back to article Emissions cheating detection shines light on black box code

Researchers analyzing the emissions defeat devices found in automobiles made by the Volkswagen Group and Chrysler Fiat Automobiles have developed a way to test software for misbehavior, but they caution that lack of visibility into programming code could pose a challenge for regulators. In 2015, the US Environmental Protection …

  1. beast666

    Just make the emission regulations reasonable and not ever tightened to satisfy the current liberal eco-loons.

    CO2 is not a pollutant. Recognising this would have avoided this whole saga.

    1. Electron Shepherd

      It's not the CO2 that's the problem...

      .. at least in the immediate vicinity of the car.

      The emissions regs aren't just there to limit CO2, but also all the other stuff that comes out of the exhaust pipe. It's the particulate matter (PM10 and PM25) and NOx that cause the problems for the person on the pavement next to the road, and it's those emissions that rise drastically (like 40 times higher) when the car thinks it isn't being tested.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It's not the CO2 that's the problem...

        Quite. Remember catalysts? They actually increase the CO2 emissions.

    2. Primus Secundus Tertius

      As I understand it, the pollutants are oxides of nitrogen. These are produced when things are burned in air at high temperatures. This is a problem for diesel engines because of their high compression, hence high adiabatic temperature rise. This makes them thermodynamically more efficient than petrol or butane engines, so they use less fuel. So they produce less CO2, but more NO/NO2.

      We have catalytic converters to turn CO to CO2; higher combustion temperatures yield more CO. But it seems there is nothing to remove the NO/NO2.

      But you are right that CO2 is not a pollutant: it is plant food; and the regulations are designed by green freaks, not scientists and engineers.

    3. Martin Gregorie

      You haven't being attention. CO2 is not the problem for diesels; NOx is.

      Now that's out of the way, it seems to me that there's a reasonably simple way to catch both types of cheating.

      1) Borrow a car from a dealer chosen at random. Stuff a gas analyser up its tail pipe and drive it at least 62 miles/100 km. with the analyser logging its readings along with gradient and speed

      2) put that car and at least one more through the statutory rolling road test cycle.

      Now look at the results. Examination of (1) should spot the Chrysler-Fiat style of cheat: if there's a step change after the test cycle length you've got them. Comparing the two traces should spot ECUs using the VW type of cheat because the road test will show higher emission levels at all stages of the drive than the rolling road test does. This approach may well pick up hybrids of the two as well as new and unforeseen ways of cheating.

    4. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      "CO2 is not a pollutant. "

      Perhaps you would like to sit in a suitably sized airtight box with say 5% CO2 in the atmosphere to demonstrate it's completely harmless?

      1. Herby

        Re: "CO2 is not a pollutant. "

        Yes, there are some things that aren't too compatible with life in general. 5% CO2, in an enclosed box won't hurt you, but get much above 10% and things start to go really bad. The guys on Apollo 13 figured that one out.

        As for other things, water is a tailpipe emission. We breathe it every day, and deal with it. I wouldn't want to be in an "atmosphere" of 100% water but for a brief time (I can only hold my breath so much).

        Methane escapes into the atmosphere as well, and is a much more dangerous "pollutant" than CO2 as far as "greenhouse gasses" are concerned. I don't see anyone calling for catalytic converters on cooktops any time soon. Then again, don't let the government get wind of it, they may do it anyway.

        At the present time our atmosphere is less than 1/2% CO2, less than Argon which nobody has talked about (clue, it is inert!).

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "CO2 is not a pollutant. "

          At the present time our atmosphere is less than 1/2% CO2 ...

          In fact, it is much less than 1/2 of a percent. The seasonally- and globally- averaged CO2 concentration is at present 0.04% by volume (or by the number of molecules). It is slightly higher by weight (about 0.06%), because CO2 molar weight (44 g/mol) is higher than the average molar weight of air (29 g/mol).

