Right to repair; Sustainable prioritisation

[JBee]

The manufacturer shouldn't be the one playing protective patriarch. That's bullshit. They shouldn't be making it dangerous, either, because they have to make it okay for their own techs.

-Crissa

Cars are by their very nature dangerous.

Thats the whole point of safety standards and road compliance rules. Should we get rid of those so you can tinker and kill someone else because you didn't know what your doing?

If your actions endanger yourself is one thing, and even that has a cost on others, but recklessly endangering others because you want to have the right to repair a vehicle that is driven on public roads is a place where regulation needs to step in and make manufacturers responsible.

What is the problem with that in your opinion?

 

[Crissa]

What's the problem with your opinion?

Cars are by their very nature dangerous.

Thats the whole point of safety standards and road compliance rules. Should we get rid of those so you can tinker and kill someone else because you didn't know what your doing?

Because this is a giant moved goalpost. This is why I don't generally engage with you. Because your argument is dishonest.

The manufacturer isn't us, it's not elected, or assigned to regulate by our elected officials.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

What's the problem with your opinion?


Because this is a giant moved goalpost. This is why I don't generally engage with you. Because your argument is dishonest.

The manufacturer isn't us, it's not elected, or assigned to regulate by our elected officials.

-Crissa

You can just say it how it is too.

That you thought I said something that I didn't, because you are watching like a hawk for something to crucify me on?

My position hasn't changed. Simply:
I support the right to repair if it doesn't increase the risk of being unsafe to users and third parties.

Otherwise go to your mechanic for heart surgery and take your vehicle to the doctors surgery to have its head gasket checked. I think between the two, somewhere, you'll find a hole where all the logic is leaking out. ? ?

Regulators do nothing but say how it should be done. Manufacturers then have to do it so. So who then should do what, in the context of RtR?

 

[rr6013]

Yeah, we shouldn't tear into battery packs. On that we agree.

I just don't think composite components is really a violation of right-to-repair - blocking access to diagnostic outputs, software, and being blocked from buying for these components is the problem.

There is no reason why Tesla should block people from ordering the plastics or sensors for their car. These things are straight up plug and play. The technology to paint and cut and bolt metal is long and well founded. And yet, they do block people from buying these things and having them installed.

-Crissa

Fundamentally, Ethically and Morally I agree with that. Technologically, I’ve developed software, cryptographic schema and hardware interfaces with very bright geniuses, scary hackers and seen how many degrees of separation exist between a few knowledge workers and the dark-side waiting for them.

Dark side grey men you don’t see but in movies and on the pages of spy thrillers. Every port, interface, node and channel that Tesla doesn’t protect leaks, creeps or opens an attractive nuisance ripe for picking.

RtR passes in the U.S., the very next day the gov’t will declare Tesla batterypack a “munition”, slap export controls on Tesla shipping batterypacks to certain countries and regulate the cumulative amount of energy density per pack. Do you know how much explosive a Tesla batterypack can trigger catastrophe?

Two very specialized chips power Tesla automotive system, Autopilot and FSD. Men exist that are clever, familiar with tech and motivated who are shockingly quick to penetrate, map, dissemble and discover system vulnerability to gain system-wide access for their own benefit. Benefits that repurpose those processors for events you don’t want to know and certain agencies want kept that way.

P’nP is just a port. In the wrong hands, dark hats skilled in the art can run a sensor in reverse, co-opt the signal for nefarious use or use the port access to prod, poke and map a channel in a way that provides information to enable further progress on unrelated Tesla system inner architecture. How weird if said sensor was OTS used to control the car also is used in BMS and batterypack?

Tesla have an IP interest, technological interest, public responsibility and nation-state obligation to secure its product, components, parts and system against tech-transfer, knowledge enrichment and counter-offensive uses. Its cameras are already causing countries to geofence Teslas to protect against surveillance and intelligence gathering.

 

[Zabhawkin]

Yeah, we shouldn't tear into battery packs. On that we agree.
-Crissa

I do understand your position on that, and respect it. Heck I even agree for the most part. But whether or not I should I will probably be building a custom pack, or modifying one to put in a custom EV hopefully within the next 5 years or so.

 

[CyberGus]

The manufacturer isn't us, it's not elected, or assigned to regulate by our elected officials.

-Crissa

True, but they do have product liability. For instance, Teslas with a "salvage" title are inhibited from DCFC, which I completely understand.

The part I do not understand is that Tesla was selling a Verification/Test procedure for such cars to allow them to DCFC, but have reportedly pulled this certification from some vehicles without warning or cause. Huh?

 

[Crissa]

P’nP is just a port. In the wrong hands, dark hats skilled in the art can run a sensor in reverse, co-opt the signal for nefarious use or use the port access to prod, poke and map a channel in a way that provides information to enable further progress on unrelated Tesla system inner architecture.

Nothing stopping hackers from doing that now. This lack of right to repair only inhibits people from having their own vehicles customized or repaired to their needs.

It's anti Accessibility, it's anti reusability, it's bad for the environment, our pocketbooks, and freedom.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

Nothing stopping hackers from doing that now. This lack of right to repair only inhibits people from having their own vehicles customized or repaired to their needs.

It's anti Accessibility, it's anti reusability, it's bad for the environment, our pocketbooks, and freedom.

-Crissa

If it still doesn't work after you think you've repaired it, what good does the right to repair have?

How are third parties protected from you in this scenario?

If you want the right to do what you want with what you "own", then feel free to build your own Tesla EV and road to drive it on too.

