SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
El Reg reports
Former engineer James Robert Liang took a plea deal with the US federal government to cooperate with its ongoing investigation of how the German car maker cheated American emissions tests and passed off its "clean diesel" engines as meeting state and government clean air standards.
While VW executives have claimed that the use of a defeat device to artificially limit emissions during tests was the work of a "couple of software engineers", Liang's plea deal shows that the conspiracy dates back roughly a decade and has roots in the team that designed the engines.
In other words, Liang claims the design team was in on it, not just a couple of bad apples.
Liang told the government that in 2006, engineers knew the EA 189 diesel engine would not be able to meet clean air emission standards on its own. Rather than attempt to redesign the engine, he and other members of the design team deliberately cheated the testing system.
[...] He said that the device was used to get the clean air certification on VW's "clean diesel" models from 2009 to 2016, and that the group continued to lie about the emissions output of the engines even after the US government began its investigation.
Previous: VW Engineer Pleads Guilty in Diesel Cheating Scandal
(Score: 2) by fishybell on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:18PM
Sure, only a couple of software engineers were needed to implement the cheat, but really? The entire team of mechanical engineers with specialties in emmissions and control were completely out of the loop?
How exactly does VW expect us to believe them when their lies keep getting more and more ridiculous?
(Score: 2) by bd on Wednesday September 14 2016, @11:09AM
Sadly, the article is completely wrong and misleading. The plea agreement says
nowhere that the _entire_ team is in on it. Only that two or more persons of the
EA189 design team were involved. We may find out how many were involved
years later, when the legal proceedings against them actually start.
The prosecutor's office in Braunschweig told the press they are investigating
against 21 people right now, and have not yet worked with the testimony
of this guy.
From the perspective of VW, this still could qualify as "a couple", I guess.
Maybe the number will rise some more... but if that team was as big as I assume
it was, I would guess that not the entire design team was involved.
Just think about it. Nobody could ever be fired from a large group of people
(you would have to keep track of) for several years, for whatever reason.
One leak and the career of the management involved is over.
Does that sound like a likely management decision to you?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday September 14 2016, @12:55PM
If it was possible to cheat because the testing procedure was monolithic, the engineers might have inferred the entire thing was just for the show. The auto industry is full of things done for the show, after all. If they really cared for the environment the industry would look very different.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by bob_super on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:20PM
I'd rather be driving right behind a cheating VW than most of the US-made diesels, with their amazingly big black exhaust clouds.
The VWs often carry a second person, too.
(Score: 4, Touché) by fishybell on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:34PM
That's a feature [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:36PM
Unsupported characterization.
If you reside in the USA, when you say American made diesels, you are talking trucks or buses, since US companies don't make diesel passenger cars--that is exclusive to the Germans.
I would rather not be behind ANY DIESEL AT ALL, be it a bus, truck, or passenger car.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:45AM
Oldsmobile made diesel engines out of a modified gas engine block in the 1980s. They lasted about 20,000 miles before the heads and/or block cracked.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Grishnakh on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:40PM
The problem with those US pickup trucks is their stupid owners illegally modify them specifically to make smoke clouds, because they're assholes. The manufacturers can't do much about that; there's only so much a carmaker can do to prevent modifications.
What we need is much better enforcement. Cops should be able to pull these assholes over and arrest them on the spot, and confiscate their vehicles. Normally I'm against civil asset forfeiture, but if someone is properly found to have illegally modified his vehicle in such a way, it should be subject to forfeiture. (This shouldn't apply to cases of simple malfunction, poor maintenance, etc., only to intentional tampering.)
When running properly, diesel pickups do perform well and with very good fuel economy (for a truck). To my knowledge, it's quite possible to get good emissions out of them using AdBlue (DEF). Regulations should enforce this if they don't already. Pickups have plenty of room for a big DEF tank.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @05:01PM
I'm pretty sure the cops are also assholes and cheering them on.
Me, I like to be an asshole and talk about how my car gets 40 mpg when those assholes start complaining about gas prices.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday September 13 2016, @06:25PM
Whats worse is many of those stupid owners don't use them as a truck. Just a penis extension.
Real pickups owners beat the piss out of them towing and/or hauling crap in the bed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday September 13 2016, @06:36PM
Right, %pet_issue% justifies armed agents of the state to detain and cage people because we need to %send_msg% about %pet_issue% because of %moral_outrage%. And that also requires %extrajudicial_measure% because %moral_outrage%.
Of course, no armed agent of the state would ever use %tenuous_reason% to abuse their authority, because any right-thinking person is against %moral_outrage%.
Shall we shoot loud motorcyclists on sight as well?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Grishnakh on Tuesday September 13 2016, @07:08PM
Don't be stupid. The people are intentionally emitting dangerous pollution into the worst place possible: right in front of other peoples' cars (and pedestrians), forcing them to breathe it. Particulate pollution is immediately dangerous to human health (unlike most other types, which are much more indirect). It's basically like someone forcing you to breathe the smoke from an entire cigarette all at once.
I have no problem with using armed agents of the state to put a stop to this kind of behavior. If you want to breathe a bunch of dangerous smoke, do it on your own. Force me to do it and I feel I have every right to use violence to protect myself from your assault.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:28PM
Gugger could not have picked a worse behavior to defend with short-sighted libertarian arguments.
Not only is "rolling coal" directly harmful to anyone in the vicinity, it is all just insecure white men feeling emasculated because the world is changing and they aren't able to keep up. Ordinarily they would be deserving of empathy, but not only are they unwilling to help themselves, they think that being destructive isn't just their best option, its their right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:56PM
That's racist, I have personally seen other "races" than "whites" roll coal.
I don't know why you are bigoted against white males, others are capable of being assholes as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:56PM
i don't argue that one should accept being "coal rolled" but you have the right to pull up and open fire on the perpetrator. no state henchmen need be involved.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday September 15 2016, @02:15AM
Most people doing this "crime" are doing it away from population centers, so the impact is insufficient to justify forfeiture or worse.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday September 15 2016, @02:43PM
Population centers and density are irrelevant, only the exhaust concentration right where nearby people are, breathing it in. These assholes do it directly in front of other cars and cyclists and pedestrians. They deserve to be shot on sight, just like anyone who intentionally tries to harm the health of another human being.
How'd you like it if someone forced you to breathe in a bunch of asbestos dust? Maybe that should be the punishment, along with an exemption for health insurance companies so they don't have to cover it, leaving these assholes to die slowly of mesothelioma.
(Score: 5, Funny) by bob_super on Tuesday September 13 2016, @08:01PM
> Shall we shoot loud motorcyclists on sight as well?
Only with silencers, obviously...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by watusimoto on Wednesday September 14 2016, @07:58AM
In this case, the vehicle is the instrument of the crime. Of course it could be seized.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by zero_cool on Tuesday September 13 2016, @06:38PM
I live in a cold climate, def freezes in the tank 3/4 of the year, am i just supposed to park my vehicle and walk 3/4 of the year? as for the type of filters that you have to regen..... all they do is store all the pollution up and burn it off at once and as an added negative they decrease fuel mileage, power and you have to waste a half hour of fuel every time you do a regen. Also please note that a single volcanic eruption usually emits more co2 then all of humanity for quite some time. explain to me how me modifying my emissions system so that my truck is more fuel efficient and will actually run all year round merrits having my truck ceased? You sound like an enviro hippie to me. let me guess you probabally oppose pipelines too. but like other hippies you probabally still drive a car use plastic and have lights and running water in your home?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday September 13 2016, @07:14PM
Let me guess, you're a moron who doesn't know anything about your own vehicle:
http://govictoryblue.com/2013/10/23/def-freezing/ [govictoryblue.com]
http://mitchell1.com/shopconnection/my-def-is-frozen-what-to-do/ [mitchell1.com]
I was able to find that in 20 seconds with a Google search. DEF freezing isn't a problem because they use heaters for the tanks, and it isn't necessary for start-up.
And since you don't even know the word for "seized" I fail to see how it's productive to argue with you any more. Go back to school and learn English.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @08:15PM
Must be really cold if it is below 12F continuously for 9 months of the year. Even Barrow Alaska breaks 12F for some part of the day between May and October...
Sounds like someone looking for an excuse because they don't want to play nice.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:04PM
While your mods might not produce these stupid clouds, they are certainly against the law and you can have your truck impounded depending on the local jurisdiction.
Most people who live in the deep north have cold weather prep packages specked at time of order. These include things like tank and block heaters as well as other cold weather add-ons. Many smart owners also choose to plug them in and/or keep them in a garage that is kept a little above freezing. Have you considered any of those things when you bought your truck?