          Geologically, the last time atmospheric CO2 reached 0.5% by volume was over 400 million year ago, during the Cambrian period. That was a rather different time from now. The sea level was up to 90 meters above the present level; the global average temperatures were about 7 degrees warmer than at present. A similar increase in carbon dioxide concentration now will almost certainly make areas where 90% of humans live at present uninhabitable.

        2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Unhappy

          "5% CO2, in an enclosed box won't hurt you, "

          In the sense of "Won't kill you outright." Which is why I chose the level, as I didn't want someone to die to prove that statement is bu***hit.

          The CO2 level in your lungs is what triggers the human breathing cycle, not the lack of O2 (see what happens if you learn your science watching Deadpool?)

          IRL symptoms are

          "Breathing becomes extremely laboured, headaches, sweating and bounding pulse"

          as listed here

          No doubt some will say that sounds a bit like a hangover. But it's a permanent hangover and not drinking alcohol won't fix it.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "CO2 is not a pollutant. "

        You could also try 100% oxygen.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "CO2 is not a pollutant. "

          "You could also try 100% oxygen."

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1

      3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        Re: "CO2 is not a pollutant. "

        For those wondering what actual levels of CO2 can do here's a list put together for people who might find themselves near volcanoes, which put out quite a lot of the stuff.

    5. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      The issue with VW and Fiat was there NO2 emissions, not fuel economy.

      With all due respect NO2 is the mother of all pollutants produced by combustion.

      So I suggest you lay off the neoliberal pill box before talking.

  2. Ole Juul

    Mandate open source

    As it stands, both the legal compliance and safety of this software hinges on trust. That's not how society normally deals with these issues, at least legally. Does the tax department trust you when you say "don't worry, our accounting is just fine". Or does compliance with fire regulations hinge on builders and designers simply saying, "trust us". No. There is a transparent audit process. With software the only way to bring it into line with the rest of society is to make it open source. Without that, regulation is just a farce.

    1. Captain DaFt

      Re: Mandate open source

      "With software the only way to bring it into line with the rest of society is to make it open source."

      Another way, and one that should be used even if the software is OS:

      A. Manufacturer supplies a copy of all the vehicle's code along with the vehicle for review to be inspected for cheats.

      B. Inspector pulls a random model from a random dealership, which has its code compared to submitted code.

      C. Submitted vehicle's and randomly chosen vehicle's electronics are inspected looking for any unusual differences that could affect the code.

      D. if A, B, or C raise any suspicions , demand answers, don't accept any hand waving, ban the vehicle from sale until suspicions are addressed, and fine the Manufacturer if guilty, no ifs ands or buts!

      (Yeah, like that'll happen)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Mandate open source

      As it stands, both the legal compliance and safety of this software hinges on trust. That's not how society normally deals with these issues, at least legally.

      That would depend on the society in question. For example, tax returns in Canada are largely trust-based: you do not need to submit most of the supporting documentation unless asked (obviously you are still expected to have it, and to keep it for a certain number of years).

      In general, it is pretty much impossible for any society to operate without trust: simply compare the number of health inspectors in a given city to the number of restaurants, or the number of FAA inspectors to the number of aircraft operating in the US - it is physically impossible to keep close tabs on everybody at all times.

      This is exactly why VW's and Chrysler's actions are completely unacceptable, and need to be severely punished - by driving both companies into bankrupcy if necessary. And no, the current level of punishment is nowhere close enough to make the point. For example at the moment it looks like VW's European customers will get no meaningful compensation.

      1. Adam 1

        Re: Mandate open source

        For example at the moment it looks like VW's European non-USAian customers will get no meaningful compensation.

        TFTFY

        To be honest, if static analysis was as effective as implied in the article, our antivirus products would work much more effectively. All a rogue company would have to do is push through so many changes that trigger false positives in the analytics tools that the regulators would not be able to practically do their job.

        The simpler solution here is to ban all sales of any make for 3 months plus the amount of time taken to repair defective vehicles already sold if caught.

        Provide other manufacturers the ability to self report any past misdeeds with VW-esq penalties. Any new model caught playing similar games, or any existing model that hasn't been caught would trigger the 3 month+ ban.

