[HN Gopher] Subaru, Kia shut off some car features rather than a...
___________________________________________________________________
Subaru, Kia shut off some car features rather than adhere to 'right
to repair'
Author : davidclark22
Score : 185 points
Date : 2022-02-23 18:33 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ksdk.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ksdk.com)
| rootsudo wrote:
| Call me silly, but I'd like to buy one of those cars w/o
| telemetry.
|
| "
|
| So it was a surprise to Subaru fans when Massachusetts
| dealerships started selling its line of 2022 vehicles without a
| key ingredient: the in-car wireless technology that connects
| drivers to music, navigation, roadside assistance and crash-
| avoiding sensors.
|
| "The dealer didn't bring it up," said Joy Tewksbury-Pabst, who
| bought a new Subaru Ascent without realizing she'd be missing out
| on the remote start and locking features she had before trading
| in her 2019 model. She also lost the ability to check wiper fluid
| levels, tire pressure and mileage from her phone. "
|
| I want that, I don't want my car to be connected to a 3g/4g/5g
| modem sending telemetry wherever I go.
|
| I don't find value in checking out my car fluid on my phone, I
| find value in popping the hood and visually confirming it. The
| car stops what, every 400 miles for fuel? Not that much more to
| pop the hood and see what fluid levels are.
|
| I find value in not letting the auto companies be able to track,
| measure, analyze my car usage.
| runnerup wrote:
| AIUI that may not be legal anymore, I think some degree of
| crash 911 assistance is mandated by NHSTA now. I may be wrong.
|
| I believe things are moving more towards that direction as
| well: https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/13/13936342/wireless-
| vehicl...
| ezfe wrote:
| This quote mentions "crash-avoiding sensors" but doesn't go
| into more detail. I don't think this is at all effected.
| julian_sark wrote:
| Alternate headline: Web site at www.kdsk.com seemingly shuts out
| European visitors with http/403 instead of dealing with EU data
| protection act.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| "Website reporting on unintended consequences of added
| compliance costs dealing with same costs."
|
| Film at 11.
| olliej wrote:
| Complying with the GDPR doesn't require extra money, it's
| just all these companies have become obsessed with providing
| surveillance for google, etc and would rather keep doing that
| than not.
|
| Which fine, it's their business, but saying this is because
| of "compliance costs" is nonsense.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| I don't believe you have ever worked on a GDPR compliance
| project.
|
| Our corporate expense SaaS didn't support GDPR for a long
| time, and we had to migrate. That cost both us and them
| time and money. It's not because they were sending all our
| data to Google nefariously, it's because it's a huge
| compliance burden they did not bother to undertake.
| tempnow987 wrote:
| What a lie.
|
| I frankly don't even think the EU could tell you what is
| and isn't OK.
|
| And tons of stuff gets you in trouble, up and downstream.
| Ie, using a CDN that is logging IP addresses, operating
| behind an abuse filter that does tracking / ip logging for
| anti-abuse stuff without doing all the explicit opt in
| stuff. Obviously things like using a hosted CDN resource
| (font etc etc) / or tweet embeds. Figuring out which users
| are EU users, responding to GDPR requests for data and
| validating those and the list goes on.
| dj_mc_merlin wrote:
| It does cost to comply with the GDPR. You lose access to
| user tracking (which is valuable for a business), have to
| house user data in a specific manner and make sure EU
| citizens don't get their PII transferred out of Europe.
| Somebody has to make these changes, and nobody does stuff
| for a company for free.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| I've been in the room when a very expensive lawyer couldn't
| reliably predict if an almost brochureware website was
| compliant because the multi-tenant web server it was
| sitting behind was logging IP addresses for anti-abuse
| purposes.
|
| Now it's my belief that it was compliant but guess what is
| less risky than trusting my beliefs? Blocking European
| access.
|
| You can wish GDPR doesn't have compliance costs but that
| doesn't make it true.
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| I'd expect a least a better error code
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_451) or at least a message
| that would explain it. I just thought the site was hugged to
| death.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Or just ignoring it, which seems like it would make more sense
| for a local news station?
| stevecalifornia wrote:
| I have yet to see how this thread will go but I imagine there
| will be some population that sees this as a malicious attack on
| 'right to repair'. My take from behind the scenes on these kind
| of things is that this is likely 'until we have the tools and
| processes to handle the work stream originating from this one
| state in this one country, we should disable the feature'.
| [deleted]
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Well if that's the case they really should have considered the
| optics better.
|
| Also, "who cares it's just one small state in one country" is
| not a very nice thing for a company to express either.
|
| Either way it's a bit of a middle finger to the affected
| customers IMO.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| It's not a middle finger necessarily. While I have no
| automotive industry experience I've definitely been in
| situations where I was prohibited from being able to provide
| customer value adding capabilities to systems due to
| compliance issues, either lack of clarity of the
| requirements, added compliance costs making the feature
| untenable or compliance mandated deadlines not meeting
| estimated delivery times.
|
| It feels terrible to do but there isn't much choice.
| csours wrote:
| Disclosure: I work for GM, everything expressed here is solely
| my own opinion.
|
| I think people see car companies as a huge monolith with nearly
| limitless resources. I can see where this comes from, but those
| resources are split into silos, and those silos have limited
| capacity. Especially for companies like Subaru, which is
| actually pretty small comparatively. They may have done a cost-
| benefit analysis and decided that the investment was not worth
| the money they get from selling those option packages.
|
| ---
|
| On a broader level, I think right to repair can be perceived as
| a feature, but many executives have a default negative stance
| on openness.
|
| I think of it like the GM LS engine. If you're at all familiar
| with car modification, you've heard of the LS Swap - people
| changing the engine that came with their car for a larger, more
| powerful, more versatile GM V8 engine. The LS swap ecosystem
| grew because the engines were relatively cheap, relatively easy
| to work on, and relatively reliable (your mileage may vary).
| Imagine if GM executives had tried to lock down the engine swap
| environment.
| resoluteteeth wrote:
| It's interesting to note that this exactly what John Deere
| has been claiming about repair software for their tractors:
| they're just really busy working on making it available ASAP.
|
| John Deere has actually been saying this (that they're
| working on it as fast as they can and it will be ready any
| day now) as they stall _for years_ and refuse to actually
| make their software available to purchasers, even though the
| software itself actually already exists, since dealers have
| it, and they could literally just hand people copies with
| zero additional work.
| duped wrote:
| That assumes they have the rights to distribute the
| software to their customers, it's not always so cut and dry
| when you have vendor libraries to deal with.
| csours wrote:
| What if John Deere viewed user serviceability as a
| competitive advantage? Why don't they now? If they changed
| their view today (or 5 years ago, etc), what challenges
| would they face? How much technical investment would each
| of those challenged take?
|
| I've been thinking about assumptions so deep you don't even
| realize they are assumptions. If an organization assumes a
| dealership model, and works that way for 50 years, all
| sorts of decisions are made that make it hard to go direct.
| People joining the org naturally go along, after a while
| they just don't think about alternatives.
|
| It's REALLY hard to hold ideas that don't make sense in
| your head; you ask your leadership "Why do we do this" and
| you come to some conclusion based on what they say, but
| it's resolved. Like untying a knot, you have to leave a lot
| of loose ends unresolved if you want to change deep
| assumptions, and that is not mentally rewarding for most
| people.
| bluedino wrote:
| > Imagine if GM executives had tried to lock down the engine
| swap environment.
|
| At least if they did, you could build one with 100%
| aftermarket pieces.
| miohtama wrote:
| The variation of "right to repair" was also what started the
| freedom of software movement in 80s and later led to the
| creation of Linux. If it's your device then you should have
| 100% control over it.
| UnpossibleJim wrote:
| Are there "hacked" (read, opensource) software versions of
| the software available for these farm machines, or is it
| illegal to produce open source software for such
| "proprietary" pieces of machinery?
|
| I haven't been keeping up with the "Right to Repair"
| movement as close as I should have, I'm afraid, and I'm not
| sure how far down the rabbit hole it goes. Does it drop
| down so far as to touch the software that runs the machine
| systems on these, or is it purely mechanical?
|
| EDIT: At this point in my life I should be able to spell =(
| rodgerd wrote:
| > If it's your device then you should have 100% control
| over it.
|
| Yeah, but you also don't have the "right" to run your
| device on shared public spaces with your modifications that
| make it substantially more dangerous to other users of the
| same public space.
| nybble41 wrote:
| I'm fine with that so long as the burden of proof rests
| on those claiming that the modifications make the device
| "substantially more dangerous"--keeping in mind that the
| most dangerous component of any vehicle tends to be the
| one sitting in the driver's seat.
| nickff wrote:
| > _" If it's your device then you should have 100% control
| over it."_
|
| Should you get the source code to all software running on
| it, along with all the relevant documentation and a right
| to modify it as you see fit? Without that, it's not really
| full control.
| Mezzie wrote:
| What you should have is the _option_ to chose to only run
| software whose source code /documentation/etc meets your
| needs.
|
| Also that the devices' uses should be up to their owners,
| not their manufacturers. Devices are tools, not services.
| pdonis wrote:
| Yes. That has been the position of free software
| advocates for as long as the free software movement has
| existed.
| artful-hacker wrote:
| I don't really know about source code, but at the very
| least, you should have access to any crypto keys, code,
| passwords or other such thing needed to modify it.
| Furthermore, reverse engineering any aspect of the thing
| and sharing the specifications you have discovered should
| not be illegal.
| ziml77 wrote:
| Absolutely. I think all software being libre is a tad
| extreme, but we shouldn't be locked out of being able to
| run what we want on the devices. Especially once they're
| no longer supported.
| mywittyname wrote:
| I think, in this particular situation, it's more that Subaru
| themselves don't really know how to approach fixing these
| safety systems. From my experience these systems are fickle-
| beta-hot-garbage-heaps brand new. I bet they see right to
| repair bills as a way for the general public to gather evidence
| that they've known this all along.
|
| Of course, this doesn't really address the issue of people
| buying cars from out of state. But who knows, maybe we'll see
| "Massachusetts Cars" be a thing in the Subaru world for their
| lack of broken factory features.
| anothernewdude wrote:
| When it came to screwing the customers they weren't left
| waiting to figure out how.
| olliej wrote:
| I'm still unclear, if I buy. car with some features, and then the
| car maker retroactively removes those features, shouldn't I be
| able to return the car for the amount I paid?
|
| They weren't legally prevented from having the feature (e.g. they
| didn't turn off the feature for public safety reasons), so they
| made the choice to remove the feature I paid for.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I don't know the details of the law, but the only argument that
| seems remotely sympathetic for automakers is a timeline for
| compliance. Certainly, there should be a pathway to compliance
| that gives makers a reasonable window to implement features.
|
| That said, _any_ argument against sharing all telemetry generated
| with the owner of the vehicle and with shops they pay is
| disingenuous and immoral. I find it shameful that my 2014 vehicle
| cannot display all OBD data via the dashboard or the infotainment
| screen.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Can't you just buy an OBD2 scanner for like $20?
| throwitawayfam wrote:
| Not all CAN information flows to the OBD2 port
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.is/LZlNp
| jrockway wrote:
| This all sounds fine to me. The car with no "smart" functionality
| sounds better than one with it! No way to nag you with
| subscriptions or a mobile app that sends you loud ads at 3AM.
| And, the market will solve this problem. Ford will figure out how
| to sell whizbang bluefi features, and then Subaru will lose sales
| until they do the same.
|
| I think Subaru must be hoping that they can get people in
| Massachusetts to say "ok, fine, we don't want the right to repair
| if it means we can't check fluid levels from our phone" and lobby
| for the repeal of the law, but I think Subaru is going to lose
| that standoff.
| redtexture wrote:
| Repeal not likely. Citizens of that state fought for this law
| for a decade
| crimthrw2022 wrote:
| The situation is murky.
|
| Note that AFAIK, none of the other manufacturers are/can be
| 'compliant' either.
|
| Honda, Toyota and the big 3 can fight a protracted legal battle
| with a state government (see, California EVs in the 90s).
| Subaru cannot. (Can't speak for hyundai/kia)
| jsiaajdsdaa wrote:
| Buy a car from a company that makes their items easy to repair.
| kingcharles wrote:
| I love how Subaru says it is "impossible" to comply. I think
| someone needs to school them on the meaning of that word.
|
| This statute goes right up against the provisions in the DMCA
| though that stop you playing with the inside of devices. How will
| that play out? Usually federal law wins out against state law,
| but it's complicated.
| spike021 wrote:
| I have a Subaru BRZ and it is probably the most analog car of
| their fleet.
|
| There's zero connectivity to the internet, the headunit is
| replaceable, etc. Everything works from the ECU, wiring harness,
| etc.
|
| In some ways it's too bad that it takes a car being a niche
| sports car to qualify for having a (mostly) analog setup.
|
| The rest of the fleet should be this way, but then fancy features
| like EyeSight and such probably wouldn't work as well.
| amunster wrote:
| Even the analog cars will have some level of telemetry now. For
| example, a 2015 WRX STI will record maximum RPM, maximum speed,
| key cycles since last flash/ battery disconnect. Not exactly a
| black box data recorder, but enough evidence to deny a warranty
| claim caused by over-revving the engine, if the warranty rep
| cares to look.
|
| The BRZ has anti lock brakes, stability control (on a toggle
| switch), and drive-by-wire throttle with input filtering. It
| makes for a smoother, safer experience.
|
| A bicycle is analog.
| spike021 wrote:
| You're definitely right. I suppose when I was referring to
| analog, I just meant capable of all operation without being
| connected to the Internet of Things.
| magikaram wrote:
| I have a '22 Impreza, with a 5speed and the only internet
| connected thing is the headunit. However the headunit does
| communicate with the rest of the car for say: tpms, oil level,
| and for maintenance. While I surely would love to have full
| access to the data, since the car is extremely analog, it takes
| minimal maintenance and maximum fun, I haven't been too
| worried. Otherwise, the telemetrics I would vastly prefer to
| see opened to the public.
| ezfe wrote:
| My 2020 Crosstrek is connected to the internet, but it only
| affects the infotainment system and remote
| start/stop/monitoring.
|
| The rest of the car is completely offline, that includes
| Eyesight.
| dogman144 wrote:
| Fwiw there's enough intermingling between how the head unit
| (infotainment) operates wrt to the CAN bus that your car is
| essentially online.
|
| https://github.com/sgayou/subaru-starlink-
| research/blob/mast...
| magikaram wrote:
| Not parent, but thank you for sharing this, as is quite the
| read.
| dogman144 wrote:
| Sure thing! Cool read. It links into a very stellar 90
| page report that kicked off much of the hacking cars
| research
| sjg007 wrote:
| Seems like you could supply an aftermarket part to resume the
| wireless connectivity if that is all it is. If they removed the
| sensors etc... then not a lot you can do.
|
| https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2021/04/supreme-court-allo...
| abruzzi wrote:
| What's not clear to me from the article, initially what's
| discussed are use land features, but with these changes are they
| also turning off access for dealer repair shops as well? Just so
| the don't have to give access to third parties? Won't this bite
| them by reducing the quality of first party repairs? Or am I
| misunderstanding?
| fartcannon wrote:
| Time for a FOSS car.
| coolso wrote:
| "Oh, you think this faulty part or counterintuitive feature
| needs improvement? It's open source... instead of complaining,
| why don't you just fix it yourself? :)"
| fartcannon wrote:
| 'Either fix it myself or lose access? Thanks, I'll fix it
| myself.'
|
| I don't understand your comment.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| the amount of people who are able to fix anything non-
| trivial on their car is miniscule. Producing cars is so
| prohibitively expensive that it only makes sense at
| industrial scale.
|
| Hence there will not be a FOSS car.
| sahaskatta wrote:
| I am the cofounder of https://Smartcar.com. The talking point
| being used to suggest that "it's not possible to comply because
| such a solution doesn't exist" is just completely false.
|
| This is exactly what we've built at Smartcar over the past 5+
| years. Thosuands of developers have built apps on our platform to
| let consumers access their own car data and bring it into the
| apps of their choice.
| redm wrote:
| Unless I'm missing something, you have your own API, SDK,
| Service Fees/Pricing, and overall business. Certainly it's good
| for you if people standardize on your platform, but I'm not
| sure thats realistic. It's also not exactly the same as an open
| standard that can be applied globally. i.e. an extension of
| ODB-II access to the CAN bus I guess? That standard will
| probably need to come from the manufacturers themselves.
| amscanne wrote:
| Smartcar.com is super cool, but I don't think it meets the
| requirements -- which is a standardized, open data-sharing
| platform. Do such open standards exist?
| protomyth wrote:
| _Automakers argue that independent shops can already get the data
| they need, with permission -- but making it automatically
| accessible by third parties is dangerous._
|
| Yeah, this is just further BS in a long line of BS. This
| continuing quest to build vehicles that cannot be serviced by
| anybody but a dealer is just a tactic to make more money off the
| misery of customers. I dearly wish they just banned the sale of
| any auto that couldn't comply. We honestly need to deal with this
| company throws a hissy-fit culture (e.g. Apple and the App Store)
| every time society says it wants all companies in a sector to act
| in a certain way. This rent seeking is just getting out of hand.
|
| Also, statements like its "impossible" should be brought to a
| court to ascertain the truth value and fine the heck out of
| liars.
| nickff wrote:
| > _" Yeah, this is just further BS in a long line of BS. This
| continuing quest to build vehicles that cannot be serviced by
| anybody but a dealer is just a tactic to make more money off
| the misery of customers."_
|
| It's not BS. The fact is that it's much cheaper and easier to
| design cars to be serviced by people who focus on a few models,
| and have a full suite of tools specifically made for those
| vehicles. This is especially true when the vehicles must comply
| with complex rules and regulations which constrain the design.
| spicybright wrote:
| Your claim is baseless. But even if we entertain this is
| true, it puts automakers in the perfect place to rent seek
| and rake in profits. It takes ownership away from the
| individual. It's wasteful as perfectly good cars could become
| un-repairable that would otherwise have a longer life.
|
| Plus, if right to repair was enforced for all cars, you can
| still operate the same way and only get repairs from the
| dealer. Only cheaper as they'll have to compete with other
| mechanics now.
| avs733 wrote:
| Obfuscating (because that's what they are doing not
| encrypting for security). Revisiting releasing documentation
| is more effort than posting it on a damn website.
|
| Takes time and money. Writing code, developing tools, and
| creating repair manuals has to be done either way.
|
| How in gods name is making something accessible more
| expensive when you are already doing these things for your
| internal technicians.
| [deleted]
| nickff wrote:
| > _" Obfuscating (because that's what they are doing not
| encrypting for security). Revisiting releasing
| documentation is more effort than posting it on a damn
| website. "_
|
| There is a great deal of encryption on modern vehicles;
| most new models have encrypted communications backbones.
|
| > _" Takes time and money. Writing code, developing tools,
| and creating repair manuals has to be done either way."_
|
| What takes time and money? Obfuscation, or creating open
| tools? I think you may be surprised to learn how poorly the
| 'design-side' supports the 'service-side' in automotive and
| other vehicular industries.
|
| > _" How in gods name is making something accessible more
| expensive when you are already doing these things for your
| internal technicians."_
|
| The automakers do a lot of ad-hoc stuff, and they're often
| inconsistent between models and platforms. Making things
| uniformly accessible is different from their normal modus
| operandi, and likely more expensive.
| owisd wrote:
| Do the vehicles benefit from specialist tools because the
| manufacturer has innovated some new piece of tech unique to
| their company, or have they simply taken off the shelf
| components and tweaked them just enough that standard tools
| don't work without adding any actual value? (Nintendo
| Y-shaped screwheads spring to mind) The answer is probably a
| combination of the two, so it's always going to be a trade-
| off.
| protomyth wrote:
| I would question any evidence of its "much cheaper and easier
| to design cars to be serviced by people who focus on a few
| models, and have a full suite of tools specifically made for
| those vehicles." The local mechanics are often more skilled
| and more experienced than their dealership counterparts
| (simple money explains this). The whole idea every
| manufacture found some unique solution to complex rules and
| regulations, or that skilled mechanics cannot buy the
| equipment needed to fix these cars is just not true.
|
| If nothing else, the number of videos on youtube telling
| people how to properly fix their vehicles when their dealer
| gives them some BS diagnostic should indicate the skill level
| of those dealer shops.
|
| The less technology that is only fixable by the company's
| high priests, the better. If they cannot build serviceable
| items, then maybe the device is too dangerous to be in
| public.
| thegrimmest wrote:
| > _If they cannot build serviceable items, then maybe the
| device is too dangerous to be in public._
|
| You're basically just setting a ceiling on complexity and
| prescribing methods of information sharing. Why can't
| companies use tribal knowledge? Do you think the public
| doesn't benefit from highly complex technology? Examples of
| machines that only a small number of people can fix go back
| centuries.
| nickff wrote:
| > _" The local mechanics are often more skilled and more
| experienced than their dealership counterparts (simple
| money explains this). The whole idea every manufacture
| found some unique solution to complex rules and
| regulations, or that skilled mechanics cannot buy the
| equipment needed to fix these cars is just not true. "_
|
| Dealership mechanics are usually more junior (less
| experienced) than independent mechanics, but they spend all
| their time working on a much smaller range of models, so
| they're generally better on those vehicles. Having every
| special tool, and a great deal of training helps too.
|
| > _" If nothing else, the number of videos on youtube
| telling people how to properly fix their vehicles when
| their dealer gives them some BS diagnostic should indicate
| the skill level of those dealer shops."_
|
| In general, the dealers are very good with recent models,
| and less good with older ones. The people doing youtube
| videos are often ex-dealership mechanics, who have a lot of
| experience with older models, and are usually better than
| the current dealership staff (on the older models).
|
| > _" The less technology that is only fixable by the
| company's high priests, the better. If they cannot build
| serviceable items, then maybe the device is too dangerous
| to be in public. "_
|
| There are many devices which are extremely difficult for
| third parties to service, including aircraft engines. I
| don't think this necessarily means the items are dangerous,
| but it does mean you should consider your maintenance
| schedule and provider when making a purchase decision.
| protomyth wrote:
| _There are many devices which are extremely difficult for
| third parties to service, including aircraft engines._
|
| The manufactures of aircraft engines are not doing the
| service on those engines. I would be hard pressed to
| think of an airline that gets GE and its ilk to service
| the engines.
|
| _the dealers are very good with recent models, and less
| good with older ones._
|
| Not sure where this comes from, but its definitly not my
| experience owning a Kia Niro. The whole dealership
| network is not very good at this newer model at all.
|
| _Dealership mechanics are usually more junior (less
| experienced) than independent mechanics, but they spend
| all their time working on a much smaller range of models,
| so they 're generally better on those vehicles. Having
| every special tool, and a great deal of training helps
| too._
|
| Training does not overcome experience. The checklist
| never beats the experienced mechanic's intuition.