The half hour of regen and fuel is a PITA. You just have to live with it. As for the pollutants, the DPF is there to remove the particulate matter or soot from the exhaust stream. It poses an immediate inhalation health hazard. It has been linked to asthma and other respiratory diseases. Do a search for 'diesel particulate asthma'. You will find plenty of research. NOx, controlled by the SCR system forms smog, acid rain and particulate matter. A quick search of 'NOx health hazards' will again give you information. This isn't hard.
So? Sounds like a cop out statement to me. "Well nature does it all the time so why cant we?" It's a very selfish, fuck everyone attitude. And again, this is about particulate matter and NOx.
Again, NOx and Particulate matter.
And you just sound like a clueless, selfish asshole to me. And by clueless, I mean it doesn't even sound like you properly specked your truck for your geographic location.
As a whole, people should be concerned about long term health effects of any process they are involved in. Your single truck might not sound like much pollution but multiply that times millions of diesel engines all around the world in everything from small pumps, compressors and generators to locomotives and container ships. If everyone cooperates, then things are improved for EVERYONE. Learn to sacrifice and compromise instead of being a whiny selfish prick.
And side note: The coal rollers purposefully mod their engines to excessively smoke for show. Some even purposefully lay down clouds so thick, traffic behind them has to stop as they cant see past the smoke screen. It's a total dick, asshole, fuck head move. Damn right they deserve a beating for having that mentality.
(Score: 2) by goodie on Tuesday September 13 2016, @07:31PM
The problem is that 99% of those people don't even need a truck. They like to have one just "because". Just because somebody tows something once a year does not mean they need a pickup. People like to rationalize things that way but in general, like all cars, it's more of a status thing IMHO.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @07:47PM
The problem with those US pickup trucks is their stupid owners illegally modify them specifically to make smoke clouds, because they're assholes. The manufacturers can't do much about that; there's only so much a carmaker can do to prevent modifications.
This is the first I've heard this. Can you provide more details, such as why people do this and how they do it? I'm prepared to believe it, but would like to learn more.
I understand that motorcycles drivers like to ramp up the sound of their engines (especially Harley Davidson, who literally has designed their motorcycles to be trivial to "break" and create that sound)... but it's easy for me to see the ego boost of ramping loud sounds wherever you go. I don't get why people would want huge clouds of noxious smoke surrounding their vehicle, though. At the very least, they'll smell it themselves at a red light.
(Score: 2) by Ellis D. Tripp on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:40PM
Google "Rolling Coal"...
Lots of videos on YouTube of these assholes intentionally spewing clouds at bicyclists, hybrid/EV drivers, people with left wing bumperstickers, etc. Have seen a few of these guys with "Prius Repellent" signs on the truck, pointing to the exhaust pipes.
"Society is like stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you end up with a lot of scum on the top!"--Edward Abbey
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @12:18AM
At the very least, they'll smell it themselves at a red light.
That's a feature, not a bug. Also re: huge clouds of noxious smoke surrounding their vehicle, they're certain that this is actually not a detriment to their health, just some myth made up by faggots.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:43PM
Yeah, they are called trucks, dumb dumb.
(Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:43PM
Can't fly a rebel flag proudly and not roll coal from your Blu-Def'ed stacks, can you?
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday September 13 2016, @06:22PM
What are you talking about?
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:32PM
Liang, who will continue to help the government in its investigation as part of the deal, pled guilty to three counts of conspiracy: to commit wire fraud, defraud the federal government, and violate the Clean Air Act. He faces a maximum of 5 years behind bars, 3 years supervised release, and a maximum fine of $250,000.
That's not too long, I'm kind of surprised VW didn't pay him to keep his mouth shut (or double down and hire a Jack Ruby). I wonder how many people will end up doing time for this, and how high up the corporate ladder the charges will climb.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:53PM
Austin Harrouff was ‘making animal noises’ when he was arrested at the scene of a grisly double murder in Florida
Austin Harrouff was ‘making animal noises’ when he was arrested at the scene of a grisly double murder in Florida
Austin Harrouff was ‘making animal noises’ when he was arrested at the scene of a grisly double murder in Florida
Austin Harrouff was ‘making animal noises’ when he was arrested at the scene of a grisly double murder in Florida
Austin Harrouff was ‘making animal noises’ when he was arrested at the scene of a grisly double murder in Florida
Austin Harrouff was ‘making animal noises’ when he was arrested at the scene of a grisly double murder in Florida
Austin Harrouff was ‘making animal noises’ when he was arrested at the scene of a grisly double murder in Florida
Austin Harrouff was ‘making animal noises’ when he was arrested at the scene of a grisly double murder in Florida
Austin Harrouff was ‘making animal noises’ when he was arrested at the scene of a grisly double murder in Florida
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @05:07PM
mod parent up
it's time to fly!
think happy thoughts
I CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNN!
