farmer to take an unplanned break in the middle of
the day (remember -- farmers work all day long, and daylight is a limited,
precious commodity to them).

EDIT: To be completely clear, if you are doing work with the tractor that can
be done at full RPM, you don't necessarily need to park it. However, if you're
doing something that requires lower RPM (using a PTO attachment that needs low
RPM like a post-hole digger, or a spreader, etc ... or doing low-speed work on
a tractor with a geared transmission), then it's time to go get some coffee.
Personally, the two major things I want to do with a tractor are run a large
snowblower and maintain our horse pasture. For the horse pasture it's not a
big deal, but if I need to clear the driveway before leaving for work in the
morning, an unplanned 20 minute wait is completely unacceptable.

~~~
mikestew
_The EPA standard is the strictest in the world, and they have successfully
ruined many diesel powered devices._

One thought, then, is that diesels are not suited to the task. If that
particular type of engine can't move things down the road without filling the
air with pollution, perhaps it's time we moved on to something else. I mean,
what tasks _require_ a diesel? Commercial vehicles, okay. Consumer cars? Not
if they spew crap into the air just to save a few MPG. Small farm equipment?
See below, totally unnecessary, IMO. Class A motorhomes? Please. The fact that
it's designation has "recreational" in the name tells you that kittens won't
die if we don't have anymore of them.

An extreme stance? I dunno, maybe. Just like getting rid of lead in our fuel
was probably an extreme proposition at one time. But we knew lead was bad, we
knew it for _decades_. But profits uber alles, eh? I just don't know how one
would justify to future generations, "sorry 'bout the smog, but Daddy needed
to run his garden tractor on diesel, and wanted to save a few bucks on fuel."

I could see an exception for commercial vehicles, but I can't see a good
argument for consumer diesels if we can't produce ones that don't choke the
air with particulates and NOx.

 _Personally, the two major things I want to do with a tractor are run a large
snowblower and maintain our horse pasture._

Not to pick on you personally, but those tasks don't require a diesel. PTO,
plowing a small field, running a bush hog or deck mower, pick your poison, it
can all be done just fine with a gas engine. And the gas engine will start
when it's -20F and that driveway needs plowed. I grew up in farm country, and
the only ones running diesel where the ones with farm equipment the size of
your house. I refuse to accept that we'll back off on EPA regulations because
some dude feels like he needs a diesel to maintain his five acre play farm.
(Again, not directed at you; I have no idea how many acres you have.)

~~~
danjayh
Prior to the current (Tier 4) standards, the Tier 3 standards had already
reduced NOx and particulate emissions to the the point that it's misleading to
characterize those engines as "filling the air with pollution". Now that CO2
has been declared as pollution, the improved thermal efficiency of diesels
over gasoline engines probably means that they were already "better" than gas
under some operating conditions. Even ignoring their superior thermal
efficiency, Tier 3 diesels achieved similar results to gasoline engines when
both were operated at high load (Say, running down the highway at 80mph). This
was accomplished with technologies that, while they added complexity and cost
to the engine (such as direct injection, EGR, DOC, VVT, advanced FIE, improved
combustion chamber design, increased compression ratio, advances in
turbochargers), did not compromise the utility and safety of the device using
the engine.

As you have suggested, many manufacturers will probably move back to gasoline
engines in some of the smaller applications ... but they will moved to air-
cooled V-Twins for many of these, which fall into the same power range as the
diesels they replace (~20-40HP). Air-cooled gasoline engines are _not_ clean
beasts, and this move will probably actually end up being a net environmental
loss.

Have a look at the chart on page 2 of this: [http://www.mtu-
online.com/uploads/tx_templavoila/WhitePaper_...](http://www.mtu-
online.com/uploads/tx_templavoila/WhitePaper_Tier4i_and_Tier4_02.pdf)

The additional NOx reductions achieved by tier 4 are extremely small compared
to the cost & trouble caused by the technologies used to achieve them ... the
previous tech (up to Tier 3) was fairly reliable & had already achieved most
of that was had in the overall journey from unregulated -> Tier 4.

