On 02/10/2015 12:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
As the vehicles currently on the road are never going to be tested
again, then removing the "cheat mode" is completely and utterly
pointless.

No it is not. They are producing emissions way above what they are meant
to. If altering the software so they stick within their claimed emissions
also reduces the performance, it's up to the owner to get compensation.
There will be lots of others in the same position.

That's not removing the cheat, but forcing it to cheat all the time
(since it only passes the tests when cheating)...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 02/10/2015 14:33, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 12:14:03 on Fri, 2 Oct
2015, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
As the vehicles currently on the road are never going to be tested
again, then removing the "cheat mode" is completely and utterly
pointless.

No it is not. They are producing emissions way above what they are meant
to. If altering the software so they stick within their claimed
emissions
also reduces the performance, it's up to the owner to get compensation.
There will be lots of others in the same position.

That isn't removing the "cheat mode", it's putting it permanently into
"cheat mode".

No, the cheat mode is what the vehicles normally run in. Under test,
giving nice clean results, they were *not* in cheat mode.

Tother way around ISTM. They cheat to pass, normally they don't pass.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 30/09/2015 18:53, MM wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:31:35 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:08:55 +0100, MM wrote:

It has to have _something_ in its favour...

It has a heck of a lot more than just fuel economy to offer. First, it's
cheap. The OTR price in March was £5999. Plus, the dealer gave me £3000
for my old Alto (three years old). For my purposes it's all I need as a
runabout. I'm retired so I don't drive much.

So why on earth buy a new car? What did your last one have on it - 20k
miles?

Peace of mind. New cars tend not to go wrong. That's been my
experience, anyway. And I've been driving since 1963.

20k? You're joking! As I recall it had about 12,000 miles on it.
Probably why the dealer gave me a good part-exchange deal.

By the way, the previous Alto (with the slightly higher emissions and
£20 RFL after the first year) delivered 67 mpg on a long trip.

What other car could you buy brand-new at that price that is better
value?

You can't!

That doesn't make it actually any good, y'know.

What's wrong with it? Unless you can cite hard evidence, I'll assume
you're just a wind-up merchant.

MM


You have one.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , Adrian
writes
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 20:55:30 +0100, bert wrote:

It's as if all the petrol companies got together and said to the
supermarkets we're only going to sell petrol to one of you and you
have to bid for it.

Oh, and I guess you've never heard of OPEC?
There are oil suppliers outside OPEC.

Keep trying

How old are you bert? Or do you just have a conveniently short memory?

Obviously better than yours.
You haven't come up with a single example of a cartel outside sport in a
similar position to the Premier league even though you have extended the
search world wide rather than just the UK

I've tried very hard to find another UK Premier League, but failed
miserably. Sorry bert. You're absolutely correct there.

Which bit of "similar" do you not understand?
--
bert

In article , Adrian
writes
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 22:22:59 +0100, bert wrote:

But they do not combine with other companies selling the same product
to fix the market.

So which "other companies selling the same product" has the Premier
League combined with?

You DO understand that it's the Premier League selling the rights to the
matches, not the football clubs, right?

And as I said a few posts ago the Premier League is a cabal of companies
combining to sell their product to a sole distributor.

The Premier League _is_ a company, with 20 shareholder-owner-members. The
Premier League sell _their_ product to TV.
Yes but it's a cartel of 20 member companies in a monopoly position and
my point is that would not be allowed outside sport and you still
haven't come up with an example to contradict me but keep trying.
It sits on top of another cartel the Championship with strict rules on
entry and exit. The further down the chain you go the less attractive it
is to TV and so becomes of lesser consequence.
--
bert

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 16:05:50 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

T he normal mode was high emissions. The cheat mode, test passing.

Precisely.

Then there wouldn't be much point in removing what you wittily describe
as "cheat mode", would there. AISB, that is the mode that will be
extended to cover ordinary use.

Or you remove "cheat mode", retest a sample of affected vehicles in
"ordinary use mode" and re-write the spec and change VED band if
required for new vehicles.