OH THERE YOU ARE, PETER! EUR EUR EUR EUR EUUUUUUUUURRR!
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @06:07PM
I hate to break it to you, but it's looking more like it was just boring schizophrenia. (Articles mention poison, but I think that's peripheral to what happened outside of the internal injuries to the kid).
The dad admitted that schizophrenia runs in the family and that the kid had been acting weird prior to that night. This is what you Americans get because you have a system where people are trained to just ride things out and hope nothing bad happens. Because mental health is a fucking moral issue to you assholes. That's right, what happened was entirely preventable if the parents hadn't been afraid of the cost of getting their son evaluated and what a schizophrenia diagnosis would mean to "their image." I'll bet they're regretting that now!
You are beyond fucked, USA. I'll enjoy watching you descend into being a 3rd world hellhole. But hey, plenty of people who post here are perfectly happy with moralizing shit that only make sense to moralize in a 3rd world hellhole.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 13 2016, @05:02PM
Only the extremely gullible would ever have believed that just a couple people were in on any cheat. Not only was the entire engineering team in on it, but so were a whole bunch of QC people, and damned sure management was there overseeing everything. Doesn't much matter whether the assembly line is subject to 1% or 100% inspections - you KNOW that QC knew it was being passed.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @05:21PM
Didn't sister companies also cheat? They probably didn't just take the VW designs as-is, but had to dig into them to modify them for their models. It would have to be a high-level plot to coordinate it across brands.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @05:32PM
Only the extremely gullible would ever believe such a thing as clean-diesel was possible. How humanity made it this far is always a mystery to me if putting the word "clean" in front of something easily persuades 50% of the populace that the product is good for the environment.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 13 2016, @08:10PM
Clean Diesel, Clean Coal, Clean Ethanol_fueled, it's all about the same.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DECbot on Wednesday September 14 2016, @01:02AM
And here I thought that Ethanol was pretty clean when burned.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by iWantToKeepAnon on Tuesday September 13 2016, @06:14PM
This is half-snarf and half-serious, how do you design an engine to not pollute? And why didn't we design them that way a long time ago? Maybe we could put restrictor plates in the carbs like NASCAR? Brilliant, burn less fuel and you pollute less.
So catalytic converters make an engine pollute less, but to me that is an added *part* not engine design. I guess if a design tweak was easy they'd have done it. But what is the op talking about there?
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
(Score: 3, Informative) by fraxinus-tree on Tuesday September 13 2016, @06:47PM
Engine polluting less is not only a catalytic converter or DPF attached. In diesels, it starts somewhere around the form of the combustion chamber and the flow of the air inside. EGR modes, phased injection, jet and flame front form - everything contributes to the clean (or not-so-clean) burning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @05:16PM
Well for designing the engine not to pollute:
1. remove use of liquid fuel
2. use self-lubricating materials for cylinder sleeves
3. use fully sealing ring sets
4. lean-burn but cool combustion chamber to prevent NOx formation
5. oxidizing or other catalyst in EGR flow
6. along with air filters, permeable membranes to only allow selected gases / vapors into air intake (Allow: Oxygen, CO2, Water vapor and reject Nitrogen)
7. direct injection of metered fuel into combustion chamber
8. air flow/mass metered per cylinder to control fuel per cylinder
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @08:28PM
Ironically- what VW DID is design the engine to burn less fuel; but less fuel burned != less polluting.
That's not to say that the total exhaust volume is less; but when you rank the 'value' of the actual exhaust there are some exhaust components that are more 'desirable' than others.
Example- a Harley Davidson engine (which achieved an exemption from US EPA requirements) burns a LOT of oil, so while they generally get 7l/100km the exhaust has a LOT more sulphur dioxide and other rich hydrocarbon burn effects then an efficient truck that gets 14l/100km. The 14l/100km truck does emit 2x the CO2, but it may emit hundreds of times less of other, arguably worse other pollutants.
