gaston hello
janic wrote: It is the reality of the field that prevails, which eventually recognize the professionals who hitherto (for political reasons) were hiding behind an unrealistic standard.
According to your speech, it would be better to continue to pollute without vergers since a standard (scientifically established, have I already said?) Would support the opposite? Fortunately, some people prefer the reality of the terrain!
The reality on the ground is that the same vehicle can pollute ten or a hundred times more when riding a mountain lane at full load than when traveling at steady speed on empty plains.
It looks like Isentrop all spit. Pollution being linked to consumption, a hundred times more would mean a consumption one hundred times higher than what does not exist
But what you say here about the difference between mountain and plain is of elementary evidence.
It is also a vehicle capable of driving at 300 km / h may pollute less than a vehicle unable to exceed the 150 km / h when they both drive at 80 km / h.
No ! If only for the difference in weight between the two, plus the techniques used. If you take the manufacturer data, the consumption of the first will prove (with equivalent technology) superior to the second.
Should tests be made to measure the maximum pollution that a vehicle can produce (if we are able to ...)?
Yes of course ! Manufacturers should also give consumption and pollution at maximum speed, but that does not go in the direction of a low-pollution policy.
And if this maximum is reached only a few seconds during the life of the vehicle, while another vehicle pollutes more in the usual cases, which is preferable
Answer given above! At most, can we invoke the quality of materials used in high-end, which provide a longer life, but we are no longer in a comparison "all things being equal"
But in the case invoked of this thread, the two would profit from the same advantages and would maintain the difference. (Consult the site quanthomme!)
It is easy to shout haro on the test procedures, but they are necessary when one wants to make decisions (and the decisions are not scientific, they are political).
I agree with this last point for its political aspect (but this policy is imposed by those who make the rain and the weather in industrial terms, the powerful lobbies of the industrial economy). The pseudo scandal VW has exploded the wall of silence and hypocrisy.
Did hello
Nevertheless, everyone agrees that the current protocols, under the influence of the manufacturers' lobby, are particularly "silly" and biased:
- there is a whole battery of "accommodations" aimed at reducing emissions when in reality, we cannot drive like this: very low speeds, deactivated electrical accessories, etc ...
Elementary, my dear Watson! + 1
- if the "perfect" protocol does not exist, we could approach it a bit! The "average" use of a car in France is known; we know that it covers x% of km on the motorway, y% on national and departmental roads, z% in town; that it is in so many traffic jams ... It would suffice to "reproduce" this, in a standardized way, to give a more realistic indication ...
This is what the professional media offer. Peugeot has just given measurements in real conditions that compare with those of the NEDC exceed them by about 1.8 l / 100 on average.
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré