Right to Repair Bill

[Jesda]

Owner knowledge does not harm the manufacturer or the dealer. But it DOES benefit the owner.

Its irrelevant. You don't have the right to that information. You are trying to justify the force of law to make it easier for you to service your vehicle. Thats a poor justification for writing an enacting your law to impose your will on someone else.

I agree with you on this. But at the same time, I can acknowledge that there are situations in which a push is required.

You're suggesting 'situational ethics,' which isn't an ethical system at all. Its an open door to setting a loose standard that allows a whiny public to jerk around firms through the force of government in whatever way it pleases.

[Jesda]

The difference is that textbooks are written by someone to make money. They need to make money off it. If FMSs were intended to sell for profit, you'd find an FSM section at every book store. They are not. They are simply designed as repair aids. Their sales do not support anything directly. So therefore making them free isn't taking the food off of some poor author's table.

Textbooks are written by a small group of people and sold to a small group of people. Supply and demand dictates a higher price, simple as that. Compare the millions who purchase and read Twilight to the few who use the Operations Management textbook I'm using this semester.

It doesn't matter at all whether this would create an inconvenience or competitive threat to the manufacturer or affect the employment of the technical writer. What matters is that you and many others find it acceptable to enact laws for the purpose of convenience and ease of ownership. This is frightening to me, as it opens the door further to government involvement in the management decisions of firms.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Its irrelevant. You don't have the right to that information. You are trying to justify the force of law to make it easier for you to service your vehicle. Thats a poor justification for writing an enacting your law to impose your will on someone else.

As I said before, my view on the right to repair law isn't solid as I'm not very familiar with it. I'm not going after laws here. I'd like to see manufacturers willingly make the info available. I may not have a right to the info, but I feel that with an object for which some amount of owner care and maintenance is expected, owners should be provided with as much information as possible about operation. I don't have to maintain my TV, so I don't expect the TV manufacturer to release schematics to me.I think consumers DO have the right to that information, though. Or, if you prefer for semantics' sake, should have the right. But like I said in my first post, I'm not talking about making laws here. I've gone off on a tangent from the law itself. I'm stating my desires for carmakers. I would like them to make this information available to me. I would like for Ford to provide the steps to activating HVAC diagnostic mode so that I don't have to pay some tech to push 3 buttons for me.

Where do you draw the line on what it's okay to tell the customer and what is simply trying to make it easier to service my car? Do we eliminate user manuals altogether? Are automakers not even obligated to tell me how much oil my car uses? Do I get to know what kind of headlight bulbs to buy? How about tire pressure? I guess all that is just me being a jerk and trying to make my life more convenient at some imaginary cost to the manufacturer?

I don't give a damn if I have a right to the info or not. I'm still bothered by the fact that the manufacturer chooses not to provide it. They could, but don't. The manufacturer could ALLOW me the right to the info.

[Jesda]

As demonstrated by Greg's purchase and subsequent sale of his diesel Volkswagen, there's a marketplace mechanism already there that encourages vehicle serviceability. He likely won't be buying another.

The market favors vehicles that can be cheaply and easily maintained over proprietary tools and information. A manufacturer has the right to withhold information, and you have the right to vote against them by purchasing something else, and many people do.

[MinisterofDOOM]

That's all well and good in idealist magical-land. But in the real world "voting with your money" achieves nothing. My choice for a single purchase influences nothing. And when I'm looking for products with certain features and facing a limited pool of options, the "ballot" isn't always ideal either.

And even if voting with your dollars really did work on a realistic scale, Greg's sale of the VW doesn't affect VW. So everyone who buys a car and THEN finds out...their vote is cast for the wrong choice.

And what I'm getting at here is that if we choose to buy the car we want despite shortfalls (which everyone does as no car is perfect) the manufacturer isn't getting the message that those idealist cash-votes should send. In the real world cars like the Jetta will never send a message to VW that they should get rid of the goofy proprietary crap, because millions of people will continue buying them anyway and those of us who don't won't be missed.

The scale of capitalism is beyond the individual.

[C-Kwik]

I'm all for this, after all if the manufacturers are concerned about each other using them to reverse engineer then systems, what's to stop those same companies from buying one of there competitors cars and reverse engineering them at a plant. All else fails just not put any of the electronics systems (like Ford's Sync), after all if anything in these systems fails you pretty much have to purchase all new components anyways, but for the mechanicals and electrical circuits you can pretty much do yourself.

I speculate the major ones already do. I recall reading an article or something years ago about Mercedes Benz's reverse engineering department. But from what I remember its not the technology they are after. They can look at patents and find all that info. They may be able to find out some of the tuning parameters, but a big part of tearing down competitor's cars were to learn about costs. Namely, how much it costs other manufacturers to build their cars. In the large scale production they go through any cost saving tips they can learn can have very big and long term returns.

[Jesda]

That's all well and good in idealist magical-land. But in the real world "voting with your money" achieves nothing. My choice for a single purchase influences nothing. And when I'm looking for products with certain features and facing a limited pool of options, the "ballot" isn't always ideal either.

And even if voting with your dollars really did work on a realistic scale, Greg's sale of the VW doesn't affect VW. So everyone who buys a car and THEN finds out...their vote is cast for the wrong choice.

There's nothing magical or pretend about it. The magical part is thinking that government is there to save and protect you. It isn't. Its there to manipulate the system to favor and subsidize major players while exercising control. The further up the chain of authority you go, the more it favors the status quo.

TCO, owner surveys, and repair data, information widely available to anyone willing to do 10 minutes of Googling, takes maintenance costs into account. Independent techs capable of working on proprietary systems will charge accordingly for that capability, and the consumer will see it on the bill.

The balancing mechanism is already there. VWs cost an arm and a leg to maintain. The consequence of purchasing one is inherent; there isn't a need for a government-mandated workaround, nor is it ethical to use government for something so trivial.

If you walk on to a dealer lot with NO research, you deserve to get shafted. That, too, is a built-in mechanism that punishes lazy and impulsive consumer behavior.

[MinisterofDOOM]

The magical part is thinking that government is there to save and protect you.

Once again: I do not think this. You are seriously misunderstanding what I'm saying. I don't want the government to do jack. I'm not looking for government intervention. I am looking for manufacturers to make information more available willingly. This is not about the government. I am not talking about the government. It has nothing to do with the government. I am on another subject. I am talking about auto manufacturers. Not laws, not government. Carmakers.

Quote »If you walk on to a dealer lot with NO research, you deserve to get shafted. That, too, is a built-in mechanism that punishes lazy and impulsive consumer behavior.[/quote]That's just what I mean: you can talk about punishments all you want, peoples' behavior won't change. As I said, 99% of people can't even use a pencil right. Those people will continue to make uninformed decisions. If we go by your built-in mechanisms, that harms everyone. It's not my fault. I'm not the uninformed buyer. But they exist, they will always exist, and they will always get in the way of the theory of voting with your dollars.

So we can discuss naturally existing "regulation" but in the end none of it works because stupid people dominate the world. They dampen the impact of the buying habits of informed people. They undermine capitalism and democracy. And they make the real world a very different place than such ideals exist in within textbooks.

On a personal basis, everything you're saying certainly makes sense. It just doesn't work realistically on a macro scale. At least, it doesn't send the messages of the informed. Just the messages of the masses. Which are rarely the same thing.

But that's all unrelated, because again I'm not looking for laws to force hands. I'm disappointed that the information isn't made available by manufacturers willingly. That's the whole point of all my posts. I am disappointed that manufacturers are unwilling to make certain difficult-to-obtain information more easily available to consumers.

[Jesda]

You cannot oppose the idea of full consumer choice and responsibility without introducing government, because the two are diametrically opposed and one always takes the place of the other.

What you're advocating is the removal of economic natural selection. Consumers NEED to face the consequences of their decisions, regardless of whether they learn. They need to understand that the cute little Jetta on the veedub lot will rape them when the warranty ends. The information isn't hard to find, and publications and web sites are plentiful. And if they fail to learn/understand and make major purchases on impulse, f*** 'em. Product information is more widespread than its ever been thanks to the dramatically reduced cost of communication. There's simply no excuse.

By rewarding idiocy, we discourage responsibility. That's never good for society.

And "everyone" is not harmed -- the informed consumers, like you and I, make a point of doing our research and making better choices and enjoy all of the benefits. The consequences of poor consumer decisions exist naturally. We vote with our wallets and manufacturers with more open and available servicing information sell more products to more people.

There's a reason why German cars are reputed for being maintenance hassles. The stigma that discourages buyers from making the jump to "German engineering" is a product of proprietary tools, techniques, and electronic systems that have spurned many.

[Jesda]

And they make the real world a very different place than such ideals exist in within textbooks.

Management is a science. Economics is a science. Theories have to be tested, repeated, and proven to become accepted, just like in medicine or engineering. Accepted theories are then published. It isn't whimsy.

[Jesda]

There's a reason why German cars are reputed for being maintenance hassles. The stigma that discourages buyers from making the jump to "German engineering" is a product of proprietary tools, techniques, and electronic systems that have spurned many.

I also want to add that in the EU, more shops have the tools and expertise necessary to service these cars because they are the norm, and the cost of service is reduced due to the wider availability of trained technicians. What is obscure and expensive to us is the standard to them, and vice versa.

Part of what influences service cost is sales volume. VW is #1 in the world as a manufacturer but still only has a small part of the North American market.

[MinisterofDOOM]

By rewarding idiocy, we discourage responsibility. That's never good for society.

I most certainly agree with you here. And that statement does help me understand your perspective better.

You cannot oppose the idea of full consumer choice and responsibility without introducing government, because the two are diametrically opposed and one always takes the place of the other.

Honestly, I am terrified of any form of "majority rules", simply because I don't trust my fellow citizens to make good decisions. It's a choice of evils, if you ask me. Trust the masses to choose well, or turn to the government for help. I don't trust EITHER of them to make good choices, but at least law is written in specifics. Stupid is not. I understand (and share) the fear of a hand-holdey government. It's just that my faith in the masses is completely gone.

[Jesda]

I most certainly agree with you here. And that statement does help me understand your perspective better.

Honestly, I am terrified of any form of "majority rules", simply because I don't trust my fellow citizens to make good decisions. It's a choice of evils, if you ask me. Trust the masses to choose well, or turn to the government for help. I don't trust EITHER of them to make good choices, but at least law is written in specifics. Stupid is not. I understand (and share) the fear of a hand-holdey government. It's just that my faith in the masses is completely gone.

I respect your skepticism and agree with your sentiment, but only disagree with your implementation.

[PoorManQ45]

Question about VW:

I thought there was already a regulation in place that made it so that car manufacturers could not require the usage of a specific type and brand of a fluid in the vehicle without making it freely available.

Hypothetical Example: Chrysler requires the usage of Mopar branded fluids or your warranty is voided. I thoughts they had to supply those fluids then as they made it a condition of warranty repair.

Am I way off base on that one? Was it just a rumor?

[Bubba1]

Question about VW:

I thought there was already a regulation in place that made it so that car manufacturers could not require the usage of a specific type and brand of a fluid in the vehicle without making it freely available.

Hypothetical Example: Chrysler requires the usage of Mopar branded fluids or your warranty is voided. I thoughts they had to supply those fluids then as they made it a condition of warranty repair.

Am I way off base on that one? Was it just a rumor?

Yes, you're off base. Technically, VW sells their fluids to the general public, so they're violating no laws. A parts shop is not usually going to stock fluids that very few people use. VW's requiring specific fluids to keep the warranty valid may suck, but again, they are breaking no laws. It's their choice. Unless an independant shop is willing to shell out the big bucks to VW for the unique tools and specialized fluids (some do), it's caveat emptor (buyer beware) cause new VW buyers are now slaves to the dealer for service.

VW did not used to be this way. Their old air cooled engines were incredibly simple, which was part of their charm. But in recent years, VW's management learned that service is where they make their money. So they designed their cars to force owners to get their service done at their dealers. It's actually pretty shrewd if you think about it. Arrogant but shrewd. As a guy who uses an independant repair shop, I would never buy a new VW. I have few other issues with VW too, as does Jesda. they make fine automobiles, but it's not a car I would recommend owning if you plan to keep it long after the warranty expires.

[PoorManQ45]

Yes, you're off base. Technically, VW sells their fluids to the general public, so they're violating no laws. A parts shop is not usually going to stock fluids that very few people use. VW's requiring specific fluids to keep the warranty valid may suck, but again, they are breaking no laws. It's their choice. Unless an independant shop is willing to shell out the big bucks to VW for the unique tools and specialized fluids (some do), it's caveat emptor (buyer beware) cause new VW buyers are now slaves to the dealer for service.

Ok, so if they didn't sell to the public, and required parts.fluid that were only offered in their service changes then that would be illegal?

I could have sworn that manufacturers can only specify fluids that meet a certain specification, in the VW instance that would be VW 50x.xx when x.xx are replaced with the current spec at the time. I am talking about oil specifically in this instance. For oil there are many different brands that meet the VW spec.

I believe the same applies for transmission fluid too.

The selection is smaller then most manufacturers, but it is there.

[Bubba1]

Ok, so if they didn't sell to the public, and required parts.fluid that were only offered in their service changes then that would be illegal?

