Quote
VW's Emissions Cheating Found by Curious Clean-Air Group
by Dana Hull and Jeff Plungis
September 20, 2015 — 1:37 AM CEST
Updated on September 20, 2015 — 4:18 PM CEST
It didn't add up.
The Volkswagens were spewing harmful exhaust when testers drove them on the road. In the lab, they were fine.
Discrepancies in the European tests on the diesel models of the VW Passat, the VW Jetta and the BMW X5 last year gave Peter Mock an idea.
Mock, European managing director of a little-known clean-air group, suggested replicating the tests in the U.S. The U.S. has higher emissions standards than the rest of the world and a history of enforcing them, so Mock and his American counterpart, John German, were sure the U.S. versions of the vehicles would pass the emissions tests, German said. That way, they reasoned, they could show Europeans it was possible for diesel cars to run clean.
"We had no cause for suspicion," German, U.S. co-lead of the International Council on Clean Transportation, said in an interview. "We thought the vehicles would be clean."
So began a series of events that resulted in Volkswagen AG admitting that it built "defeat device" software into a half-million of its diesel cars from 2009 to 2015 that automatically cheated on U.S. air-pollution tests. The world's second-biggest carmaker now faces billions in fines, possible jail time for its executives and the undoing of its U.S. expansion plans.
"I personally am deeply sorry that we have broken the trust of our customers and the public," Volkswagen Chief Executive Officer Martin Winterkorn said in a statement on Sunday. "We will do everything necessary in order to reverse the damage this has caused."
Gaming Emissions
The Wolfsburg, Germany-based company said it is cooperating with regulatory investigations and ordered its own external probe.
German and his group were actually trying to prove exactly what Volkswagen has been claiming for years: that diesel is clean. They asked West Virginia University for help. The school's Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines and Emissions had the right equipment -- a portable emission measurement system to stick in the car trunk, attached to a probe to shove up the exhaust pipe. German's group, funded mostly by foundations, didn't.
Testers drove the monitor-equipped diesels from San Diego to Seattle because if Volkswagen had gamed the emission test, they couldn't be sure how, German said. In another cheating case years ago, he said, long-haul trucks were equipped with devices that allowed the engines to gradually discharge more and more harmful nitrogen oxides the longer the vehicle cruised at the same speed. The more emissions, generally speaking, the greater the engine power. The 1,300-mile trip under varying conditions would expose any such scheme in the VWs, German said.
Meanwhile, the California Air Resources Board tested the vehicles in their laboratories and they passed.
Open Road
Then German received the results of the real-world tests.
"We were astounded when we saw the numbers," he said.
On the open road, the Jetta exceeded the U.S. nitrogen oxide emissions standard by 15 to 35 times. The Passat was 5 to 20 times the standard.
"It was shocking," German said.
The California watchdog and the U.S. Environment Protection Agency opened an investigation into Volkswagen in May 2014, according to letters published Friday. Talks between the parties went on for several months, with VW trying to replicate the West Virginia University results. The company said it had identified the reasons for the higher emissions and proposed a fix. That resulted in a recall of nearly 500,000 U.S. vehicles in December to implement a software patch.
The California agency continued to test VW cars after the recall began. It was concerned that real-world road tests couldn't confirm that the software patch was working. Sure enough, nitrogen oxide emissions were still in violation of California and U.S. laws. The agency shared those findings with Volkswagen and the EPA on July 8.
At the same time, regulators were considering whether to certify VW's 2016 models for sale -- a routine process for most automakers. Regulators said they wouldn't approve the cars unless the company resolved the questions about real-world tailpipe pollution. VW engineers continued to suggest technical reasons for the test results. None of the explanations satisfied regulators, who indicated the models wouldn't be certified.
"Only then did VW admit it had designed and installed a defeat device in these vehicles in the form of a sophisticated software algorithm that detected when a vehicle was undergoing emissions testing," the EPA said in its letter to VW Friday.
The VW investigation covers seven years' production of diesel cars, including the VW Jetta, Golf, Beetle and Passat and the Audi A3.
China, Europe Questions
"We have no idea if this is also going on in China and Europe but we definitely think the question should be asked, especially since the agencies in those places don't have the expertise and the legal authority that they have here in the U.S.," German said.
Volkswagen has struggled to gain a foothold in the U.S., the world's second-biggest car market, with a strategy built in part on touting the efficiency of fun-to-drive "clean diesel." Now those vehicles have been shown to be anything but.
Diesel versions of the Beetle, Golf, Jetta and Passat comprise more than a quarter of the brand's sales in the U.S. and are a vital part of the company's strategy for meeting tougher U.S. fuel-economy standards going into effect in coming years. More than other carmakers, VW has chosen to focus on diesel technology instead of electrics or hybrids.
Volkswagen is debuting a refresh of its Passat sedan Monday night in Brooklyn, New York. Herbert Diess, VW's brand chief, Michael Horn, who runs the brand in the U.S., and musician Lenny Kravitz are scheduled to attend.
**schadenfreunde** :menace:
L.
Wow, huge scandal. VW is fucked
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 21, 2015, 08:02:49 AM
VW is fucked
That's only 10% of their annual revenue(and they'll probably get out of paying the whole amount).
Wow, that's pretty brazen. My impression from reading automotive engineers is that regulatory testing is always a bit of a joke, with every manufacturer trying to game the system, which may explain why no one blew the whistle, but that is a whole other level of gaming. The reputation damage is going to be huge in addition to any massive fine they'll get.
No jail time means nothing will change.
I wonder what happens if VW *can't* raise its emissions standards on past models. Will they all be recalled?
Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2015, 08:29:00 AM
<snip> My impression from reading automotive engineers <snip>
hmm?
:huh:
Shouldn't more emissions make VWs more attractive to certain segments of the US market? :P
What else did they cheat on? Sounds like a full scale re-evaluation of every system in their cars.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 21, 2015, 08:35:58 AM
No jail time means nothing will change.
Not so sure about that. The damages will be many billions of dollars and their shares dropped about 20% as of the first report I heard this morning.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 21, 2015, 08:06:48 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 21, 2015, 08:02:49 AM
VW is fucked
That's only 10% of their annual revenue(and they'll probably get out of paying the whole amount).
The margins are rather thin in that business. That 10% of annual revenue translates to 200% of annual profits.
Ok. I still think the company will survive.
Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2015, 10:29:25 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2015, 10:13:40 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2015, 09:53:27 AM
Quote from: frunk on September 21, 2015, 09:47:56 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2015, 09:47:00 AM
:huh:
How do you read an automotive engineer?
Reading the posts they make on the Internet.
At least you are good at math.
Is there a joke I'm missing?
Yep
:lmfao:
I think about a year ago Joan asked me what I meant by "economic crimes" that deserved execution. Surely this qualifies.
Consider what they've done. They have contributed directly and deliberately to the poisoning of the Earth. They have brazenly defrauded the State. They have wasted hundreds of thousands of work-hours by building machines that ought never to have been built. The extraction and production processes for these illegal machines have contributed vast amounts of pollution to the environment. The criminals have done immense damage to their own company, endangering thousands of jobs and potentially damaging the global economy itself. 500,000 cars will need to be recalled, according to the BBC. Is this even a matter of removing the offending software? Must we outright junk 500,000 automobiles that cannot be brought to comply to the law? If so, that's the kind of ruinous waste of life and money that justifies the gravest punishment.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 21, 2015, 11:30:07 AM
I think about a year ago Joan asked me what I meant by "economic crimes" that deserved execution. Surely this qualifies.
Consider what they've done. They have contributed directly and deliberately to the poisoning of the Earth. They have brazenly defrauded the State. They have wasted hundreds of thousands of work-hours by building machines that ought never to have been built. The extraction and production processes for these illegal machines have contributed vast amounts of pollution to the environment. The criminals have done immense damage to their own company, endangering thousands of jobs and potentially damaging the global economy itself. 500,000 cars will need to be recalled, according to the BBC. Is this even a matter of removing the offending software. Must we outright 500,000 automobiles that cannot be brought to comply to the law? If so, that's the kind of ruinous waste of life and money that justifies the gravest punishment.
A slap on the wrist and they promise not to do it again seems fine to me.
Maybe they should move from diesel to atomic power.
Fixing the emission problem is easy, you just make the software do the cheat version all the time.
That will reduce performance & fuel economy but will comply with the law.
VW will survive, Diesel is in big trouble in America.
Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2015, 10:32:06 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 21, 2015, 08:06:48 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 21, 2015, 08:02:49 AM
VW is fucked
That's only 10% of their annual revenue(and they'll probably get out of paying the whole amount).
The margins are rather thin in that business. That 10% of annual revenue translates to 200% of annual profits.
According to wikipedia, their revenues in 2013 were 197b euro and in 2012 their profits were 21.8b euro.
General Motors negligently killed 200 people and got a 900 million dollar fine. I doubt they'll have to pay anywhere near the maximum amount. A few billion in fines will hurt them, but will not destroy the company. Their net liquidity at the end of the second quarter was more than 21 billion Euro.
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2015, 09:32:45 AM
I wonder what happens if VW *can't* raise its emissions standards on past models. Will they all be recalled?
Recalls are usually only made for safety issues, so this would be rather unusual.
And why would an owner go anyway? For worse performance and fuel consumption? To save the planet?
Quote from: Zanza on September 21, 2015, 12:32:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2015, 09:32:45 AM
I wonder what happens if VW *can't* raise its emissions standards on past models. Will they all be recalled?
Recalls are usually only made for safety issues, so this would be rather unusual.
According to the article, there was already a recall based on this issue, to implement a "software patch":
QuoteThe California watchdog and the U.S. Environment Protection Agency opened an investigation into Volkswagen in May 2014, according to letters published Friday. Talks between the parties went on for several months, with VW trying to replicate the West Virginia University results. The company said it had identified the reasons for the higher emissions and proposed a fix. That resulted in a recall of nearly 500,000 U.S. vehicles in December to implement a software patch.
My question is whether, if it proves no "patch" could fix the issue, the vehicles would be recalled. I have no idea.
QuoteAnd why would an owner go anyway? For worse performance and fuel consumption? To save the planet?
Presumably, the terms of the recall would favour the owners at the expense of the company.
Would send a strange message to let them drive around.
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2015, 12:44:10 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 21, 2015, 12:32:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2015, 09:32:45 AM
I wonder what happens if VW *can't* raise its emissions standards on past models. Will they all be recalled?
Recalls are usually only made for safety issues, so this would be rather unusual.
According to the article, there was already a recall based on this issue, to implement a "software patch":
QuoteThe California watchdog and the U.S. Environment Protection Agency opened an investigation into Volkswagen in May 2014, according to letters published Friday. Talks between the parties went on for several months, with VW trying to replicate the West Virginia University results. The company said it had identified the reasons for the higher emissions and proposed a fix. That resulted in a recall of nearly 500,000 U.S. vehicles in December to implement a software patch.
My question is whether, if it proves no "patch" could fix the issue, the vehicles would be recalled. I have no idea.
QuoteAnd why would an owner go anyway? For worse performance and fuel consumption? To save the planet?
Presumably, the terms of the recall would favour the owners at the expense of the company.
Flashing the software of a car is done easily and cheaply. If that's all it takes for the recall, Volkswagen won't care much about this particular bit of their obligations. However what's in it for the owners? A free software downgrade of your engine? Why should you want that? To make your car worse and less valuable? :huh:
I imagine that if you have a VW car in question, the next time you get your emissions tested, they would not pass your car unless you have the ECU flashed. Then again, not every state has emissions testing.
Quote from: Zanza on September 21, 2015, 12:54:22 PM
Flashing the software of a car is done easily and cheaply. If that's all it takes for the recall, Volkswagen won't care much about this particular bit of their obligations. However what's in it for the owners? A free software downgrade of your engine? Why should you want that? To make your car worse and less valuable? :huh:
Well, they actually did the software recall. Not sure how they sold it to the owners (or if it was coerced somehow by legislation), but obviously it happened. In Ontario at least, a car has to pass emissions testing every couple of years after it is seven years old or you can't get it licenced, so my guess is that the owners were coerced by the threat of having their car's licence suspended if they didn't comply.
http://www.ontario.ca/page/drive-clean-test#!/
My question was more about what would happen if software
couldn't fix the problem, because the cars are just inherently unable, without the "cheat", to pass emissions standards. My guess is that the regulator would force the company to buy the cars back from their owners, no doubt at ruinous expense for the company.
The article may have that fact wrong. I can find that VW did do a recall in December 2014, but it was only 38,000 cars - not 500,000 - and it was because of a fire risk.
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/12/31/vw-jetta-passat-golf-beetles-fuel-rail-leak-recall/
EDIT: There was another recall in October 2014, of 500,000 cars in the US, but it was because of suspension issues.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/volkswagen-recalling-nearly-500-000-beetles-jettas-in-u-s-1413556517
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2015, 01:09:47 PM
My question was more about what would happen if software couldn't fix the problem, because the cars are just inherently unable, without the "cheat", to pass emissions standards. My guess is that the regulator would force the company to buy the cars back from their owners, no doubt at ruinous expense for the company.
The whole point is that the software can fix the problem, but only at the expense of performance and fuel consumption. So the cars are able to fulfill the emissions standards, they just disabled the appropriate software during normal operations. So the regulator can force VW to flash the software so it does what it should do. And I am not even sure if the owners have much in the way of recourse against VW. For what? False advertisement? I am sure all official technical descriptions were according to the regulations.
Not sure about the emissions tests when you get your car checked. I mean that's the exact scenario the software was built to cheat, right? So I guess you would pass even with unflashed software. :P
Quote from: Zanza on September 21, 2015, 01:50:44 PM
Not sure about the emissions tests when you get your car checked. I mean that's the exact scenario the software was built to cheat, right? So I guess you would pass even with unflashed software. :P
Where I was going was that there could be a special checklist for the VW cars in question, to make sure that they complied with the recall.
Quote from: Zanza on September 21, 2015, 01:50:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2015, 01:09:47 PM
My question was more about what would happen if software couldn't fix the problem, because the cars are just inherently unable, without the "cheat", to pass emissions standards. My guess is that the regulator would force the company to buy the cars back from their owners, no doubt at ruinous expense for the company.
The whole point is that the software can fix the problem, but only at the expense of performance and fuel consumption. So the cars are able to fulfill the emissions standards, they just disabled the appropriate software during normal operations. So the regulator can force VW to flash the software so it does what it should do. And I am not even sure if the owners have much in the way of recourse against VW. For what? False advertisement? I am sure all official technical descriptions were according to the regulations.
Not sure about the emissions tests when you get your car checked. I mean that's the exact scenario the software was built to cheat, right? So I guess you would pass even with unflashed software. :P
I understand why tighter emissions controls would come at the expense of performance, but why of fuel consumption? As I understand it more emissions come from an incomplete combustion, which means you're consuming more fuel.
Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2015, 01:55:13 PM
Where I was going was that there could be a special checklist for the VW cars in question, to make sure that they complied with the recall.
The people doing the check won't have VW hardware to check the software version, so unless it's some kind of certificate you get, how are they going to check this?
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2015, 01:55:39 PM
I understand why tighter emissions controls would come at the expense of performance, but why of fuel consumption? As I understand it more emissions come from an incomplete combustion, which means you're consuming more fuel.
As far as I know, NOx is created when you burn the fuel at a higher temperature. You get more power out of the fuel then. To get a similar amount of power with less NOx, you need to burn more of it at a lower temperature. But that's just my amateur explanation. I am not an engineer. There are systems to reduce NOx produced by diesel engines, i.e. adding urea to catalyze the NOx into something less pollutive.
It will be interesting to see if any of the other car manufacturers cheated like this as well. It's pretty blatant, but let's see if any of the other companies did the same. I wouldn't be surprised.
Quote from: Zanza on September 21, 2015, 01:50:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2015, 01:09:47 PM
My question was more about what would happen if software couldn't fix the problem, because the cars are just inherently unable, without the "cheat", to pass emissions standards. My guess is that the regulator would force the company to buy the cars back from their owners, no doubt at ruinous expense for the company.
The whole point is that the software can fix the problem, but only at the expense of performance and fuel consumption. So the cars are able to fulfill the emissions standards, they just disabled the appropriate software during normal operations. So the regulator can force VW to flash the software so it does what it should do. And I am not even sure if the owners have much in the way of recourse against VW. For what? False advertisement? I am sure all official technical descriptions were according to the regulations.
Not sure about the emissions tests when you get your car checked. I mean that's the exact scenario the software was built to cheat, right? So I guess you would pass even with unflashed software. :P
Again, I'm just going by the article, which isn't the most clear. The article implies that there was a recall to fix the software, but the fix didn't actually fix the problem.
My guess is that this would be a matter for a regulatory solution, not individual actions, but if it were, the class-action lawyers would have a field day if the "wrong" committed by the company led to regulatory problems for the owners of the cars - moreso in the US than here (civil jury trials plus punitive damages awards = companies tend to get screwed ;) ). At least in Canada, there wouldn't be a lack of legal theories to connect the "wrong" (cheating the regulator) to the "damages" (whatever regulatory problems the owners face as a result): unjust enrichment, waiver of tort, etc.
I assume that the testers would be informed that certain makes and models require "special testing" because of the software cheat.
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2015, 02:22:23 PM
Again, I'm just going by the article, which isn't the most clear. The article implies that there was a recall to fix the software, but the fix didn't actually fix the problem.
Well, the I suggest you ignore the part about the recall and just think about what the actual accusation is: Volkswagen has software that can cheat the emissions test. That means the car is mechanically capable of fulfilling the emissions test as long as the software uses the right amount of fuel, opens the right valves, uses the correct pressure, temperature etc. - all the parameters you can change when controlling the engine. So there is no question that the car is able to fulfill the emissions standard. It did fulfill the standard so perfectly that it took years to find out about the cheat.
