On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 9:06:42 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
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...

I think we're getting off track here. The post I replied to, I
believe it was about VW having sent the cars to some outside lab
to be tested and they passed. Someone questioned how that could
be. I simply said probably because that outside lab tested it
the same way, on the dyno. Since presumably VW didn't want to
"find out about it", it would seem highly likely that they made
sure they understood how that lab was going to do the test.



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.

I would have to disagree. The point of the emissions test is to
pass whatever the standards are, the test methods, as defined by
EPA. If the EPA says running it on the dyno it has to put out
no more than X, Y, Z, then that's what counts. They shouldn't
be cheating on the test, but designing it to meet the EPA reqts
and the EPA required testes is what counts.

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 9:43:28 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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.

+1

On 9/26/2015 9:43 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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.

Exactly, middle management integrity means nothing.
In fact, it may impede your personal career.
A good lie and a dose of bull**** wins every time.

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 9:00:52 AM 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.
|
|
| 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?

Which is directly contradictory to your position that the
stockholders are not being punished.



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.


Wrong. A corporation doesn't shield employees or anyone
else from criminal laws. From what we've heard so far,
VW could be charged criminally under US law. Not sure
about German law.


(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.)


Have any of the people running them committed criminal acts?
If and when they do, then they will be subject to criminal
prosecution.



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.

I didn't see anyone saying no punishment at all, just that
draconian measures like Bob H suggested, ie banning them from
selling cars for 5 years would have disastrous consequences
and harm millions of people who had nothing to do with it.
Prosecuting those actually responsible would seem to make a
lot more sense.


Their concern
about employees was clearly bogus, but it raised an
interesting point.

Why is a concern about employees being laid off if you stopped
them from selling cars for 5 years bogus?



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.


With VW prevented from selling cars for 5 years, how exactly
is VW going to help the employees? Are they going to help
all the dealers that go bankrupt? All the laid off employees
there too? The laid off employees at suppliers? Why create
a "penalty" fiasco that impacts the global economy to begin with?
The worldwide economy is still in enough trouble as it is.



In the case of VW, the company is closely held,
with the majority of the stock owned by two
falimies, Porsche and Piesch (sp?),

Show us a cite for that, I don't believe it.

From Wiki:

32.2% Porsche Automobil Holding SE
24.9% Foreign institutional investors
16.4% Qatar Holding LLC
12.7% State of Lower Saxony
9.3% Private shareholders / others
3.0% German institutional investors
1.5% Porsche Holding GmbH, Salzburg



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.


Even if that were true, so what? It's OK to then screw
the 40% of stockholders who had nothing to do with anything.
And the premise is still faulty, because there is no
evidence that you're alleged big investors knew what
was going on or had anything to do with it in any way.


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.

The stock has already gone down 35%, how much blood do you want?



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.

Spoken like a true commie.

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.


Yeah, the occasional BP or VW, and all of free market capitalism
stinks. Never mind that it's built the most successful economy
in history and the only superpower in the word today. Never mind
that it's produced similar spectacular results around the world.
No, it's all bad. Of course other systems, like communism, where
everyone is in line for bread and they have Chernobyls and God knows
what else that we don't know about because they just cover it up,
are 100X worse. But, heh, let's blow anything bad that happens
with capitalism all out of proportion, right?



I'm curious what your plan is for VW. You want to
punish those responsible? Who's responsible? How do we
figure that out?

That would be called an investigation which is under way.




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?

The same way we figure out who robbed a bank, investigation.
We don't round up all the people in the lobby and punish
them, the tellers, the stockholders, etc, do we?




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.

Which is why punishing with financial penalties has limited
usefulness and it mostly hits people who had absolutely
nothing to do with it. IF the company had a history of
cheating, of violating the laws, of operating outside the
law, then I can see it making sense.

trader_4 wrote:
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.

I don't think urea is used in the VW violations.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:00:50 -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.

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.

The "corporate veil" has been pierced many times - particularly in
Canada and the USA -= which is why "officers and directors" insurance
is such a big thing now. Officers and directors of corporations can
now be held financially (and in some cses criminally) responsible for
the actions of the corporation.

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:02:44 PM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
trader_4 wrote:
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.

I don't think urea is used in the VW violations.

I didn't either, but someone here, Ashton maybe?, posted a link
yesterday to a news article explaining what was involved and
they showed two affected design, one of which used urea.

On 9/26/2015 2:58 PM, 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.


My guess is that VW will use a software update rather than spend
thousands on a hardware fix. I think the update should come with a
hundred dollar check and a 2L bottle of Coke - diet or regular as a
jester of goodwill.

