Slashdot Mirror
Massachusetts "Right To Repair" Initiative On Ballot, May Override Compromise
skids writes "MA voters face a complex technical and economic question Tuesday about just how open automobile makers should be with their repair and diagnostic interfaces. A legislative compromise struck in July may not be strong enough for consumer's tastes. Proponents of the measure had joined opponents in asking voters to skip the question once the legislature, seeking to avoid legislation by ballot, struck the deal. Weeks before the election they have reversed course and are again urging voters to pass the measure. Now voters have to decide whether the differences between the ballot language and the new law are too hard on manufacturers, or essential consumer protections. At stake is a mandated standard for diagnostic channels in a significant market."
As a classic car enthusiast, the only interface you need is your wrench set.
With this said, modern cars are designed to be off-limits for DIYers. This specific issue is about preventing locking down cars to the level that even independent mechanics can't touch them. So question should read "Do you believe that all cars, 2012 and newer should be only maintained at the dealer shops, or should independent shops have a way to do more than just change oil?"
Something's wrong when I have to dedicate a laptop, play $350 for a special cord and software, and teach my self this software just to 'adapt' my VW's throttle body?
BMW drivers have it even worst!
Federal legislative language should read that EVERY manufacturer that wants to sell cars in the US must allow owners to look at and function every aspect of their own car without special dealer tools.
Specialized tools are necessary for service work
This does not count as a "necessary" specialization of a tool:
If manufacturers must limit themselves to open, standardized interfaces they will be slower in achieving greater emissions and fuel efficiency.
[Citation needed]
It's time to accept the fact that the priority must be emissions and efficiency and not owner's liberty
Therefore, we should ensure that only mechanics who pay the maker of the car a monthly fee can perform repairs!
There is a logical step missing from your argument...
Palm trees and 8
http://www.warmglass.com/making_your_own.htm
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
I have a Sun Enterprise M4000 server that has the fault light on. In order to clear the fault light, I must run the "clearfaults" command on the service processor. You must get a special password from now Oracle in order to execute the command... I should be able to run the command myself without paying Oracle for a support contract.
Karma: Bad
I'm a MA voter. I read the law. It sounds like the data needs to be made available in a standardized and un-encrypted way for all future cars. If you have all ready conceded to making the info available, what is the problem in doing it in a non-proprietary way?
That was a rhetorical question. I'm voting yes.
Specialized tools are necessary for service work.
This is not true for a great deal of maintenance. Furthermore specialized tools are often not necessary if the parts are designed sensibly. Often the manufacturer has a choice when designing it and using a specialized tool when one is not needed is an attempt at lock in. Encouraging lock in and short-cut design is a bad idea always.
If manufacturers must limit themselves to open, standardized interfaces they will be slower in achieving greater emissions and fuel efficiency.
The logic of that does not compute. A well designed interface can greatly speed achievement of emissions and fuel efficiency standards. Standard tooling, electrical interfaces, etc can greatly reduce cost, complexity and allow engineers to focus efforts on more productive pursuits. Reinventing interfaces because of Not-Invented-Here is frankly rather stupid. Arguably using closed proprietary interfaces slows development rather than speeding it up in many cases.
Just saying what you lefties would say if you had the balls.
Ahh, I get it. You are a troll. My bad for feeding you...
People take so much time complaining about "modern technology" that they have none left to learn how to deal with it. I work on cars as a hobby and I'm doing fine even repairing modern cars that dealers can't get fixed. Yes, I use my brain combined with old school skills to fix all sorts of cars, modern and classic. Modern cars aren't that more difficult to fix or diagnose, it just takes a decent understanding of basic electronics and mechanics. Modern diagnostic computer systems should be standardized, so independent mechanics and hobby workers can still afford to work on them. It has always required mechanical skills, knowledge and good diagnostic skills to work on cars and that should remain the same, even if you need some computerized equipment to do some of the diagnostics. If a dealer can't fix it, it's usually because they have bad diagnostics technicians working for them, not because the computers are making it difficult. They had the same problem 50 years ago, when cars didn't have computers or electronics and the same applies to hobby workers.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
"See, the Supreme Court just held up that "first sale" doesn't count if the *thing* was intended to be sold to a segregated market"
NO they didn't. They just heard the arguments. A conclusion isn't expected for several months. Stop glancing at articles and actually read them.
It's not like CA's lemon law, it's even more important. This is about having the keys to your own car's diagnostic data, sometimes fairly literally as you can't even get the data out (let alone understand it) without doing weird things to the PCM.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
VW upgraded my new car's diagnostics software. ALL shift points, RPM ranges and throttle positions changed resulting in a new car that drives nicely like an olde lady would expect. So radical was this upgrade that it changed the handling and performance of the vehicle to something I would never buy.
VW have refused to re-install OEM software back to the new car fitment. So MA are onto the NEXT contentious issue for consumers paying $$$ hundreds of dollars monthly for product they have absolutely no control except paying rents to manufacturers
They serve two completely different purposes, then. California's law was about thwarting or reducing the impact of planned obsolescence, but it didn't mandate that consumers have direct control over the repair process; third parties were presumed to be involved. While this law is also about restoring more control from the manufacturers to the alleged owners of vehicles (only), it's not so much about planned obsolescence.
I run my familys NAPA AutoCare center and this year we had a 2007 Dodge Caliber come in with a customer complaint of one headlight not working.... Even after replacing the bulb.
Only one of my techs knew that the TIPM module had to have the circuit reset with our $4,000 + Snap on scanner.
Yes I have read that you can do something with the battery cables and I am also aware of reasons not to do this... At the end of the day, a computer was needed to change the headlight on this particular vehicle.. Kind of insane..
I made a good living servicing Selectric typewriters back in the 90s and uo to about 2002, entirely due to the court decision that forced IBM to permit independent servicers to purchase manuals, tools, and parts. And a little mechanical aptitude. Untimately it was about product owners being able to fix their own stuff, and engage whoever they wanted to. This decision had effects in other industries.
At the least, car manufacturers should be required to publish the specs for the diagnostic interfaces, and then sell the manuals (reasonable price was part of the IBM decision, IIRC) and let us service what we do in fact own. If they are claiming that the software is licensed, not sold, we need to have that fight.
FWIW, I drive a 1998 Saab 900 SET Convertible. What a fun car. If you hose up the top, for instance repositioning any of the potentiometers that feed back position data to the computer, you will be going back to the dealer or someone who purchased the very expensive Tech II tool, which is not just an OBD2 reader, but interfaces with various onboard computers and make settings etc. I've done some terrible things to the top so far, and no need to reprogram, but that's just because I was warned in advance. My local dealer gave me the radio code when I had the battery replaced - they didn't have to do that for free, but they did. I'm pretty interested in this, since I prefer to buy beaters, and soon there will be no such thing, just high-mileage cars that need trips to the dealer to solve specific onboard computer problems.And there will be more, not less. problems with this. Despite major improvements, I don't see these onboard computers getting that much better, and the automobile is a terrible environment for anything like that. With Saabs, the 9000 was notorious for problems figuring out just which computer was causing the error, and the TCS system would put you in limp mode at the drop of a hat. Perfectly good car, just the computer choosing to be broken. ABS, climate control, seats, top, etc, there are 7 computers I know of in the 1998 Saab 900, not counting ther SID and cruise control...
And Saabs, of course, are orphaned. Why would they withold info if there is no more business to protect? Mine can suffer any number of problems and that's the end of it, no part to fix it with. Windshield moldings seem to be gone now, so you use generic rubber. Parts for the top are becoming terribly precious.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I agree--grand parent's assertion of "standardized interfaces they will be slower in achieving greater emissions and fuel efficiency" is complete bullshit. Citation needed like never fucking before.
I know cars and I like modern cars. I don't do well with carburetors. Give me a fuel-injected, electronically controlled system all day long. Give me a modern ECU that will automatically adjust for barometric pressure and ambient temperature. Give me an ECU that will give me good fuel efficiency and emissions. I race my car, but I do not remove my catalytic converter.
They don't want to expose the dealer interface for reprogramming a car's mileage, VIN inside the ECU or new keys w/o having the two existing keys. That's the entire extent of the security concern with the exposure of this information.
Otherwise, if my car is malfunctioning and I want to diagnose why it's not running right, I am all too often hampered or screwed without the dealer tools.
Simple example first: my car developed a knock in a cylinder. To find out whether it's a valve or a rod bearing or piston-slap, I have only one option: disconnect the ignition connector and the fuel connector, start the car, shut it off, etc repeat for each cylinder. However, the dealer can simply go into a menu and trigger an ON_1/OFF_1 (from 1 to 4) for each cylinder, doing the same thing electronically, faster and safer.
Complex scenario: diagnosing catalytic converter failure (which is very emissions relevant!) If the car is running rough or is down on power, especially top-end power, it's possible that this might be caused by a catalytic converter. However, many other things could also be wrong to cause this. The best you gonna do as a DIYer right now (for a 2004+ Mazda, in my case) is to wait until the computer throws a check engine light complaining of cat converter inefficiency. However, your situation might be right on the threshold of the rather-generous factory allowance for catalytic converter performance. The dealer can simply pull up a page of emission stats the the car tracks, which lists catalytic converter efficiency. If it's near the bottom of the range, especially for a car with lower mileage, then you have a dying converter. You can monitor this setting over time as well (E.g. over two weeks) and see if it degrades. Having access to this information can save you non-trivial dollars in gas mileage (e.g. highway can drop from 30mpg to 24mpg easily), fouled up spark plugs and (albeit small) risk of engine damage. Since most modern cars run spark plugs capable of long term replacement intervals, such as 60K miles, you risk fouling up an expensive set of plugs.
This is the simple stuff too. Troubleshooting your ABS system? You get nothing other than an ABS light. Could it be a tear in wiring to an ABS sensor? If you are crafty, you can solder that up cleanly yourself for pennies. Could it be air in the brake lines that got into the ABS module? Bleed the air for the cost of a half liter of brake fluid ($10). If a wheel speed sensor shat the bed, that's a $75 repair. If the ABS module shat the bed, well that's much more expensive. Going to the dealer to find out what the ABS light is all about? You will get slapped with a $90 (1 hr labor) diagnostic fee. As a car enthusiast and an engineer, I don't like paying $90 for 5 minutes of diagnostics. What if you go to your local repair shop for the same problem? If they can't read the ABS code, they will have to spend time going down the list of possible things that could go wrong. E.g. all 4 wheel sensors and wiring would have to be inspected (hope the tear is not obvious or not a failed wire inside a connector, where it's not visible!), brakes bled just in case, parts possibly replaced unnecessarily (on a hunch for a common problem). The pure waste in labor that an independent shop has to do wastes the shop's time and your money.
As a mechanic (some time...) that specializes in electrical / electronic / computer issues, here are some thoughts:
The meaning of "non discrimnatory price", as used in the ballot question will be tied up in lawsuits for years. I can tell you that most of the independent shops out there *CAN NOT* afford to buy Factory Diagnostic Software or Hardware, as a business matter, for more than one or two oem's. Now, granted a lot of this stuff is available via piracy...
Now, if a shop does a lot of one particular make, then yes, it will invest in the "official" factory diagnostic equipment.
Just to give you an idea:
Early 1990's to current Ford Motor Company brand vehicles: Ford IDS (software) / (VCM) hardware combo. price aprox $3,000.
Circa 1980 to early 1990's Ford brand vehicles: Ford / Hickok "NGS" (price aprox $700 on ebay) (antiquated, but highest PID update rate on these vehicles)
And, it's even worse for the independent heavy truck repair shops out there:
(purchase cost + subscription, does not count the specialized interface hardware)
Caterpillar ET software: $1,200.
Cummins Insite software: $1,200.
Detroit Diesel software: $1,800.
Thats the most expensive, but there are a lot of other systems on heavy trucks are computerized too, and take additional expensive propritary software packages to diagnose and service.
For anyone out there who thinks the most expensive diagnostic equipment from Snap-On or OTC is equal to factory, You're wrong. Even the most expensive aftermarket diagnostic equipment out there, has functionality gaps compared to the OEM stuff.
FYI: Now your "average" shop around the corner is usually running a mid range scanner (~$3,000.) taht can do most of the things a mechanic actually needs day in day out. But when you get some whiz-bang software / electrical / electromechanical issue, you get the wrong diagnosis and ineffective / expensive repair. If you have a good honest mechanic, He'll tell you he's limited and suggest a dealership performed service. It's not ideal, but it's having integrity.
Now as a computer / software hobbyist:
Even If I want to code up my own GPL'd diagnostic software, I am limited as to the diagnostic and special test functions that I can implement.
Standard OBDII functions, no problem, It's a semi open standard promulgated by SAE. J1939 standard functionality for heavy trucks, no problem again, another semi open standard promulgated by SAE.
Now lets say i want to implement a standard cylinder contribution test (standard diagnostic test you run all the time). Much more difficult. In today's world You have to license (directly or indirectly) the proprietary protocol info from each manufacturer (under very restrictive terms) you want to implement code for. So that pretty much, kills that.
If you were really hard core about implementing open diagnostic software that could do all (are some sub-set of) the propritary functions for a particular vehicle / engine manufacturer, then you're looking at some serious embedded hw/sw reverse engineering. And,in many cases prior to the mid 1990's, you have multiple proprietary protocols within a given manufacturer / model / year / controller range. That said, there was code and protocol reuse, but... That's why the "open" diagnostic software out there today just doesn't do the specialized stuff. Yet, anyway...
The problem you will run into with this approach is that OBD-II only defines a minimum standard of telemetry data that is available at the port.
Manufacturers are free to add to that minimal dataset in any way they wish, using any type of encoding or obscurity to hide their meaning.
The minimal set of OBD-II diagnostic codes is pretty useless for determining what ails your vehicle. You might get an evap leak error, but that only tells you there is a leak in your evap system. The manufacturer extended codes will tell you that the leak is in the hose between the reverse sinusoildal dingle-arm and the upper reciprocating tremmy pipe about three inches from the up end of the cardinal gram meter and that you need to replace part number ZXV-330F.
OBD-II really is a completely deficient diagnostic standard for modern vehicles.