Automakers argue that independent shops can already get the data they need, with permission — but making it automatically accessible by third parties is dangerous.
Yeah, this is just further BS in a long line of BS. This continuing quest to build vehicles that cannot be serviced by anybody but a dealer is just a tactic to make more money off the misery of customers. I dearly wish they just banned the sale of any auto that couldn't comply. We honestly need to deal with this company throws a hissy-fit culture (e.g. Apple and the App Store) every time society says it wants all companies in a sector to act in a certain way. This rent seeking is just getting out of hand.
Also, statements like its "impossible" should be brought to a court to ascertain the truth value and fine the heck out of liars.
Actually, I agree that providing all that telemetry information to any "mechanic" who asks is a huge privacy concern, and potentially dangerous. However, that really raises the question of why the manufacturers should be trusted with the information themselves. They are collecting data that goes far beyond any legitimate need they have to provide service.
In the short term disabling these systems is a completely reasonable way of complying with the law. They weren't designed with the ability to share data with third parties (or even the owner), let alone have a reasonable way for the owner to authenticate who is authorized to access the data. The real test is whether manufacturers implement these features in new cars in ways that comply with the law, of if they continue to try to play hardball. The best solution to that is to introduce more right-to-repair laws in more states or at the federal level, and privacy laws that limit data collection to the minimum needed.
When designing a feature, there could be a new measure that quantifies the degree of reliance on the OEM to repair that feature in case it breaks.
In other words, even if the feature is technologically innovative or useful, the manufacturer would need some kind of incentive against implementing it if the ability for a third party to service it is non-existent.
The same could be said for software features as well. (Such as: "how many salaried employees would I need to operate such a feature at scale", etc.)
> The data platform that the new law requires to provide the data does not exist and will not exist any time soon
This is such a lazy excuse... There would be tons of possible ways to transmit such information. There is no industry standard, but I don't see how that would be needed.
>"Yeah, this is just further BS in a long line of BS. This continuing quest to build vehicles that cannot be serviced by anybody but a dealer is just a tactic to make more money off the misery of customers."
It's not BS. The fact is that it's much cheaper and easier to design cars to be serviced by people who focus on a few models, and have a full suite of tools specifically made for those vehicles. This is especially true when the vehicles must comply with complex rules and regulations which constrain the design.
Before OBD2, you were at odds with diagnostic software to troubleshoot vehicular problems. Mechanics, third parties, and owners could not use the onboard computers to resolve issues with the car, or emissions.
OBD2 as is required by the NHTSA, enables anyone with a scanner to view the diagnostic information, as well as the state of variables on a running engine. Say what you will about electric cars, but any vehicle with a standard diagnostic port is easily able to be worked on.
With modern telematics, and datapoints that the manufacturers have been able to record, giving the ability to access thay information to third party repair and the customers, you can have more choice, and get this, ability to have repairs done.
Dealers are not anywhere near always the best place to get a car repaired. In 10 years time, when the new cars age, they will need repair and maintenance that the dealer may overcharge for. If I had to service both of ny cars at the dealership, oil changes would cost me 3 times as much as I can do myself, brakes cost 2 times as much as a local shop can perform. Dealers don't provide a greater service to a vehicle than a standard mechanic shop can provide other than verified manufacturer parts at markup.
>"OBD2 as is required by the NHTSA, enables anyone with a scanner to view the diagnostic information, as well as the state of variables on a running engine. Say what you will about electric cars, but any vehicle with a standard diagnostic port is easily able to be worked on."
ODB2 reveals only some trouble codes; manufacturer-specific tools will tell you much more about what's going on.
>"With modern telematics, and datapoints that the manufacturers have been able to record, giving the ability to access thay information to third party repair and the customers, you can have more choice, and get this, ability to have repairs done."
I don't understand what you mean by this, and I've spent many years working in automotive diagnostics.
>"Dealers are not anywhere near always the best place to get a car repaired. In 10 years time, when the new cars age, they will need repair and maintenance that the dealer may overcharge for. If I had to service both of ny cars at the dealership, oil changes would cost me 3 times as much as I can do myself, brakes cost 2 times as much as a local shop can perform. Dealers don't provide a greater service to a vehicle than a standard mechanic shop can provide other than verified manufacturer parts at markup. "
I agree that dealers aren't always best, but they're generally quite good when the vehicle is less than about 10 years old. They have all the best tools, training, and experience with those vehicles. Independent mechanics (especially those who focus on a few brands) are generally better with older vehicles.
I guess I wasn’t clear in my last post. I meant that the rational thing would be to force the free release of the manufacture specific tools and information.
The manufacturers charge the dealers for those tools (a fact that some dealers resent); it would be quite something for them to make all that stuff free. I think the manufacturers would stop providing the tools and the codes to anyone, if there's no revenue to be had.
Of course there would be revenue to be had. They could be banned for not being reasonably cooperative with people trying to repair their vehicles. There would be a huge revenue incentive to cooperate.
If the product runs a computer, the manufacturer provides software, manuals, and relevant tools required to maintain the product. You can't have right to repair and black box products, it's one or the other. If society chooses right to repair, then a lot of black box companies are gonna be sad.
> stop providing the tools and the codes to anyone, if there's no revenue to be had
this is a crucial statement in this exchange.. there is value, the car.. there are participants in the value chain.. mfg, dealer, repair shop, consumer.. where is the value exchanged? this is fair to discuss in the open..
When people get angry or resentful quickly is perhaps, when LIES are told for the purpose of getting a result. Also, modern manufacturing is a different thing, than 100 years ago when this started. Many more things are possible.
I will add, it is obvious here on YNews, that some manufacturers are absolutely callous to the rights of consumers. The USA pioneered consumer rights in many areas. I still hear Mr Ralph Nadar on the radio some days.
I guess the parent clear in their last post. They meant that the rational thing would be to ***force*** the free release of the manufacture specific tools and information.
if they were FORCED by regulations, then they would not have the option to "stop" providing the tools and codes, they would be FORCED by REGULATION do to so if they wanted to continue to sell their product.
I do more or less all the work on my vehicles. Its much cheaper to buy parts online and watch youtube. But when my 5 year old Hyundai started randomly braking and accelerating and OBD only said Can bus issue I decided that I was willing to pay up for a dealer to diagnose and guarantee the fix. It was a fuel pump computer so it would’ve been cheap to fix but not worth it to waste my time troubleshooting.
It is frustrating that the OBD2 dataflow, which covers far more than emissions-related features, is only required in conjunction with emissions and therefore does not apply to electric vehicles.
A more thoughtful legislature would have required a diagnostic port for all vehicles. Required that it emit codes covering all computerized aspects of the car. Required that all codes be emitted on the standard port, required that all manufacturers publish documentation for the meaning of the codes.
(Of course it's probably not a matter of thoughtfulness, but rather a negotiation between many stakeholders, including lobby groups with substantial budgets.)
There’s something like that (j2534). It was originally intended for reprogramming of emmission-related ECUs but since the hardware and software APIs where widely available many started using the standard for complete vehicle diagnostic. Today you can diagnostic and program almost all vehicle brands (for a fee) with just one VCI and without specialized computers since most run in-browser.
Pretty much every car model is different though once you get out of emissions land.
Some are even different across an individual model year. Some manufacturers have a bad habit of implementing these commands under the hood as poke and peek memory inside the microcontrollers so you almost need a set of linker maps to make sense of everything.
I would question any evidence of its "much cheaper and easier to design cars to be serviced by people who focus on a few models, and have a full suite of tools specifically made for those vehicles." The local mechanics are often more skilled and more experienced than their dealership counterparts (simple money explains this). The whole idea every manufacture found some unique solution to complex rules and regulations, or that skilled mechanics cannot buy the equipment needed to fix these cars is just not true.
If nothing else, the number of videos on youtube telling people how to properly fix their vehicles when their dealer gives them some BS diagnostic should indicate the skill level of those dealer shops.
The less technology that is only fixable by the company's high priests, the better. If they cannot build serviceable items, then maybe the device is too dangerous to be in public.
>" The local mechanics are often more skilled and more experienced than their dealership counterparts (simple money explains this). The whole idea every manufacture found some unique solution to complex rules and regulations, or that skilled mechanics cannot buy the equipment needed to fix these cars is just not true."
Dealership mechanics are usually more junior (less experienced) than independent mechanics, but they spend all their time working on a much smaller range of models, so they're generally better on those vehicles. Having every special tool, and a great deal of training helps too.
>"If nothing else, the number of videos on youtube telling people how to properly fix their vehicles when their dealer gives them some BS diagnostic should indicate the skill level of those dealer shops."
In general, the dealers are very good with recent models, and less good with older ones. The people doing youtube videos are often ex-dealership mechanics, who have a lot of experience with older models, and are usually better than the current dealership staff (on the older models).
>"The less technology that is only fixable by the company's high priests, the better. If they cannot build serviceable items, then maybe the device is too dangerous to be in public. "
There are many devices which are extremely difficult for third parties to service, including aircraft engines. I don't think this necessarily means the items are dangerous, but it does mean you should consider your maintenance schedule and provider when making a purchase decision.
There are many devices which are extremely difficult for third parties to service, including aircraft engines.
The manufactures of aircraft engines are not doing the service on those engines. I would be hard pressed to think of an airline that gets GE and its ilk to service the engines.
the dealers are very good with recent models, and less good with older ones.
Not sure where this comes from, but its definitly not my experience owning a Kia Niro. The whole dealership network is not very good at this newer model at all.
Dealership mechanics are usually more junior (less experienced) than independent mechanics, but they spend all their time working on a much smaller range of models, so they're generally better on those vehicles. Having every special tool, and a great deal of training helps too.
Training does not overcome experience. The checklist never beats the experienced mechanic's intuition.
But here is the bigger problem, dealerships hire inexperienced mechanics and try to train them up because they refuse to pay for the decent mechanics (well, excepting specialized performance dealerships, but even then). People have to start somewhere, but when it hits the fan you want someone who has been around the block.
> The manufactures of aircraft engines are not doing the service on those engines. I would be hard pressed to think of an airline that gets GE and its ilk to service the engines.
Many airlines and fleet operators of all sizes "lease thrust." The airline signs a contract for X amount of thrust for Y planes, writes a check....and RR, GE, CFM, etc configure the engine's control unit to deliver that amount of thrust (which can be anything up to the engine's rating), and handle everything necessary to assure that the engines go vroom when they're supposed to.
That means maintenance/repairs, handling parts/supplies logistics, live monitoring via satellite telemetry and predictive analysis.
On your next flight one of the engines could be showing signs of future failure or accelerated wear and the parts will be on their way to the shop, time booked on the mechanics schedules, and airline alerted to the plane coming out of service for X amount of time to accommodate the repair, before the plane is even half-way to its destination.
I don't know why you're speaking so authoritatively on a subject you don't know the first thing about.
> I would be hard pressed to think of an airline that gets GE and its ilk to service the engines.
Have you heard of Emirates? Perhaps more of a Southwest Airlines kind of person? The real question might be which airlines let Tim down at the local service centre maintain and repair their $24million (per engine) 777 engines?
I'm not sure what your experience is, but it may not reflect the 'average'. I have experience from working in automotive diagnostics for many years, and am speaking from what I've seen, having spoken and dealt with thousands of dealer and independent mechanics.
> If they cannot build serviceable items, then maybe the device is too dangerous to be in public.
You're basically just setting a ceiling on complexity and prescribing methods of information sharing. Why can't companies use tribal knowledge? Do you think the public doesn't benefit from highly complex technology? Examples of machines that only a small number of people can fix go back centuries.
Your claim is baseless. But even if we entertain this is true, it puts automakers in the perfect place to rent seek and rake in profits. It takes ownership away from the individual. It's wasteful as perfectly good cars could become un-repairable that would otherwise have a longer life.
Plus, if right to repair was enforced for all cars, you can still operate the same way and only get repairs from the dealer. Only cheaper as they'll have to compete with other mechanics now.
Obfuscating (because that’s what they are doing not encrypting for security). Revisiting releasing documentation is more effort than posting it on a damn website.
Takes time and money. Writing code, developing tools, and creating repair manuals has to be done either way.
How in gods name is making something accessible more expensive when you are already doing these things for your internal technicians.
>" Obfuscating (because that’s what they are doing not encrypting for security). Revisiting releasing documentation is more effort than posting it on a damn website."
There is a great deal of encryption on modern vehicles; most new models have encrypted communications backbones.
>"Takes time and money. Writing code, developing tools, and creating repair manuals has to be done either way."
What takes time and money? Obfuscation, or creating open tools? I think you may be surprised to learn how poorly the 'design-side' supports the 'service-side' in automotive and other vehicular industries.
>"How in gods name is making something accessible more expensive when you are already doing these things for your internal technicians."
The automakers do a lot of ad-hoc stuff, and they're often inconsistent between models and platforms. Making things uniformly accessible is different from their normal modus operandi, and likely more expensive.
> It's not BS. The fact is that it's much cheaper and easier to design cars to be serviced by people who focus on a few models, and have a full suite of tools specifically made for those vehicles
Unless I'm missing something nothing you state here is disallowed by the right to repair law. That "suite of tools" you describe just has to be made available to everyone, not just the specialists.
Do the vehicles benefit from specialist tools because the manufacturer has innovated some new piece of tech unique to their company, or have they simply taken off the shelf components and tweaked them just enough that standard tools don't work without adding any actual value? (Nintendo Y-shaped screwheads spring to mind) The answer is probably a combination of the two, so it's always going to be a trade-off.
I had to get a couple components on my car replaced recently. The dealer quoted me $6000 for the job. I had it done by a reputable shop instead for $1600.
Is the parent OP light gray because of the status of the poster or due to downvotes?
If it's the latter, it saddens me that this Reddit-esque behavior is finding footing on HN. You may (vehemently, even) disagree with what the parent post states (I do too), but that should not be a basis to downvote, especially when they stated their POV respectfully.
I'm struggling to find nuance in what seems like a black/white issue. If you buy the vehicle, you can do whatever the @#$% you want with it. If you can't do what you want, it's a subscription model and the maker is responsible for all maintenance and insurance. I fail to see how the latter is a good option for car makers, so I find this whole issue to be total BS.
"Next on CNN, Kia and Subaru vehicle 'owners' have amassed over 50,000 vehicles in a field in Kansas and will be lighting them on fire momentarily. Let's watch."
You buy a Widget. WidgetCorp says you may repair it or do whatever you want with it. However WidgetCorp will not sell you any parts, or any schematics. WidgetCorp sues any third parties that try to make their own replacement parts. WidgetCorp engineers added complexity into Widget solely to make it impossible or harder to repair Widget (anti tamper screws, DRM on batteries). WidgetCorp will refuse to repair the flux capacitor under warranty because you have a modified fusion drive, even though no causal link can be postulated between the two. WidgetCorp will cripple Widgets that have 3rd party parts via software updates.
All of the above regularly occur with the likes of Apple, John Deere, Dell, Lenovo, Tesla, etc.
This all sounds fine to me. The car with no "smart" functionality sounds better than one with it! No way to nag you with subscriptions or a mobile app that sends you loud ads at 3AM. And, the market will solve this problem. Ford will figure out how to sell whizbang bluefi features, and then Subaru will lose sales until they do the same.
I think Subaru must be hoping that they can get people in Massachusetts to say "ok, fine, we don't want the right to repair if it means we can't check fluid levels from our phone" and lobby for the repeal of the law, but I think Subaru is going to lose that standoff.
Note that AFAIK, none of the other manufacturers are/can be 'compliant' either.
Honda, Toyota and the big 3 can fight a protracted legal battle with a state government (see, California EVs in the 90s). Subaru cannot. (Can't speak for hyundai/kia)
Oh, that's just where my mind goes when I hear of a mobile app that goes with some piece of physical hardware. I don't know of this actually happening.
I have yet to see how this thread will go but I imagine there will be some population that sees this as a malicious attack on 'right to repair'. My take from behind the scenes on these kind of things is that this is likely 'until we have the tools and processes to handle the work stream originating from this one state in this one country, we should disable the feature'.
Disclosure: I work for GM, everything expressed here is solely my own opinion.
I think people see car companies as a huge monolith with nearly limitless resources. I can see where this comes from, but those resources are split into silos, and those silos have limited capacity. Especially for companies like Subaru, which is actually pretty small comparatively. They may have done a cost-benefit analysis and decided that the investment was not worth the money they get from selling those option packages.
---
On a broader level, I think right to repair can be perceived as a feature, but many executives have a default negative stance on openness.
I think of it like the GM LS engine. If you're at all familiar with car modification, you've heard of the LS Swap - people changing the engine that came with their car for a larger, more powerful, more versatile GM V8 engine. The LS swap ecosystem grew because the engines were relatively cheap, relatively easy to work on, and relatively reliable (your mileage may vary). Imagine if GM executives had tried to lock down the engine swap environment.
It's interesting to note that this exactly what John Deere has been claiming about repair software for their tractors: they're just really busy working on making it available ASAP.
John Deere has actually been saying this (that they're working on it as fast as they can and it will be ready any day now) as they stall for years and refuse to actually make their software available to purchasers, even though the software itself actually already exists, since dealers have it, and they could literally just hand people copies with zero additional work.
What if John Deere viewed user serviceability as a competitive advantage? Why don't they now? If they changed their view today (or 5 years ago, etc), what challenges would they face? How much technical investment would each of those challenged take?
I've been thinking about assumptions so deep you don't even realize they are assumptions. If an organization assumes a dealership model, and works that way for 50 years, all sorts of decisions are made that make it hard to go direct. People joining the org naturally go along, after a while they just don't think about alternatives.
It's REALLY hard to hold ideas that don't make sense in your head; you ask your leadership "Why do we do this" and you come to some conclusion based on what they say, but it's resolved. Like untying a knot, you have to leave a lot of loose ends unresolved if you want to change deep assumptions, and that is not mentally rewarding for most people.
That assumes they have the rights to distribute the software to their customers, it's not always so cut and dry when you have vendor libraries to deal with.
John Deere had a net income of 5 billion in 2021. If it genuinely takes them five years to figure out how to license software with that kind of cash flow, they need to fire their CTO.
The variation of ”right to repair” was also what started the freedom of software movement in 80s and later led to the creation of Linux. If it’s your device then you should have 100% control over it.
>"If it’s your device then you should have 100% control over it."
Should you get the source code to all software running on it, along with all the relevant documentation and a right to modify it as you see fit? Without that, it's not really full control.
I don't really know about source code, but at the very least, you should have access to any crypto keys, code, passwords or other such thing needed to modify it. Furthermore, reverse engineering any aspect of the thing and sharing the specifications you have discovered should not be illegal.
Absolutely. I think all software being libre is a tad extreme, but we shouldn’t be locked out of being able to run what we want on the devices. Especially once they’re no longer supported.
Are there "hacked" (read, opensource) software versions of the software available for these farm machines, or is it illegal to produce open source software for such "proprietary" pieces of machinery?
I haven't been keeping up with the "Right to Repair" movement as close as I should have, I'm afraid, and I'm not sure how far down the rabbit hole it goes. Does it drop down so far as to touch the software that runs the machine systems on these, or is it purely mechanical?
EDIT: At this point in my life I should be able to spell =(
> If it’s your device then you should have 100% control over it.