OTOH, my guess is that a lot of folks will just ignore any fix, if they
can avoid it. The big question is will they be compelled by the state or
feds to do this or will this be be treated as just another recall.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 12:21:37 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:02:44 PM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
trader_4 wrote:
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.

I don't think urea is used in the VW violations.

I didn't either, but someone here, Ashton maybe?, posted a link
yesterday to a news article explaining what was involved and
they showed two affected design, one of which used urea.

The only thing I've seen is a diagram showing a "filter/particle
trap". Do those use urea? Maybe the reason VW was turning it off
wasn't vehicle performance issues but simply because the filter
clogged up too quickly if it was used all the time so they just let
the stuff blow out the tailpipe when it wasn't being emissions tested.
That would certainly make the filter last longer!!!

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:48:22 -1000, dsi1 wrote:

On 9/26/2015 2:58 PM, 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.


My guess is that VW will use a software update rather than spend
thousands on a hardware fix. I think the update should come with a
hundred dollar check and a 2L bottle of Coke - diet or regular as a
jester of goodwill.

OTOH, my guess is that a lot of folks will just ignore any fix, if they
can avoid it. The big question is will they be compelled by the state or
feds to do this or will this be be treated as just another recall.


A software fix would be OK if it doesn't wind up overloading the
filter/particle trap every 30 days requiring it to be serviced.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:00:50 -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.

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.

I will say it again... the STOCKHOLDERS did not do anything wrong. Why
do you want a penalty that punishes people who did nothing wrong? The
stockholders, with extremely rare exception, are not in a position to
know what the engineers and middle managers are conspiring to do yet
you want to punish them. Punish the people who are RESPONSIBLE for
the wrongdoing.

If someone in your family screws up do you think their brothers and
sisters should do jail time too because "they are part of the family"?
Or perhaps you think their aunts and uncles should be locked up?


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 Monday, September 28, 2015 at 2:06:00 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:00:50 -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.

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.

I will say it again... the STOCKHOLDERS did not do anything wrong. Why
do you want a penalty that punishes people who did nothing wrong? The
stockholders, with extremely rare exception, are not in a position to
know what the engineers and middle managers are conspiring to do yet
you want to punish them. Punish the people who are RESPONSIBLE for
the wrongdoing.

If someone in your family screws up do you think their brothers and
sisters should do jail time too because "they are part of the family"?
Or perhaps you think their aunts and uncles should be locked up?



+1

Seems part of the thinking is that according to M, two families own a
majority of VW stock and they deserve to be punished. I don't believe
it's true, nothing I see substantiates anything close to that. But even
if it is true, it would be like punishing Timothy McVeigh's brothers
and sisters for his crime, when there is no evidence at all they were
involved.

dsi1 wrote:
On 9/26/2015 2:58 PM, 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.


My guess is that VW will use a software update rather than spend
thousands on a hardware fix. I think the update should come with a
hundred dollar check and a 2L bottle of Coke - diet or regular as a
jester of goodwill.

OTOH, my guess is that a lot of folks will just ignore any fix, if they
can avoid it. The big question is will they be compelled by the state or
feds to do this or will this be be treated as just another recall.

You won't be able to ignore it. The EPA has a LOT more power than the
NHYSA does. They will simply blacklist the VIN numbers of all the
vehicles that are not in compliance with the regulations.

Owners will probably get a letter telling them that they have XXX days
to get to a dealer and have the fix done. If they don't they will get a
letter from the Feds telling them that they are driving a non-compliant
vehicle and that the registration has been suspended.


--
Steve W.

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 12:42:59 PM UTC-4, Steve W. wrote:
dsi1 wrote:
On 9/26/2015 2:58 PM, 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.


My guess is that VW will use a software update rather than spend
thousands on a hardware fix. I think the update should come with a
hundred dollar check and a 2L bottle of Coke - diet or regular as a
jester of goodwill.

OTOH, my guess is that a lot of folks will just ignore any fix, if they
can avoid it. The big question is will they be compelled by the state or
feds to do this or will this be be treated as just another recall.

You won't be able to ignore it. The EPA has a LOT more power than the
NHYSA does. They will simply blacklist the VIN numbers of all the
vehicles that are not in compliance with the regulations.

Owners will probably get a letter telling them that they have XXX days
to get to a dealer and have the fix done. If they don't they will get a
letter from the Feds telling them that they are driving a non-compliant
vehicle and that the registration has been suspended.


--
Steve W.

I would expect something more along those lines for sure, than
ignoring it. For example in the many populated states that require
cars pass their check for pollution, I would expect that unless these
cars are fixed, at some point in the not too distant future they
will start failing them. The real disaster for VW will be if it's
not fixable by a simple code update or changing a component or two.

On 9/20/2015 3:49 PM, sms wrote:

snip

I had a smog check this morning on a 2007 Camry. The shop had a new
machine for newer vehicles. Since September 2013, 2000 and newer
vehicles no longer get tested on the dynamometer and no longer get a
probe shoved up their tailpipe. The whole test is done via the OBD-II
port (as well as a visual inspection).

For diesel vehicles you can see the details he
http://www.smogtips.com/diesel-smog-test.cfm

So clearly VW was not just looking at wheel rotation, they probably
turned on the emission controls whenever they detected something reading
the sensors. I wonder if an ELM327 transceiver or a Progressive
"Snapshot" would have any effect.

On 9/28/2015 6:42 AM, Steve W. wrote:
dsi1 wrote:
On 9/26/2015 2:58 PM, 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.


My guess is that VW will use a software update rather than spend
thousands on a hardware fix. I think the update should come with a
hundred dollar check and a 2L bottle of Coke - diet or regular as a
jester of goodwill.

OTOH, my guess is that a lot of folks will just ignore any fix, if
they can avoid it. The big question is will they be compelled by the
state or feds to do this or will this be be treated as just another
recall.

You won't be able to ignore it. The EPA has a LOT more power than the
NHYSA does. They will simply blacklist the VIN numbers of all the
vehicles that are not in compliance with the regulations.

Owners will probably get a letter telling them that they have XXX days
to get to a dealer and have the fix done. If they don't they will get a
letter from the Feds telling them that they are driving a non-compliant
vehicle and that the registration has been suspended.



The way I see it, it's just another recall and the feds should just
grant an exception for the victims of this scam. I think that's an easy
solution to this problem.

"sms" wrote in message
...
On 9/20/2015 3:49 PM, sms wrote:

snip

I had a smog check this morning on a 2007 Camry. The shop had a new
machine for newer vehicles. Since September 2013, 2000 and newer vehicles
no longer get tested on the dynamometer and no longer get a probe shoved
up their tailpipe. The whole test is done via the OBD-II port (as well as
a visual inspection).

For diesel vehicles you can see the details he
http://www.smogtips.com/diesel-smog-test.cfm

So clearly VW was not just looking at wheel rotation, they probably turned
on the emission controls whenever they detected something reading the
sensors. I wonder if an ELM327 transceiver or a Progressive "Snapshot"
would have any effect.

Here's an interesting point. It seems CA has portable roadside emissions
checkpoints that measure the emissions as you drive. I wonder why they
haven't seen a major problem with VW vehicles as they pass these
checkpoints?

Maybe it is a minimum difference between a properly working system and a VW
in the fuel economy mode? Like someone else said - is the nominal emission
near zero and 10 to 40 times worse is still an extremely small amount of
NOx.

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 9:19:10 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 9/20/2015 3:49 PM, sms wrote:

snip

I had a smog check this morning on a 2007 Camry. The shop had a new
machine for newer vehicles. Since September 2013, 2000 and newer
vehicles no longer get tested on the dynamometer and no longer get a
probe shoved up their tailpipe. The whole test is done via the OBD-II
port (as well as a visual inspection).

For diesel vehicles you can see the details he
http://www.smogtips.com/diesel-smog-test.cfm

So clearly VW was not just looking at wheel rotation, they probably
turned on the emission controls whenever they detected something reading
the sensors. I wonder if an ELM327 transceiver or a Progressive
"Snapshot" would have any effect.

AFAIK, when they use the OBD method, all they are looking at
is if the emission monitors are set and that there are no
emission related engine codes set. None of that requires the
car's emission system to be actually working, just that the
OBD software in the car, which VW wrote, reports the above.
The car could be spewing out anything and pass the test.

dsi1 wrote:
On 9/28/2015 6:42 AM, Steve W. wrote:
dsi1 wrote:
On 9/26/2015 2:58 PM, 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.

My guess is that VW will use a software update rather than spend
thousands on a hardware fix. I think the update should come with a
hundred dollar check and a 2L bottle of Coke - diet or regular as a
jester of goodwill.

OTOH, my guess is that a lot of folks will just ignore any fix, if
they can avoid it. The big question is will they be compelled by the
state or feds to do this or will this be be treated as just another
recall.
You won't be able to ignore it. The EPA has a LOT more power than the
NHYSA does. They will simply blacklist the VIN numbers of all the
vehicles that are not in compliance with the regulations.

Owners will probably get a letter telling them that they have XXX days
to get to a dealer and have the fix done. If they don't they will get a
letter from the Feds telling them that they are driving a non-compliant
vehicle and that the registration has been suspended.



