VW and Audi caught installing software to circumvent EPA testing.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Sigvatr wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:

By which you mean hes honest?

Yes. Honestly at all cost is stupid. His "honesty" was a crucial mistake that will most likely cost hundreds of jobs.

I'd have thought he should be getting fired for friggin' cheating the system, but I'm sure that's just him doing his job and getting thousands of us plebeians employed, right?

Yes. If you lead a company, your decisions must always be for the good of the company. Hands down. Cheating the system was a stupid idea, of course, as the backlash is much larger than the outcome and should be reason alone for him to be retired. Telling the truth, however, and not saying that it was a mistake is downright idiotic. You not only show that you're a poor leader, you also heavily hurt your entire company and, ultimatively, it's not the management that will have to take the fall, it's the lower employees that will lose their jobs. You are honest to people you owe something to. Your family, your friends. Honest to the public? Idiotic and irresponsible. People WANT to be lied to. If you want to be honest at all cost, then by all means, do so, but stay away from any job that involves responsibility for other people. The (now) former CEO is an extremely poor leader and will never see himself in a similar position ever again - and rightfully so.

The right thing to do after it's been discovered would have been to say that it's an error in the software. Boom. You'd still be fined and you'd still be shamed, but it's a mistake, not a scam. Shareholders do not trust a company that openly admits to cheat on them / their trust. Good for me, I got shares on similar companies and they recently saw a very good boost. USA! USA! USA!

I'm sure no perverse incentives could ever arise from expecting CEOs to pursue profit at all costs.

**Silent Puffin?**

Kilkrazy wrote:

Yet another case of a major company deliberately cheating.

Apparently only 1 in 10 diesel cars in the EU meet their specification emissions figures when independently tested although they have all supposedly met or exceeded these specifications in 'laboratory conditions'. I think that this may well be the tip of a very large iceberg.

**Sigvatr**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

I'm sure no perverse incentives could ever arise from expecting CEOs to pursue profit at all costs.

Mass layoffs? Child labour? Tax fraud? Huge environmental pollution? Dead employees? Yes. That's what happens. This, however, isn't the point here.

**Henry**

Silent Puffin? wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:

Yet another case of a major company deliberately cheating.

Apparently only 1 in 10 diesel cars in the EU meet their specification emissions figures when independently tested although they have all supposedly met or exceeded these specifications in 'laboratory conditions'. I think that this may well be the tip of a very large iceberg.

While eating lunch at work, this popped on the TV. One of the junior managers pipes up that his friend who works at Jaguar regularly fiddles with the ECUs to get the cars to pass the noise emission tests. It seems this may be accepted practice in the industry.

**sebster**

Sigvatr wrote:
Yes. If you lead a company, your decisions must always be for the good of the company. Hands down. Cheating the system was a stupid idea, of course, as the backlash is much larger than the outcome and should be reason alone for him to be retired. Telling the truth, however, and not saying that it was a mistake is downright idiotic. You not only show that you're a poor leader, you also heavily hurt your entire company and, ultimatively, it's not the management that will have to take the fall, it's the lower employees that will lose their jobs. You are honest to people you owe something to. Your family, your friends. Honest to the public? Idiotic and irresponsible. People WANT to be lied to. If you want to be honest at all cost, then by all means, do so, but stay away from any job that involves responsibility for other people. The (now) former CEO is an extremely poor leader and will never see himself in a similar position ever again - and rightfully so.

The right thing to do after it's been discovered would have been to say that it's an error in the software. Boom. You'd still be fined and you'd still be shamed, but it's a mistake, not a scam. Shareholders do not trust a company that openly admits to cheat on them / their trust. Good for me, I got shares on similar companies and they recently saw a very good boost. USA! USA! USA!

There's so much wrong with this.

1) The requirement to act solely in the interests of the company is a general principle, but real world business practice is so subjective that the only real impact is against people attempting to screw over minority shareholders. In this case the concept has absolutely no meaning at all.

2) The backlash is pretty minor. Most media coverage has been around the potential size of the fine, with very little moral outrage over the actual scam.

