Re: My sympathies....
Well, you managed to include politics, thermodynamics, aerodynamics, and quite a lot of other stuff in one post.
But I'll pick out one;
["The auto manufacturers, presumably left to their own devices to compile the test schedules, did what so, so many organisations have done throughout the history. They wrote the schedules to comply with the letter of the Law. Look back to all those road tests and fuel consumption figures, going back donkey's years, in cars stripped of all removeable weight, on new engines very carefully run-in, on tyres pumped up to brick hardness, and in weather noted to be good for fuel eficiency (the colder, the better)."]
Whilst this was true for a period - I remember the quoted coefficient of drag for a car I owned wasn't the bespoilered fat tyred 164mph version, which comparatively the aerodynamics of the blunt end of a barn, but actually the weedy 1.8 version on super skinny tyres, gawky hubcaps, and covered in Teflon. Similarly, power outputs were usually given for a blueprinted engine operating under absolutely perfect conditions running 100 or 101 octane fuel. Bike makers were the worst, with the Italians taking it to quite absurd levels (looking in particular at the FZR1000 EXUP engined Bimota YB10 Furano of the early 90s - magically gained 40hp by being put in an Italian frame).
However, the Euro emissions tests were undertaken by an independent testing body - hence the need for the software to recognise it was being run under test conditions, thus wind the fuelling back to ultra-lean, and in the case of petrol, ignition advanced as close as you can without it knocking.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
