One of the things that makes a car valuable is having a healthy aftermarket. It looks like, from this article anyway, Tesla is doing anything they can to make sure there is no aftermarket for their vehicles.
To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. And, when the manufacturer places a threatening call to the "owner" after he tries to get diagnostic information from his own car [1], well that's so far beyond crossing the line it's not even funny.
I think we're going to start seeing "jailbroken" Teslas soon after they start falling out of their warranty period. I'm surprised it hasn't happened already. You'd think that out of the thousands of people who have already bought one of these cars, there might be one out there with both the skills and desire to actually own what they paid for.
You'd think that out of the thousands of people who have already bought one of these cars, there might be one out there with both the skills and desire to actually own what they paid for
On the other hand, it could just be that those who want to really own their cars would not consider buying a Tesla anyway, and those who have the skills are too scared of the legal aspects. I think at the moment, electric cars are still somewhat niche and don't really appeal to the demographic who would be modding their cars. The aftermarket community for existing cars basically doesn't care about emissions --- one of the biggest attractions of an electric. As a bit of a car-geek myself, I'll admit that electrics are rather "boring" and for the same reason I'm not so interested in the newer super-computerised vehicles either; it's the noisy, smelly, smoky, aggressive, obnoxious-mechanical-monster nature of petrol/diesel engines that's the really "fun" part. Batteries, electronics, and motors just don't evoke quite the same feeling.
At least for me, it's not about souping the car up, it's about doing repairs and maintenance myself because a) it's cheaper and b) it's more convenient.
If I knew I was going to have to drive a car to the dealership anytime something went wrong, I would not buy that car. It's a big hassle (especially if the dealership is any distance away) and almost always outrageously expensive for anything outside of warranty. And if it's something that I can't do myself, I'd rather take it to a cheaper local mechanic I know and trust.
According to the article, Teslas only have service manuals available in Massachusetts (and there only on an extremely expensive subscription basis), no independent shops, and doesn't have a working OBD-II port. That sounds like a nightmare to me.
Granted, it's way out of my price range anyway. ;)
Same here. We recently bought a second hand Prius at an official dealer (because new is unreasonably expensive, we do care about emissions, and I think we got some warranty from the official dealer). Half a year later, the brakes need to be replaced. Turns out not to fall under the warranty, whereas we think it's unreasonable to sell a car with brakes that need to be replaced that soon. Repair at the official dealer is pretty expensive.
So my wife takes it to our old, trusty local mechanic, and their repairs are a lot cheaper. I forgot if they could also advise us on whether this was reasonable in the first place.
I think my mother also often ended up at an independent mechanic after getting disappointed by official dealers. (My dad always drove leased company cars so didn't have to worry about this stuff. I know nothing about cars (but I'm glad my wife does).)
I bought a used car around 2 years ago and went to the dealer because of a problem and was shocked when he informed me about (obviously after selling the car) what everything doesn't fall under the warranty. It's probably easier to say what falls under which is the motor and transmission. Otherwise they bring the argument with wear parts which I can understand for the brakes.
It's unlucky that they sold you a car where the brakes were soon to be replaced but they are really wear parts. However I was suprised to hear that also most of the electrical stuff doesn't fall under warranty. I'm from Germany so it might be different in other countries.
You don't have to be a car mod enthusiast to have a desire to use a business you trust and have a good relationship with to repair the property you own.
That wager might go pretty bad for you - there is a real lot of independent shops which aren't dealers and they have a lot of business. Moreover, these shops are often significantly cheaper than dealers with same or higher speed and reliability. I've seen dealer trying to change me several times more for the same job than independent shop - dealers seem have their set prices and enough business "by default" not to care about openly overcharging me. And I don't have particularly bad dealer - they are generally fine, except for being prone to quoting outrageous prices for some things.
Of course, there are also crooks out there, so challenge is finding good shop, but once you did, there's absolutely no reason to not do business with them except for things like recalls.
And, of course, for older out-of-warranty cars - which is the vehicle of choice for a real lot of "non-enthusiasts" who just don't have money to buy a shiny new car that loses 20% of value right after driving off the dealer parking lot - there's absolutely no reason to prefer dealers if you have a competent independent shop.
I wasn't arguing against independent shops, im well aware that they are capable of preforming excellent service. But the reputation of the shady mechanic exists for the same reason the reputation of the shady used car dealer exists. Cars are complex, and the average person doesn't have enough time to fully understand them. That is why YourMechanic was able to just raise 24 million in funding (I believe it was that much, I am on my phone right now) there is a huge market of people that don't want to do the research, or put up with the perceived risk of finding an independent mechanic.