Yeah, but you also don't have the "right" to run your device on shared public spaces with your modifications that make it substantially more dangerous to other users of the same public space.
I'm fine with that so long as the burden of proof rests on those claiming that the modifications make the device "substantially more dangerous"—keeping in mind that the most dangerous component of any vehicle tends to be the one sitting in the driver's seat.
The idiot in the driver's seat is likely the idiot who thinks that lowering their car by cutting the coil springs is a good idea, and will be the same idiot who thinks that messing with the ABS logic is sensible.
Perhaps, but so what? The existence of certain dangerous modifications does not imply that all modifications would be dangerous. If you mess with the ABS logic (or anything else) and the modifications contribute to an accident then you're obviously going to be liable for that. On the other hand you could simply install a custom infotainment unit or some third-party or DIY heated seats, in which case I see no reason to preemptively ban the vehicle without clear evidence that the modifications pose a threat to other users of the road.
A reasonable compromise would be to require any modifications to be disclosed at registration, but with a policy of approving them by default unless there is a good, evidence-based reason to think that they pose a significant risk.
I think, in this particular situation, it's more that Subaru themselves don't really know how to approach fixing these safety systems. From my experience these systems are fickle-beta-hot-garbage-heaps brand new. I bet they see right to repair bills as a way for the general public to gather evidence that they've known this all along.
Of course, this doesn't really address the issue of people buying cars from out of state. But who knows, maybe we'll see "Massachusetts Cars" be a thing in the Subaru world for their lack of broken factory features.
It’s not a middle finger necessarily. While I have no automotive industry experience I’ve definitely been in situations where I was prohibited from being able to provide customer value adding capabilities to systems due to compliance issues, either lack of clarity of the requirements, added compliance costs making the feature untenable or compliance mandated deadlines not meeting estimated delivery times.
It feels terrible to do but there isn’t much choice.
I am the cofounder of https://Smartcar.com. The talking point being used to suggest that "it's not possible to comply because such a solution doesn't exist" is just completely false.
This is exactly what we've built at Smartcar over the past 5+ years. Thosuands of developers have built apps on our platform to let consumers access their own car data and bring it into the apps of their choice.
Unless I'm missing something, you have your own API, SDK, Service Fees/Pricing, and overall business. Certainly it's good for you if people standardize on your platform, but I'm not sure thats realistic. It's also not exactly the same as an open standard that can be applied globally. i.e. an extension of ODB-II access to the CAN bus I guess? That standard will probably need to come from the manufacturers themselves.
Smartcar.com is super cool, but I don't think it meets the requirements -- which is a standardized, open data-sharing platform. Do such open standards exist?
I'd expect a least a better error code (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_451) or at least a message that would explain it. I just thought the site was hugged to death.
Complying with the GDPR doesn't require extra money, it's just all these companies have become obsessed with providing surveillance for google, etc and would rather keep doing that than not.
Which fine, it's their business, but saying this is because of "compliance costs" is nonsense.
I’ve been in the room when a very expensive lawyer couldn’t reliably predict if an almost brochureware website was compliant because the multi-tenant web server it was sitting behind was logging IP addresses for anti-abuse purposes.
Now it’s my belief that it was compliant but guess what is less risky than trusting my beliefs? Blocking European access.
You can wish GDPR doesn’t have compliance costs but that doesn’t make it true.
I frankly don't even think the EU could tell you what is and isn't OK.
And tons of stuff gets you in trouble, up and downstream. Ie, using a CDN that is logging IP addresses, operating behind an abuse filter that does tracking / ip logging for anti-abuse stuff without doing all the explicit opt in stuff. Obviously things like using a hosted CDN resource (font etc etc) / or tweet embeds. Figuring out which users are EU users, responding to GDPR requests for data and validating those and the list goes on.
I don't believe you have ever worked on a GDPR compliance project.
