EPTAnd for those feeling like VW got intentionally screwed, they own 60% of diesel cars sold in USA. If you want to check diesel cars, you start from them.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 299
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
arbiter_md
Moldova1219 Posts
And for those feeling like VW got intentionally screwed, they own 60% of diesel cars sold in USA. If you want to check diesel cars, you start from them. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11752 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And that has worked for a while. Until the politicians and voters get tired that they are forced to play by the rules, but others aren’t. So tired they are willing to take the hit and hold company like VW’s feet to the fire. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On September 21 2015 23:42 arbiter_md wrote: I doubt most car makers make something like this. I can understand bending some limits to pass those tests, and having the cars on the roads doing a little more pollution, but.. 10 to 40 times more polluting than the limit!! It's huge. The fine will be probably something close to 1bn (18 bn is the max penalty that law allows to ask and in most cases the real penalty is much lower), but I really hope the outcome will give a clear message to others. And for those feeling like VW got intentionally screwed, they own 60% of diesel cars sold in USA. If you want to check diesel cars, you start from them. I'm pretty sure most car makers try to do this in some way. Since their goal is to survive in a very competitive environment, of course you're going to do it. On September 21 2015 09:00 MoltkeWarding wrote: It is another way of saying the same thing: the people who shape your formative years before the rational mind asserts itself to select its own ideas are your parents, teachers and pastors. It is not that I, from the seculsion of my thoughts, coerce the Arab child into a destiny of debauchery and violence. If I had any influence, I would be operating from the last line of responsibility, not the first, and whatever influence I might have is mitigated by the higher importance of simply being able to form impressions, judgements and beliefs free from the duress of self-hypnosis and hypocrisy. 1) Teachers, pastors and parents also live in preexisting structures and are also determined by them. By the way, I'd like to know the age at which the "rational mind" is able to "asserts itself to select its own ideas" just to know. 18 years old ? 15 years old ? 10 years old ? 2) The impressions and judgement that you have are not "free", there is nothing natural in them, on the contrary they engage your own experience and your own identity (that are social construct). I recommend you Pierre Bourdieu's The Distinction, A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, that perfectly point out that even esthetic judgement - let alone moral judgements - are heavily related to the social origin (from an empirical standpoint). But maybe you already read this book at 7 years old. 3) Nobody is saying that you have any influence on anything (aside for my patience and goodwill), but that the society as a whole create conditions and act as structures that leads to certain behaviors. The existence of cultures does not contredict this at all - the "culture" of Harlem that Phillippe Bourgeois masterfully describe in In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio does lead to specific violent behavior but is both the results of the conditions and part of the structure that reproduce the conditions, much like the confucian inheritance for asian kids. You seem to believe that sociology is the end of history, while it's the exact opposite. Sociology is an historic discipline, or to quote Durkheim "the unconscious is the history". | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On September 22 2015 01:15 WhiteDog wrote: 1) Teachers, pastors and parents also leave in preexisting structures and are also determined by them. By the way, I'd like to know the age at which the "rational mind" is able to "asserts itself to select its own ideas" just to know. 18 years old ? 15 years old ? 10 years old ? 2) The impressions and judgement that you have are not "free", there is nothing natural in them, on the contrary they engage your own experience and your own identity (that are social construct). I recommend you Pierre Bourdieu's The Distinction, A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, that perfectly point out that even esthetic judgement - let alone moral judgements - are heavily related to the social origin (from an empirical standpoint). But maybe you already read this book at 7 years old. 3) Nobody is saying that you have any influence on anything (aside for my patience and goodwill), but that the society as a whole create conditions and act as structures that leads to certain behaviors. The existence of cultures does not contredict this at all - the "culture" of Harlem that Phillippe Bourgeois masterfully describe in In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio does lead to specific