Jump to content

[UPDATED 05/09/15] Automakers to gearheads: Stop repairing cars


RedPath88
 Share

Recommended Posts

Automakers to gearheads: Stop repairing cars
autoblog.com


____________________

Automakers to gearheads: Stop repairing cars


Automakers are supporting provisions in copyright law that could prohibit home mechanics and car enthusiasts from repairing and modifying their own vehicles.

In comments filed with a federal agency that will determine whether tinkering with a car constitutes a copyright violation, OEMs and their main lobbying organization say cars have become too complex and dangerous for consumers and third parties to handle.

Allowing them to continue to fix their cars has become "legally problematic," according to a written statement from the Auto Alliance, the main lobbying arm of automakers.

The dispute arises from a section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that no one thought could apply to vehicles when it was signed into law in 1998. But now, in an era where cars are rolling computing platforms, the U.S. Copyright Office is examining whether provisions of the law that protect intellectual property should prohibit people from modifying and tuning their cars.

Every three years, the office holds hearings on whether certain activities should be exempt from the DMCA's section 1201, which governs technological measures that protect copyrighted work. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization that advocates for individual rights in the digital world, has asked the office to ensure that enthusiasts can continue working on cars by providing exemptions that would give them the right to access necessary car components.

Interested parties have until the end of the month to file comments on the proposed rule making, and a final decision is expected by mid-year.

In comments submitted so far, automakers have expressed concern that allowing outsiders to access electronic control units that run critical vehicle functions like steering, throttle inputs and braking "leads to an imbalance by which the negative consequences far outweigh any suggested benefits," according to the Alliance of Global Automakers. In the worst cases, the organizations said an exemption for enthusiasts "leads to disastrous consequences."

 

 

 

Complex Software, Increased Risk

Industry concerns are mounting that modifying these ECUs and the software coding that runs them could lead to vulnerabilities in vehicle safety and cyber security. Imagine an amateur makes a coding mistake that causes brakes to fail and a car crash ensues. Furthermore, automakers say these modifications could render cars non-compliant with environmental laws that regulate emissions.

But exemptions from the DMCA don't give third parties the right to infringe upon existing copyrights. Nor does an exemption mean consumers don't have to abide by other laws and rules that govern vehicles passed by the National Highway Traffic Administration, Environmental Protection Agency or U.S. Patent and Trade Office.

"It's not a new thing to be able to repair and modify cars," said Kit Walsh, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's actually a new thing to keep people from doing it. There are these specialized agencies that govern what vehicles can lawfully be used for on the road, and they have not seen fit to stop them from repairing cars."

Aftermarket suppliers and home enthusiasts have been modifying ECUs for years without dire consequences. By tweaking the ECU codes, a process sometimes known as "chipping," they've boosted horsepower, improved fuel efficiency, established performance limits for teen drivers and enhanced countless other features. These innovations have contributed to a "decades-old tradition of mechanical curiosity and self-reliance," according to the EFF.

Those innovations could be curbed precisely at a time that automakers believe personalization of vehicles is emerging as a significant trend. Software is allowing for all sorts of technology, such as 4G LTE wireless connections, and motorists can use this software to choose from an increasing array of infotainment options. But the car companies, paradoxically, want to be the ones doing the personalizing.

The EFF thinks the industry's desire to block exemptions has more to do with profits than safety. As software becomes easier to update, automakers could sell these performance upgrades on an a la carte basis. Because a favorable ruling would strengthen their control of the software, the car companies could potentially force consumers to only have their vehicles fixed at their dealerships or preferred repair shops.

Last September, Ford took steps toward consolidating such control, filing a lawsuit against Autel US Inc., a diagnostic-equipment manufacturer based in Huntington, New York. Ford alleges the company unlawfully copied trade secrets and accessed on-board computer systems that relay technical information on diagnostic codes and repair data. The EFF says consumers should have the right to have their cars fixed by independent mechanics.

Jennifer Dukarski, an intellectual property and technology attorney from Michigan firm Butzel Long, said there's an additional reason automakers are getting more aggressive in the copyright realm. Court rulings in recent years have eroded their patent protections, so they're searching for alternate ways to protect investments in research and development.

"With a limited scope of protection," she said, "they're saying, 'OK, if I can't protect this via patent, how am I going to lock everything down? What's my next-best tool?' And I think using copyright law, it is kind of the only protection outside the idea of trade secrets. The problem is you're in a situation with a host of competing interests, and those are how much freedom will you let car owners have? What's the relationship with the information in this car you bought?"

Another question central to balancing the competing interests in the proposed exemptions: Once customers purchase a device, must they only use it specifically as the manufacturer intended or can they modify it for their own particular needs?

 


GM: Telematics Industry Threatened

For their part, manufacturers say they're more concerned about potential losses than new revenue streams. Tinkering with the ECUs can void a car owner's warranty, but automakers remain concerned with their liability if third parties make changes that could result in physical or financial harm. They noted unsavory mechanics could easily manipulate odometers, and make cars appear to have fewer miles on them than they actually do, a problem for unsuspecting used-car buyers.

Granting exemptions would "deliberately weaken" protections put in place to ensure safe operation and regulatory mandates, General Motors said. Without such protection, the company said it would re-evaluate its entire electronic architecture. It could take the draconian step of removing telematics units, which control many real-time safety and infotainment features, from cars entirely.

Exemptions "would offer a serious, and potentially fatal, blow to the future of automotive telematics," GM wrote in its comments. "Absent this protection, vehicle manufacturers, including GM, may be forced to consider reducing offerings or withdrawing these systems from the market."

The Copyright Office has granted exemptions to the law in the past, and will consider 27 different exemption requests in its current deliberations. Most of the proposed exemptions have nothing to do with the automotive, covering copyright issues on everything from medical devices to eBooks to smart televisions.

"What's interesting is this is a unique situation," Dukarski said. "A lot of those exceptions are simple and straightforward. These ones, you've got some oddball nuances about reverse engineering, and it depends on how you're looking at things. ... "You have to question, 'How secure does it need to be? Does it affect a safety system?' You are dealing with a much more nuanced issue, and the results are tangible."

 

Automakers: We Know Our Cars Better

Manufacturers and their lobbyists have submitted comments on six of the 27 proposals. The specific topics cover: unlocking mobile connectivity devices, unlocking consumer machines, jailbreaking all-purpose mobile computing devices, vehicle software diagnosis repair and modification, and software security and safety research.

If there's a recurring theme in the comments beyond their assertions of ownership, it's that they say they know the intricacies of these ever-more-complicated software systems better than consumers and third parties. The Association of Global Automakers says the manufacturers and their suppliers "best understand the interdependence of automotive systems and are in the best position to know whether a modification, regardless of how slight, would disrupt another system."

Comments from equipment manufacturer John Deere took a more condescending tone toward independent and amateur mechanics, noting that circumventing protected technology should be "against public policy because individual vehicle owners do not have the technological resources to provide safe, reliable and lawful software for repair, diagnosis or some dubious 'aftermarket personalization, modification or other improvement' that is not directed toward repair or diagnosis of the vehicle."

Yet manufacturers have sometimes failed to find flaws in their own products or understand the relationships between various systems. In Congressional hearings devoted to uncovering why General Motors took no action for a decade in fixing a deadly defect in ignition switches, lawmakers noted the company failed to understand the connection between the ignition switch moving to the "accessory" position and airbag non-deployments. At latest count, at least 84 motorists have been killed in accidents caused by the defect.

Perhaps as troubling, auto-industry leaders failed in recent years to recognize countless cyber-security vulnerabilities in vehicles. It wasn't until outside researchers conducted high-profile and sometimes embarrassing demonstrations of how cars can be hacked before automakers took steps to address cyber threats. Without an exemption, this sort of research could be illegal.

In that respect, cyber-security security researchers might enhance vehicle safety more than the occasional amateur error may cause harm. All the more reason, Walsh said, that automakers and independents should be considered on equal footing.

"It's just a myth that the manufacturers are the only people who can make improvements," he said. "That's why maintaining that choice is really important."
____________________

Edited by RedPath88
removed picture captions, general formatting cleanup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hah! Wow... I'm speechless!

 

 

Manufacturers and their lobbyists have submitted comments on six of the 27 proposals. The specific topics cover: unlocking mobile connectivity devices, unlocking consumer machines, jailbreaking all-purpose mobile computing devices, vehicle software diagnosis repair and modification, and software security and safety research.

While the mobile connectivity is big because of the current infatuation with it and the resultant market, I think the real threat is obviously the VSD. They are basically saying that we want to lock you out of it so you have to go to a mechanic (dealership?).

Kiss my arse!

 

 

Industry concerns are mounting that modifying these ECUs and the software coding that runs them could lead to vulnerabilities in vehicle safety and cyber security. Imagine an amateur makes a coding mistake that causes brakes to fail and a car crash ensues. Furthermore, automakers say these modifications could render cars non-compliant with environmental laws that regulate emissions.

I will do my best never to own a car that has a computer that can cause the steering or brakes to fail. Talk about pointless complication and lack of redundant systems! As for non-compliant with environmental laws, well, considering all the douche bags that cut their catalytic converters off (because they aren't checked for locally) and all the rolling coal morons, I'd say you know where to start long before you worry about the far more modest modifications.

 

This is a perfect example of corporations getting too big and thinking above themselves. Hey auto makers, sit down, shut up, design and make decent cars and maybe we'll keep you in business and employed. Get how it works now?

 

B

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen to that! My newest car is an 08 A4. My S4 is an 04 and my Pathy is a 99. I fully intend to keep these 3 as long as I possibly can. The Audis might be high tech compared to the PF but not compared to today's cars. I have zero interest in the new technology of self driving cars and cars that brake for you to avoid collisions etc. I'd like to keep driving cars, not computers. This is just another money grab from already rich companies. Greed is a bottomless pit. Luckily aftermarket parts is a huge business too so we will let them fight the car manufacturers for dominance while the rest of us keep wrenching away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next time the automakers fail, let's just let them go under. That's absolutely terrible.

 

I'll ride a lawnmower into town before I buy a vehicle with some ridiculous copyright protection on it. (Partially because I could afford a lawnmower, but that's beside the point.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be currently burnt out on working on my own crap but you try to lock me out of something I paid for you can be dam sure I'm gonna jailbreak it if I want to... I'm just too lazy :lol: (I've been putting off jail dealing my PS3 and Wii for over a year)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unbelievable. It's almost as if the automakers assume they make perfect cars. How many safety recalls, lawsuits (legitimate ones that is), and deaths do we need to see before we figure out that they aren't making perfect transportation pods. The idea that modifiers are all creating inherently dangerous situations is a bunch of bull, sure the extreme minority does shotty and unsafe work, but they pay for it with crashes etc. Not to mention most states already have safety inspections, as well as those involving smog, and those checks in theory should be enough. I definitely agree, this is a corporation just trying to shove more money down its throat, and have complete control over a market, while simultaneously acting as though their own customers are complete idiots under the guise of the CYA mantra. Truly terrible.

 

They're really shooting themselves in the foot, as modifiers are perhaps the most loyal and outspoken customer's an automaker can have.

Edited by Karmann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who in the world actually thinks having brakes that could fail because of a computer problem was a good idea? Just like the electric power steering that has standard power steering as a backup, wtf?

Edited by adamzan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'm against electric power steering in performance cars, because it kills feel, I have no problem with it in more "normal" cars because of the fuel economy and parasitic loss benefits. Obviously I prefer ones that are tuned well and actually provide feedback, such as in the new 911, which I've driven and was fairly satisfied with. The tech is so new that I also have no issue with a mechanical backup system, definitely better safe than sorry when it comes to brakes. Car hacking may become an epidemic once cars' ECUs are connected to a cloud, but I feel it's on the manufacturers to do the encryption, and right now most cars are encrypted and their vital components aren't cloud based, yet. On star and similar systems feature remote shut downs which are supposed to be used in the event the car is stolen, but it might have the ability to be compromised. Again, I think that falls on the manufacturer to offer protection. I don't like location or any ongoing remote monitoring capability in my personal cars because I know a dealer would just love to void a warranty claim because of speed/location/High tide. I like systems like OnStar gen 1 though, where in a crash, they automatically dial 911 and give the location to emergency services. A highly protected form of this, which would only be triggered by airbag deployment would be idea for me. As it stands though, I see no issue with modifying any current or future car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Electric power steering seems like a reasonable concept for fuel savings, though I question whether the added complexity is worth it. The drive-by-wire, on the other hand... there is no possible way that's a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come to think of it, maybe that's what's going on here: cars are so needlessly overcomplicated, and therefore fragile, that even poking around under the hood is likely to set off three DTCs, put the stereo in "I've been stolen" mode, and cause some vital control system that's been improved from a simple linkage to a mass of sensors and servos to whack out and kill someone.

 

That unintentional acceleration there? No, sir, that wasn't the drive by wire acting up, that was, uh, the floor mats! Yeah, the floor mats. The aftermarket floor mats, installed by someone who wasn't certified, that's your problem right there. Copyright infringement and unauthorized personnel killed those people, ladies and gentlemen, and there should be a law.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has a primitive one of sorts that controls timing, air/fuel ratio, injectors and a few other components vital to keeping the motor running well. Then you have the AT brain, if you have an AT... They aren't hooked up to any peripheral systems, but you do have circuits controlling parts of your vehicle.

Well, maybe not so much if it is a diesel?

 

Electric power steering seems like a reasonable concept for fuel savings, though I question whether the added complexity is worth it. The drive-by-wire, on the other hand... there is no possible way that's a good idea.

Bah! I go along with "cars are so needlessly overcomplicated...".

Want fuel savings? Have the power steering shut off at speeds above 15mph or whatever is realistic for the vehicle weight and steering geometry. Maybe if it takes more than pinky finger force to steer a vehicle, people won't have a latte in one hand and a cell phone in the other.

I'm old enough to remember (and have driven) vehicles without power steering, even full sized 4x4s. They were a biatch to park (very hard to turn the wheel when stationary) but once you got rolling, there was absolutely no difficulty in steering them.

 

I still say there is little reason to have electronics replace hydraulics for braking as well, that makes no sense to me...

 

B

Edited by Precise1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally prefer hydraulic power steering and brakes in my own cars, but like I said for point A to B people not interested in cars I'm fine with electric versions. I believe the electric brakes are just to make the bridge between current lane departure control setups, auto collision braking, and autonomous driving cars, not so much the fuel savings as it's not like properly setup hydraulic brakes are supposed to drag or something.

 

If I was designing my own car, or one that I would buy at least, I'd rather strive to make it so light that it doesn't need power steering at all. Then you get the ultimate fuel savings of no system, minimal weight, with better feel. But a car designed like that (minus the new Alfa 4C) is about as likely to make it to mass production as a unicorn powered 3/4 ton truck, considering the current climate of automakers. That said, I definitely appreciate power steering when making a u-turn or parallel parking, which is why I like variable systems- easy turning at low speeds, better communication and less boost at high. Systems like that have been out for decades.

Edited by Karmann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alot of interesting comments. But we have become a society that dictates what the manufactures build. The latest craze is wifi in cars. As cars become more complex there is a liability issue with modifications. The public wants a maintenance free car and thats what they are building. Gear heads are a dying breed that probably make up only 10 percent of the public. They want power and gas economy at the same time. To do this the cars are really becoming engineering feat. There are pantent rights that the manufacture wants to keep. There is a risk when someone tampers with electronics that it will effect other modules and how they operate on the can system. We are a society that takes no responsility for our actions-we sue for anything and everything regardless if it there fault. Manufacters are trying to protect their interest. A person has a floor mat stuck under the gas pedal and unfourtunately the whole family perished. Then came a massive recall and droves of idiots came out of the wood works claiming their Honda or Nissan accelerated on its own. Just a thought

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It couldn't be that difficult to mount an air conditioner clutch pulley to the power steering pump, and rig that to disengage whenever the vehicle is going >5mph. Maybe wire it so the 4x4 indicator locks out disengagement so your power steering keeps working when you're powering through mud up to the door handles. I would want to find a normally-engaged clutch (opposite of an aircon compressor clutch) so that it would fail-safe to having working power steering, but they're probably not that difficult to find.

 

Then again, it's probably not worth the added complexity. The hypermile forum guys seem to think you'd get a 2-3% gain in fuel economy from a full P/S delete, which for a Pathfinder would be, what, 0.5 MPG?

 

 

I looked up the floor mat thing, and the final report couldn't replicate the issue but did find deficiencies in the ECU programming that could've let it glitch out. I've read about similar problems in Fords and Hondas. My dad's R50 had a malfunction in the electronic throttle as well. It didn't go wide open and stay there (luckily), but if you tried to get on the gas pedal, it would buck, and I'm not talking about a misfire or an ignition issue. It would go as hard as it should've been for how hard you were on the gas for about a second, then act like you'd released the pedal and it was engine braking, then go again, then slow again, until you let off the gas. It bucked so hard the trailer hitch was making noise. The only explanation that made sense was that the throttle was going open, closed, open, closed. It never threw a code. A shop that had seen this happen before and knew what to look for cleaned some carbon out of out a vac line (I don't know how it got there either) and replaced something to do with the swirl valves. That fixed the problem and the truck was drivable again. It didn't accelerate out of control, but if a bad swirl solenoid whatsit was enough to make the throttle wig out, and the computer couldn't see that there was anything wrong, there was something wrong with how that system was designed. I am more inclined to believe reports of cars having issues with a system that I've seen malfunction than I am to believe dealer claims about floor mats and lying customers.

Yes, people are idiots, and what they want (and what the EPA wants) drives what automakers produce. That's no excuse for bad cars. People sue for stupid things, but that's no excuse for hiding major safety problems. Auto makers make flawed cars, do everything in their power to avoid taking responsibility for them, and then have the balls to suggest that only their people should be allowed to service their merchandise--at dealer prices.

How about no?

 

One final bit of rant... If you want a reliable vehicle that steers itself, avoids collisions, has a very small carbon footprint, makes you look like a badass, has built-in traction control, won't rust, has on-board navigation capabilities, and lasts twenty years or so with routine maintenance, and you don't mind a few non-serviceable parts, you're not looking for a modern car.

 

You're looking for a horse.

 

:deadhorse:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The R50 condition is not related to the throttle body but the the map sensor/swirl valve which gets clogged. Common problem. Nissan issue the brake technology in their fail safe system in which Toyota did not. The condition you are describing is called fail safe. The floor mat issue was a cop who had been at a party with his family. The vehicle was doing over 125mph. The reason you don't hear the whole story is because there was alcohol involved. It does not make sense if you are a experienced police officer and drive cars all day long and go through the training they do why it happened. If I was driving a car that the accelerator keep going I would simply turn the key off. The ecu records data in which there was no mal function. I will back up the manufacture. It is true that some manufacturers hide known problems example Ford Explorer-Firestone tires and the Chevy ignition lock cylinder. But my friend I have been with Nissan for 32 years and am not a wear of any cover up with this company. They do stand behind their product and are diligent when it comes to recalls and tsb's

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by byob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

One final bit of rant... If you want a reliable vehicle that steers itself, avoids collisions, has a very small carbon footprint, makes you look like a badass, has built-in traction control, won't rust, has on-board navigation capabilities, and lasts twenty years or so with routine maintenance, and you don't mind a few non-serviceable parts, you're not looking for a modern car.

 

You're looking for a horse.

 

:deadhorse:

Maybe not though, maybe you're looking for an a next gen auto piloted Audi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerking like a mechanical bull at the county fair is Nissan's idea of a fail-safe? What would a fail-deadly be for a swirl valve?

 

I lost a lot of respect for Nissan with my dad's R50. It also burned a quart of oil every 1000 miles. The dealer said either "don't worry, they all do that, just keep adding oil" or "we've never heard of that happening," depending on when we called. The local mechanics said the shop time to tear into a VQ and do valve seals (if that was the issue) would cost more than the truck was worth. The wrecking yard said their VQ motors had massive compression differences between the cylinders.

Also look up the precat failures on the Sentras with QR25DEs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...