VAG pick up the tab for any increase in VED on *new* vehicles. There
is no issue about emissions or performance as those figures should
now be correct.

Existing vehicles stay were they are as far as VED is concerned, as
is the case with older vehicles when they fiddle with VED?

The owners are given the option to remain with "ordinary use mode"
and be given the true emission and MPG figures, have the car flashed
to "cheat mode" maybe taking a performance hit but getting the
previously published "cheat" emissions and MPG figures or VAG buy
back the car as "not as described".

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article , Clive
George writes
On 01/10/2015 21:59, bert wrote:
Similarly in the entertainment industry individual
artists compete for your favour.

Similar with sport - cricket, rugby, etc, all there if you feel premier
league is too expensive.

It's not a question of cost it's a matter of principle.
--
bert

On 02/10/2015 15:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
But surely, when they're running normally they're not being tested so
they don't need to cheat. They can just belch out as much crap as they
like, allegedly, and no-one is any the wiser.

Odd. I've been noticing smoke and nasty smells from new diesels for years.
I know you can't smell NOX - but in theory all those cars should pass a
visible smoke test at MOT time. So guessed if they smoke when it's said
they don't, they were probably producing lots of other nasties too.


Ther have been quite a few reports about the air quality falling with
more particulates and NOX. Now we know why the quality is getting worse
despite better controls, VW have wrecked it for everyone and they should
be sued by every asthma sufferer and any other illness that can be
caused by the cr@p they aren't supposed to emit but do.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
Sky being a prime example of private enterprise run riot - where only the
customer suffers.

It's primarily the Premier League that's been allowed to run riot and
act as an unregulated cartel.

Only because the likes of Sky have given in to their demands. Knowing they
can simply pass on extra costs to their subscribers.

Which is the point I have been making. Glad to see you've finally caught
up
If it had been anything else there's have been howls of 'holding the
country to ransom'. Odd the way those who constantly use that phrase
support Sky...

You make these sweeping assertions based on absolutely no evidence. For
the avoidance of doubt I do not subscribe to SKY. I do not subscribe to
BT Eurosport. I get some BT Sport bundled with Infinity
--
bert

On 02/10/2015 13:17, Roland Perry wrote:
In message om, at
12:55:25 on Fri, 2 Oct 2015, lid remarked:

As the vehicles currently on the road are never going to be tested
again, then removing the "cheat mode" is completely and utterly
pointless.

If they are known to exceed legal limits then the driver can be done
for driving them, they can be done now if they are tested and fail.
just because a test isn't in the MoT doesn't mean it can't be tested
and fail and get you a fine. There is, expensive, road side test
equipment that they have been using on vehicles that may be emitting
too much cr@p and the VW cars can be added to the will fail if you
stop them list.

I've heard about roadside tests for trucks and buses, but do they really
also apply to cars?

they can but it was generally considered to be a poor use of resources
as the cars all passed the emissions tests so little would be gained
from doing it, now things are different and some cars produce more cr@p
than buses and lorries.


The point about MOTs is a valid one though, because if they introduce
these tests then it's very likely that only the ad-blue retrofitting
will work sufficiently well.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
As the vehicles currently on the road are never going to be tested
again, then removing the "cheat mode" is completely and utterly
pointless.

No it is not. They are producing emissions way above what they are meant
to. If altering the software so they stick within their claimed emissions
also reduces the performance, it's up to the owner to get compensation.
There will be lots of others in the same position.

Going to be fascinating to see if they get a full refund of the
original purchase price and so effectively the free use of the
car for the time they have had it apart from registration and
insurance and fuel costs etc. They should IMO if the car is
what they would not have bought if they could have seen
how it performs with when it's not exceeding the emissions
that the law allows. Corse that would bankrupt VW which
isn't really a great idea given how decent some of their
cars are otherwise.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
It's not for me though. I don't watch more than about 5 hours of
telly a week as it is.

Rather like saying you don't care about the NHS as you're healthy.

Nothing like because even you should be able to manage without PayTV.

