The Right to Repair Act (RTRA) has been kicking around Congress for years now, and another big push for its passage is underway. For those that don’t know, the RTRA is supposed to make available to independent automotive repair shops and consumers the information and tools necessary to repair modern automobiles. Nearly every vehicle designed and produced these days has an astonishing amount of computers in it (the oft quoted claim that a modern automobile has more computing power than the Apollo missions comes to mind), running everything from the drive-train to the climate control.
In the past, it was difficult to find the information and access the computers in vehicles if not a dealer of said vehicles. Yet in recent years, nearly all manufacturers (or least the ones I regularly deal with: Ford, Chrysler, GM, Toyota, Honda) have made available the information necessary to repair vehicles and the scan tools necessary to communicate with the computers on a subscription basis, so that independent shops can repair the newer vehicles. In addition, third party information sources such as Alldata provide repair information on a subscription basis. Emission control system information and communication is available for free, as it is mandated by the EPA.
The representatives for manufacturers claim that the RTRA would force them to share intellectual property, and is otherwise unnecessary as they already make available the tools and information needed to repair vehicles. (This is true for most manufacturers as I mentioned above; in the US at least, it can be difficult or impossible to get some information or scan tools for European imports.)
So what do you think of the RTRA? Good idea, or not needed? In relation to that, should one have a right to repair their vehicle? When someone purchases a product, how much of it should be user serviceable? What information - if any - must the manufacturer provide for free? What information is it acceptable to charge for?
I purchased a Jeep product from a local dealership last year. A week later, Chrysler yanked Jeeps from the dealership (which has sold Jeeps from the AMC days). I’ve continued to take the vehicle to my dealership for service, but Chrysler is getting bitchy about it. They keep sending me information about other dealerships where I should take the vehicle, and I keep telling them no thanks.
Right to Repair Act? Nay. I’ll just buy elsewhere. Fuck Chrysler.
I haven’t observed any problem finding independent auto repair shops who have all the access to information they need to repair my modern vehicles. I have never been to a dealership for a repair, ever – the only time I’ve darkened a dealership door in my 13 years of car ownership was the time when I dropped my key in a lake.
This is the first I’ve heard of the RTRA, and I’m not a big fan. I think the manufacturers are correct–this would force them to give away their property for free. I would guess the effect would be an increase in the price of cars because manufacturers would price in everytghing that the consumer is now receiving. Maybe also average repair bills would go down (because shops no longer need to pay for the info), resulting in a difficult-to-quantify net effect for consumers.
True for me too. The day I am forced to take my car to an “authorized” dealer to get repairs is the last day I will purchase a product from that company. I think the market will take care of this problem except for maybe extremely high-end cars.
I don’t see the point of the act because manuals and the tools to repair cars have always been available. At the most I could see a short list of specifications for listing recall notices and special service bulletins. Standardizing the process would benefit all.
Right. I work in an independent shop and on 95% of the vehicles that come in our door we have the scan tools to communicate with the computers in the vehicles and the information needed for any physical repair work. It costs us quite a bit each month, but we expect it and budget accordingly.
Yeah Rand, that’s the sort of thing I have been hearing in opposition to the RTRA. If they must provide the information free of charge, I imagine it would be reflected in the cost of the vehicle. The thing to keep in mind is, the information alone is next to useless. In order to use it, one must have the appropriate scan tool that can plug into a vehicle and communicate with the various modules that run the sub-systems of a car. So while the information may be floating out there, without the right tools, the best of which are still obtained through the manufacturers, it doesn’t change all that much. The second part of RTRA might change that though:
as third parties could create more scan tools (as some already do).
All this brings me to my other question mentioned in the OP: what should be user-serviceable? What information or services are reasonable to charge for, if one manufactures the original product?
Perhaps I am not educated enough to understand the issue, but this seems like a solution in search of a problem. In my experience independent mechanics are already less expensive than a dealer, and have a perfectly viable business model subject to no more than the usual vagaries of owner/operator businesses.
I agree. I am not particularly in favor of the RTRA. I was hoping to get other’s takes on this. To me, it seems superfluous at best, considering the current situation, and if it passes, I wouldn’t be surprised if it has some unintended consequences.
I’m in the aviation business, and we see this quite a bit. You need certain tools (more physical than computer in general aviation) to work on certain types, other tools for others *. This is a significant investment on the part of the shop.
Although I haven’t gone into detail looking at the proposed legislation yet, it sounds like it’s about standardizing the computer / diagnostic end of things. If so, that makes sense to me. Company A does things their way, and you need the scan equipment for their cars. Company B requires other equipment. Standardizing everything would mean less money spent by shops and consumers.
Unless there’s something proprietary about how the software works in the car (and I’m not saying there isn’t), I could get behind this. Even if there was, I have to wonder if the car companies prefer that type of system because of their dealer networks and service centers stand to profit from exclusive business.
For example, most American made planes use English unit tools. We have a set of metric tools just for the few Socata planes we work on. My mechanics would most definitely prefer everything was on one system.
Something of a hijack. My experience with aviation is that most mechanics have a toolbox full of one-off hand-made tools. I see this more than auto mechanics because aviation mechanics have to make patch repairs so the skills to make things from scratch is more ingrained. There is more of a blending of body shop and power plant.
This is the first time I’ve heard about this. I agree with the proposed law. If we have the right to purchase a vehicle, we ought to have the right to repair it without meddling from the manufacturer. I’m also shocked to learn that repair shops have to pay a fee to get information about a vehicle which needs service. That’s crazy!
FWIW, there’s a version of this law making its way through the Massachusetts legislature, and there are lots of radio ads on both sides. The auto manufacturers are claiming that the bill is actually being pushed by the retail parts stores (AutoZone, Advance Auto, etc), so they can get access to parts specifications, then manufacture replacement parts in some “substandard factory located who knows where” (quote from radio spot).
Nothing I have read about the RTRA mentions standardization; it’s all about access to information and scan tools as far as I know. That said, your suggestion completely makes sense, and would easily cut costs, but this is not what people are suggesting at the moment.
Yeah. The common meme of mechanics ripping people off and being so expensive is often falsely earned. It costs us tens of thousands of dollars every year to stay up to date with scan tools and access to information to repair vehicles. It is not a cheap trade.
So when you buy a washing machine does Maytag give you the service manual for it free?
What about LG and your fridge?
Sony and your TV?
Apple for your iPod?
Why should your car be different?
I work as a service manager at a car dealership and formerly as a technical instructor for a car company so this is something I know a bit about.
Information on new cars is voluminous to say the least. My diagnostic programs just went to dual layer DVDs as it would no longer fit on a single layer DVD.
My late model cars have over 1,000 fault codes for various systems with attendant fault tracing. to say the amount of information is mind boggling would be an understatement.
Oh and BTW the dealer does not get this information for free. I have to buy licenses from the car maker to run my diagnostic machines. I currently pay about $7500/ year in license fees.
I can’t speak for other car makes, but the car line I work on, the information that I use is available to anyone who has A) a computer that conforms to their standards (XP Pro, SP3, 1 gig ram etc) and B) to buy it.
As far as tools go, if I am not mistaken currently only emission repair tools are required to be sold, but my car line said why split hairs and the full catalog of special tools is available for purchase by anyone with the
This is pretty much exactly the same position I would be in with any other product I can think of.
-Rick
I’d like to know who sponsored this bill, and which lobbyists are behind him.
Usually, when a bill like this comes along and it’s not driven by public demand, it’s legislation designed to funnel money to some interest that is pushing for it.
For example, the lead in toys act was lobbied for by Mattel, and caused the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in used toys, which compete in the marketplace against new toys by manufacturers such as… Mattel.
Too bad, but if they are anything like computer systems standardization would take years to make happen.
Being a happy customer of an independent garage for all cars not under warranty, I’m all for it. I think free information is too much to ask for, but a non-discriminatory price sounds fair. As for intellectual property, could you reverse engineer anything from the fault codes and other information you get from the manufacturer? My intuition is that this is unlikely. Not having a rule like this, especially with modern cars, would give a monopoly to dealers.