|
| But here is the bigger problem, dealerships hire
| inexperienced mechanics and try to train them up because
| they refuse to pay for the decent mechanics (well,
| excepting specialized performance dealerships, but even
| then). People have to start somewhere, but when it hits
| the fan you want someone who has been around the block.
| nickff wrote:
| I'm not sure what your experience is, but it may not
| reflect the 'average'. I have experience from working in
| automotive diagnostics for many years, and am speaking
| from what I've seen, having spoken and dealt with
| thousands of dealer and independent mechanics.
| magikaram wrote:
| Before OBD2, you were at odds with diagnostic software to
| troubleshoot vehicular problems. Mechanics, third parties,
| and owners could not use the onboard computers to resolve
| issues with the car, or emissions.
|
| OBD2 as is required by the NHTSA, enables anyone with a
| scanner to view the diagnostic information, as well as the
| state of variables on a running engine. Say what you will
| about electric cars, but any vehicle with a standard
| diagnostic port is easily able to be worked on.
|
| With modern telematics, and datapoints that the manufacturers
| have been able to record, giving the ability to access thay
| information to third party repair and the customers, you can
| have more choice, and get this, ability to have repairs done.
|
| Dealers are not anywhere near always the best place to get a
| car repaired. In 10 years time, when the new cars age, they
| will need repair and maintenance that the dealer may
| overcharge for. If I had to service both of ny cars at the
| dealership, oil changes would cost me 3 times as much as I
| can do myself, brakes cost 2 times as much as a local shop
| can perform. Dealers don't provide a greater service to a
| vehicle than a standard mechanic shop can provide other than
| verified manufacturer parts at markup.
| kylecordes wrote:
| It is frustrating that the OBD2 dataflow, which covers far
| more than emissions-related features, is only required in
| conjunction with emissions and therefore does not apply to
| electric vehicles.
|
| A more thoughtful legislature would have required a
| diagnostic port for all vehicles. Required that it emit
| codes covering all computerized aspects of the car.
| Required that all codes be emitted on the standard port,
| required that all manufacturers publish documentation for
| the meaning of the codes.
|
| (Of course it's probably not a matter of thoughtfulness,
| but rather a negotiation between many stakeholders,
| including lobby groups with substantial budgets.)
| neuralRiot wrote:
| There's something like that (j2534). It was originally
| intended for reprogramming of emmission-related ECUs but
| since the hardware and software APIs where widely
| available many started using the standard for complete
| vehicle diagnostic. Today you can diagnostic and program
| almost all vehicle brands (for a fee) with just one VCI
| and without specialized computers since most run in-
| browser.
| monocasa wrote:
| Pretty much every car model is different though once you
| get out of emissions land.
|
| Some are even different across an individual model year.
| Some manufacturers have a bad habit of implementing these
| commands under the hood as poke and peek memory inside
| the microcontrollers so you almost need a set of linker
| maps to make sense of everything.
| nickff wrote:
| > _" OBD2 as is required by the NHTSA, enables anyone with
| a scanner to view the diagnostic information, as well as
| the state of variables on a running engine. Say what you
| will about electric cars, but any vehicle with a standard
| diagnostic port is easily able to be worked on."_
|
| ODB2 reveals only _some_ trouble codes; manufacturer-
| specific tools will tell you much more about what 's going
| on.
|
| > _" With modern telematics, and datapoints that the
| manufacturers have been able to record, giving the ability
| to access thay information to third party repair and the
| customers, you can have more choice, and get this, ability
| to have repairs done."_
|
| I don't understand what you mean by this, and I've spent
| many years working in automotive diagnostics.
|
| > _" Dealers are not anywhere near always the best place to
| get a car repaired. In 10 years time, when the new cars
| age, they will need repair and maintenance that the dealer
| may overcharge for. If I had to service both of ny cars at
| the dealership, oil changes would cost me 3 times as much
| as I can do myself, brakes cost 2 times as much as a local
| shop can perform. Dealers don't provide a greater service
| to a vehicle than a standard mechanic shop can provide
| other than verified manufacturer parts at markup. "_
|
| I agree that dealers aren't always best, but they're
| generally quite good when the vehicle is less than about 10
| years old. They have all the best tools, training, and
| experience with those vehicles. Independent mechanics
| (especially those who focus on a few brands) are generally
| better with older vehicles.
