They don't want us to work on our own cars

[Scooter18155]

Found this article what do you guys think? I don't find it surprising but how would they enforce it? I think it's just wrong and doubt it will ever come to light.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/20/a...s-car-repairs/

[BubbaSS]

If "automakers" have an issue with it, let them do our repairs instead of half assed dealership technicians. I would never take my car to a dealership for any repairs outside of cosmetic after all I've been through. Even cosmetic repairs, I'll do myself around here. I know I'll end up with a new dent or something lame like that.

[el ess A]

Guess I'll be an outlaw then. Fugg car control and any company that wants to keep owning your car after you paid them good money to own it. If they're not on the title, they don't have a say as far as I'm concerned.

[ChrisBlair]

I still own my 1970 Buick.

[Spec]

Can be enforced right along side pulling the tags off pillows and mattresses...

[Dmpsix]

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=405246

[ChrisBlair]

Originally Posted by Spec

Can be enforced right along side pulling the tags off pillows and mattresses...

SHHHHHHHH!

You'll get us all into terrible trouble!

[KR4545]

In a way I can see where there coming from, there talking about non validated software changes here. Your high speed lan carries some fairly important messages and they all have to share the same data. Think of one possible future scenario, some guy buys a "chip" that plugs into his OBDII port which allows him to raise the convertible top at 30mph while watching TV. This guy crashes and a few milliseconds later all the modules in the car "go quiet" and one message goes out on the network... "fuel pumps off", but his neat little "chip" steps on that message because it was never tested in a crash.

Or a scenario that could happen today, that Vitesse throttle controller that's become so popular, does anybody know what the fail state of it is? Will the throttle be at zero or something a little more random? Can it still effect the throttle after a failure and its turned off? Does it draw power for the display from one of the 5 volt reference signals and does it maintain double redundancy in the circuit? They only have an off road use only disclaimer on the website.

The concern is that the more advanced the technology becomes, the more open it is to untested mods which would not only render the car unsafe for the occupants, but more dangerous to other people on the road and if it cant be hardware protected then they want legal protection.

[CrazyRED]

Originally Posted by KR4545

In a way I can see where there coming from, there talking about non validated software changes here. Your high speed lan carries some fairly important messages and they all have to share the same data. Think of one possible future scenario, some guy buys a "chip" that plugs into his OBDII port which allows him to raise the convertible top at 30mph while watching TV. This guy crashes and a few milliseconds later all the modules in the car "go quiet" and one message goes out on the network... "fuel pumps off", but his neat little "chip" steps on that message because it was never tested in a crash.

Or a scenario that could happen today, that Vitesse throttle controller that's become so popular, does anybody know what the fail state of it is? Will the throttle be at zero or something a little more random? Can it still affect the throttle after a failure and its turned off? Does it draw power for the display from one of the 5 volt reference signals and does it maintain double redundancy in the circuit? They only have an off road use only disclaimer on the website.

The concern is that the more advanced the technology becomes, the more open it is to untested mods which would not only render the car unsafe for the occupants, but more dangerous to other people on the road and if it cant be hardware protected then they want legal protection.

I think we all probably understand that. That is not the complaint. The complaint is that it is my car to do with as I see fit, not theirs.

I don't think I've ever seen a legitimate claim of a person tuning their car, wrecking it, and successfully suing the manufacture for their negligence.

[KR4545]

Perhaps in this situation, for once (lol), there not thinking about avoiding court so much as avoiding crash fatalities. If Volvo is really serious about having zero deaths per year by 2020 then there going to have to put people in jail for deleting the passenger airbag in favor of a touch screen. Draconian? Machiavellian? hell yes its all kinds of "ians", but what other options do they have to achieve that goal?

[SSGUNNER]

LOl, found this thread on another forum I am part of.

Some BS.

[guerrillakilla13]

Is this something that's been ongoing, or something new? No matter the case this is absolutely ridiculous!

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/gm-for...160000229.html

[guerrillakilla13]

I hope this doesn't pass. If it does, i'm never buying new again.

[DGthe3]

Relax, this is about altering 1s and 0s, not preventing you from replacing your brake pads. Even though that article is clearly meant to drum up the ire of gearheads, they still said this:

The general premise is that unlike cars of the past, today’s vehicles are so advanced and use such a large amount of software and coding in their general makeup, altering said code could be dangerous and possibly even malicious.

...

the law would hypothetically protect automakers from pesky owners looking to alter any sort of technology in the vehicle that relates to the onboard computer

That makes it pretty clear what the intention and scope of this proposal is. And for the most part, I agree. About the only exception that I think should be made would be related to engine tuning. But mucking around in the control systems related to vehicle safety (which includes elements of the infotainment system) shouldn't be allowed imo.