The right to repair thing is a spectrum. On the one hand you have the John Deere inkjet model. But on the other end you have the normal car manufacturers who don't make it impossible, but who incentivize using 1st party repair. Are we talking about that being against right to repair? Because that feels somewhat hard to legislate.
E.g: A car has 1 year warranty. But the warranty is extended by one year so long as you service it with manufacturer, not a third party. This doesn't prevent me from servicing with a third party for half the price, but it might not be worth doing that. And I would think twice about buying a car which is only a few years old unless it's serviced completely at first party, due to issues that could arise with warranty claims.
Could legislation be made that says "If you repair at a third party, or even repair yourself, and you know what you are doing/do it according to the recommendation, then the manufacturer has to give the same warranty they would have if you serviced it at them"? Because that feels insane. The warranty is just a kickback for using their expensive service, getting you to the service place/showroom regularly etc.
I think something similar applies in many parts of the world, _but_ I also think that the response from the OEMs is basically "fight the warranty claims hard when there is third party service involved, and just honor the warranty with a smile otherwise". Basically malicious compliance is what they have to resort to. And as a car owner I'm lazy and afraid of conflict. So I happily pay X% more for the service to get the no fuss warranty (And the OEM shop is even happier).
In order to deny a warranty claim the US, the manufacturer has to prove the issue has been caused by a modification or servicing.
Why would anyone want to service their call at a stealership? The prices are unfair and the quality of techs is awful. Better to find a small reliable shop.
Until they mandate open firmware, it’s basically a moot point. The most severe problems modern cars have are software problems with the ADAS systems, where the car increasingly becomes erratic with age. (Slamming on brakes when there’s a tailgater, swerving into ditches, over double yellows, etc).
In other news, try obtaining OEM brakes for a twenty year old mustang. They making them.
> “I think Ford’s position is very reasonable. We’re really a big advocate for the ability to repair a vehicle, but it has to be done at a reasonable cost, and—”
> Freep’s journalist then jumped in with the same question I would have wanted to ask: “But you don’t want people repairing their own vehicles?”
> Farley’s reply: “No, that’s, that’s fine, not for warranty work, though. These are very complicated cars, and we don’t think that’s safe, for many of the repairs on our vehicles, someone at home like myself could never do it. I have no problem working on a ’73 Bronco, but to work on a brand-new Bronco? I need all sorts of specialty tools. That’s something that, um, you know, we would put people’s lives at risk.”
The words coming out of this guy's mouth aren't the problem. The problem is what's in the heads of a heck of a lot of people around here and plenty of other places.
These CEOs and industry advocates can spew all the BS they want. It's literally their job to push for what's best for who they represent even at the expense of everything else. Of course they will go as far as they think they can with it. At the end of the day the actual political will to implement and/or tolerate absurdity is provided by all the paternalistic busybodies who will cheer for the destruction of entire industries (and hobbies) to the detriment of the general public if those benefiting from the destruction lie to them and say it'll advance some vague and hard to measure (and therefore easy to manipulate) goal like "safety" (in this case).
CEOs will only pursue profit, unless they are afraid of the consequences, seems most people forgot about that. We need more Legislation.. and Maybe some national heroes..
I was taught that leaders are only respectful of their constituents when they are within “strangling distance”; they should be literally afraid of the consequences of their actions.
Slate is outsourcing service operations to any shop that wants to pay $50 to get certified.
https://www.slate.auto/en/certified
The right to repair thing is a spectrum. On the one hand you have the John Deere inkjet model. But on the other end you have the normal car manufacturers who don't make it impossible, but who incentivize using 1st party repair. Are we talking about that being against right to repair? Because that feels somewhat hard to legislate.
E.g: A car has 1 year warranty. But the warranty is extended by one year so long as you service it with manufacturer, not a third party. This doesn't prevent me from servicing with a third party for half the price, but it might not be worth doing that. And I would think twice about buying a car which is only a few years old unless it's serviced completely at first party, due to issues that could arise with warranty claims.
Could legislation be made that says "If you repair at a third party, or even repair yourself, and you know what you are doing/do it according to the recommendation, then the manufacturer has to give the same warranty they would have if you serviced it at them"? Because that feels insane. The warranty is just a kickback for using their expensive service, getting you to the service place/showroom regularly etc.
In the US the Magnuson Moss Warranty act explicitly forbids what you are describing
I think something similar applies in many parts of the world, _but_ I also think that the response from the OEMs is basically "fight the warranty claims hard when there is third party service involved, and just honor the warranty with a smile otherwise". Basically malicious compliance is what they have to resort to. And as a car owner I'm lazy and afraid of conflict. So I happily pay X% more for the service to get the no fuss warranty (And the OEM shop is even happier).
In order to deny a warranty claim the US, the manufacturer has to prove the issue has been caused by a modification or servicing.
Why would anyone want to service their call at a stealership? The prices are unfair and the quality of techs is awful. Better to find a small reliable shop.
the couple times I ran into this, I basically just threatened them with legal action & they relented
Until they mandate open firmware, it’s basically a moot point. The most severe problems modern cars have are software problems with the ADAS systems, where the car increasingly becomes erratic with age. (Slamming on brakes when there’s a tailgater, swerving into ditches, over double yellows, etc).
In other news, try obtaining OEM brakes for a twenty year old mustang. They making them.
> “I think Ford’s position is very reasonable. We’re really a big advocate for the ability to repair a vehicle, but it has to be done at a reasonable cost, and—”
> Freep’s journalist then jumped in with the same question I would have wanted to ask: “But you don’t want people repairing their own vehicles?”
> Farley’s reply: “No, that’s, that’s fine, not for warranty work, though. These are very complicated cars, and we don’t think that’s safe, for many of the repairs on our vehicles, someone at home like myself could never do it. I have no problem working on a ’73 Bronco, but to work on a brand-new Bronco? I need all sorts of specialty tools. That’s something that, um, you know, we would put people’s lives at risk.”
The words coming out of this guy's mouth aren't the problem. The problem is what's in the heads of a heck of a lot of people around here and plenty of other places.
These CEOs and industry advocates can spew all the BS they want. It's literally their job to push for what's best for who they represent even at the expense of everything else. Of course they will go as far as they think they can with it. At the end of the day the actual political will to implement and/or tolerate absurdity is provided by all the paternalistic busybodies who will cheer for the destruction of entire industries (and hobbies) to the detriment of the general public if those benefiting from the destruction lie to them and say it'll advance some vague and hard to measure (and therefore easy to manipulate) goal like "safety" (in this case).
CEOs will only pursue profit, unless they are afraid of the consequences, seems most people forgot about that. We need more Legislation.. and Maybe some national heroes..
I was taught that leaders are only respectful of their constituents when they are within “strangling distance”; they should be literally afraid of the consequences of their actions.