Also, almost none of the garden tractors sold are diesel, because in that
application it doesn't make sense - those engines aren't run at high load for
long periods of time. However, for a compact tractor that may well be run all
day long in high heat with a demanding attachment, a diesel actually does make
a lot of sense - there is a large environmental cost to dumping a machine with
5-600 hours on it because the engine gave out prematurely (which happens to
entirely too many of the garbage lawn & garden tractors sold at box stores,
despite their relatively easy lives).

FWIW, I let my lawn die in the summer and probably mow it fewer times in an
entire season than many folks do in a month ... living in the sticks with
nobody to judge me has its benefits :) You did get reasonably close on the
size, though. My dad and I live close enough together to share a tractor, and
we have 26 acres, a goat, five horses, and sundry other critters between the
two of us (and our wives, of course).

------
hellcow
It's worth noting that the newly replaced CEO of the VW group was the CEO of
Porsche.

The CEO of VW was just fired for allowing this scandal on his watch, and he
was replaced by a guy guilty of (at the very least) the same exact thing.

------
monkbroc
Background: I used to be an automotive software engineer. I speak for myself
only here.

Whenever the topic of automotive software comes up on HN there are comments
alongs the lines of "global variables bad", but not much construtive feedback.

I want to explain some of the tradeoffs that lead to the architecture used in
automotive software to get a better discussion going with HN readers about
that architecture.

tl;dr Given the hardware restrictions, real-time requirements and measurement
capabilities required in automotive software, shared global variables without
locks is a fast and safe way to share state between different software
components as long as each variable is only written in one place in the
program.

The microprocessor has to run for 10+ years in a wide range of temperatures
and be dirt cheap, so you end up with specs like 180 MHz, 4 MB of flash and
128 KB of RAM.

The program must run deterministicly with respect to memory. There is no
malloc/new in the code. All variables are statically allocated.

Because the physical world doesn't pause, no code is allowed to block while
waiting for resources, especially synchronization primitives like mutexes.

The software architecture is in 2 main parts: basic software containing the
real-time OS and hardware drivers, and the application layer which has the
domain-specific code for controlling the engine, brakes, etc.

The basic software is implemented using usual C programming techniques. It has
an API provided by function calls and structs to hide implementation details
of each microcontroller.

The application software is where the programming model is different.

To understand why, you need to know where automotive software comes from and
what it is trying to acheive.

Originally all controllers were mechanical: a valve opens proportionally to
the vacuum in a part of the system. Then some controllers were implemented in
analog electronics: take multiple voltages, feed them through an op-amp and
use the output to control a valve.

So automotive software reproduces this: get some inputs, compute the same
physical equations at a regular rate and generate outputs.

This is dataflow programming. Blocks of code have inputs and outputs. They are
executed at a fixed rate that depends on the physical phenomena (air flow
changes fast, temperature changes slowly). Different blocks are conneceted
together in a hierachical way to form subsystems. Encapsulation is acheived by
viewing these blocks as black boxes: you don't need to care how the block
works if you are only interested in knowing which inputs it uses and outputs
it produces.

Here's an example component to control a gizmo.

It might be implemented in a visual environment like Simulink by MathWorks, or
it implemented by hand from a spec.

    
    
      #include "GizmoController_data.h"
      
      void GizmoController_100ms() {
        Gizmo_Gain = interpolate2d(Gizmo_Gain_MAP, EngineSpeed, CoolantTemp);
      }
      
      void GizmoController_10ms() {
        Gizmo_Error = Gizmo_PositionDesired - Gizmo_Position;
        Gizmo_DutyCycle = limit(Gizmo_Gain * Gizmo_Error + Gizmo_Offset_VAL, 0, 100);
      }
    

It takes some inputs (EngineSpeed, CoolantTemp, Gizmo_PositionDesired,
Gizmo_Position), has some intermediate values (Gizmo_Error), and outputs
(Gizmo_DutyCycle). Those are implemented as global variables. It also uses
some constants (Gizmo_Gain_MAP, Gizmo_Offset_VAL). It has 2 processes, running
every 100ms and 10ms. All this information would be specified in an XML file.

The header GizmoController_data.h is auto-generated at compile time by a tool
from the XML file mentioned above. It will contain global variable definitions
for the inputs, intermediates and outputs with the appropriate volatile,
const, static and extern storage classes/type qualifiers. This ensures that
the compiler will enforce that inputs can't be written to, intermediate values
are private to the component and outputs can be read by other modules.

Note that no explicit synchronization is needed to access inter-process
variables like Gizmo_Gain or inter-component variables like Gizmo_Position.
It's shared memory between 2 processes scheduled in OS tasks that can
potentially interrupt each other, but since the write is atomic and happens
only in one place, there is no data race. This is huge! Concurrent
programming, without locks, with the best efficiency possible, using a simple
technique anybody can understand: only one place in the program is allowed to
write to any global memory location.

Calibration is another aspect of automotive software. In most software the
constants either never change or can be set in some kind of configuration
file. For an automotive controller, the value of constants (gains, offsets,
limits, etc) depend on the vehicle so they must be configurable at run time
during development. This is implemented in the C code by putting all constants
in a memory area that is ROM in production units, but RAM in development
units. The compiler enforces that application software cannot change
constants, but the basic software includes code so that constants can be
changed from the outside in development. This process is called calibration
and is done by calibration engineers who are usually not the ones who wrote
the software. Note that calibration can drastically affect the behavior of the
software. What would happen if Gizmo_Gain_MAP is set to all zeros?

Measurement of variables is essential to understanding what's going on inside
the embedded controller. Having all that state available in global variables
makes it possible for the calibration tool request the value of any variable
in the software at a fixed rate and display it in a virtual oscilloscope.

The measurement and calibration tool needs to know how to access the variables
and constants. It uses a file that maps from names to addresses for a
particular version of software. That file can easily be generated a compile
time since all allocations are static.

Going back to the architecture of the application software, let's look at
where our gizmo controller fits. It is not the only component needed to make
the gizmo work. You also need components to calculate the gizmo position from
some external signal (let's say an analog voltage), to route the output signal
to the powerstage driver on the PCB, to determine which position the gizmo
should currently occupy. These would form the gizmo subsystem package.

When the supplier releases gizmo 2.0 (TM) they upgrade the input signal to be
a PWM input instead of an analog input. Modularity in the software allows the
software team to simply replace the gizmo position component with one that
reads a PWM instead of an analog voltage and keep the rest of the gizmo
subsystem the same. In the future, projects that use gizmo 1.0 use one version
of the gizmo subsystem and projects that use 2.0 use another.

This is true at any level in the hierarchy: as long as the inputs and outputs
are the same, a component or subystem package can be replaced by another.

Version control in automotive software reflects this. Instead of having one
tree of versions and releases like a typical software project, each component,
subsystem package and software project has its own tree of versions. Each
software project will reference the subsystem packages required for their
engine type, vehicle platform, sensors and actuators, etc. This is how code
reuse is acheived.

Testing is a mix of simulation (the sensor/actuator is simulated in Simulink
and connected to Simulink block diagram of the software component), hardware-
in-the-loop (a computer simulates the vehicle, but the real electronic control
unit is used) and vehicle testing.

Thanks for reading. I hope this improves your understanding of how automotive
software is structured.

I'm hoping the discussion will bring examples from other fields like robotics,
drones and aeronautics that have similar real-time requirements on how they
architect their software.

~~~
bsimpson
I'm not an embedded developer, so I don't have much value to add re:
architecture; however, this caught my eye:

> The microprocessor has to run for 10+ years in a wide range of temperatures
> and be dirt cheap, so you end up with specs like 180 MHz, 4 MB of flash and
> 128 KB of RAM.

If I'm paying tens of thousands of dollars for a car, how come they're using
the cheapest possible components? If tinkerers can ship the Raspberry Pi for
$30 per board, inc. a 900Mhz quad-core chip and 1GB RAM, you'd think GM could
get components at least that modern for an insignificant cost relative to the
car they are controlling.

~~~
rtpg
This is because the parts are orders of magnitude more expensive when being
put in harsh environments

These "really slow" parts are actually tested and built for much more extreme
conditions. For microchips that go into satelites, you even have hand-checked
chips that go through a very long (and costly compared to something like a Pi)
testing process. Multiply this by all the eletrical components, and you got
yourself a lot of things to check.

Put your Raspberry Pi next to a car motor, and it's pretty likely(1) a part
will fail in the heat and grime conditions.

(1) actually, I'm not sure about the likelihood, but there's no assurance that
it will be fine

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Put your Raspberry Pi next to a car motor, and it 's pretty likely() a part
> will fail in the heat and grime conditions._

Depending on how hot your motor goes, there's a good chance that unshielded Pi
will simply de-solder itself into pieces.

------
mzs
the release itself:
[http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac852...](http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/4a45a5661216e66c85257ef10061867b!OpenDocument)

 _As alleged in the NOV, VW manufactured and installed software in the
electronic control module of these vehicles that senses when the vehicle is
being tested for compliance with EPA emissions standards. When the vehicle
senses that it is undergoing a federal emissions test procedure, it operates
in a low NOx “temperature conditioning” mode. Under that mode, the vehicle
meets emission standards. At exactly one second after the completion of the
initial phases of the standard test procedure, the vehicle immediately changes
a number of operating parameters that increase NOx emissions and indicates in
the software that it is transitioning to “normal mode,” where emissions of NOx
increase up to nine times the EPA standard, depending on the vehicle and type
of driving conditions. In other tests where the vehicle does not experience
driving conditions similar to the start of the federal test procedure, the
emissions are higher from the start, consistent with “normal mode.”_

I have not read a substantive response from any part of VW to today's
allegations.

~~~
roymurdock
There was a good _This American Life_ episode recently [1] that walked through
a few different alternatives for how VW could respond to this whole scandal.
The host solicited feedback from 3 different marketing firms:

One firm, run by the guy who saved Jack In The Box with the ubiquitous sphere-
head Jack commercials after an E. Coli outbreak killed 4 kids, said that VW
should run an ad of a new executive blowing up the boardroom to symbolize
changing the old guard.

Another firm suggested they crowdsource answers to how they can fix the
problem/make it up to the public.

The last firm said they should just shut up and not draw attention to
themselves. They're not in a good position to say anything right now, and they
should just let the collective public forget about it and move onto the next
scandal.

I'm assuming the third options is what VW's retainer-ed marketing firm has
opted for.

[1] [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/569/p...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/569/put-a-bow-on-it)

~~~
blumentopf
Mercedes-Benz was in a similar position in 1997 when the newly introduced
A-Class flunked the moose test. After a short period of denial they hired a
specialist (Armin Töpfer), halted production for several months and retooled
all cars with a different suspension and ESP. The ESP wasn't even necessary
but put competitors under pressure to include it in their compact class cars
as well. The crisis was eventually overcome and the car sold very well in
Europe (1.1 million produced in 7 years). There's a fascinating book (sadly in
German only) on this called "Die A-Klasse: Elchtest, Krisenmanagement,
Kommunikationsstrategie."
([http://www.amazon.com/dp/3472037997](http://www.amazon.com/dp/3472037997))

------
Theodores
Since Porsche do not use small diesels in their cars this looks to me like the
scandal is a lot bigger than first thought. It isn't just the team working on
the 1.8 litre diesel engine that fiddled the software, there is something more
endemic going on as the 3 litre upwards size engines are implicated.

The funny thing is this:

Porsche could sue over £25 a day congestion charge (2008)

[http://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/feb/19/travelandtra...](http://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/feb/19/travelandtransport.carbonemissions)

> The mayor's office responded saying the threatened legal action was "a
> double attack on Londoners".

> "First Porsche are trying to deprive Londoners of their democratic right to
> decide in the mayoral election on 1 May whether they want gas guzzling and
> polluting cars to drive in London when there is absolutely no need for them
> to do so. Second they are trying to impose on all Londoners unnecessary
> levels of pollution and greenhouse gases by a tiny minority," said a
> spokesman for the mayor.

> "No one is allowed to throw their rubbish in the street and Porsche should
> not be allowed to impose gas guzzling polluting cars on Londoners who do not
> want them."

I hope Porsche get taken to the cleaners.

Schadenfreude?

~~~
aembleton
That article is from 2008.

~~~
Theodores
Since when is history not allowed?

The point of that article is to show that Porsche are a company with total
disregard for emissions, pollution and noise. It is in their DNA, it is what
they do. Hence it is great that they finally get their comeuppance.

------
alricb
> new tests that were conducted on all diesel car models in the United States
> by E.P.A., the California Air Resources Board and the regulatory group
> Environment Canada.

Environment Canada, a "regulatory group"? It's a department of the Government
of Canada, yo.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Which is how they have to authority to regulate things.

------
madengr
Meanwhile there seems to be no enforcement of large diesel pickups "rolling
coal" with modified emissions.

~~~
rubberroad
Wut? What does this have to do with vehicle manufacturers programming their
ECUs to defeat emissions tests? There isn't a single diesel truck that 'rolls
coal' from the factory.

Also, diesel trucks that emit black smoke do fail emissions test - in counties
that actually have emissions tests.

~~~
knorby
Apparently a lot of people who make these sorts of modifications can pass
emission tests. They hook up a settings swapper to the ECU, and when they need
it to be clean, they put it into factory default mode. It is essentially the
same sort of cheating as VW.

~~~
adventured
On a scale that isn't even remotely as large as what VW has done. The scale
matters, a lot.

You're talking about something affecting maybe tens of thousands of trucks,
versus 11+ million vehicles including Porsche. It doesn't make sense to make
the comparison.

~~~
knorby
I was comparing methods, not scale.

The scale of an impact of one really bad car when it comes to certain
emissions shouldn't be understated; it is important to remember that VW was
simply seeking pollution they could get away with. Emissions tests are done on
individual cars rather than a bulk standard by make/model for that exact
reason.

VW is the second largest auto-maker in the world...few comparisons are going
to hold up if that's how you think.

~~~
mikeash
Scale matters a lot, though.

The EPA's goal is to regulate the overall quality of the atmosphere. To the
extent that they regulate individual machines, it's just because of their
contribution to the total.

When something is done by a few idiot hobbyists, it's just not worth trying to
enforce. The effort would be better used elsewhere.

Individual cars are tested for emissions not so much to catch illegal
modifications (although I'm sure they're happy to do so when they can) but to
detect failures due to age or broken equipment.

"Rolling coal" is obnoxious and ought to stop, but it shouldn't be surprising
nor upsetting that there isn't much enforcement effort against it.

~~~
knorby
If the EPA had to tackle the problem standalone, then, sure, the scale
wouldn't make it sensible. It could end up influencing whatever regulation
goes into cars to prevent this sort of dishonesty in the future. Perhaps cars
will need to start logging to a black box of sorts to track engine related
settings, or emissions will need active monitoring and logging.

It is also worth noting that the hobbyist solution has the potential of
becoming widespread. If VW merely does a software fix, more than a few owners
with suddenly sluggish cars might look into the devices. There is nothing
specific about 'rolling coal' by trucks...most uses of the devices are purely
for performance tuning.

------
jonknee
I'd love to get my car tested... Anyone know how I could do that?

I have a 2015 Q5 TDI which while not specifically mentioned has the same size
engine as several of the ones that are mentioned (3.0-liter). I would be
shocked if they just started using the defeat device in the 2016 model year
for the Q5 considering they were already getting pushback from the EPA before
the 2016 models even got announced.

I bought the diesel specifically because of the high mileage and supposedly
clean emissions. What a crock.

~~~
cvandebroek
You bought a Q5 3.0 Diesel for clean emmisions? Wait... What?

I'm surely not going to defend VW or any of the associated companies for
cheating. But it should be kind of obvious that a car with such an engine does
all but clean emmisions.

~~~
jonknee
Yes. It's a 4500lb vehicle that averages 30mpg and supposedly passes the
strictest emissions standards in the world... If I was in the market for a
smaller car I would of course looked at models with a smaller engine (though I
could have easily found myself in the same situation with a 2.0l TDI).

------
pasbesoin
Meta: Earlier in the scandal, I recall reading that the engine management
software is from Bosch. I should read further, looking for confirmation of
this.