violent behavior but is both the results of the conditions and part of the structure that reproduce the conditions, much like the confucian inheritance for asian kids. You seem to believe that sociology is the end of history, while it's the exact opposite. Sociology is an historic discipline, or to quote Durkheim "the unconscious is history". He clearly does not understand (or is willingly ignoring) the agent-structure problematique studied in sociology and political science (sociological institutionalism and constructivism). I'd recommend Berger & Luckmann's The Social Construction of Reality, but I guess starting with a wikipedia article on the topic would be more indicated. On September 22 2015 01:43 Plansix wrote: I am shocked anyone responds to his posts. They are worded like a first year philosophy student got drunk and decided to post about what he learned today in class. I disagree, he is clearly more knowledgeable and articulate than pretty much any first year student. His posts simply tend to either lack any kind of actual substance beyond platitudes, or consist in positions that are easily refuted despite being draped in well-written sarcasm. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
I'd recommend Berger & Luckmann's The Social Construction of Reality, but I guess starting with a wikipedia article on the topic would be more indicated. Haha I love this book, especially the beautiful stories/metaphore, like the one about the lesbian, the bisexual and the heterosexual that create a mythology to divide the time passed with each other (doing some "gardening"  ).1966 or when sociology was love. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On September 21 2015 23:42 arbiter_md wrote: I doubt most car makers make something like this. I can understand bending some limits to pass those tests, and having the cars on the roads doing a little more pollution, but.. 10 to 40 times more polluting than the limit!! It's huge. The fine will be probably something close to 1bn (18 bn is the max penalty that law allows to ask and in most cases the real penalty is much lower), but I really hope the outcome will give a clear message to others. And for those feeling like VW got intentionally screwed, they own 60% of diesel cars sold in USA. If you want to check diesel cars, you start from them. You should read up on it then, apparently you'd be surprised. I'd recommend starting with your local tuning garage, if they're compentent, they'll point you to the "interesting" software in ECUs. On pretty much any car. Or you just look at MPG ratings and how they're achieved. Especially higher powered cars. The corvette is a nice example, which gets (legally) advertised with 32mpg. Now, the real life mpg is at roughly 13 (it's actually alot less if you drive it like it's supposed to, easy to find out if you live close to the Nordschleife). How's that possible? Easy. The car basically has an electronic switch which checks how "hard" you accelerate in first gear. If you go "too slow", you get locked out of second AND third gear. You jump from first to fourth gear. You tell me - is it a 32mpg car? I'd say, it's a manipulation to circumvent official testing routines - to prevent the car getting the gas guzzler tax. Car manufacturers (and no, there's not a single one out there that doesn't) cheat all. the. time. The question only is, what do you want to "expose", and when. And, well, for what reason. edit: especially funny if you consider that this "mechanic" is just a plug at the side of the transmission - you can just unplug it, and it stops working. Best part: you won't even get an engine-service light, which one would think. That plus the, let's say interesting stance of the US regarding MOTs/TÜV.. Well. Out of interest, because that's something i actually don't know, so honest interest: is there still no countrywide need for your car to be checked every one/two years? | ||
|
Mafe
Germany5966 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11752 Posts
So basically, VW set it up in a way that makes cars perform a lot better ONLY in tests, but not in actual use. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
| ||
|
mdb
Bulgaria4059 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10853 Posts
 . | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 22 2015 23:09 Velr wrote: Well... If it took them 6 years to notice this, it was probably not all dumb .The US government is going to try very very hard to prove that wrong. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 22 2015 21:13 Mafe wrote: I just heard in the news that VW has probably cheated since 2009. But now I wonder why this wasnt found out earlier. Here in germany, we need to have out car checked every 2 years. They actually check what is coming out of the car. According to wikipedia, the US have a comparable mandatory tests (unless i misunderstood that). Can anyone enlighten me here? Because surely if millions of VW-cars have actual values that differ a lot from what VW claims they should have, how can this go unnoticed? Or are the higher values still within the legal limits? The EU places a greater emphasis on CO2 emissions, whereas the EPA's emission standards are more balanced between CO2 and other pollutants and particulates. In this case, the main pollutants are nitrous oxides (NOx) which are not only a major contributor to ozone depletion, but are also directly toxic to humans. Cheating on NOx should be considered worse than cheating on CO2, for that reason and I think it's a lot worse than Hyundai lying on fuel economy. I think this is akin to GM choosing to ignore its fuel tank defect that contributed to the explosions. VW made the deliberate decision to gain performance at the cost of human health, and covered it up. According to the EPA, the real values are up to 40x the legal limit. It doesn't seem like it's going to affect other manufacturers. Most diesels have a system in placed, called a urea injection system, which essentially neutralizes the NOx. The cost of that is weight and performance, so VW chose to forgo it in its 2.0L engines (I believe its most used diesel engine.) The diesel market isn't that crowded and I believe the other top companies like BMW all use that system. VW just admitted this affects 11 million cars worldwide. CEO replaced and possibly facing criminal charges. This could be a back breaker. On September 22 2015 22:26 Incognoto wrote: Not quite performance, just pollution.. It's performance, pollution, health and fuel economy all tied together. They were cheating on pollution and health, but by fixing the issue the cars will probably lose performance or fuel economy or both. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 22 2015 23:09 Velr wrote: Well... If it took them 6 years to notice this, it was probably not all dumb .I know your comment is in jest but the EPA did a pretty good job in this case. The cheating was only caught through live drive testing and it was actually initially discovered by public university researchers (West Virginia University.) The EPA, like most regulatory agencies around the world, is fairly small and extremely underfunded, so there's no way they can perform that level of testing on all vehicles. I'm honestly a bit surprised how quickly they came out, from when the first university report came out. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22103 Posts
On September 23 2015 00:10 Jibba wrote: The EU places a greater emphasis on CO2 emissions, whereas the EPA's emission standards are more balanced between CO2 and other pollutants and particulates. In this case, the main pollutants are nitrous oxides (NOx) which are not only a major contributor to ozone depletion, but are also directly toxic to humans. Cheating on NOx should be considered worse than cheating on CO2, for that reason and I think it's a lot worse than Hyundai lying on fuel economy. I think this is akin to GM choosing to ignore its fuel tank defect that contributed to the explosions. VW made the deliberate decision to gain performance at the cost of human health, and covered it up. According to the EPA, the real values are up to 40x the legal limit. It doesn't seem like it's going to affect other manufacturers. Most diesels have a system in placed, called a urea injection system, which essentially neutralizes the NOx. The cost of that is weight and performance, so VW chose to forgo it in its 2.0L engines (I believe its most used diesel engine.) The diesel market isn't that crowded and I believe the other top companies like BMW all use that system. VW just admitted this affects 11 million cars worldwide. CEO replaced and possibly facing criminal charges. This could be a back breaker. It's performance, pollution, health and fuel economy all tied together. They were cheating on pollution and health, but by fixing the issue the cars will probably lose performance or fuel economy or both. I'm inclined to agree with you on the reasoning. Its one thing to lie to consumers about performance. Its another to lie about emissions, esp if it also concerns health risks. | ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
On September 23 2015 00:10 Jibba wrote: In this case, the main pollutants are nitrous oxides (NOx) which are not only a major contributor to ozone depletion, but are also directly toxic to humans. Cheating on NOx should be considered worse than cheating on CO2, for that reason and I think it's a lot worse than Hyundai lying on fuel economy. I concurred with you this far, but then you lost me. I think this is akin to GM choosing to ignore its fuel tank defect that contributed to the explosions. VW made the deliberate decision to gain performance at the cost of human health, and covered it up. It is not like the GM scandal, not even close. The GM stuff borders on negligent homicide.Only the most hardcore environment activist would characterize air pollution as criminal assault. And if we really take these high ecological standards than the US has quite a few bigger problems than mid-sized diesel cars. So, rules must be followed and cheating must be punished, no doubt, but don't exaggerate the issue. We are still talking about the land of SUVs, pickup trucks and 'rollin coal' here... | ||
| ||
