For those interested in new cars

[30801]

Google may disagree with you on this point.

I don't think they would. Google cars are still very limited. For one thing they can only cope with traffic lights that are on their map. Given that traffic lights are really easy to recognise it shows just how far they are from being able to understand the world around them.

[BG John]

I have read this thread with some interest being the owner of a Nissan Note. Although the car is not 'drive itself' and I think we are many years from that in any case, my Note does have some features which I think are the way ahead for private motoring.........

It must be very expensive to repair all this stuff, so does that mean that as it gets older, and things start to go wrong, various features will no longer be used, especially by future owners who can only afford cheap cars? Or will they end up being scrapped sooner than more basic cars, meaning that car ownership becomes only accessible to the better off who can afford to buy new or recent models, and pay the repair bills?

[Adrian Wintle]

 

Have VW really been dishonest? Or just stupid not to acknowledge that test results may not correspond with actual use?

 

 

The suggestion (by the EPA) is that the software would be able to detect the emmisions testing and reconfigure to lower the emissions under that particular scenario, so I'd say yes, they have been dishonest. This is not just a case of the test conditions not being realistic so that the real-world emissions are worse.

 

Adrian

[Horsetan]

It must be very expensive to repair all this stuff, so does that mean that as it gets older, and things start to go wrong, various features will no longer be used, especially by future owners who can only afford cheap cars? Or will they end up being scrapped sooner than more basic cars, meaning that car ownership becomes only accessible to the better off who can afford to buy new or recent models, and pay the repair bills?

Will it become a classic car?

[PhilJ W]

It must be very expensive to repair all this stuff, so does that mean that as it gets older, and things start to go wrong, various features will no longer be used, especially by future owners who can only afford cheap cars? Or will they end up being scrapped sooner than more basic cars, meaning that car ownership becomes only accessible to the better off who can afford to buy new or recent models, and pay the repair bills?

Last year I had a problem with my 08 registered car, fortunately it turned out to be the tyres. In the yard of the dealer there was an 08 registered Hyundai sports coupé, a top of the line model and apparently in very good clean condition. Someone then told me it was going to be scrapped as it had an engine problem! A six year old car with bodywork unmarked scrapped for a mechanical problem.

[Adrian Wintle]

Last year I had a problem with my 08 registered car, fortunately it turned out to be the tyres. In the yard of the dealer there was an 08 registered Hyundai sports coupé, a top of the line model and apparently in very good clean condition. Someone then told me it was going to be scrapped as it had an engine problem! A six year old car with bodywork unmarked scrapped for a mechanical problem.

 

Depending on the actual problem, the cost of repair may handily exceed the potential sale value of the car, so yes, the scrap value is probably higher. Remember that 'scrapped' doesn't mean the whole car would be crushed. All the potentially re-usable parts would be salvaged to be used for repair of other cars.

 

Adrian

[PhilJ W]

Depending on the actual problem, the cost of repair may handily exceed the potential sale value of the car, so yes, the scrap value is probably higher. Remember that 'scrapped' doesn't mean the whole car would be crushed. All the potentially re-usable parts would be salvaged to be used for repair of other cars.

 

Adrian

At a guess it would probably have ended up in Africa somewhere with a lot of the environmental gubbins removed as the engine fault had resulted in this closing down the engine. I was told that it could be something as simple as a seal or gasket failure but the cost of resetting/replacing the electronics made repairs non-viable.

[Ozexpatriate]

I don't think they would. Google cars are still very limited.

I'm not sure I would characterize them as 'very limited'. There certainly are limitations that they continue to work on. Unlike driverless trains or aeroplanes, the challenge is much, much greater with driverless cars. Nevertheless the technology is well past the prototype and demonstration stage.

 

The deployment problem is not a technological one anyway - it is regulatory.

[Derekl]

The suggestion (by the EPA) is that the software would be able to detect the emmisions testing and reconfigure to lower the emissions under that particular scenario, so I'd say yes, they have been dishonest. This is not just a case of the test conditions not being realistic so that the real-world emissions are worse.