QuoteMy guess is that this would be a matter for a regulatory solution, not individual actions, but if it were, the class-action lawyers would have a field day if the "wrong" committed by the company led to regulatory problems for the owners of the cars - moreso in the US than here (civil jury trials plus punitive damages awards = companies tend to get screwed ;) ). At least in Canada, there wouldn't be a lack of legal theories to connect the "wrong" (cheating the regulator) to the "damages" (whatever regulatory problems the owners face as a result): unjust enrichment, waiver of tort, etc.
The question is whether Volkswagen ever promised the owners anything other than the car specs that do fulfill the emissions standard. If not, what's the damage? Your car performed better than it should have and now it is "fixed" by flashing the software free of charge. If Volkswagen did promise the specs with cheating emissions standards, then I can see damage for the customers. But obviously you are much more qualified than me to tell whether this might have civil consequences for them in addition to the government proceedings, so I'll believe you if you say they fight face problems there as well.
Quote from: Zanza on September 21, 2015, 12:27:56 PM
General Motors negligently killed 200 people and got a 900 million dollar fine. I doubt they'll have to pay anywhere near the maximum amount. A few billion in fines will hurt them, but will not destroy the company. Their net liquidity at the end of the second quarter was more than 21 billion Euro.
On the other hand, Toyota paid $1.2b over a sudden acceleration issue that didn't exist.
To me the most damaging thing is the fact that they cannot be trusted. If they blatantly cheat like this you have to assume that they cheat regarding anything and everything. That's just basic safety precautions.
Quote from: The Brain on September 21, 2015, 02:58:32 PM
To me the most damaging thing is the fact that they cannot be trusted. If they blatantly cheat like this you have to assume that they cheat regarding anything and everything. That's just basic safety precautions.
If I was married to a Volkswagen executive, I'd want paternity tests on my kids.
Quote from: Zanza on September 21, 2015, 02:28:44 PM
Well, the I suggest you ignore the part about the recall and just think about what the actual accusation is: Volkswagen has software that can cheat the emissions test. That means the car is mechanically capable of fulfilling the emissions test as long as the software uses the right amount of fuel, opens the right valves, uses the correct pressure, temperature etc. - all the parameters you can change when controlling the engine. So there is no question that the car is able to fulfill the emissions standard. It did fulfill the standard so perfectly that it took years to find out about the cheat.
Fair enough.
QuoteThe question is whether Volkswagen ever promised the owners anything other than the car specs that do fulfill the emissions standard. If not, what's the damage? Your car performed better than it should have and now it is "fixed" by flashing the software free of charge. If Volkswagen did promise the specs with cheating emissions standards, then I can see damage for the customers. But obviously you are much more qualified than me to tell whether this might have civil consequences for them in addition to the government proceedings, so I'll believe you if you say they fight face problems there as well.
If the issue can be asily "fixed" the damages would be pretty nominal. However, my guess is that the "fix" will degrade the ability of the car to perform at the specifications advertsied to customers (if it didn't, why would the manufacturer bother with the "cheat" in the first place?).
That is, I'm guessing that the manufacturer advertsied this car as having such and such fuel efficiency and performance - with either an express or implied representation that the damned thing would pass regulatory scrutiny. My guess os that the customers actually got a product that could only perform with the advertised specifications if the software "cheated" on the emissions test. If that's the case, the damages would then be the difference in value (however calculated) between a car that has fuel efficiency and performace as advertised originally, and one with the performance of a car with software that allows it to pass the emissions test - which (I assume) is substantially worse.
Over a "class action", that would amount to a big chunk of change - then, on top, throw in the "wild card" of punitive damages (this is *definitely* corporate behaviour that would attract punitives - deliberate corporate cheating of the regulator is classic 'bad behaviour' of the sort punishable by punitive damages). Lawyers must be fighting right now over who will represent the class and earn one-third contingency fees. :mmm:
Are there any estimates how much extra nitrogen oxide were produced by the cars in circulation? Also, what the impact of that extra emissions was?
Quote from: The Brain on September 21, 2015, 02:58:32 PM
To me the most damaging thing is the fact that they cannot be trusted. If they blatantly cheat like this you have to assume that they cheat regarding anything and everything. That's just basic safety precautions.
Agreed. Around here Volkswagen products are marketed as engineering you can rely on. So much for that.
Quote from: Malthus on September 21, 2015, 02:22:23 PM
I assume that the testers would be informed that certain makes and models require "special testing" because of the software cheat.
I don't know about that. I don't know how it works in Canada, but in the US, each state has its own standards for inspections, but AFAIK, within each state, the testing is pretty much standardized (mostly, see below). Plus, some states don't require inspections at all, and some of the ones that do I think don't require emissions testing.
QuoteIn Ontario at least, a car has to pass emissions testing every couple of years after it is seven years old or you can't get it licenced
Interesting. IIRC, it's the opposite here in NC--newer cars have to pass an emissions test, but older cars are exempt.
I would assume the technical specifications will be according to regulation. It's not like you can match any of the numbers anyway. Maximum acceleration, meconium fuel efficiency etc. will never be reached in normal operations. So it is hard to show that the car does not perform as specified.
However it may still be false advertising if the car preformed better during customer test drives due to disabling the software that controlled emissions.
Quote from: Syt on September 21, 2015, 03:09:55 PM
Are there any estimates how much extra nitrogen oxide were produced by the cars in circulation? Also, what the impact of that extra emissions was?
It will be negligible compared to what heavy trucks generate perfectly within their limits.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2015, 03:10:13 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 21, 2015, 02:58:32 PM
To me the most damaging thing is the fact that they cannot be trusted. If they blatantly cheat like this you have to assume that they cheat regarding anything and everything. That's just basic safety precautions.
Agreed. Around here Volkswagen products are marketed as engineering you can rely on. So much for that.
The damage to the brand will be massive.
Quote from: Syt on September 21, 2015, 03:09:55 PM
Are there any estimates how much extra nitrogen oxide were produced by the cars in circulation? Also, what the impact of that extra emissions was?
I need to dig up the EPA press release, but they said up to 40 times the allowable limit. I don't know what the allowable limit is, though.
It is also possible that there is more to the story than this. I'm sure Volkswagen has a point of view.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 21, 2015, 03:38:14 PM
It is also possible that there is more to the story than this. I'm sure Volkswagen has a point of view.
Yeah, and they have expressed it. They have admitted this was done and the CEO has apologized for the company doing it. They are now in full damage control mode.
What point of view did you have in mind?
Quote from: dps on September 21, 2015, 03:12:02 PM
I don't know about that. I don't know how it works in Canada, but in the US, each state has its own standards for inspections, but AFAIK, within each state, the testing is pretty much standardized (mostly, see below). Plus, some states don't require inspections at all, and some of the ones that do I think don't require emissions testing.
I have no idea what different states require, but I assume certain states will be tough on this - particularly California.
Quote
Interesting. IIRC, it's the opposite here in NC--newer cars have to pass an emissions test, but older cars are exempt.
Here, there is a "grandfathered" date for "classic" cars - cars older than a certain number of years don't have to pass testing. Can't remember how old they have to be - maybe 20 years or so - but up here, that's elderly for a car (cars actually driven on the roads tend not to survive that long due to salt use).
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2015, 03:49:11 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 21, 2015, 03:38:14 PM
It is also possible that there is more to the story than this. I'm sure Volkswagen has a point of view.
Yeah, and they have expressed it. They have admitted this was done and the CEO has apologized for the company doing it. They are now in full damage control mode.
What point of view did you have in mind?
I thought they might not agree with the facts as they have been presented.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 21, 2015, 08:35:58 AM
No jail time means nothing will change.
Speaking of jail time, here's a heartwarming story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/21/us-usa-georgia-salmonella-idUSKCN0RL24H20150921. Can US ask for Ferdinand Piech's extradition? :hmm:
And the class action law suits have started to be filed.
Quote from: Zanza on September 21, 2015, 12:54:22 PM
Flashing the software of a car is done easily and cheaply. If that's all it takes for the recall, Volkswagen won't care much about this particular bit of their obligations. However what's in it for the owners? A free software downgrade of your engine? Why should you want that? To make your car worse and less valuable? :huh:
The motive for the owners who are going to keep their cars is less clear, but not patching will kill the value of the car for resale, since it will likely be illegal to sell the car without the patch.
Read an interesting article yesterday that mentioned cheating may be more common than we know, because the NO2 levels also correlate with MPG, so they might have been caught between a rock and a hard place in terms of cheating on MPG or cheating on NO2.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2015, 09:21:53 PM
And the class action law suits have started to be filed.
It's a class action made in heaven for plaintiff side class action firms.
Quote from: Zanza on September 21, 2015, 03:20:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2015, 03:10:13 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 21, 2015, 02:58:32 PM
To me the most damaging thing is the fact that they cannot be trusted. If they blatantly cheat like this you have to assume that they cheat regarding anything and everything. That's just basic safety precautions.
Agreed. Around here Volkswagen products are marketed as engineering you can rely on. So much for that.
The damage to the brand will be massive.
they survived WW2, they'll survive this.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 22, 2015, 08:18:34 AM
Quote from: Zanza on September 21, 2015, 03:20:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2015, 03:10:13 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 21, 2015, 02:58:32 PM
To me the most damaging thing is the fact that they cannot be trusted. If they blatantly cheat like this you have to assume that they cheat regarding anything and everything. That's just basic safety precautions.
Agreed. Around here Volkswagen products are marketed as engineering you can rely on. So much for that.
The damage to the brand will be massive.
they survived WW2, they'll survive this.
The VW Beetle was the only car actually designed to Hitler's specifications. :D Now, there's a celebrity endorsement!
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 08:03:53 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 21, 2015, 09:21:53 PM
And the class action law suits have started to be filed.
It's a class action made in heaven for plaintiff side class action firms.
Yep, this is exactly the kind of case the class action statutes were meant to address. The biggest challenge will be the fight between plaintiff firms as to who should be entitled to
the payday represent the class in each jurisdiction.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 22, 2015, 07:58:12 AM
Read an interesting article yesterday that mentioned cheating may be more common than we know, because the NO2 levels also correlate with MPG, so they might have been caught between a rock and a hard place in terms of cheating on MPG or cheating on NO2.
That's especially acute with heavy trucks. The emission standards are so hard to fulfill these days that the exhaust cleaning system is more expensive than the actual engine.
Volkswagen will book 7.2 billion dollar as provision in their next quarterly balance sheet.
Up to 11 million cars worldwide have the software, so the 500,000 in the US are just the tip of the iceberg.
German press expects that the CEO will have to resign in the next days.
Poor guy. He just managed to win the power struggle and oust Ferdinand Piech himself from the company, and now before he can even enjoy his victory he's shown the door.
The NGO that gave EPA the tip about this has apparently found discrepancies with other car manufacturers as well. :ph34r:
The EU commission had an internal paper that identified this type of software as a potential problem, so they probably know car manufacturers use it, but either looked the other way or couldn't prove it yet.
Quote from: Zanza on September 22, 2015, 12:43:05 PM
The NGO that gave EPA the tip about this has apparently found discrepancies with other car manufacturers as well. :ph34r:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.rapgenius.com%2F71b5537ac86ca284c01b86f99a8798bc.674x273x1.jpg&hash=dcc54514ff079f1927d9f4782861b5bd3c82a7d5)
Quote from: Zanza on September 22, 2015, 12:43:05 PM
The NGO that gave EPA the tip about this has apparently found discrepancies with other car manufacturers as well. :ph34r:
The EU commission had an internal paper that identified this type of software as a potential problem, so they probably know car manufacturers use it, but either looked the other way or couldn't prove it yet.
Heh stands to reason - if VW can't make a vehicle that can work without cheating, it's a bet other manufacturers have trouble as well.
The car actually works as specified however they disabled the exhaust cleaning systems for two reasons during normal driving: a) higher performance and less fuel consumption and b) for cars with an urea-based exhaust cleaning system you need to fill in the urea and in older cars that could only be done at a dealer, and even for newer cars it's rather acidic so it can damage the paint of the car if the customer does it wrong and gas stations in the US often do not offer it.
I wonder if I should buy some VW stocks now. They lost about 19% on Monday and another 19% today for a combined 30 billion euro market capitalization. It's still a viable company, so I guess these corrections are over the top.
Quote from: Zanza on September 22, 2015, 01:05:17 PM
The car actually works as specified however they disabled the exhaust cleaning systems for two reasons during normal driving: a) higher performance and less fuel consumption and b) for cars with an urea-based exhaust cleaning system you need to fill in the urea and in older cars that could only be done at a dealer, and even for newer cars it's rather acidic so it can damage the paint of the car if the customer does it wrong and gas stations in the US often do not offer it.
If it doesn't work during normal driving, giving both the expected performance and fuel efficiency on the one hand and emissions that pass regulatory muster on the other, it doesn't work "as specified".
I expect this argument to be front and centre in the plethora of class actions being filed as we type. ;)
Quote from: Zanza on September 22, 2015, 01:08:55 PM
I wonder if I should buy some VW stocks now.
That would be disloyal.
Quote from: Zanza on September 22, 2015, 01:08:55 PM
I wonder if I should buy some VW stocks now.
Does your employer allow that or would it be conflict of interest?
I thought Zanza no longer worked at MB? Or am I imagining things?
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 01:12:03 PM
If it doesn't work during normal driving, giving both the expected performance and fuel efficiency on the one hand and emissions that pass regulatory muster on the other, it doesn't work "as specified".
I expect this argument to be front and centre in the plethora of class actions being filed as we type. ;)
Expected and specified performance and fuel efficiency are not the same thing. Will be interesting if it can be shown they tricked their customers. The figures on the paper could all be true and they still disabled the system during driving to get a better experience for their customers. So the customers might have gotten more than they were entitled to as per specification.
:lol: I am not sure what you guys think what I do, but my employer certainly wouldn't give a fuck if I invested all my money into Volkswagen stock.
Quote from: Syt on September 22, 2015, 01:17:40 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 22, 2015, 01:08:55 PM
I wonder if I should buy some VW stocks now.
Does your employer allow that or would it be conflict of interest?
Buying or selling stock in the opposition is rarely, if ever, a conflict of interest.
It's buying stock of your own company (or a company you have inside knowledge of) that causes problems.
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 01:35:18 PM
Quote from: Syt on September 22, 2015, 01:17:40 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 22, 2015, 01:08:55 PM
I wonder if I should buy some VW stocks now.
Does your employer allow that or would it be conflict of interest?
Buying or selling stock in the opposition is rarely, if ever, a conflict of interest.
It's buying stock of your own company (or a company you have inside knowledge of) that causes problems.
Not to mention shorting stock in companies where you happen to know of their internal legal troubles ... :shifty: :ph34r:
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2015, 01:35:18 PM
Buying or selling stock in the opposition is rarely, if ever, a conflict of interest.
It's buying stock of your own company (or a company you have inside knowledge of) that causes problems.
I've always been prohibited from holding stock in a competitor. :hmm:
There is a conflict of interest. Who wants their employees hoping the competition does well?
But there is also the risk of insider trading (or maybe just advantage): someone having inside information in Company A will likely know non public information that impacts Company B stock price. If whopper sales are having a blow out quarter, that probably means quarter pounder sales at McDonalds are too, absent any unusual promotions or news. Its why stock prices of companies are usually affected by earnings releases their competitors. Does that legally meet the threshold for insider trading? I don't know, but I can see why a company wouldn't want its employees getting rich that way, and then seeing that in the paper--most would consider it unethical.
Nobody noticed the almost perfect, although not voluntary, tribute to Tim in my OP: spelling error in the title, "wall of quote" and one-liner at the end.
BTW, I own a WV with a 2.0 Tdi diesel engine :ph34r:
Does anyone else here own one of those engines?
L.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 22, 2015, 02:04:45 PM
I've always been prohibited from holding stock in a competitor. :hmm:
There is a conflict of interest. Who wants their employees hoping the competition does well?
In Germany, the small-scale consumer-level investments are irrelevant. It's only relevant if you have enough stock to have an influence on the business decisions of a competitor. As it happens, I will never own enough of Volkswagen to matter in their decision making. Especially considering that 88% of their stock isn't even free-floating but held by three big investors.
Quote from: grumbler on September 22, 2015, 07:22:53 AM
Quote from: Zanza on September 21, 2015, 12:54:22 PM
Flashing the software of a car is done easily and cheaply. If that's all it takes for the recall, Volkswagen won't care much about this particular bit of their obligations. However what's in it for the owners? A free software downgrade of your engine? Why should you want that? To make your car worse and less valuable? :huh:
The motive for the owners who are going to keep their cars is less clear, but not patching will kill the value of the car for resale, since it will likely be illegal to sell the car without the patch.
I'm dubious of this. And even in jurisdictions where it might be the case, why not just wait until you're ready to sell the car to patch it?
This is an unusual case - in most cases, recalls and the like are for products that will harm the consumer, not for products which, because of an intentional defect, the consumer will harm others (via the environment). Why should the consumer (who is presumably, en mass at least, a self-interested beast ;) ) bring their car in for "fixing"?
I suspect the answer will be "to collect the class action pay-out". That is, as class action settlements must be approved by the courts, who tend to at least attempt to take the moral high road (as do plaintiff side class action counsel - at least, in paying lip service :D ), no doubt it will be a condition of any settlement that each car owner "patch" his or her car, to get their mitts on the settlement money.
Will the cars be street legal without the fix?
Quote from: Pedrito on September 22, 2015, 02:09:43 PMBTW, I own a WV with a 2.0 Tdi diesel engine :ph34r:
Does anyone else here own one of those engines?
L.
I also own a VW Golf with a diesel engine, but I'll be damned if I remember the specifications. It has passed all the official tests in the last few years, including emissions tests, though.
The tin foilers over at Zerohedge diagnose Volkswagen's problem: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-22/dear-volkswagen-was-your-biggest-mistake
If you guys own WVs you've been ripped off by the care salesman. Did he also sell MBWs? ;)
Quote from: Syt on September 22, 2015, 04:21:19 PM
If you guys own WVs you've been ripped off by the care salesman. Did he also sell MBWs? ;)
Sold by car people for car people.
