This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I just can't understand how they thought they'd get away with that one, the old school love to reverse engineer and modify them like an adoring devoted religous cult, is it a sign of things to come I wonder...
'And they'd have got away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids'
Post edited at 20:07
In reply to John Simpson:
If this is referring to the current VW emissions con in the USA, I hope they get screwed to the floor for it, hopefully then car manufacturers will start taking emissions and economy tests seriously rather than the current farcical tests where half the car is taken off (wing mirrors, passenger seats etc) and all the panel gaps and vents taped over to make the car perform better in the tests and give numbers totally unachievable in the real world.
According to the BBC this could cost them over $24,000 in fines per vehicle sold and almost 500,000 cars are being recalled.
And that doesn't say anything about the £14 billion wiped off the company value so far.
If this is referring to the current VW emissions con in the USA, I hope they get screwed to the floor for it, hopefully then car manufacturers will start taking emissions and economy tests seriously rather than the current farcical tests where half the car is taken off (wing mirrors, passenger seats etc) and all the panel gaps and vents taped over to make the car perform better in the tests and give numbers totally unachievable in the real world.
According to the BBC this could cost them over $24,000 in fines per vehicle sold and almost 500,000 cars are being recalled.
And that doesn't say anything about the £14 billion wiped off the company value so far.
6
1
In reply to gethin_allen:
There must be some pretty angry owners wondering if the emissions make their cars undrivable and worthless.
There must be some pretty angry owners wondering if the emissions make their cars undrivable and worthless.
1
1
1
In reply to elsewhere:
There was a lawyer on radio4 earlier that already a load of people signed up to a class action lawsuit against VW. And from the reputation of Americans for litigation you can be sure something will happen.
There was a lawyer on radio4 earlier that already a load of people signed up to a class action lawsuit against VW. And from the reputation of Americans for litigation you can be sure something will happen.
In reply to gethin_allen:
Yep - the lawyers will get very rich and the payout to the individual will be minimal!
Good post above BTW. Emissions tests are a complete waste of time! I am amazed the car companies haven't been done for miss-selling.
> There was a lawyer on radio4 earlier that already a load of people signed up to a class action lawsuit against VW. And from the reputation of Americans for litigation you can be sure something will happen.
Yep - the lawyers will get very rich and the payout to the individual will be minimal!
Good post above BTW. Emissions tests are a complete waste of time! I am amazed the car companies haven't been done for miss-selling.
In reply to John Simpson:
I can't quite believe they've been pulled up on it. I thought it was an open secret that modern cars behaved radically differently in different environments so as to pass (tightly specified) tests yet function normally in everyday use. I'll bet they're not the only manufacturer playing that particular game.
jk
I can't quite believe they've been pulled up on it. I thought it was an open secret that modern cars behaved radically differently in different environments so as to pass (tightly specified) tests yet function normally in everyday use. I'll bet they're not the only manufacturer playing that particular game.
jk
In reply to jkarran:
The US is desperately trying to minimise sales of efficient European cars there, and it is very much in the interest of the EPA to find fault with European manufacturers.
The US is desperately trying to minimise sales of efficient European cars there, and it is very much in the interest of the EPA to find fault with European manufacturers.
1
In reply to John Simpson:
I'm glad somebody has taken notice. I remember reading an advert about urea injection for NOx reduction on a new Puegot diesel where the "urea tank needs filling every two years" and wondering how long that party could last.
Its a shame that a technology that really does work to reduce NOx emissions when used properly has been effectively turned off. Its why it stinks so much whenever you walk near stop-start traffic.
There is real human cost to this as well. We need to make the moral connection between this event and the 29000 excess deaths a year from poor air quality directly attributed to vehicle emissions in this country.
Of course with he testing being more lax here and the government not really interested there is a risk it will get glossed over, I hope not though. The government should be taking the responsibility for testing in-house and properly enforcing the tests.
I'm glad somebody has taken notice. I remember reading an advert about urea injection for NOx reduction on a new Puegot diesel where the "urea tank needs filling every two years" and wondering how long that party could last.
Its a shame that a technology that really does work to reduce NOx emissions when used properly has been effectively turned off. Its why it stinks so much whenever you walk near stop-start traffic.