Try actually following a discussion for once.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

QED

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

"bert" wrote in message ...
Yes but it's a cartel of 20 member companies in a monopoly position and my point is
that would not be allowed outside sport and you still haven't come up with an example
to contradict me but keep trying.
It sits on top of another cartel the Championship with strict rules on entry and exit.
The further down the chain you go the less attractive it is to TV and so becomes of
lesser consequence.

The Royal Horticultural Society is equally strict as to who it will
admit and who it will allow to exhibit at the Chelsea Flower Show.
Which is the only horticultural show to be shown on national TV
every year. And for which the two up market(ish) broadcasting
organisations - the BBC and Channel4 regularly bid.

Crufts was in the same position until all the broo-hah-hah about
in-breeding, and in-bred faults, which cost it its popularity and
relegation to a minority channel.

So there are two examples for a start.



michael adams

....

On 02/10/2015 19:59, bert wrote:
In article , Clive
George writes
On 01/10/2015 21:59, bert wrote:
Similarly in the entertainment industry individual
artists compete for your favour.

Similar with sport - cricket, rugby, etc, all there if you feel
premier league is too expensive.

It's not a question of cost it's a matter of principle.

You miss my point. There is competition from the other sports (and
indeed other leagues). The premier league hasn't taken over the entire
sports viewing market, not even the football viewing market.

In article , Clive
George writes
On 02/10/2015 19:59, bert wrote:
In article , Clive
George writes
On 01/10/2015 21:59, bert wrote:
Similarly in the entertainment industry individual
artists compete for your favour.

Similar with sport - cricket, rugby, etc, all there if you feel
premier league is too expensive.

It's not a question of cost it's a matter of principle.

You miss my point. There is competition from the other sports (and
indeed other leagues). The premier league hasn't taken over the entire
sports viewing market, not even the football viewing market.
I think I've already covered that point.
--
bert

In article , michael adams
writes

"bert" wrote in message
...
Yes but it's a cartel of 20 member companies in a monopoly position
and my point is
that would not be allowed outside sport and you still haven't come up
with an example
to contradict me but keep trying.
It sits on top of another cartel the Championship with strict rules
on entry and exit.
The further down the chain you go the less attractive it is to TV and
so becomes of
lesser consequence.

The Royal Horticultural Society is equally strict as to who it will
admit and who it will allow to exhibit at the Chelsea Flower Show.
Which is the only horticultural show to be shown on national TV
every year. And for which the two up market(ish) broadcasting
organisations - the BBC and Channel4 regularly bid.

There are many other flower shows outside the control of the RHS There
isn't enough interest in them to warrant TV coverage. Nothing to stop
you trying to establish one though
Crufts was in the same position until all the broo-hah-hah about
in-breeding, and in-bred faults, which cost it its popularity and
relegation to a minority channel.
I said outside sport and in it's broadest sense dog showing is a sport.
You are correct in that the Kennel Club does impose control over canine
activity of those dogs with pedigrees on their register. They don't
control sheepdog trials.


So there are two examples for a start.



michael adams

...



--
bert

On 02/10/2015 22:26, bert wrote:
In article , Clive
George writes
On 02/10/2015 19:59, bert wrote:
In article , Clive
George writes
On 01/10/2015 21:59, bert wrote:
Similarly in the entertainment industry individual
artists compete for your favour.

Similar with sport - cricket, rugby, etc, all there if you feel
premier league is too expensive.

It's not a question of cost it's a matter of principle.

You miss my point. There is competition from the other sports (and
indeed other leagues). The premier league hasn't taken over the entire
sports viewing market, not even the football viewing market.
I think I've already covered that point.

Several people seem to disagree with you there. I'm one. There is
definitely competition in the sports viewing marketplace, even in the
football viewing part of it. The Premier league is a company selling
just one competing offering, and it's apparently worth a lot of money to
the people who buy it. That's the free market in action, red in tooth
and claw - you're normally in favour of that sort of thing.

"bert" wrote in message ...
In article , michael adams writes

"bert" wrote in message ...
Yes but it's a cartel of 20 member companies in a monopoly position and my point is
that would not be allowed outside sport and you still haven't come up with an example
to contradict me but keep trying.
It sits on top of another cartel the Championship with strict rules on entry and
exit.
The further down the chain you go the less attractive it is to TV and so becomes of
lesser consequence.

