VW cheat emissions test with "defeat device"

[Pieoter]

Explain then how the rules define the max permitted flex for a given load test if no flex is permitted?

It's either one or the other!

You and others are confusing the ban on "movable aero parts*" with flex.

*DRS being the one exception.

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
a) Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
b) Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).

With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

[it goes on]

3.17.8 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

That makes it very clear.

The rules NEVER mention "movable aero parts*".

[djos]

I define “defeat device” as something that changes the real-world behavior of a system compared to its behavior during regulatory testing, and this change must occur within the range of evaluation that occurred during regulatory certification.

<snip>

If you don’t like this explanation then define “defeat device” in a way that can be applied to both road car emissions and F1 car technical regulations.

I think you've nailed it down quite nicely Bill.

[djos]

That makes it very clear.

The rules NEVER mention "movable aero parts*".

I disagree with your interpretation.

[Tommy Cookers]

the CARB latter linked on P10 seems to say that removing 'defeat device' software caused excess emissions in the test, and so failure
..... acceptance of that by a court or by both parties seems to be the determinant of what is a DD (and automatic disqualification)

..... and what is only an alleged DD (as per the wordage bh has supplied) implying consideration re disqualification ?
ie most cars passing the test have had/have some functionality or means that gives potential to generate a DD allegation ?

the EPA etc have always accepted that the test is indicative, not binding, in regard of in-use emissions
ie emission tests have always been a grey area (and will remain so despite all the fine talk eg here in Europe)

btw are the rolling road dyno tests manually driven ?? (or what else ??)
eg what shift pattern eg in a manual shift car ? abnormal driving surely ?


the VW fix tried seems according to CARB to need only some further increase in the dosage (of urea liquid) to pass the test

what gives, people ??

[Phil]

FIA technical regulations have a single wing-flex test, but the FIA regulations also state that all aero parts must be rigid with no degrees of freedom.

The problem with the FIA regulation is that its rule is ambiguous; Apply enough force and any, even rigid material, will flex eventually. So the only way to clarify and enforce such a rule is to define a test or rule that states at load x, the wing must not flex more than y. This is essentially the FIA flex test. RedBull passed this, as did all the other cars. Fact.

The problem with enforcing image proof such as the one Bhall II posted above:



...is that you can't punish one car for flexing more than another. Even if the McLaren in that picture has no visible flex, even if there is even the slightest flex, how can you punish one car for flexing more than another even if the other flexes just a little (despite both cars passing the FIA flex wing test). You can't, which is why such image proof is meaningless, unless you define at what load how much flex you allow - which would have been the correct way to write the rule.

In regards to VW, it's entirely different topic, as we are differentiating between an active device and a passive piece of material. Bill Shoe explained it perfectly.

[Kiril Varbanov]

Is this the topic for VW? If it is: https://twitter.com/50NerdsofGrey/statu ... 3330932736

[CBeck113]

the CARB latter linked on P10 seems to say that removing 'defeat device' software caused excess emissions in the test, and so failure
..... acceptance of that by a court or by both parties seems to be the determinant of what is a DD (and automatic disqualification)

..... and what is only an alleged DD (as per the wordage bh has supplied) implying consideration re disqualification ?
ie most cars passing the test have had/have some functionality or means that gives potential to generate a DD allegation ?

the EPA etc have always accepted that the test is indicative, not binding, in regard of in-use emissions
ie emission tests have always been a grey area (and will remain so despite all the fine talk eg here in Europe)

btw are the rolling road dyno tests manually driven ?? (or what else ??)
eg what shift pattern eg in a manual shift car ? abnormal driving surely ?



the VW fix tried seems according to CARB to need only some further increase in the dosage (of urea liquid) to pass the test

what gives, people ??

The Major issue is that only the 2014-2015 Passat has the Urea injection, all other models had no injection System but a NOx capture System. The solution "sic" for the rest is to adjust the injection, which will increase fuel consumption, but will get them Closer to the Regulation limits. That will lead to more class-action lawsuits, and may not be the solution VW is really looking for (it may end up more expensive than the Penalty + lawsuit damages).

I don't know the test in the States, but in Germany it is done at a fixed rpm, on my Opel Corsa 1.3 CDTi it is 2000rpm, no load, no wheel movement.
I want to sell my car, but I may get more Money for it by keeping it, if Opel pulled the same --- too.

[RZS10]

The trouble with urea based SCR systems is that drivers could choose to not fill Adblue. There is no in-use testing in EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 or Euro 6. But EPA tackles this with lights and warnings on the dashboard, and leaves it to the user to act. So in effect you could run around spitting out NOx from your back. But in Euro - your car WILL BE torque limited. It is a mandatory requirement of all Euro certified diesels that the ECM limits the torque to 50 or 60% - until you fill up Adblue to clean your exhausts.

I read some articles regarding adblue systems and they said some cars won't even start with an empty adblue tank, the Opel Insignia with the 170 hp engine for example and apparently some VW models as well. They get massively reduced power/torque when running and once you turn it off it won't start

[R_GoWin]

the VW fix tried seems according to CARB to need only some further increase in the dosage (of urea liquid) to pass the test
what gives, people ??

