Alldata.com

[TechNova]

Yes, right to repair is indeed becoming an issue.

It has been for years but never goes anywhere. The version now you read about does not include automotive it is for consumer products. Our state association has looked at state legislation but it never gets anywhere. Again, right to repair does not mean free info, it is just access to info and parts. The reason right to repair has died down for cars is that the info is available (for a fee) so the OEM's are giving us the right to repair in the eyes of the govt.

 

[red98]

It has been for years but never goes anywhere. The version now you read about does not include automotive it is for consumer products. Our state association has looked at state legislation but it never gets anywhere. Again, right to repair does not mean free info, it is just access to info and parts. The reason right to repair has died down for cars is that the info is available (for a fee) so the OEM's are giving us the right to repair in the eyes of the govt.

They should probably go after OEMs' CORE return policies, OEMs intentionally charge COREs on parts that are likely to go into reproduction via aftermarket companies, so that its harder for aftermarket companies to get their hands on them to recondition/reverse engineer.
If an OEM intends to recondition/remanufacture the product they charge a core on, it shouldn't be an issue, but where they charge cores just to keep their old parts out of circulation, is part of the problem with right to repair succeeding. If it was easier for reproduction companies to get their hands on them then they'd be more likely to make the parts and continue making them after the OEM obsoletes them.

Working at a dealer I have first hand experience with OEMs trying to keep parts out of aftermarket's hands, with Ford or FCA (Fiat Chrylser Automotive - or Mopar for the old timers) if we warranty a part for a new vehicle under factory warranty, we hold the part for 6 months and if the OEM decides they don't need the part back for inspection, they have the dealer destroy it, I have smashed mostly intact windshields, I've drilled holes in headlamp housings, and I've intentionally ruined fuseboxes/modules just so that if/when they get thrown away, they're useless to an Aftermarket Remanufacturer

Access to info is another thing, but a bigger elephant in the room is something that all automotives OEMs have been doing for decades, and something that tech manufacturers have perfected, making it impossible to repair something without "special tools" there is no reason you shouldn't be able to take apart your phone, laptop, engine, or even Television, without buying/renting a special tool at an exorbitant rate, and again these special tools are fine if its just an easier way to do something, or if it is actually required - but in 99% of cases the OEM will literally just put a special screw that no one has a bit for except them, just so you pay them to fix it.

 

[TechNova]

They should probably go after OEMs' CORE return policies, OEMs intentionally charge COREs on parts that are likely to go into reproduction via aftermarket companies, so that its harder for aftermarket companies to get their hands on them to recondition/reverse engineer.
If an OEM intends to recondition/remanufacture the product they charge a core on, it shouldn't be an issue, but where they charge cores just to keep their old parts out of circulation, is part of the problem with right to repair succeeding. If it was easier for reproduction companies to get their hands on them then they'd be more likely to make the parts and continue making them after the OEM obsoletes them.

Working at a dealer I have first hand experience with OEMs trying to keep parts out of aftermarket's hands, with Ford or FCA (Fiat Chrylser Automotive - or Mopar for the old timers) if we warranty a part for a new vehicle under factory warranty, we hold the part for 6 months and if the OEM decides they don't need the part back for inspection, they have the dealer destroy it, I have smashed mostly intact windshields, I've drilled holes in headlamp housings, and I've intentionally ruined fuseboxes/modules just so that if/when they get thrown away, they're useless to an Aftermarket Remanufacturer

Access to info is another thing, but a bigger elephant in the room is something that all automotives OEMs have been doing for decades, and something that tech manufacturers have perfected, making it impossible to repair something without "special tools" there is no reason you shouldn't be able to take apart your phone, laptop, engine, or even Television, without buying/renting a special tool at an exorbitant rate, and again these special tools are fine if its just an easier way to do something, or if it is actually required - but in 99% of cases the OEM will literally just put a special screw that no one has a bit for except them, just so you pay them to fix it.