Otherwise, if you really want the RtR so badly, boycot Tesla and don't buy them. Easy fix.

I for one want a vehicle so well engineered that it virtually never breaks so I don't have to fix it in the first place. That trumps RtR every day of the week.

 

[Crissa]

Hey, just for the record, I'm not going to reply to strawman or moved goalpost arguments.

No, the manufacturer is not liable for third party repair quality. That's ridiculous.

Unless, of course, the manufacturer refuses to make available parts and tools so that third parties can repair it. Yeah, they should have liability in that case. That sounds like a good idea.

-Crissa

 

[Zabhawkin]

If it still doesn't work after you think you've repaired it, what good does the right to repair have?

How are third parties protected from you in this scenario?

If you want the right to do what you want with what you "own", then feel free to build your own Tesla EV and road to drive it on too.

Otherwise, if you really want the RtR so badly, boycot Tesla and don't buy them. Easy fix.

I for one want a vehicle so well engineered that it virtually never breaks so I don't have to fix it in the first place. That trumps RtR every day of the week.

If it doesn't work after I HAVE repaired it because the software tools aren't available to tell it the new sensor serial number that is not RtR. If I can't at least order the parts to fix an oil leak that is not RtR.

I have every intention to build my own EV, and I won't need roads.

Their stance on RtR has given me pause on buying one. If you want an example of long term customers leaving a company that decided everything was proprietary ask John Deer about their loss of market share over the last few years.

Not possible, no matter how well it is built something on it will break, that is a fact of life, especially with trucks and utility vehicles.

My daily driver is 25 years old with over 200k miles on it. I am in the process of replacing suspension bushings and engine seals to help it last a few more years. The Jeep in my avatar is 38 years old and has very little OEM left in it.

 

[JBee]

No, the manufacturer is not liable for third party repair quality. That's ridiculous.

Well currently only the manufacturer has the parts to repair with Tesla? So their repairs are the manufacturers liability by default?

The argument is still the same though, who ensures road and vehicle safety, if manufacturers are forced to RtR?

Note I have a problem with potentially dangerous and unsafe products, like cars, trucks, trains and planes etc being RtR. Other stuff like household goods, tools or mobile phones I can condone as the risk level and consequence is significantly less.

 

[Zabhawkin]

The argument is still the same though, who ensures road and vehicle safety, if manufacturers are forced to RtR?

At any time if an officer feels that a vehicle is unsafe, or operating in an unsafe manner they can pull it over and inspect it, and issue citations, even remove the vehicle from the road.

Also many states and cities have regular inspections to ensure everything is operating safely.

 

[JBee]

If it doesn't work after I HAVE repaired it because the software tools aren't available to tell it the new sensor serial number that is not RtR. If I can't at least order the parts to fix an oil leak that is not RtR.

I have every intention to build my own EV, and I won't need roads.

Their stance on RtR has given me pause on buying one. If you want an example of long term customers leaving a company that decided everything was proprietary ask John Deer about their loss of market share over the last few years.

Not possible, no matter how well it is built something on it will break, that is a fact of life, especially with trucks and utility vehicles.

My daily driver is 25 years old with over 200k miles on it. I am in the process of replacing suspension bushings and engine seals to help it last a few more years. The Jeep in my avatar is 38 years old and has very little OEM left in it.

In particular my concern is third party risk from dodgy workmanship. John Deere primarily operates off road and at low speeds and not in the city etc. They should be more open to RtR IMHO. You wanting to build your own off-road EV makes it fairly exempt from my third party risk analysis.

But to be honest the vehicles you mention are far from "state of the art" they are no where in the same league as a modern EV like the CT. From an engineering perspective there is no problem to make multi generational machines that can outlast the original owner with minimal maintenance.

 

[JBee]

At any time if an officer feels that a vehicle is unsafe, or operating in an unsafe manner they can pull it over and inspect it, and issue citations, even remove the vehicle from the road.

Also many states and cities have regular inspections to ensure everything is operating safely.

Lol police have better things to do than to test if you fixed your jalopy right.

Now we have to employ more hwy patrol to make sure freedom fighters have the right to put others at risk? Come on buddy.

 

[Zabhawkin]

In particular my concern is third party risk from dodgy workmanship. John Deere primarily operates off road and at low speeds and not in the city etc. They should be more open to RtR IMHO. You wanting to build your own off-road EV makes it fairly exempt from my third party risk analysis.

But to be honest the vehicles you mention are far from "state of the art" they are no where in the same league as a modern EV like the CT. From an engineering perspective there is no problem to make multi generational machines that can outlast the original owner with minimal maintenance.

Even though it is licensed, tagged and insured to drive right next to you down the same roads?

So its ok to replace an output shaft seal, bearings, ABS system, ECU, the whole motor on a 20+ year old vehicle but not ok to change the same components on an EV because its too modern?

Mutigenerational, that can outlast the original owner. HMMMMMMM..... like the Jet I worked on when I was in the Air Force that was nearly as old as my parents, and is still expected to keep flying for another 20 years. Needs repairs and while I was trained to work on it I was still technically 3rd party.

Ships of just about any sort need maintenance, I am sure they don't call for the factory to come repair them.

!940's tractors many of which are still putting around have all needed to be repaired multiple times.

Lol police have better things to do than to test if you fixed your jalopy right.

Now we have to employ more hwy patrol to make sure freedom fighters have the right to put others at risk? Come on buddy.

Its already their job so no change in manpower.

Its far more dangerous for a person to not have a repair done out of warranty because they don't have the money to have the factory do it than to have a third party or even a person able to fix it themselves.