The trouble is NOx is not easy to control in general. It is difficult to dose the correct amount of urea into the SCR. Adblue is basically urea-water solution. It is used because it is a safe form of storing Ammonia - which is what is really needed in SCR - as NH3 acts as a reducing agent with NOx to produce N2 molecules which is harmless. However, if you dose too much urea into the exhaust - you start having 'ammonia slip' from SCR, which is again regulated by EPA and Euro (as apart from being a harmful gas, ammonia oxidises to produce NOx again!). So this makes calibrating a 'dosing strategy map' a challenge. Especially during rapid throttle variations (such as the accelerations in the test - or any real world condition).

Ofcourse - the other option is to produce less NOx at the source - from in-cylinder combustion. But this means that you need to delay your injection timing or use aggressive amounts of EGR - but this comes with a fuel penalty, which is undesirable (and EGR control is not fast enough anyway). So engine makers are almost incentivised to dose less - as apart form preventing 'ammonia slip', it extends the service interval for topping up Adblue in your tank and gives you a good SFC, despite the hard acceleration - which a lot of people want!

[R_GoWin]

The trouble with urea based SCR systems is that drivers could choose to not fill Adblue. There is no in-use testing in EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 or Euro 6. But EPA tackles this with lights and warnings on the dashboard, and leaves it to the user to act. So in effect you could run around spitting out NOx from your back. But in Euro - your car WILL BE torque limited. It is a mandatory requirement of all Euro certified diesels that the ECM limits the torque to 50 or 60% - until you fill up Adblue to clean your exhausts.

I read some articles regarding adblue systems and they said some cars won't even start with an empty adblue tank, the Opel Insignia with the 170 hp engine for example and apparently some VW models as well. They get massively reduced power/torque when running and once you turn it off it won't start

That's true.

But you need to have ignored the warnings for filling up adblue for too long for that to happen. First the lights appear on the dashboard for low adblue. If you have ignored that for too long - only then the torque liming happens. If you still continue to drive the car for long enough - the engine (ECM) goes into a 'take me home' mode - where the journey you are making will be the last -and will not power on once the ignition is switched off. You will need to call for a VW authorised person - who will simply plug in his gadgetry into the ECM - reset the warnings on the OBD, fill the tank with adblue - and you are good to go! 2 minute job - but probably £££ in cost!

[Sombrero]

I love TDi
And all these people with no where to go
I love TDi
And all these people with nothing to show

And I love the Audi
I love it when they're pissin' on me
I love VW
I love it when they're shittin' on me

I hate TDi
And all these people with nothing to show
I hate TDi
I hate it 'cause its --- with my soul

TDi hates me
TDi hates me
TDi ate me
I hate you, TDi
I hate, TDi hates me
I hate,TDi ate me

New "TDi Clean Diesel lyrics" for The Jesus and Mary Chain song I hate rock 'n' roll
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DZrLryJCnI

[Phil]

Switzerland has just prohibited the sale of affected VWs (i presume with the engine in question). This seems like a temporary measure by the state until more is known and the extent of the manipulation.

Not posting this because Switzerland is a significant market (they are speculating up to 180'000 affected cars), but other countries might follow soon?

Source in German: http://www.20min.ch/finance/news/story/ ... s-24249751

[g-force_addict]

Top Gear tried to make an ad for the Scirocco Diesel, now they should make another ones of TDI

* Panama canal showing pictures of big oil tankers barely passing thru the locks.
VW Valdez easier to park yet just as polluting. (Exxon Valdez pun).

* Show Nazi trucks that placed the exhaust outlet in the prisoner area (they did exist) now with more comfortable (show leather interior) yet just as poisonous.

* VW: endorsed by Hitler and el chapo mexican drug kingpin (most VWs in USA are made in Mexico.

* The perfect getaway car (for criminals) now why not keep on cheating?

* VW V-3 (as a succesor to Nazi V-1 and V-2 missiles. still killing Americans (from pollution related illnesses) 70 years later.

* Picture a gas chamber suicide as a follow up to the original VW ad of the guy who loses everything at a casino (mocked by Top Gear as a suicide indeed.

* With air conditioning, electric windows, central locks, bluetooth and gas masks as standard equipment

[g-force_addict]

Now seriously

* Stop defending CorpseWagen (yet another pun) not even they are defending themselves!
They might hire Devil Advocate lawyers and eventually win EPA lawsuits only to totally lose customer confidence forever thereafter.

For Californians and most Europeans environmental pollution is the worst crime ever.
Your honor he raped me in the a** but then he planted a tree. Maybe he isn't a bad guy after all.

* So the Greeks were right after all. Why work? Just get into the demand-reparations-from-Germans wagon. LOL

* Now what if the guilty VW engineers are actually Jew, Muslim or Syrian? LOL again.

* TDI= Then Drive Intoxicated (from noxious fumes)
* TDI= The Deadly Invention
* TDI= Test Divert Intended
* TDI= Tarnished Dreams Included
* TDI= Test Defeat Included

* Maybe VW also lied on the Bugati Veyron top speed or hp figures?

* Or they also lied in gasoline (petrol) engines?

Sorry I tried to be serious but this is so sadly funny.

[DaveW]

My feelings on this topic are summarized quite well by the following post:
http://forums.autosport.com/topic/19980 ... try7323628