[parennoob]

> In 2015, regulators realized that diesel Volkswagens and Audis were emitting several times the legal limit of nitrogen oxides (NOx) during real-world driving tests.

This means that they can detect emissions levels during real world driving tests. What's wrong with just making those tests the actual regulatory ones? So whatever ingenuity automakers can use will be put to minimizing emissions in the exact same scenarios that will be used in real life.

[nisa]

> What's wrong with just making those tests the actual regulatory ones?

Nothing. But Germany has a strong position in the EU and to a large degree does what VW/BMW/Mercedes want and they wanted to avoid stronger or better tests. This topic is quite often in the news here and it's clear that there is no political will to establish real word tests.

There are also a lot of other cheats in this firmware:

- Below 14°C? Just blast the emissions out. It's not like these cars are driven in the winter.

- Autobahn? Go blast out the emissions!

- and so on...

This should be a far bigger scandal than it is now.

[nisa]

Extensive PDF from the Umwaltbundesamt (comparable to the EPA - it's an independent agency) - http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/254...

[majewsky]

> Below 14°C? [...] in the winter

It doesn't take winter for temperatures to drop below 14 °C (57.2 °F). The morning commute takes place between 6 and 9 AM. Even in the summer, temperatures are probably below 14 °C more often than above it at these times.

[DonHopkins]

Are the tests that the hidden code is supposed to defeat performed only a few times on specific cars by regulators, or are they the regular smog checks that everyone has to pass each time they renew their registration [1]? If the latter, then all those smog check shops will have to get new mobile equipment (how much more does that cost?) and drive each car around town for a long time. [2]

This article [3] has a mention and photo of "A portable emissions measurement system at the Engine and Emissions Research Laboratory at West Virginia University."

"Mr. Carder and his team drew on their experience testing trucks when they got the contract to test cars in 2013. One challenge was to fit what amounts to a mobile laboratory in the car. At the time, the equipment available for such emissions testing had enough battery power only for short trips.

To make long hauls possible, the West Virginia University researchers bought portable gasoline generators at regular hardware stores and bolted them to the rear ends of the test cars. The generators made a terrible racket and frequently broke down because they were not designed to be bumped around."

[1] http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/smog-check.php

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZmCp7NocMA

[2] Researchers Who Exposed VW Gain Little Reward From Success: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/business/vw-wvu-diesel-vo...

[lb1lf]

-One problem with that approach is that it would make testing for compliance much, much more expensive.

One thing would be all the equipment and manpower every test facility would need to invest in (as DonHopkins points out below) - but also, in order to gain initial approval, you couldn't just rely on one or even a few random drives - in order for the numbers to make any sense, you'd need a large sample size - lots of different drivers, driving the cars under different conditions - until you had enough data points to come up with a meaningful figure.

[kadavero]

So in order to get a model on the market, you need to first get in on the market, right?

[mcguire]

Can you make those real world tests repeatable without increasing the costs by several orders of magnitude?

Back up real world tests are a very good idea, but the legal limits need to be defined under standardized, laboratory conditions.

[qbrass]

>What's wrong with just making those tests the actual regulatory ones?

It's easier for automakers to throw resources at lobbying.