|
That does sound fairly blatant. I think VW really needs to be pulled up on the figures they quote here. I've never seen even close to what the smaller TSI models should be capable of even under pretty much ideal real world conditions.
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:50 |
|
|
That may just be because the driving cycles they use to determine that is not very realistic, compared to actual driving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
A lot of European car makers have been gaming the system for the last few years (tuning their cars to perform well in the tests, but not so great in reality). There was talk about the EU doing something, but I don't imagine they've got around to it yet. There an article about it from the US perspective here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
The test cycles are mandated, and must be consistent in order to give meaningful compairson between cars. If you create a test like that, manufacturers will optimise to beat it, even at the expence of real-world MPG. I don't have a problem with that, really, it's the fuel economy version of "the race starts when the rule book's printed". As I understand it, at least in the EU, they're the only figures a manufacturer is allowed to publish anyway. I don't think it's fair to expect a manufacturer to deliberately do worse than they are capable of in the test in order to give better real-world economy, as while word would get around, that's a gamble. Now, if you do a deal with customers, and say "we can use the on-board diagnostics to check how you drive at a service, and if you've been driving in such a way as to get this little green 'eco' light on the dash lit 90% of the time (or whatever), then we guarantee you will see at least X mpg in mixed driving", maybe something could happen, but that's a lot of effort and a big gamble. They have a similar test cycle for electric cars, and what's interesting is several manufacturers actually do say "look, the test cycles says this range, but you'll never achieve that, and in reality you're looking at more like this", which shows a certain amount of common sense in not wanting a lot of pissed-off customers, because the difference really is appalling in many cases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
That Ford article says that they simply used the EPA's numbers for the Fusion hybrid, because it's the same drivetrain. Of course, that doesn't account for weight, aerodynamics, etc etc. No loving wonder the numbers are off the mark. I didn't know that manufacturers could even do that. "Welp, we've created this new 3-ton pickup, let's make a model that uses the drivetrain from the Fusion hybrid and say it gets 47mpg."
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
I bet the EPA is surprised they can do that too. American cars have always been about cheating. Just look at Nascar and their solid lead radios and helmets that would be left in the car to make weight... American automakers have gone beyond being bastards about cheating the system and have become outright sublime at it. It's quite impressive, and people should take notes. Edit: VVV Yes, I'm aware the Europeans et;al. are quite adept at creative rules interpretation as well. SocketSeven fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
If you think cheating is confined to American motorsport then you're sorely, sorely mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
It's not cheating, it's optimising performance within the enforcement of the regulations. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Rule spergin' just makes sneaker cheats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
If you ain't cheating you ain't winning
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
It's all fun and games until you accidently drop 50 pounds of lead shot used to make tech weight, all over pit road.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
SocketSeven posted:It's all fun and games until you accidently drop 50 pounds of lead shot used to make tech weight, all over pit road. or somebody t-bones you, and all the fuel comes out of your roll cage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
It's ok, just use the fire exting... Oh, wait, yeah. Nitrous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:It's ok, just use the fire exting... Oh, wait, yeah. Nitrous. Those do a pretty good job of holding gasoline too, at least up to a few hundred psi. Then they make a really nice BLEVE. BLEVE = Big Loud Explosion, Very Exciting (or Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
SocketSeven posted:It's all fun and games until you accidently drop 50 pounds of lead shot used to make tech weight, all over pit road. Was that F1 where that happened? Either way, hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Was that F1 where that happened? Either way, hilarious. Nah, Some NASCAR event. F1 cars get weighed after the race.  I forget the method of storage, but they had loaded a bunch of lead shot in the car to make it meet tech weight. Something happened and the weight was dropped all over pit lane, instead of on the track where nobody would notice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
I thought that's what happened: they were racing light, then trying to dump lead in the tank at the last fuelup to make weight during post inspection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
NASCAR vehicles are weighed at the starts of races I think. I imagine these days they weigh the cars at the end too. As I had understood it, that teams would lighten the cars to the point where they wouldn't pass tech, then leave a lead radio or helmet in the seat to make it meet the minimum weight. Once tech inspections noticed the lead radios and helmets, teams had to find some other place to put their weight, and some sneaky method to get rid of it. Where they put it is up for debate I suppose, but they chose to dump it on the ground to get rid of it, and got caught when their trap door to drop the stuff opened on pit lane, pelting pit crews with buckshot. Edit: Some  later, I found this. Darrell Waltrip's team would fill frame rails with BBs or buckshot, then when on the track, he'd pull a little wire that would open a trap door in the frame rail, and the BBs would spill out on the back straight. But once, a crewman washed the car and got the BBs wet. They all stuck together, and didn't escape until Waltrip was speeding down pit lane. As the BBs pelted crew members from other teams, as well as NASCAR officials, it did not take long for inspectors to close that loophole. SocketSeven fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
SocketSeven posted:American automakers have gone beyond being bastards about cheating the system and have become outright sublime at it. It's quite impressive, and people should take notes. This is a pretty ridiculous generalization. This has happened to Ford twice now, not the others. And let's not forget Hyundai had this sort of thing happen as well, so it's not just us American bastards. It's a standard test that you design to since that's how your cars are rated. It may not be the best real world representation but like others already said it's what you're going to be compared against other cars with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:So I guess now is a good time since the spotlight is on GM, but Ford has just announced that the fuel economy ratings on half their cars are basically pulled out of their rear end. I highly doubt that applies to the Fiesta ST, but I get around 24mpg combined, with 32 on extended highway trips without touching boost. Not quite the 26/35/29 advertised.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Eh, it's just Ford being Ford, like when the HEMI came out, so they just submitted Mustangs with insane cams/heads/fueling to car magazines so the test cars made like 50% more power than stock. There was a memorable quote from some journalist along the lines of "yeah, when it was sitting there idling like a top fuel dragster we kinda figured something was up, but just ignored it." y'know, in the good old days when comapnies lied about horsepower instead of fuel economy*  *by "fuel economy" I mean empeagee's
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Elviscat posted:Eh, it's just Ford being Ford, like when the HEMI came out, so they just submitted Mustangs with insane cams/heads/fueling to car magazines so the test cars made like 50% more power than stock. There was a memorable quote from some journalist along the lines of "yeah, when it was sitting there idling like a top fuel dragster we kinda figured something was up, but just ignored it." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUZnoSu1NMY Just listen to that new fangled fuel saving ECU. It turns off extra cylinders.  Fake edit: I have no idea who's car that is, it was just the first one with the right noise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
How about the early days of Diesel electronics, where each and every ECU from a couple manufacturers was programmed to recognize when it was in an emissions test (since EPA testing took random production engines off the line), and scaled fuel delivery and timing to deliver a better-than-normal result (but poorer engine performance)? I can't remember the specifics or who exactly was involved but I heard the story from a fairly reliable source. I'll try and find an actual news story on it or something. Also that insane TTE WRC Celica restrictor bypass trapdoor thing was probably the best automotive cheat of all time. Oh, and here's what nominal synchro sleeve wear looks like on a fairly high-mileage RT-8908LL:  But here's 4th on that very same box:  If ya can't find 'em, grind 'em. Not the most spectacular failure I've seen (last week I removed a diff from its housing with a shovel, first diff I've seen that was so thoroughly destroyed they didn't get their core charge back) but I almost never have my phone in the shop so the opportunity for carnage shots are rare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Tommychu posted:
 Max Mosley explained: "When the system was dismantled, the flange would automatically close itself and remove evidence that extra air could have entered engine. This system not only allowed extra air which did not pass through the restrictor to enter the engine, but also the restrictor itself could illegally be moved further from the turbo. "The hose was fixed to the restrictor by a jubilee clip. A special tool was then applied to open the device and then the device then gripped in the open position by a second clip. Both of these clips had to be undone for a scrutineer to check the restrictor and in the process of opening those clips the device snapped shut. "Inside it was beautifully made. The springs inside the hose had been polished and machined so not to impede the air which passed through. To force the springs open without the special tool would require substantial force. It is the most sophisticated and ingenious device either I or the FIA's technical experts have seen for a long-time. It was so well made that there was no gap apparent to suggest there was any means of opening it."
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
I'm reading that but not understanding it. Some clarification for an idiot please?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
That red bit is a restrictor that controls how much air can be pulled into the engine (you can see the turbo on the right) On the top, is how it looked whenever inspectors looked at it. On the bottom, is how it looked whenever they were using it. After putting the whole unit in place, they would use a special tool to pull the restrictor forward 5mm in it's housing, allowing extra air into the engine by the path shown on the bottom. The restrictor was held in place by the clamps (Jubilee clips) that hold the intake hose in place, so taking the thing apart to inspect it caused the plate to snap closed again, and look completely normal. The place where this moving restrictor plate met the housing (on the right hand side of the diagram again.) was so finely machined, that when you looked at it while closed, it appeared to be a solid piece of metal. SocketSeven fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Jun 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
SocketSeven posted:
How did they get caught, though?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 12:06
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:How did they get caught, though? Officials just noticed the car was accelerating quicker than the rest by a large enough margin to raise suspicion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
That is loving brilliant. It makes Yunick's basketball in the gas tank cheat look amateurish.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:That is loving brilliant. It makes Yunick's basketball in the gas tank cheat look amateurish. It makes anything NASCAR did to cheat look like a joke. This was REALLY well thought out... CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Jun 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
SocketSeven posted:fixed to the restrictor by a jubilee clip. Just googled jubilee clip, and my ignorant North American brain is once again confused by British automotive nomenclature. A hose clamp isn't really deserving of the term 'clip', and the preceding 'Jubilee' makes even less sense. The hell?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Still better than "jesus clips" AKA oetiker clamps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Whoever came up with that shouldn't ever have a problem landing a job, that is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Tommychu posted:Just googled jubilee clip, and my ignorant North American brain is once again confused by British automotive nomenclature. A hose clamp isn't really deserving of the term 'clip', and the preceding 'Jubilee' makes even less sense. The hell?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Ika posted:Whoever came up with that shouldn't ever have a problem landing a job, that is amazing. Driver is probably unemployed though, lacking any kind of restraint coming out of corners.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
kastein posted:Still better than "jesus clips" AKA oetiker clamps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:That is loving brilliant. It makes Yunick's basketball in the gas tank cheat look amateurish. The thing about Yunick is his style though. After tech inspection found 9 things wrong with his car before it raced, they came up to Yunick and told him of the problems he'd have to fix while they suspiciously examined his gas tank, having removed it from the car. Yunick said "better make it 10" Hopped in his car started it up with no fuel tank in it, and drove back to his garage in the pits, because he had 5 gallons of gas in an 11 meter, 2 inch diameter fuel line. Then he shoved the basketball in the tank to get his extra gas in anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Yunick had no shame when it came to winning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
How did the basketball thing work?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:50 |
|
|
He inflated the basketball while officials checked the tank's capacity by filling it, then deflated it for the race to increase the capacity.SocketSeven posted:Yunick said "better make it 10" Hopped in his car started it up with no fuel tank in it, and drove back to his garage in the pits, because he had 5 gallons of gas in an 11 11 meters would be a long-rear end fuel line indeed, even beyond what he was known for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 22:39
|
|