3) The idea that honesty is only necessary in some relationships is a whole new invention. While I have to credit your imagination, you have to realise that just because you thought it up, it doesn't mean it's true.

4) You have assumed that if the CEO says it was an accident, people will accept that and just move on. That's a very silly thing to assume.

5) You have assumed that the company's stock price hit and instability are due to the CEO stating he lied, rather than the potentially massive fine, and the issue the company now has with millions of cars in lots that no longer meet regulations.

**Inquisitor Lord Bane**

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1100125_vw-diesel-emissions-recall-what-you-need-to-know-in-10-questions

Good article on the issues. California residents are getting the shaft especially hard right now. This could mean the end of VW. Ignoring the fines, they are going to get civil suits left and right, because the easy fix will destroy the fuel efficiency, which is a bg reason to buy diesel. And the cars affected just lost alot of value that the owner paid good money for.

**Spetulhu**

It's not exactly the first time VW-Audi have been involved is shady things. There seems to be very little chance for any other cars to get top points in German (and many other European car magazines), and some of those have been revealed to favor VW products because reasons.

**Kilkrazy**

The first duty of any company is to obey the law.

At the least, VW will probably have to recall all the affected cars and fix them for free. If it is true that the fixes reduce fuel efficiency, they also will need to pay compensation to the owners, as noted above.

As for the domination of VW/Audi of popular cars in Europe, it has something to do with their image of being good quality engineering but not very expensive like Mercedes and BMW.

However that image would seem to have been exploded by this scandal.

**KingCracker**

Sigvatr wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:

Except, until we change where are electricity comes from(Namely Coal and other fossil fuels) its just s dirty of a car.

You might have missed the...subtle...hint of humor in the previous post. Noone drives a Tesla because it's better for the environment. First of all, it would be nonsense as the amount of Tesla drivers is so tiny that its overall impact on the environment is zero. Secondly, people buy a Tesla because of two reasons:

a) the amazing feeling driving it and...

b) to brag.

Overall, yes, as long as hypocrits / people refuse to accept nuclear energy as the best way to produce energy, we will have to rely on "dirty" means of energy production. I say "hypocrits" as a German...or moreso a person living in Germany, a country that abolished nuclear power for "safety" reasons in case of a nuclear fallout while EVERYWHERE AROUND GERMANY countries still use those.

I had one come up to me in traffic while working. I snapped a picture of it and gave the guy a thumbs up. Then he punched it and the thing took off like a rocket! It was an odd experience due to the lack of exhaust noise lol

**angelofvengeance**

The next few months/years will be interesting ones for the Auto industry. Probably going to result in more government regulation as well as a few extinct vehicle manufacturers since VW have Audi,Skoda Auto, Seat, Lamborghini, Bentley Motors, Bugatti, MAN SE, Scania AB under their banner as well.

**Chongara**

KingCracker wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:

Except, until we change where are electricity comes from(Namely Coal and other fossil fuels) its just s dirty of a car.

You might have missed the...subtle...hint of humor in the previous post. Noone drives a Tesla because it's better for the environment. First of all, it would be nonsense as the amount of Tesla drivers is so tiny that its overall impact on the environment is zero. Secondly, people buy a Tesla because of two reasons:

a) the amazing feeling driving it and...

b) to brag.

Overall, yes, as long as hypocrits / people refuse to accept nuclear energy as the best way to produce energy, we will have to rely on "dirty" means of energy production. I say "hypocrits" as a German...or moreso a person living in Germany, a country that abolished nuclear power for "safety" reasons in case of a nuclear fallout while EVERYWHERE AROUND GERMANY countries still use those.

I had one come up to me in traffic while working. I snapped a picture of it and gave the guy a thumbs up. Then he punched it and the thing took off like a rocket! It was an odd experience due to the lack of exhaust noise lol

Yeah, it's a good car regardless. That said the idea that an electric is no better gas because the electricity is still produced via fossil fuels is pretty faulty. For a number of reasons you're going to get more miles out of less emissions per mile in an electric, especially if we're talking strictly in post-production terms.

**Kilkrazy**

Mercedes put a sound unit into their electric sports car, to allow you to have a rorting noise if you want it.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Mercedes put a sound unit into their electric sports car, to allow you to have a rorting noise if you want it.

