and ex-lovers are the worst type of enemy when their pride is hurt.

It's not so hot with present lovers when they figure their pride has been hurt but can't actually put an exact point on the what where when and who part so you just get the burden justified or otherwise.

Reality says nothing was done to hurt their pride but fantasy says that dream they think they sort of remember possibly having about you doing or not doing something still counts.

And that's the short summary of a day in my married life.

 

And that's the short summary of a day in my married life.

Is it time for a new 'car'?

 

Wait a minute there. The Clean air act and EPA want less ozone production but a the same time wants to fix the ozone layer that supposedly needs more ozone because of depletion issues?

Sounds pretty self imposed counter productive to me.

(As if I didn't already know)

It is the maxim in real estate, location, location, location.

 

They were passed by congress.

No way. The Clean Air Act was passed by congress and the EPA establishes rules under that umbrella. That cannot be interpreted to say that every EPA rule was passed by congress. Granted, some of what the EPA does is justifiable under the CAA, so the gap between their rules and the law becomes a distinction without a difference. No one fights. But the EPA often steps out from under the umbrella and goes too far with their rules. Occasionally those rules get challenged and tossed out by courts.

 

What is the gap then? What is the difference in standards between the law and the rule? The standards were set by the law. Where did the EPA change them?

 

What is the gap then? What is the difference in standards between the law and the rule? The standards were set by the law. Where did the EPA change them?

Are people really that easily manipulated by what's obviously irreverent to this thread?
VW is a cheater from way back.
http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/vw-emissions-defeat-device-isnt-first

In 1974, Volkswagen agreed to pay $120,000 to settle a complaint filed by the EPA that the company failed to properly disclose the existence of two devices that modified emissions controls on about 25,000 1973 model VWs, according to a Wall Street Journal report and an EPA press release about the case. The settlement included no admission of wrongdoing by VW, the Journal reported. The devices consisted of two temperature-sensing switches that deactivated part of the emissions control systems, the EPA said.

The EPA said at the time that VW failed to disclose the existence of the devices on its 1973 emissions certification applications. VW did disclose them on a 1974 application, which the EPA rejected, and VW agreed to remove the devices.

EPA, EPA, EPA
Blaming Air Pollution Limits For Volkswagen's Emissions Scandal is a curious side-show.

 

What is the gap then? What is the difference in standards between the law and the rule? The standards were set by the law. Where did the EPA change them?

Like I said ... the U.S. Code is the law as passed by Congress. The Code of Federal Regulations is the regulating agency's interpretation of the law as passed by congress. There is a line in the U.S. Code about the cost -v- benefit of the proposed regulations.

Most CFRs are published in the Federal Register for comments prior to being activated. It's one way to get comments from interested parties. You never hear of the media discussing the proposed regulations.

 

What does the "cost-v-benifits" line say in the Code and how is it changed in the regulaitons?

 

At the time, the EPA’s test procedures didn’t measure emissions levels with climate control systems turned on, so the chip’s impact on emissions wasn’t measured. GM cooperated with the EPA’s investigation and settled out of court. But the EPA considered the chip to be a defeat device and announced the deal without GM’s participation, a move that blindsided the company, GM officials told Automotive News at the time.

The EPA’s test procedures have since been revised to measure emissions with air conditioning systems turned on. Test changes also could stem from VW’s current debacle. Chris Grundler, head of the EPA’s office that oversees auto emissions, says the agency is reviewing its testing procedures and working on a process to screen for defeat devices similar to the software that VW used to make its cars run cleaner during emissions tests.
Read more: [URL='http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/vw-emissions-defeat-device-isnt-first#ixzz3mmWN9kUK[/quote']http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/vw-emissions-defeat-device-isnt-first#ixzz3mmWN9kUK[/quote[/URL]]

It seems the EPA is playing catchup. Apparently, anything not documented in their certificate is a defeat device. Don't you just love when the EPA makes an announcement involving the other party. I wonder if the EPA lives by the phrase "We're here from the government and we are here to help you." So, if you don't cross your t's and dot your i's, your guilty in the eyes of the EPA. No intellectual property secrets when it comes to the EPA.

