On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:56:26 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:

Vincent Cheng Hoi Chuen wrote:
Ashton Crusher wrote in
:

That's my point for this thread branch, yes. Not only isn't it worth
it, the code is none of teh EPA's damn business.

What I don't understand is that the code, apparently, allowed *more*
fuel to the engine (to cool the combustion chamber) which lowered NOx
emissions.

So, fixing the problem should result in *less* fuel to the engine, if
that's the case.

When they reflash the ecu, wouldn't that lowering of fuel *increase* gas
mileage *and* bring NOx emissions back down to where they said they were?


Backwards.

Less fuel = hotter burn in the combustion chamber = higher NOx numbers
It shows up as vehicles that get better EPA mileage numbers than the
sticker says because they are burning less fuel.

To correct the issue they need to increase the fuel to the engine to
cool the combustion temperatures.

Remember we are talking DIESEL here. The more fuel, the hotter the
burn. Same is true of Gasoline, but only to a point. The point doesn't
come in to play with a compression ignition engine

The end result will be that the EPA MPG numbers will be closer to
reality because the engine is now using the fuel to keep the NOx numbers
down. The only "bad" side effect will be that the particulate trap and
the NOx catalyst will need to burn more often to regenerate.



OR VW could come up with a DEF retrofit to drop the NOx numbers.
Are their DEF vehicles included in the "scam" -(Tourag, T7 and
Passat) TDI

Vincent Cheng Hoi Chuen wrote:
Ashton Crusher wrote in
:

Yes, if fixing teh code causes the mpg to go down it's possible that
VW would then be on the hook for false MPG claims. Kia or one of
those smaller companies got hit with fines for that not that long
ago.

What I don't understand is that the code, apparently, allowed *more*
fuel to the engine (to cool the combustion chamber) which lowered NOx
emissions.

So, fixing the problem should result in *less* fuel to the engine, if
that's the case.

When they reflash the ecu, wouldn't that lowering of fuel *increase*
gas mileage *and* bring NOx emissions back down to where they said
they were?

Are you suggesting that they cheated just to cheat, even though it hurt mileage
and pollution?

Funny!

Vincent Cheng Hoi Chuen wrote:
Ewald Böhm wrote in
:

My question is HOW did the car *know* it was being *tested* for
emissions?

This video says that the VW TDI meets all California and US & Europe
requirements! https://youtu.be/GzuFXeO48Rw?t=635

So it must be true?

require vw to buy back every single vehicle and crush them, then pay the 37K fine, sending some corporate big wigs to the slammer would be helpful too.

prohibiting vw from selling any new vehicles in the US for say 5 years would round out their punishment

"Bob F" wrote in :

This video says that the VW TDI meets all California and US & Europe
requirements! https://youtu.be/GzuFXeO48Rw?t=635

So it must be true?

It was ironic.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:19:10 +0000, Ewald Böhm wrote:

My question is HOW did the car *know* it was being *tested* for emissions?

What I don't understand is that VW had to submit test results from a
(supposedly) independent company in Europe to get certified in Europe
for the 11 million cars that might be affected.

They apparently contracted that job out to Applus Idiada of Spain.

Has anyone any idea how Applus Idiada verified the wrong numbers?

Ewald Böhm wrote in message


Apparently Volkswagen/Audi cheated on the USA emissions tests since
2009 to 2015 by turning off the EGR to lower nitrogen oxide emissions
ONLY when the car was being tested for emissions.

Was the software really all that "sophisticated"?

The NY Times said it was "sophisticated".
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/bu...boardroom.html

I think it was just brazen.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 01:56:01 +0000, JJ wrote:

I think it was just brazen.

Apparently cheating is rather common.

