This is something Blatter took an age to realise, and probably still doesn't. This is the honourable thing to do, even though the person resigning probably didn't know it was going on.
The way of big business. He knew nothing about it, accepts full responsibility and resigns. It's nothing more than a token gesture which will have no effect on anything.
There'll be many people sweating over the outcome of this. The car industry will be readying itself for far more revelations and their implications. The criminal implications are, I would think, being assessed by all car manufacturers and the wider automotive industry. Scapegoats will be prepared, this is not an overnight revelation, there will be many consequences, some of them will be jobs. Is the test a nonsense? No, but it is poorly constructed and conducted; it should also be considered to be no more that one part of a broader control.
In the context of replicating real world driving, I'd say it is. The vehicles are not in the same state of construction as they will be when driven on the road, and it is physically impossible for a human to match the drive cycle that the computer puts the engine through.
It's a gauge point, a place to set an electro/mechanical standard; similar to the MOT, as both can and will deteriorate (with use) from the test point. Like I said, I think it is not as robust as it could or should be, but it does serve a purpose if done correctly. The vehicles will be deteriorating from the start, they are prone to do that, it is the nature of the machine. Inserting a human driver would only serve to inject inconsistency of procedure and results. The test does need improving, it does serve a purpose and it must be conducted with integrity, which has been the problem. When clever people decide to be dishonest they become stupid people and these folk have been very stupid.
I can see what you're saying, but the variables between manufacturers and even between models mean that the results are difficult to compare to each other, which I would say is needed for a standard.
No, sometimes the world just has to accept that climate change is an unfortunate by product of spicy prawns, and I won't give them up.
It is a standard, but only inasmuch as it sets a measure against a certain range of engine and, if done correctly, gives a datum by which it can be labelled. The aim, as far as I understand it, is not to offer a mechanism for sales one-up-manship, but to indicate the pollutant level of the vehicle at the point of purchase (New). I think it might also be intended to be a mechanism for governments to impose taxation penalties, but maybe this is coincidental.
All true, that's what it is expected to do, but the people who use the figures are critical of the tests for the reasons I mention. It creates a number of problems for those tasked with determining the impact as just one example.
Good point, well made. Just had a yinjibar takeaway (they're on just eat now) and had the salt and pepper squid. Superb they were. I'll be staggering into the en suite to give it a good pebble dashing come the morn.
It will be interesting to see what happens, the tests are hugely flawed anyway as they aren't conducted under general driving conditions which could impact on the emissions test outcome. I wonder how many other manufacturers are currently bricking it? I doubt this practice will be exclusive to VW as a company, I expect it will be widespread.
This is my point, the tests as conceived and intended, are not hugely flawed; they deliberately remove the imperfection and inconsistency of the human element. As long as the test is conducted within intelligent parameters (I have said these need addressing, but so many experience this) and the test standards are imposed with integrity, then we have a useful tool until something better evolves. I think the dishonesty this expose has highlighted is part of modern business culture that leaves some folk morally indignant and others morally lazy. I mentioned job losses, as these are a real danger to this country. We have a successful manufacturing base which will suffer a crisis of confidence; I think that a bit of digging would show that car manufacturing was a significant element in our better than expected move through the last, most recent recession. The 1992 recession was a different matter, the car industry suffered and took many years to recover. Another concern is the litigious society we live in. There is a culture, an infrastructure geared up to take this failure up against the car franchises - those innocents (sic) who the Sale of Goods Act will hold responsible for mis-selling. These franchises, although big (some of them), will not weather a storm of aggressive litigation in our claim society. This senseless act of dishonesty could kill some of our best businesses and lose many undeserving folk their livelihoods. This act of stupidity should be prosecuted to the absolute limit, no one, in any industry, should be left in any doubt that they will pay a very severe price if they think us all fools. It is not the intent of the test that is a nonsense, but the credibility and integrity afforded it.
The more I hear about this the more bullshit I think it is. Who gives a ****? Who buys a car to it down on their carbon footprint? No one. You buy a car with performance and economy in mind. I find all the flapping seals squeeling outrage about this amusing. It's the same bandwagon turds that promised murder over that rubbish with the lion and then turned humanitarian about the refugees. All anyone gives a flying **** about is whether the result of this will cost them money or (after recall) affect the performance of their cars. Interesting the widespread coverage and outrage this recieved but those cheap ****s at General motors cutting corners and costing hundreds of lives with their ****ty ignition switches never got so much as a mention outside the motoring press.
I think VW will just be the tip of the iceberg, but here in the UK I'm sure they will be watching very closely as company car tax and the current road find licence are all paid based on emissions. These are taken from the manufacturer, so if the emissions have been understated for period X, how much of a revenue short fall will have been paid to the government? I think this will just run and run.
This is a fundamental flaw with linking taxes to emissions. It's bleedin' obvious the figures will be fiddled.
