Automakers to gearheads: Stop repairing cars

[aussiblue]

So much for Ford's statement they were going "open source" software http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11388119


http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.VTiYt8sfqpo

MIRROR, signal, manoeuvre - now set your engine to "supercar". Car maker Ford has just released OpenXC - an open-source hardware and software toolkit that will let the hacker community play around with the computer systems that run modern cars. While the first apps may add nothing more exciting than internet radio, the open nature of the system should eventually lead to custom apps that give drivers far more control over their car's performance.

Most cars are now run by computers that control everything from the engine to the incline of the seats but, until now, the driver has used only the data on speed, engine revs and fuel level. OpenXC will "demystify the details" of a car's software, says K. Venkatesh Prasad of Ford Research and Innovation in Dearborn, Michigan. A driver will be able to download approved apps from a Ford store onto their smartphone that can then communicate with a car's computer system.

Such apps may harness some underused parts of a car. For example, if a car with a weather app told the vehicles behind them when its wipers were on, drivers further down the road would have advance warning of rain. No weather satellite can give precise details about the specific road you're on, says Prasad. "All of a sudden you've given new life to wiper blades."

If you want to know how your engine is running, apps could display fuel pressure or the boost pressure of a turbo injection. With access to such parameters, apps could let drivers tweak their car's performance. While manufacturers tend to balance their cars between economy and performance, software could push it to one extreme or the other, giving the car owner a more efficient or faster vehicle than the one they bought.

It is unlikely that Ford would approve these kinds of apps - they might not be safe - and so car hackers might try to get around security measures. There are ways to do this that open up a car like a jailbroken iPhone. "Gone are the days when you have to connect wires together, you're now just talking to a computer," says Jay Abbott of Advanced Security Consulting in Peterborough, UK.

Abbott is a cybersecurity expert and car-modding enthusiast who enjoys tweaking a car's performance by customising its software. Most microcontrollers in modern cars use a protocol known as a CAN bus to communicate. Since this protocol is well understood, encryption can be bypassed with off-the-shelf tools such as a CAN bus analyser, commonly used to check your car's software for bugs.

In theory, OpenXC can work with any make of car that supports those standards - Toyota, Nissan and Honda have already expressed an interest. It will be up to individual manufacturers to provide access to the bespoke parts of their system. General Motors also announced a similar initiative at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas earlier this month, which will open up their cars to third-party app developers.

Sharing diagnostic data would also let manufacturers keep tabs on how their vehicles run once they are out of the showroom. "No question, we can learn from that," says Prasad.

Hobbyists have been tinkering with car software for a number of years, says Abbott, but customised apps should take off with the release of these platforms. "Ford stepping in and opening up to a mass market is great," he says. "It will promote a new generation of innovation."

and more at http://www.electronicproducts.com/Ne...heir_cars.aspx

.

[JIm260]

This is happening the US and not relevant to us here in Aus, since we have vastly different consumer laws on several levels.

Cheers
JIm

[mik]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

The Dealer is not the manufacturer, but a licensed reseller of the manufacturers product. thus Manufacturers claim stands.

I doubt this will amount to anything this time but as mentioned above with legislation like the TPP looming if there is the will by the auto manufacturing and or any industry there is the way.

However how dare we stand in the way of a company making money, you wouldn't accept anyone standing in your way to make a living?
You want to buy something you may have to do so under the manufacturers rules, signing away rights is not a new concept. those rights in this case may be choice of repairer and parts supplier.

I really believe the complexity of body panels, lights and other commonly damaged adornments on cars are designed such that its not economically viable for the aftermarket to replicate hence ensuring only one supplier. Genius stuff really.

JP

Yes they are not the manufacturer, but they are the nominated repairers and the face of the motor company for cars as far as the customer is concerned,
and they are supposed to know how to repair the brand of car they are selling/representing with their "trained technicians",
how often over the years gave we seen various problems come up In many brands that took them multiple goes to get a repair of a problem part done satisfactorily, and in some cases the problems ended up being more of a patch up, and after market guys ended up coming up with a better solution/ fix ?

[aussiblue]

This is happening the US and not relevant to us here in Aus, since we have vastly different consumer laws on several levels.

And at the moment and in this regard Oz laws are much weaker. We have no anti monopoly legislation like the US and the move to a national TPA weakened previous state based consumer rights. And the manufacturers seemed to have convinced the ACCC that it in consumers' safety interests not to provide information that will allow them to repair and maintain their own cars. The car market in Oz is also relatively small so as consumer we don't have the same market strength as our colleagues in North America. We also don't have Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEMA the powerful US after market auto parts association that was founded by aftermarket and hot rod parts makers and with the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) and the Automotive Parts & Accessories Association (APAA) continues to lobby and fight to ensure US car owners can do their own repairs and maintenance.

And it's already happening per the AAAA and Manufacturers deal I referred to on the 1st page of this thread see: http://www.aaaa.com.au/news.asp?id=196

[aussiblue]

Think might be better to relate to Australia

http://www.news.com.au/finance/busin...-1227096523670

Things have moved on a lot since then. Toyota breaking ranks led to the deal with AAAA I referred to and that limits provision of data to qualified private repairer not individual or car enthusiasts or 3rd part workshop manual publishers.

[JIm260]

I see what you are are saying blue but neither of those links are relevant to precedent in Aus consumer law.

Cheers
Jim

[aussiblue]

neither of those links are relevant to precedent in Aus consumer law

I not sure what you are arguing but Australia Consumer law is now primarily legislation based; old case precedents have little relevance anymore. The only use of precedents now relates to interpreting the legislation where any ambiguity or doubt exists. All those cases precedents we learnt at Uni in 70's and 80's no longer have much relevance.

This has happened http://www.aaaa.com.au/news.asp?id=196 an agreement between the AAAA and manufacturers that the ACCC has so far de facto supported by not responding and seeming endorsed according the AAAA press release:

“The AAAA acknowledges the significant work by all signatory parties to the agreement in achieving this historic outcome for the automotive industry. We also thank Minister Billson for his outstanding leadership on the issue, as well as the Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for their commitment to resolving this critical consumer issue,” said Stuart Charity

In fact it is a closed case as far as the CCAAC is concerned: http://ccaac.gov.au/2012/12/20/the-s...tive-industry/

[aussiblue]

In due course I intend composing a letter to the ACCC and CCAAC expressing my concerns regard access to manufacturers' data by:

a) 3rd party repair manual publishers; and through them or independently
b) consumer who may wish to:
i) repair their own car;
ii) diagnose faults with their own car; and/or
iii) better understand their car so they can verify advice from repairers and dealers (best argument that ACCC may buy I think) .

[Barnaby]

Anyone had a look at a model S Tesla yet? There's not much you can do with them anyway. Change tyres and brake pads. All software updates are performed over wireless in the background, we wont even be driving them soon!

Maybe this is more where that legislation is aimed from the OP?

[aussiblue]

Change tyres and brake pads.

.. and batteries. And there will hacker mods I am sure. Although Tesla don't like it either http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/04/t...-hack-model-s/

Tesla warns Model S hacks could injure drivers and its brand


Snip~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In its 10-K annual document, Tesla notes: "If our vehicle owners customize our vehicles or change the charging infrastructure with aftermarket products, the vehicle may not operate properly, which could harm our business." The company has referenced "automobile enthusiasts" who want to hack their Tesla to improve its performance, warning that those who do may compromise the safety systems. It says some customers have modified their position in the driving seat, which reduces the effectiveness of the airbags.

"We have not tested, nor do we endorse, such changes or products. In addition, customer use of improper external cabling or unsafe charging outlets can expose our customers to injury from high voltage electricity," says Tesla. "Such unauthorized modifications could reduce the safety of our vehicles and any injuries resulting from such modifications could result in adverse publicity which would negatively affect our brand and harm our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results."

[aussiblue]

They are still trying to exclude the DIYers

http://www.mtawa.com.au/membership/m...iscussion.html

Consumer safety concerns in right to repair discussion

Pia Duxbury Wednesday, 15 June 2016 13:28


MTA WA is seeking assurance that untrained individuals will not be provided with technical repair information


The MTA WA has made the following media statement:

The Motor Trade Association of WA is becoming increasingly concerned about the potential for technical repair information becoming available to the home handyman, doing their own repairs on the family car.

“There’s a big gap in the discussion around right to repair” said Stephen Moir CEO of the MTA WA, “nowhere in the debate has the issue of technical repair information becoming available to DIY’s been clearly addressed.”


“We’re a strong advocate for repairers and defend the consumer’s right to choice of repairer,” Mr Moir said. “We’re calling for all trained repairers running legitimate businesses to have accesses to technical repair information at reasonable commercial rates.”

The MTA WA is calling on the signatories to the Access to Service and Repair Information Agreement (Agreement) along with the Department of Treasury which provides oversight, to address the issue of private individuals getting access to repair information.

“We’re calling on our fellow signatories to Agreement to make a commitment to protect Australian motorists by ensuring technical repair information can only be accessed and used by qualified repairers operating legitimate automotive repair business” Mr Moir said.

The Association acknowledges that many people like to do their own vehicle repairs but points out that currently there is a natural limit on the type of repairs an untrained individual can do as they reach the limit of their ability.

“We don’t want to stop the great Aussie tradition of tinkering on your car in the home garage” Stephen Moir said, “but we need to recognise that cars are becoming increasingly complex and many repairs which used to be simple are now out of the reach of the home handyman.”

Mr Moir highlighted significant concerns with untrained individuals attempting complex repairs, including the repair of key safety items, citing advances in computer technology, auto electrics and the increased number of hybrid and electric vehicles.

“What we don’t want is an untrained person buying a part and receiving fitment and technical information, it will give them a false sense of confidence,” Mr Moir said.

“Attempting repairs beyond your knowledge is a recipe for disaster” Mr Moir said. “At best it could mean that you fry the car’s computer at worst it could cause serious harm or death if you’ve attempted something like fitting brake or steering components. There’s a reason that an automotive repairer trains for four years and then keeps learning through the entirety of their career.”

END
Media Contact
Pia Duxbury
Business Development Manager
9233 9800

Just a greedy grab to stop us working on our cars however well qualified and well equipped we might be.

[Tassie f100]

I guess most of us would prefer to use genuine manufacturers parts if they weren't 3-4 times the cost of non genuine.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Tassie f100

I guess most of us would prefer to use genuine manufacturers parts if they weren't 3-4 times the cost of non genuine.

I don't mind using genuine stuff, its more expensive but its always fit first time, a lot of the time we find with aftermarket stuff it can be a bit of a bastard to get it to fit, sometimes you gotta modify stuff.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

They are still trying to exclude the DIYers

http://www.mtawa.com.au/membership/m...iscussion.html



Just a greedy grab to stop us working on our cars however well qualified and well equipped we might be.

I run my own automotive repair business, I don't mind having the DIY crew around, at the end of the day if you're capable enough to work on your own car safely than by all means give it a crack.

I even let particular trusted people borrow my tools and equipment and work on their own car in my workshop, OHS nightmare technically but they can save on labour costs that way and we can give a guiding hand for any questions they have.

There is a mechanic down the road who has started up about 6 months ago who we both work in with each other, he specialises in exotic cars, Ferrari and Lamborghini have a licensing system where you won't touch their cars until you meet their standards, he has done a lot of training with the manufacturers over in Italy and has to be licenced here locally to be able to touch their cars, kinda like the ISO standards you see big companies have, he had to go into Melbourne and sit some tests on their new cars to meet the standard a few days ago.

I'd be open to the idea if Ford/Holden and other manufacturers would let us be able to pay and undertake training on their cars, have certification, not to stop the DIY crew work on their own cars but to be able to advertise that yes we as a business know about these particular products.

[Qwerty321]

Gearhead to Automakers : Maybe don't charge me the value of the car for a servicing at your dealerships and I'll consider it

[Franco Cozzo]

Ford and Holden have both made a pretty decent effort to lower their service items and consumable prices to automotive businesses, I'm part of both the Ford and Holden trade clubs and the prices for service items are actually cheaper than their Ryco equivilents at Bursons/Repco.

Holden even offers the ACDelco service parts as well, I can get aftermarket service parts for any manufacturer through my local Holden dealership and its literally 1/3-1/2 the price of the Ryco equivilents.

The people making the good coin in the automotive industry are the part suppliers, especially Bursons/Repco, we've got our margins on parts but I can't make a good margin on anything from those two suppliers, on a lot of the items there isn't a good margin in them between my price and their RRP that any one of you could get it at over the counter.

Literally on oils its $1-$5 between my price and RRP through those two.

My local rep keeps telling me don't worry about their RRP and plenty of their trade customers charge above the RRP but it defeats the purpose of my customers buying through me if they can get it at the shop counter cheaper, and gives me a bad reputation.

[Crazy Dazz]

Interesting thread bump.

People need to understand that the idea of pitching "consumer rights laws" to the popular vote is a relatively new idea, and still not terribly successful.
Historically, Copyright, Patent, and "Intellectual Property" laws in general had absolutely nothing to do with protecting the rights of individuals, almost the exact opposite. The were enacted to protect Business Investment.

Furthermore, that is still almost exclusively the case in the USA, and of course the USA then uses its muscle to force the rest of the "free world" into line.

The Recording Industry would have you believe that you shouldn't download songs because you are stealing from the artist, which is a pile of old cobblers.
(Obviously you should not download, because its against the law, and breaking the law is bad, ok.)

If the RIAA had its way, you'd still be going into a store and paying $50 for a CD that cost them about 5 cents to mass-produce in China.
Even if you "do the right thing," go to iTunes and pay to download a song, how much do you reckon goes to the original artist?
I'll give you a clue, there's a reason Status Quo are doing ads for Coles.

Point is, these IP laws, and all recent and future amendments, exist to protect Big Industry. But, in perhaps the worst irony, American courts will happily completely ignore the law if doing so furthers the interests of Big Business.

In a similar vein, the USA has the most incredible Competition laws (or anti-anti-competition) laws. Referred to in the US as "Anti-Trust." They can and do force the bust-up of monopolies where its in the national interest, but won't do any more than a token wristslap where busting such a monopoly would lead to greater FOREIGN competition.

What's interesting about this in an automotive sense, is that the USA can and does grossly protect its manufacturing base. So in the USA, if you buy an aftermarket part for your car (be it Ford, Toyota, or whatever) chances are it was made in North America. Furthermore, if you go to "Jiffy Lube" to get your car serviced, that's obviously an American company employing North Americans. So there is less incentive for the government to act to protect the rights of the Auto companies.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Ford and Holden have both made a pretty decent effort to lower their service items and consumable prices to automotive businesses, I'm part of both the Ford and Holden trade clubs and the prices for service items are actually cheaper than their Ryco equivilents at Bursons/Repco.

Holden even offers the ACDelco service parts as well, I can get aftermarket service parts for any manufacturer through my local Holden dealership and its literally 1/3-1/2 the price of the Ryco equivilents.

Interesting they do that.

Originally Posted by Big Damo

The people making the good coin in the automotive industry are the part suppliers, especially Bursons/Repco, we've got our margins on parts but I can't make a good margin on anything from those two suppliers, on a lot of the items there isn't a good margin in them between my price and their RRP that any one of you could get it at over the counter.

Literally on oils its $1-$5 between my price and RRP through those two.

My local rep keeps telling me don't worry about their RRP and plenty of their trade customers charge above the RRP but it defeats the purpose of my customers buying through me if they can get it at the shop counter cheaper, and gives me a bad reputation.