There is real human cost to this as well. We need to make the moral connection between this event and the 29000 excess deaths a year from poor air quality directly attributed to vehicle emissions in this country.
Of course with he testing being more lax here and the government not really interested there is a risk it will get glossed over, I hope not though. The government should be taking the responsibility for testing in-house and properly enforcing the tests.
In reply to jkarran:
Why are VW poking around in a cave on the Cuillin?
> They'll have to be very careful which stones they turn over.
Why are VW poking around in a cave on the Cuillin?
5
In reply to petellis:
Have you got a ref for the numbers there? 29k is about 10% of all deaths annually.
Have you got a ref for the numbers there? 29k is about 10% of all deaths annually.
In reply to gethin_allen:
references in the article:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/nearly-9500-people-die-e...
> The government’s scientific advisers on the issue, the committee on the medical effects of air pollutants, are expected to conclude later this year that across Britain up to 60,000 early deaths annually can be attributed to the two pollutants, because NO2 will be factored in for the first time. The figure would represent a doubling on the current 29,000 from PM2.5s, and would put air pollution much closer to smoking, which kills around 100,000 people a year.
> A King’s study due to be published in the autumn is expected to put the figure for deaths annually in the UK for the two pollutants at 80,000 compared to London’s 9,416, Pencharz told the Guardian.
references in the article:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/nearly-9500-people-die-e...
Post edited at 10:31
In reply to gethin_allen:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32512152
See the analysis section... and the "interesting" comment from the SMMT at the bottom.
And actually they think it could be worse than 29000, I have read a total of 54000 due to poor air quality, 29000 directly from vehicles:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/02/air-pollution-may-cause-...
I think people don't really understand the impact this is having, especially as you can see, the technical details relating to cars are quite complex. Diesels don't produce smoke like they used (they do - its just smaller an more harmful) to so the visible cause and effect aren't quite there any more.
Lack of public knowledge is combined with a government that isn't interested in protecting health so it gets the same minimal efforts at fixing it that obesity and diabetes get.
> Have you got a ref for the numbers there? 29k is about 10% of all deaths annually.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32512152
See the analysis section... and the "interesting" comment from the SMMT at the bottom.
And actually they think it could be worse than 29000, I have read a total of 54000 due to poor air quality, 29000 directly from vehicles:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/02/air-pollution-may-cause-...
I think people don't really understand the impact this is having, especially as you can see, the technical details relating to cars are quite complex. Diesels don't produce smoke like they used (they do - its just smaller an more harmful) to so the visible cause and effect aren't quite there any more.
Lack of public knowledge is combined with a government that isn't interested in protecting health so it gets the same minimal efforts at fixing it that obesity and diabetes get.
In reply to jkarran:
It looks like one of the consumer organisations finally managed to poke the EPA into action. I would also guess there are varying levels of "optimising". From a car just happening to run most economically under a certain set of conditions to the less subtle "monitoring software plugged into car, gps not moving and wheels doing 60".
The former you might be able to get away with the latter probably not.
> I can't quite believe they've been pulled up on it. I thought it was an open secret that modern cars behaved radically differently in different environments so as to pass (tightly specified) tests yet function normally in everyday use.
It looks like one of the consumer organisations finally managed to poke the EPA into action. I would also guess there are varying levels of "optimising". From a car just happening to run most economically under a certain set of conditions to the less subtle "monitoring software plugged into car, gps not moving and wheels doing 60".
The former you might be able to get away with the latter probably not.
In reply to jkarran:
There's a very good chance that these software exploits are industry wide, I guess VW are taking the heat right now because they were at the top of the pile.
> I can't quite believe they've been pulled up on it. I thought it was an open secret that modern cars behaved radically differently in different environments so as to pass (tightly specified) tests yet function normally in everyday use. I'll bet they're not the only manufacturer playing that particular game.
> jk
There's a very good chance that these software exploits are industry wide, I guess VW are taking the heat right now because they were at the top of the pile.
In reply to petellis:
I'm always very suspicious of these numbers, in my professional capacity I see peer reviewed journals claiming 1000 fold different results for the same statistic.
Having had a quick squint at the NEJ paper linked to from the Guardian article and I can pick a dozen holes in it.
One of these is acknowledged by the author: "Reduced air pollution was only one factor contributing to increased life expectancies, with its effects overlapping with those of other factors".
This statement alone sums up the problem. Death has to be one of the most multi factorial symptoms ever, so to make a comparison between air pollution changes and death rates so always going to be 9/10ths guess work no matter how many fancy statistical tools applied.
I didn't see any reference to the occupations of the study participants either, I consider this to be a bit of an omission.
In all this I don't in any way deny that pollution has an impact on peoples health nut, I do not see how anyone can attribute these deaths directly to air pollution without a significant investigation into individual cases.
The investigation into the health of people living along heavily polluted roads is something more interesting. Looking into the health of children removes many of the variables.
I'm always very suspicious of these numbers, in my professional capacity I see peer reviewed journals claiming 1000 fold different results for the same statistic.
Having had a quick squint at the NEJ paper linked to from the Guardian article and I can pick a dozen holes in it.
One of these is acknowledged by the author: "Reduced air pollution was only one factor contributing to increased life expectancies, with its effects overlapping with those of other factors".
This statement alone sums up the problem. Death has to be one of the most multi factorial symptoms ever, so to make a comparison between air pollution changes and death rates so always going to be 9/10ths guess work no matter how many fancy statistical tools applied.
I didn't see any reference to the occupations of the study participants either, I consider this to be a bit of an omission.
In all this I don't in any way deny that pollution has an impact on peoples health nut, I do not see how anyone can attribute these deaths directly to air pollution without a significant investigation into individual cases.
The investigation into the health of people living along heavily polluted roads is something more interesting. Looking into the health of children removes many of the variables.
6
In reply to gethin_allen:
A factor of 1000 in peer reviewed journals... really? In any case the estimates from reviewing across the literature of around 29000 (for 2008 wasnt it?) have been fairly similar in the UK and consistent with public health analysis across the world. What is your expertise to challenge this?
A factor of 1000 in peer reviewed journals... really? In any case the estimates from reviewing across the literature of around 29000 (for 2008 wasnt it?) have been fairly similar in the UK and consistent with public health analysis across the world. What is your expertise to challenge this?
1
In reply to gethin_allen:
This is wrong for a start, over 500,000 deaths registered annually in England and Wales.
> Have you got a ref for the numbers there? 29k is about 10% of all deaths annually.
This is wrong for a start, over 500,000 deaths registered annually in England and Wales.
In reply to The New NickB:
the numbers I read (can't remember where) stated that there were around 5,500 deaths per million so about 350,000 in total OK 8%
the numbers I read (can't remember where) stated that there were around 5,500 deaths per million so about 350,000 in total OK 8%
In reply to Offwidth:
"What is your expertise to challenge this?"
My challenge is not based directly on experience in air pollution related mortality, only on experience of reading and critically dissecting a lot of scientific literature.
Looking for the original source of a statement I chased one assertion through about 6 papers down to the original source which was a Masters dissertation written 13 years ago by a student who didn't provide any evidence and was funded by a company which had a financial interest in the results.
These things make you look closely at big numbers were the sources are uncertain.
> A factor of 1000 in peer reviewed journals... really?
This isn't in this particular field I was just using it as an example of how different and supposedly kosher and reviewed sources were able to come up with vastly different numbers. It was actually in papers that were trying to calculate the volume of cellulosic biomass in a particular environment. "What is your expertise to challenge this?"
My challenge is not based directly on experience in air pollution related mortality, only on experience of reading and critically dissecting a lot of scientific literature.
Looking for the original source of a statement I chased one assertion through about 6 papers down to the original source which was a Masters dissertation written 13 years ago by a student who didn't provide any evidence and was funded by a company which had a financial interest in the results.
These things make you look closely at big numbers were the sources are uncertain.
Post edited at 14:01
1
In reply to gethin_allen:
Registered deaths is a more accurate figure, last available figures from ONS give 501,000 for England and Wales.
Registered deaths is a more accurate figure, last available figures from ONS give 501,000 for England and Wales.
1
In reply to John Simpson:
"There's a very good chance that these software exploits are industry wide, I guess VW are taking the heat right now because they were at the top of the pile."
