[duneless]

I got a kick out of this. Even John Deere is in on it. We don't actually own our cars we borrow them I guess. They want this punishable by law. What is this world coming to?https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/gm-ford-others-want-working-own-car-illegal-160000229.html

 

[Yank05]

Many of the reasons that are cited in this article are ridiculous.

However, being an engineer in the aerospace industry for 20 years, one of the reasons, i.e. the safety aspect of software, is (unfortunately) not surprising to me. Given that newer vehicle models incorporate safety critical functions, i.e. adaptive cruise control, braking, etc., the industry may be entering a realm similar to aviation.

The software in modern aircraft, have for many years, incorporated flight critical functions whereby a failure could result in loss of the aircraft and/or loss of life. The software in modern vehicles is now similar.

Granted, certain mechanical failures of any vehicle, new or old, can result in a catastrophic accident. But, given where software functionality is and is soon to go, the industry may be trying to lean on this aspect as described in the article.

I'll just have to go back to carburation and manual steering!

Anthony

 

[Yank05]

....one has to be a certified mechanic in aviation....I hate to think that this may be the case in the future for autos.....hopefully not, but there will be entities pushing for it....

 

[EmeryZ28]

It is ridiculous and I think mainly they are starting to worry about the software on more advanced cars and that somewhat makes sense.

I still love how on most of these articles, GM is the big evil villain they focus on and then near the bottom they mention that Toyota and BMW are also involved...:bigroll:

 

[DavidATS]

I don't agree with it either but the title of the article and the article don't really match - "GM, Ford, And Others Want to Make Working on Your Own Car Illegal" I guess "GM, Ford, And Others Want to Make Working Altering Your ECU Illegal" doesn't have the same draw? They keep saying "Working on your car will be illegal" but reality is about 99.9% of people don't have the ability or interest in altering their cars ECU.

and the article

the law would hypothetically protect automakers from pesky owners looking to alter any sort of technology in the vehicle that relates to the onboard computer. Flashing your ECU would be a big no no, which could also lead to all sorts of problems for aftermarket shops.

DMCA does give a little bit of leeway, though. While the act could hypothetically lock customers out of key safety features, it would still allow owners the ability to repair other areas of the vehicle’s onboard computer as they see fit. It’s a slim compromise, but one that may be more closely based in reality.

How many exhausts, downpipes in place of cats, lights, etc. are sold today that don't meet current laws? If GM catches you they will call the police?

Like I said at the top, I don't agree with this law at all but not sure most people care.

 

[vfaninva]

Call me cynical, but I don't believe for a second that GM and other automakers are as concerned for our safety as they are their bottom line.
There is a long history of automakers trying to pry the wrenches out of our hands in order to keep more profits in their pockets. They are cannibalistic too. Think about how Tesla has been held back from selling in every state.
Fortunately we have groups like the SEMA Action Network working to protect our rights.
http://www.semasan.com/page.asp?content=startpage&g=semaga

 

[Submariner409]

Duplicate thread in the Lounge.

 

[BlueAngel#07]

And with the crap efficiency of the the quality of things it is their bottom line to make money. I know that all of the the car makers pushing for this law have thought about it being an absolute law. And watch the the gleam in the accounting offices eyes. It intrusive to say the least, if I buy it it's mine! It sounds like the beginnings of intellectual properties for the future shock of automated cars.

----------

Which in reality would hold no more water than one working on your own cell phone. If you can do it, it will work, if you can't you will be sitting on the side of the road. Who is going to uphold going into your garage to check?

 

[Hoosier Daddy]

And with the crap efficiency of the the quality of things it is their bottom line to make money. I know that all of the the car makers pushing for this law have thought about it being an absolute law.

In more ways than the obvious. Take the Driver assistance package. Its many thousands of dollars but the hardware differences are practically nothing. The huge majority of the PRICE is the software and even those differences aren't as much as you might think. For example, the car will (at least with Driver Awareness) brake fairly aggressively if you quickly lower the cruise control target a large amount. IN other words the controls and software to apply th brakes are already there, for the adaptive cruise all that's needed other than an additional sensor is some code to translate the sensor input to a brake pressure value.