        Finally, rather than pay they own coffers when someone gets caught, set aside a large proportion (say 50%) as a bug bounty style payment to private researchers who discover and report cheat devices to the regulator.

        Avoiding cheats is simply making compliance less costly than any benefit they would have had by cheating.

  3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    it looks like open road testing is the way to go.

    Fortunately modern test machinery is a lot more compact than it used to be.

    1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: it looks like open road testing is the way to go.

      It does not and cannot scale unfortunately and it does not address the problem.

      At the very least in London (and other European cities), the real problem is that 90% of the diesel part of the hire car fleet (that equates to >80% of all of them) has been chipped or has had their ECU reprogrammed to turn off the EGR and other NOX emission control measures. You walk into any small garage say a couple of words in the appropriate language, wink a couple of times and your car exits the garage running with 20% higher fuel efficiency and with NOX control off.

      The reason London pollutions is so bad is not the weak pollution regs, it is the fact that most of the ~1M hire and light commercial fleet in London has them disabled.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: it looks like open road testing is the way to go.

        I fully acknowledge that chipping/3rd party reprogramming is possible - but is it really "very widespread" as you imply? Can you cite other sources?

        If true, if true, it would mean that no government measures on the manufacturers will be effective...

        I had heard that it's not unusual fro people to remove the DPF as they cause trouble/get clogged especially for vehicles that do a lot of stop-start driving.

        I know that Kings College did a lot of work over the past decade in London measuring emissions to specific tailpipes by numberplate recognition - and showed that real-world emissions on Marylebone Road were far worse than manufacturers' figures would suggest... (the fact that this was published and has been known for years led me to think there's been deliberate government head-in-the-sand until the VW scandel came to light)

        1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

          Re: it looks like open road testing is the way to go.

          I fully acknowledge that chipping/3rd party reprogramming is possible - but is it really "very widespread" as you imply?

          I used to take my older one to a Sunday language school on an industrial estate in London. Up to around 2010-ish it was a quiet dump with a couple of unused warehouses and nothing going on.

          From 2010 to 2016 it was impossible to park over the weekend. Out of 6 warehouses, 5 opened as garages - one English, two Eastern European and two of some South-West Asian variety. Any discussion of what you want - only in the right language. All were running ~ 20% normal garage business, 80% re-progamming and chipping. I can read two Eastern European languages used on the site so I can tell you they were chipping like crazy based on what they were posting and boasting. One of them even advertised in the local immigrant rag published in that language.

          Most of the cars waiting to be "serviced" were either private hire or Uber with an occasional van for "variety". 2010 - is Euro 4. That was the point when parking there became difficult. 2014 is Euro 5 - that was the point when it became outright impossible as there were rows and rows of cars waiting for their turn.

          The site is now demolished, but I am pretty sure that the trade has simply moved elsewhere. It did not disappear. I would not expect it to be a one-off either.

  4. Arty Effem

    Emissions testing as performed currently is already a known cheat. Anyone with any knowledge of engines is aware that the only realistic way to test emissions is with the engine on load. Under those conditions no cheat device can operate, eliminating the need for measures to detect one.

    The reader is left to guess why such real-world testing is not mandated.

  5. a_yank_lurker

    An Observation

    Having dealt with EPA regulations many years ago one item that always struck me is how badly written they are many areas. This leads to frustration as to what to do and how to do it. Couple with the EPA's notorious refusal to commit to any sensible interpretation makes many areas a morass. I have not read their regulations in this area, never dealt with it, but if they are true to form is a morass of shyster, double-talk, and outright illiteracy.