Quote from: Syt on September 22, 2015, 04:21:19 PM
If you guys own WVs you've been ripped off by the care salesman. Did he also sell MBWs? ;)
The dealership I got mine from also sells Audis. :P
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 03:31:35 PM
This is an unusual case - in most cases, recalls and the like are for products that will harm the consumer, not for products which, because of an intentional defect, the consumer will harm others (via the environment). Why should the consumer (who is presumably, en mass at least, a self-interested beast ;) ) bring their car in for "fixing"?
To avoid beatings by the EPA's enforcement arm. Well, ideally. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on September 22, 2015, 04:34:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 03:31:35 PM
This is an unusual case - in most cases, recalls and the like are for products that will harm the consumer, not for products which, because of an intentional defect, the consumer will harm others (via the environment). Why should the consumer (who is presumably, en mass at least, a self-interested beast ;) ) bring their car in for "fixing"?
To avoid beatings by the EPA's enforcement arm. Well, ideally. :(
Ah, you have the heart of a regulator. In the nicest possible way. :D
Edit: I have the heart of a regulator, too.
I keep it in a jar of alcohol on my desk to remind me of past victories. :ph34r:
Quote from: The Larch on September 22, 2015, 04:23:49 PM
Quote from: Syt on September 22, 2015, 04:21:19 PM
If you guys own WVs you've been ripped off by the care salesman. Did he also sell MBWs? ;)
The dealership I got mine from also sells Audis. :P
Then I guess they sold VWs not WVs. :P
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 04:35:56 PM
Ah, you have the heart of a regulator. In the nicest possible way. :D
But is he handy with the steel, or just a geek off the street?
Only VW I would like to own would be a 1963 to 1966 Beetle. :wub:
I would like to have a well renovated T1 or T2, that's the hippie bus.
Yeah, I could deal with a good T1 splitwindow.
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 04:35:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 22, 2015, 04:34:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 03:31:35 PM
This is an unusual case - in most cases, recalls and the like are for products that will harm the consumer, not for products which, because of an intentional defect, the consumer will harm others (via the environment). Why should the consumer (who is presumably, en mass at least, a self-interested beast ;) ) bring their car in for "fixing"?
To avoid beatings by the EPA's enforcement arm. Well, ideally. :(
Ah, you have the heart of a regulator. In the nicest possible way. :D
Edit: I have the heart of a regulator, too.
I keep it in a jar of alcohol on my desk to remind me of past victories. :ph34r:
Having a heart? Pfft. Weaklings.
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2015, 03:31:35 PM
This is an unusual case - in most cases, recalls and the like are for products that will harm the consumer, not for products which, because of an intentional defect, the consumer will harm others (via the environment). Why should the consumer (who is presumably, en mass at least, a self-interested beast ;) ) bring their car in for "fixing"?
I suspect the answer will be "to collect the class action pay-out". That is, as class action settlements must be approved by the courts, who tend to at least attempt to take the moral high road (as do plaintiff side class action counsel - at least, in paying lip service :D ), no doubt it will be a condition of any settlement that each car owner "patch" his or her car, to get their mitts on the settlement money.
I think that this is likely true.
Maybe but unlikely. It would be very unusual for a Court to impose a positive obligation on a Plaintiff. The normal course is simply to award damages.
A much more likely outcome is that the defence will argue that the plaintiff class can mitigate their damage by taking advantage of the recall and the court will reduce damages accordingly. Plaintiffs in the class will then have an economic incentive to get the work done. Also this avoids the administrative burden of keeping track of who has had the work done.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 23, 2015, 07:14:22 AM
Maybe but unlikely. It would be very unusual for a Court to impose a positive obligation on a Plaintiff. The normal course is simply to award damages.
A much more likely outcome is that the defence will argue that the plaintiff class can mitigate their damage by taking advantage of the recall and the court will reduce damages accordingly. Plaintiffs in the class will then have an economic incentive to get the work done. Also this avoids the administrative burden of keeping track of who has had the work done.
The problem is that this recall
exacerbates their damages - it doesn't mitigate them.
The argument would be "with this recall patch, the engine will obtain less performance and/or less fuel efficiency that it does, if it is allowed to pollute freely (as the manufacturer intended)".
Thus, if the "damages" are "the difference between how the engine performes with the recall software patch, and how it performed before", then
part of the proof of claim for each claimant would be presenting proof that the recall software was installed.
It wouldn't be a "positve obligation", but rather, a "necessary evidentiary element to making a claim".
Quote from: Malthus on September 23, 2015, 08:30:32 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 23, 2015, 07:14:22 AM
Maybe but unlikely. It would be very unusual for a Court to impose a positive obligation on a Plaintiff. The normal course is simply to award damages.
A much more likely outcome is that the defence will argue that the plaintiff class can mitigate their damage by taking advantage of the recall and the court will reduce damages accordingly. Plaintiffs in the class will then have an economic incentive to get the work done. Also this avoids the administrative burden of keeping track of who has had the work done.
The problem is that this recall exacerbates their damages - it doesn't mitigate them.
The argument would be "with this recall patch, the engine will obtain less performance and/or less fuel efficiency that it does, if it is allowed to pollute freely (as the manufacturer intended)".
Thus, if the "damages" are "the difference between how the engine performes with the recall software patch, and how it performed before", then part of the proof of claim for each claimant would be presenting proof that the recall software was installed.
It wouldn't be a "positve obligation", but rather, a "necessary evidentiary element to making a claim".
There are number of problems with this analysis.
First, and most fundamentally, a court order needs to be final. Not contingent. Courts award damages based on the evidence before them. Not evidence after the fact that someone might be entitled to X amount of money if they can prove that they have done Y. In other words the "necessary evidentiary element to making a claim" needs to be established at trial not after. It is possible to set up a court ordered adjudication process after the fact. As was done in the residential school class action settlement. But that is very rare.
Second, if there is a settlement here (which is likely) the class is not likely to want the cost of invigilating the scheme you have proposed to cut into the award of the damages they might get. It is much more likely they would rather see the money which would otherwise be attributed to that cost to be paid in aggravated or punitive damages directly to them. Plaintiffs counsel will also have an interest in structuring it this way since there fees are a percentage of the damages awarded not the cost of administering the award.
Third, the main heads of damage pled are damages for false advertising related to the emissions claim. The recall is intended to fix that problem and so that head of damage can be mitigated to some extent. Admittedly there will not be full mitigation and of course that is why the damages will be extensive as a class. But they also wont be getting 100 cents on the dollar either.
I haven't read all of this to get the latest but what a colossal scandal and mess VW made! It would be almost comical if not so expensive and serious. They used a software cheat to trick emissions tests to pass the car at inspections. They can change/remove that software cheat but then the car can't pass inspections, so that tells me the fixes would be very costly for each car, and it involves millions of cars around the world. This is a mess for owners but so, so bad for VW. Ah well, now that Gitmo is being emptied out there's more room there for these auto terrorists. :ph34r:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 23, 2015, 09:44:44 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 23, 2015, 08:30:32 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 23, 2015, 07:14:22 AM
Maybe but unlikely. It would be very unusual for a Court to impose a positive obligation on a Plaintiff. The normal course is simply to award damages.
A much more likely outcome is that the defence will argue that the plaintiff class can mitigate their damage by taking advantage of the recall and the court will reduce damages accordingly. Plaintiffs in the class will then have an economic incentive to get the work done. Also this avoids the administrative burden of keeping track of who has had the work done.
The problem is that this recall exacerbates their damages - it doesn't mitigate them.
The argument would be "with this recall patch, the engine will obtain less performance and/or less fuel efficiency that it does, if it is allowed to pollute freely (as the manufacturer intended)".
Thus, if the "damages" are "the difference between how the engine performes with the recall software patch, and how it performed before", then part of the proof of claim for each claimant would be presenting proof that the recall software was installed.
It wouldn't be a "positve obligation", but rather, a "necessary evidentiary element to making a claim".
There are number of problems with this analysis.
First, and most fundamentally, a court order needs to be final. Not contingent. Courts award damages based on the evidence before them. Not evidence after the fact that someone might be entitled to X amount of money if they can prove that they have done Y. In other words the "necessary evidentiary element to making a claim" needs to be established at trial not after. It is possible to set up a court ordered adjudication process after the fact. As was done in the residential school class action settlement. But that is very rare.
Second, if there is a settlement here (which is likely) the class is not likely to want the cost of invigilating the scheme you have proposed to cut into the award of the damages they might get. It is much more likely they would rather see the money which would otherwise be attributed to that cost to be paid in aggravated or punitive damages directly to them. Plaintiffs counsel will also have an interest in structuring it this way since there fees are a percentage of the damages awarded not the cost of administering the award.
Third, the main heads of damage pled are damages for false advertising related to the emissions claim. The recall is intended to fix that problem and so that head of damage can be mitigated to some extent. Admittedly there will not be full mitigation and of course that is why the damages will be extensive as a class. But they also wont be getting 100 cents on the dollar either.
