F1technical.net

Any of you playing with stocks? Given how similar cases were handled in the US, VW seems like an interesting buy with a ~35% discount over its normal price.

MadMatt wrote:

Tommy Cookers wrote:is the California (NOx) standard tighter than the standard for the rest of the USA ?
is (say) the USA standard tighter than eg for Europe ?
anyone ?

the big campaign in Europe seems to be about particulates

European emissions standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... _standards

US: http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/standards/ligh ... ld-cff.htm (check LDVs)

As we see, European Euro5 (because the VW story mainly touches Euro5 vehicles) is much tougher on emissions.

But fuel is different between Europe and US. At least gasoline. While we have a minimum of RON95 here, with option of RON98 and RON100, I believe in the US RON87 is pretty much standard while RON93 is "high-tech". Might be the same for diesel engines but I don't know this.

You are right on the NOx. But the organic gases are not controlled in Europe, so they are the problem and you need a good working SCR to get rid of them.
So in my point of view the values are not the problem, but the amount of AdBlue the SCR technology uses. Audi and VW want to get their cars to the first 15k mile maintenance without that the driver needs to refill the AdBlue (see the technical documentation from Audi for that). In Europe nobody cares about the customers and, thus, the Adblue tank comes not even half filled on a new car to safe money. The AdBlue tank on my Passat (the new Euro6) was running dry after 5000miles....so in Europe they are not cheating and most European cars (everything below 170hp) do not even have the SCR technology.

The outcome will be: The US customers will get a new software which blows much more AdBlue into their exhaust, just like during the test. So they will have to refill the AdBlue regularly. How often...nobody knows. Maybe 10k miles if they use the same amount of AdBlue as they use in Europe. But I doubt that, my bet is on not more than 5k miles.

alexx_88 wrote:Any of you playing with stocks? Given how similar cases were handled in the US, VW seems like an interesting buy with a ~35% discount over its normal price.

Yesterday I was thinking to buy some...today it seems to be already too late. Getting to lowest point would have been interesting, now I think it will go sideways like all car stocks in the last few month.

bhall II wrote:

Sixbarboost wrote:Enlighten me, exactly which law have they broken?

42 U.S. Code § 7522 - Prohibited acts wrote:(a) ENUMERATED PROHIBITIONS The following acts and the causing thereof are prohibited—
[...]
(B) for any person to manufacture or sell, or offer to sell, or install, any part or component intended for use with, or as part of, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine, where a principal effect of the part or component is to bypass, defeat, or render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine in compliance with regulations under this subchapter [42 U.S. Code § 7521 - Emission standards for new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines], and where the person knows or should know that such part or component is being offered for sale or installed for such use or put to such use; or...

thanks to bh .....
surely the above 'catch-all'' clause will be the dominant factor driving the case under criminal law ?

impotantly for democracy, it lists factors that might otherwise need to be imagined as 'the spirit of the law'
some fellow called Mr Newey was on my TV on Monday, saying that rules mean what they say, and there's no 'spirit of the rules'
..... so we just need to decide what this clause says

MadMatt wrote:But fuel is different between Europe and US. At least gasoline. While we have a minimum of RON95 here, with option of RON98 and RON100, I believe in the US RON87 is pretty much standard while RON93 is "high-tech". Might be the same for diesel engines but I don't know this.

It's not RON but Octane Rating. In Europe it is RON (Research Octane Number), but in US AKI (Anti-Knock Index, arithmetic average of RON and MON, Motor Octane Number).

Tommy Cookers wrote:impotantly for democracy, it lists factors that might otherwise need to be imagined as 'the spirit of the law'
some fellow called Mr Newey was on my TV on Monday, saying that rules mean what they say, and there's no 'spirit of the rules'
..... so we just need to decide what this clause says

You should not neglect, that there is a quite big difference between "rules" in sports and "rules" in the term of what you should do and what you should not do in the real world.
So Newey is right when he talks about rules in motorsports, but he would be wrong if he would be talking about the law. In this sence: Building a race car matching the tests is totally ok, as you have to obey the wording and push it to the limit in sports. But betraying in a test for environmental laws like VW did is of course not ok, because this is completely against the common sense as there is just no competition to build the least environmental friendly car, which is getting through the test.

noname wrote:

MadMatt wrote:But fuel is different between Europe and US. At least gasoline. While we have a minimum of RON95 here, with option of RON98 and RON100, I believe in the US RON87 is pretty much standard while RON93 is "high-tech". Might be the same for diesel engines but I don't know this.

It's not RON but Octane Rating. In Europe it is RON (Research Octane Number), but in US AKI (Anti-Knock Index, arithmetic average of RON and MON, Motor Octane Number).

My bad. Then RON95 = 90AKI, RON98 = 93AKI.

Volkswagen C.E.O. Martin Winterkorn Resigns Amid Emissions Scandal
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/busin ... f=cta&_r=0

Sixbarboost wrote:Kindly explain in detail how VW broke that law?

