Dave240Z Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Found this on the web today. Right now, there is legislature in the federal congress that would require all OEM's to provide ALL necessary info and tools to repair your car be available to the public at a reasonable cost. HR 2735, known as the "Motor vehicle Owners' right to repair act, can substantially increase the amount of info you can actually get. It would basically allow you to have access to EVERY bit of info the dealers now have about how to repair your car. Visit http://www.righttorepair.org for more info and a current list Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Provide tools? Look, I'm all for the manufacturer providing information, but not with a gun to their heads. It is their product - why can't they sell it under their terms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phyte Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Provide tools? Look' date=' I'm all for the manufacturer providing information, but not with a gun to their heads. It is their product - why can't they sell it under their terms?[/quote'] They aren't doing this for you and me. They are doing this because there's thousands of repair shops nationwide that can't work on newer vehicles because of the complexity or the tools. They are helping these small business owners stay up with the dealerships. A great idea in my opinion. Phyte Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave240Z Posted October 23, 2003 Author Share Posted October 23, 2003 Provide tools? Look' date=' I'm all for the manufacturer providing information, but not with a gun to their heads. It is their product - why can't they sell it under their terms?[/quote'] That's the problem. The designs require special tools, but the special tools are near impossible to get. For example, to replace the differential in my BMW requries (3) UNIQUE tools that are only available from BMW. Of course, these tools are incredibly expensive (i.e. $20 for a socket) which makes it difficult for most repair shops outside the dealership to do the work. The socket example is a relatively cheap example, the tools are only getting more and more complex and expensive. Let alone the fact that a factory manual will easily set you back a few hundred $$$. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusterZ Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Agree Dave240Z: most German/European cars and motorcycles require "special tools". and when they say special, they really mean it. They look at engineering issues different than the Americans and Japanese do. We try to make things more simple (as a general rule). I hope that the combination of auto mfg's between the 3 areas (US, Asia and Europe) does not increase the need for "special" pullers, etc for us poor working folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Guys, I am not arguing that point. My question is what gives anyone the right to FORCE them to make the specialized tools and shop information available? It is their product, their information, their tools. It seems like it would be to their advantage to do so in this case but hey - do they have a right to their property or not? If they do, no one has a right to make them give it away at gunpoint. That is simply wrong. So again, it is a simple question - do you have the right to your intellectual and physical property in this country any more or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Juday Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Forrest you are right on the money. Companies should know in the long run it is good business to make cars that can be serviced at a reasonable price. You can buy an older 944 cheap, but $900 to have a water pump replaced gives Porsche a bad rep. But either way that's their decision. Think about that the next time the government comes knocking on your door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Being directly involved in the aftermarket automotive service industry, and being aware of HR 2735 for quite some time now, not to mention following and taking part in some of the meetings regarding the bill, I think it's been WAY too long in coming. Some of you may know, that I make my living as an Automotive Locksmith. That being said, this bill is BADLY needed by persons like myself as well as the consumer. If you read parts of the bill, you can see how my industry is affected by the manufacturers "holding back" the information required to service their vehicles. Consider these scenarios. 1) You have recently purchased a vehicle. You are required by law to have emission inspections performed on this vehicle. You take your car to be inspected, and for some reason, it fails. The nearest dealership is either across town from your location, or just plainly inconvenient to where you live. So you take your vehicle to your favorite mechanic and are told that you have to bring your car back to the dealer to have repairs made so your vehicle can be made to pass this inspection, simply because of some so called "proprietary" information. Not fair to either YOU, as a consumer, because you may chose NOT to have your car serviced or repaired by a "Dealer" for one reason or another, or the Service Facility of your choice, due to the lack of information required to service your vehicle being provided to them by the manufacturer. 