The Royal Horticultural Society is equally strict as to who it will
admit and who it will allow to exhibit at the Chelsea Flower Show.
Which is the only horticultural show to be shown on national TV
every year. And for which the two up market(ish) broadcasting
organisations - the BBC and Channel4 regularly bid.

There are many other flower shows outside the control of the RHS There isn't enough
interest in them to warrant TV coverage. Nothing to stop you trying to establish one
though

I'm sorry but how is that any different from football clubs setting
up their own league, to compete with the Premier League ?

I thought your whole point was that the Premier League, just like
the RHS, holds an effective monopoly on top level TV coverage
of their respective fields. Having looked it up, it appears
the RHS Chelsea Flower Show deal also includes coverage
of the UK's second most popular gardening event the Hampton
Court Palace Flower Show as well.


michael adams

....

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:14:01 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Sky being a prime example of private enterprise run riot - where
only
the customer suffers.

I was under impression that Sky had a reasonably good customer
service reputation.

It's primarily the Premier League that's been allowed to run riot
and
act as an unregulated cartel.

Only because the likes of Sky have given in to their demands. Knowing
they can simply pass on extra costs to their subscribers.

Hum, The PL offer various "packages". ISTR that the the latest round
of package auctions had seven packages divving up 168 live
matches(*). What the purchasers pay is up to them...

Rumour has it that both Sky and BT are a little concerned that they
might have "over spent". Remember the 5.136 billion they paid goes to
the PL. They still have to provide the coverage and *all* Premierl
League matches are covered, they might not be live in the UK but they
are live to the world.

At least Sky also support and promote things by sponsering competions
and trophies and give these airtime. BT pretty much just buy the
rights to big events, stick a bit of branding on the clean host feed
and "transmit" it. Fairly sure BT Sport bring in Sunset and Vine to
do any actual programme production, like their PL live matches.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In message , at 16:05:50 on
Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Tim Streater remarked:
Don't be silly. If it can pass the tests legitimally at all times, it is
no longer cheating.

If you like you can call it "post-2015-mode, formerly known as
emission-reducing-cheat-mode", but if they remove the emission-
reducing cheat-mode, all they would have left is "pre-2015 normal
mode".

The normal mode was high emissions. The cheat mode, test passing.

Precisely.

Then there wouldn't be much point in removing what you wittily describe
as "cheat mode", would there. AISB, that is the mode that will be
extended to cover ordinary use.

Correct, that's exactly what I'm saying.
--
Roland Perry

In message o.uk, at
19:59:12 on Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Dave Liquorice
remarked:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 16:05:50 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

T he normal mode was high emissions. The cheat mode, test passing.

Precisely.

Then there wouldn't be much point in removing what you wittily describe
as "cheat mode", would there. AISB, that is the mode that will be
extended to cover ordinary use.

Or you remove "cheat mode", retest a sample of affected vehicles in
"ordinary use mode" and re-write the spec and change VED band if
required for new vehicles.

There are no "new vehicles". The engines in question are Euro5, which
stopped being fitted a year ago.

VAG pick up the tab for any increase in VED on *new* vehicles. There
is no issue about emissions or performance as those figures should
now be correct.

Moot (see above).

Existing vehicles stay were they are as far as VED is concerned, as
is the case with older vehicles when they fiddle with VED?

The owners are given the option to remain with "ordinary use mode"
and be given the true emission and MPG figures, have the car flashed
to "cheat mode" maybe taking a performance hit but getting the
previously published "cheat" emissions and MPG figures or VAG buy
back the car as "not as described".

Buy back at what price?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 16:08:26 on Fri, 2 Oct
2015, bert remarked:

But if you insist on singling out particular stages in the process as
representing
"cheating" and "not cheating" then its fairly obvious, to most
people at least,
that they were cheating during the tests, rather than afterwards.