Our corporate expense SaaS didn't support GDPR for a long time, and we had to migrate. That cost both us and them time and money. It's not because they were sending all our data to Google nefariously, it's because it's a huge compliance burden they did not bother to undertake.
It does cost to comply with the GDPR. You lose access to user tracking (which is valuable for a business), have to house user data in a specific manner and make sure EU citizens don't get their PII transferred out of Europe. Somebody has to make these changes, and nobody does stuff for a company for free.
I don't know the details of the law, but the only argument that seems remotely sympathetic for automakers is a timeline for compliance. Certainly, there should be a pathway to compliance that gives makers a reasonable window to implement features.
That said, any argument against sharing all telemetry generated with the owner of the vehicle and with shops they pay is disingenuous and immoral. I find it shameful that my 2014 vehicle cannot display all OBD data via the dashboard or the infotainment screen.
Call me silly, but I'd like to buy one of those cars w/o telemetry.
"
So it was a surprise to Subaru fans when Massachusetts dealerships started selling its line of 2022 vehicles without a key ingredient: the in-car wireless technology that connects drivers to music, navigation, roadside assistance and crash-avoiding sensors.
“The dealer didn’t bring it up,” said Joy Tewksbury-Pabst, who bought a new Subaru Ascent without realizing she'd be missing out on the remote start and locking features she had before trading in her 2019 model. She also lost the ability to check wiper fluid levels, tire pressure and mileage from her phone.
"
I want that, I don't want my car to be connected to a 3g/4g/5g modem sending telemetry wherever I go.
I don't find value in checking out my car fluid on my phone, I find value in popping the hood and visually confirming it. The car stops what, every 400 miles for fuel? Not that much more to pop the hood and see what fluid levels are.
I find value in not letting the auto companies be able to track, measure, analyze my car usage.
Even the analog cars will have some level of telemetry now. For example, a 2015 WRX STI will record maximum RPM, maximum speed, key cycles since last flash/ battery disconnect. Not exactly a black box data recorder, but enough evidence to deny a warranty claim caused by over-revving the engine, if the warranty rep cares to look.
The BRZ has anti lock brakes, stability control (on a toggle switch), and drive-by-wire throttle with input filtering. It makes for a smoother, safer experience.
You're definitely right. I suppose when I was referring to analog, I just meant capable of all operation without being connected to the Internet of Things.
Sure. The MySubaru app for the 2022 BRZ gives me a list of green status. Tire pressure and ten other categories. I’m not sure how the car sends the data out, because it’s not connected to WiFi directly. Bluetooth to the app and then out to the cloud? I use CarPlay too, is cell data shared with the head unit?
As a normal consumer this feature is convenient. As a car enthusiast, it’s not any worse than it was before, unless Subaru started including a data recorder. The problem is not because it's connected to the internet.
Back on topic, it would be nice if manufacturers disclosed what data they record. And in the case of Massachusetts, exposing it read-only to the consumer. If they can do it for OB2 decades ago they can do it for max rpm, air/fuel learning and other metrics.
Oh really? Dang, I guess my comment is only relevant to the first gen, then. We don't get any of those monitors or anything over network. Just OBD or canbus.
That's a completely fair point. At least when it comes to OBD you can mostly figure out what data is made available, and even then there are usually enthusiasts who dig deeper to find other random metrics being logged. Plus you can get something like an Ecutek or OFT that can do additional datalogging.
This isn't necessarily about "connectivity to the Internet". When they pull your "BRZ" into a service bay at a SUBARU dealer, it begins exchanging data with SUBARU via RF. The SUBARU-side of that equipment is closed to the local grease monkeys. Also, this means if you want to add a supercharger to your BRZ, SUBARU will become instantly aware of it and void the warranty on everything, even your seatbelts and axils. Also, dealership mechanics are usually NOT better than local grease monkeys at performing repairs, though they are now artificially superior to them at diagnosing problems.
I haven't experienced this personally. My car was on a custom dyno E85 flex fuel tune with ecutek for a while and there were a couple times I brought it into a dealer. The only thing they noticed and cared about was the flex fuel kit, and even then that was because they mistook it for a custom aftermarket fuel pump, when in reality it just reroutes the fuel line through the sensor.