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| I guess the rational solution is for regulators to force
| the release of those manufacture specific tools.
| nickff wrote:
| Some of the manufacturers sell the codes (or the tools),
| but they're expensive, and not really worth it unless you
| specialize in those vehicles.
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| I guess I wasn't clear in my last post. I meant that the
| rational thing would be to force the free release of the
| manufacture specific tools and information.
| nickff wrote:
| The manufacturers charge the dealers for those tools (a
| fact that some dealers resent); it would be quite
| something for them to make all that stuff free. I think
| the manufacturers would stop providing the tools and the
| codes to anyone, if there's no revenue to be had.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| > stop providing the tools and the codes to anyone, if
| there's no revenue to be had
|
| this is a crucial statement in this exchange.. there is
| value, the car.. there are participants in the value
| chain.. mfg, dealer, repair shop, consumer.. _where_ is
| the value exchanged? this is fair to discuss in the
| open..
|
| When people get angry or resentful quickly is perhaps,
| when LIES are told for the purpose of getting a result.
| Also, modern manufacturing is a different thing, than 100
| years ago when this started. Many more things are
| possible.
|
| I will add, it is obvious here on YNews, that some
| manufacturers are absolutely callous to the rights of
| consumers. The USA pioneered consumer rights in many
| areas. I still hear Mr Ralph Nadar on the radio some
| days.
| jsight wrote:
| Oh, its not just the manufacturers. In many cases, the
| revenue is likely not significant to them in itself.
|
| But it would give dealers less of an advantage relative
| to independent shops. The dealer lobbies are really
| powerful.
| syshum wrote:
| dealer lobbies are powerful at state level, less so at
| federal level
|
| especially in states which tax the sale of new cars, as
| most of the time dealer sales represent a huge % of state
| revenue
| syshum wrote:
| I guess the parent clear in their last post. They meant
| that the rational thing would be to ***force*** the free
| release of the manufacture specific tools and
| information.
|
| if they were FORCED by regulations, then they would not
| have the option to "stop" providing the tools and codes,
| they would be FORCED by REGULATION do to so if they
| wanted to continue to sell their product.
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| Of course there would be revenue to be had. They could be
| banned for not being reasonably cooperative with people
| trying to repair their vehicles. There would be a huge
| revenue incentive to cooperate.
| mysterydip wrote:
| I had to get a couple components on my car replaced recently.
| The dealer quoted me $6000 for the job. I had it done by a
| reputable shop instead for $1600.
| trasz wrote:
| " Access Denied
|
| You don't have permission to access
| "http://www.ksdk.com/article/news/nation-world/some-car-featu..."
| on this server."
| glogla wrote:
| Maybe they shut it off to prevent right to repair?
|
| (More likely slimy profiling stalkers not wanting to deal with
| GDPR.)
| 7steps2much wrote:
| Same over here. Might be a ban so they don't have to deal with
| GDPR?
| kevwil wrote:
| I'm struggling to find nuance in what seems like a black/white
| issue. If you buy the vehicle, you can do whatever the @#$% you
| want with it. If you can't do what you want, it's a subscription
| model and the maker is responsible for all maintenance and
| insurance. I fail to see how the latter is a good option for car
| makers, so I find this whole issue to be total BS.
|
| "Next on CNN, Kia and Subaru vehicle 'owners' have amassed over
| 50,000 vehicles in a field in Kansas and will be lighting them on
| fire momentarily. Let's watch."
| yowlingcat wrote:
| You jest but I believe a Finn did this very thing [1] with a
| Tesla in a very similar protest:
|
| https://jalopnik.com/watch-a-finn-blow-up-his-tesla-model-s-...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-23 23:01 UTC)