- This topic has 26 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Topic
-
-
Replies
-
They come out with whistles and bells, some of it good but a whole lot of it expensive, undependable and absurd. I’ve been thinking about it for quite a while now and I can see where GM is really missing the boat. My parents bought a Cadillac because, for their generation, that was a symbol of “you have arrived”. But they’re so damned old they can barely work a push-button phone. They’re always locking themselves out of it; they can’t figure out the key remote; they go through the roof when they have to pay service bills in the thousands for some Star Trek technology system that does little of nothing; and the car in undependable. It’s in the shop every other month.
If GM wants to sell a Cadillac and compete, forget copying Lexus. Make a big old boat with flashy fins, lots of chrome, lots of leather, and big, readable analogue everything! Something Elvis would drive through Graceland. Hell, I would want one. If it wasn’t for the emblem on front I couldn’t tell their Caddy from a Buick.
But I guess that’s off topic. Technology is going to come regardless. The Geek Squad is going to replace the village mechanic. A tough economy is keeping him busy with older cars for a time but that time is fading. Moving parts will be replaced by circuits and silicone. Its a brave new world and the Borg rule the future. Resistance is futile…lolAll of the new electronics integration has one big downside. It makes it harder to concentrate on the actual driving of the vehicle. The upside is that this will be a big boon to the body shops. :woohoo:
As for the repair side many of these systems are module based. About like working with a flash ECM. Plug it in, flash it with the correct info using the VIN and it works. The problem will be the same as it is with ECMs currently, How much money does the independent want to spend to provide the service? Take a look at the current pricing for ECM flash data and add each module to that.
Then you have the data security to think about. How do you ensure that ONLY the proper people have access to the flash software and feature enabling items. Take On-Star for instance it has the ability already to do MUCH more than is advertised. Most of it is turned off or only usable with court order or similar. Vehicle tracking through GPS, ability to monitor ALL the aspects of the vehicle that are on the data buss, Ability for remote activation of any ECN controlled item in the vehicle. All the fuss that was being made over the “black boxes” in the cars that could be abused by the police/insurance companies? That is just the very tip of what is actually already in that system. Now you add in the cell phone linking, data transfer and the self driving controls (park assist or more)!
I’ll be more than happy to tell the customer “Sorry that is something I don’t work on”I’ve read a number of articles on this. The manufacturers view telematics as a great way to direct service customers to the dealers. It’s a powerful tool if a code sets and the customer gets an email or message in the car that directs them to the nearest dealer. Independents should be strong supporters of “Right to Repair” laws. These are proposed laws that require manufacturers to make service information and technology available at reasonable cost to vehicle owners and independent repair shops so that owners will have a real choice about where to get their vehicles fixed.
There was a big push for this back in the early 2000’s that resulted in manufacturers “voluntarily” releasing some things– Chrysler, for example, finally made the proprietary DRBIII scan tool available for purchase by the “public”. Manufacturers then successfully argued against a Right to Repair Law by stating that they were now voluntarily making everything available. They have continued to do so to some extent, but I have heard in the case of Chrysler that the “aftermarket” version of their new scan tool, the wiTECH, has much more limited functionality than the versions available to dealers. The tool also is not a stand-alone unit, but must be constantly connected to the internet under a valid subscription to remain functional. So they can say they’ve made it “available” to the aftermarket, but the devil is in the details.
Thanks everyone for the input. Keep it coming. I plan to make another video on this topic after many of you weigh in. It is the future of our industry after all.
A rather disturbing topic you’ve just touched Eric! :ohmy:
Cars with an IP address?
Oh my!So that every lamer out there can hack it and kill all of its occupants?
Or, worse, so that they can make its driver scare the hell out of himself by driving it all by itself on a remote control?
And maybe put a youtube video of it to just to how a good hacker he is!My my…
So when my car gets a virus where do I take, to Eric or to an IT shop?
My only hope is that as it already happened before when the OBD2 standard came out and put “order” to a chaotic situation, it will also happen with this new breed of computer-cars.
So there will be tools like now are, which are a simple 20 euros cable to hook up into your laptop and will tell you a lot of things about the car.
I mean, 10 years ago this very same tools did cost heaps of money and weren’t so “universal”…It’s exactly like in IT; to solve a problem they create a whole new control system, which in turn adds ten new problems and tons of complexity.