And that relevant question was worth a downvote, is that the purpose of the voting system moderator?

basti313 wrote:
The outcome will be: The US customers will get a new software which blows much more AdBlue into their exhaust, just like during the test. So they will have to refill the AdBlue regularly. How often...nobody knows. Maybe 10k miles if they use the same amount of AdBlue as they use in Europe. But I doubt that, my bet is on not more than 5k miles.

the engines in question do not have Adblue systems installed.

alexx_88 wrote:Any of you playing with stocks? Given how similar cases were handled in the US, VW seems like an interesting buy with a ~35% discount over its normal price.

I´d buy. This thing will blow over soon.

Remember the media crazyness about Toyota and their stuck throttle or whatever it was? Nobody cares today.

basti313 wrote:

Tommy Cookers wrote:impotantly for democracy, it lists factors that might otherwise need to be imagined as 'the spirit of the law'
some fellow called Mr Newey was on my TV on Monday, saying that rules mean what they say, and there's no 'spirit of the rules'
..... so we just need to decide what this clause says

You should not neglect, that there is a quite big difference between "rules" in sports and "rules" in the term of what you should do and what you should not do in the real world.
So Newey is right when he talks about rules in motorsports, but he would be wrong if he would be talking about the law. In this sence: Building a race car matching the tests is totally ok, as you have to obey the wording and push it to the limit in sports. But betraying in a test for environmental laws like VW did is of course not ok, because this is completely against the common sense as there is just no competition to build the least environmental friendly car, which is getting through the test.

isn't that exactly how big companies pay tax, follow the rules to the letter but minimize tax

flynfrog wrote:

basti313 wrote:
The outcome will be: The US customers will get a new software which blows much more AdBlue into their exhaust, just like during the test. So they will have to refill the AdBlue regularly. How often...nobody knows. Maybe 10k miles if they use the same amount of AdBlue as they use in Europe. But I doubt that, my bet is on not more than 5k miles.

the engines in question do not have Adblue systems installed.

Sure? Then this would nicely explain the problem. But without SCR I do not see a possible solution they can use all the time without really badly compromising the fuel economy.

basti313 wrote:

flynfrog wrote:

basti313 wrote:
The outcome will be: The US customers will get a new software which blows much more AdBlue into their exhaust, just like during the test. So they will have to refill the AdBlue regularly. How often...nobody knows. Maybe 10k miles if they use the same amount of AdBlue as they use in Europe. But I doubt that, my bet is on not more than 5k miles.

the engines in question do not have Adblue systems installed.

Sure? Then this would nicely explain the problem. But without SCR I do not see a possible solution they can use all the time without really badly compromising the fuel economy.

Us market didn't get Ad blue in the Cars until 1015. I own a 2010 TDI

http://jalopnik.com/your-guide-to-diese ... 1731857018

In order to meet tougher emissions regulations that went into effect in 2008, most automakers started supplying their diesel cars with tanks of a urea-based solution (often referred to as “AdBlue”) that cuts down on nitrogen oxide emissions.

Your Guide To Dieselgate: Volkswagen's Diesel Cheating Catastrophe

Many larger diesel engines on big sedans and SUV, including some from Audi as well as competitors at BMW and Mercedes, use such a system. And so did some of the Passats, too.

But VW and Audi said the 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine on the smaller cars was able to meet the requirements without a urea injection system — although many people have wondered exactly how. (Update: Just to clarify, newer TDI models like the MK7 Golf, made from 2015 on, do include urea injection.)

Jalopnik has been really good in the coverage of this.


http://jalopnik.com/researcher-who-unco ... 1732537775

Despite the discrepancies, a fix shouldn’t involve major changes.

“It could be something very small,” said Carder, who’s the interim director of West Virginia University’s Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines and Emissions in Morgantown, about 75 miles south of Pittsburgh in the Appalachian foothills.

“It can simply be a change in the fuel injection strategy. What might be realized is a penalty in fuel economy in order to get these systems more active, to lower the emissions levels.”

MadMatt wrote:

Tommy Cookers wrote:is the California (NOx) standard tighter than the standard for the rest of the USA ?
is (say) the USA standard tighter than eg for Europe ?
anyone ?

the big campaign in Europe seems to be about particulates

European emissions standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... _standards

US: http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/standards/ligh ... ld-cff.htm (check LDVs)

As we see, European Euro5 (because the VW story mainly touches Euro5 vehicles) is much tougher on emissions.

But fuel is different between Europe and US. At least gasoline. While we have a minimum of RON95 here, with option of RON98 and RON100, I believe in the US RON87 is pretty much standard while RON93 is "high-tech". Might be the same for diesel engines but I don't know this.

Usually CARB (California air resource board - or something like that!) are stricter than the EPA, but follow a similar testing framework.

Its hard to compare the emission legislation set by the Euro and EPA based on absolute numbers as the testing procedure and the drive cycles are vastly different, based on what parameters are important to each one. (As Tommy Cookers said - particle number/count introduced on Euro earlier etc)

Euro typically follows a variant of NEDC (New European Driving Cycle) that is a combination of a handful of typical European urban driving habits + extra urban driving cycles + tweaks for cold start tests etc. The UPA follows a Federal test Procedure (FTP). Apart from the length of testing being different - the cycles also differ on speed (max and average), acceleration, idling etc. The Y axis on the plots on the links you've provided is not the absolute value of NOx or Soot (or g/Kw-hr) but g/mile or Km. So its really apples to oranges. But roughly the technologies to meet them are equivalent.