 

Adrian

 

Since VW have effectively admitted that they were in the wrong, this falls away. It looks to me (but having read a lot of the material available) that they had devised a system which essentially determined when the car was being revved when stationary and put the engine into a "safe" or reduced emissions mode. There may be arguments that this is a good idea, but whatever those are (and VW hasn't mounted them - yet) it had the effect of under rating the emission level.

[martin_wynne]

that they had devised a system which essentially determined when the car was being revved when stationary and put the engine into a "safe" or reduced emissions mode. There may be arguments that this is a good idea, but whatever those are it had the effect of under rating the emission level.

 

But if such a situation seems possible to you (and me) how come the testers didn't think to check for it? I think this episode reflects just as badly on the testers for being incompetent as on the manufacturer.

 

Martin.

[APOLLO]

I wonder how quick the UK government inland revenue (car tax) will latch onto the VW emissions affair ?.

 

VW cars affected will have to low emissions readings (fiddled in official tests). If the models are re-tested and the emissions turn out to be higher than the factory figures, will the yearly road tax go up - and worse - will it be backdated ???. Was the CO2 readings fiddled or is it only nitrous oxide etc ?.

 

Re modern cars being scrapped, my mate who does the odd job on my cars reckons modern cars rarely rust or wear out - they just usually electronically die, and, as stated above, the cost of repair in many cases outweighs the value of the car, regardless of condition.

 

My future philosophy is never to spend more than a grand on a car, if it lasts over 2 years OK, if it dies before then then not too much lost, chuck it away and buy another.  A 100,000+ mile electronically loaded up car for over say 2 grand is a big risk, over say 3 / 4 grand is a downright worrying liability.

 

Brit15

[BG John]

My future philosophy is never to spend more than a grand on a car, if it lasts over 2 years OK, if it dies before then then not too much lost, chuck it away and buy another.  A 100,000+ mile electronically loaded up car for over say 2 grand is a big risk, over say 3 / 4 grand is a downright worrying liability.

 

Brit15

I think I have a philosophy evolving that my next car will have to be a restored classic from my earlier driving days, when life was simpler, and everything was repairable. The most modern vehicle I have owned is my current one, made in 1999. It has nice simple wind up windows, the sat nav is plugged into the lighter socket when I need it, and if my phone rings and it's convenient to pull off the road and answer it I might, otherwise the caller will have to wait until I decide it's time for a break. Of course it's not perfect, as the water heater doesn't work, so I can't have a shower in it, and the loo doesn't flush, but at least they can be fixed when I get round to it, and they're not things that car drivers need to worry about anyway! I just hope the eyewateringly expensive welding job it had to get through the MOT this year (although probably peanuts compared to fixing the blue nav sat tooth thingy in a modern car!) will hold for a few more years before I have to decide.

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

Google may disagree with you on this point.

Google is American. Americans are full of gung ho and b-----1t. It is simply years away. My Nissan Note could have a lane discipline warning but it has become common knowledge that it doesn't work very well.

 

It is more likely that aircraft will be automated at some early stage but there will always be a flight crew I would imagine but I very much doubt they will need to know how to actually fly the plane.

[BG John]

It is more likely that aircraft will be automated at some early stage but there will always be a flight crew I would imagine but I very much doubt they will need to know how to actually fly the plane.

I'd be worried if they didn't know how to land it in the event of something going wrong. Even as someone who doesn't fly I'd be concerned about that in case it landed on my house!

[Ozexpatriate]

Americans are full of gung ho and b-----1t.

Bit of a sweeping generalization there David. But I think I know what you mean.

[Ozexpatriate]

I'd be worried if they didn't know how to land it in the event of something going wrong. Even as someone who doesn't fly I'd be concerned about that in case it landed on my house!

As I understand it, the Air France 447 disaster over the South Atlantic was a case of poor human response to a combined automation + minor system failure. I don't know whether the NTSB report is done, but I suspect Asiana 214 would have been landed much more successfully by the autopilot.

 

Having pilots does not prevent aircraft landing on houses either. Locally we had an airshow accident some years ago where an experienced pilot crashed* into a nearby house shortly after takeoff. Fortunately the home owner was not home.

 

* incidentally the aircraft was a Hawker Hunter.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Ozexpatriate

[PhilJ W]

I wonder how quick the UK government inland revenue (car tax) will latch onto the VW emissions affair ?.

 

VW cars affected will have to low emissions readings (fiddled in official tests). If the models are re-tested and the emissions turn out to be higher than the factory figures, will the yearly road tax go up - and worse - will it be backdated ???. Was the CO2 readings fiddled or is it only nitrous oxide etc ?.

 

Re modern cars being scrapped, my mate who does the odd job on my cars reckons modern cars rarely rust or wear out - they just usually electronically die, and, as stated above, the cost of repair in many cases outweighs the value of the car, regardless of condition.

 

My future philosophy is never to spend more than a grand on a car, if it lasts over 2 years OK, if it dies before then then not too much lost, chuck it away and buy another.  A 100,000+ mile electronically loaded up car for over say 2 grand is a big risk, over say 3 / 4 grand is a downright worrying liability.

 

Brit15

A worrying feature of this is that the failed electronics could be replaced with cheap copies, not to bad if it means the engine destroying itself but if its something safety critical like ABS it could be dangerous. Another feature of modern car electronics I discovered, I have my car serviced every year by the dealer I purchased it from (new), a couple of times I've noticed on the statement an item 'upgrade' with a zero charge against it. When I asked what this was I was told this was an upgrade to the cars electronics software. As I said I have my car serviced by an accredited workshop but what if a second or third owner does not have the car serviced by an accredited workshop? On the subject of aircraft that can be flown by computers, this is now a fact with regard to modern airliners, most could fly a regular route with no one in the cockpit, the pilots are only there in case something goes wrong. The military in various countries have been flying pilotless aircraft (drones) for several years now, the advantages from their point of view are many. I can see the situation where freight only aircraft will take to the skies with no humans on board, if they are confined to over ocean flights or over thinly populated areas I do not have a problem with that.

[APOLLO]

Just think about the Quantas A380 that had an engine self destruct climbing out of Singapore. The A380 is the most technically advanced plane in the world. Many systems went down on that occasion(wing wiring damage holes in wing fuel leaks no flaps you name it.), Multiple computer warnings from the multiple computers on board. The captain had his work cut out, he was an experienced guy with an experienced first officer AND a second crew was luckily on board who took over some of the workload.

 

The plane landed (just) safely, though one engine would not shut down and had to have water sprayed in by the fire engines to stop it.

 

And folks want planes with no pilots !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

By the way, todays news looks grim for VW - they are now looking at petrol cars (and other manufacturers) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Brit15

[Horsetan]

.....And folks want planes with no pilots !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...

 

We already have driverless trains.

[jjb1970]

The VW debacle is more than embarrassing for them. This was not a sin of omission but one of commission, whilst that doesn’t affect whether or not they broke the law it does affect how a transgression will be viewed and the potential penalties. Usually in cases like this you can put at least some mitigating spin on things but in this case they’ve been blatantly cheating/lying and misleading regulatory authorities and customers. Everybody has understood that car manufacturers engage in cycle busting for years but setting up a car to get a good result in the emissions test by cycle busting is not against the applicable regulations and it is a problem with emissions regulations that they are based on performance in defined test cycles rather than actual emissions in service with parameter controls to control production and in-service performance. Cycle busting may not meet with approval but in itself setting up a car to do well in the testing breaks no rules, it is a bit like tax evasion vs. tax avoidance. However, to go beyond cycle busting you get into defeat devices and irrational control methods. A defeat device is as it implies, a device which defeats the emissions controls and so unlike cycle busting where emissions may be optimised for the test but are set at that level a defeat device allows compliance during the test and then just defeats the emissions regulation in service. Basically an on/off switch hidden away. An irrational control strategy is a means of meeting the emissions required at the test cycle mode points, ripping up emissions controls after that point and then bringing them down again for the next test cycle mode point. Regulations require a sensible curve/line between these mode points. Both defeat devices and irrational control strategies are prohibited. Generally a manufacturer of fully electronically controlled common rail engines can apply a defeat device very easily if they want to, mechanical engines tend to be associated with suspicions of irrational control strategies more than defeat devices. There have been suspicions about defeat devices and irrational control devices for years, I was involved in two cases of suspected irrational control strategies for large diesel engines, both of which were designed by “reputable” European manufacturers.