So once there was the carburettor…then came ECUs and O2 sensors, then they had to monitor if the O2 sensor was doing its job, so they added a secondo O2 sensor…etc etc…Remember, an ECU (or whatever) is only as good as its sensors are, in fact sometimes a perfectly running (mechanically) car can be stopped by a malfunctioning (for example) crank sensor, which fools the ECU into thinking the engine isn’t running at all, and thus it gets stopped.
Maybe I’m narrow-minded on this, but a car is a car, not a computer.
A computer is a computer, not a dishwasher machine…etcetera etcetera…Or else we’ll end up all like Borgs! :sick:
And after all these considerations, I’m even happier to have bought a 23 years old car with a carburettor, and NO electronics at all on it!
The most technologically advanced thing on it is the “digital clock” on the dash :woohoo:Ok , please excuse me for this rant, but as an IT technician I couldn’t help! 😛
Live long and prosper (and stay dirty!)
10nico
I think it is not quite as bad as it sounds. Manufacturers have always claimed there cars are so sophisticated they need special dealer tools etc. It’s a bit like cracking copy protection on your console games. Somebody works it out and the manufactures are always ahead by a few months. These days we have the Internet so we can do the research on most things on cars more than about 4 years old. And I do not see telematics as an expecton, these systems may look impossible now however in a few years these current systems will be the simple ones with hacks to override the dealer centric features.
Where things really get differcult is with the fault finding. The independent shop will have to understand how everything works and how to prove what is wrong. They cannot afford to misdiagnose and do a big job that does not solve the problem. I think the days of assuming its a “pattern fault” and making a guess is over for an independent.
I think modern cars are in general far more time consuming to work on. This means it is very easy for the cost of repair to be more than the value of the car. Therefore I expect modern cars to be scrapped fairly soon after falling out of the dealer system.
On the positive side there will be bargains out there for those who can solve these high tech issues.
Right to Repair laws are a joke and quite possibly illegal. When your computer is crashing, does Microsoft have to give you the source code to Windows? No. And now court would ever order them to. The manufacturer’s are the ones who put the money into research and development of these systems, why should they have to divulge trade secrets and take a profitability hit for someone that took no risk in creating the product? That’s absurd and I hope the MA law quickly gets struck down in court because of this.
But, let’s say it doesn’t, then this law is not a benefit at all for the customer. Because that is millions if not billions of dollars in research for these systems, so a reasonable cost is going to be quite high and now the independent will have to pay for each one and will finally drive them to play fair in the pricing game. I think no matter how you cut it, the independent shop is going to have earn it’s business now, not just throw up low price signs and do hack work.
The technicians and the customers will be the losers in this, as usual.
I’m not really too concerned about the independent side of it right now (I’m a dealer tech), but I am concerned about the amount of service information available. Even for us techs who work at the dealer, there is very little information about how these systems actually work, or how they’re supposed to work. All the info Chrysler gives me is basically a more technically written operator’s manual, not a repair manual. It’s almost impossible to properly diagnose some customers’ complaints of what their system is doing, and even the technical help line doesn’t know what the hell is going on.
Another huge problem is the poor implementation of technical standards, like Bluetooth. This is not just on the vehicle manufacturer’s side, but the phone manufacturer’s side as well. Some implementations of Bluetooth aren’t as robust as others, or are buggy, and simply won’t work with the vehicle’s system. To me this is infuriating. I understand it and why it doesn’t work, but the customer doesn’t. If there’s a standard, why isn’t it being adhered to on both sides, phone and vehicle? Why should only some combinations of phone and radio work?