Either way it's the *testing* mode that will be extended to cover all
circs, so that emissions are reduced. Feel free to say that therefore
they will be cheating the whole time.

They'll be using "cheat mode" all the time.

They are cheating all the time

It's unhelpful to confuse the issue with terminology like that. People
are confused enough with others stirring it up.

but only using cheat mode when being tested.

At the moment, but one possible (but I believe unlikely - it's going to
be an Adblue retrofit I suspect) outcome of the recall is to have the
vehicle in that mode permanently.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 05:24:02 on Sat, 3 Oct
2015, Rod Speed remarked:
They are producing emissions way above what they are meant
to. If altering the software so they stick within their claimed emissions
also reduces the performance, it's up to the owner to get compensation.
There will be lots of others in the same position.

Going to be fascinating to see if they get a full refund of the
original purchase price and so effectively the free use of the
car for the time they have had it apart from registration and
insurance and fuel costs etc. They should IMO if the car is
what they would not have bought if they could have seen
how it performs with when it's not exceeding the emissions
that the law allows.

And if the car is on its second or third owner by now? Who gets what
sum.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:08:26 on Fri, 2 Oct
2015, bert remarked:

But if you insist on singling out particular stages in the process as
representing
"cheating" and "not cheating" then its fairly obvious, to most
people at least,
that they were cheating during the tests, rather than afterwards.

Either way it's the *testing* mode that will be extended to cover all
circs, so that emissions are reduced. Feel free to say that therefore
they will be cheating the whole time.

They'll be using "cheat mode" all the time.

They are cheating all the time

It's unhelpful to confuse the issue with terminology like that. People
are confused enough with others stirring it up.

but only using cheat mode when being tested.

At the moment, but one possible (but I believe unlikely - it's going to
be an Adblue retrofit I suspect) outcome of the recall is to have the
vehicle in that mode permanently.

Or, on VWs with selectable driving modes, make the clean mode the default
but leave "sport" or other modes available. Then the owners can choose.
This is the only way I can think of that won't **** off owners AND satisfy
regulators.

Tim

"Tim+" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:08:26 on Fri, 2 Oct
2015, bert remarked:

But if you insist on singling out particular stages in the process
as
representing
"cheating" and "not cheating" then its fairly obvious, to most
people at least,
that they were cheating during the tests, rather than afterwards.

Either way it's the *testing* mode that will be extended to cover all
circs, so that emissions are reduced. Feel free to say that therefore
they will be cheating the whole time.

They'll be using "cheat mode" all the time.

They are cheating all the time

It's unhelpful to confuse the issue with terminology like that. People
are confused enough with others stirring it up.

but only using cheat mode when being tested.

At the moment, but one possible (but I believe unlikely - it's going to
be an Adblue retrofit I suspect) outcome of the recall is to have the
vehicle in that mode permanently.

Or, on VWs with selectable driving modes, make the clean mode the default
but leave "sport" or other modes available. Then the owners can choose.
This is the only way I can think of that won't **** off owners AND satisfy
regulators.

That would never satisfy the regulators.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 05:24:02 on Sat, 3 Oct
2015, Rod Speed remarked:
They are producing emissions way above what they are meant
to. If altering the software so they stick within their claimed
emissions
also reduces the performance, it's up to the owner to get compensation.
There will be lots of others in the same position.

Going to be fascinating to see if they get a full refund of the
original purchase price and so effectively the free use of the
car for the time they have had it apart from registration and
insurance and fuel costs etc. They should IMO if the car is
what they would not have bought if they could have seen
how it performs with when it's not exceeding the emissions
that the law allows.

And if the car is on its second or third owner by now? Who gets what sum.

None of the previous owners had a problem with the cheat,
they got to use the car the way they liked and got a decent
resale value too, so only the owner who owned the car at
the time the cheat was exposed and they were stuck with
the car that no one would want to buy when the regulators
forced it to run in cheat mode all the time.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message o.uk, at
19:59:12 on Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Dave Liquorice
remarked:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 16:05:50 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

T he normal mode was high emissions. The cheat mode, test passing.

Precisely.