    I can see someone thinking their interpretation of the morass is reasonable. But because they have no first hand dealings with the frauds they do not realize they have literally hung themselves.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: An Observation

      Which is PRECISELY how an organization crafted to clean up our environment acts when they have been neutered by endless internal regulations about what they can, and can't do, all drafted by representatives hell-bent on making sure the bribe money keeps coming in from the worst offenders, AKA the biggest bribery, er excuse me, "lobbying gifts" from their pals in every industry. Just pay some gift monies, and suddenly you are no longer in violation. But don't tell that to the flag waving, billionaire blowing, gun-dildoing, muggles who love to sell themselves and their surroundings out, in the name of big business getting whatever it wants. "Sure, just frack in my backyard, should be okay, right?" To those creeps, shitting all over the environment is a way of life, and I get up and cheer every time there is a fracking quake in the Midwest. This is how stupid those people are; tornadoes? "sure, we love them, those are just tests from our pretend god!" Earthquakes? "That's for those nasty Californians!" Ooops, now you get them too, idiots! "Blessed."

      And before they cry "mean liberals are being mean to me!" Just imagine that I am now self-incorporated and soak the tax man, just like their billionaire heroes do! HAHA! Soon, I'll be their fucking "hero" too, and you know what, I still think they suck. How does that work? :P

      Conservatives are the worst thing that capitalism shits out of it's giant ass. The anti-science, backwards thinking idiots are a relic from the past, and built to stay there. Let's fix this!

      1. a_yank_lurker

        Re: An Observation

        In my experience with the EPA the worst offenders are the environmentalists who want to save the planet from everyone else but themselves that work for the EPA.

  6. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    And if you think what's coming out the exhaust is nasty

    Wait till you see the results of sampling the internal environment.

    Very bad indeed for some cars, rather better for others.

    1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

      Re: And if you think what's coming out the exhaust is nasty

      Wait till you see the results of sampling the internal environment.

      Very bad indeed for some cars, rather better for others.

      And teach car drivers how to use the equipment built in to every car for the last 40+ years - the ventilation.

      It always amazes me to see modern, high-spec cars being driven in damp conditions with condensation all over the interior surfaces of the glass (and usually with a driver futilely wiping at the windsreen to get a small, temporaty visibility patch). Even in my wifes 50+ year-old Morris Minor, we can keep *most* of the screen clean in high-humidity conditions..

      (Rant over).

  7. Dr. Ellen
    Black Helicopters

    Cheating?

    The emissions testing rules said "this is how we will test your car" and "here is what we expect to see when we do it." So the carmakers gave it to them. This is called "teaching to the test" in schools, and while it's bad form, it probably isn't illegal. Unless, of course, you do it to the government.

    1. Adam 1

      Re: Cheating?

      If the regulations were two sentences long, you would be right. But pretty sure there are clauses that specify that the behaviour must be achievable in real world driving and not a special test mode (VW) and that any factors that might make the standard tests unrepresentative of normal behaviour are to be disclosed (FCJ).

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In the US State of GA, they don't test from the tail pipe at all in cars built after 1995. They only test from the OBD 2 Port. An ECU with defeat code could say a car passed that test, when it really didn't, hence the need to catch the shifty, such as VW Group.

  9. Kristian Walsh Silver badge

    FCA case...

    The article doesn't go inot much detail about the Fiat-Chrysler case, and from the discussion of the code, it's really about the VW emissions cheating. FCA's case is different; here's a summary:

    The EPA examined the engine control software of FCA's 3.0 litre V6 diesel (made by FCA subsidiary VM-Motori) fitted to some RAM pickups and Jeep vehicles and found a few control loops that they felt would affect emissions in some cases. The behavior changes weren't major, but EPA claimed they could affect the emissions results (resulting in a fail in some tests which passed in the lab).

    The charge against FCA is not that they are actively attempting to defeat the emissions test, but rather that they did not fully disclose these addition control systems in the engine software. Unlike the VW trick, these are all possible to trigger in normal driving conditions, but like the VW trick, they are always active in the EPA test cycle.

    Strangely, had FCA told EPA about these up front, there may not have been any case to answer - the US rules state that you disclose everything to EPA, and they judge whether it's material to the real emissions performance of the vehicle.