A lot of this revolves around a device called an EGR (or Exhaust Gas Recirculator), which literally takes some of the exhaust gases and feeds them back into the combustion cylinders. This actually HURTS fuel economy, but reduces the concentration of those other reactive emissions.
EGRs in diesels are really hard on the engine (because compared to a petro engine the more complete combustion in a diesel engine is already quite air-starved, and replacing some of that air with already spent air radically reduces the effectiveness of the engine), and not only result in a very steep decrease in fuel economy, but also places a lot of gummy tar-like deposits on the intake manifold and cylinder walls, increasing wear on the cylinders and creating a clean/replace requirement for the intake manifold.
Further compounding the issue the EPA guidelines are decidedly unfair to diesels (my understanding is that even with the cheat removed they still meet EU guidelines)- they measure the particle emissions via a filter screen rather than by, say, spectrograph analysis of actual 'bagged' exhaust- Petro engines have no problem at all pounding their particle emissions down into very tiny nanoparticles that pass right through the filter, but for a diesel to achieve the same effect it needs to use more of the EGR, pushing more already burned fuel through the engine (further impacting fuel economy and engine life)- those same particles that failed the diesel engine are still there, they are just smaller so they don't get picked up by the filter.
Not wanting to gain a reputation for self-destructing engines with poor fuel economy VW made a calculated decision to change the logic of how 'open' that EGR is so that while on the test bench it is running at 100%, meets the EPA requirements, but when on regular roads its running at perhaps 20% (if at all)- this means that on regular roads, compared to on the test bench, the VW diesel is getting far superior fuel economy and emitting less total carbon dioxide AND prolonging engine life, BUT it is also emitting much larger particles and those particles are in a more reactive state.
My feeling on this is:
Is the EPAs test biased against diesels- yes, probably as a domestic vehicle protection measure
Is the EPAs test worse for the environment- I would argue yes, the increased CO2 and decreased vehicle life in my opinion adds up to more environmental impact than reduced reactive particle emissions- and a system of setting EFFICIENCY limits rather than specific chemical emissions would achieve clean burns
Did VW cheat- absolutely, there can be no argument on this
Did they do this with 'white motives'- NO; if they thought that the EPA test was terrible and biased against their cars they should have challenged it in a messy court battle, just refused to sell their cars in the US until the rules were changed, or applied for an exemption (ala Harley Davidson)
Are you as a driver of a VW better served by the cheat- categorically yes.
Are you as a citizen of the earth better served by the cheat- Yes, the reduced CO2 means less greenhouse gasses, and the reactive chemicals have a short in air life before they turn into something else
Are you as someone living in a big city better served by the cheat- probably not. The reactive chemicals take a few hours to dissipate, and while there is strong evidence that nanoparticles are more harmful that macroparticles (our lungs have been filtering out large particles for a long time, nano-sized stuff is relatively new), the reactive chemicals will build up in your city during the day and contribute to more breathing stress.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday September 13 2016, @11:38PM
Here we see a rather boring example of a rather large group of people who almost got away with a large conspiracy. Not that this legitimizes any specific conspiracy theory, but we as a society need to stop immediately shunning people when they believe a conspiracy is happening. Yes, it can totally happen, and this story is proof. These people did it for the good of their company / to keep their job / they are just sheep. I see no reason why a more sinister conspiracy could not be carried out by using threats of violence, it obviously is possible.
Everyone must decide for themselves where the line is drawn, but I witness too many people that toss out ideas simply because it jars with their personal worldview. If something is plausible, you should allocate some small percentage of "it could be true". When we arbitrarily (with no evidence for or against) decide to believe a certain viewpoint and reject all others we are closing our minds. This is a disfavor to yourself.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @01:12AM
> Not that this legitimizes any specific conspiracy theory, but we as a society need to stop immediately shunning people when they believe a conspiracy is happening.
The difference in this case is that no one was alleging a conspiracy until after the proof was discovered by accident. The person who uncovered it all was not looking to bust VW, they were looking to support them. They wanted to disprove complaints about EU pollution specs being unrealistic by proving that in America VW was able to meet those requirements.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @12:43AM
Marching orders to prosecutors and law enforcement: find the engineer who committed this crime, and put him away so the public will see that justice has been served.
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Wednesday September 14 2016, @01:06AM
Could somebody google for me the name of VW's Chief Engineering Officer?
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base