I am somewhat bemused by the efforts of some in the European motor trade to try and spin things that European test standards are better than US standards. In what way? Diesel emissions standards in the USA are actually more stringent and whilst the regimes for testing are different it is not correct to try and claim that the US regime is less stringent is not correct. I’ll be interested to see how far this spreads and how other countries will approach this. There is a lot of hyperbole being thrown around with prophesies of doom for VW and diesels, usually I’d dismiss it as empty hyperbole (how many people stopped buying Toyota cars after their brake issues?) but in this case I actually believe that VW will suffer long term damage.

[MJI]

I wonder how quick the UK government inland revenue (car tax) will latch onto the VW emissions affair ?.

 

VW cars affected will have to low emissions readings (fiddled in official tests). If the models are re-tested and the emissions turn out to be higher than the factory figures, will the yearly road tax go up - and worse - will it be backdated ???. Was the CO2 readings fiddled or is it only nitrous oxide etc ?.

 

Re modern cars being scrapped, my mate who does the odd job on my cars reckons modern cars rarely rust or wear out - they just usually electronically die, and, as stated above, the cost of repair in many cases outweighs the value of the car, regardless of condition.

 

My future philosophy is never to spend more than a grand on a car, if it lasts over 2 years OK, if it dies before then then not too much lost, chuck it away and buy another.  A 100,000+ mile electronically loaded up car for over say 2 grand is a big risk, over say 3 / 4 grand is a downright worrying liability.

 

Brit15

 

It was in a low power high fuel consumption mode so I reckon it would go up if they rerate in low power mode. NOx lower CO2 higher.

[martin_wynne]

I think there is some info missing here. It's not credible that the VW engineers would be daft enough to think they could fool their fellow engineers doing the testing. And they haven't. It seems more possible the software includes a so-called "defeat" mode for use in their own testing or service diagnostics, and that it was intended to be switched out for normal use and compliance testing. And that for some reason, even a simple bug in the software, it is not being switched out.

 

Then of course the marketing dept get hold of the wrong figures and make hay with them. I feel sorry for the poor soul who wrote the software.

 

Martin.

[Adrian Wintle]

I think there is some info missing here. It's not credible that the VW engineers would be daft enough to think they could fool their fellow engineers doing the testing. And they haven't. It seems more possible the software includes a so-called "defeat" mode for use in their own testing or service diagnostics, and that it was intended to be switched out for normal use and compliance testing. And that for some reason, even a simple bug in the software, it is not being switched out.

 

Then of course the marketing dept get hold of the wrong figures and make hay with them. I feel sorry for the poor soul who wrote the software.

 

Martin.

 

Bear in mind that the software testing may have been against the software requirements without considering if the requirements made sense. I've seen this a lot, particularly if the testing is outsourced (an increasingly common occurrence).

 

Adrian

[jjb1970]

My own view is that this relates to such a fundamental part of emissions certification that it is not credible that this could be an innocent mistake unless there has been incompetence of the highest order at play. and VW are not a company known for gross incompetence. Whilst this may appear to be a somewhat arcane subject to most people, things such as defeat devices and irrational control strategies are extremely high profile matters to anybody involved with emissions certification.

[martin_wynne]

My own view is that this relates to such a fundamental part of emissions certification that it is not credible that this could be an innocent mistake unless there has been incompetence of the highest order at play. and VW are not a company known for gross incompetence.

 

How does this work for the employees in a large corporation? I've never been such a thing, thank goodness. How many of them would have known they were breaking the law? What does an engineer say when told to make a device which he knows is illegal?

 

Martin.