Volkswagen Test Rigging Follows a Long Auto Industry Pattern
By DANNY HAKIM and HIROKO TABUCHISEPT. 23, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/bu...y-pattern.html

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 6:39:20 PM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
require vw to buy back every single vehicle and crush them, then pay the 37K fine, sending some corporate big wigs to the slammer would be helpful too.

prohibiting vw from selling any new vehicles in the US for say 5 years would round out their punishment

I have no problem with punishing the guilty but it's insane to destroy innocent people in the process. I'm still waiting for the whole "true" story. I have a feeling that there is a lot more going on than the media is hysterically howling about. The rest of the story will follow a familiar pattern and come out long after the media has it attention focused on the next shiny object. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Justice Monster

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 7:39:20 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
require vw to buy back every single vehicle and crush them, then pay the 37K fine, sending some corporate big wigs to the slammer would be helpful too.

prohibiting vw from selling any new vehicles in the US for say 5 years would round out their punishment

And once again, since you keep posting this, being a lib, are you OK
with screwing the hundreds of thousands, probably millions of employees
that had nothing to do with the cheating? OK with the unemployment
claims govts will have to pay? OK with the bankruptcies of VW dealers,
the effect that will have on their creditors, loss of jobs for their
employees, etc?

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 9:50:42 PM UTC-4, Winston_Smith wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:19:10 +0000, Ewald Böhm wrote:

My question is HOW did the car *know* it was being *tested* for emissions?

What I don't understand is that VW had to submit test results from a
(supposedly) independent company in Europe to get certified in Europe
for the 11 million cars that might be affected.

They apparently contracted that job out to Applus Idiada of Spain.

Has anyone any idea how Applus Idiada verified the wrong numbers?

One likely way would be that they also did it via a dyno test.
It's certainly easier and more practical, consistent, than driving
on roads.

On 9/25/2015 8:54 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 7:39:20 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
require vw to buy back every single vehicle and crush them, then pay the 37K fine, sending some corporate big wigs to the slammer would be helpful too.

prohibiting vw from selling any new vehicles in the US for say 5 years would round out their punishment

And once again, since you keep posting this, being a lib, are you OK
with screwing the hundreds of thousands, probably millions of employees
that had nothing to do with the cheating? OK with the unemployment
claims govts will have to pay? OK with the bankruptcies of VW dealers,
the effect that will have on their creditors, loss of jobs for their
employees, etc?


Exactly!

And it's the norm, not the exception, for companies exaggerate to their product performance specs. Yawn!

If we go after VW, by rights we have to prosecute the other Fortune 499.

NoSpamForMe wrote:
On 9/25/2015 8:54 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 7:39:20 PM UTC-4, bob haller
wrote:
require vw to buy back every single vehicle and crush them, then
pay the 37K fine, sending some corporate big wigs to the slammer
would be helpful too. prohibiting vw from selling any new vehicles in the
US for say 5
years would round out their punishment

And once again, since you keep posting this, being a lib, are you OK
with screwing the hundreds of thousands, probably millions of
employees that had nothing to do with the cheating? OK with the
unemployment claims govts will have to pay? OK with the
bankruptcies of VW dealers, the effect that will have on their
creditors, loss of jobs for their employees, etc?


Exactly!

And it's the norm, not the exception, for companies exaggerate to
their product performance specs. Yawn!
If we go after VW, by rights we have to prosecute the other Fortune
499.

Sounds good to me.

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 8:54:28 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 7:39:20 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
require vw to buy back every single vehicle and crush them, then pay the 37K fine, sending some corporate big wigs to the slammer would be helpful too.

prohibiting vw from selling any new vehicles in the US for say 5 years would round out their punishment

And once again, since you keep posting this, being a lib, are you OK
with screwing the hundreds of thousands, probably millions of employees
that had nothing to do with the cheating? OK with the unemployment
claims govts will have to pay? OK with the bankruptcies of VW dealers,
the effect that will have on their creditors, loss of jobs for their
employees, etc?

yeah thats fine by me, people will still buy new vehicles just notttttttttttttt

posted for all of us...



On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:36:33 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

posted for all of us...


Then how do you explain the FACT that todays engines -
1)produce higher spedific output than engines in the past
2) Consume fewer gallons of gas per unit distance travelled
AND
3) produce lower exhaut emissions

-than the engines of only a few years back - muchless the
"uncontrolled" engines of the 50s and 60s, and the early emission
engines of the 70s and 80s?

VW will just have to step up to the plate and spend in retrofits what
they should have spent in initial design and production - plus.


Wise business decision... Why do they do this? It would be a great subject
of an independent analysis. Weren't they owned by Chrysler at the start of
this?
VW has NEVER been owned by Chrysler, nor has Chrysler been owned by
VW

I am glad you challenged me! I was thinking of the VW/Chrysler plant in PA.
I was mistaken in ownership. Thank you.

--
Tekkie

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:08:15 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

posted for all of us...



On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:36:33 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

posted for all of us...


Then how do you explain the FACT that todays engines -
1)produce higher spedific output than engines in the past
2) Consume fewer gallons of gas per unit distance travelled
AND
3) produce lower exhaut emissions

-than the engines of only a few years back - muchless the
"uncontrolled" engines of the 50s and 60s, and the early emission
engines of the 70s and 80s?

VW will just have to step up to the plate and spend in retrofits what
they should have spent in initial design and production - plus.


Wise business decision... Why do they do this? It would be a great subject
of an independent analysis. Weren't they owned by Chrysler at the start of
this?
VW has NEVER been owned by Chrysler, nor has Chrysler been owned by
VW

I am glad you challenged me! I was thinking of the VW/Chrysler plant in PA.
I was mistaken in ownership. Thank you.
Like AMC, Chrysler DID buy some engines from VW back around then -
the Omni-Horizon originally used a VAG supplied engine (Audi fox?) a
bit bigger than the rabbit engine at the time - and I believe AMC used
basically the same engine in the early 4 cyl Spirit.

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 9:27:59 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:08:15 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

posted for all of us...


On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:36:33 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

posted for all of us...

Then how do you explain the FACT that todays engines -
1)produce higher spedific output than engines in the past
2) Consume fewer gallons of gas per unit distance travelled
AND
3) produce lower exhaut emissions

-than the engines of only a few years back - muchless the
"uncontrolled" engines of the 50s and 60s, and the early emission
engines of the 70s and 80s?

VW will just have to step up to the plate and spend in retrofits what
they should have spent in initial design and production - plus.


Wise business decision... Why do they do this? It would be a great subject
of an independent analysis. Weren't they owned by Chrysler at the start of
this?
VW has NEVER been owned by Chrysler, nor has Chrysler been owned by
VW

I am glad you challenged me! I was thinking of the VW/Chrysler plant in PA.
I was mistaken in ownership. Thank you.
Like AMC, Chrysler DID buy some engines from VW back around then -
the Omni-Horizon originally used a VAG supplied engine (Audi fox?) a
bit bigger than the rabbit engine at the time - and I believe AMC used
basically the same engine in the early 4 cyl Spirit.

I knew Chrysler bought engines from other manufacturers but I didn't know all of them and I was surprised when I looked it up. ^_^

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chrysler_engines

[8~{} Uncle Engine Monster

| And once again, since you keep posting this, being a lib, are you OK
| with screwing the hundreds of thousands, probably millions of employees
| that had nothing to do with the cheating?

| Exactly!
|
| If we go after VW, by rights we have to prosecute the other Fortune 499.
|

If you're really worried about VW employees
then why not favor some kind of compensation
for their losses, paid by the shareholders and
executives? The line workers are almost certain
to lose either way. Why should the public foot
that bill? Trader_4 isn't worried about the
employees. I don't believe you could care less
about them, either.

Do you just hate all regulations and think society
should work like a game of King of the Hill? Whoever
dies with the most toys wins?

The one thing I know for sure about your thinking
is that you don't own a VW diesel car that you're
hoping to resell anytime soon.

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 10:00:05 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
| And once again, since you keep posting this, being a lib, are you OK
| with screwing the hundreds of thousands, probably millions of employees
| that had nothing to do with the cheating?

| Exactly!
|
| If we go after VW, by rights we have to prosecute the other Fortune 499.
|

If you're really worried about VW employees
then why not favor some kind of compensation
for their losses, paid by the shareholders and
executives? The line workers are almost certain
to lose either way. Why should the public foot
that bill? Trader_4 isn't worried about the
employees. I don't believe you could care less
about them, either.


Say what? I'm not worried about the employees?
Where did that come from? It was
Bob H that came up with the suggestion for draconian measures,
eg ban VW from selling cars for 5 years. I immediately
raised the issue of what that would do the employees,
dealerships, the resulting job losses at VW, their suppliers,
unemployment benefit that would have to be paid, etc.
The cure would be totally out of proportion to the crime.

trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 10:00:05 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
And once again, since you keep posting this, being a lib, are you
OK with screwing the hundreds of thousands, probably millions of
employees that had nothing to do with the cheating?

Exactly!

If we go after VW, by rights we have to prosecute the other Fortune
499.


If you're really worried about VW employees
then why not favor some kind of compensation
for their losses, paid by the shareholders and
executives? The line workers are almost certain
to lose either way. Why should the public foot
that bill? Trader_4 isn't worried about the
employees. I don't believe you could care less
about them, either.


Say what? I'm not worried about the employees?
Where did that come from? It was
Bob H that came up with the suggestion for draconian measures,
eg ban VW from selling cars for 5 years. I immediately
raised the issue of what that would do the employees,
dealerships, the resulting job losses at VW, their suppliers,
unemployment benefit that would have to be paid, etc.
The cure would be totally out of proportion to the crime.

Corporations are a legal creation by governments that allow certain legal
protections, and at least origionally, were expected to benefit the community in
exchange for that protection.

I suppose that since the VW corporate mangement did not care to be good
corporate citizens, and did not care enough about their own employees to run a
responsible legal business, their legal protections of incorporation could be
cancelled, and the business nationalized. That might discourage other companies
from such actions. The only ones hurt would be the management and stockholders,
and they might start to look at how the businesses they invest in do business.

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 11:46:42 AM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 10:00:05 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
And once again, since you keep posting this, being a lib, are you
OK with screwing the hundreds of thousands, probably millions of
employees that had nothing to do with the cheating?

Exactly!

If we go after VW, by rights we have to prosecute the other Fortune
499.


If you're really worried about VW employees
then why not favor some kind of compensation
for their losses, paid by the shareholders and
executives? The line workers are almost certain
to lose either way. Why should the public foot
that bill? Trader_4 isn't worried about the
employees. I don't believe you could care less
about them, either.


Say what? I'm not worried about the employees?
Where did that come from? It was
Bob H that came up with the suggestion for draconian measures,
eg ban VW from selling cars for 5 years. I immediately
raised the issue of what that would do the employees,
dealerships, the resulting job losses at VW, their suppliers,
unemployment benefit that would have to be paid, etc.
The cure would be totally out of proportion to the crime.

Corporations are a legal creation by governments that allow certain legal
protections, and at least origionally, were expected to benefit the community in
exchange for that protection.

I suppose that since the VW corporate mangement did not care to be good
corporate citizens, and did not care enough about their own employees to run a
responsible legal business, their legal protections of incorporation could be
cancelled, and the business nationalized. That might discourage other companies
from such actions. The only ones hurt would be the management and stockholders,
and they might start to look at how the businesses they invest in do business.

You libs would use any excuse to nationalize anything you could.
There are so many things wrong with this, starting with how about
grandma's retirement account, that has a lot of VW stock? Good grief.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 02:55:49 +0000 (UTC), Vincent Cheng Hoi Chuen
wrote:

Ashton Crusher wrote in
:

That's my point for this thread branch, yes. Not only isn't it worth
it, the code is none of teh EPA's damn business.

What I don't understand is that the code, apparently, allowed *more*
fuel to the engine (to cool the combustion chamber) which lowered NOx
emissions.

So, fixing the problem should result in *less* fuel to the engine, if
that's the case.

When they reflash the ecu, wouldn't that lowering of fuel *increase* gas
mileage *and* bring NOx emissions back down to where they said they were?

Have you actually seen any factual data that they were providing more
fuel? From the little bit of decent info I've seen it looked more
like they were trying to extend the life of some "filter" by turning
the filter "off" and just letting the stuff fly out the tailpipe.

some info here..
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...explainer.html

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 16:39:15 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

require vw to buy back every single vehicle and crush them, then pay the 37K fine, sending some corporate big wigs to the slammer would be helpful too.

prohibiting vw from selling any new vehicles in the US for say 5 years would round out their punishment

That would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. Unless your goal is
to punish hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of innocent people.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 10:37:18 -0400, NoSpamForMe
wrote:

On 9/25/2015 8:54 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 7:39:20 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
require vw to buy back every single vehicle and crush them, then pay the 37K fine, sending some corporate big wigs to the slammer would be helpful too.

prohibiting vw from selling any new vehicles in the US for say 5 years would round out their punishment

And once again, since you keep posting this, being a lib, are you OK
with screwing the hundreds of thousands, probably millions of employees
that had nothing to do with the cheating? OK with the unemployment
claims govts will have to pay? OK with the bankruptcies of VW dealers,
the effect that will have on their creditors, loss of jobs for their
employees, etc?


Exactly!

And it's the norm, not the exception, for companies exaggerate to their product performance specs. Yawn!

If we go after VW, by rights we have to prosecute the other Fortune 499.


This isn't just puffery and exaggeration of performance. The legal
limit was 0.04 gram per mile. These vehicles emitted roughly 25 times
that amount. I've done the math, you can too. Over a 100,000 km
lifetime of 10 million vehicles that adds up to an ADDITIONAL 2+
BILLION pounds of pollution spewed into the air.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 09:59:56 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| And once again, since you keep posting this, being a lib, are you OK
| with screwing the hundreds of thousands, probably millions of employees
| that had nothing to do with the cheating?

| Exactly!
|
| If we go after VW, by rights we have to prosecute the other Fortune 499.
|

If you're really worried about VW employees
then why not favor some kind of compensation
for their losses, paid by the shareholders and
executives? The line workers are almost certain
to lose either way. Why should the public foot
that bill? Trader_4 isn't worried about the
employees. I don't believe you could care less
about them, either.

Do you just hate all regulations and think society
should work like a game of King of the Hill? Whoever
dies with the most toys wins?

The one thing I know for sure about your thinking
is that you don't own a VW diesel car that you're
hoping to resell anytime soon.


There is no reason to create a "bill" to "foot" in the first place.
That damage is DONE and teh vehicles need to be Fixed. Causing
excessive financial penalties over that will just punish the innocent.
The appropriate penalties are CRIMINAL penalties for the actual people
in engineering and management who wrote and approved this software
deception. From all I've read, this is not simply "oops, I forgot to
turn off that bit of debugging code" but involved quite a bit of
purposeful code writing to enable the computer to figure out when it
was in many different "emissions test mode" status's. It is
inconceivable only one or two people were involved and I would have to
think several more would have noticed something fishy but were told to
shut up. It is conceivable only engineering types and middle
management were the culprits.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 08:46:37 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 10:00:05 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
And once again, since you keep posting this, being a lib, are you
OK with screwing the hundreds of thousands, probably millions of
employees that had nothing to do with the cheating?

Exactly!

If we go after VW, by rights we have to prosecute the other Fortune
499.


If you're really worried about VW employees
then why not favor some kind of compensation
for their losses, paid by the shareholders and
executives? The line workers are almost certain
to lose either way. Why should the public foot
that bill? Trader_4 isn't worried about the
employees. I don't believe you could care less
about them, either.


Say what? I'm not worried about the employees?
Where did that come from? It was
Bob H that came up with the suggestion for draconian measures,
eg ban VW from selling cars for 5 years. I immediately
raised the issue of what that would do the employees,
dealerships, the resulting job losses at VW, their suppliers,
unemployment benefit that would have to be paid, etc.
The cure would be totally out of proportion to the crime.

Corporations are a legal creation by governments that allow certain legal
protections, and at least origionally, were expected to benefit the community in
exchange for that protection.

I suppose that since the VW corporate mangement did not care to be good
corporate citizens, and did not care enough about their own employees to run a
responsible legal business, their legal protections of incorporation could be
cancelled, and the business nationalized. That might discourage other companies
from such actions. The only ones hurt would be the management and stockholders,
and they might start to look at how the businesses they invest in do business.


The stockholders are also innocent. Why would you punish them? The
"market" is already punishing them anyway.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:53:56 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 8:54:28 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 7:39:20 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
require vw to buy back every single vehicle and crush them, then pay the 37K fine, sending some corporate big wigs to the slammer would be helpful too.

prohibiting vw from selling any new vehicles in the US for say 5 years would round out their punishment

And once again, since you keep posting this, being a lib, are you OK
with screwing the hundreds of thousands, probably millions of employees
that had nothing to do with the cheating? OK with the unemployment
claims govts will have to pay? OK with the bankruptcies of VW dealers,
the effect that will have on their creditors, loss of jobs for their
employees, etc?

yeah thats fine by me, people will still buy new vehicles just notttttttttttttt

Then you are an idiot.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 05:56:16 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 9:50:42 PM UTC-4, Winston_Smith wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:19:10 +0000, Ewald Böhm wrote:

My question is HOW did the car *know* it was being *tested* for emissions?

What I don't understand is that VW had to submit test results from a
(supposedly) independent company in Europe to get certified in Europe
for the 11 million cars that might be affected.

They apparently contracted that job out to Applus Idiada of Spain.

Has anyone any idea how Applus Idiada verified the wrong numbers?

One likely way would be that they also did it via a dyno test.
It's certainly easier and more practical, consistent, than driving
on roads.

Why would it be difficult to run these test on the road? Sure the
equipment might cost several thousand but that's chickenfeed for this
kind of study.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 01:56:01 +0000 (UTC), JJ
wrote:

Ewald Böhm wrote in message


Apparently Volkswagen/Audi cheated on the USA emissions tests since
2009 to 2015 by turning off the EGR to lower nitrogen oxide emissions
ONLY when the car was being tested for emissions.

Was the software really all that "sophisticated"?

The NY Times said it was "sophisticated".
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/bu...boardroom.html

I think it was just brazen.


No reason it can't be both.

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 2:43:01 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 05:56:16 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 9:50:42 PM UTC-4, Winston_Smith wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:19:10 +0000, Ewald Böhm wrote:

My question is HOW did the car *know* it was being *tested* for emissions?

What I don't understand is that VW had to submit test results from a
(supposedly) independent company in Europe to get certified in Europe
for the 11 million cars that might be affected.

They apparently contracted that job out to Applus Idiada of Spain.

Has anyone any idea how Applus Idiada verified the wrong numbers?

One likely way would be that they also did it via a dyno test.
It's certainly easier and more practical, consistent, than driving
on roads.

Why would it be difficult to run these test on the road? Sure the
equipment might cost several thousand but that's chickenfeed for this
kind of study.

I didn't say it was difficult, just that it's easier to run a test
on the dyno. And it's a controlled repeatable environment. Driving
on the highway 500 miles today could be under different conditions
than tomorrow, that you have no control over, ie traffic backed up,
slower speeds, more accelerating, de-accelerating, etc.

| The stockholders are also innocent. Why would you punish them? The
| "market" is already punishing them anyway.

The stockholders are the ones who stand to win
or lose. It's their responsibility financially. And in
this case, a controlling interest is owned by two
families that are said to hold a tight rein. It's not
punishing the stockholders. It's holding the
corporation responsible.

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:42:47 +0000 (UTC), Winston_Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:00:58 -0400, Steve W. wrote:

I would bet there will be a software "patch" that will
erase the different testing maps, the cars will then meet the original
EPA standards

I think the point is that the cars can only either meet the emissions
standards with reduced drivability, or, with the addition of a urea
system.

Either will be expensive.

What I'd like to find out someday is what the actual difference "on
the road" is in drivablity between the cars in "cheat" mode versus
when they run with all the emissions turned on like they are supposed
to. It would be funny if there really wasn't very much difference and
they did this just to get 31.9 mpg instead of 31.2 mpg and 0-60 of
12.0 seconds rather then 12.3.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 17:52:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| The stockholders are also innocent. Why would you punish them? The
| "market" is already punishing them anyway.

The stockholders are the ones who stand to win
or lose. It's their responsibility financially. And in
this case, a controlling interest is owned by two
families that are said to hold a tight rein. It's not
punishing the stockholders. It's holding the
corporation responsible.


None of those people had a damn thing to do with this malfeasance. Why
would you punish them AND all the direct and indirect employees who
make their living thru VW? It's like shooting yourself in the foot
and doing it on purpose. Punish the wrongdoers not the innocent.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:00:06 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 2:43:01 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 05:56:16 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 9:50:42 PM UTC-4, Winston_Smith wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:19:10 +0000, Ewald Böhm wrote:

My question is HOW did the car *know* it was being *tested* for emissions?

What I don't understand is that VW had to submit test results from a
(supposedly) independent company in Europe to get certified in Europe
for the 11 million cars that might be affected.

They apparently contracted that job out to Applus Idiada of Spain.

Has anyone any idea how Applus Idiada verified the wrong numbers?

One likely way would be that they also did it via a dyno test.
It's certainly easier and more practical, consistent, than driving
on roads.

Why would it be difficult to run these test on the road? Sure the
equipment might cost several thousand but that's chickenfeed for this
kind of study.

I didn't say it was difficult, just that it's easier to run a test
on the dyno. And it's a controlled repeatable environment. Driving
on the highway 500 miles today could be under different conditions
than tomorrow, that you have no control over, ie traffic backed up,
slower speeds, more accelerating, de-accelerating, etc.

Which is exactly the situation you WANT to find out about... How does
the system, which seems to be working in the "lab" actually work in
the real world. Sure there's more variability, so what. The point of
emissions controls isn't to keep the soot off the walls of the "lab"
it's to keep the soot out of the atmosphere out in the real world.

On 9/26/2015 2:40 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 08:46:37 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:


I suppose that since the VW corporate mangement did not care to be good
corporate citizens, and did not care enough about their own employees to run a
responsible legal business, their legal protections of incorporation could be
cancelled, and the business nationalized. That might discourage other companies
from such actions. The only ones hurt would be the management and stockholders,
and they might start to look at how the businesses they invest in do business.


The stockholders are also innocent. Why would you punish them? The
"market" is already punishing them anyway.


VW has been a good citizen for decades and stockholders had no reason to
suspect wrongdoing. Investors put up money in good faith and have been
hoodwinked.

The culprit is most likely a segment of management that may even have
been swindling their own upper management. Hard to say yet how many and
what rank is involved. The everyday worker on the line was just doing
their job.

On 9/26/2015 3:00 PM, trader_4 wrote:

What I don't understand is that VW had to submit test results from a
(supposedly) independent company in Europe to get certified in Europe
for the 11 million cars that might be affected.

They apparently contracted that job out to Applus Idiada of Spain.

Has anyone any idea how Applus Idiada verified the wrong numbers?

One likely way would be that they also did it via a dyno test.
It's certainly easier and more practical, consistent, than driving
on roads.

Why would it be difficult to run these test on the road? Sure the
equipment might cost several thousand but that's chickenfeed for this
kind of study.

I didn't say it was difficult, just that it's easier to run a test
on the dyno. And it's a controlled repeatable environment. Driving
on the highway 500 miles today could be under different conditions
than tomorrow, that you have no control over, ie traffic backed up,
slower speeds, more accelerating, de-accelerating, etc.


The scam was discovered by actual road tests. It is also possible the
test units were rigged when sent for testing. If it was dyno, it would
have passed. I'm sure there will be a lot of road testing done to
verify what others are doing.

On 09/26/2015 12:16 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Criminal prosecution of those who knowingly did this would be fine.

Winterkorn already fell on his sword. What's ironic is Winterkorn won
the ****ing contest with Piëch but I've got a feeling Piëch knows more
about the gaming.

| | The stockholders are also innocent. Why would you punish them? The
| | "market" is already punishing them anyway.
|
| The stockholders are the ones who stand to win
| or lose. It's their responsibility financially. And in
| this case, a controlling interest is owned by two
| families that are said to hold a tight rein. It's not
| punishing the stockholders. It's holding the
| corporation responsible.
|
|
| None of those people had a damn thing to do with this malfeasance. Why
| would you punish them AND all the direct and indirect employees who
| make their living thru VW? It's like shooting yourself in the foot
| and doing it on purpose. Punish the wrongdoers not the innocent.

You haven't fully read the foregoing sub-thread.
That's not what's being talked about.

What do you think the corporation is? If VW is
fined $10 billion that comes out of the stockholders.
They're the corporation. Where else would it come
from? Punishment and reward for a corporation is
all in terms of money. The corporation itself is held
responsible. Essentially, the corporation is the
stockholders. I don't make those rules. And
I don't support them. But that's how it works. It's
unlikely that individuals will be criminally punished
*because* of the way that incorporating avoids
personal responsibility.

(That's the core of the current debate around the
Citizens United case. The Scalia junta of the SCOTUS
ruled that a corporation is an individual and that,
therefore, as long as you incorporate you're free to
corrupt the political system with money in a way
that actual people are not. The result is all sorts
of extremists, both liberal and conservative, filing
a few papers to call themselves something like
"Americans for America" and then using that money
anonymously to buy their favorite candidate.)

This sub-thread started with two people using the
excuse of not harming the employees as their rationale
for not having govt regulation or punishment. They're
saying there should be no punishment. Their concern
about employees was clearly bogus, but it raised an
interesting point. All I said was, if they're worried about
the line employees, then why not arrange for the penalty
to help them? Let VW cover any losses of the low-level
employees rather than have the govt do it through
unemployment benefits.

In the case of VW, the company is closely held,
with the majority of the stock owned by two
falimies, Porsche and Piesch (sp?), who agree to
vote together. So they control the company.
Another big chunk is owned by the German state
of South Saxony. Most of the stock is *not* in the
hands of people who have no say in how the company
operates.

But even if it was, I still don't see why they shouldn't
lose. The small stock owner owns part of the company.
If they're not liable, at least financially, then there is
no liability. That's the problem we have now with mutual
funds being used to finance retirement. Lots of people
own a tiny part of large corporations and have a financial
interest in the success of those corporations, while
sharing no say and no responsibility for corporate actions.
It's actually a kind of money laundering and "sin laundering"
on a massive scale. In the case of something like the
BP oil spill, for instance, there are many people with mixed
interests. As citizens it's in their interest to punish BP and
require them to clean up. As owners of mutual funds it's in
their interest for all large corporations to profit as much as
possible and never suffer penalties. Who is BP, after all?
It's all those mutual fund owners. The result of that is
widespread amoral corporate governance and an apathetic
public.

I'm curious what your plan is for VW. You want to
punish those responsible? Who's responsible? How do we
figure that out? Someone had to write the software.
Others had to road-test the software. Those people
had managers. How do we figure out exactly who's
to blame, and how much? How do we punish them and
compensate the VW owners? Should all those people
have all their money taken away? What if all that money
doesn't nearly cover the penalties? And what about the
poor children of those guilty VW employees who are
innocent? And what about VW in that scenario? If only
particular empoyees are punished then what would be
to motive for the owners of VW to be more honest next
time? Wouldn't they "owe it to the stockholders" to
cheat even more?

Personally I'm not so much advocating a particular
position here as exploring the issue. To my mind the
legal structure of corporations is the biggest, underlying
problem. As long as penalties are essentially just a
cost of profits there's no motive for humane, ethical
behavior in corporate governance.

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 5:52:38 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
| The stockholders are also innocent. Why would you punish them? The
| "market" is already punishing them anyway.

The stockholders are the ones who stand to win
or lose. It's their responsibility financially. And in
this case, a controlling interest is owned by two
families that are said to hold a tight rein. It's not
punishing the stockholders. It's holding the
corporation responsible.

It is of course punishing the stockholders whenever a fine
or penalty is levied on a corporation. Who owns those shares
is irrelevant. And I'd like to see the basis for your claim
that a controlling interest is owned by two families, because
I think it's BS. I'd bet any such families own at most a
few perecent. But if you have the facts, I'm sure we'd be
interested in seeing it. Even if the alleged families
owned 30% or some similar huge amount, you'd still be
punishing them and the other 70% of stockholders.

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 8:58:24 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:42:47 +0000 (UTC), Winston_Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:00:58 -0400, Steve W. wrote:

I would bet there will be a software "patch" that will
erase the different testing maps, the cars will then meet the original
EPA standards

I think the point is that the cars can only either meet the emissions
standards with reduced drivability, or, with the addition of a urea
system.

Either will be expensive.

What I'd like to find out someday is what the actual difference "on
the road" is in drivablity between the cars in "cheat" mode versus
when they run with all the emissions turned on like they are supposed
to. It would be funny if there really wasn't very much difference and
they did this just to get 31.9 mpg instead of 31.2 mpg and 0-60 of
12.0 seconds rather then 12.3.

It's also possible that there are other serious effects. Like
maybe the emission system components can't stand the constant
operation. Apparently there are cat converters, urea systems,
particulate filters involved too.