If that is the case, then this is an example of the maxim: When you provide a
feature, someone will use it to their own ends -- meaning, "misuse" it.

Another example to wave in front of all those politicians and people
advocating for encryption "back doors".

If you put the feature in there, people will use it any way that suits them.
Including and especially ways that you did not intend nor want.

If it wasn't Bosch, perhaps there was nonetheless some "legitimate" argument
within VW for adding this functionality. Enough to get the software folks --
particularly those not making big bucks off of the deal -- to implement this.

But an observant engineer might nonetheless ask themself, 'what _might_
hypothetically be done with this?' And the engineer with a little more real
world experience ("the cynic" ;-) might assume that someone _will_ do it,
sooner or later.

That was part of my reputation, for a while: Thinking of what was possible,
and assuming -- or insisting -- it needed to be addressed. A year or two
later, having done so would prove to have been of benefit. It would sometimes
piss Management off, in the short term. But eventually, they came around.

Anyway, looking from the outside or the inside: If it's there and can be used
"that way", someone's going to get around to doing so.

~~~
jonemo
I also read about Bosch's involvement but this story was based on a report by
the Bild am Sonntag newspaper which is not trustworthy. [1] is an English
language source that relays this report. The gist of the story was that Bosch
supplied the software for R&D purposes and Volkswagen engineers decided to put
it into production cars too.

However, this was later rejected by Bosch who claim that writing additional
code is required by the car manufacturer to get the emissions test detection
feature [2].

[1] [http://blog.caranddriver.com/report-bosch-warned-vw-about-
di...](http://blog.caranddriver.com/report-bosch-warned-vw-about-diesel-
emissions-cheating-in-2007/) [2]
[http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/07/volkswagen-
emissio...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/07/volkswagen-emissions-
software-idUSL1N1270Q820151007)

------
superuser2
I'm conflicted. What do people think about the ethics of buying (non-diesel)
Volkswagen cars at this point? Obviously new cars pad VW's profits and reward
bad behavior.

But what about used ones? Seems like prices will be plummeting. And if you
like the cars, seems like a great time to buy.

~~~
knieveltech
I have one of the cars that will be impacted by the recall. Performance and
fuel economy are both top notch. The cabin fit and finish are on par with
vehicles three times the price. I'll certainly be holding on to mine. If the
used vehicle price plummets I'd definitely consider getting a 2nd one for my
wife.

~~~
TheCondor
Will you comply with the recall?

~~~
knieveltech
I would like to but it depends. I intend to wait a few weeks and see what
impact other owners report before I decide. I would be willing to trade some
performance or economy for better emissions but if the software/hardware
changes turn these cars into either a Geo Metro or an F150 (shitty performance
and economy, respectively) I'm going to opt out, then take the car down to the
local tune shop and have a stage 1 kit put in.

------
acd
May I suggest that the government raid the ECU engine control unit supplier
Bosch and examine their email servers which of their customers has cheated.

"But even so, Bosch still supplied the “defeat” code EDC 16 engine management
system at the heart of the #Dieselgate scandal"

------
yuhong
From [http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-
nov-2015-11-02.pd...](http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-
nov-2015-11-02.pdf)

"the high temperatures heat the selective catalytic reduction system
("catalyst") and improves the catalyst's ability to reduce tailpipe NOx
emissions"

There has been recently [http://www.thestar.com/autos/2015/09/30/canadian-
trios-exhau...](http://www.thestar.com/autos/2015/09/30/canadian-trios-
exhaust-emissions-breakthrough-could-be-a-game-changer.html)

I wonder if this tech would work for SCR systems or not.

------
marvel_boy
VW sales are plummeting in Europe. You cannot trick the users all the time.

------
tomohawk
Pot, meet kettle:

[http://junkscience.com/2012/10/new-documents-prove-
falsifica...](http://junkscience.com/2012/10/new-documents-prove-
falsification-in-epa-air-study-junkscience-renews-retraction-request/)

They were experimenting on human subjects without informed consent and using
the data to overstate results that favored the regulations they wanted to
impose.