2) You lose your keys. You know that many locksmiths make automotive keys, so you figure no big deal, I'll just call a locksmith. Then you're informed that because of that so called "proprietary" information you must return the car to the dealership to have keys made. Again, not fair to either YOU, as a consumer, for the above reason, or the Locksmith, for not having access to the information required to generate a new key (key codes) or program the transponder in that new key to your vehicle. (Almost ALL new cars are transponder/immobilizer equipped). Now, you have 2 simple scenarios that restrict your right to have your car serviced where you prefer. Tell me that's fair? If you read the bill, you'll find out that the EPA is directly involved in this bill as well. The reasoning behind that is because of something included in the following scenario. Your car's ECU fails for some reason. It has to be replaced. You would like not to have to replace it with a "NEW" ECU from the dealership because most of them will cost over $2000 to purchase. You find a mechanic or other source (junkyard) who has access to another "USED" ECU that would work for your car. You opt to have him install it for you or you do the swap yourself. Then you find out that the ECU you installed will not work for your car afterall, simply because the transponder key information from the vehicle it was installed in is stored in the ECU and only the dealership has access to the tools and/or information on how to clear and/or reprogram the ECU. Back to the dealership the car goes... Where the EPA comes into play, is that if the vehicle cannot be started, it cannot be serviced to make sure it complies with the emission standards set by the EPA and individual states. In other words, if you can't start the vehicle, (because of the lack of an operational key), you cannot check it for compliance. That in itself is enough to make a bill like HR 2735 worth the effort. It's NOT that the aftermarket is trying to "hurt" the dealerships and/or the manufacturers. In a way, it's simply that it is bordering on "restriction of trade" laws and putting the little guy (your favorite service and repair facility AND the locksmiths) at a disadvantage. It's YOUR right as a consumer to have your vehicle serviced where you prefer. If you cannot, then YOU are at a disadvantage simply by owning that particular vehicle. It's plainly obvious to see that this legislation has been and will be in the future NEEDED. Just an observation folks, no flaming intended or expected. I'm off my soapbox now... Warren Discon, Owner Custom Lock & Key Marietta, GA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim240z Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Warren, In your first example, I assume that you mean a 'New' car. If so, regulations (at least in CA) are in place that requires the manufacturer to warranty (in entirety) the emissions control equipment on cars for 5 years (I think). In that case you will need the dealership to do the work. As for the key/transponder issue. Would the vehicle security not be in question if every Tom, Dick and Harry had access to the reprogramming devices? I'm torn on this topic. It's just like presciption drugs....the aftermarket (or generic manufacturers) have to wait 5 years or so before they can duplicate the drugs so that the OEM company can have time to recoup their R&D costs. I don't think that it is fair to take that away...at least not totally. It may smother R&D and innovation by the Auto makers. AFAIK, the dealerships make the huge majority of their $$ on service, parts and accessories, not all that much on the selling of vehicles...... I am very anti government involment in free market and in peoples lives!! just my 2c.... Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Tim, I whole heartedly agree that vehicle manufacturers SHOULD be required to warrant the emissions related parts of their products for at least 5 years. As far as the key and/or security issues are concerned, if you read the bill, in it's entirity, you'll see that there are provisions being considered to cover just that concern. Believe me, if it weren't for the security issues, this bill would have probably already been passed. The insurance companies and their lobbyists have alot to do with the postponement but are looking into ways to help this along. After all, it's the insurance companies and their lobbyists who are mostly responsible for the mandated transponder/immobilizer utilization in today's cars. They've got alot to lose if thesome of the information is made available "unrestrictedly" to the public. There are specific guidelines in the bill for controlling access to the information. It should be restricted, and once the information is made available, access to it will have to be strictly regulated. That's one of the main concerns of the manufacturers as well. Thanks for your view. Warren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Schely Products http://www.sptool.com I do a lot of production welding for them. The tool aftermarket probably has alternatives for most any of the specialty tools required by manufacturers. Most of those tools are as close as your Snap-On, Mac, or Cornwell truck. I think this bill is an answer to a problem that doesn't really exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 What is "fair" ? Where exactly does it say you have the right to force someone else to give up their intellectual property? The bill is not on the site that is linked above, but it says it is to "make the information and tools available at a 'reasonable cost.' So the problem is not that they aren't available, but that people feel like they do not only have the "right" to someone else's property, but also the "right" to tell them how much they can sell it for. Would you be in business very long if your customers went to congress and said "29$ to have my car unlocked is just unreasonable. I can't afford that. Force this guy to charge a 'reasonable' price," and as a result congress passes a law restricting how much you can sell YOUR services at. There are two books you should take a look at - one is Atlas Shrugged and the other is The Road To Serfdom. They describe the rational end to this type of thinking. It is death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Here Forrest, Since you think it's not fair, and it's not, please see the link and read all about it. You may be surprised to see the entire contents including the highlights of minutes from some of the meetings and the concerns shown by whom. Click here Not nitpicking, just providing another viewpoint and alot more of the whole story. Warren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop N Wood Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Where exactly does it say you have the right to force someone else to give up their intellectual property? It happens all the time. Think Microsoft. Even the founding fathers recognized the need for a capitalist society to protect itself from monopolies. Try reading Adam Smith instead of the Ayn Rand. It may smother R&D and innovation by the Auto makers. AFAIK, the dealerships make the huge majority of their $$ on service, parts and accessories, not all that much on the selling of vehicles...... The profit margin on a typical SUV is somewhere around $15,000. Even more for a high end German import. Maybe the dealers aren’t getting a big chunk, but it still shoots holes in the idea above. The "intellectual property" argument is really invalid. Given adequate resources it is possible to reverse engineer just about anything on a car. So just who is GM or Ford trying to protect their "property" from? Certainly not other car manufactures. This is a growing problem, especially as cars become more technologically advanced. For the most part I don’t think car manufactures are guilty of any great conspiracy. I think they have trouble keeping up with their own technology and getting information out to the masses just gets neglected. I like the idea of having choices for car repair. And my number 1 choice is being able to fix it myself. But how can I do that if a company the size of GM decides they don't want me fixing my own car, so they purposely restrict information to force me to hire them? One would like to think the free market would force such companies out of business, but even Adam Smith recognized the limits of this. Believe me, as a card carrying member of the NRA I am highly suspect of government over regulation. But I don’t feel this law is inconsistent with the way our society operates, and as car guys it is definitely to our advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 I just go off the phone with a friend who has been a BMW tech with a dealership for 15 years. He does agree that information about specific problems and fixes for recent model vehicles can be hard to come by if you're not a BMW dealer. It is available on the Web but its not easy to find. BTW... In some cases the problems and fixes are so new that he has trouble getting information from BMW - the new 7 series is a prime example. But, he completely disagrees about the tool issue. He has to purchase his tools from BMW just like any other mechanic. He's offered discounts and special financing through BMW but he can get similar deals through Snap-On and other tool distributors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Just because it happens all the time doesn't make it right. Please be specific in assaulting Microsoft since they get bashed all the time for doing nothing except trying to make and sell their product. People think it is evil to try and make a profit - well, what else are you working for? To break even? As far as the government "protecting" us from a monopoly, that is not possible, since they are the only ones that, through force, have the ability to create a monopoly. No one is forcing any of you to buy cars from these manufacturers. If you disagree with their practices and find it hard to get work done, why would you spend your money there? They will not behave in a way that loses them business and money, as long as they are allowed to make it. A law like this implies they aren't. http://www.adamsmith.org/policy/publications/recommended-1.htm Notice both the books I mentioned are in a whole lot of those reading lists. I'm not seeing where you think their ideas are contrary to Ayn Rand's writing. I will not read anything "instead" of Ayn Rand, but I'm always looking for more writers who promote freedom instead of the slavery that our public education system is brainwashing our country with. So thanks for the recommendation. Warren, I have read their take on the situation, but I'm sorry. My basic question remains - where does this right they think they have to force companies to sell their tools or information at a dictated price derive from? I'm not seeing anything (and rationally there isn't anything) to make that argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Forrest, Perhaps if you broaded your horizons and look past the blinders, you might be able to see the other side of the story. It's not that the people who have to work on these vehicles are trying to get the government to force manufacturers to give up sole ownership of anything. I think you're stuck in the dark ages when I hear you say things like that. The point of the entire bill is just as outlined. To give the people the right to have their vehicles serviced where and by whomever they choose. That is the basic idea here. It has nothing to do with avoiding monopolies or anything such thing. It is however, merely the opportunity for small businesses to stand up and say, "Hey, what about us?." It's a vicious circle, to tell the truth. If the small businessman, who is also a consumer, paying taxes and purchasing the manufacturer's products cannot afford to buy those vehicles, because they can't make any money servicing the vehicles, it becomes a lose-lose situation for the manufacturers themselves. On the other hand, if the manufacturers make available the information required to service these vehicles, they may lose money to the competing small businessmen, while they themselves make money on the front end of the deal by still being able to sell vehicles in the first place. IMHO, it's not a case of "cutting off your nose, dispite your face." It is more like creating jobs, maintaining free enterprise, and protecting the consumer, who ultimately purchases the product of the manufacturers, from being limited in their choices of where to have their vehicles serviced. That is all. As far your basic question is concerned, I don't believe the intent of the bill is to force anyone, manufacturer or aftermarket service provider, to sell their tools or information at a dictated price. If you'd ever been involved in negotiations regarding property rights, you'd know that. The intent of setting a standard "fair" price for the information and/or tools is multi faceted. 1. To make it affordable for small businessmen to stay competetitive while still having access to the information and tools to perform their jobs. 2. To stop the manufacturers from railroading their way along in the process of trying to avoid their vehicles from being services at the independent shops, by setting their prices for this information and tools so high that the every day businessman has to mortage his home just to stay in business. 3. To set a standard of how to regulate such situations which may arise in the future. I could go on, but I've been long winded enough. In closing, I would ask you to put the shoe on the other foot and look at it from a different perspective, as a small businessman who could possibly lose his livelihood due to practices of large companies of which he has no control. Respectfully posted, Warren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave240Z Posted October 24, 2003 Author Share Posted October 24, 2003 Would I be wrong if I was guessing that Forrest doesn't own a newer car? Because, if you did and you had a problem which forced you to go to the dealer I think you might sing a different tune. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Guys, WARNING: This thread is starting to get personal. Let's focus on the topic, not each poster's motives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPMS Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Forest, I agree with you, in part. The manufacturers should be allowed to do what they want, and the population will vote with their feet. I also believe in the concept of full disclosure. Like it or not, car repair is NOT something that most folks believe is brand-specific. If I want to have an ostensibly simple procedure (such as getting my differential replaced) performed, I have always been able to go down the street to my local mechanic and have the work done. The American public EXPECTS this, because this is always what we've had in the past. If you buy a car that CANNOT be adequately serviced anyplace but the dealer, any seller of the car, new or not, is morally obligated to tell you of this fact in advance. Letting the customer know that he will be unable to support his local shop only AFTER the transaction is complete is nothing short of highway robbery. Sure, there are areas of proprietary interest where the manufacturer should not be forced to allow any Johnny-come-lately to stick his nose in. Engine programming is one of those areas. But replacing a tie-rod end? Come on. Tell me there's any intellectual property value in that! If there is true proprietary interest involved, I say let the dealer keep it. But if the dealer is hoarding information to keep the consumer chained to them for overpriced service for the life of the vehicle, that's just plain wrong. Think about it this way: If you bought a $7,000 plasma screen HDTV, brought it home, and only then found out that it would only run on 200 volts DC, wouldn't you feel a bit miffed? Why? Isn't it their right to build TV's to whatever spec they want? Didn't you ASSUME that it would plug into the wall like every other TV you've ever bought? Would you feel right buying expensive 200VDC service from the company that made the TV, or would you immediately start looking for a 200VDC to 110VAC converter? On a rudimentary level, it's the same basic argument. It's unfortunate that the government must stick its nose in because we as a populace can't decide to do the right thing for ourselves. The manufacturer's greed (and that's what it is, when all is said and done) is starting down the wrong path, and the Government must step in and do a little course correction. Isn't it a pity that we can't all play in the sandbox nicely, without Teacher having to get involved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.