DSG woes in The Age

[AdamD]

From memory she had a GTI which doesn't have the engine shutdown issues that the TDI injectors cause.
You may get a coilpack go but it won't shut down the engine will it?

It would run rough as guts apparently, and I think you'd get misfire fault codes too.

[team_v]

It would run rough as guts apparently, and I think you'd get misfire fault codes too.

Yes i figured it would run rough but it isn't just going to shut down the engine on the highway and cause instant deceleration.
It would just run rough on 3 cylinders and probably go into limp mode.

[The_Hawk]

Given we know SFA about the coronial inquest it's impossible to draw any conclusions from this "new" information.

The article seems to hint that there are witnesses (other than the truck driver) who talk about the "sharp deceleration" without brake lights. I need to assume that there is no evidence in the computer logs showing any issue otherwise this would already be over??

"The family report that right from the start when there were suspicions, the description of the way the accident occurred, the poor fellow who was driving the vehicle from behind which was involved in this fatal accident, other witnesses all gave similar descriptions about the nature of the very sharp deceleration of the vehicle but without any brake lights coming on," he said.

In any case the recent media blitz and mores the consumer reports are presented as the rationale for the coroner allowing new/additional evidence.

I do wonder what level of evidence needs to be presented to allow the coroner to rule the car was at fault?

Does the car log a fault for bulbs out? Or is it a just a warning when the bulbs are out? It is possible the lights were simply not working and the driver did brake for some reason? Can/did the crash investigators check if the bulbs were working before the crash? What information does the computer log before/after a crash?
All questions we, as the public, will likely never get an answer to.



I still find it very interesting that one of the original articles did not talk to what she was driving and seemed to focus solely on the truck driver and trucks on roads.


Even if the there was no brake lights or warning and the driver in front ripped up the handbrake, it's still the driver behinds responsibility to stop or avoid the other vehicle. Last night on the M5 at 110km/h I had some genius who had stopped on the right had side of a four lane motorway who then decided to pull out from a dead stop into traffic then try to cross four lanes with seemingly little regard for cars on the road. Was the car broken and unable to speed up? In any case more than one person had to brake HARD to avoid this fool. There were no brake lights since he was speeding up yet we all managed.


This whole debacle just bother me, I accept that VW screw people around either real or imagined (and I have seen cases of both) over issues and I accept that there really are issues that need to be addressed. What bothers me is that an almost unrelated story has driven the media and public into a frenzy with questionable reporting cherry picking "facts" to get a good story then vaguely linking back to the original story.

After all, the sky is blue, I drive a blue car, my mother also drives a car, which she drove to the air port to get onto a plane and the plane flies in the sky (which is blue if you remember correctly), sometimes they serve breakfast… therefore bacon is awesome… (OK, maybe it's not quite that blatant, but that's how I'm starting to read these things).

[ill0gitech]

It's also worth mentioning (unless you're in the media where headlines and readers are more important than presenting all of the facts) is that just because she's going to consider further evidence, doesn't mean she will necessarily take it into account.

It would be difficult to ignore given the media attention and number of VW owners with issues, so there may be some consideration taken, but at the end of the day, a DSG gearbox in later model cars that overheat and may cause electrolysis, is a significantly different problem to this particular fatality.

[Rileyowner]

Given we know SFA about the coronial inquest it's impossible to draw any conclusions from this "new" information.



I do wonder what level of evidence needs to be presented to allow the coroner to rule the car was at fault?

Does the car log a fault for bulbs out? Or is it a just a warning when the bulbs are out? It is possible the lights were simply not working and the driver did brake for some reason? Can/did the crash investigators check if the bulbs were working before the crash? What information does the computer log before/after a crash?
All questions we, as the public, will likely never get an answer to.

From the ABC story quoting the family's lawyer: "So the family were seeking some answers and instead of getting the answers, they were dealing with a very secretive organisation that wasn't going to reveal coded information which was stored on the car's computer.
Right from the start VW has been less than forthcoming and that has made the family more suspicious."

I think they have every right to be deeply suspicious.