I hear ya. It really doesn't pay to be in small business.
My wife and I ran a specialist retail store. My wife was trained to offer customised service, and she was very good at it. Our prices were almost always below RRP, in some cases well below, and she had a lot of loyal repeat customers. Furthermore much of our range was specialised and high-end, not the common stuff you get at a chain store. In some cases, we literally had no choice but to sell below cost, in order to quit old stock and make way for new lines. The good thing about that though, was that our suppliers would offer us special deals on obsolete stock, so whilst we might take a hit on existing inventory, we could still profit on those special deals. It worked, because at full RRP there was a big markup in our industry. Hence why we could discount, run sales, and afford to quit the old stock.
It was a hard slog for her, but she enjoyed it. She could have made more money working 35 hours a week in a minimum wage job, than she did working 70 hours a week in the shop, but she loved doing what she did.

The first nail in the coffin was when our Australian suppliers (who accounted for the bulk of our volume) and the chain stores began to drastically expand the range sold there, directly targeting our end of the market (but without the personalised and customised service.)
It is obviously much more convenient to shop in a chain store in a major shopping centre, but we could have still competed on service, except that we couldn't compete on price. We'd see items on which we had say a $20 margin, selling for a regular price $15 below our RRP. And that was before the chain stores had sales, and then reduced stuff to clear.

We had a website and sold stuff online allover the world. Which is a lot of hard work for a single store small business. The next nails came when those aforementioned Australian Suppliers decided they would sell direct to the public online. Obviously they have the brand-names, so its much easier for them. Most of the items were at RRP, but the specials were a killer.

But really the knockout punches came when those same suppliers decided to open so-called "factory outlets" (allover the country, nowhere near the flaming factory) and DUMP all their surplus stock. Not only did they stop offering retailers specials on terminated lines, but we would find out they were dumping stock before terminating the line, or in some cases just dumping surplus inventory on stock lines. So people can go to an outlet and buy stuff for half our stock cost.

Later I heard that one of those major suppliers had gone bust because they couldn't compete with imports.
Karma's a ***** eh.

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

Interesting thread bump.

People need to understand that the idea of pitching "consumer rights laws" to the popular vote is a relatively new idea, and still not terribly successful.
Historically, Copyright, Patent, and "Intellectual Property" laws in general had absolutely nothing to do with protecting the rights of individuals, almost the exact opposite. The were enacted to protect Business Investment.

Furthermore, that is still almost exclusively the case in the USA, and of course the USA then uses its muscle to force the rest of the "free world" into line.

The Recording Industry would have you believe that you shouldn't download songs because you are stealing from the artist, which is a pile of old cobblers.
(Obviously you should not download, because its against the law, and breaking the law is bad, ok.)

If the RIAA had its way, you'd still be going into a store and paying $50 for a CD that cost them about 5 cents to mass-produce in China.
Even if you "do the right thing," go to iTunes and pay to download a song, how much do you reckon goes to the original artist?
I'll give you a clue, there's a reason Status Quo are doing ads for Coles.

Point is, these IP laws, and all recent and future amendments, exist to protect Big Industry. But, in perhaps the worst irony, American courts will happily completely ignore the law if doing so furthers the interests of Big Business.

In a similar vein, the USA has the most incredible Competition laws (or anti-anti-competition) laws. Referred to in the US as "Anti-Trust." They can and do force the bust-up of monopolies where its in the national interest, but won't do any more than a token wristslap where busting such a monopoly would lead to greater FOREIGN competition.

What's interesting about this in an automotive sense, is that the USA can and does grossly protect its manufacturing base. So in the USA, if you buy an aftermarket part for your car (be it Ford, Toyota, or whatever) chances are it was made in North America. Furthermore, if you go to "Jiffy Lube" to get your car serviced, that's obviously an American company employing North Americans. So there is less incentive for the government to act to protect the rights of the Auto companies.

Yep, it's totally about copyright and it's done for a reason, it will exclude consumer law to any extent it can and Australia slavishly follows the US example.

BREXIT has seemingly thrown us a bit of a lifeline with what might end up being a worldwide backlash on multi-nationals and globalisation.
Heck, currently the government has no control over these companies, they pay NO tax here.

And Dazz, wait until they give us that gem called region coding.
AKA charge whatever the market will bear, only aussies are mugs who hand over $50 for that CD. Doesn't happen in the good ole USofA

[Cobra]

Everything is getting harder and harder for the average bloke, but now even the independent mechanics are struggling more than ever to work on new cars. Manufacturers have component protection software for many of their control units/modules, so even if you can diagnose a fault, you cannot simply plug-and-play to repair.

It has been the case where a lot of modules need to be coded in, but with component protection software so advanced, a part will require an access code punched in to activate the module. This code can only be retrieved via the manufacturer using their diagnostic software after an online submission is made.

You can also forget about using second hand parts from the wrecker! With component protection software the module is programmed to one VIN and one VIN only. It cannot be reprogrammed to another vehicle; it's locked to the original car it was programmed to. CAN Bus is a PITA but now it will be a lot worse.

[aussiblue]

And the debate is still going: Today's Go auto News Premium Newsletter May 18 2018 Edition 104

VACC hits back at FCAI claims of sufficient data sharing available for independent repairers
War of Words
TO READ THIS STORY ONLINE
CLICK HERE
By NEIL DOWLING
THE car service and repair data sharing issue, which has been simmering between OEMs and independent repairers, became a full-scale war of words this week following an assertion from the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) that moves to legislate mandated data sharing with independent repairers were unnecessary. FCAI chief executive Tony Weber issued a statement saying that 85 per cent of independent outlets had access to vehicle technical data. But the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce (VACC) executive director Geoff Gwilym told GoAutoNews Premium that the assertion by the FCAI chief executive Tony Weber was “crap”.

The issue, brought to the forefront at the recent Autocare 2018 conference held in Sydney by the Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association (AAAA) and attended by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) chief Rod Sims who said the ACCC backed the case put by the independent repairers. Mr Weber responded: “With 23,000 independent outlets already having access to information on 85 per cent of the market via the FCAI website and other sources, where is the market failure that we are trying to address? “With independent repair operators already servicing a vast majority of the Australian car fleet, the sector is already accessing important information to enable it to carry out service activity. Otherwise, how are these vehicles currently being serviced?” But Mr Gwilym said: “I would say the 85 per cent figure is just crap. The FCAI refers to links on its website and to the data held by the VACC – but data codes are not available to the VACC despite us having one of the biggest automotive libraries in Australia.” Mr Gwilym said the issue is that everytime a new car is made “it (OEMs) provides less and less access to independent repairers, particularly the codes required to solve system problems”. “It means OEMS are happy to sell components to the repair industry, but then want to slug them again by coding them so they work.

“So we see a widening gap between the amount of information that the repairers need to access and the amount that is available,” Mr Gwilym said. Mr Weber said that
independent repairers should make greater use of available resources before the sector is compelled to use a burdensome mandatory regime. The Australian Automotive Dealers Association (AADA) said the time for debate is over. Its CEO, David Blackhall, told GoAutoNews Premium that both minister Michael Sukkar and the leader of the opposition, Bill Shorten, have publicly stated that they will adopt the ACCC recommendation for a mandatory code. “This says to us that after seven years of discussion the time for debate about the need or otherwise for a mandatory code is over, without in any way minimising the fact that there definitely is two sides to this,” Mr Blackhall said. “Our focus at the AADA is to participate fully in the shaping of the code ensuring our members interests are protected to the maximum extent possible. “We are also working hard to keep our longer term goal in mind - a specific automotive code that reshapes the post manufacturing regulation of the retail new car business. “A wise advisor once told me that in Canberra the rule is ‘if you are not at the table, then you risk being on the menu…’ The AADA intends to be at the table.”