The way I see it, it's just another recall and the feds should just
grant an exception for the victims of this scam. I think that's an easy
solution to this problem.

That's just it, this isn't just another recall. These vehicles do not
meet US emissions standards as they are. The EPA will either force VW to
do a full recall and verification campaign or they could even make them
replace the cars. That is what still has to be determined.


--
Steve W.

On 9/29/2015 8:36 AM, Steve W. wrote:
dsi1 wrote:
On 9/28/2015 6:42 AM, Steve W. wrote:
dsi1 wrote:
On 9/26/2015 2:58 PM, 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.

My guess is that VW will use a software update rather than spend
thousands on a hardware fix. I think the update should come with a
hundred dollar check and a 2L bottle of Coke - diet or regular as a
jester of goodwill.

OTOH, my guess is that a lot of folks will just ignore any fix, if
they can avoid it. The big question is will they be compelled by the
state or feds to do this or will this be be treated as just another
recall.
You won't be able to ignore it. The EPA has a LOT more power than the
NHYSA does. They will simply blacklist the VIN numbers of all the
vehicles that are not in compliance with the regulations.

Owners will probably get a letter telling them that they have XXX days
to get to a dealer and have the fix done. If they don't they will get a
letter from the Feds telling them that they are driving a non-compliant
vehicle and that the registration has been suspended.



The way I see it, it's just another recall and the feds should just
grant an exception for the victims of this scam. I think that's an
easy solution to this problem.

That's just it, this isn't just another recall. These vehicles do not
meet US emissions standards as they are. The EPA will either force VW to
do a full recall and verification campaign or they could even make them
replace the cars. That is what still has to be determined.



It doesn't have to be like that. Let's just treat it like another recall
and move on! What can I say, I'm a dreamer...

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 5:43:30 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
On 9/29/2015 8:36 AM, Steve W. wrote:
dsi1 wrote:
On 9/28/2015 6:42 AM, Steve W. wrote:
dsi1 wrote:
On 9/26/2015 2:58 PM, 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.

My guess is that VW will use a software update rather than spend
thousands on a hardware fix. I think the update should come with a
hundred dollar check and a 2L bottle of Coke - diet or regular as a
jester of goodwill.

OTOH, my guess is that a lot of folks will just ignore any fix, if
they can avoid it. The big question is will they be compelled by the
state or feds to do this or will this be be treated as just another
recall.
You won't be able to ignore it. The EPA has a LOT more power than the
NHYSA does. They will simply blacklist the VIN numbers of all the
vehicles that are not in compliance with the regulations.

Owners will probably get a letter telling them that they have XXX days
to get to a dealer and have the fix done. If they don't they will get a
letter from the Feds telling them that they are driving a non-compliant
vehicle and that the registration has been suspended.



The way I see it, it's just another recall and the feds should just
grant an exception for the victims of this scam. I think that's an
easy solution to this problem.

That's just it, this isn't just another recall. These vehicles do not
meet US emissions standards as they are. The EPA will either force VW to
do a full recall and verification campaign or they could even make them
replace the cars. That is what still has to be determined.



It doesn't have to be like that. Let's just treat it like another recall
and move on! What can I say, I'm a dreamer...

VW should be required to replace all the vehicles if the owners want it.

then crush all the vehicles bought back... making ceertain they are totally destroyed.

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 7:59:00 AM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 5:43:30 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
On 9/29/2015 8:36 AM, Steve W. wrote:
dsi1 wrote:
On 9/28/2015 6:42 AM, Steve W. wrote:
dsi1 wrote:
On 9/26/2015 2:58 PM, 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.

My guess is that VW will use a software update rather than spend
thousands on a hardware fix. I think the update should come with a
hundred dollar check and a 2L bottle of Coke - diet or regular as a
jester of goodwill.

OTOH, my guess is that a lot of folks will just ignore any fix, if
they can avoid it. The big question is will they be compelled by the
state or feds to do this or will this be be treated as just another
recall.
You won't be able to ignore it. The EPA has a LOT more power than the
NHYSA does. They will simply blacklist the VIN numbers of all the
vehicles that are not in compliance with the regulations.

Owners will probably get a letter telling them that they have XXX days
to get to a dealer and have the fix done. If they don't they will get a
letter from the Feds telling them that they are driving a non-compliant
vehicle and that the registration has been suspended.



The way I see it, it's just another recall and the feds should just
grant an exception for the victims of this scam. I think that's an
easy solution to this problem.

That's just it, this isn't just another recall. These vehicles do not
meet US emissions standards as they are. The EPA will either force VW to
do a full recall and verification campaign or they could even make them
replace the cars. That is what still has to be determined.