I disagree - the major element of the damages will not stem simply from the emissions, but from the reduction to the performance of the engine after it is patched. Just how does the fact that the cars are polluting cause damage to the car owners? Those damages are to the environment at large. They are not specfic to car owners. The fact that the car owners are inadvertant polluters isn't a major source of quantifiable damages.
The cost of invigilating the sceme would be borne, as a seperate head, by the company, not cut out of the global award. Class action judges have plenty of discretion to craft an award (or, far more likey, to approve a settlement) on terms that are just.
As for "the necessary part of the claim must be established at trial", I don't agree - people have to prove that they are members of the class (or sub-class) to obtain relief. In this case, there would presumably be a class (or sub-class) of persons who had their engines patched with the software. If you want to be a member of this class/subclass, and so be entitled to the award of damages suitable to this class or subclass, you have to have your engine patched. Those without patched engines would be a seperate class/subclass, entitled to lesser damages - thus incentivizing obtaining the patch.
Quote from: Malthus on September 23, 2015, 10:04:40 AM
I disagree - the major element of the damages will not stem simply from the emissions, but from the reduction to the performance of the engine after it is patched. Just how does the fact that the cars are polluting cause damage to the car owners? Those damages are to the environment at large. They are not specfic to car owners. The fact that the car owners are inadvertant polluters isn't a major source of quantifiable damages.
The cost of invigilating the sceme would be borne, as a seperate head, by the company, not cut out of the global award. Class action judges have plenty of discretion to craft an award (or, far more likey, to approve a settlement) on terms that are just.
As for "the necessary part of the claim must be established at trial", I don't agree - people have to prove that they are members of the class (or sub-class) to obtain relief. In this case, there would presumably be a class (or sub-class) of persons who had their engines patched with the software. If you want to be a member of this class/subclass, and so be entitled to the award of damages suitable to this class or subclass, you have to have your engine patched. Those without patched engines would be a seperate class/subclass, entitled to lesser damages - thus incentivizing obtaining the patch.
[/quote]
The cause of action is that the damage is caused by the false advertising regarding the emissions. If, as you seem to claim, there is no damage which results from a car that pollutes more then there is no cause of action and the company need not recall the vehicles at all. In relation to the second point typically all a class member need to is establish they are a member of a the class.
But your last point makes more sense. If there is another class proposed containing only those who have gotten the fix (which I dont think there is at this point) then that would provide an incentive for owners to take advantage of the recall in order to be part of the class. But classes are normally set as at the time the court pronounces the order or the settlement is made. Not after so as to avoid contingent awards.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 23, 2015, 10:14:49 AM
The cause of action is that the damage is caused by the false advertising regarding the emissions. If, as you seem to claim, there is no damage which results from a car that pollutes more then there is no cause of action and the company need not recall the vehicles at all. In relation to the second point typically all a class member need to is establish they are a member of a the class.
That's what makes this case unusual.
The extra pollution, a result of the false advertising, causes damages to everyone, because consumers are, inadvertently, riding around in polluting cars.
Now the consumers know about it. There is a patch available, but presumably, the patch, while it solves the pollution problem, will degrade the performance of the engine.
So what are the individual damages to the actual car owners? Not, I assert, simply that they have been polluting everyone inadvertently. That is a problem (in that consumers have been fooled) and is presumably worth
something in terms of damages - but aside from those set by some sort of statute, they will be hard to quantify.
OTOH, the damages caused by the degredation of the performance of the engine are possible to quantify - the difference between the value of the engine that was promised, and the one after it has been patched. The manufacturer can't argue that the patching was a
novus actus interveniens in its defence, because it was caused by its own lying to the regulators, and so foreseeable.
Therefore, it makes more sense to have a class or subclass of those with the patch, with a substantially more significant award - they would be entitled to the 'lied to and so became an inadvertant polluter' award (whatever that may be), *plus* the 'my engine doesn't perform as advertised' award.
QuoteBut your last point makes more sense. If there is another class proposed containing only those who have gotten the fix (which I dont think there is at this point) then that would provide an incentive for owners to take advantage of the recall in order to be part of the class. But classes are normally set as at the time the court pronounces the order or the settlement is made. Not after so as to avoid contingent awards.
Orders and settlements are far in the future right now.
Is it actually established that the customers were ever promised the car as it behaves with the exhaust cleaning system being deactivated?
Or was it always advertised as it would behave with the exhaust cleaning system activated?
If it is the latter, is there any actual damage to the individual car owners if VW now flashes the ECM and always activates the exhaust cleaning system so the car fulfills the EPA standards and behaves as advertised?
The Volkswagen CEO resigned today, but did not admit any personal guilt.
The supervisory board has also asked the German state prosecutor to start a criminal investigation into Volkswagen.
Quote from: Zanza on September 23, 2015, 12:19:02 PM
Is it actually established that the customers were ever promised the car as it behaves with the exhaust cleaning system being deactivated?
Or was it always advertised as it would behave with the exhaust cleaning system activated?
If it is the latter, is there any actual damage to the individual car owners if VW now flashes the ECM and always activates the exhaust cleaning system so the car fulfills the EPA standards and behaves as advertised?
The vehicles were sold with listed fuel economy numbers. The car can only reach those numbers with the cleaning device being deactivated.
By the way, I had wondered how this was possible - normally fuel economy and emissions go hand in hand. More fuel economy also means less emissions. But I finally saw the explanation, which of course revolves around it being a diesel engine. The emissions in this case they are worried about are NOx. There is a filtration system, but in order for it to work it has to be hot. In order for it to be hot the vehicle has to burn extra fuel to generate that heat.
Quote from: Barrister on September 23, 2015, 12:29:50 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 23, 2015, 12:19:02 PM
Is it actually established that the customers were ever promised the car as it behaves with the exhaust cleaning system being deactivated?
Or was it always advertised as it would behave with the exhaust cleaning system activated?
If it is the latter, is there any actual damage to the individual car owners if VW now flashes the ECM and always activates the exhaust cleaning system so the car fulfills the EPA standards and behaves as advertised?
The vehicles were sold with listed fuel economy numbers. The car can only reach those numbers with the cleaning device being deactivated.
By the way, I had wondered how this was possible - normally fuel economy and emissions go hand in hand. More fuel economy also means less emissions. But I finally saw the explanation, which of course revolves around it being a diesel engine. The emissions in this case they are worried about are NOx. There is a filtration system, but in order for it to work it has to be hot. In order for it to be hot the vehicle has to burn extra fuel to generate that heat.
That doesn't make sense. As you say, the fuel and emissions cycle tests happen under similar conditions. The parameters that were identified so far as controlling whether the exhaust cleaning system will be activated or not would be the same for both cycle tests. I would assume and I haven't read anything else so far, that the car will fulfill the emissions standards and then reach the posted fuel economy. Of course the fuel economy in real driving is never anywhere near that of the cycle tests, but maybe Volkswagen made their customers happy by actually getting closer to the posted fuel economy ratings by deactivating that system in real driving conditions.
There were different NOx cleaning systems paired with the engines apparently. One passive based on some kind of metal that needs to be cleaned (which costs performance) and the other active based on urea addition to the exhaust cleaning system which will also cost performance. Both systems were deactivated by the control unit. Not sure about the hot part. However, to get the most power out of diesel, you need to burn it at very high temperatures, which happens to also be when most NOx is created. So fuel efficiency goes hand in hand with higher NOx generation.
I don't think anyone is surprised by this news.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34345210
QuoteVolkswagen has admitted rigging emissions tests in Europe in the same way it falsified results in the US, Germany's transport minister has said.
Alexander Dobrindt said it was not known how many of the 11 million vehicles affected were in Europe.
He also said other manufacturers' vehicles would be checked.
The scandal began unfolding on Friday when the German car giant said it had used software in the US to provide false emission test results.
Mr Dobrindt said he had been told vehicles with 1.6 and 2.0 litre diesel engines are "affected by the manipulations that are being talked about".
The company's Jetta, Beetle, Golf and Audi A3 models in the US from 2009 to 2015, and the Passat from 2014-15, were fitted with the devices which produced doctored results. However, diesel cars are far more popular in Europe than in the US.
Mr Dobrindt also said random tests would be conducted on cars made by manufacturers other than VW: "It is clear that the Federal Office for Motor Traffic will not exclusively concentrate on the VW models in question but that it will also carry out random tests on vehicles made by other carmakers."
The value of Volkswagen has shrunk by around 30% since the scandal was revealed.
Separately, BMW shares dropped by 10% on reports the false tests had been used by other carmakers.
The company issued a statement denying the report, saying the "group does not manipulate or rig any emissions tests".
"We observe the legal requirements in each country and adhere to all local testing requirements," it continued.
VW is setting aside €6.5bn (£4.7bn) to cover the costs of the scandal.
The German car giant's chief executive Martin Winterkorn resigned following the revelation.
Mr Winterkorn said he was "shocked" by recent events and was "not aware of any wrongdoing on my part".
The supervisory board said it would announce Mr Winterkorn's successor at a board meeting on Friday.