These regulations set the particulate limits diesel powered vehicles must
meet.

~~~
tyho
Page 5 of the report: "The subject provided informed consent"

The real problem is drawing any conclusion from a sample size of 1.

------
CamperBob2
Explains why one of the first heads to roll was that of Wolfgang Hatz, head of
engine R&D at Porsche AG.

------
idbehold
Why doesn't the EPA simply ban the sale of any car manufactured by VW until
they start passing the new emissions tests? Even better, begin requiring
previously purchased VW cars pass these emissions tests. If the cars don't
pass the new emissions tests then VW is required to reimburse the blue book
value of the car for false advertising, fraud, and acting in bad faith.

~~~
empath75
Much as I'd like to see it happen, bankrupting a multi-billion dollar company
isn't something that regulators do on a lark.

~~~
Scoundreller
If X person(s) modified their X car(s) in such a way, they'd be forced to take
it/them off the road.

The value of X should not matter.

~~~
empath75
'Should' and 'does' aren't always the same thing in real life. You're talking
about upending the lives of many thousands of people that depend on their cars
to get to work, and lost of people who depend on VW for their pay checks. I'm
sure this will all get worked out, but it would be insane to just pull the
cars off the road.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _You 're talking about upending the lives of many thousands of people that
> depend on their cars to get to work, and lost of people who depend on VW for
> their pay checks. I'm sure this will all get worked out, but it would be
> insane to just pull the cars off the road._

While pulling the existing cars off the road in an instant seems to be an
expensive and bad idea, I don't like the idea of suddenly caring about the
livelihoods of VW employees. We're talking about a Big Co here, the kind that
axes thousands of people because sales said they can't meet their quarterly
goals.

How am I, as a citizen, ever to trust the government can hold corporations in
check, if not just them, but we ourselves hesitate to take action because of
collateral damage. No surprise VW is pulling off the shit they are - they know
perfectly well they'll get away with it _even_ if it goes public.

------
autobahn
Are they testing other cars beside VW?

~~~
maxerickson
There are at least going to be long term changes to how the testing is done.

~~~
mtgx
In Europe the Commission (likely also pushed by the
Council/Germany/France/Spain/Italy) shamefully decided to _raise_ the NOx
limits by 2x until 2019 and 50% until 2021. It's the first time since they
launched the emissions "euro" standard that they actually _raised_ the limit.

I guess they saw everyone cheats by at least 2x, as some reports have also
said.

------
jzd
Blame it on the programmers! /sarcasm

------
astrodust
More shoes dropping.

------
S_A_P
I definitely think management was involved here. However, its entirely
possible that some management was not aware of the details. I doubt that more
than some couple tens of people at VW group know intimate details of the VW
diesel ECU. With badge engineering/platform sharing, its possible that
Porsche/Audi/VW or whoever was not directly responsible for delivering the
code could be in the dark about it. Im sure they even want it that way so
there is plausible deniability. There are plenty of things that go on in the
company I work for that I have no knowledge of. There are plenty of things in
the software I customize/implement that I do not know about.

Bottom line- VW group cheated, was caught, and Im sure has a few dozen
scapegoats lined up in accordance with automotive scandal rules and
regulations. People will use this as a platform to get their names in the
spotlight as a crusader for the people, the managers that made the decision
will go largely unpunished, and the world will move on. I think its crappy
behavior, but in the scheme of things they did not directly murder anyone and
people willingly participate in much more dangerous activities than breathing
excessive NOX fumes... I think that they should just fine them make VW say "We
are truly deeply heartfeltly sorry" and then we can worry about the bigger
problems in life.

~~~
throwaway2048
NOX fumes kill tens to hundreds of thousands of people every year, there isn't
many "bigger problems in life" than things like that.

Pollution has very diffuse, but very real human and ecological consequences.
One of the reasons this fight is so hard is because they are so hard to reason
about or even witness. It took systematic study of events like
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_1952](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_1952)
to realize how many people stuff like NOX emissions kill and disable.

What if doing something took a day off of the life of every single person in
the world. In terms of "days of life destroyed" you would have an event
unparalleled by any genocide in history, but yet how many people would even
care?

