On 15/06/16 08:57, dennis@home wrote:
On 15/06/2016 01:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
No, the cheat software detected a test situation and altered
the engine parameters to pass the test, but affected vehicle
driveability and performance. In the real world the
emissions fail the test.

What's needed is more and better EU directives on vehicle testing, then.


An alternative using the current laws is to pull all the affected cars
up for "random" spot checks and fine the drivers.


You cant simulate actual long term emissions on a random spot check by
the roadside. That was the point of the dyno test rigs, but
sophisticated software made them invalid, too.

Oddly enough, its this kind of crap that I set up Gridwatch to try and
understand. The long term real emissions from energy generation, not
what computer models, or idealised tests, showed.

Its taken a LONG time. and assistance for gridwatch, to actually put a
number on how much CO2 savings adding wind to one grid - Eirgrid- has had.

The answer. Less than half of what renewable energy lobbies claimed.

In terms of cars, what you probably need, is a NOx sensor, that builds
up data in an onboard database, and collect all that data after a year
from every car at the MOT, and if on balance the manufacturer is not
meeting specs, fine the *******s. Or Fail the MOT. Amounts to the same
really. If you can't meet emissions standards as defined by real time
monitoring, the car is unsaleable anyway.

The point is that you can with clever computers always defeat the
purpose of any particular test that is clearly and rigidly defined.

Better to use the clever computers to log actual real-world performance.




That would hit VW rather hard when new cars are being sold and would
result in a lot of law suits against them.

However the current method where they are being forced to fix them is
probably better for all.


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone