Volkswagen Is Ordered to Recall Nearly 500k Vehicles Over Emissions Software(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Volkswagen Is Ordered to Recall Nearly 500k Vehicles Over Emissions Software
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/business/volkswagen-is-ordered-to-recall-nearly-500000-vehicles-over-emissions-software.html
323 comments
I research for the auto industry and this was very well known by the authorities. Fixed test cycles like the New European Driving Cycle https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Ne... were easy to detect, and easy to optimize against. That's why coming regulations introduce more realistic cycles like WLTC https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/WL... and real road tests, where particle emissions will be trapped and compared against the lab test, and only a certain % of deviation will be allowed (last time I looked they didn't decided this % yet).
When I last bought a VW (2008) I was concerned due to a clunking noise after first starting it up and driving a few miles; I called the VW service dept and they explained that there was a compressor which captured exhaust fumes and released them at a lower rate for the first few miles of each journey -- to help them meet EPA emissions standards. I was assured there was nothing to worry about.
While this is a different case, it struck me then that the emissions guidelines were being gamed by manufacturers. We're regularly reminded that barriers will be circumvented; what is the correct approach here? Like performance enhancing drugs in sports, too stiff of a fine and manufacturers are encouraged to find more subtle ways to beat the system, unenforced you leave a polluting industry to destroy our environment..
While this is a different case, it struck me then that the emissions guidelines were being gamed by manufacturers. We're regularly reminded that barriers will be circumvented; what is the correct approach here? Like performance enhancing drugs in sports, too stiff of a fine and manufacturers are encouraged to find more subtle ways to beat the system, unenforced you leave a polluting industry to destroy our environment..
The tech industry has been guilty of this in the past as well. Example: Nvidia and AMD drivers detected if you were running certain benchmarks or games, and would cheat by downgrading various rendering settings that had minimal effect visually.
Often this was a simple check to get the process's executable name; simply renaming the .exe would get you significantly different perf results.
Often this was a simple check to get the process's executable name; simply renaming the .exe would get you significantly different perf results.
This was a longstanding practice to make diesel engines more efficient while passing the official emissions test. There was a similar enforcement against Caterpillar and other truck makers in 1998:
http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/caterpillar-inc-diesel-engin...
And against Ford in 1998:
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents...
along with a clear ruling that defeat devices were illegal.
http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/caterpillar-inc-diesel-engin...
And against Ford in 1998:
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents...
along with a clear ruling that defeat devices were illegal.
I wonder if the primary control code should be open source. That's without respect to right to modify or reuse the code, just whether it should be mandatory that it be published. And it'd exclude things like user space apps and UI/UX stuff. But any of the code that controls or affects steering, acceleration, ignition, braking, and lighting, really seems like it's not OK to just consider it a black box, subject to DMCA, copyright, and trade secrets laws and thus risky (or flat out illegal) to reverse engineer and understand how it works. And right now a significant part of an automobile is a black box, and you do not fully own it.
It was supposed to be that patenting required you to fully disclose all the details of an invention. The idea was to not only make clear what you had a monopoly for, but so that others could learn from your invention and make something different that was better.
It was supposed to be that patenting required you to fully disclose all the details of an invention. The idea was to not only make clear what you had a monopoly for, but so that others could learn from your invention and make something different that was better.
This is actively malicious. There had better be criminal charges filed.
Anyone know if this "defeat device" would be a violation of the various Euro* regulations in Europe? It's been widely reported [1] that diesel cars emit more NOx than the specification allows, but so far no consequences. More than 50% of all cars sold in the EU are diesel fueled, and many countries are breaching the EU air quality limits. This causes an estimated 400,000 premature deaths each year [2]
[1] http://www.theicct.org/news/press-release-new-icct-study-sho... [2] http://www.euractiv.com/sections/health-consumers/eu-sends-b...
[1] http://www.theicct.org/news/press-release-new-icct-study-sho... [2] http://www.euractiv.com/sections/health-consumers/eu-sends-b...
What actually incentivizes a customer to take their car to a shop to get this fixed though? It's not causing harm to individual car owners, and it's not like they can get collections agencies to sieze them.
Seems like they're going to have trouble getting compliance here...
Seems like they're going to have trouble getting compliance here...
I don't understand how California detected this. The one time I had to take my 2010 Jetta turbo diesel for a smog check, the inspection was ENTIRELY visual. The inspector did not insert a probe into the tailpipe. He did plug the test rig into the OBD-II port under the steering column and turn the key to the accessory position (presumably to electronically capture the VIN), but that's it. I even asked him at the end if it was an entirely visual inspection and he said, puzzled, yes but that's what the computer told him to do.
They even made commercials to prove how clean the cars are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNS2nvkjARk
I own a TDI VW and fell into believing that the ride is indeed clean. Now it looks like their software hacks are even more refined than the combustion tech.
If the ultimate and only resolution to this is that VW has to pay a fine, or other outgoing monies due to the recalls, in an amount that is not significant to the operation of their business, nobody should be surprised that this happened, nor question whether it can happen again.
I don't quite understand how the car can known it's getting an emissions test. I thought you just pulled up and revved the engine. Or do they plug the computer in nowadays?
The NYT is being disingenuous in presenting this as VW detecting the EPA test cycle and doing something to cheat. I think they've confused open loop and closed loop engine operation.
VW's 4-cylinder engines which failed the EPA tests are all turbo engines. Turbo engines run hotter than naturally aspirated engines and so, they produce more NOx, since it's one of the high temperature byproducts. In fact, EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) systems inject exhaust into the intake to lower combustion temperatures and NOx output. All engines do this, turbo or not.
Whatever NOx makes it out of the engine can be catalyzed in the catalytic converter if there is enough O2 for the catalyst. All the engine's intake air and temperature sensors, and pre-cat and post-cat O2 sensors exist to balance the gases coming into the catalytic converter to optimize the catalytic reaction.
When the engine is using all of these sensors to fine tune the amount of air, fuel and EGR to maximize catalyst efficiency, it's running in something called "closed loop" mode. The sensors and inputs work in a closed loop to balance the system. This is what happens when you're cruising on the highway or driving around at relatively fixed throttle.
Give the car a lot of gas, and something else happens. All of a sudden, a LOT more air enters the engine. The sensors can't change reading fast enough (mass air flow sensor, for example) or their readings are now out of the sensor's useful sensitivity band (for O2). The engine code knows that sensor capabilities have been exceeded, and it goes into "open loop" mode. In this mode, rather than using sensor readings, the engine reverts to pre-programmed maps, usually indexed by RPM, throttle position, engine load, and boost level. These maps are designed for relatively clean combustion and engine safety, but they will not generate optimal catalyst input gases, and so, the catalyst efficiency drops off tremendously. Furthermore, performance cars will often burn rich (too much gas for amount of air) in order to prevent engine destroying pre-detonation.
Most of the EPA test cycle will happen in closed loop mode. Most high throttle acceleration or "fun" driving will happen in open loop mode. There's the source of the discrepancy between EPA test cycle and real world driving. VW got caught, but every car does this, as we don't have wide-band, high-rate sensors yet at a price point even close to where it would need to be for consumer cars.
(Next time you see someone racing off from a stop light, in pretty much any car, watch the exhaust pipe, you'll see dark smoke. I guarantee you they're running rich in open loop mode).
VW's 4-cylinder engines which failed the EPA tests are all turbo engines. Turbo engines run hotter than naturally aspirated engines and so, they produce more NOx, since it's one of the high temperature byproducts. In fact, EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) systems inject exhaust into the intake to lower combustion temperatures and NOx output. All engines do this, turbo or not.
Whatever NOx makes it out of the engine can be catalyzed in the catalytic converter if there is enough O2 for the catalyst. All the engine's intake air and temperature sensors, and pre-cat and post-cat O2 sensors exist to balance the gases coming into the catalytic converter to optimize the catalytic reaction.
When the engine is using all of these sensors to fine tune the amount of air, fuel and EGR to maximize catalyst efficiency, it's running in something called "closed loop" mode. The sensors and inputs work in a closed loop to balance the system. This is what happens when you're cruising on the highway or driving around at relatively fixed throttle.
Give the car a lot of gas, and something else happens. All of a sudden, a LOT more air enters the engine. The sensors can't change reading fast enough (mass air flow sensor, for example) or their readings are now out of the sensor's useful sensitivity band (for O2). The engine code knows that sensor capabilities have been exceeded, and it goes into "open loop" mode. In this mode, rather than using sensor readings, the engine reverts to pre-programmed maps, usually indexed by RPM, throttle position, engine load, and boost level. These maps are designed for relatively clean combustion and engine safety, but they will not generate optimal catalyst input gases, and so, the catalyst efficiency drops off tremendously. Furthermore, performance cars will often burn rich (too much gas for amount of air) in order to prevent engine destroying pre-detonation.
Most of the EPA test cycle will happen in closed loop mode. Most high throttle acceleration or "fun" driving will happen in open loop mode. There's the source of the discrepancy between EPA test cycle and real world driving. VW got caught, but every car does this, as we don't have wide-band, high-rate sensors yet at a price point even close to where it would need to be for consumer cars.
(Next time you see someone racing off from a stop light, in pretty much any car, watch the exhaust pipe, you'll see dark smoke. I guarantee you they're running rich in open loop mode).
How would this benefit Volkswagen? The article says the device activates emissions control systems when it detects the car is being tested... so it's not as if they're saving money by emulating a system they're not manufacturing.
I guess this is the automaker equivalent to a CPU detecting its running benchmark code.
> The software was designed to conceal the cars’ emissions of the pollutant nitrogen oxide, which contributes to the creation of ozone and smog.
Is this an error in the article or is creating ozone a bad thing?
Is this an error in the article or is creating ozone a bad thing?
I have an Audi TDI, but luckily not one of the affected models. I would be furious, especially if post-update performance was noticeably different. If so they are going to be up to their eye balls in class action suits demanding buybacks and the like (not unprecedented, Dodge just did a buyback).
I drive a mazda, and my car definitely runs rich (visible buildup on tailpipe, the exhaust smells like gasoline when the engine is cold), but it just passed its first emissions test (at 6 years old) showing no detectable gasoline. I wonder if there's some gaming going on there too.
Many of the comments in this thread follow a similar pattern. They are all essentially derivatives of Goodhart's law. [0]
>> Once a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
It's quite useful to have a name - a label - for this sort of behaviour. In this case, the means by which VW optimised for this metric was crafty computer software! A metric is only as good as the cost of the unintended consequences that come with imposing it on people, in particular large corporations.
I am not surprised that this is done by many corporations as mentioned elsewhere in the comments (ATI/Nvidia etc). This is because regulations and benchmarks that can be gamed, such as engine efficiency, will be gamed because the incentives of corporations work out that way:
(I hope this isn't perceived as an anti-corporate rant because it's not. Just a way of framing facts).
For regulations imposed on large corporations in general (think EPA admissions standards):
1) Regulations are mandated by a government to effect some purpose (stop destroying Earth)
2) Executives - the people running the corporations - are bound by legal responsibility - their fiduciary duty [1] - to create value for their shareholders (selling lots of cars, and profitably).
3) Regulations can obstruct the activities of a corporation by making them do things they don't want to (making efficient cars is hard and costly and affects the bottom line - its cheaper to manufacture a car with less platinum [2] in it)
4) Companies are incentivized to minimize the time and money spent on adhering to regulations
5) Once a regulation is standardised and codified, it becomes possible to follow the letter of it, while ignoring the spirit of it. All a corporation has to do is meet the metrics in the specification to abide by the regulation - in other words - game the system.
Given these incentives, we have seen that corporations prefer to abide by regulations in the maximally efficient way: gaming them. Thus reducing a well-meaning government initiative to gamesmanship.
Kudos to the EPA for calling VW out on this. This kind of incident reinforces (in me at least) the idea that environmental legislation is an extraordinarily difficult thing to get right.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty
[2] Catalytic convertors
>> Once a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
It's quite useful to have a name - a label - for this sort of behaviour. In this case, the means by which VW optimised for this metric was crafty computer software! A metric is only as good as the cost of the unintended consequences that come with imposing it on people, in particular large corporations.
I am not surprised that this is done by many corporations as mentioned elsewhere in the comments (ATI/Nvidia etc). This is because regulations and benchmarks that can be gamed, such as engine efficiency, will be gamed because the incentives of corporations work out that way:
(I hope this isn't perceived as an anti-corporate rant because it's not. Just a way of framing facts).
For regulations imposed on large corporations in general (think EPA admissions standards):
1) Regulations are mandated by a government to effect some purpose (stop destroying Earth)
2) Executives - the people running the corporations - are bound by legal responsibility - their fiduciary duty [1] - to create value for their shareholders (selling lots of cars, and profitably).
3) Regulations can obstruct the activities of a corporation by making them do things they don't want to (making efficient cars is hard and costly and affects the bottom line - its cheaper to manufacture a car with less platinum [2] in it)
4) Companies are incentivized to minimize the time and money spent on adhering to regulations
5) Once a regulation is standardised and codified, it becomes possible to follow the letter of it, while ignoring the spirit of it. All a corporation has to do is meet the metrics in the specification to abide by the regulation - in other words - game the system.
Given these incentives, we have seen that corporations prefer to abide by regulations in the maximally efficient way: gaming them. Thus reducing a well-meaning government initiative to gamesmanship.
Kudos to the EPA for calling VW out on this. This kind of incident reinforces (in me at least) the idea that environmental legislation is an extraordinarily difficult thing to get right.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty
[2] Catalytic convertors
Seems very UnGerman to patch over a flaw instead of rooting out the problem from the ground level and engineering a solution. I'm just saying deceitfully patching over the problem seems uncharacteristic of the cultural norm/stereotype that I know.
How anybody at VW would think it's a good idea? Sure, it's a clever trick, but when they get caught - and it's assured they will - they'd probably get it pretty hard. I mean, Toyota got hit for $1.2 bln for problems that were mostly imaginary[1], how much this would cost?
[1] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/justice-departme...
[1] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/justice-departme...
If these controllers were open source, drivers could decide on their engine settings themselves. That could be an interestimg strategy for VW as it would move responsibility to the drivers.
There is also quite some lies "optimism" in the EU regarding stated mpg L/100km from the manufacturer and real world measured mpg.
Is it the same software that the car companies use during EU drive cycle tests vs real world production cars? If you were a cheating manufacturer you would tune your car lean for the tests and more sporty with slightly higher consumption for the real world production run.
Is it the same software that the car companies use during EU drive cycle tests vs real world production cars? If you were a cheating manufacturer you would tune your car lean for the tests and more sporty with slightly higher consumption for the real world production run.
That's okay. They just need to grow the wheelbase a bit and reclassify all their cars as "light trucks". Problem solved.
I'm wondering how this is going to be implemented.. it doesn't seem like a thing that's really fixable here.
This is interesting. VW has already been performing a nationwide ECU reflash on all MkIV TDI cars this year. Was that part of this action, or was it the cause of this action?
Given the low cost and ubiquity of sensors nowadays, you'd think it would be feasible to require car makers to test emissions in real time, in the real world.
[deleted]
2009-2015, I'm surprised it's only 1/2 million vehicles.
I'm keeping my old Mercedes diesels with no computers at all.