I would be happy to never use a reconditioned or aftermarket body part again. I like that the part is gone. Some techs are cutting them in half with a body saw if there is no core so they don't end up rebuilt. I would like to see the OEM core charge and recycle rather than landfill the parts.
I always thought the OEM engineer had to justify their job by making needless changes and they were in bed with tool companies to design fasteners requiring special tools. Even simple things like Philips and Pozi Drive or 5.5mm sockets.

 

[Erik the Awful]

That makes a lot of sense. I wonder when, and on what kind of equipment, the contractors started getting away with obsoleting necessary components of the things they would supply? Back in the seventies I used to repair and maintain Korean era electronics for the Nat'l Guard and when we needed some odd tube or something we didn't have in the supply room, I'd get sent up to my Dads electronic distributorship to pick it up at retail. I don't remember anything being made of unobtanium. That doesn't mean there weren't any components we couldn't get, just that I don't remember.

I have a friend who works in the Air Force's new reverse-engineering lab, where they come up with tech data for abandoned parts. A few years back, the guys at the B1 depot got down to the last of their plastic interior panels for the aircraft. There were no more in the Air Force inventory because the Air Force had bought twenty years worth, thinking the aircraft would be mothballed before they ran out. The company that made the interior panels was defunct. The item manager reached out to some companies to make new panels, and the companies responded that they'd need at least a million dollars to come up with plans and then they'd need to charge big money to produce the panels. We're talking millions of dollars for plastic panels for (at the time) 62 aircraft. Outrageous!

One of the depot guys walked into the reverse-engineering lab with a plastic panel duct-taped together. The engineers used a 3D scanner to get the shape and measurements, and then one of them spent some time cleaning up the 3D model. They fed the model into a 3D printer and printed out a plastic part. They sent it to the B1 depot, the technicians trial fitted it, and sent it back with adjustments.

The technicians asked, "Hey, these tend to break right here. Can you beef up that area?"

"Sure."

The part was an immediate hit, and they quickly followed it up by scanning and reproducing ALL the plastic interior panels for the B1. The total engineering cost? About $10,000. Now every time a B1 goes to depot, the lab prints up a full set of interior panels. The extended cost is in the hundreds of dollars. The savings over paying a contractor is about five figures per aircraft. That's your tax money being saved. The do this kind of stuff EVERY DAY.

 

[HotWheelsBurban]

I have a friend who works in the Air Force's new reverse-engineering lab, where they come up with tech data for abandoned parts. A few years back, the guys at the B1 depot got down to the last of their plastic interior panels for the aircraft. There were no more in the Air Force inventory because the Air Force had bought twenty years worth, thinking the aircraft would be mothballed before they ran out. The company that made the interior panels was defunct. The item manager reached out to some companies to make new panels, and the companies responded that they'd need at least a million dollars to come up with plans and then they'd need to charge big money to produce the panels. We're talking millions of dollars for plastic panels for (at the time) 62 aircraft. Outrageous!

One of the depot guys walked into the reverse-engineering lab with a plastic panel duct-taped together. The engineers used a 3D scanner to get the shape and measurements, and then one of them spent some time cleaning up the 3D model. They fed the model into a 3D printer and printed out a plastic part. They sent it to the B1 depot, the technicians trial fitted it, and sent it back with adjustments.

The technicians asked, "Hey, these tend to break right here. Can you beef up that area?"

"Sure."

The part was an immediate hit, and they quickly followed it up by scanning and reproducing ALL the plastic interior panels for the B1. The total engineering cost? About $10,000. Now every time a B1 goes to depot, the lab prints up a full set of interior panels. The extended cost is in the hundreds of dollars. The savings over paying a contractor is about five figures per aircraft. That's your tax money being saved. The do this kind of stuff EVERY DAY.

Good to know there's some parts of the government that are saving our tax $$$ instead of coming up with ways to waste them