Comment by rndgermandude | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rndgermandude | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Even if you shoot somebody live on TV, you're presumed innocent until proven guilty. Because you might be found innocent after all, however unlikely that may seem to the casual observer.

>Someone purposefully engineered a device and software

Not really. The general type of Engine Control Unit (ECU) Volkswagen incl Audi uses can be customized. The AdBlue control can be customized too, which makes sense given that the same basic ECU can used between different models. What they did is set the customization parameters (a data model) in such a way that it turned off AdBlue injection unless the input data suggested it was on a test run. They didn't actually develop a dedicated device and didn't even develop software in a strict sense. Calling it a "device" is a legal term.

Somebody actually bought an ECU and analyzed it: https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7331-the_exhaust_emissions_scand...

>The idea, plan and execution of such a software could have only happened by some execs at Volkswagen and Audi.

Agreed. The question is who specifically, tho.

this was also the case for VW/Audi vehicles which were not equipped with AdBlue. I had a 2013 TDI that simply would do a special burn off on occasion to remove build up.

I cannot even find out if that car would have been repairable. Would the fix to the US 2.0L TDI engines in VW at that time even been worthwhile to tweak? I remember reading that they even claimed at one time they could just fix it with a software update

Is there a TL;DR for the video ?

The way I understood it was that in case of no steering input and somewhat constant load, the ECU would "assume" the engine is being tested (on a rolling road) and then would start burning rich which would reduce combustion temperature and reduce NoX.

What is the role of manipulating SCR here ? Was the ECU increasing AdBlue injection during testing ? OR does it suppress AdBlue during normal cycles ? (That would be horrible)

What is this the third law of robotics?

Some guy solders it, some guy programs it, some guy configures it, it violates the law and no one is guilty?

Does splitting hairs about the execution change the fact that some person or group of people deliberately intended to commit a crime?

If you want to say it could have been an accident because of xyz implementation details, OK, but I don't see anything like that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com