    The Volkswagen case is an order of magnitude more serious than anything else in the industry: it represented co-ordinated planning by VW to misrepresent the engine under test in order to allow them to sell a diesel engine in the USA that they knew beforehand would never meet US emissions regulations in any normal mode of operation.

    1. Adam 1

      Re: FCA case...

      But but but rogue engineer. Like all multibillion dollar companies, we let our engineers have unfettered free reign over parts of the ECU that could see the whole fleet banned from sale in several of our largest markets.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    NOX numbers

    Does anyone have the actual tested numbers (real or otherwise) by model that they can make public?

    I can't seem to find them anywhere.

  11. Missing Semicolon Silver badge
    Devil

    "The scandal claimed the company's CEO at the time, Martin Winterkorn"

    Really? When does his jail term start?

    Ah.

  12. Fading
    Happy

    What we need.....

    Is a method to ensure the engine produces N2O instead. That will keep everyone happy......

  13. Sparhawk1965

    Emission Standards are worthless despite cheating

    The current set of Euro Emissions standards are a sham. All they test is what the car emits over a 20 minute cycle whilst performing in a lab.

    The best you can establish is that the car passed a test whilst in a lab, unfortunately it doesn't have to perform like this on the road. This allows the manufacturers to "Game" the system and encourages cheating.

    Nearly all cars fail the test when on a road and some exceed the emissions standards by as much as 40 times the permitted levels.

    Governments, Regulators and the EU have all failed to enforce the limits and allowed the manufacturers to get away with cheating the system for far too long.

    Since VW were caught with their lederhosen down and actually cheating to pass the test, we have seen a concerted effort from VW to try and cover this up within Europe. Currently the fix within Europe is a software only fix, which is supposed to remove the cheat code, but by doing this they also have to make the cars meet the emissions standards. Doing this alters the cars ignition sequence to produce 3 times the soot/particulates by not fully combusting the fuel. This has the effect of making the car sound like a 30 year old taxi, lose power in the mid range, become less fuel efficient, and make the Exhaust management system prone to failure (i.e. ERG Valves, DPF filers, Injectors, and Turbo's) have been failing soon after having the fix applied.

    In order to keep this hidden, VW (VAG) are replacing these parts as a goodwill gesture, but why would they do this if the fix actually worked and didn't destroy the engines.

    We now have a situation where they are looking to introduce an emissions charge for driving/parking in some city's, based on a failed emissions standard, where a Euro3 certified car is fined, for emitting less emissions than a new Euro6 certified car, where the only offence was to be driving it o the road, as the cars are only certified to be driven in a lab.

    You couldn't make it up if you tried.

    With the soon to be

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Emission Standards are worthless despite cheating

      Since VW were caught with their lederhosen down and actually cheating to pass the test, we have seen a concerted effort from VW to try and cover this up within Europe. Currently the fix within Europe is a software only fix, which is supposed to remove the cheat code, but by doing this they also have to make the cars meet the emissions standards. Doing this alters the cars ignition sequence to produce 3 times the soot/particulates by not fully combusting the fuel. This has the effect of making the car sound like a 30 year old taxi, lose power in the mid range, become less fuel efficient, and make the Exhaust management system prone to failure (i.e. ERG Valves, DPF filers, Injectors, and Turbo's) have been failing soon after having the fix applied.

      Don't know where you get this rubbish from, my VW doesn't suffer from any of this, having had the 'fix' done several weeks ago, if anything it feels slightly livelier in the mid-range, and the fuel consumption is just the same as always.

  14. earl grey
    Trollface

    " make areas where 90% of humans live at present uninhabitable."

    Well, we could do with a bit smaller population on mother earth...

  15. StephenTompsett

    Get the requirement right!

    The software did the job it was asked to, pass the 'test' when undergoing an artificial test.

    Reminds me of when councils were paid to collect general and recyclable waste separately, but then just dumped it in the same hole!

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    VW's pain is US gain

    For all that is wrong with the standardised tests and their ultimate intent vs ultimate effect, - the US government gets to fine a big company for 2.8 bill and we know they need the money

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon