> I was asking what they meant by that. I did not disagree with right to repair.
You could have looked it up. It is a common expression.
> To the contrary -- IMO vehicles must be completely repairable with freely available standardized general purpose parts, as opposed to pre-made custom assemblies at ungodly prices and limited production periods.
They already kinda use standardised parts. Most manufacturers license parts from one another e.g. I have a Vauxhall, the chassis IIRC is the same as a Volvo. Super cars will have headlights from a Ford Focus.
My Land-rover Defender 4x4 uses the same parts are other British Leyland cars of the same period e.g. the wiper system is the same as one on a Rover from the 1980s, the engine mounts are the same as the ones used in a Rover P4 from 1953.
More modern cars and electric cars though need entire custom drive chains, electronic wiring, sensors and computer system that are not standard.
> Removing emissions functionality (which I explicitly listed), or safety functionality is not repairing your vehicle, it is altering your vehicle to your own benefit and at the expense of everyone else, and must be prevented by the government, and not by auto manufacturers.
Making your car un-roadworthy is already illegal. That is why yearly safety inspections (MOT) are required in the UK for any car that has been on the road for more than 3 years. If your car has obvious emissions issues you will be pulled over by the police.
> I thought this was implied with 'being frowned upon', because society and their government representatives frown upon stuff, auto manufacturers outright prevent it.
They already try to prevent it. Newer cars will detect this and may even refuse to start. It however like any restriction. It can be circumvented.
You could have looked it up. It is a common expression.
> To the contrary -- IMO vehicles must be completely repairable with freely available standardized general purpose parts, as opposed to pre-made custom assemblies at ungodly prices and limited production periods.
They already kinda use standardised parts. Most manufacturers license parts from one another e.g. I have a Vauxhall, the chassis IIRC is the same as a Volvo. Super cars will have headlights from a Ford Focus.
My Land-rover Defender 4x4 uses the same parts are other British Leyland cars of the same period e.g. the wiper system is the same as one on a Rover from the 1980s, the engine mounts are the same as the ones used in a Rover P4 from 1953.
More modern cars and electric cars though need entire custom drive chains, electronic wiring, sensors and computer system that are not standard.
> Removing emissions functionality (which I explicitly listed), or safety functionality is not repairing your vehicle, it is altering your vehicle to your own benefit and at the expense of everyone else, and must be prevented by the government, and not by auto manufacturers.
Making your car un-roadworthy is already illegal. That is why yearly safety inspections (MOT) are required in the UK for any car that has been on the road for more than 3 years. If your car has obvious emissions issues you will be pulled over by the police.
> I thought this was implied with 'being frowned upon', because society and their government representatives frown upon stuff, auto manufacturers outright prevent it.
They already try to prevent it. Newer cars will detect this and may even refuse to start. It however like any restriction. It can be circumvented.