Then there wouldn't be much point in removing what you wittily describe
as "cheat mode", would there. AISB, that is the mode that will be
extended to cover ordinary use.

Or you remove "cheat mode", retest a sample of affected vehicles in
"ordinary use mode" and re-write the spec and change VED band if
required for new vehicles.

There are no "new vehicles". The engines in question are Euro5, which
stopped being fitted a year ago.

VAG pick up the tab for any increase in VED on *new* vehicles. There
is no issue about emissions or performance as those figures should
now be correct.

Moot (see above).

Existing vehicles stay were they are as far as VED is concerned, as
is the case with older vehicles when they fiddle with VED?

The owners are given the option to remain with "ordinary use mode"
and be given the true emission and MPG figures, have the car flashed
to "cheat mode" maybe taking a performance hit but getting the
previously published "cheat" emissions and MPG figures or VAG buy
back the car as "not as described".

Buy back at what price?

The price it was sold at, just like with any other
consumer product that not as described.

In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
Sky being a prime example of private enterprise run riot - where
only
the customer suffers.

I was under impression that Sky had a reasonably good customer
service reputation.

I wouldn't know. I was referring to them being willing to pay just about
anything for the footie rights knowing their customers will pay up.

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2015-10-01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
Sky being a prime example of private enterprise run riot - where only
the customer suffers.

Oh, FFS, are you *really* this dumb?

No. But you obviously are.

**** you, you faeces gargling, brainless, dribbling, hypocritical piece
of ****.

Well, I suppose that's a slightly better insult than Wodney manages.

Odd that some expect to insult then throw their toys out of the pram if
there is any retaliation. ;-)

--
*You can't teach an old mouse new clicks *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
but only using cheat mode when being tested.

At the moment, but one possible (but I believe unlikely - it's going to
be an Adblue retrofit I suspect) outcome of the recall is to have the
vehicle in that mode permanently.

So no longer becomes a cheat?

--
*The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim+ wrote:
At the moment, but one possible (but I believe unlikely - it's going
to be an Adblue retrofit I suspect) outcome of the recall is to have
the vehicle in that mode permanently.

Or, on VWs with selectable driving modes, make the clean mode the
default but leave "sport" or other modes available. Then the owners can
choose. This is the only way I can think of that won't **** off owners
AND satisfy regulators.

Let me see, now. You legislate for a maximum emission level, then allow
the owner to disable this? ;-)

--
*Born free - taxed to death *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 11:16:41 on Sat, 3 Oct
2015, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

but only using cheat mode when being tested.

At the moment, but one possible (but I believe unlikely - it's going to
be an Adblue retrofit I suspect) outcome of the recall is to have the
vehicle in that mode permanently.

So no longer becomes a cheat?

If you wish to confuse the issue with questions like that, go ahead.

The car does, however, remain in the so-called "cheat mode",
permanently.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:45:13 on
Sat, 3 Oct 2015, Tim Streater remarked:

but only using cheat mode when being tested.

At the moment, but one possible (but I believe unlikely - it's going to
be an Adblue retrofit I suspect) outcome of the recall is to have the
vehicle in that mode permanently.

So no longer becomes a cheat?

If you wish to confuse the issue with questions like that, go ahead.

The car does, however, remain in the so-called "cheat mode",
permanently.

Meaning that there *is* some point to the recall - which is where we
came in.

Yes, there's undoubtedly some point in the recall, over and above
"something must be done - this is something - we must do it".

What appears to be still deeply mired in fog-of-war is what the recall
will actually modify.

There are two schools of thought

- new software configurations (such as being permanently in the
"I'm being tested" mode)

- retrofitting an AdBlue kit (which is mechanically[1] fairly
trivial because more recently supplied models of the exact same
vehicles, but with Euro6 engines, will have those fitted as
standard).

[1] But there's the loss of boot-space and the need to buy the fluid to
cope with. If VW don't want to compound the felony they'll offer free
top-ups to these vehicles, after all the raw material cost is virtually
zero, and the industry is currently scamming their customers by claiming
to need incredibly expensive plastic bottles to deliver it in.
--
Roland Perry

On 02/10/2015 19:59, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 16:05:50 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

T he normal mode was high emissions. The cheat mode, test passing.