I agree. If the performance of the car is impacted that much by adhering to the emissions criteria, you have to suspect all the others are at it too, otherwise VWs would be head and shoulders above the rest in real world performance
"There's a very good chance that these software exploits are industry wide, I guess VW are taking the heat right now because they were at the top of the pile."
I agree. If the performance of the car is impacted that much by adhering to the emissions criteria, you have to suspect all the others are at it too, otherwise VWs would be head and shoulders above the rest in real world performance
In reply to petellis:
it's in effect a double whammy, ammonia/nitrate pollution from intensive farming combined with urban vehicle pollution, produces very small particles that are much worse, than either source alone.
The solution is pretty clear. But, I doubt car manufacturers or the government will do anything meaningful. A move to less input/high intensity farming, far stricter pollution limits and a speed/rev limiter on all vehicles would push both industries in the right direction, very quickly. With most car's engines being computer controlled, even retro implementation wouldn't be too complex.
It is good that the USA is looking to remove some of these cars from the market, but knowing the USA, the customers will probably just head out and buy a 4litre dodge pick up truck instead.
> And actually they think it could be worse than 29000, I have read a total of 54000 due to poor air quality, 29000 directly from vehicles:
> I think people don't really understand the impact this is having,
> I think people don't really understand the impact this is having,
it's in effect a double whammy, ammonia/nitrate pollution from intensive farming combined with urban vehicle pollution, produces very small particles that are much worse, than either source alone.
The solution is pretty clear. But, I doubt car manufacturers or the government will do anything meaningful. A move to less input/high intensity farming, far stricter pollution limits and a speed/rev limiter on all vehicles would push both industries in the right direction, very quickly. With most car's engines being computer controlled, even retro implementation wouldn't be too complex.
It is good that the USA is looking to remove some of these cars from the market, but knowing the USA, the customers will probably just head out and buy a 4litre dodge pick up truck instead.
In reply to jkarran:
Some US states the exhaust emission standards are very lax. In Texas, a few years ago, I noticed that I would need about 40 times the emissions of my vehicle to fail the test. In the last couple of years, the testing stations have not even bothered to show me the formal results of the tests.
Some US states the exhaust emission standards are very lax. In Texas, a few years ago, I noticed that I would need about 40 times the emissions of my vehicle to fail the test. In the last couple of years, the testing stations have not even bothered to show me the formal results of the tests.
In reply to John Simpson:
Does the Vehicle Excise Duty for diesels in the UK vary with emissions? I have a feeling it does.
If so (and given that VW have now put their hands up to this being wider than just the USA) the UK government has been defrauded of tax revenue. Now obviously a big company dodging tax is not news but even so...
Does the Vehicle Excise Duty for diesels in the UK vary with emissions? I have a feeling it does.
If so (and given that VW have now put their hands up to this being wider than just the USA) the UK government has been defrauded of tax revenue. Now obviously a big company dodging tax is not news but even so...
In reply to csambrook:
I don't know the details of it but there are different tax bands relative to engine size, type of fuel and emissions so it's a bit more fraudulent than just giving an optimistic mpg in the marketing and sales. It seems there's been some higher level agendas implemented which the general public will never hear the full details of the whys and what for.
I don't know the details of it but there are different tax bands relative to engine size, type of fuel and emissions so it's a bit more fraudulent than just giving an optimistic mpg in the marketing and sales. It seems there's been some higher level agendas implemented which the general public will never hear the full details of the whys and what for.
Post edited at 23:05
In reply to John Stainforth:
Thats Just not true.
European cars are just light miles ahead.
Everyone knows that.
However the US are quite loyal to brands that manufacture in the US and many shy away from european cars.
For us anything over 25 is good.. my CRV returns 28 mpg.. my civic hybrid 37, my crown vic (just selling) 15 mpg at a push..
In the last 5 years there has been a drive towards economy but paying less than £15 for a tank of fuel again has knocked that back again. The other day I paid just over $1.95 for a US gallon. 30p a litre? Something like that. It's just a joke.
> The US is desperately trying to minimise sales of efficient European cars there, and it is very much in the interest of the EPA to find fault with European manufacturers.
Thats Just not true.
European cars are just light miles ahead.