At the AAAA conference, ACCC chairman Rod Sims told the audience that the watchdog would assist in the development of a mandatory scheme for AAAA members to get access to the technical information needed to fix cars “and to compete”. He was backed by assistant minister to the treasurer Michael Sukkar MP who, in his address at the same conference, said a proposed scheme would “ensure competition and fairness for Australian consumers”. “We want to drive reform to ensure the automotive industry
remains competitive and fair to consumers and businesses alike,” Mr Sukkar said. “In the case of the Australian automotive market, there is a strong case for change and
particularly as it relates to car servicing.” But the FCAI, representing OEMs, this week said a mandatory regime is not required.Mr Weber said: “If the government were to
consider this path, it carries considerable responsibility and necessary investment by all automotive repairers. “The government needs to ask how much additional red tape is needed to address a perceived future problem. “To mandate this process will require vast amounts of regulation and a new bureaucracy to police the system to ensure consumers are protected as vehicles become more and more complex.”

In reference to a 2012 agreement between the industry and independent repairers, Mr Gwilym said it had “failed miserably”. “The FCAI has failed to address multiple claims of data issues provided to them by us. There are more than 100 issues that we have told them about over the past 12 months and we have yet to receive a response to any of them.

WHAT’S THE ISSUE?
Independent repairers want access to the repair data used by OEM and OEM franchised dealer technicians.

WHO WANTS THE DATA?
The 23,000 independent repairers. They say the data allows them to repair vehicles and creates a level playing field for consumers to freely choose between themselves and franchised repairers.

WHO OWNS THE DATA?
The 3500 OEM franchised dealers. OEMs say it’s their property and franchises then pay for its access, buy diagnostic equipment, train its technicians and service cars for
customers.

IS THERE AN AGREEMENT?
No. In 2012 there was a code established to find a middle ground but both sides say it broke down. There is now a draft code with the federal government that aims to find solutions.

“The process for resolution to repair information has failed. The FCAI is part of that failure. “I would say they are being no help to independents and they are being no help to dealerships. They aren’t helping anyone and with the removal of manufacturing in Australia, there’s a question mark about what their role really is.” Now the VACC, the AAAA and Motor Trades Association of Australia (MTAA) want a new draft code to be adopted. “This argument is heating up. We want the responsible minister (Sukkar) to make clear the intentions of government about moving to a mandated code,” Mr Gwilym said. “The MTAA has provided a draft code to the minister, and the industry is waiting for the minister to take a stand. “We agree with the MTAA’s draft code because it is balanced and doesn’t undermine the role of dealerships or independent repairers. It tries to get a level playing field where these players can work in harmony – which they have for the past 100 years. “This division in the industry shouldn’t exist. They have worked collaboratively for decades and we hope they will continue to do so.” Mr Gwilym said that the VACC and other parts of the industry were also concerned about reports of people lifting data codes collected by stripping a vehicle in another country.

[burnz]

Didn't apple try this, you basically rent the iPhone not own it...
something in the EULA..

[aussiblue]

Still a big issue in USA but things are happening on a state by state basis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKy28YryhSQ

[olds]

Absolutely support this

[olds]

In the USA you can build your own house,do your own electrical wiring, plumbing and work on your own car.

[aussiblue]

In the USA you can build your own house,do your own electrical wiring, plumbing and work on your own car.

Only in some states.

[olds]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Only in some states.

Yes but in Aus. apparently you dont know the difference between three different colored wires , how to hammer in a nail or that **** flows downhill. Yet you can still alter the safety parameters on your car.

[Rallye Sport]

This is still alive and well in Agricultural machinery. Things opening up in the US have helped a little though.

Local supplier was happy to sell us a kit for a hydraulic take off but wouldn't supply any schematics for it. A search on some US dealer sites got us the info we needed.

We also deal with localism from dealers.
Separate manufacturer has two dealers here, one won't work on machines sold from their competitor, the other won't program a part (lift actuator) that wasn't sold by them. They want to charge us a 50% mark up for a part we can get from their US HQ in half the postage time.

[b0son]

I'm fine with it, but I hope that this restriction is reflected in the cost. I mean, if we dont actually own the car, we're simply licensing it effectively, I'd rather just pay an annual or monthly fee to use it. $500pm seems fair.

[Citroënbender]

Pricing, it’s often a mockery here. One way to stop us fixing stuff.

https://www.australianonlinecarparts...-for-gm-holden

https://www.gmpartsdirect.com/oem-pa...-bolt-11549124