Olaf Lies!?
You couldn't make it up.
Olaf Lies, a Volkswagen board member and the economy minister of Lower Saxony, has stated that some staff acted criminally in installing software which allowed cars to cheat on pollution tests. Lies told BBC Newsnight that those at VW who oversaw the installation of the defeat device, as well as those who installed it, acted …
"Sadly, I don't use a handy German to read my articles to me. I have to make do with reading them to myself, in my head."
You don't? I always keep one around. I sometimes get Jeeves to harass him with a fake moustache and a swagger stick. Most inappropriate, but terribly funny after a few G and T's....
It probably does.
Mind you, one of my ancestors came from Germany (back before Germany was unified and no, I don't mean when they knocked that wall down!) so that makes me a little German too!
Imagine what it's like to have a little German inside you at a time like this!
er... put another way...
(I forget how many years it has been since I last used that catchphrase!)
Right. And the warnings from 2011 from one of their own engineers, and from Bosch in 2007, as recently reported by El Reg, never reached any of the board members?
Time that C-level execs are held accountable. Resigning with a severance package doesn't count.
I hope the prosecutors make it stick and lower level managers are protected from being abused as scapegoats as we see so often.
Possibly better would if the shareholders decided that "Well, if you aren't paying attention and aren't taking responsibility for what's happening, you can wave bye-bye to your stupidly over-inflated compensation package.".
Time and again we hear that these board-level salaries are justified because you need the very best at the top level, and then as soon as it transpires that we haven't actually *got* the very best at top level, they swear blind that they have no idea what their minions are doing. W.T.F.??
"we haven't actually *got* the very best at top level"
Of course we have. It's just that they're the best at climbing corporate ladders. That's the sole requirement for getting to the top of any organisation other than one that one founds oneself. Anything other talent is an optional extra.
Cynical? Moi?
@Ken Hagan
"Well, if you aren't paying attention and aren't taking responsibility for what's happening, you can wave bye-bye to your stupidly over-inflated compensation package.".
That, and the severance package too!
It's high time some of these major companies simply fired these clowns, declined to pay out their severance, and let them sue if they wish. For C-Suite jobbers, its time that failure meant "not one penny more from the trough".
I find this believable. The guys at the top are paper pushers and strategists. The implementation is done lower down. I would guess that the strategy was 'produce a fuel efficient car that meets the tests at the lowest cost', and some engineer thought of a way to do it. This was approved at middle manager level who was then able to say to his bosses 'yes we can do it'. When the proverbial hit the rotating object the local bosses tried to manage it without passing it upstairs.
In an ideal world the board of a big company should be made aware of any irregularity, but bad news tends not to travel upstairs because of the tendency to run a blame culture.
It's high time some of these major companies simply fired these clowns, declined to pay out their severance, and let them sue if they wish
I always find it weird that when you get past a certain level, things on your CV that would righlty not get me even an interview are seen as a good thing.
"Oh you fucked a companies share price up, closed half of it down and sacked a lot of the staff! That makes you highly employable at board level"
"Oh you fucked a companies share price up, closed half of it down and sacked a lot of the staff! That makes you highly employable at board level."
As long as you are still sending out huge dividends to the major shareholders, they don't really care what you did to the company. The ability to syphon out cash to the wealthy is all that matters to them.
The old adage "A captain goes down with his ship" really dosent apply in the old boys club of CEOs , CTOs , Chairmans etc does it?
Instead of
"Save the women and children first , then the men , then maybe the crew!"
its:
"Hell no , I'm out of here first with a million dollar golden parachute and a fat pension before anyone realises how serious this is , and hopefully into the next million dollar per year industry captain job. Or maybe theyll just re hire me on an oxymorinic never ending temp contract at double the ludicrous rate i was on before"
Apparently VW have contractual rules that prevent any senior exec getting payoff / pension / bonuses / etc if they have been involved in anything damaging to the company.
Hence the mass exodus of execs who are all allegedly utterly clueless. It's easier to fake being as thick as pigshit when you're being paid millions to do so.
As I've pointed out before, if I were a major shareholder I'd be taking the attitude that their utter incompetence in not knowing what was going on on their watch was, er, damaging to the company......
This post has been deleted by its author
@TeeCee - I strongly hope what you say about contractual rules is right, although the WSJ reported that he could be on for a 60m Euro pay-off. Presumably this is why he's been playing so dumb about it all, although given how closely that software is normally held in-house and how important it is to the business it's almost unfeasible that he did have no knowledge.
Will have to keep an eye on that one, along with the investigation into him that the Germans are doing as mentioned at the end of the article.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/former-volkswagen-chief-martin-winterkorn-could-receive-60m-payoff-1443103501
Depends on the size; as far as has been released this only applies to the 2.0 TDI engines and not the earlier 1.9 or the V6 3.0 litre diesels.
I guess this is one major reason why we were seeing VW 2.0 TDI engines with 140 and 170 ps (103 & 125 Kw) whereas Peugeot for example had 2.0 litre TDI's with only 100 Kw. BMW's diesels had similar or even greater punch than the VAG engines, but they did use a Urea injection system to mitigate NOx emissions.
I guess this also probably squelches VW's new 176 Kw 2.0 litre biTurbo engine that was to replace the VR6 petrol at the top of the tree; I'd bet that the biTurbo has exactly the same pollution issue if not more so.
So logically VW should pay the difference.
Logically the CEO of VW UK should be facing charges for tax evasion and fraud, for that is what this is - The buck stops where the bonus stops. Its time we barred more of these guys from running further companies, as there is already legislation to permit this.
Dan 55,
The tax is CO2 based, so probably not. Unless the fix raises CO2 emissions?
I believe the reason for the cheating on the NOx tests was that running the engine in that non-polluting mode cost at least 5% extra in fuel consumption. Hence the reason for doing it in the first place. They can run the engine cleaner, but that's a one-off test everyone must pass so nobody cared about. Whereas people do buy based on fuel consumption figures.
The weird thing is that this is a pretty big risk to take for only 5% fuel consumption. I've not seen any proper figures, only "about 5%" somewhere, so I imagine the difference is actually higher.
More likely - running the smaller engines in test mode allowed them to pass the tests without needing the urea system (adblue on mercs) they have on their bigger engines.
Not needing to fit the injection system saves money but drivers not needing to buy the fluid and refill the tank is a big selling point if you are trying to push diesels in the market (a former 2stroke 125cc owner)
"The "econometer" tells me I'm doing 66mpg"
But are you looking at instantaneous or average MPG?
My car normally reports between 42 and 48 mpg depending on time of year and usage patterns. The average over the last year based on mileage and petrol is around 44mpg. That suggests the trip computer is pretty accurate.
It is also the same mpg as the smaller Diesel car my wife had back in the early 2000s, which considering that Diesel fuel contains about 10% more available energy per litre, is impressive.
"The "econometer" tells me I'm doing 66mpg.....
Welcome to the "sometimes nearly accurate" world....."
For various reasons, I keep a record of the odometer at each fill-up, always top-off the tank and note down the quantity and price of the fuel. This gives me a per tank mpg number which, surprisingly, matches the average mpg on the car computer +/- 1-2 mpg. I fine tuned the fuel consumption rates over a period of time on the SatNav which generally agrees with the mpg figure, but with a slightly larger margin of error since I didn't opt for the outrageously expensive cable to plug it in to the cars data port. Because I tend to drive "sensibly", ie I'm rarely in a hurry (70mph+), I actually do get the stated 60mpg quite comfortably, even if there is a couple of 100 miles at 70mph down the motorway. 65mpg is more typical on a per tank basis.
> Will VW also have to pay UK government the difference in road tax based on emissions?
No, because what is paid is determined exclusively by performance in the laid down tests. In the tests determined by the authorities, the cars produced what they did.
It's arguable that no criminal act was performed. If the rules is that "the vehicle must produce less than <some measure or other> when tested in accordance with <some specification>", then it's arguable that the car passed that test. That the test is not representative of real driving conditions, and is easily "cheated", is a problem with the definition of the test.
It's been "well known" for some time that all cars are "tuned" to meet the standard tests. OK, this revelation is rather extreme "tuning", but it's really not much different. It will be interesting to find out just how much the other manufacturers have been "cheating" - because if "tuning to meet the test parameters" is cheating then I think you find that every manufacturer "cheats" with every model.
It's standard in all CE testing.
They make up silly rules, you engineer to pass the tests, they make the tests tighter so you "engineer" to pass the new tests.
I once spent a weekend practicing dropping a bit of equipment the regulation distance onto the regulation floor in the perfect angle so that it didn't break. So we could certify that it passed a certain CE test.
I remember when I worked for the late great Macaroni company.
I was reading a Def Stan - can't remember which one now - on environmental testing. It went something like : blah, blah, the equipment shall survive a fall of 1 metre on any edge onto concrete and remain functional... see annex A. Annex A: Concrete to be set hard.
I remember thinking at the time that some jammy B*****d defence contractor must have tried it - SPLAT -
Yeah, ok that's passed. Hose it down Joe....
Sod the PBI in the field when the equipment fails to work after the first near miss. More pork for them fixing it.
Hose the blood and body bits of that before I work on it Joe.
No, because what is paid is determined exclusively by performance in the laid down tests. In the tests determined by the authorities, the cars produced what they did.
Simon Hobson,
Obviously I haven't read the test spec - but I don't think your argument stands up. Otherwise they wouldn't be in trouble.
It's obviously true that the test is different to real-world conditions. And you can also tune your engine to meet the tests, in a way that it won't in real driving. But that's different to running in a specifically designed "test mode", that the engine doesn't run in at any other time (other than when software defects it's on a rolling road). In the first case the test could be changed to make it more like real-world conditions, and your point would be valid. But in the case of actively defeating the test, then VW are in trouble - as is currently happening - unless they can find a nice technicality, but I'm sure their lawyers would have come up with that already if they could.
The other problem for VW is that they have 2 government tests to pass. One on emissions of NOx, and one on emissions of CO2 (which obviously relates to fuel consumption). The "test mode" to pass one test means that they then do worse on the other. And it's unlikely you can get away with having it both ways. You have to run the car in the mode that satisfies the NOx test (or you're not legally allowed on the roads), and that makes you perform worse in the other, such that you go up a band (or several) in the CO2 emissions road tax.
I presume one solution will be that they change the car's software on recall, and then pay compensation to drivers on the fuel consumption and road tax. Or they retro-fit the urea devices that other diesels use to cut emissions of NOx - if that's actually possible, and doesn't also have fuel-consumption implications.
"No, because what is paid is determined exclusively by performance in the laid down tests. In the tests determined by the authorities, the cars produced what they did.
It's arguable that no criminal act was performed. "
And perhaps the lawyers will argue it, but VW's reaction suggests that you are wrong.
"VW will provide vehicle identification numbers to retailers in the next few days, as well as figuring out how to let owners figure if their autos are affected, before it starts contacting the owners themselves.
In the coming days the company will give the vehicle identification numbers to retailers as well as coming up with a process for owners to check if their vehicles are affected, before contacting them directly."
"VW will provide vehicle identification numbers to retailers in the next few days, as well as figuring out how to let owners figure if their autos are affected, before it starts contacting the owners themselves.
In the coming days the company will give the vehicle identification numbers to retailers as well as coming up with a process for owners to check if their vehicles are affected, before contacting them directly."
Me too. And me three.
El Reg - please cut this 'gate' crap. Just because the BBC and gutter press haven't moved on from Watergate, doesn't mean you have to join the herd and trot out the clichés. Nixon's been dead for a wee while now.
Unless you're taking the piss, of course :-)
Annihilator,
So are you suggesting it should have been called Iranwatergate instead of Irangate? That's the first scandal I can remember to get the "gate" ending.
In which case should this scandal not be called Dieselwatergate?
Or should we go fully compound? Hence it's now called:
Dieselpigtaxhackcelebplebsachsclimatecamillanippledianairanwatergate
If there's another scandal at the Watergate Building, then the internet will probably explode.
"So are you suggesting it should have been called Iranwatergate instead of Irangate? That's the first scandal I can remember to get the "gate" ending."
Nope, Iran-Contra scandal is fine. Irangate makes as much sense as Iranwatergate.
"If there's another scandal at the Watergate Building, then the internet will probably explode."
Exactly. If "-gate" meant "scandal", then that would have been Watergate-gate.
If I could upvote a 100 times I would.
I bloody hate the lazy jounolistic trick of sticking "..gate" on the end of everything. It was clever the very first time but after that its become a cliche and for me it makes me wonder just how lazy is the journo and can I trust the rest of what he/she/it has written.
Since it takes a serious budget and effort to come up with the software mentioned it is evident that the blame lies with someone higher up and that someone high up should accept responsibility.
Blaming some technicians who installed VW approved software, is the worst show of hobby-turd-management it has been my displeasure to see in quite a while.
"serious budget and effort" - you are joking right? One tiny accelerometer and a line of code that says 'When accelerator pressed, if g == 0 then engine-profile = A else engine-profile = B'. Which would also have the added benefit of cutting emissions for those who like to blip the throttle while sitting at traffic lights.
"One tiny accelerometer and ..."
I'm sure I read at the weekend that there was a concealed mini-tank of chemical designed in as well. It had enough capacity to get the vehicle through the test but obviously no long-term value.
It appears that the software has a legitimate reason to recognise that it is on rollers and the accelerometer would (I imagine, and let's concede) also be a legitimate part of the design anyway, but this tank is a piece of hardware (so, a different group from the software designers) that exists solely to cheat and presumably requires some explicit, if trivial, software control.
I think once you have several distinct groups of designers conspiring to create a system that cannot be used *except* to cheat on the emissions test, you have a problem that is larger than one or two rogue minions.
I believe the tank of chemical contains urea. This is used on Mercedes and I believe is an acceptable way to meet the emissions test provided you add it to the service schedule. A bit like adding two stroke to a motorcycle, maybe.
A short life tank wouldn't help a 3 year old car pass an MOT or the strict California test.
If I understand correctly, fitting a tank of urea is one of the options. If possible, it may be the most acceptable solution as it means they pass the NOx tests with (probably) limited affect on MPG/CO2.
More likely the board at one point demanded that engineering reduce cost and also to make diesel less hassle.
The board also made it clear that they didn't want to know how it was achieved.
Engineering solved the problem, via this cheating.
The board didn't "know" about it, even though the requirement came from them, and clearly some understanding that the solution was probably going to cut corners.
The board approved the software purchase from bosch. Bosch told them to disable that test mode in production cars. There was a whistleblower. There's simply no way that the board weren't informed enough to warrant an investigation.
They might not have actually "known", but it would have been grossly intentional ignorance on their behalf.
Corporate cultures come into play here... for the Board, a bullet point in a PowerPoint with: "Tweaked software for emissions." might be enough. For the software being passed from Bosch to VW, the board probably wasn't even involved. Again, a bullet-point.. "software received from Bosch".
Boards and c-suite types in general, even non-c-suite types but senior management like deniability. It saves their bacon and their bonuses, etc.
According to an article in The Telegraph the base software was implemented by Bosch for test use only and they warned VW in 2007 that use in "the real world" would be illegal. That means the basics of the "defeat mode" were already there and the VW engineers just had to figure out when to turn it off (when detecting that a test was underway) and back on (normal driving conditions detected).
1. remove the software? that won;t make any difference to the emissions of normal running so seems a pointless PR exercise.
2. make it work 100% of the time so better emissions all the time? is this possible?
3. will they fit tanks of this urea fluid so it does work all the time on reducing nox?
I suspect most owners won't want the 'fix'
It is not a question of "want". For recalls of this type, the VINs of the refuseniks are listed in the database for the MOT (or its equivalent in most countries). They do not get the option to "want" if they want their car on the road, without the fix it is not road legal.
There is a precedent - Nissan Almera seatbelts a few years back. They were specifically checking if the cars have the fix on the next MOT.
"There is a precedent - Nissan Almera seatbelts a few years back. They were specifically checking if the cars have the fix on the next MOT."
Seatbelts are a bit different from engine management software! How exactly would an MOT station check for this? If the cars passed the emissions testing on their last MOT, they'll pass it on the next one as well. AFAIK MOT stations don't have the equipment to download the engine management software anyway, never mind analyse it.
EDIT: I re-read your post and I now realise they they have an actual list of "refuseniks."
That being the case, and I owned an affected car that I was obliged to have "fixed", which then gave me poor performance, then I'd simply pay to have the car remapped afterwards.
The only solution appears to be fitting the urea tank (if there is space in the design), and making modifications to connect it up, add the "empty tank" warning light to the dash, etc.
After this, they are going to have to give free refills to all owners.
And because this appears to increase fuel consumption by 5%, then that's a pretty major refund to give to customers.
I am going to go out on a limb, and assume that (at least for early designs) the car was designed with the tank in mind, before someone told the engineers to remove it. So adding it might not be too hard - just involving time, manufacturing, new catalytic convertor, new signalling, new dash panel ... a couple of grand per car maybe. This might take four hours per car, so 5 million hours of work in the UK. If VW have 1000 UK car techs, then it will take HALF A YEAR just to do the retrofitting, and that's not considering the normal work those techs do in order to be hired. For later designs with no space for the tank, then VW have major problems.
Now the UK government has been quite wimpy on this. They said they would rerun the tests, but nothing since. If the cars don't meet even the lame UK requirements, then I suggest that the cars should be taken off the road immediately until they are fixed (NOx is a terrible gas). Let VW provide 1.2 million cars to the people disadvantaged by the move at their own cost.
Remember - any damage done to VW is going to benefit other manufacturers, many of whom have a much bigger presence in the UK than VW. It is in the governments interest to lay down the law hard.
VW's reputation is taking a hit and will take bigger hit if they don't do what is acceptable to most people no matter what the cost. The CEO taking the hit and stepping down points to reducing the hit.. "hey.. we got a scapegoat"... now comes the important part, fixing it. If people come away from this feeling screwed, VW as corporation and their bag of car companies are doomed.
Or is this a case of one or two releasing modified software out the back door to their dealer mates who then flogged it on to the purchaser as a 'wink wink' upgrade?
"Here you go mate. Vroom Vroom. Bring it back to us for the MOT. Cough Cough."
The good old days of "adjusting points". My first summer job involved taking the site vehicles to the fitters to be "tuned" so that they would pass MOT and then taking them back to be re-tuned so they would actually start on a cold morning.
In the 1970s the MoT in South Africa could only be done at the government test site. There was usually one per city and no appointments. So a queue would form at about 5am - if you didn't get tested before they closed you had to start over the next day.
There was a small industry in people who did the queueing for you. Some enterprising garages also offered a cut-price service to prepare the car for the test and see it through. Once it had passed the test then they replaced all the new components, like tyres, with the old worn ones.
The system was also flawed in that an MoT was only required if the car changed registration districts - or possibly owners. This applied even if you moved house a week after buying a new car. My 1956 LandRover - one owner since new - had its first MoT in 1973 when I bought it.
No, no; "I didn't know" was a defence used at Nuremburg, along with "I was only obeying orders".
I wasn't around at the time of the Nuremburg Trials but it certainly doesn't sound convincing in relation to this debacle. Or FIFA's, for that matter, now that you come to mention it.
This post has been deleted by its author
I believe VW did this, since they have owned up to it, but everything still bothers me.
1. Rumour says the US emissions test limit is deliberately set impossibly low, in order to keep out foreign competition, and because they don't want diesel cars in the US for some reason. I haven't driven in US for years so don't know if it is true that diesel cars practically nonexistent there.
2. Apparently known about for some time but scandal broke at the exact same time as VW opened their engines manufacture in Russia.
3. Why are we not seeing huge numbers of VWs failing their MOT if they are that dirty?
What part of "the engine detects when it is being tested and reconfigures its exhaust to a cleaner profile" don't you get?
And your rumor is a bit shabby on two counts:
Firstly, emissions tests and standards are a State regulated thing (sound of cracked record playing).
Secondly, my smoky old Jeep Renegade* passed the NY emissions test without a catalytic converter in place a few years back (you coulda knocked me over with feather but I have the printout), so at least one regulated state has easily achievable standards.
But please feel free to continue your paranoia-fueled fact-free FUD blame-the-victim speculation.
* A car that was an object lesson in "How not to design and build a car". You couldn't pay me to have another Jeep.
The jeep isn't diesel. The regs for diesel are crap, engine has to work with crappy diesel in some places as well as ultra low sulfur in others
The US car regs are full of loopholes, eg. a PT cruiser is a truck and so doesn't have to pass any emissions.
The emissions are based on % of nasty, not total amount. So your typical commuter pickup with a 4.8L V8 engine will pass emissions tests but a 700cc Smart car wouldn't (at least back when I lived there)
Neither is a PT Cruiser, nor any of the "Smart" cars I know of.
And again, the regulations are based on *State* law, not some nebulous "US Law". Talking about "US Regulations" makes as much sense as talking about the lousy quality of "British TV". You can't lump Top Gear and Doctor Who in with Gordon Fucking Ramsay and Graham Norton, and you can't lump all the states together when a question of state vehicle inspection law is at hand.
To clarify, US federal emissions regulations are US-wide, and new cars sold in every state must meet them. Because California had state emission regulations before the passage of the federal Clean Air Act, California was grandfathered in to maintain its own regulations; despite that, California’s cannot be less strict than the federal regulations. Each state has the option of following either federal (EPA) emission regulations or California (CARB) emission regulations; I think that 13 states now follow California’s, and new cars sold in CARB states must meet CARB emission regulations. Emissions testing to maintain registration, however, does vary by state, since vehicle registration is a state issue.
The PT Cruiser isn't classified as a truck that I'm aware of and I own one. It's classified as an SUV which is just as weird. And yes, I do have to pass a smog test to get my plates renewed. But, the smog test could be a state regulation and classification. I'm not worried about it unless I decide to move.
1) They're only very low for diesel engines and the nitrogen-oxide emissions they produce. Ironically enough, the CO2 pumped out by their 5 litre V8s are fine. It's not that they don't want diesel cars, it's that they don't want foreign cars.
2) Wouldn't surprise me
3) The MOT wouldn't pick up a "dirty" car, because they're not dirty, they're just at higher levels than the US allows (and the MOT doesn't measure NOx, but particulates). Even if it were, given the MOT test is to red-line the engine in neutral, it sounds exactly how VW are able to game the system by altering the fuel mix in that mode - an easy state for the engine management system to identify.
Well I can't talk for the whole US, but at least where I am diesel is very rare in automobiles. Part of the reasoning I'm guessing is for some reason diesel at gas stations in my city is generally $0.75- $1.50 per gallon more expensive then gasoline. So while they might get better mileage that increase is offset by fuel prices, and initial cost(as diesel vehicles costs more to buy).
Joe,
1. The US NOₓ emissions limit for cars (i.e. manufacturer’s average) is 70 mg/mi (43.5 mg/km); cars can be sold here with higher emissions [up to 200 mg/mi (124.3 mg/km)] as long as enough cars with lower emissions are sold here by the manufacturer to meet the manufacturer’s average. The Euro 6 NOₓ emissions limit for cars is 80 mg/km (128.7 mg/mi); I don’t know if similar manufacturer averages apply under European emission regulations. Diesel cars are much less prevalent in the States because emissions have had a higher priority here than fuel efficiency; the reverse seems to be the case in Europe, perhaps because domestically produced petroleum has traditionally been more plentiful (and less expensive) here than there.
2. How many Russian VW diesel engines would appear in the US market, where diesel car sales are in single-digit percentages?
3. If you’d meant the US eqiuvalent of the MOT, they’re not failing because the engine’s firmware ensures that full emission controls are active only when they’re being tested. My understanding is that the UK MOT doesn’t test for NOₓ; if that’s the case, then it would be a moot point there.
In the past there were several other issues limiting diesel cars in the US. Older diesel cars cost more to buy, maintain and the fuel use to be double the price of gasoline (our gas taxes are not near as high as in most European countries which negated that advantage there), so they barely got any traction in the states. With those factors it also lead to fewer fuel station even having it available to purchase, since the costs really only became advantageous here for heavy vehicles like semi trailers and farmer equipment, so became an inconvenience for most people too. The effect of years of selling poorly became a barrier itself, it was rare car dealers would carry them in stock for people to even consider buying one. This also probably also lead to less mechanics certified/experienced for repairing those vehicles, which would not help maintenece costs.
Annihiliator, all emission limits for diesel cars and for non-diesel cars are identical under EPA Tier 2 regulations (i.e. since model year 2007); under the older Tier 1 regluations, diesel cars had higher NOₓ limits than non-diesel cars had. Every regulated emitted substance — NOₓ, CO, HCHO, non-methane organic gases or non-methane hydrocarbons (manufacturer’s choice), and particulate matter — is regulated for both diesel cars and non-diesel cars. Which of these substances are emitted only by diesel engines?
Rumour says
Rumor is somewhat correct. US limit for diesel is set to make petrol preferred and the reason for that is not pollution. While the actual lobbying is done by "green facade" shops, the money to do it comes from a surprising source - the same one that bring you intelligent design in the classroom and global warming denial. When you give it a thought it is not so surprising - diesel is 1.5+ times more economical than petrol and cheaper too. If you are making billions selling petrol you will be interested in it not getting anywhere.
The best proof is in the dates - nearly all adoptions of the Californian "clean air" standard which puts this requirement on diesel were done during under surprise, surprise - the republican administration which you will never call "environmentally friendly" (note - adoption dates, not effective enforcement dates - they are 2004-2007).
Voland’s right hand, if the best proof is in the dates, then look at when the EPA Tier 2 rules were entered into the Federal Register — 10th February 2000, in the last year of the Clinton administration, nine months before the 2000 election. (The NOₓ emission limits for Tier 2 are identical to those of California’s LEV II emission.standard, which took effect on 27th November 1999 for enforcement in model years 2004 and beyond.)
So the board is innocent but the workers are culpable?
Wouldn't that mean the board has completely failed in monitoring the actual business (probably too focused on increasing shareholder value)?
Then they have failed in their diligence and should be fired.
I'm waiting for the inevitable "Ve vere only followink orders" from those eventually deemed "guilty" for the win.
@ Stevie
"Wouldn't that mean the board has completely failed in monitoring the actual business (probably too focused on increasing shareholder value)?"
I do worry about this assumption of guilt, innocence to be proven. This happening is a huge cock up but (and this is big) people like all animals have their own noggins and do their own thing.
Is it really so impossible for the board to be lied to? Is it possible the instruction to bodge a job didnt come from on high? Of course its possible, such lazy action by minions is usually seen as incompetence and amusement (such as not spell checking a sign) but this mess could be the brain child of anyone in the chain of command without even considering corporate espionage.
I see no version of this turns out good for the customer. Nor any good for the manufacturer. What happened was criminal and finding the ones who did this is the important part regardless of who they are, board or not.
How can a board monitor everything? Hindsight is 20/20 but who can see everything? Most people dont know what is going on in their own family yet we expect these people to be gods of many countries/factories/workers/duties? I am willing to see how this turns out but I cant imagine it will be good for the car industry over all.
No, but the board are paid the extremely generous amounts they get to be knowledgeable about the company and to make sure they are properly informed.
I'm not feeling sorry about the board's shaky position here, and that goes double after this transparent attempt to shift attention from the corporate culture to a more easily sacrificed individual or two.
I've no doubt the rot runs deep on this one. I just think that while you are checking for damp rot in the basement structural beams you should also be checking the roof for damage, because that's where the problems usually start.
I mean, what's more likely: some bod on the shop floor saying "we should use software to fool the emissions tests" or some bod on the shop floor being told "change this so it passes the tests and don't rock the boat or it's your job"?
We are talking attempts to maintain public confidence in the brand in the unfriendly face of inconvenient physics - aka maintaining shareholder value. Who cares most about that? The engineer or the stock-option-equipped politician?
As in all things corporate the world around: You want to find the problem, follow the money.
@ Stevie
"No, but the board are paid the extremely generous amounts they get to be knowledgeable about the company and to make sure they are properly informed."
This sums up my entire problem with the assumption of guilt, 'they are paid more than me, they must be guilty'. How is that different to 'she lives alone, has a cat, she is a witch'? The amount of money they are paid has no relation to how omnipotent they are, as I said most people dont know what is happening in their own families never mind a huge global company. It is physically impossible for the board to know everything about the company. Maybe they did know but surely we should apply the law fairly to all and not assume guilt because we are envious of their pay packet?
"I'm not feeling sorry about the board's shaky position here, and that goes double after this transparent attempt to shift attention from the corporate culture to a more easily sacrificed individual or two."
Now put yourself in the position of management. Imagine someone beneath your chain of command has taken illegal action which severely compromises your department without your involvement or knowledge. Even imagine they did this and actively kept you out of the loop. Do you take the blame, fall on your sword and be accused for the rest of your life for something you didnt do? Or do you do something useful and find the criminals, gather the evidence and comply with the law?
"I've no doubt the rot runs deep on this one."
So do we prosecute the board on your opinion? Do we do it based on the opinion of a lynch mob? Or do we apply the law fairly and evenly as we all deserve freedom and justice? You are concerned the board is blaming innocents to save themselves. But you are blaming the board because they get paid more. How is that any more noble or fair? Assuming those at the top of the business are rotten because someone (yet to be identified) has broken the law is a dangerous path.
"I mean, what's more likely: some bod on the shop floor saying "we should use software to fool the emissions tests" or some bod on the shop floor being told "change this so it passes the tests and don't rock the boat or it's your job"?"
Told by who? You are assuming the board but how many layers of management are there between the bod and the board? is it not better to look for the guilty than to assign guilt and maybe look into it after? None of your argument seems to be evidence based. A crime happened and you have already decided the guilty, no need to investigate.
"As in all things corporate the world around: You want to find the problem, follow the money."
Sorry but I cant assume anyone is guilty of a crime just because they earn a lot of money. That seems to be the logic you have applied to this. We dont assume people criminal based on race, religion, gender so I am bothered that impartiality is out of the window based on earnings.
was actually not being made aware of the cheat ... He only (see below) complained about the fact it was known in the US ...
