VW diesel story continues. It seems the automaker paid universities to do research and gave them money and rigged cars to use. Interesting info on industry supported research.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/world/europe/volkswagen-diesel-emissions-monkeys.html?action=click&module=In Other News&pgtype=Homepage&action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

Enjoy!

Either the people at the university were complicit or they were incompetent (or, to give the benefit of the doubt, too naive and complacent).

It's completely reasonable for a company to fund research related to its business. But GOOD research requires that that's all they do (beyond outlining the topic to be researched). If at all possible, they should not provide material or equipment if that material or equipment can be obtained from sources beyond their control. In this case that would have been trivially easy and the researchers should have taken that route. You simply tell VW that, for the sake of research integrity, it is important that the researchers obtain the car from a dealer of their choice and provide the researchers with a letter and contact information informing the dealer that the car will be replaced, along with a reasonable handling and processing fee, by VW.

Even better, the funding and topic should be handled by an arm's-distance third party in a way such that it is difficult, if not impossible, for the researchers to determine the outcome that the funding party is hoping for, otherwise they are very likely to be biased, at least to some degree if only subconsciously, to look for ways to slant things in that direction. But if you don't know if your funds are coming from someone that is trying to prove the VW's diesel exhaust is not bad or someone that is trying to prove that it is, you are much more likely to be able to play the game square.

One of the combustion research groups at my old school was funded by GM to do some pretty basic, non-controversial research involving some improved emissions equipment and offered to provide two vehicles, one with the standard package and one with the improved package. The principal investigator used to work at GM and had expertise and capabilities that GM lacked in house. While the PI was absolutely convinced that GM's offer was completely above board, he insisted that arrangements be made so that he could identify and take possession of suitable vehicles from a dealer before the dealer was even aware of the deal. GM agreed without hesitation and had the principle investigator coordinate a time when the right person at GM would be waiting by the phone. The PI then put the names of over a dozen dealerships that had both cars in stock into a hat and picked one at random (GM was unaware of this little twist, but the PI didn't want any question that GM simply planted rigged vehicles at the dealership nearest the school). None of them were closer than 100 miles away. He then took two students to the dealership. After selecting the two cars as if they were just making a car purchase and getting to the point where they were ready to be driven off the lot, the PI pulled out the letter and he and the manager of the dealership got on the phone and hashed everything out while the two students sat next to the cars to ensure that no one touched them.

Was that necessary? Probably not. But good researchers should always ask how someone could possibly game the study and take reasonable steps to prevent it. There's no sure fire magic way to do it and not every thing you identify can be prevented at a reasonable cost. But it should still become part of the study results. If nothing else, it aids others that are evaluating the study build up an understanding of how much confidence they can have in the veracity of the results.

 

Even better, the funding and topic should be handled by an arm's-distance third party in a way such that it is difficult, if not impossible, for the researchers to determine the outcome that the funding party is hoping for, otherwise they are very likely to be biased, at least to some degree if only subconsciously, to look for ways to slant things in that direction. But if you don't know if your funds are coming from someone that is trying to prove the VW's diesel exhaust is not bad or someone that is trying to prove that it is, you are much more likely to be able to play the game square.

Thats what happened with this. WVU was not sponsored by anyone took it on there own to do it. Just like much in the "climate change" debate, when companies that are affected by the out come pay for the research, they are almost always going to get what they pay for. Justification and absolution for what they're doing.

 

Either the people at the university were complicit or they were incompetent (or, to give the benefit of the doubt, too naive and complacent).

I give them the benefit of the doubt. A company walks in with cash and a car and asks for a study, you do the study. We don't know the circumstances of how VW presented things, how much subtle pressure there was to use the provided vehicle. The researchers took the path of least resistance and that's a very human thing to do. Why argue with a paying client? Now they know the hard-learned answer, because the client can make a monkey out of you.

 

I give them the benefit of the doubt. A company walks in with cash and a car and asks for a study, you do the study. We don't know the circumstances of how VW presented things, how much subtle pressure there was to use the provided vehicle. The researchers took the path of least resistance and that's a very human thing to do. Why argue with a paying client? Now they know the hard-learned answer, because the client can make a monkey out of you.

That's very likely the situation, but it really shouldn't be. Unfortunately, most researchers are not trained in how to do research. Just like most college professors are not trained in how to teach. In both cases most people just end up doing it and learning as they go with little to no guidance and pretty minimal feedback along the way -- until you screw the pooch badly.

 

WVU was not sponsored by anyone

You are incorrect.

from: https://www.npr.org/2015/09/24/4430...in-west-virginia-caught-volkswagens-big-cheat
WVU research assistant professor Arvind Thiruvengadam and his colleagues test and experiment on cars and engines. He admits his is not the sexiest lab on campus, but he says he got superexcited when they won a grant in 2012 to test a few diesel cars.

The International Council on Clean Transportation is a nonprofit that tries to provide independent science to government agencies that regulate the environment. It hired the university to do a standard emissions tests on diesel cars in the U.S. Volkswagen has been hyping diesel cars that are environmentally friendly and fuel efficient.

Look at their board of directors. You decide if there were no collusion or as much as you see in the other universities doing research paid by VW. Both paid for research entities would be wrong if they alluded to the expected output.

Don't assume the research paid for by VW didn't just do the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT APPROVED testing protocol and WV did what was suspected in the EU, a real driving test having excessive emissions.

 

I see a study that was trying to prove that it was possible to have "Clean Diesel". What they found was "Dirty Criminality".

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-scandal-emissions-tests-john-german-research

“We really didn’t expect to find anything,” German said of his research that found Volkswagen had installed sophisticated software designed to cheat strict emission tests across the world. His simple test – checking the car’s emissions on real roads rather than in lab test conditions – led to the resignation of VW’s chief executive after the German company was forced to admit it installed “defeat devices” in 11m cars. The scandal has wiped more than €24bn ($26.8bn) off VW’s market value.
...
German explained that the idea to carry out the test, which he described as “very ordinary”, came from Peter Mock, a colleague in Europe, who noticed discrepancies in the emissions of the diesel VW Passat and VW Jetta. He said they decided to carry out on-the-road tests in the US as the emissions regulations are much stricter than in the EU. They expected the cars to pass and they could use this as proof to show Europeans that it was possible to run diesels with cleaner emissions.
...
“That is actually the single most inexplicable thing about this whole business,” German said. “VW had a chance to fix the problem, and they continued to try and cheat and do what they had done. That’s just amazing.”

“Only then did VW admit it had designed and installed a defeat device in these vehicles in the form of a sophisticated software algorithm that detected when a vehicle was undergoing emissions testing,” the EPA said in a statement last week.

 

I see a study that was trying to prove that it was possible to have "Clean Diesel". What they found was "Dirty Criminality".

I don't know about trying to prove the possibility of "clean diesel."

ICCT chose to use the US to confirm what they had observed in Europe because of the "stricter" regulations. All the players that worked to "grant" the money to WVU were former regulators.

My favorite paragraphs from the articles were:

Date: 21 Sep 2015
“We need to ask the question, is this happening in other countries and is this happening at other manufacturers? Some part of our reaction is not even understanding what has happened exactly,” said John German, one of the two co-leads on the US team of the International Council for Clean Transportation (ICCT), the European-based NGO that raised the alarm."

Yeah, that's reasonable.

Five days later in the second article:

German explained that the idea to carry out the test, which he described as “very ordinary”, came from Peter Mock, a colleague in Europe, who noticed discrepancies in the emissions of the diesel VW Passat and VW Jetta. He said they decided to carry out on-the-road tests in the US as the emissions regulations are much stricter than in the EU.

Now, this "innocent" test, although certainly the "best" test on how a vehicle pollutes on the road, was far from the "very ordinary" description proffered in the second article. EU noted the problem and wanted to confirm it was the manufacturer. Times when former regulators bribe, sorry, grant monies, to run tests is just as bad as if the manufacturers hired someone to run tests. The collusion, perceived or not , is forever present.

Also in the latter article, another former regulator, gives kudos to the EPA:

Greg Archer, a former government adviser and head of clean vehicles at the respected Transport & Environment thinktank, said: “I am not surprised. There has been a lot of anecdotal evidence about carmakers using these defeat devices. All credit to the EPA for investigating and finding the truth.”

The EPA was handed the evidence on a silver platter. They did NOT act on the anecdotal evidence that's been in the wind. Why hadn't CARB or the EPA did an on the road test before? Those agencies are decades old and it never occurred to them to do such a study. Well, that certainly is a testament to a bureaucracy.

Am I glad they "caught" the cheating. Sure. I certainly don't like the subversive way it was done.

I am actually shocked CARB hadn't ran a similar test decades ago.

 

...
The EPA was handed the evidence on a silver platter. They did NOT act on the anecdotal evidence that's been in the wind. Why hadn't CARB or the EPA did an on the road test before? Those agencies are decades old and it never occurred to them to do such a study. Well, that certainly is a testament to a bureaucracy.

Am I glad they "caught" the cheating. Sure. I certainly don't like the subversive way it was done.

I am actually shocked CARB hadn't ran a similar test decades ago.

The EPA and CARP considered VW their golden boy on 'clean diesel' due to a past reputation of superior engineering until this incident. If VW was tricked into telling the truth by subversive means (IMO, they were not) I don't care because they gave a black-eye to all honest engineering by using every subversive technique possible to cheat out of pure greed for market share.

 

All fair haired children of organizations will screw the pooch at one point.

VW took full advantage of that status.

The government wrote the test to pass. They failed to take prevention methods to catch cheaters.

Not enforcing laws is where the government excels.

If they aren't going to enforce them, remove them from the books. That won't happen because each entity gets to choose what they are ignoring this week.

 

The government wrote the test to pass. They failed to take prevention methods to catch cheaters.

It would have been so easy to include a randomly issued, 1 in a 100, actual road test. Just knowing that they might be exposed to that would be sufficient to keep the cheaters from pursuing their cheats.

 

I think you all are missing the point. Any government (or other) regulation is made because there is some unfair advantage to be gained by breaking it. Hence someone will. Think: poaching, speeding, short weight, cheaper ingredients, fakes, short lifespan, crap, crap, crap, crap. All that education is not necessarily making things better now is it?

 

I think you all are missing the point. Any government (or other) regulation is made because there is some unfair advantage to be gained by breaking it. Hence someone will. Think: poaching, speeding, short weight, cheaper ingredients, fakes, short lifespan, crap, crap, crap, crap. All that education is not necessarily making things better now is it?

Yes, there was unfair advantage to be gained on the non-cheaters but that's not always true and in this case it's a USA environmentally based (why it was MADE) emissions standard that puts all car-makers at what some feel is an unfair disadvantage for questionable returns in environmental quality as the standards got stricter, that's counter to the automotive performance people were paying for. Cheating here was actually an advantage for pure car performance and provided good value to the owners.

 

Unfortunately, most researchers are not trained in how to do research.

I disageee. The problem with research is more with the audience than with the researcher. It is called RESEARCH because people are still SEARCHING and they are reporting it in RESEARCH Journals. The goal of a research journal should be to exchange Theories supported by DATA. There would be no reason for review or no opportunity for question and answer at scientific meetings if only iron clad scientific LAWs are presented.

Also, if you look at the research programs at good schools, the guys that get funded are the ones who publis early, have something to discuss, are accepting of criticism and use the tough questions to drive their research forward. They end up getting more publications because they are using the system correctly - as scientific correspondence. They end up getting more results and advancing science AND, therefore, more funding.

Stop bitching about "Quality" and write a letter (even an email) or publish a criticism or counter argument. If all The founding fathers of science sat on their theories until they had scientific laws, we'd still be reading our iPads by candlelight.

 

Believe it or not, I agree. The problem I have is them modifying the data to achieve the desired results.

I'll stop right here because politics enters quickly.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42876336

 

Believe it or not, I agree. The problem I have is them modifying the data to achieve the desired results.

I'll stop right here because politics enters quickly.

Science needs funding but money can't influence the science for it to be held true. It's a sad problem and because of money it becomes influenced with politics and business whether we like it or not.

 

New raids today including some engineer’s homes.
http://www.dw.com/en/german-prosecutors-raid-facilities-of-carmaker-audi/a-42464733

 

Paying consequences:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43995167

Former Volkswagen chief executive Martin Winterkorn has been charged by US prosecutors in Detroit over the diesel emissions scandal.

 

Paying consequences:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43995167

 

And now, Audi's on the cross-hairs:

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/08/investing/audi-diesel-emissions-investigation/index.html