Comming right at ya this spring.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/08/delphi-verizons-vehicle-diagnostics-hands-on-video/
I personally don’t want it to happen. But it already has and will probably continue to be added on to these cars. For me I just want to enjoy driving a fully manual car with a basic engine computer. No in dash lcd (GT-R is the only exceptrion) no hands free phone ability, just strait up driving. I don’t like how government agency’s have the ability to track you were ever you go in your car. Or even the ability to remote shut down the car. I can understand if you have reported the car as stolen and the police are tracking it that way; but other then that its useless. Not to mention the repair side of things. I don’t like going to the dealer for any car issues. Infact I dont want to buy from them when the sales person may try to trick you into buying a car you don’t want. As for the repair side of things its just another headache system to try to fix and most of the “repair” is a software issue. If I want tech in a car, I will just have a laptop mounted in the car somewere… But seeing as I am in school for auto repair I guess I will have to face it…
[quote=”LanEvoX” post=44838]I personally don’t want it to happen. But it already has and will probably continue to be added on to these cars. For me I just want to enjoy driving a fully manual car with a basic engine computer. No in dash lcd (GT-R is the only exceptrion) no hands free phone ability, just strait up driving. I don’t like how government agency’s have the ability to track you were ever you go in your car. Or even the ability to remote shut down the car. I can understand if you have reported the car as stolen and the police are tracking it that way; but other then that its useless. Not to mention the repair side of things. I don’t like going to the dealer for any car issues. Infact I dont want to buy from them when the sales person may try to trick you into buying a car you don’t want. As for the repair side of things its just another headache system to try to fix and most of the “repair” is a software issue. If I want tech in a car, I will just have a laptop mounted in the car somewere… But seeing as I am in school for auto repair I guess I will have to face it…[/quote]
Quote you on that 100%! banana:
Live long and prosper (and stay dirty!)
10nico
[quote=”SpawnedX” post=44743]Right to Repair laws are a joke and quite possibly illegal. When your computer is crashing, does Microsoft have to give you the source code to Windows? No. And now court would ever order them to. The manufacturer’s are the ones who put the money into research and development of these systems, why should they have to divulge trade secrets and take a profitability hit for someone that took no risk in creating the product? That’s absurd and I hope the MA law quickly gets struck down in court because of this.
But, let’s say it doesn’t, then this law is not a benefit at all for the customer. Because that is millions if not billions of dollars in research for these systems, so a reasonable cost is going to be quite high and now the independent will have to pay for each one and will finally drive them to play fair in the pricing game. I think no matter how you cut it, the independent shop is going to have earn it’s business now, not just throw up low price signs and do hack work.
The technicians and the customers will be the losers in this, as usual.[/quote]
I agree that Right to Repair has to be implemented in a way that lets manufacturers get a fair price for their IP (in some sense that get that when they sell the vehicle), but as with other cases I think there is a valid point that this amounts to non-competitive behavior. I believe one of the things that really brought this to bear was when people discovered that replacing a lost key could only be done at the dealer and could cost hundreds of dollars– I don’t see as anyone can argue that it really should cost that much. Even if you factor in the dealer’s purchase of the tool required to do it (which is useful for maany other things over its lifetime). It is a perfect case of something that was “dealer only” and was therefor done at an inflated price– how much wouldn’t you pay to be able to start your car again?
The microsoft analogy is somewhat flawed– it would be more equivalent to if all Windows computers were shipped with the BIOS locked and secret Administrator passwords in place so that basic system changes and software installs could only be done by Microsoft dealers.
Finally, what is a fair price for the information? Maybe its the same as what the dealers pay, then the market between independents and dealers will set prices at a fair price for the service offered– indies would have to price in a way that pays for their tool costs just like dealers.
Personally, I believe dealers will always have a degree of “legitimacy” with consumers that independents will never acquire and will be able to price accordingly, but I think allowing them a virtual monopoly on repair of their vehicle line is bad public policy.
But Microsoft give you all the parts and information to repair your computer. They are not so keen on modifications!
Some car makers deliberately profit from the owners misfortune.
I think they need a bit of a shake up.
Anyway who really cares. As long as the independents keep away from the newer cars the hackers will catch up. telematics will not stop the show.
I disagree that the manufacturers spend billions on technology. I think the technology is driven by emissions laws etc.
Ultimately the manufacturers that deliberately block repairs will ultimately be the loosers on resale.
About the microsoft thing. They are just a OS maker. They would have to make a motherboard if they wanted to charge you to fix your computer like Apple does. Apple designs just about everything in house so they also make the bios. As for this telematics systems…I just think it’s pointless. Growing up the cars we had didn’t have all this computer stuff in them. For the most part it was all 80’s cars and if we wanted to find our way; we pulled out a map. I just think all the tech that these cars have one add weight, and two distract you from doing the driving…If you just want to get to your destination and not worry about driving, call a cab.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.