[AdamD]

From the ABC story quoting the family's lawyer: "So the family were seeking some answers and instead of getting the answers, they were dealing with a very secretive organisation that wasn't going to reveal coded information which was stored on the car's computer.
Right from the start VW has been less than forthcoming and that has made the family more suspicious."

I think they have every right to be deeply suspicious.

Thus far, the media have reported that VW have claimed the vehicle reported no fault codes or other information to indicate that the car was operating abnormally. What grounds does anyone have to imply that VW are lying?

The insinuation by the family's lawyer is that VW wasn't going to reveal "coded information". Based on the existing statements made by VW, what evidence exists that lead the family or their lawyer to believe such information exists and has some bearing on the incident? This is all hearsay. Surely the family don't expect VW to hand over complete schematics and data for their ECUs and subsystems to the family (which may be commercially sensitive and protected by IP law)?

Aaron - bulb-out errors would be recorded by the car's CECM as fault codes. And the likelihood of all 3 rear lights failing simultaneously immediately prior to the accident is... unlikely.

My guess is that the truck driver didn't see the Golf's tail lights, or her deceleration was not caused by the brakes and was therefore not dramatically sudden (irrespective of what the actual cause was - a gear change, a loss of propulsion, whatever). These types of event are over in mere seconds, and humans are hugely prone to making mistakes, missing details and having false recollections. Not to mention that it's a lot easier for someone to blame (or insinuate fault with) a faceless company than a single individual (the truck driver).

There is simply no way that the coroner is going to make a ruling that the car was at fault, with nothing but unreliable, inconclusive and in some respects contradictory evidence with which to work. This is not a Salem witch hunt.

[wai]

With the proliferation of computers in cars these days, there needs to some sort of QA procedure that needs to be undertaken to avoid clashes. Also, there needs to be more disclosure on the systems, what they do, and how they interact.

In another post I reported an issue with my Caddy Maxi Life TDI250, where if I restarted the car within a minute of shutting down, I would get a fault indicating a faulty glow plug. I had this looked at by the dealer and all that was recorded was "Communication error", even though the glow plug light would keep flashing unless the ignition was turned off for at least a minute. The report from the dealer was they "re-programmed" the computer.

Now this could be anything from applying a major software update where the issue was correctly addressed, to changing a setting to completely disable reporting of any glow plug fault.

We have multiple computers on cars, but we rarely know how they interact with each other under all circumstances. It almost comes down to a case of "what is the chance...". We look on car computers as nice toys, yet they how are responsible for our lives as all our actions are is nothing more than a request for one of more of the car's computers to do something. Whether it happens or not is not in our hands.

The problem is that the regulators have no idea as to what is going on, and manufacturers who do not want to disclose anything. Maybe what we need is an aftermarket "black box" type device that takes inputs from various sensors and switches and stores it for later analysis.

[pologti18t]

From the ABC story quoting the family's lawyer: "So the family were seeking some answers and instead of getting the answers, they were dealing with a very secretive organisation that wasn't going to reveal coded information which was stored on the car's computer.
Right from the start VW has been less than forthcoming and that has made the family more suspicious."

The article also says:

A spokeswoman for Coroner's Court says the coroner is considering the application made by the family and has not yet made a determination about whether she has the jurisdiction to accept the information provided by the family."

What other information can the family provide? The grievances of VW owners who don't even drive the same make/model as the victim?

Why do I have the cynical view that the family sees VW as a bigger potential bucket of money than the truck driver (who they originally blamed 4 months after the accident)

[AdamD]

With the proliferation of computers in cars these days, there needs to some sort of QA procedure that needs to be undertaken to avoid clashes. Also, there needs to be more disclosure on the systems, what they do, and how they interact.

I disagree. Hardware and software components are engineered to work collectively as a system. The end customer and the regulators don't need to know how this system works, and nor will they - it's all part of what makes a vehicle's design and execution unique, and marketable.