In fact, about a year after this my warranty had expired. But Subaru ended up extending it due to COVID and offered to reimburse any repair expense up to like $500 or something. At that earlier time, dealer missed some issues despite running diagnostics on my ECU and wiring harness. So later I brought it to another shop that fixed the problem. Subaru still reimbursed the whole cost of that repair plus parts. This was after they would've checked my ECU and seen that it had been modified with an ecutek license.
I have a '22 Impreza, with a 5speed and the only internet connected thing is the headunit. However the headunit does communicate with the rest of the car for say: tpms, oil level, and for maintenance. While I surely would love to have full access to the data, since the car is extremely analog, it takes minimal maintenance and maximum fun, I haven't been too worried. Otherwise, the telemetrics I would vastly prefer to see opened to the public.
That was a great read. Thanks for posting. I’ve been dabbling in reverse engineering embedded devices in my spare time. I find these kind of detailed reports on how someone solved a reverse engineering challenge to be fascinating.
How do you know it "is completely offline, that includes Eyesight." I believe this is false. Also, the "repair issue" is concerned with (service bay) RF access to the proprietary sensors and memory attached to the vehicle's computer systems --not necessarily Internet connectivity to them.
Let me rephrase, I meant that those systems, while they may be exposed to the online systems, are not part of the subscription packages in any way - and don't use the internet to operate.
I'm still unclear, if I buy. car with some features, and then the car maker retroactively removes those features, shouldn't I be able to return the car for the amount I paid?
They weren't legally prevented from having the feature (e.g. they didn't turn off the feature for public safety reasons), so they made the choice to remove the feature I paid for.
I own Snapon diagnostic equipment capable of servicing anything up to 2016 model year and by extension a few more years unofficially if the model line continues.
It is very expensive but became reasonably priced after Snapon declared it unsupported and stopped making updates available.
The security excuse is not valid because there are many people like me who have electronics background, are willing to invest into right tools, and can fix anything but who have little desire to operate a shop.
My tool can reprogram keys, modify airbag parameters, troubleshoot anti-lock brakes and so on. All of that is safety systems.
Can you share the product name / model number of this device?
I'm in a similar situation. All my vehicles are pre-2010ish but I'm getting close to being forced to buy something newer. I don't mind spending 10% of the car's cost on a diagnostic tools if it gives me total visibility.
Seems like you could supply an aftermarket part to resume the wireless connectivity if that is all it is. If they removed the sensors etc... then not a lot you can do.
What’s not clear to me from the article, initially what’s discussed are use land features, but with these changes are they also turning off access for dealer repair shops as well? Just so the don’t have to give access to third parties? Won’t this bite them by reducing the quality of first party repairs? Or am I misunderstanding?
I love how Subaru says it is "impossible" to comply. I think someone needs to school them on the meaning of that word.
This statute goes right up against the provisions in the DMCA though that stop you playing with the inside of devices. How will that play out? Usually federal law wins out against state law, but it's complicated.
"Oh, you think this faulty part or counterintuitive feature needs improvement? It's open source... instead of complaining, why don't you just fix it yourself? :)"
If you've never heard at least one variation of "stop complaining, it's FOSS, we're not paid, we're all volunteers, maybe try downloading the source and fixing it yourself" then you've not interacted with the FOSS community long enough. It's a very common trope unfortunately, so much so that's it's become a point of mockery by those outside of the community.
If this free, unpaid, but otherwise fantastic software doesn't meet your needs, you should probably either provide a fix or... go pay someone to fix it?
Again, I don't understand your comment.
Edit: That's not true, I actually do understand your comment. I just think you could use a more grounded outlook on the value of FOSS. But hey, everyone's got their own path.
the amount of people who are able to fix anything non-trivial on their car is miniscule. Producing cars is so prohibitively expensive that it only makes sense at industrial scale.