Precisely.

Then there wouldn't be much point in removing what you wittily describe
as "cheat mode", would there. AISB, that is the mode that will be
extended to cover ordinary use.

Or you remove "cheat mode", retest a sample of affected vehicles in
"ordinary use mode" and re-write the spec and change VED band if
required for new vehicles.


That's my reading, except I would expect cars affected won't be
reclassified as second hand values would fall.

An utterly pointless exercise, and VW come out of it as the
naive/bumbling. But basically intact.

That's what happens when you have the motoring and petrochemical
industries in league with government.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 02/10/2015 20:05, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/10/2015 15:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
But surely, when they're running normally they're not being tested so
they don't need to cheat. They can just belch out as much crap as they
like, allegedly, and no-one is any the wiser.

Odd. I've been noticing smoke and nasty smells from new diesels for
years.
I know you can't smell NOX - but in theory all those cars should pass a
visible smoke test at MOT time. So guessed if they smoke when it's said
they don't, they were probably producing lots of other nasties too.


Ther have been quite a few reports about the air quality falling with
more particulates and NOX. Now we know why the quality is getting worse
despite better controls, VW have wrecked it for everyone and they should
be sued by every asthma sufferer and any other illness that can be
caused by the cr@p they aren't supposed to emit but do.

Quite. They deserve to go under. But the government should take a hit too.

--
Cheers, Rob

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2015-10-01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
Sky being a prime example of private enterprise run riot -
where only the customer suffers.

Oh, FFS, are you *really* this dumb?

No. But you obviously are.

**** you, you faeces gargling, brainless, dribbling, hypocritical
piece of ****.

Well, I suppose that's a slightly better insult than Wodney manages.

Huge's tend to be more original whereas Woddles just trots out one of a
tiny stock he has.

True. Still not sure how you gargle on yourself, though.

--
*All men are idiots, and I married their King.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:16:41 on Sat, 3 Oct
2015, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

but only using cheat mode when being tested.

At the moment, but one possible (but I believe unlikely - it's going to
be an Adblue retrofit I suspect) outcome of the recall is to have the
vehicle in that mode permanently.

So no longer becomes a cheat?

If you wish to confuse the issue with questions like that, go ahead.

The car does, however, remain in the so-called "cheat mode",
permanently.

Then it's wrongly named. As it is no longer cheating.

--
*See no evil, Hear no evil, Date no evil.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 12:23:59 on Sat, 3 Oct
2015, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

If you wish to confuse the issue with questions like that, go ahead.

The car does, however, remain in the so-called "cheat mode",
permanently.

Then it's wrongly named. As it is no longer cheating.

If you like, but isn't it better to try to clarify what's actually
happening rather than score useless points over the wording?
--
Roland Perry

"Huge" wrote in message ...

On 2015-10-03, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2015-10-01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
Sky being a prime example of private enterprise run riot - where
only
the customer suffers.

Oh, FFS, are you *really* this dumb?

No. But you obviously are.

**** you, you faeces gargling, brainless, dribbling, hypocritical piece
of ****.

Well, I suppose that's a slightly better insult than Wodney manages.

Huge's tend to be more original

Thank you. The art of insult is sadly dying.

Oh, FFS! Thinks it's an artist now


Still, as long as there are socialists, there will be people worthy of
insulting.

In message , at 11:45:24 on Fri, 2 Oct
2015, Roland Perry remarked:

I wonder what will happen if whatever they do increases emissions and
moves the car into a higher VED band.

That depends whether the VED band is determined by "that car of this
model and engine we tested ten years ago", or whether there's a
procedure for re-testing a whole class of car (re-issuing V5s and all
the other stuff).

As the VED bands were introduced to influence buying decisions for
*new* cars, most of the original point of re-classifying them would be
lost.

The government has announced today that affected cars will not be re-
banded for higher taxation.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...rs-wont-pay-a-
higher-road-tax-31577837.html
--
Roland Perry