That's telling, no ?
"So we need to find out why the board wasn't informed earlier about the problems when they were known about over a year ago in the United States."
VW built a new engine that they said didn't need Urea injection. Despite the fact that All other manufactures need urea to pass the emission standard on diesels. VW decided to do without it. The only way this works is by Cheating. The map required to pass the NOx standard results in so much lower power and worse fuel economy.
A company doesn't just build a new engine in a day. Its a MAJOR board sign off on project, They must have done a lot of testing to make this cheat work reliably. It will all be recorded.
The entire VW engine development team must have known about this.
At last, the world will learn about the dangers of embedded software. Even here at El Reg posts I've been howled down in the past when I've raised such matters as unknown functions and security issues in ASICs, reprogrammable firmware etc.
Once our hardware was fixed at design time or its function could only be altered by DIL switches etc. Today, things are very different, with downloadable and updateable firmware users–even experts and maintenance people–now have very little idea about what's going on with respect to the functionality of their equipment.
With the exposure of VW's corrupt practices, this 'hidden' IT issue ought to be catapulted to front and centre stage; even the pollies and 'blind' company directors will have to take note and act.
Exactly what embedded software does is and will be an extremely important issue for the Internet of Things (and now everyone ought to know that). In fact, it's so important that in many instances it ought to be mandatory for embedded software source to be openly* available to users, regulators etc. (as it used to be in the handbooks of machines and equipment of only a few decades ago).
* If there are legitimate safety reasons etc.for not altering or updating firmware then manufactures can use non-reprogrammable chips, but hiding their operation is another matter altogether. Unfortunately, that might be the price of safety over convenience.
If a design is deliberately "bent" why does it matter if it hardware or software? If a company really wants to bend the rules and they can't hide something in the software then they'll just hide it in the hardware instead.
> In fact, it's so important that in many instances it ought to be mandatory for embedded software source to be openly* available to users, regulators etc.
I don't entirely disagree, but open generally means "free" to most people and software developers like to eat.
The big downside of open source software is that it doesn't work as a business unless (1) you make hardware and sell it at a high enough price to cover the hardware cost or (2) you get a sugar daddy.
Neither of those are viable business routes for a big part of the industry, so how do pure embedded software houses survive in this new world order?
"The big downside of open source software is that it doesn't work as a business unless (1) you make hardware and sell it at a high enough price to cover the hardware cost or (2) you get a sugar daddy."
I deliberately didn't use the 'source' with 'open', that means it is not 'open source' but rather the end user can examine it.
This is in keeping with longstanding practice–at least since the start of the Industrial Revolution–where equipment, machinery etc. came with manuals complete with blueprints and circuit diagrams. Thus, both the internal workings and functional operation were not hidden from the operator/user.
This openness didn’t concern companies as they were protected by copyrights and patents from at least the early 1700s onwards.
Let's just take a few recent examples: Hewlett Packard, Tektronix and IBM. HP and Tektronix built their reputations not only on good equipment but also excellent documentation. Tektronix's documentation is renowned, probably the best ever made–I suggest you download a few 7000 series scope manuals and look at them. Next IBM: I have a complete set of manuals for the XT and AT computers and included therein is the complete BIOS source code. Before the PC, IBM also produced some of the best documentation ever made.
Producing good 'open' documentation never sent these companies broke, in fact quite the contrary, it made them money and enhanced their repuation.
That changed in the 1980s when people started taking advantage of the fact that compilation hid what they were doing. It often let them get away with software 'murder': errors, bad design, and spaghetti code and etc., etc. The fact that the source was hidden meant that it was very difficult to make them accountable, and when bugs surfaced and patches made no one quite knew whether the faults had been fixed or not.
If you've ever taken the time to disassemble this code you'll know what I mean. You'll also know that it is very difficult, laborious and time-consuming, which for most intents and purposes, means that it's hidden from scrutiny.
What we're witnessing here is 300 years of 'open' practice pitted against at most 30 years of the 'secret'. We're now seeing what that secrecy means across many fields and endeavours, and often what we're seeing isn't very pretty. In fact, it's beginning to look as if the secrecy that surrounds embedded software has enabled one of the biggest industrial frauds of all time to take place. That can't be undone, and it hasn't gone unnoticed–and that includes regulators.
The fact that a huge industry of making secret embedded software has built up over the past 30 years doesn't make secrecy right–just because you can do it doesn't always mean that you should. I've been in this game a while and I'll be very surprised if this VW case doesn't become a point of inflection for the industry.
HP, Tek and IBM also included complete schematics for their instruments, so you could repair them yourself.
I once built an optional 500MHz LO for an HP tracking generator, based on the schematics in the manual. Plugged it in and it worked a treat.
Those were the days. We shall not see their like again, I fear.
> I deliberately didn't use the 'source' with 'open', that means it is not 'open source' but rather the end user can examine it.
If they can examine it, they can copy it, as DRM has proven time and time again. As photographers generally find out, the legal routes - such as copyright - are unenforceable unless you are a "big guy" and can afford an army of lawyers to search and destroy. For the most small companies there is a distinct risk that "open" becomes "free" whether you want to or not (and whether it is legal or not).
> Where equipment, machinery etc. came with manuals complete with blueprints and circuit diagrams.
Copying physical machinery of any complexity is difficult. I struggle to name many users of storage scopes who could build their own storage scope from scratch, even with the schematics (although they could probably replace a bust component if they wanted).
Copying and recompiling software is trivial and requires practically no expertise. Plus this is basically just point (1) in my original post. Tectronix made their money of selling physical hardware, not a pure software product.
> The fact that a huge industry of making secret embedded software has built up over the past 30 years doesn't make secrecy right.
I didn't say it did, I just want to know how I'm not going to starve when everyone in the world can copy my software for zero cost. And even making software "open" doesn't solve the problem for systems which are complex - as OpenSSL, Linux and many other open systems prove, there will always be bugs in systems of any non-trivial complexity.
Can software engineering do better?
Probably, but pace of development would be an order of magnitude slower, and software would cost ten times more to develop. Would users rather have cheap? Evidence to date says yes.
> The fact that the source was hidden meant that it was very difficult to make them accountable,
No - accountability is easy, you just need to make it a criminal problem and make the directors of said companies liable. It works pretty well in civil and mechanical engineering.
" > The fact that a huge industry of making secret embedded software has built up over the past 30 years doesn't make secrecy right.
I didn't say it did, I just want to know how I'm not going to starve when everyone in the world can copy my software for zero cost.
No you didn't. I did. And it's a fact. That's what actually happened.
Until now, there's been no social/moral debate across society about the changes in manufacturing, secret embedded code, hidden proprietary designs etc. The fact that a huge mob like VW has been caught out is excellent, it's brought the issues I've been warning against for years to the fore. VW has done more to warn the public about the dangers of embedded code than the rest of us together could ever do in a lifetime, and that's wonderful. It's now firmly on the public agenda. Great stuff!
If they can examine it, they can copy it, as DRM has proven time and time again.
Tough titty! Poor diddums! It's against the law now so what on earth are you worried about? USE THE BLOODY LAW TO PROTECT YOURSELF, THAT'S WHAT IT'S THERE FOR!
I suspect–in fact I know–many embedded software writers have gotten used to doing things in secret and the thought of scrutiny of any kind since VW is horrifying them. Well good riddance. Tough luck. If the fire's too hot then leave the room. If you're a second-rater that's been protected by compilation/secrecy then perhaps the VW case is a warning for you to get out. Start doing things that are morally and ethically correct for a change.
Remember, modern manufacturing goes back over 10 generations; its practice is well established and understood. Your embedded stuff just one generation. And in just one generation alone see what the sleazebags have done with compilation and secrecy (and VW is just the tip of the iceberg). I anticipate by the end of the second generation things probably will have returned to normal. Let's hope so.
Don't forget. As it is, many people in my game can reverse engineer embedded stuff and they do so when necessary, I've seen it happen many times. Compilation just stops hacks such as those who work for the govt, for those in the know it's just an inconvenience. And, a very tiny one at that if you've big industrial resources behind you–an afternoon's exercise sort of problem.
Don't kid yourself.
No - accountability is easy, you just need to make it a criminal problem and make the directors of said companies liable. It works pretty well in civil and mechanical engineering.
Hasn't worked and international trade agreements have been hijacked by the big boys–that's been a disaster, so they're usually beyond catching, VW is a special case because of vehicular, environmental laws etc. and the fact that they have car subsidiaries in many countries.
The issues many are worried about is the internet of things, etc.–all controlled by secrecy and unaccountable people, it's a first-class recipe for diaster. If VW doesn't get regulators working overtime then sooner or later a power grid infrastructure attack or a dam breach inevitably will do so. It's only a matter of time.
What I am talking about is now well past the IT press such as El Reg. Last week New Scientist magazine had headline articles about the very same issues to which I am referring.
The issues go well beyond just hidden code, we're now seeing users, even governments beginning to raise issues about total design examination–that's to say every aspect of design of a product will come under scrutiny, ipso fact that also means embedded code. Even if not legislated, companies won't get contracts unless every aspect of design comes under examination. Eventually, that will weed the secretive recalcitrant ones out, when they cannot sell stuff they'll change or get out of the business.
A final point: even you say copying and compiling software is a trivial exercise and protection is difficult. I say any company that's serious about it can easily reverse-engineer embedded code; there's reams of evidence for it.
So why resist? There's precious little point.
But the point is that these cars, when tested under the European testing, will not trip the US test defeat conditions - I understand they're quite specific, because they don't need to. So when they are tested, they are almost certainly not in the reduced emission mode.
If they then pass the EU tests, then you could not sue the manufacturer for non-compliance or being 'too dirty'.
If you're complaining that the EU thresholds for certain pollutants are too high, then that's not something that the manufacturer is responsible for, and you'd have to sue either the UK government or the EU, which is a completely different proposition.
What you could sue the manufacturer for is if any of the stated specifications, like the mileage figures or the amount of pollutants emitted differed from their published specifications at the time that the vehicle was purchased, at which point you could in theory sue either under the trade descriptions act or under advertising standards laws, but I think that you'd have to prove that there is a significant difference, because everybody knows that lab condition tests are nothing like driving on the open road.
Of course, if you're really taking a stand against diesel as a whole, then you could lobby to get all diesels banned, but that would have such serious knock-on effects for commercial and public transport, shipping, and even mobile and backup electricity generation that you'd be backing a losing horse. Diesel is so engrained in our way of life that you really cannot get rid of it, at least not without a decades long program.
I'm in charge, so I'm always right and everything I say is the truth.
You are a mere underling, thus you are a scum-sucking lying weasel out to rip me off and take the bread from my children's mouths. Sadly I need to employ you to actually do the donkey work but understand this, everything is your responsibility, your fault when it goes wrong and your problem to fix. I will disavow any knowledge of any wrongdoing as I can afford the best legal brains to make me look squeaky clean, you on the other hand, are well and truly buggered my little underling!
From a statement by the supervisory board of Volkswagen AG:
"Berthold Huber, Deputy Chairman of the Supervisory Board, said: “The test manipulations are a moral and political disaster for Volkswagen. The unlawful behavior of engineers and technicians involved in engine development shocked Volkswagen just as much as it shocked the public..."
So VW are blaming the techies now, wondered when that would start!
Yeah, people who depend upon a very specific job for their wages are found to cut corners when given impossible targets by the board?! Never!
No-one on the board ever thought to ask how their engines don't need urea when every other engine does? Of course they thought about it, they chose to not ask, to not know, so they could claim not knowing.
Ultimately, we'll hear things about a sick company culture, some heads will roll, some deals will be done (to keep pensions, golden parachutes, etc) in return for leaving, and then things will continue as before.
This is the company that fitted insecure vehicle security to save a tiny amount per car, then fought for two years after that was discovered to cover it up. The urea tank system costs a lot more than $1, so it's even more money saved/in profit/in bonus payments and share dividends.
Paid $~100k per annum plus T/E to lend their name without being obnoxious (this is called governance advice). Good chance they knew nothing, who in his right mind would elevate a program like that to the Board?