It doesn't have to be like that. Let's just treat it like another recall
and move on! What can I say, I'm a dreamer...

VW should be required to replace all the vehicles if the owners want it.

then crush all the vehicles bought back... making ceertain they are totally destroyed.

Another well thought out idea that makes good use of resources and is economically efficient. What's next, crush houses that need a paint
job and put them back up?

VW should be required to replace all the vehicles if the owners want it.

then crush all the vehicles bought back... making ceertain they are totally destroyed.

Another well thought out idea that makes good use of resources and is economically efficient. What's next, crush houses that need a paint
job and put them back up?

the purchsers have probably lost a bunch of resale value on these vehicles.worse if a software patch could fix it wouldnt VW have done that already rather than risk a big fine? and a software pach is used it might cause driveability problems

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
VW should be required to replace all the vehicles if the owners want it.

then crush all the vehicles bought back... making ceertain they are totally destroyed.

Another well thought out idea that makes good use of resources and is economically efficient. What's next, crush houses that need a paint
job and put them back up?

the purchsers have probably lost a bunch of resale value on these vehicles.worse if a software patch could fix it wouldnt VW have done that already rather than risk a big fine? and a software pach is used it might cause driveability problems

I don't see what any of those maybes has to do with sending the cars to
the crusher as punishment. As to why VW cheated if the cars can meet EPA
with the emissions systems turned on, speculation is that it effects MPG
and performance. It may be that more that that is involved and that
more than a software flash will be needed, but seems it would be a good
idea to figure that out before sending otherwise good cars to the crusher.

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 5:55:30 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
VW should be required to replace all the vehicles if the owners want it.

then crush all the vehicles bought back... making ceertain they are totally destroyed.

Another well thought out idea that makes good use of resources and is economically efficient. What's next, crush houses that need a paint
job and put them back up?

the purchsers have probably lost a bunch of resale value on these vehicles.worse if a software patch could fix it wouldnt VW have done that already rather than risk a big fine? and a software pach is used it might cause driveability problems

I don't see what any of those maybes has to do with sending the cars to
the crusher as punishment. As to why VW cheated if the cars can meet EPA
with the emissions systems turned on, speculation is that it effects MPG
and performance. It may be that more that that is involved and that
more than a software flash will be needed, but seems it would be a good
idea to figure that out before sending otherwise good cars to the crusher.

my crusher comment......

so VW does a software upgrade on all the effected vehicles.......

time passes and many run poorly, wether the really run poor, its what future used cars buyers percieve.

so the new car buyer gets screwed on resale, even if the vehicle runs ok

its probably better for the consumer to get all these vehicles bought back by vw and destroyed.

vw should only lose money on this mess. asv a example to all other auto makers to not pull sleazy stuff

if a software upgrade would of made these vehicles better VW would of done it.

these units will be dreg on the market

In sci.electronics.repair Scott Dorsey wrote:
=?iso-8859-15?Q?Tekkie=AE?= wrote:
Then the lead issue. I don't know if lead in gas was harmful or not but that
train has left the station. My observation is the air is "better" but is
that because of cars or the fact PA is ground zero of the "rust belt" and
manufacturing has left?

There are few things more terrifying than slow lead poisoning. The improvement
in the amount of lead in people's bodies has been amazing since lead was
taken out of gas.

That's not to say MBTE isn't pretty bad... it is. But lead is about the
scariest thing you can imagine.

When I was fresh out of college with an EE degree, I interviewed at a battery
plant in Alabama.... and as soon as you walked into the town you could see
the people in town being stupid. Everybody, everybody in town had clear signs
of lead exposure. I got out of there as quickly as I could and I did not look
back.

can you elaborate on this?

On 9/30/2015 6:16 PM, bob haller wrote:
if a software upgrade would of made these vehicles better VW would of done it.

these units will be dreg on the market

So much drama over nothing! People are ****ing idiots. When I find one at the right price, it's mine.

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

VW should be required to replace all the vehicles if the owners want
it.

then crush all the vehicles bought back... making ceertain they are
totally destroyed.

Another well thought out idea that makes good use of resources and is
economically efficient. What's next, crush houses that need a paint
job and put them back up?

the purchsers have probably lost a bunch of resale value on these
vehicles.worse if a software patch could fix it wouldnt VW have done that
already rather than risk a big fine? and a software pach is used it might
cause driveability problems

I don't think that will happen because there are time-honored and
well-established legal means to determine what kind of damages are
appropriate. Will the cars suffer reduced mileage over their lifetimes?
Probably. That kind of loss can be pretty accurately estimated in dollars.