Everyone knows that.
However the US are quite loyal to brands that manufacture in the US and many shy away from european cars.
For us anything over 25 is good.. my CRV returns 28 mpg.. my civic hybrid 37, my crown vic (just selling) 15 mpg at a push..
In the last 5 years there has been a drive towards economy but paying less than £15 for a tank of fuel again has knocked that back again. The other day I paid just over $1.95 for a US gallon. 30p a litre? Something like that. It's just a joke.
In reply to Roadrunner5:
What is a light mile? Is it a mile with half the calories, or is it the actually a unit of time, being the time light takes to go 1 mile - about 5 microseconds (cf light year = distance light travels in a year)?
> European cars are just light miles ahead.
What is a light mile? Is it a mile with half the calories, or is it the actually a unit of time, being the time light takes to go 1 mile - about 5 microseconds (cf light year = distance light travels in a year)?
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Why are you so sure? The US can be highly protectionist but in underhand ways. Given that VW cars are comparable to competitors' in most ways it seems very unlikely they are the only company doing this. It could be coincidence they were caught first and other companies including US ones will be caught soon, but I suspect not. It is entirely possible the decision to go after VW first is in part a political one.
Of course if they hadn't lied, they would have this problem.
> Thats Just not true.
Why are you so sure? The US can be highly protectionist but in underhand ways. Given that VW cars are comparable to competitors' in most ways it seems very unlikely they are the only company doing this. It could be coincidence they were caught first and other companies including US ones will be caught soon, but I suspect not. It is entirely possible the decision to go after VW first is in part a political one.
Of course if they hadn't lied, they would have this problem.
In reply to petellis:
I posted a topic on this about a year ago and got a collective yawn from UKC. Someone even said 'well 29,000 deaths isn't that many...
I gave up after that.
> There is real human cost to this as well. We need to make the moral connection between this event and the 29000 excess deaths a year from poor air quality directly attributed to vehicle emissions in this country.
I posted a topic on this about a year ago and got a collective yawn from UKC. Someone even said 'well 29,000 deaths isn't that many...
I gave up after that.
1
In reply to MG:
Plenty of US cars get caught and have similar issues.
GM got hit with a $35 million fine last year over a safety recall they didnt do, yet knew of the dangers.
Plenty of US cars get caught and have similar issues.
GM got hit with a $35 million fine last year over a safety recall they didnt do, yet knew of the dangers.
1
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
I've had several similar experiences on here. The worldwide deaths attributed to fossil fuel burning is put at between 2,000,000 and 7,000,000 per year by various credible sources. The VW scandal may tip that into public and media awareness.
> I posted a topic on this about a year ago and got a collective yawn from UKC. Someone even said 'well 29,000 deaths isn't that many...
> I gave up after that.
I've had several similar experiences on here. The worldwide deaths attributed to fossil fuel burning is put at between 2,000,000 and 7,000,000 per year by various credible sources. The VW scandal may tip that into public and media awareness.
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Well, I agree with you that foreign cars are light-years ahead in the US. I have a Toyota Prius there, which does 48 miles to the US gallon. In the UK I have the latest model (hopefully not doomed) of the Volkswagen Diesel Golf and that does an incredible 70 miles to the UK gallon.
I think the US authorities have opened up a can of worms. To use another cliche, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Won't this point the finger at the enormous emissions from the vast fleet of 18-wheeler trucks in the US that belch black smoke? The whole country relies very heavily on those trucks for the transportation of almost all goods.
However, this action by the EPA could bring the whole debate over emissions and climate change back into focus, which would be a good thing.
Well, I agree with you that foreign cars are light-years ahead in the US. I have a Toyota Prius there, which does 48 miles to the US gallon. In the UK I have the latest model (hopefully not doomed) of the Volkswagen Diesel Golf and that does an incredible 70 miles to the UK gallon.
I think the US authorities have opened up a can of worms. To use another cliche, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Won't this point the finger at the enormous emissions from the vast fleet of 18-wheeler trucks in the US that belch black smoke? The whole country relies very heavily on those trucks for the transportation of almost all goods.
However, this action by the EPA could bring the whole debate over emissions and climate change back into focus, which would be a good thing.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...