The people making these choices were defending their 6 & 7 figure bonus's; unlikely that Board members knew a thing.
"Anyway, this must be the latest shark-jumping act in "THE CONSPIRACY OF THE PEONS"."
So I wonder which type it is (note to board -- neither reflects positively on you.)
1) Pure ignorance? This doesn't reflect well, others at the company probably won't want the board to micromanage, but the board should know what's going on. And there should be a corporate culture of openness... some companies it could be harmful to a managers career to admit there's actually a problem, while others would rather hear about it so they can have people help solve the problem (in this case, the problem, starting about 7 or 8 years ago, of meeting emissions).
2) "Just take care of it". This happens in the US -- a corporation (corporate management) will tell store-level or regional-level managers "You will get 20% more work done at your stores, with 0% more money to pay employees, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY." (usually with implicit threat that the store manager will be fired if they don't meet these goals... sometimes this threat is explicit, in the form of a quota.) These stores will eventually get taken to court for expecting overtime but "forgetting" to record and pay for said overtime. Corporate management invariably says "What? I'm shocked, I tell ya, shocked, I've never heard of such a thing. I definitely didn't tell them to do this." Luckily the US courts are not falling for this crap any more, the setting a goal that cannot be met legitimately then acting all shocked when it's instead met illegitimately does not fly.
It really is quite plausible that the board were unaware of what would be termed an operational matter- at board level. They only became aware- when it moved from being an operational matter- into areas directly under the remit the board- one of which is management of the reputation of the company. Keep in mind- Volkswagen themselves, declared the issue to the authorities in California- on the instructions of the Board- the manner in which all of this came out was by self declaration (of course the independent testing was already widely known- and indeed, features pretty much every single manufacturer- it wasn't unique to Volkswagen, and indeed, their fellow German Marque- Mercedes- had the highest discrepancy levels of all the marques tested in the academic survey.
Lies- I don't think so- however, an ignorance of what was actually happening- is entirely plausible.
I'd like a refund on my road tax too please- despite having a 'Certificate of EU Conformity' my Volvo is taxed on engine size- and not emissions (and legitimate emissions at that). Life isn't fair.
It really is quite plausible that the board were unaware of what would be termed an operational matter - at board level.
I don't think so; that would suggest that the board did not include a Director of Engineering or a Director of Compliance or some such title(s).
Practically every industry you can think of has a regulatory framework to which it is supposed to/must conform and it beggars belief that there would be nobody at board level with that sort of responsibility. Conformance to such regulatory framework is not simply an "operational " matter.
Unless, of course, the board wanted to be wilfully ignorant on such matters. At that point it becomes relevant to ask what the shareholders were up to; most shares are almost always held by institutional investors (your pension fund and mine) and because such investors don't like nasty surprises I would expect them to have proper oversight of the appointments to the board.
The "I/we didn't know" defence has one great weakness in that it invites a comment along the lines of "You were on the Board; you're bloody well supposed to know by definition".
VW still makes interesting vehicles. One of my favourites is a mini-van, parked illegally every night a few hundred meters from where I post.
IMHO、this attack on VW is much like the attack on Toyota a few years ago.
Significant difference, the attack on Toyota was based entirely on lies.
"But the point is that these cars, when tested under the European testing, will not trip the US test defeat conditions - I understand they're quite specific, because they don't need to. So when they are tested, they are almost certainly not in the reduced emission mode."
Some of these cars when tripping no test condition should (just) meet European emissions -- European diesel NOx limits are about 5x US limits. Some of these diesels that were running at 40x the limit were violating BOTH US and European limits. Pretty sure these detect BOTH European and US test procedures.
"If they then pass the EU tests, then you could not sue the manufacturer for non-compliance or being 'too dirty'."
I wouldn't jump to any conclusions. In the US, EPA rules prohibit defeating (i.e. disabling) an emissions control device. This is not just if the emissions limits are violated. A car that runs squeaky clean during EPA testing, and dirtier (but still emissions legal) during real-world conditions, is still breaking EPA rules, since (per EPA rules) emissions controls that could have the car running cleaner at all times are being defeated.
They're not going to built trust by claiming the board had no knowledge of this until "just before the media".
Hopefully VW (including it's many divisions/owned-companies) don't have a delete-all-email-after-30-days type of policy. If they have good email retention, it's fairly likely a good court mandated discovery process could determine the culpability of their exec's with decent accuracy.
Hoping that happens. :)
I did have discussions with a garage about this, apparently the urea system is there on some% of VW cars but is not used.
Apparently to add the components on the others would be quite simple as all the fixings are there, probably a couple hours of work for a garage and less if they have trained staff available.
I'd be more concerned about what else is hiding in the closed-source software, it would be truly Orwellian if VW used the DMCA to hide something safety critical that might only be an issue in exceptional circumstances to avoid an expensive recall.
Should manufacturers put more parameters under control of the individual driver ie e way switch to set "Economy/EPA", "Normal", "Off Road" etc? I could do with that switch on my car.
This post has been deleted by its author
Well said Artaxerxes.
I was going to post a long, reasoned and polite discourse on the fact that the reason those at the top receive large salaries is that they are supposed to take responsibility for the workings of their company (including maintaining a culture where this kind of thing doesn't happen), but Artaxerxes has neatly summarised my thoughts already...
The VW Diesel engines meet or exceed all exhaust emissions requirements. The problem is that the software code that detects when an emissions test is being performed, is a violation of law. In most cases all that needs to be done is replacement of the ECU software that does not contain the illegal test detection code. The environment was never in danger.
Change the scandal in opportunity. Assuming that VW selects all the involved cars less than 5 years old and fix them and for the over 5 years older it proposes to the customers a new one at a great discount (assume 20%) while picking back the used one. This will reduce up to a certain point the sales impact of new cars. Then fix and repair in a 'similar to new' the returned old cars and sell them at a price much lower than the real new and of the discounted one, this will further reduce the market impact and also get some new market openings thanks to the low price of the 'similar to new'. All this should be supported by an adequate marketing action. The advantage would be to keep the market and the workers occupation at a cost for VW probably less than for just fixing the customers defective cars. This business case could be proven valid only with the real data known only by the VW.