But don't forget that the regulators and testers as well as the manufacturers have a vested interest in this charade. An analogy could be draw between the motor industry and the banks where ratings agencies, paid for by the banks, pronounced on the security of the banks investments.
Good points. In any case, Brussels in infested with lobbyists, so you can expect anything to come out of Brussels as very corporate-friendly. Then you have Germany as the biggest economy, bankrolling the EU, and the German car manufacturers as a central plank of that economy. The chances of the EU wishing (or being allowed) to upset the German motor industry is remote. The EU needs exports and jobs and German car manufacturers provide many of them.
Totally agree regarding the awful PR-speak used by almost everyone interviewed on the R4 'Today' programme. When asked to explain something or to qualify a statement, so many of these idiots start their first sentence with: "So..." I know I'm a grouchy old fart, but it just grates almost as much as a young person recalling what they said in a conversation by using the expression: "I was like..." It will be interesting to see how far the UK government/Inland Revenue go with plans for retesting vehicles. Will they include a wider range of cars from other manufacturers? Will they take the opportunity to hike the cost of road fund licences and Benefit in Kind taxation on company cars? I hope there will be proper consideration & consultation, but politicians could be involved & this invariably increases the chances of ill-considered knee-jerk reactions...
The fall out from the whole saga has the potential to be very far reaching and affect all vehicles, what you can and can't do with them, including exhaust and ECU systems changes and even where and when we are allowed to use vehicles.
Guys, this thread was created to discuss the implications of the VAG emissions debacle on Ducati. Someone seems to have merged threads (WTF?????) of their own volition without my , the OP's, request/permission.
Saw this on eBay. Considering the opening price maybe the seller is hoping the ex CEO of VW is going to spend some of his golden handshake payment on this reg no to put on his new to him - secondhand Passat (petrol).
Well since Ducati/Lamborghini do not currently make or sell any diesel models, no immediate implications. In fact since fortunately no major motorcycle manufacturers make diesels at all, they all dodge the bullet - this time. If the crisis developed into a fuss about eluding noise regulations, now that would be a real crisis.
The difference between manufacturers fudging the emissions tests by means of clever software, and Joe Biker swapping his pipes for MOT time is rather obvious, surely? Two completely different cans of worms.
No, it's more like a manufacturer fitting a special flap-valve in its exhaust systems which closes off only under certain circumstances (controlled electronically) in order to squeeze through legally prescribed technical tests. Oops!
Oh dear. You can see the difference between designing a system that operates a certain way during conditions that are typically tested and a system that operates in a certain way only when under test? Take your time.
I don't think that matters Loz, the difference is one of degree. And to be clear it will not only operate in a certain way when under test test conditions but always when a set of conditions equivalent to test conditions apply. There is a difference, you think about it.
The VW engine is incapable of meeting the manufacturer's advertised emissions standards, unless the engine is operating under test conditions - when the Switch software alters the engine characteristics. In order for an owner to meet the emissions standards in normal operation, he would have to fool the engine into thinking it was undergoing an emissions test. The owner would need to take (expensive) action in order for his engine to meet the owner's expectations of emissions - i.e. what he thought he was purchasing. Compare this to the reverse situation with our Ducatis, where we need to alter the engines characteristics - mapping, tps, exhaust system, etc - in order to change the emissions profile from the advertised levels in order to achieve our (noisy, fun) requirements.
Sorry, just re-read this. I am under the impression that the Switch software only changes the running profile when it believes it is being tested. The conditions it uses as criteria are not normal running conditions. Thus your contention that there is a difference is really only one of semantics, i.e. a distinction without a difference. You could equally argue that if an emissions test is run but no one looks at the results, has the car in fact really been tested?
In answer to your question yes they do keep the tanks topped up, if they run very low the engine power reduces and if they run empty they go into a limp home mode (that really is limp home), generally if they go into limp mode the truck needs to go to a dealer to have the 'fault' cleared with the diagnostic computer - this is of course chargeable so punitive for those that don't pay attention. There are devices that can fool the control unit into thinking the tank is full when it isn't but the vehicle software is getting more sophisticated an example being that if the vehicle doesn't see the level dropping as expected then it will throw a 'fault' - this can create a problem if the driver tops it up every day with a litre or so, eventually the control unit smells a rat and goes into 'fault mode' You might wonder if it is possible to put water or something else into the tank (AdBlue has a high water content), generally this will damage the dosing unit as they are very sensitive to contamination, they are very expensive. As far as cars are concerned the AdBlue tanks on most are designed to go between services without topping up, this means Joe public doesn't need to think about it and the dealer can charge top whack for the AdBlue. (my experience here comes from running an Audi so maybe that won't be the case when it gets it's uprated Software)
What is normal ? Yes it is semantics but words matter, particularly when framing legislation. There is a range of inputs and a corresponding range of outputs. The test is passed or failed. You could argue there was intent to deceive, but it doesn't alter the fact that the test was passed, this highlighted the fact that the test was inadequate and did not represent real world conditions. Everybody who took the slightest interest in this knew this to be the case, but maybe not the full extent of the problem. The tests have been a charade. I have a 2.0 TDI VW, which is probably running this software, with which I have been very satisfied. I will not authorise VW to change the software. I will get it serviced elsewhere if VW insist that it is changed. If it then fails the emissions test (which it has passed on 2x mot tests) or is reclassified, then I shall be having words with VW.
Ah, is diesel a bad word again. Has anyone questioned the reason why emissions is a reason to tax? Environmental? Bullshit....tell the fuckers that dictate to me that they can fuck off.
Driving to work, and back. That's normal. There are other examples of normal, see what you can come up with. Semantics are the life-blood of the lawyer's profession (odd, since lawyers are otherwise bloodless), but just because something isn't specifically mentioned in legislation, that doesn't mean a judge is going to rule accordingly. Poorly framed testing methods, along with poorly worded legislation, are nothing new. That's what judges do, interpret legislation and, if at all possible, rule on issues. Law is not a series of blind, decision-tree choices, there is scope for judges to rule upon the intent of the law. Otherwise, I could beat every charge laid against me on the basis that the law hasn't specifically addressed the issue of the space-aliens from Altair 4 who are living in my skull and are the real perpetrators of my alleged crimes. You sicken me.