Reportedly the new Maxima fakes gear shifts as well in sport mode.

**eddieazrael**

**reds8n**

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/new-ttip-scandal-car-industry-buried-report-revealing-us-car-safety-flaws-10514716.html

The motor industry has been accused of withholding a report that reveals US cars are substantially less safe than European vehicles - for fear that the findings would hamper the drive to harmonise safety standards as part of the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal.

The major study was commissioned by the car industry to show that existing EU and US safety standards were broadly similar.

But the research actually established that American models are much less safe when it comes to front-side collisions, a common cause of accidents that often result in serious injuries.

The findings were never submitted – or publicly announced – by the industry bodies that funded the study.

Safety campaigners have said the research showed that trade negotiators would potentially be putting lives in danger by allowing vehicles approved in the US to be sold in Europe and vice-versa.

The news casts a further shadow over a global industry already in the spotlight following this week’s Volkswagen emissions scandal.

The Washington-based Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) sponsored the research, announced in a joint press release last year alongside the European car lobby ACEA and the American Automotive Policy Council.

The auto giants represent the industry’s biggest names from Chrysler and Toyota to Jaguar Land Rover and Volkswagen.

Independent experts from the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute and the SAFER transportation research centre at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden, carried out the study. They are two of the leading traffic safety research centres in the world. Experts in France and at the UK’s Transport Research Laboratory were also involved.

“ACEA remains confident that regulatory convergence can be achieved in TTIP while maintaining the current high level of safety performance in both the EU and the US,” the spokesperson said.

The investigation was announced to great fanfare last year: Robert Strassburger, AAM Vice President for vehicle safety, said it might be the most ambitious and complicated research effort the trade group has commissioned in the field of auto safety.

The industry wanted to use the findings to help TTIP negotiations aimed at harmonising vehicle safety standards on both sides of the Atlantic. under current rules cars sold globally, such as the Ford Focus or Volkswagen Golf, must still be re-engineered multiple times - at considerable expense to manufacturers - to satisfy crash-test standards around the world.

The lobby groups pre-empted the results saying “our standards may differ in some modest ways, but the ones that we’re looking at harmonizing are essentially equivalent”.

The report’s findings, however, pointed to substantial differences in performance. Of particular concern to safety groups is the finding that passengers in a typical EU model are 33 per cent safer in front-side collisions, an accident that often results in serious injury, than those in a typical US model.

However none of the car lobby giants published a response to the findings, which have now been quietly posted on the University of Michigan’s website.

Co-author András Bálint, Traffic Safety Analyst at Chalmers, told the Independent: “The results of our study indicate that there is currently a risk difference with respect to the risk of injury given a crash between EU specification cars and US models.

“Therefore, based on these results, immediate recognition of US vehicles in the EU could potentially result in a greater number of fatalities or serious injuries in road traffic. The potential impact is difficult to quantify because it depends on a number of other parameters.”

The European Transport Safety Council (ETSC), the independent organisation that advises the European Commission and the European Parliament on road safety, said the research was an important warning that vehicle safety standards cannot be included in TTIP at this stage. It called for a halt to proceedings so further analysis could be carried out.

The council’s executive director Antonio Avenoso said: “This study shows that EU and US trade negotiators would potentially be putting lives in danger by allowing vehicles approved in the US to be sold today in Europe and vice-versa. What’s needed is an open and transparent process for getting both sides up to the highest level of safety across all vehicles. Clearly without much more research and analysis, including vehicle safety standards in the TTIP agreement would be irresponsible.”

The next formal round of TTIP negotiations begin next month, with the proposed free trade deal set to become the biggest such deal ever made.

The motor vehicle sector will probably the biggest beneficiary: harmonisation of auto regulations across the Atlantic could bring over €18 billion per year for the European Union and the United States economies, a study by the US think-tank Petersen Institute of International Economics revealed this year.

Last night a spokesman for the US Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which led the way in commissioning the study, said: “There is much credit to be given for the historic efforts made in this study, and we fully support the methodology for comparing and analyzing U.S. and EU crash environments and vehicle performance.