So, for those of us who pay for emission tests annually, be prepared for higher costs as the tests will change. For those vehicle owners, don't forget to remove any "add on" chips/devices before you take your vehicle in for a test. Oh yeah, for those of us who exceed the speed limit, abeit only temporarily, thank God the EPA isn't the highway police.

 

What does the "cost-v-benifits" line say in the Code and how is it changed in the regulaitons?

It doesn't matter what it says when it's being ignored. If the EPA does no cost analysis, how does one know.

How much is added to the price of a car to satisfy a small percentage in emission reduction?

 

... purchase nitrogen oxide credits ...

Where does one purchase nitrogen oxide credits?

 

It doesn't matter what it says when it's being ignored. If the EPA does no cost analysis, how does one know.

How much is added to the price of a car to satisfy a small percentage in emission reduction?

What says it's being ignored? Show me where the EPA is non-compliant with the law.

 

Other than a conspiracy ... how did VW pass the emissions test when performing the 50 mph load test as required by the CFR? That meant gundecking the results if the defeat device was used. It wouldn't be the first time that someone had pencil whipped (gundecked) something. And by the same token, it would be difficult to prove unless you can find the co-conspirers.

Let's see how much fine is paid when they settle out of court ...

What I love about the CFRs and USC is all the cross referencing to send one on a extra hour of research. At least I know the difference between an automobile and a passenger automobile now.

Looking at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7470
the EPA's task to : to insure that economic growth will occur in a manner consistent with the preservation of existing clean air resources;" can be at odds. In the end, it's the consumer who pays for all these improvements, wanted or not.

Then again, we can beg the EPA, like Oregon did, to provide some relief, but as common citizens, the band of complaints must form a political block, just like the political block that instituted the rules.

 

Does anybody have any idea how someone "found out" they were cheating?

 

Does anybody have any idea how someone "found out" they were cheating?

Yes:
http://www.theicct.org/sites/defaul...WVU_LDDV_in-use_ICCT_Report_Final_may2014.pdf

 

Other than a conspiracy ... how did VW pass the emissions test when performing the 50 mph load test as required by the CFR? That meant gundecking the results if the defeat device was used. It wouldn't be the first time that someone had pencil whipped (gundecked) something. And by the same token, it would be difficult to prove unless you can find the co-conspirers.

If you know the exact test parameters as listed in detail in the CFR it's trivial to develop a matching rule for it. It just might trigger during normal driving but the owner might never notice the difference if they expect sub-optimal power every time the car is in that regime of driving.

I personally expect no complicity on the US government side for this cheat, the risk would be too high and that's not the way you run a commercial SCI type compartmentalized operational plan where many innocent looking things in isolation are combined for the needed function to happen like I think this was.

I normally Poo Poo conspiracy theories but sometimes that's where the facts seem to lead. Maybe there's a simple answer to how they did it with everyone overlooking it for years because it was like one almost identical tree in a huge forest of trees.

I'm still waiting for more facts in this fascinating story.

 

Here's an article describes how VW cheated on the emissions test so they wouldn't have to do add a urea injection system in front of the catalytic converter.
It obviously gave them a significant competitive advantage since everyone else had to add urea to meet the standards, requiring additional equipment and the customer having to periodically refill the urea tank in the vehicle.

 

Here's an article describes how VW cheated on the emissions test so they wouldn't have to do add a urea injection system in front of the catalytic converter.
It obviously gave them a significant competitive advantage since everyone else had to add urea to meet the standards, requiring additional equipment and the customer having to periodically refill the urea tank in the vehicle.

This is another reason I don't think a simple software fix is the solution. The entire emissions and engine control system was designed around this cheat to save money by eliminating the urea injection system.

Then how, exactly do they do it? They don't and I'm sure that car has been torn apart to the last bolt or wire looking for the magic they used. This fact is the one that makes me believe that this is not a little slice of code but is a very sophisticated and well engineered system on the level that usually only governments can pull off.

 

nsaspook: Wow! I just briefly read all the pages.

 

nsaspook: Wow! I just briefly read all the pages.

This is what it took to nail these guys, so do you thing this is some simple tuner hack?

There were indications for years of the cheat (but conveniently ignored by interested parties) but nobody really nailed it down to the point VW said UNCLE until then, so IMO the EPA is a hero in this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...o-that-car-makers-were-rigging-emissions.html