There has been speculation in German newspapers that Matthias Mueller would be named as the next chief executive. He is head of Porsche, which is part of the Volkswagen group of companies.
German public prosecutors are considering an investigation, with US authorities also said to be planning criminal investigations.
Quote from: Zanza on September 22, 2015, 04:54:20 PM
I would like to have a well renovated T1 or T2, that's the hippie bus.
Little tiny engine in that thing. Rode to school growing up in a VW minibus.
I wonder if this is going to get others to start testing other cars under similar circumstances, and see what other companies are lying about their emissions/performance/efficiency.
They're boned
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2016/03/29/ftc-federal-trade-commission-volkswagen-group-clean-diesel/82376012/
QuoteThe Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday accused Volkswagen Group of deceiving American consumers into buying emission-spewing diesel vehicles, seeking more than $15 billion in damages in what could be one of the largest false-advertising cases in U.S. history.
The FTC filed a four-count civil complaint against Volkswagen Group in U.S. District Court in California, alleging the company falsely advertised that it was selling new "clean diesel" vehicles that were purchased by about 550,000 buyers.
The lawsuit compounds the German automaker's legal troubles in the U.S., where it is already facing a criminal probe and numerous lawsuits after it admitted that it rigged more than half a million vehicles with software to cheat emissions regulations.
"This was an FTC case waiting to happen because they based their entire advertising campaign on this benefit," said Linda Goldstein, chair of law firm Manatt Phelps & Phillips' advertising, marketing and media practice, in an interview.
The FTC is pursuing "permanent injunctive relief, rescission, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief," according to the lawsuit. Though FTC attorneys did not specify an amount, a person familiar with the case said the government is seeking more than $15 billion in damages.
"For years Volkswagen's ads touted the company's 'clean diesel' cars even though it now appears Volkswagen rigged the cars with devices designed to defeat emissions tests," FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez said in a statement. "Our lawsuit seeks compensation for the consumers who bought affected cars based on Volkswagen's deceptive and unfair practices."
Volkswagen TV commercials, print advertisements, press releases, emails and online videos invariably promoted the company's "clean diesel" slogan, claimed that VW diesels had low emissions and describing the cars as "environmentally-conscious," "eco-conscious," or "green," according to the lawsuit.
"It was a very emotionally appealing campaign," Kelley Blue Book analyst Rebecca Lindland said in an interview. "You felt like you were a good human being. It made you feel better about buying a diesel and it also made you feel like you were buying the latest technology."
According to the lawsuit, VW marketers studied potential diesel customers and determined that they "rationalize themselves out of their aspirations and justify buying lesser cars under the guise of being responsible."
The company has already set aside $7 billion to pay for repair costs on the approximately 11 million vehicles globally that are affected by the emissions scandal. But analysts expect tens of billions of fines and settlements before the episode is complete.
The lawsuit was filed in the court's Northern District of California, which is also handling the consolidated litigation from consumers seeking economic damages over the emissions violations. That could expedite what attorneys describe as a global settlement involving the various claims against Volkswagen, which corporations often prefer over years of uncertain litigation.
"Volkswagen has received the complaint and continues to cooperate with all relevant U.S. regulators, including the Federal Trade Commission," VW said Tuesday in a statement. "Our most important priority is to find a solution to the diesel emissions matter and earn back the trust of our customers and dealers as we build a better company."
Volkswagen diesel cars on models ranging from 2009 through 2015 are emitting harmful pollutants — namely nitrogen oxide, which can exacerbate respiratory conditions such as asthma — at rates of up to 40 times U.S. standards.
In several instances, Volkswagen marketing materials claimed that its diesel vehicles reduced nitrogen oxide emissions by up to 90%, according to the FTC.
Goldstein, the advertising lawyer, said the FTC's "threshold for proving deception is quite low" in cases like this. For example, VW could still be held liable even if the marketers who made the ads didn't know that the vehicles violated federal standards.
In one 2015 online video for VW's "Diesel Old Wives' Tale" series, an "old wife" holds a white scarf to the exhaust of a VW Golf SportWagen TDI and deems it pristine.
"See how clean it is?" the woman asks.
"Volkswagen TDI Clean Diesel: Like really clean diesel," the ad's tagline concluded, according to the FTC.
That video alone was viewed at least 9 million times.
In 2014 they posted $260 billion revenues. And the fine will probably get reduced in a settlement. They will live.
My respect for VW has gone up. Trying to work around the rules to give better engines to consumers.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 30, 2016, 01:11:18 AM
My respect for VW has gone up. Trying to work around the rules to give better engines to consumers.
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2016, 12:13:41 AM
In 2014 they posted $260 billion revenues. And the fine will probably get reduced in a settlement. They will live.
VW is not Apple, revenues don't quite equal profits. The margins of automakers are the classic 5% of revenues or thereabouts.
That said, it wouldn't be bad if VW had to dilute the ownership to recapitalize itself to pay the fines. Two thirds of it are owned by a rather disgusting set of characters.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 30, 2016, 01:11:18 AM
My respect for VW has gone up. Trying to work around the rules to give better engines to consumers.
That's a great spin.
They might try to spin off their commercial vehicles division (VW commercial, Scania, MAN) if they need to sell something to cover the costs.
And while Volkswagen isn't Apple, they have reserves of 20-30 billion Euro, still generate ten billion Euro profit per year and can save on investments and R&D in the short term.
Apparently Mitsubishi has also admitted to have cheated on emission tests for several Nissan models that they make for the Japanese market.
German press suggests that VW is close to a deal with US authorities (DoJ, EPA, CARB). It will apparently fix those cars it can fix and pay the owners $5000 in damages. It will buy back those cars it can't fix with reasonable effort.
CARB?
I got a VW Jetta recently, not diesel, but they offered a good deal on it. :)
Good car. Used to be shit when the first started making them in Tennessee, but I hear it's back to what it should be.
It would seem that they have all been cheating :
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/21/all-top-selling-cars-break-emissions-limits-in-real-world-tests
Or, to be more charitable, the lab tests are completely useless.
The regulation has many loopholes and vague rules and the car manufacturers will use each of these to get a car that is barely legal on the road. That will have the effect that cars violate the spirit of the emission rules while still compliant to the written rule.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 21, 2016, 03:54:55 PM
It would seem that they have all been cheating :
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/21/all-top-selling-cars-break-emissions-limits-in-real-world-tests
Or, to be more charitable, the lab tests are completely useless.
That is more or less what was reported back in the day, and in line with what Zanza says. The lab tests are performed in such a way that companies have it easy to get away with sending rigged cars to them, besides any other shenanigans they might perform. VW might have been the first ones getting caught but sure as hell they were not the only ones doing it.
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2016, 10:32:17 AM
Good car. Used to be shit when the first started making them in Tennessee, but I hear it's back to what it should be.
The plastics in the interior have a cheap feel to them, and the mpg isn't quite as good as other, similar cars, but overall I'm very happy with it. It's actually enjoyable to drive, comfortable, and handles very well.
Volkswagen has booked a 16.2 bn Eruo hit in their balance sheet for last year, so that it has a total loss of 5.5 bn Euro in 2015.
QuoteVolkswagen to Pay $14.7 Billion to Settle Diesel Claims in U.S.
Volkswagen has agreed to pay up to $14.7 billion to settle claims stemming from its diesel emissions cheating scandal, in what would be one of the largest consumer class-action settlements ever in the United States.
The proposed settlement involving the federal government and lawyers for the owners of about 475,000 Volkswagen vehicles, includes a maximum of $10.03 billion to buy back affected cars at their pre-scandal values, and additional cash compensation for the owners, according to two people briefed on the settlement's terms.
The cash compensation offered to each car owner will range from $5,100 to $10,000. Both the buyback price and amount of the additional compensation will depend on the cars' value before Volkswagen's public admission last September that its supposed "clean diesel" cars had been deliberately designed to cheat on air-quality tests.
Despite the scope of the deal, which would still require the approval of the federal judge overseeing the case, the settlement would cover only a small fraction of the 11 million diesel cars worldwide — most of them in Europe — that Volkswagen has acknowledged contained the cheating software.
But in the United States, "It's a remarkable deal for Volkswagen owners who were defrauded by the company," said David M. Uhlmann, a former chief of the Justice Department's Environmental Crimes Section who is now a law professor at the University of Michigan.
Rather than sell their vehicles back to Volkswagen, car owners in the United States can also choose to have their vehicles fixed to meet emissions standards, although doing so would probably reduce the engines' performance and gas mileage. And the methods for fixing the vehicles that Volkswagen has proposed are still subject to approval by the Environmental Protection Agency, one of the federal parties to the case.
Volkswagen will also compensate previous owners who may have sold their diesel vehicles after the cheating became known last year — but at only half the rate of the compensation being offered to current car owners.
Particularly attractive is the combination of the buyback offer and cash payment, which appears to be the better option for consumers, Mr. Uhlmann said.
"It's hard to see why consumers would want to take advantage of the fix and not the buyback option, unless they just love their cars," he said. "For Volkswagen, it's an extremely expensive settlement, far more than many analysts predicted."
The settlement terms, first reported by Bloomberg News, are to be submitted on Tuesday to a federal judge in California.
Volkswagen would also pay $2.7 billion into an E.P.A. fund, the two people said, to compensate for the environmental impact of its cars, which were fitted with software that enabled them to pass emissions tests but exceed legal pollution limits in on-the-road driving. Volkswagen has also agreed to spend $2 billion on new cleaner-vehicle projects, an investment that the automaker could reap returns on.
All told, the civil settlement would be the largest yet by an automobile company, dwarfing the $1.4 billion that Toyota paid to settle a class-action lawsuit over flawed accelerators and the more than $2 billion General Motors has paid so far to settle claims from owners of cars with faulty ignition switches. Toyota, in addition, paid $1.2 billion to settle criminal charges, while G.M. paid $900 million.
The size of the settlement would approach the $18.7 billion agreement that BP reached last year meant to resolve all federal, state and local claims against the oil giant arising from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, which at the time was the largest civil settlement with any single entity in the nation's history. Since then, as a result of additional claims, BP's payouts have grown.
Volkswagen has said it has set aside 16.2 billion euros, or more than $18 billion, to cover fines and compensation to Volkswagen owners.
And yet, Volkswagen's legal problems would be far from over.
Volkswagen faces a criminal inquiry by the Department of Justice and an investigation by attorneys general in 42 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The attorneys general are expected as soon as Tuesday to announce their own settlement with Volkswagen, for $500 million in penalties for defrauding consumers, according to a person briefed on the deal.
Financial regulators in New York are also investigating whether Volkswagen overcharged consumers when the company leased or financed sales of diesel cars that it later admitted were designed to cheat on air-quality tests. In a subpoena sent to Volkswagen on Monday, the state's Department of Financial Services also sought information from the German automaker on insurance coverage required for Volkswagen and Audi cars financed or leased in New York.
The automaker is under investigation in a number of other countries, including Germany and South Korea.
Volkswagen acknowledged last year that it had installed illegal software in 11 million cars worldwide that made them capable of defeating pollution tests.
During emissions testing, the cars' pollution controls systems were turned on, curbing toxic emissions at the cost of engine performance. But those emissions controls were not fully engaged on the road, where its cars spewed nitrogen oxides at up to 40 times the levels allowed under the Clean Air Act.
The proposed settlement requires a review by United States District Judge Charles R. Breyer in California and must go through a period of public comment, during which terms could yet change.
Affected Volkswagen owners are not bound by the settlement, and some may decide to press for better terms.
Nor will the deal address terms for the owners of 85,000 Volkswagen and Porsche cars sold in the United States that had a different type of diesel engine but also had emissions problems. Negotiations over a settlement for those cars are still underway.
Volkswagen faces increasing discontent from owners in Europe, meanwhile, who account for by far the greatest number of the 11 million vehicles with illegal software.
As a result, the settlement talks in the United States present Volkswagen with a dilemma. Any agreement that satisfied American owners would only increase demands from restive Volkswagen owners in Europe.
The automaker is recalling cars in Europe to make them compliant with air quality rules, but is not offering owners any compensation. Limits on nitrogen oxide are less stringent in Europe, so it has been easier for Volkswagen to find a fix that regulators will approve.
Still, owners in Germany, France and other places have been trying to find ways to sue Volkswagen, even though European laws generally discourage class-action suits. Some political leaders in Europe have also been calling on Volkswagen to pay car owners.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/business/volkswagen-settlement-diesel-scandal.html?_r=0
Good to see at least some serious consequences for a company caught gaming the system.
If Honda tells me that they cheated on the emissions test when they made my car, my reaction would be, "so?"
You're "I'm an irresponsible free rider and love polluting" shtick is getting a little old Mono.
disagree. continue non-preaching, mono!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 28, 2016, 08:15:18 PM
You're "I'm an irresponsible free rider and love polluting" shtick is getting a little old Mono.
In this case Mono has a point. The car buyers aren't the ones that suffered the harm. They shouldn't get compensation beyond what is required to fix the cars and perhaps something for the nuisance value.
The general public suffered the harm. The general treasury should get the bulk of the non remediative funds. Giving them to the car owners is just a windfall for the car owners.
article suggests the cars lost value due to the scandal, so that's probably the injury.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2016, 08:36:12 PM
In this case Mono has a point. The car buyers aren't the ones that suffered the harm. They shouldn't get compensation beyond what is required to fix the cars and perhaps something for the nuisance value.
The general public suffered the harm. The general treasury should get the bulk of the non remediative funds. Giving them to the car owners is just a windfall for the car owners.
How is that Mono's point? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 28, 2016, 08:40:25 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2016, 08:36:12 PM
In this case Mono has a point. The car buyers aren't the ones that suffered the harm. They shouldn't get compensation beyond what is required to fix the cars and perhaps something for the nuisance value.
The general public suffered the harm. The general treasury should get the bulk of the non remediative funds. Giving them to the car owners is just a windfall for the car owners.
How is that Mono's point? :huh:
The harm done by a car that illegally clears emissions tests isn't to the driver of the car. It is to the general public.
Mono didn't use those exact words, but reading between the lines that was my takeaway.
LaCroix, presumably the fall in value is primarily due to the cars not being able to legitimately pass emissions tests. Supposedly VW is going to fix that.
My interpretation was he is indifferent to his car's emissions.
through a buyback + some additional cash for the inconvenience to the customers
Quote from: LaCroix on June 28, 2016, 09:00:34 PM
through a buyback + some additional cash for the inconvenience to the customers
$5k-$10k is a lot for inconvenience. Especially for a VW.
buyback + inconvenience + punitive?
buyback + punitive?
I don't know the actual terms of the settlement or the rationale behind the settlement used to get the judge to sign off on it, but I'm assuming there's some reasonable basis behind this number
Quote from: LaCroix on June 28, 2016, 08:38:38 PM
article suggests the cars lost value due to the scandal, so that's probably the injury.
They absolutely did. My buddy's wife's VW lost about $7,000 in value IIRC.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2016, 08:45:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 28, 2016, 08:40:25 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2016, 08:36:12 PM
In this case Mono has a point. The car buyers aren't the ones that suffered the harm. They shouldn't get compensation beyond what is required to fix the cars and perhaps something for the nuisance value.
The general public suffered the harm. The general treasury should get the bulk of the non remediative funds. Giving them to the car owners is just a windfall for the car owners.
How is that Mono's point? :huh:
The harm done by a car that illegally clears emissions tests isn't to the driver of the car. It is to the general public.
Mono didn't use those exact words, but reading between the lines that was my takeaway.
LaCroix, presumably the fall in value is primarily due to the cars not being able to legitimately pass emissions tests. Supposedly VW is going to fix that.
I dunno if they can fix the emissions problem, and still maintain the same gas mileage.
If they can't, the loss in value is likely to be permanent, and the company would presumably be 100% to blame. So even the car-owning Monos of this world would deserve a payout. ;)
I wonder if this penalty is enough to actually make Volkswagen think it was a mistake...
Quote from: Berkut on June 29, 2016, 02:08:54 PM
I wonder if this penalty is enough to actually make Volkswagen think it was a mistake...
Check out what happened to VW's stock price since last year - pretty sure they feel it was a mistake.
What's more amazing is how little they had to gain from it, it was all about rather marginal gain in engine performance in a small subset of vehicles they produced. This is just the first of many hits, and it's already worth a couple of years of profits. I guess the good thing is that this story gave the business world an example of how dangerous Josef Stalin school of management can be for the company.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2016, 08:45:26 PM
LaCroix, presumably the fall in value is primarily due to the cars not being able to legitimately pass emissions tests. Supposedly VW is going to fix that.
The decline in value is because meeting emissions standards is incompatible with the stated performance of the vehicles. Otherwise there would have been no reason to do it in the first place.
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2016, 06:31:07 PM
What's more amazing is how little they had to gain from it, it was all about rather marginal gain in engine performance in a small subset of vehicles they produced. This is just the first of many hits, and it's already worth a couple of years of profits. I guess the good thing is that this story gave the business world an example of how dangerous Josef Stalin school of management can be for the company.
My understanding, from trying to parse multiple, various-colored, rumor-filled accounts, is that VW's gain depends on the vehicle in question. On my car (2014 Passat) it seems to center on the rate the car uses DEF. The fix will cause my car to consume DEF much faster but would have little, if any, impact on the actual performance. The issue is the EPA has an arguably protectionist requirement that DEF tanks hold no less than 10,000 miles worth of fluid. As a result, either my car needs a much larger tank or the EPA needs to accept a less than 10,000-mile service interval.
On other cars, it was about fuel economy. This has triggered many debates about whether the complaint or the cheating mode is actually better for the environment (cue debates on regulatory capture and EPA protectionism again).
Volkswagen's 1H 2016 report was published. They had the highest sales volume in the world of all automotive companies ahead of Toyota. Their only really bad market was North America. Consumers elsewhere don't seem to care much.
Their operational earnings for the first half of the year are about half of this settlement. So with the fines and penalities elsewhere they look like they will lose like one-and-a-half years of earnings. Really painful, but it won't kill the company.