If people can add Driver Assistance for the cost of a cheap sensor or two, a lot would do that rather than paying Cadillac thousands. Of course the only reason that is even a vulnerability to them is that they are probably price gouging on the option.

And manufacturers love the ability to force you to pay for option packages that you don't want or need large portions of. An example I have first hand knowledge of is steering wheel controls in some Fords. Ford actually paid someone to include code to prevent the controls on a premium wheel from working in a car that didn't have a package that included the wheel. Fortunately, the Boss 302 audio system was identical to the base system; I guess they figured Boss customers didn't care as much about the sound quality or would put up with less watts and fewer speakers. But the Boss came with steering wheel controls. When I reviewed the code in the ACM (Audio Control Module) of various models/options I saw only a 2 byte difference between a Boss 302 and other Mustangs without upgraded stereos. The purpose of those bytes? To disable the wheel controls if someone installed it in a car with the base audio system. There would not have been that difference unless they actively were trying to prevent such a "customer" upgrade. Even so, once the word was out A lot of people installed a wheel with controls (the Boss Alcantara wheel with controls was selling for $150 at the time) and payed a dealer ~$45 to change those 2 bytes in the ACM.

 

[SkyNet]

I'm sure the dealers are just giddy about this.

 

[DavidATS]

In more ways than the obvious. Take the Driver assistance package. Its many thousands of dollars but the hardware differences are practically nothing. The huge majority of the PRICE is the software and even those differences aren't as much as you might think. For example, the car will (at least with Driver Awareness) brake fairly aggressively if you quickly lower the cruise control target a large amount. IN other words the controls and software to apply th brakes are already there, for the adaptive cruise all that's needed other than an additional sensor is some code to translate the sensor input to a brake pressure value.

If people can add Driver Assistance for the cost of a cheap sensor or two, a lot would do that rather than paying Cadillac thousands. Of course the only reason that is even a vulnerability to them is that they are probably price gouging on the option.

And manufacturers love the ability to force you to pay for option packages that you don't want or need large portions of. An example I have first hand knowledge of is steering wheel controls in some Fords. Ford actually paid someone to include code to prevent the controls on a premium wheel from working in a car that didn't have a package that included the wheel. Fortunately, the Boss 302 audio system was identical to the base system; I guess they figured Boss customers didn't care as much about the sound quality or would put up with less watts and fewer speakers. But the Boss came with steering wheel controls. When I reviewed the code in the ACM (Audio Control Module) of various models/options I saw only a 2 byte difference between a Boss 302 and other Mustangs without upgraded stereos. The purpose of those bytes? To disable the wheel controls if someone installed it in a car with the base audio system. There would not have been that difference unless they actively were trying to prevent such a "customer" upgrade. Even so, once the word was out A lot of people installed a wheel with controls (the Boss Alcantara wheel with controls was selling for $150 at the time) and payed a dealer ~$45 to change those 2 bytes in the ACM.

Evidently me and Cadillac agree on something. If I could come up with a Drivers Assist Package that cost me $200 but found I could charge $2000 and this number would maximize my profit I would also do it. When I buy a cell phone I really don't believe it costs them that much more to make the latest and greatest compared to the one that costs 1/4 of this amount, or that an S class Merc costs twice as much as a C class to manufacture and sell. Not seeing why it's ok for Mercedes to charge a huge amount for the S class but not ok for Cadillac to charge a lot for the Drivers Assist. They offer a product and I decide if I am willing to pay for it.

With regards to the Boss and the option packages, there are many reasons to offer packages including lowering production costs, inventory costs, and maximizing profit. I don't see why they owe it to me to make it easy to bypass the option package and piece together what I want because I don't want to spend the money for what they have to offer.

Back to the original post, I also don't agree there should be laws banning me from trying to change things on my car. This is very different from manufactures needing to make ECU's that are easy to get into and change.

 

[ccclarke]

This is laughable now but . . .

In the near future, (three or four decades, maybe) manual driving will be viewed as "quaint" and old-fashioned by a younger generation used to self-driving vehicles.

Fully autonomous vehicles are coming, and the Driver Assist Packages trickling down from the higher end vehicles are just the beginning, as computational power, networked communication, and situational awareness sensors evolve. Taxi and truck drivers will be the first (driving) occupations to become obsolete as vehicles take passengers and cargo to pre-programmed destinations.

Who bears the responsibility when accidents occur? The vehicle manufacturers will require 100% control of maintenance to avoid liability issues. Vehicle diagnostics will prevent any vehicle from operating when a safety-related fault is detected.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, these "improvements"" will be forced upon all of us in the name of "safety," first, through our wallets, and later by AI controlling the coming "internet of things" that decides what's best for us. Want to drive manually? Your insurance rates will be so high, only the very rich will be able to do so. Manual driving will ultimately become a sport or pastime, performed on closed tracks.

If you think the Nanny State is bad now. . . Smoke 'em while you got 'em!

What used to pass for science fiction is quickly becoming science fact.

CCC

 

[BlueAngel#07]

^^^^^^^^

 

[rriddle3]

I believe the main idea behind this movement is to prevent some people from tuning the k-rap out of their engine, having it self destruct, and then loudly wailing, "Cadillac is junk! I've had 4 engines blow up on me!" :stirpot:

 

[clempot911]

I don’t think anyone is going to prevent you from changing the oil or replacing a water pump on your vehicle anytime soon. Maybe someday they will ‘seal’ the hood under the guise of emissions compliance and that will be the end of the DIY auto repair. As for the software, I’m frankly surprised they don’t have the PCM locked up tighter than Fort Knox.

 

[myATS]

I believe the main idea behind this movement is to prevent some people from tuning the k-rap out of their engine, having it self destruct, and then loudly wailing, "Cadillac is junk! I've had 4 engines blow up on me!" :stirpot:

I don't think so. So, what if somebody decides to not tune the "k-rap" out of their car, and decides to tune/modify it just a bit, should that be illegal also? Why should an automobile manufacturer have the right to stop you from enjoying a vehicle that you have rightfully purchased?

----------

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/automakers-say-you-dont-really-own-your-car

----------

https://act.eff.org/action/fight-for-your-right-to-repair-your-car

 

[BlueAngel#07]

I still wonder, when the car is out of warranty (at which time the real backyard mechanics will have no need for a shop), who's going to enforce this crap rule? Men in black suits peeking into your garages? While there is a vague truth to some of it, it is still the product of a certain degree of profitable paranoia. Holy Shit what's next? Our freedoms are disappearing.

 

[clempot911]

I still wonder, when the car is out of warranty (at which time the real backyard mechanics will have no need for a shop), who's going to enforce this crap rule? Men in black suits peeking into your garages? While there is a vague truth to some of it, it is still the product of a certain degree of profitable paranoia. Holy Shit what's next? Our freedoms are disappearing.

Well, I read that the proposed next generation of on-board-diagnostics (OBDIII) includes some form of telemetry between the vehicles and whatever agency will be in charge of this stuff. Right now, if you have an emissions related failure, you have up to 1 year to fix it (depending on when it happens and when your next 'safety/emissions' inspection is). The proposal is that under obd3 the vehicle would report itself. I don't remember all of the details but I think the car owner would then be contacted via a postcard telling them there is a problem and that they need to get it fixed. So...what happens if they don't? Will they not renew your registration? A fine?

 

[duneless]

I am stuck on the part where it says we don't actually own our cars crap. If technology is going toward we can't touch the electronics (ECU) whatever. Then people will have to deal with it and that sucks. Or get a classic Muscle car like I want to get but yet I don't want that for a daily driver. Big brother is going to take it all from us just like the Onstar being able to track you. How fast you are going and Gs you put the car through. And report all this to authorities for data base stuff to see where people are speeding and such. Tell you what if they own my car when I buy they can drive me around as well. Do they know what they are doing going down this route? All for $ an take your rights away? You start taking peoples rights away here in the US and it won't be good. To me this is just a little to over board. Like John Deere saying people will be able to pirate music from their tractors. Don't you need WI-FI for that? Tractors come with WI-FI now? Or am I not understanding that one. And who cares if you do that with a tractor if you could. That bothers John Deere?

 

[BlueAngel#07]

If we don't own are cars then why pretend to buy them, if after purchase they have the NERVE to say that they are still their property. .....They can drive "their property" themselves.