For those who don't want to keep the cars, a reasonable buy-back program can
be established because *someone* will want the used cars if the price is low
enough. VW should buy them back as close to the purchase price as possible
and then absorb the loss in value by selling them to jobbers. That way the
defrauded owner doesn't absorb the depreciation loss. I'd be OK with VW
having to pay the full purchase price back to the owner for the car to
compensate them for the fraudlent testing and the hassle of selling the car
back to VW. That's a better deal for those that have put a lot of miles on
their cars, but no solution will turn out to be *exactly* fair.

The Feds will take care of extracting the cost of the additional pollution
from VW (if any) and can order all sorts of remediation as part of a
negotiated settlement, like they did with BP. We don't know at this point
what potential fixes are available to VW. It's a pretty simple calculation
if restoring the NOx controls equal a 5mpg drop in fuel effiency. It's more
complicated if compliance can only be achieved by a substantial retrofit
(i.e. urea system).

For those who think we should hang the CEO the same reluctance the courts
have about punishing the CEOs actually *benefits* workers who could easily
lose their jobs due to managerial malfeasance and who had little to do with
the problem. We did away with the collective punishment of bills of
attainder in the Constitution quite a while back - well, except for the
USMC. (-:

Still, it would be a good idea if somehow CEO compensation schemes accounted
for risk as well as reward. Tanking the company's stock *usually* punishes
the CEO pretty seriously but I think people are beginning to feel that's not
enough. Especially when you consider that tanking the stock screws so many
stockholders who had NO idea what the CEO (or whomever) was doing and who
likely have little or no real influence over the selection of that CEO
anyway.

One would hope that the people who hatched and implemented this scheme will
the ones punished most severely. Unfortunately previous cases of similar
tampering (and there have been LOTS of them) resulted in little or no
prosecution of the responsible people.

--
Bobby G.

Cydrome Leader wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair Scott Dorsey wrote:
=?iso-8859-15?Q?Tekkie=AE?= wrote:
Then the lead issue. I don't know if lead in gas was harmful or not but that
train has left the station. My observation is the air is "better" but is
that because of cars or the fact PA is ground zero of the "rust belt" and
manufacturing has left?

There are few things more terrifying than slow lead poisoning. The improvement
in the amount of lead in people's bodies has been amazing since lead was
taken out of gas.

That's not to say MBTE isn't pretty bad... it is. But lead is about the
scariest thing you can imagine.

When I was fresh out of college with an EE degree, I interviewed at a battery
plant in Alabama.... and as soon as you walked into the town you could see
the people in town being stupid. Everybody, everybody in town had clear signs
of lead exposure. I got out of there as quickly as I could and I did not look
back.

can you elaborate on this?

On scary battery plants or MBTE exposure, or long-term lead exposure rates?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In sci.electronics.repair Scott Dorsey wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair Scott Dorsey wrote:
=?iso-8859-15?Q?Tekkie=AE?= wrote:
Then the lead issue. I don't know if lead in gas was harmful or not but that
train has left the station. My observation is the air is "better" but is
that because of cars or the fact PA is ground zero of the "rust belt" and
manufacturing has left?

There are few things more terrifying than slow lead poisoning. The improvement
in the amount of lead in people's bodies has been amazing since lead was
taken out of gas.

That's not to say MBTE isn't pretty bad... it is. But lead is about the
scariest thing you can imagine.

When I was fresh out of college with an EE degree, I interviewed at a battery
plant in Alabama.... and as soon as you walked into the town you could see
the people in town being stupid. Everybody, everybody in town had clear signs
of lead exposure. I got out of there as quickly as I could and I did not look
back.

can you elaborate on this?

On scary battery plants or MBTE exposure, or long-term lead exposure rates?
--scott

both-

I imagined you visited some dirty smelting town where everybody was a
mouth breather caked in filth. The battery plant must have been a pleasant
place too.

Gary, IN had the permanent pollution cloud over it from heavy until maybe
the early 2000s. The smell was awful.

Cydrome Leader wrote:
can you elaborate on this?

On scary battery plants or MBTE exposure, or long-term lead exposure rates?
--scott

both-

I imagined you visited some dirty smelting town where everybody was a
mouth breather caked in filth. The battery plant must have been a pleasant
place too.

The battery plant was in a town called Leeds, Alabama, and I have no idea
what happened to it. I was born in Pittsburgh so I have a pretty high
tolerance for industrial waste in the air, but lead is scary. The company
there had sent recruiters to gatech and as a new grad I was trying to get
as many plant tours as possible just to see what the industry was like.

I still do try to get plant tours whenever I can.

Here is some recent but pretty complete data on lead levels in children:
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/data/national.htm

And here is a good overview on why any lead is bad:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2533151/

I don't have a good online citation on how blood lead levels dropped when
leaded gasoline was banned, but "Cities: An Environmental History" has
an overview.

Gary, IN had the permanent pollution cloud over it from heavy until maybe
the early 2000s. The smell was awful.


But if it was anything like Pittsburgh, the sunsets were beautiful. My
aunt is still upset that they closed the mills down and now with no sulfur
in the air she keeps getting mildew on her roses.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 6:16:37 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 5:55:30 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
VW should be required to replace all the vehicles if the owners want it.

then crush all the vehicles bought back... making ceertain they are totally destroyed.

Another well thought out idea that makes good use of resources and is economically efficient. What's next, crush houses that need a paint
job and put them back up?

the purchsers have probably lost a bunch of resale value on these vehicles.worse if a software patch could fix it wouldnt VW have done that already rather than risk a big fine? and a software pach is used it might cause driveability problems

I don't see what any of those maybes has to do with sending the cars to
the crusher as punishment. As to why VW cheated if the cars can meet EPA
with the emissions systems turned on, speculation is that it effects MPG
and performance. It may be that more that that is involved and that
more than a software flash will be needed, but seems it would be a good
idea to figure that out before sending otherwise good cars to the crusher.

my crusher comment......

so VW does a software upgrade on all the effected vehicles.......

time passes and many run poorly, wether the really run poor, its what future used cars buyers percieve.


Pure speculation that the cars will run poorly or be perceived to run poorly
after they are fixed. It's possible that all that happens is that the
MPG goes down by 10%.


so the new car buyer gets screwed on resale, even if the vehicle runs ok

If it turns out that the cars have lower MPG than the sticker said,
or are otherwise compromised, VW will have to compensate the owners,
there is no way around that.



its probably better for the consumer to get all these vehicles bought back by vw and destroyed.


It sure would be better for everyone that owns any car to get a new
one. That doesn't make it the right or sane solution. And even if
they did get a new car, why again are we sending the old cars to the
crusher? Once fixed, they still are perfectly OK, working cars.



vw should only lose money on this mess. asv a example to all other auto makers to not pull sleazy stuff


VW is obviously going to lose a lot of money on this. What does
that have to do with sending working cars to the crusher?



if a software upgrade would of made these vehicles better VW would of done it.

these units will be dreg on the market


We don't know what the downside of making them emissions compliant
really is. It's pure speculation. Seems better to figure that out,
and fixing them is possible, before sending them all off to the crusher.
Is that what we did with the GM ignition switch thing? Buy them all
back and send them to the crusher?

On 9/19/15 08:12, mike wrote:
On 9/18/2015 9:42 PM, Ewald Böhm wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:45:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I also find it interesting that a large allegedly reputable company
would do something intentional to cheat like that. Too easy to get
caught or ratted out.

According to the news reports, VW admitted culpability.

If I were the owner of the affected cars, I would NOT bring them in for
the recall, since it's not a safety issue.

They will definitely lose performance after the "fix" (while they will
also do worse on emissions testing results).

It's a lose:lose situation for the car owner to get the car "fixed", I
think, because of those two results.

Do you agree?
Is there anything "good" that will happen if the owners "fix" their cars?

Will you have any choice?
If the test procedure for those cars is changed to test the "real"
emissions, they will FAIL.
If you care about air quality, you have to do that.
Here in Oregon, you don't get your license plates renewed if you fail.

You want VW to FIX the problem consistently with the
original driveablilty and economy.
Since that's likely not possible, what do you do now?
Force them to replace the whole car?

Yeah. Do a buyback and sell them where it's bloody hot
3rd world countries in africa and asia would rejoice
(australians would too I'm sure)

On 9/19/15 15:25, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 9/19/2015 12:42 AM, Ewald Böhm wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:45:53 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I also find it interesting that a large allegedly reputable company
would do something intentional to cheat like that. Too easy to get
caught or ratted out.

According to the news reports, VW admitted culpability.

If I were the owner of the affected cars, I would NOT bring them in for
the recall, since it's not a safety issue.

They will definitely lose performance after the "fix" (while they will
also do worse on emissions testing results).

It's a lose:lose situation for the car owner to get the car "fixed", I
think, because of those two results.

Do you agree?
Is there anything "good" that will happen if the owners "fix" their cars?


I'm likely mistaken, but my gut sense is that lower emissions
means lower performance, and lower mileage. My guess is that
the "fix" will be a downgrade of some kind.


The proper fix would be to buy the cars back from the (willing) owners
at bluebook and sell them to the (3rd world) countries that do not
participate in the smear campaign against VAG and could not care less
about the emissions.
An even more proper fix would be for VAG to withdraw from the american
market altogether.
There are lots of other markets where you do not have to make
emissions claims at all and that would appreciate the 4 banger
[turbo]diesels from VAG

On 9/20/2015 8:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 7:23:35 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 10:45:01 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Do you know of any claims denied because the owner did not get an oil
change? Dirty air filter?

Sorry, I should have mentioned that the position I set out is that under
English law and other jurisdictions will no doubt differ.

Show us some case examples. IF true, must be one screwed up legal
system, where if you don't change your oil or filter on schedule,
it has bearing on who's at fault in an accident.

Bleam me up Mister Scott

On 10/1/2015 6:26 AM, Robert Green wrote:

The Feds will take care of extracting the cost of the additional pollution
from VW (if any) and can order all sorts of remediation as part of a
negotiated settlement, like they did with BP. We don't know at this point
what potential fixes are available to VW. It's a pretty simple calculation
if restoring the NOx controls equal a 5mpg drop in fuel effiency. It's more
complicated if compliance can only be achieved by a substantial retrofit
(i.e. urea system).

From what I've read, the VW designers had designed in a urea system and
the marketing people said that it was too expensive: "Automotive News
reports that in 2005 VW executives found that, “the only way to make the
engine meet U.S. emission standards was to employ in the engine system
an AdBlue urea solution used on larger diesel models such as the Passat
and Touareg.”

This option would have added cost to the consumer price on the vehicle,
which the company saw as too high, leading to the employment of the
“defeat device.”

I would guess that the ultimate solution is going to be a retrofitted
urea system with lifetime AdBlue refills, plus some other monetary
compensation. The lack of the recurring cost of AdBlue was a selling
point of these TDIs.

Some negotiated settlement on fines will be reached because there's a
big downside in forcing VW into bankruptcy and that would get them off
the hook.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/01/vw-bankruptcy-potential-is-very-real/.

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 10:17:51 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote:
can you elaborate on this?

On scary battery plants or MBTE exposure, or long-term lead exposure rates?
--scott

both-

I imagined you visited some dirty smelting town where everybody was a
mouth breather caked in filth. The battery plant must have been a pleasant
place too.

The battery plant was in a town called Leeds, Alabama, and I have no idea
what happened to it. I was born in Pittsburgh so I have a pretty high
tolerance for industrial waste in the air, but lead is scary. The company
there had sent recruiters to gatech and as a new grad I was trying to get
as many plant tours as possible just to see what the industry was like.

I still do try to get plant tours whenever I can.

Here is some recent but pretty complete data on lead levels in children:
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/data/national.htm

And here is a good overview on why any lead is bad:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2533151/

I don't have a good online citation on how blood lead levels dropped when
leaded gasoline was banned, but "Cities: An Environmental History" has
an overview.

Gary, IN had the permanent pollution cloud over it from heavy until maybe
the early 2000s. The smell was awful.


But if it was anything like Pittsburgh, the sunsets were beautiful. My
aunt is still upset that they closed the mills down and now with no sulfur
in the air she keeps getting mildew on her roses.
--scott
--


Leeds is East of Irondale which borders East Birmingham,AL where my home is.. The news media was all over the lead pollution story there for quite a while. Interstate Lead had a secondary lead smelting operation in Leeds for recycling automotive batteries. The company went bankrupt and the companies that brought material the the plant had to pay for the cleanup at the Superfund site. o_O

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds,_Alabama

http://www.bamanews.com/BEN-1-31-00.html#3

[8~{} Uncle Lead Monster

"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.

REFERENCES:
http://blog.ucsusa.org/volkswagen-ca...cle-recall-887
http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedM...EPA-Tests.aspx
http://hothardware.com/news/vw-inten...-482k-vehicles
etc.

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


According to NBC, the emission controls were altered when only the front
wheels were turning, as on a dynometer.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

"trader_4" wrote in message news:cee30268-

stuff snipped

It's pure speculation. Seems better to figure that out,
and fixing them is possible, before sending them all off to the crusher.
Is that what we did with the GM ignition switch thing? Buy them all
back and send them to the crusher?

What's Ashton going to do with all those cars? (0:

--
Bobby G.

On 10/4/2015 2:39 PM, Klaatu 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.

REFERENCES:
http://blog.ucsusa.org/volkswagen-ca...cle-recall-887
http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedM...EPA-Tests.aspx

http://hothardware.com/news/vw-inten...-482k-vehicles

etc.

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


According to NBC, the emission controls were altered when only the front
wheels were turning, as on a dynometer.

I don't know about diesels, but newer gasoline powered cars in
California don't use the dyno anymore. The levels are all read from the
sensors via the OBD-II port, at least in California.