We are on the threshold of a de facto ban on diesel, the EU wants to achieve this absurdly through the courts
We are on the threshold of a de facto ban on diesel, the EU wants to achieve this absurdly through the courts
yesterday | Petr Prokopec
If you feel that internal combustion engines, and in particular diesel engines, have been a bit of a wretch in recent years, you would probably not agree with the European Union. She obviously intends to use all the means, as is enough from the games.
The worst thing is when things are decided by people who do not understand them. This does not necessarily only affect politics, it also applies to lawyers of all kinds. They can be intelligent, literate, forged in law, yet for some it may be a problem to understand the technical nature of some things. And it’s really hard to get qualified when you have no idea what you’re deciding – if, for example, a judge whose top contact with electronics was an Aligator cell phone decides in a case that goes deep into the Internet, you have to succeed with more relevant arguments.
Something similar is going on before the Court of Justice of the European Union. The court is dealing with Volkswagen’s accusation that, even six years after the Dieselgate case, he has to use another form of so-called “disconnection device”, in other words illegal software that influences engine management to pass standardized emissions tests but in the real world something completely different. It sounds almost sensational, but the reality is completely different.
There are three exceptions to the VW Golf owned by Austrian drivers. They have been found to emit more emissions under the engine software when the car is moving at altitudes in excess of 1,000 meters above sea level and when the temperature drops below 15 or rises above 33 degrees Celsius. At that time, German cars are expected to produce more NOx emissions than allowed.
VW was not surprised by this finding and in fact does not say anything revolutionary about it. No anti-emission system works the same all the time – these solutions require minimal pressure, temperature and other factors to work properly. They logically affect absolutely most driving situations, but not all of them, a typical problem is a cold start. It is an overall result, not compliance with emission standards for 100% of the time in 100% driving situations, it is simply not realistic. You can’t pull trailers under full throttle to the Grossglockner and expect emissions like driving downhill without it – in one case they will be higher, in one they will be lower than allowed, the overall result will be fine and most importantly it will meet the applicable standards.
Surprisingly, the law is not so rigid in this respect and remembers similar exceptions. After all, how many people ride at altitudes at 1,000 meters above sea level? And how often is it still more than 33 ° C (not so much in the mountains) or less than 10 ° (it will be more frequent, but in winter, such high mountain roads are impassable)? These will be marginal cases that do not mean much in the whole picture of traffic on European roads. But who caught this behavior of VW engines with enthusiasm and go after the carmaker.
One of these is apparently the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the EU, Athanasios Rantos. If you have never heard of such a position, we do not share, it has nothing to do with advocacy as we know it here. It is a kind of patch that the court’s decision-making is one-step and not two-step, which is the usual way of ensuring a fair trial. However, the EU has taken a one-step trial and added these lawyers to the court, who are to give the court any impartial opinion before a court decision, which is still usually the case. And Rantos’s lacks logic, although purely legally, his view is possible.
The Advocate General has opposed VW and, in essence, is putting someone in the role of deliberately cheating again. Rantos feels that with the advent of RDE, ie measuring emissions in such operations, carmakers can no longer meet standards only in the laboratory cycle, but always. This is the first way out. VW in RDE meets the standards, however, Rantos further says that only because the cars did not drive a kilometer above sea level in less than 10 or more than 33 degrees. And because it is possible to drive under such conditions (supposedly mainly in Austria and Germany), VW should meet the standards here as well, which it does not do. This is the second way out.
Even in such a case, however, manufacturers have a legal possibility to exceed the emissions, if this is necessary to protect the engine or for the safety of the crew. And it is this possibility that the German carmaker refers to. But according to Rantos, the software does not protect the engine, but “components such as the EGR valve, EGR cooling and particulate filter.” For this reason, however, it cannot be recognized as engine protection – this is its third starting point.
Something like this seems completely absurd to us, on all three points. First of all, the RDE test was not designed to establish clear boundaries. It was created as a confirmation of the results of laboratory tests in random road conditions in order to previously repeat the Dieselgate case. Automakers therefore only have to make certain deviations from the laboratory test within the RDE, which VW manages.
Furthermore – RDE should take place in typical, not extreme conditions, so beating the manufacturer for not driving cars in the mountains sounds strange. There are exceptions to such non-standard conditions, because exhaust emissions logically cannot be the only thing manufacturers have to take into account. It is simply a misunderstanding, but it is most evident in Rantos’ third starting point.
In that regard, the Advocate General must be reminded that both the EGR system and all its components and the particulate filter are part of the engine. It is impossible to say what else is an engine and what is not – it is one technical unit that works only with all other components. Or what else does he think is the engine? Just pistons and crankshaft? Or more cylinder liners? Head? Intake, exhaust, what about turbo? This simply cannot be said, the use of the thermal window for the protection of EGR or DPF, in our opinion, can in no way be described as circumventing or abusing the adjustable rules. The engine has always been a technical unit consisting of a number of subcomponents, and the effort to protect some of them is still an effort to protect it as a whole.
So it will be interesting to see how the whole thing develops. But if the court leans towards Rantos’ view of the matter, it is at least with diesels Practically amen. For automakers – far from just VW – it would have to be their engines to strictly meet the limits always and everywhere, and this is completely unattainable at a reasonable cost and acceptable engine usability. Maybe it doesn’t even have to be bans or Euro 7. If this is labeled a scam, internal combustion engines have it counted.
Diesel engines again have little, according to the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, VW allegedly abuses the thermal window using anti-emission systems to protect any power unit. Nobody in Brussels probably explained that EGR and DPF are part of the engine at the same time. Photo: Volkswagen
Source: CJEU
Petr Prokopec