If your Caddy's glowplug isn't communicating correctly with other components, then there's an issue. Either there's a fauly component, in which case the manufacturer should be able to fix it, or a design defect, in which case the product is technically flawed. But in either case, there's no need for a consumer to understand the details. Of course if the car is not fit for purpose then the consumer is entitled a refund under consumer protection laws, and if the issue constitutes a safety risk then the manufacturer is entitled (in conjunction with the relevant authorities) to correct the defect, as consumers are entitled to safe cars (and manufacturers are legally required to sell cars that meet safety standards).

The problem is that the regulators have no idea as to what is going on, and manufacturers who do not want to disclose anything. Maybe what we need is an aftermarket "black box" type device that takes inputs from various sensors and switches and stores it for later analysis.

Many (most?) cars these days do have black boxes of sorts, that log data from sensors around the car, for analysis after an event such as a fault or an accident. This data is proprietary in nature but not commercially sensitive, and I've never heard of a situation where this data has been recorded, but withheld from authorities in any case.

Guy Harding (Guy_H on VWW) has retrieved data of this sort for the police and insurance companies in the past, for VAG cars involved in crimes and/or accidents.

[buzuki]

pretty sure the airbag module could log this stuff, as well as abs. But if the engine did cut out who knows how long it logs for with an engine not running.

I dont see the car being at fault. Even if the engine cut out, rapid deceleration i think is BS. Sure it would slow down, take your foot off accelerator on freeway and what happens?

Exactly what would of happened in this case, followed by panic of the driver most probably, and then a truck tailgating who is unable to slow down quick enough or wasnt paying attention.

Truckie is at fault IMO

[brimway]

So much has been said and guessed about this matter, but if I was a smart lawyer acting for a driver who ran into the back of the car in front causing a death, I'd get busy scouring for information about possible faults with the car my client ran into. I'd be sure to find something, be it substantive or not.

[alexaescht]

Just in:

http://www.theage.com.au/drive/motor-news/car-watchdog-toothless-on-vw-fault-20130803-2r6bu.html

Is that our very own Gavs being quoted at the bottom of that article?

Alex.

[wai]

The mistake that many make is that they assume that these government departments and agencies are there to act for the consumer. They simply do not.

They only act when they are cornered.

Take Fair Trading NSW. I reported that some aluminium drink bottles I purchased from a supermarket in January have shown severe pitting as the unprotected aluminium has reacted with nothing more than tap water. This means that there are dissolved aluminium salts in the water and is not good for the health of those drinking the water.

Well, it has been a couple of months since that was reported, and not a peep out of them.

The thing about these aluminium drink bottles is that the majority of users do not check the insides because it is not easy and you need to get the light at the right angle to see the pitting.

There is a longstanding principle with government departments and agencies. Any response has to be at least in the same form as the initial contact made with the department or agency. So a standard letter requires the response to be a letter; a telephone call requires a response by telephone; or an e-mail requires a response by e-mail. What does happen is that they call, their CallerID is blocked, and they will not leave a message if the calls goes through to voicemail.

The result is that nothing gets done, complaints do not get responded to, and everything remains the same.

I worked in the NSW DMT, and every contact made was logged, and we had to complete a weekly return showing when we responded and what the outcome of the response was. Things did not move off the register until the matter was concluded. The weekly return also showed the number of days it took to respond and conclude the matter.

So it is not surprising to see the the DIT did nothing. It was probably shown as being productive in that it did not involve the department in any "unnecessary" investigation.

[Transporter]

The mistake that many make is that they assume that these government departments and agencies are there to act for the consumer. They simply do not.

They only act when they are cornered.

Are you sure about that? The government seems to be quite concerned even about the situation in overseas countries and I just hope that they will never find the life on another planet, because they would start sending money even there.

[wai]

Are you sure about that? The government seems to be quite concerned even about the situation in overseas countries and I just hope that they will never find the life on another planet, because they would start sending money even there.

Do you think that extraterrestrial intelligent life would let it be known they are in the neighbourhood? The fact that we don't see or hear from them is proof positive that they exist. After all, after they see what we do to our planet and all the species, the last thing they would want is to let it be known that they are in the vicinity.

But yes, the government has gladly provided stimulus to the economies of other countries at the expense of those on this rock.