It would be shortsighted, but probably not illegal. I presume you're thinking of antitrust laws. VW is not inhibiting competition. You're free to purchase any car you choose and maintain/repair it anywhere you choose. All VW did was make it more inconvenient for late model VW owners to get their cars serviced/repaired without a dealer. That's all.

[C-Kwik]

Question about VW:

I thought there was already a regulation in place that made it so that car manufacturers could not require the usage of a specific type and brand of a fluid in the vehicle without making it freely available.

You're probably thinking of a portion of the Magnusen-Moss act. Can't seem to find the language in a quick search and I'm not motivated to look for it beyond that at the moment. But it would most certainly be subject to interpretation of both the law and what VW is doing.

[Bubba1]

You're probably thinking of a portion of the Magnusen-Moss act. Can't seem to find the language in a quick search and I'm not motivated to look for it beyond that at the moment. But it would most certainly be subject to interpretation of both the law and what VW is doing.

I don't quite see how Magnusen-Moss can apply here. M-M concerns manufacturers disclosures in clear terms what is covered by warranty and what is not. The issue of VW requiring a very specific type of transmission fluid, or requiring a special tool to check it is spelled out in their service manual. It sucks many consumers don't know this tidbit when they buy it, but it's not the manufacturer's responsibility to tell everyone about it.

Likewise its the same for people who buy aluminum bodied cars (like the Audi A8L) the manufacturers, dealers, and even car magazines will rave about the light weight and minor gas savings, but they just don't happen to mention the absolutely ridiculous cost to do body work on them if one gets into a fender bender.

Caveat emptor.

[C-Kwik]

There is some sort of language that states something to the effect of a manufacturer can't void a warranty based on the use of an aftermarket part unless they supply the part for free. I don't know how its written specifically so I don't know if or how it applies. Its been a while since I read it. I was merely pointing out where PMQ might have seen it.

[PoorManQ45]

Looking up the M-M regulation it seems that you can use whatever the hell you want in your car.

The burden of proof is on the manufacturer to prove that the fluid/part you used in your vehicle caused the failure if there is a warranty claim.

Unfortunately this usually requires a lawyer and costs more then just buying the fluids. That's how they get away with this BS.

[C-Kwik]

I believe a provision in the act does allow one to recover certain incidentals, including attorneys fees, if they win. Not that it makes it that much less risky (if you lose you still pay the attorney; not sure an attorney would work based on contingency on such a case), but if you have a strong case, it doesn't diminish the potential award with attorney fees.

[Bubba1]

[QUOTE=PoorManQ45]Looking up the M-M regulation it seems that you can use whatever the hell you want in your car.

QUOTE]

I believe thats only true if the manufacturer does not identify specific terms and conditions.For example, if VW does not explictly require a VW made replacement alternator, an aftermarket one purchased at NAPA will not void the warranty on an electrical warranty claim per M-M, unless the problem was due to that replacement alternator. But in the case of transmission fluid, since VW precisely identifies what type of fluid is required, if you substitute "whatever the hell you want", like vegetable oil, M-M will not protect you from VW voiding the warranty on a transmission claim.

[C-Kwik]

Ok. I looked it up. Here is the language in question:

"(c) Prohibition on conditions for written or implied warranty; waiver by Commission No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if -

(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and (2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest. The Commission shall identify in the Federal Register, and permit public comment on, all applications for waiver of the prohibition of this subsection, and shall publish in the Federal Register its disposition of any such application, including the reasons therefor. "

http://autopedia.com/html/HotLinks_LemonMM2.html

Basically, the way I read it is a manufacturer can not specify the use of their product with another product that is specified by brand. The portion about this portion being null seems to apply only if it is indicated in the terms of the warranty. It does allow for such specification if proper operation of the product can only be achieved with the named part or service product.

The latter could be true except that I doubt they would be able to convince the FTC of this in the case of a fluid. They can specify a specific property in the fluid (meets the specifications of their fluid) but the caveat would be that if noone else provides an alternative fluid, you really don't have a choice. But if someone started to manufacturer a fluid that met the specs then I would think VW has no way to deny such a claim. Still, it would be interested in seeing how the VW warranty is actually worded in regards to this.

The quicker explanation is that VW can require a fluid that meets certain specs. But not their brand or a specific brand unless it can be reasonably shown good reason for it.

Bear in mind Nissans had this issue when matic J was first being used. There weren't any alternative fluids (still not completely sure some of the alternatives people recommend actually work) so people were essentially stuck buying Nissan's fluid.