In reply to pkingham:
You do know that the FTP is also tested at 20F, 50F, and at 5000 ft, right? Then there's the hot test with A/C on- the SC03, and the high speed/high load test- the US06. All of those have requirements, as laid out in the law. There's a whole lot more out there than the FTP75.
There may be a difference, but it's not nearly as significant as you seem to think. The worst emissions for most driver is the first 30 seconds of running, regardless of the situation. Most speeds/loads/conditions in the real world are somewhere on one of the cycles.
There are some allowances to not meet the rules- mostly at really high loads where component protection is required and at peak power- where it's assumed that the driver needs the power that they are asking for. Both mostly are short transient.
GameboyRMH wrote:
bastomatic wrote:
I've been thinking that a lot of the way some feel about VW's cheat has to do with politics. There's plenty out there who don't care about pollution, who think it's pretty cool VW tried something like this.
They should spend a day in a big Chinese city and then re-evaluate their positions...
And know that the Chinese are accelerating their emission laws faster than anyone else in the world. They will quickly be the same as California, I suspect. (by quickly, I mean years, not months)
China does have rules, in spite of what most people think. And your point is why.
In reply to alfadriver:
Yeah, I'm aware that the various cycles are run at some different conditions, but they still represent a relatively small area of the operating envelope of the powertrain. And away from those operating conditions, driveability is typically a higher priority for the calibration engineer than emissions is.
In Europe, they are trying to figure out what multiplier to put on the normal test limits to set 'real world driving' limits. So far, they are talking about numbers under 2, but that is also an average over some time like 15 or 30 seconds. When reporters talk about exceeding NOx limits by 5 or 10 times, I think they are taking instantaneous spike max values, which is also very different from how the FTP emissions measurements are made.
I'm just trying to point out that the only legally relevant numbers are as measured on the standard cycles using all the proper instrumentation and methodologies, and any legal car can be made to produce significantly higher numbers if that is the goal. But it's not obvious to most that we are then talking apples and pomegranates.
novaderrik wrote:
not being sarcastic at all.. rules said "this is how we will test it. you must pass this test".. they built vehicles that passed the tests.
That statement, attitude, and mentality right there is why VW is about to loose billions of dollars. No one ever said, "you must pass this test." They said "your vehicle must never exceed these levels."
The method of verification is later listed but fines, jail time ect. is going to be based on the fact they intentionally released a vehicle that failed, and then tried to cover it up.
And for the record, the Tier 3 and the up coming Tier 4f ratings, there are no transient exceptions and I did not see a light duty Tier 2 exception in the law either.
pkingham wrote:
In reply to alfadriver:
Yeah, I'm aware that the various cycles are run at some different conditions, but they still represent a relatively small area of the operating envelope of the powertrain. And away from those operating conditions, driveability is typically a higher priority for the calibration engineer than emissions is.
No, I don't agree- the tests cover a pretty wide swath- the US06 accelerates quite hard- and has allowances for cars that can't keep up with the trace- and the top speed is 80mph. The speed ranges that are covered in it mesh quite well with the speed ranges in the highway part- to the point that you would not run that much different.
Plus, the accelerations are hard enough to have many cars get into component protection- so the car runs rich on the cycle. And they still can pass.
As for driveability- a good emissions calibrator has the same goals as the driveabilty calibrator- really good air/fuel control, no oddities from spark, nothing. The only time where there's an honest issue with it is the first 30 odd seconds. If you can feel something- that usually means it's not good for emissions, too.
In Europe, they are trying to figure out what multiplier to put on the normal test limits to set 'real world driving' limits. So far, they are talking about numbers under 2, but that is also an average over some time like 15 or 30 seconds. When reporters talk about exceeding NOx limits by 5 or 10 times, I think they are taking instantaneous spike max values, which is also very different from how the FTP emissions measurements are made.
I'm just trying to point out that the only legally relevant numbers are as measured on the standard cycles using all the proper instrumentation and methodologies, and any legal car can be made to produce significantly higher numbers if that is the goal. But it's not obvious to most that we are then talking apples and pomegranates.
As I've posted many times, Europe is a totally different animal. The NEDC cycle is so far from reality PLUS there are encouragements to get the best fuel economy as possible- taking it farther from reality. The result of that is everyone will end up having off cycle emissions increases. Across the board. Well, some will get better- as they warm up faster.
As for your last comment- the EU is planning on a Random Drive Cycle- part of their overreaction to their current poor rules. Which means cars will be testes on road using remote devices on a random cycle. And the EPA has specific rules about off cycle emissions- they DO measure the cars on road using remote tools- so while there may not be specific rules, cars are required to not get worse. We went though that back in '97 for a defeat device that was alleged on a van.
In other words, just meeting the tests isn't enough. It has to be capable of not being worse in normal driving on road.
In reply to Coldsnap: Let him know that Honda, GM, and Toyota did cover-ups for safety issues recently.
In reply to alfadriver:
All good points. Yes Europe is screwed up in different ways, and you rightly point out that there are some additional ways vehicles get checked in the US.
What I'm most interested in is what is really legally required. The quotes from the CFR earlier in this thread basically said something like 'as certified by FTP testing' and there shall be no disabling of emission equipment. VW failed the second issue.
What about -40 degree cold starts? Towing a trailer? Crossing the continental divide? If fueling gets into equipment protection for minutes, not seconds, the vehicle will be spewing more emissions than the limits applied to the FTP tests, won't it? Does that make it illegal? I fully realize those are extreme cases, but I believe that the way the law is written, the vehicle is not obligated to meet FTP limits under all conditions. Your argument is that modern cars do a really good job even away from cycle operating conditions, and I fully believe that's true. Am I missing something about either the actual interpretation of the law (by the people developing cars to meet it, not the media), or in a car's real ability to meet FTP limits under ALL conditions?
By the way, I don't believe that the car OEMs are doing anything wrong here with the exception of VW. I am in fact worried that media and others with axes to grind will make non FTP measurements and then call the automakers evil when they aren't always under the FTP limit, and in my mind that would be unfair.
In reply to pkingham:
As I've pointed out, extreme cases are allowed. They are both extreme and rare, plus quite transient. A -40 start will be bad for 5-10 min, then it will be fine. Or more appropriately, a 0 start will be bad for 2 or so min- and all of that is factored into the rules and the air prediction models. The trailer tower is a pretty rare thing (when put into the context of the entire fleet).
In MOST of the US, as in I would bet well over 95% or more, the driving is within the testing spectrum.
One would really need a pretty aggressive ax to go after the extremes of off cycle emissions.
The EU- you can see the off cycle ax grinding going on. And it's going to come to all OEM's. But that's how the rule is written, and that's how the bias toward CO2 was implemented. The EU governing body will have to deal with that- when ALL OEM's are seen to be grossly exceeding off cycle, then the rule will have to be looked at. Especially when all but a handful of those OEM's have products selling in the US.