I think you have no idea what you're talking about. There's an independent repair shop just down the street from me that has as much business as they can handle (they smartly located themselves right outside a major employer's campus, so it's a convenient location for all the people who work there). Everyone knows dealerships are expensive. With the average age of new cars being over 11 years now (according to the article), most people are not going to be taking their cars to dealerships when there are cheaper places to go.
And how many of those people would take their car there after they switch jobs? I'm betting very few. Also things like tires and oil changes are different than major repairs.
No, 'Grishnakh was right. You have no idea what you're talking about. If a particular repair is under warranty, then sure, one gets it fixed at the dealer. Otherwise, especially for a "major" repair, why pay 40% more for a mechanic: with decades less experience, who doesn't have an interest in the business, who won't speak to the customer, and who will be replaced by somebody else when the customer needs another repair next year?
This is a government installation. People don't switch jobs here very much.
Tires and oil changes are the two biggest service jobs on cars these days, since everything else is so reliable. But on a 10-year-old car, it's entirely possible to do more substantial repairs thanks to the OBD-II service tools that are available. You can get one of these scanners for $100 now (or less for a crappier one), look up any codes thrown by the ECU, which will tell you exactly which sensor has gone bad. As long as the manufacturer isn't intentionally making it so you need a dealership tool to do stuff, these cars can be quite a bit easier to work on that older ones since they tell you what's wrong.
I'm well aware of that, I've personally changed my own oil, replaced the starter on an ex's car, replaced my mass airflow sensor, and have my own OBD-II scanner (crappy one).
I'm not sure why this thread turned into multiple attempts to convince me that independent mechanics are a good value that can do the same or better work than a dealer. I never claimed they couldn't, I stated that I don't think most people have a trusted mechanic that isn't the dealer. So far I've gotten a lot of down votes, anecdotes, but no data. I very well could be wrong, I was stating my opinion based on what I've seen and experienced.
Look at YourMechanic, it's filling a need in the market to link independent mechanics to car owners. It is using a verified user trust model to rate them. If the vast majority of people had trusted mechanics they wouldn't be gaining much traction in the market.
>I'm not sure why this thread turned into multiple attempts to convince me that independent mechanics are a good value that can do the same or better work than a dealer. I never claimed they couldn't
Yeah, I'm not sure how that happened.
>I very well could be wrong, I was stating my opinion based on what I've seen and experienced.
I'm not sure there's any easy way of proving it one way or the other really. Personally, I still see plenty of independent mechanic businesses; I live down the street from two of them now, at a prior residence a year ago in a totally different state, I lived down the street from another one that was constantly busy and had people working there at very late hours to get all the work done. Then why I go to dealerships (I was shopping for a car a while back) I find them all closed all day Sunday, and closed early on other days. If your service department were busy, you wouldn't be closed on the weekends.
So again, I don't think we can prove anything either way here, and I'm not so sure about "the vast majority of people having trusted mechanics", but I really don't think that the vast majority of car owners use dealerships for all their service. I think that people use them when their car is brand-new (because it's covered by warranty), and I think owners of not-too-old luxury brands (BWM, etc.) probably use dealerships more often, however I think people who own cars that are 10+ years old probably rarely use dealerships, if ever. People who have less money to spend on cars, and who buy used cars (or keep cars a long time) I believe are naturally going to look for better deals for car service, and that's going to rule out stealerships very quickly.
As for YourMechanic, I hadn't heard of that, but it sounds like a great idea. But if it's successful, I think that shows that a lot of people want a trusted (non-dealership) mechanic, even if they don't currently have one. Also, don't forget, a lot of people these days are more mobile, and move around from time to time, so they'll need a new mechanic when they move.
I found a datasource, it's dated (2011) it shows people trust their "shop" which could be a dealer, chain, or independent. With a 37% split going to independent and 30% to dealerships. I think you are right that we probably wont find any data on if people have a trusted mechanic since this also shows that there is a lot of price shopping going on.
But with all that said, in the broader conversation I'd say I was wrong. Even if you don't have a trusted independent mechanic more people prefer that option, even if they use a different one every time, over the dealership.
My whole family brings ur cars to a single shop. We trust them and the prices are good. My wife and I go there even for oil changes, even after we moved two towns over. They are also the highest-rated shop in the region, so we're not the only ones who trust them.
Between the touch screen control screaming "Look! Cool! Future! Oh yeah we had to sacrifice tactile feedback and usability when driving while ignoring fifty years of safety research but Cool!", trying to be a fast car but only really good for 0-60 in a straight line (and literally incapable of doing five laps at Laguna Seca without overheating and going into limp home mode), no OBD-2 port as another poster pointed out meaning you can't even fire up Torque to check an error code before having to go to the garage, bad resale value as this article points out, literally having your head touch the car roof if you're over five foot eight and sitting in the back, etc.: can you please give us a rational reason except zero tailpipe emissions for buying a Model S over, say, a Mercedes S-class or a BMW 7-series?
I completely get that there are irrational reasons for buying things, not least of which is "OMG teh shiny future!!1!", but these aren't really suitable for debate here because they're so hugely subjective.
Edit: having read through entire TFA: Tesla will even refuse to sell you parts, and call you talking about industrial espionage, if you try and tinker with their cars. Seriously, WTF?
>can you please give us a rational reason except zero tailpipe emissions for buying a Model S over, say, a Mercedes S-class or a BMW 7-series?
Well, here in Australia, MB and BMW are ripping their customers off with prices nearly TRIPLE the US price. Tesla has priced their Model S similarly to US. So yet another reason, to add to the excellent list already posted, is the better pricing.
On top of that, I have no idea why you think Teslas lack tactile feedback (or at least are worse than BMW 7s), are only good in straight line speed, or have headspace problems in the back if you are 5'8".
Nonsense. You need tactile feedback while driving. You will not be using the center console while driving. You will not even be looking at it. All of the stuff you need while driving is tactile.
> trying to be a fast car but only really good for 0-60 in a straight line
LOL. I sense hurt feelings.
> no OBD-2 port as another poster pointed out
Why would it need an OBD-2 port when it has an API?
Article is wrong. The prices for used vehicles are quite good. Confirm yourself.
> literally having your head touch the car roof if you're over five foot eight and sitting in the back
Get a Model X if Model S is too small for you.
> can you please give us a rational reason except zero tailpipe emissions for buying a Model S over, say, a Mercedes S-class or a BMW 7-series?
I'm not a huge fan on the S, prefer the X.
1. Twice the storage of an ICE vehicle. No engine block = FRUNK.
2. Safety. It is the safest vehicle on the road. Period. Because there is no engine block slamming in your face during a front-end collision.
3. I never have to go to a dirty gas station again. I fill up at home.
4. No oil changes. No transmission failures. Fewer moving parts = less maintenance needed.
5. American designed, American built, no $$$ going to questionable oil interests.
6. That center console? Fucking awesome. Enjoy your 8 inch joke.
7. Over-The-Air software updates that actually add useful features. No, I don't need to go to the service center to update my software. LOL!
8. It drives itself? Autopilot! Nice!
9. It parks itself. Even parallel parking. Will even open the garage, drive itself in, and then close the garage after itself.
10. Supercharger network. Free juice all over the country and beyond. Fills up in 20-30 min.
I can keep going, but I think you get the gist.
> Tesla will even refuse to sell you parts
Ok. Ever hear of eBay?
> call you talking about industrial espionage, if you try and tinker with their cars
Don't fuck with cars that drive themselves. Please.
> Seriously, WTF?
I wouldn't mind having more control over software updates and generally having more control over the vehicle, but I understand why they made the decisions they did. If you don't, it's because you were never driven in an autonomous vehicle.
> > trying to be a fast car but only really good for 0-60 in a straight line
> LOL. I sense hurt feelings.
A Model S weighs something like 4700lbs, depending on battery? I suppose it depends on one's definition of "fast car", but I personally consider more than straight line performance, and lighter cars have a distinct advantage. I agree with Lotus's Colin Chapman: "performance through low weight".
Because OBD-2 is a standard with an entire ecosystem built around it.
> 2. Safety. It is the safest vehicle on the road. Period. Because there is no engine block slamming in your face during a front-end collision.
That is an advantage (also, it's on the heavy side and mass helps a lot) and it certainly tests well in crashes. IIHS statistics for injury and medical payments don't however support your statement that it is the "safest vehicle on the road". Porsche's 911 and Boxster have lower Personal Injury Claim frequencies (and the Boxster doesn't even have a roof!).
> 4. No oil changes. No transmission failures. Fewer moving parts = less maintenance needed.
There might be less maintenance needed on some of the drivetrain leading to a more convenient service interval, but there still is maintenance (tires, brakes, brake fluid, HVAC, battery, suspension, steering, etc.) to be done, and the longer service interval might make it more likely for problems to increase in severity before they're noticed. It's kind of a moot point, modern cars have overall excellent reliability on the drivetrain; luxury cars tend to have problems with the electrical system and associated accessories, especially after the lease period is up, and Tesla is no different.
> 5. American designed, American built, no $$$ going to questionable oil interests.
Overall design and final assembly, perhaps, but are you saying that the subsystem vendors are American too, to some degree larger than other manufacturers?
> 10. Supercharger network. Free juice all over the country and beyond. Fills up in 20-30 min.
It's not free, it's incorporated into the cost of the purchase.
Hah, yeah, it's hard to draw deep inferences from that data. They (IIHS) do have limited death statistics broken down by model, and Porsche is never near the upper end. The data is actually pretty interesting to pour over: you see some obvious trends (do not drive a small car) and some weird outliers (Nissan Titan has an usually high death rate for a pickup).
> A Model S weighs something like 4700lbs, depending on battery? I suppose it depends on one's definition of "fast car"
What? Fast means fast. The Model S goes fast. It has better performance than cars it competes with, like BMW 5/7 series, etc.
Is it the fastest car? No. And why would it need to be? It's a luxury sedan, not a race car.
> Because OBD-2 is a standard with an entire ecosystem built around it.
It's an absolutely horrible standard and that entire ecosystem should die. Every car should have an open API that is easily accessible using any computer, rather than specialized equipment.
> IIHS statistics for injury and medical payments don't however support your statement that it is the "safest vehicle on the road".
Has anyone actually ever died in a Tesla? I believe one person did.
That was a couple of months ago. He was hit by a dump truck.
> luxury cars tend to have problems with the electrical system and associated accessories, especially after the lease period is up, and Tesla is no different.
I'll give you that one.
> but are you saying that the subsystem vendors are American too, to some degree larger than other manufacturers?
Yes. Because Elon Musk is pulling a Henry Ford. They're more vertically integrated than any other car company. I'm not sure that's a good thing ... but it does support my point.
> It's not free, it's incorporated into the cost of the purchase.
Well, yeah. Someone has to pay for it to get built and to maintain it. It's free in the sense that I don't have to explicitly pay for it. It's just included and I can use it as much as I want.
The Model S and Model X are excellent cars. Not perfect, but excellent. There's a reason they're eating up the entire luxury market.
> Every car should have an open API that is easily accessible using any computer, rather than specialized equipment.
This is the excellent statement but coupled with the threat of being kicked off the warranty (which means no repairs whatsoever since no independent shops) and being assaulted by lawyers with charges of industrial espionage if you veer a little to the left or to the right does not exactly make it a model citizen. Hacking culture is all about doing things manufacturer did not think of. Yes, sometimes that can lead to screw-ups, including ones worthy of voiding the warranty, but so far it seems like Tesla is in full "besieged castle" mode, and even docs you mention are unofficial - which means a) they could change anytime and b) you could be charged with espionage for using it anyway.
There are a few guys hacking away at Tesla cars. I would definitely describe the relationship between them and Tesla as tense and there was even some drama recently over the weekend. It's definitely not where I would like things to be, but out of all the car companies, I think Tesla is the most open to this sort of thing.
> What? Fast means fast. The Model S goes fast. It has better performance than cars it competes with, like BMW 5/7 series, etc.
It goes fast in a straight line, perhaps better than it's competitors. It's also portly compared to some of it's competitors, and not as nimble. Fast in a straight line is boring.
> It's an absolutely horrible standard and that entire ecosystem should die. Every car should have an open API that is easily accessible using any computer, rather than specialized equipment.
OBD-2 certainly has its warts, but it's an interoperable industry standard. I have a hard time believing that an OBD-3 or a legacy-free de novo interoperable standard would be any less wart-free. Some warts come from interoperability compromises, some from the industrial constraints, some from the bureaucracy. I'll take an interoperable standard over any proprietary API, no matter how nice that API might be.
> Has anyone actually ever died in a Tesla? I believe one person did.
> Yes. Because Elon Musk is pulling a Henry Ford. They're more vertically integrated than any other car company. I'm not sure that's a good thing ... but it does support my point.
I don't see any basis for your claim that Tesla is more vertically integrated than any other car company, and I don't buy it. A DDG search pulled up this short list of Tesla subsystem vendors, and there are plenty that are obviously not 'Murican: http://moneymorning.com/2014/05/08/tesla-suppliers-list-thes...
> Well, yeah. Someone has to pay for it to get built and to maintain it. It's free in the sense that I don't have to explicitly pay for it. It's just included and I can use it as much as I want.
A DDG search showed that some earlier Model S had a $2000 option to gain access to the Supercharger network, so that would seem to be a good estimate for the cost. The Monroney above shows it as "included", which I would say counts as explicit even though the price isn't transparent.
> The Model S and Model X are excellent cars. Not perfect, but excellent. There's a reason they're eating up the entire luxury market.
They certainly have a dedicated fanbase that should be the envy of any car company, and I understand why they are popular as peppy urban people movers. I personally find them soulless, but Tesla drivers would probably find the cars I enjoy to be vulgar and uncomfortable :)
As to the "eating up the entire market" article, my criticism there is that the other luxury marques have a more diverse product line with considerable overlap. Saying that the Model S is the single best selling car model in that grouping isn't informative if the cohort who would consider a Model S are buying a mixture of BMW models.
> Nonsense. You need tactile feedback while driving. You will not be using the center console while driving. You will not even be looking at it. All of the stuff you need while driving is tactile.
Right, because nobody has ever adjusted the air conditioning or radio while driving...
And a NLP interface there? Or I'd have to remember which magic incantation makes it colder and pronounce it with the right accent (woe is me if I'm not native English speaker)? Voice interfaces suck for these things, if all you need is to do a small movement by you hand, and instead you have to get into a conversation with a dumb robot.
> I don't see what that has to do with America, except for 'Murica f'yeah
I enjoy buying locally built products when possible, especially when those products are superior to anything else available.
> ROFL
Get off the floor and tell me what's so funny.
> Don't many cars have that to the limited degree already allowed by law?
No. Model S and Model X are the only cars available that drive themselves. Some other cars have cruise control that will stay within the lane, but it won't change lanes, break, or accelerate based on traffic conditions.
Search "hack car freeway wifi" in the search engine of your choice. Granted, not a Tesla, but is that only a matter of time and willpower or actually supporting your argument?
> Granted, not a Tesla, but is that only a matter of time and willpower or actually supporting your argument?
Supporting my argument. Tesla sits on an encrypted VPN, good luck with that. Maybe if you break into Tesla HQ?
You're better off going after the bluetooth (the key fobs/car are bluetooth) or NFC (the key fobs/car have NFC in case batteries die in fobs). There's also an ethernet port of sorts in the vehicle, although it has been disconnected with latest firmware.
Anyway, when it comes to Tesla, you'll have better chances of hacking into it with physical access. You are definitely not getting access to my car with "wifi".
> Tesla sits on an encrypted VPN, good luck with that
Well, if you say so. Still, what about the locally built products? Oil isn't the only import needed for a traditional car.
The ethernet port, bluetooth/NFC key fobs all the chips, are made in china no doubt, maybe even many engine parts. Recources are exploited from mines outside America under bad conditions. The energy to load the battery is generated partially from fracked fossil fuel. America supports Saudis for a bit more than just oil and they sure don't care what the tax money was generated from. * In 2014, about 27% of the petroleum consumed by the United States was imported from foreign countries.* [1]. Half the American designers are probably immigrated from India and China.
Our visions of the great US of A diverge a little.
Why would any web site support HTTP when you can use their proprietary protocol, only unofficially documented by some random dude by reverse engineering.
I guess you never had to adjust the temperature while driving? The interface for doing that in the Tesla is horrible, those things should have never been put on a touchscreen.
If you like the way a high-end electric car drives, there's little comparison between a Model S and the BMW/Benz.
And Tesla has completely changed the paradigm of car design and manufacturing. The fact that it can add self-driving to its cars with an over-the-air software update is amazing.
People might buy for the zero emissions but they stay for the ride.
I come from a country where there is no emissions-related tax whatsoever. You could be driving a beast which emits 500g of C02/km travelled and you would pay the same tax as someone who drives a prius. The appeal of electric cars is their absolutely insane acceleration, at least in Teslas case. If I was to buy one, that would be the only reason why.
> To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer.
How many cars sold in 2016 can be activated without the manufacturer's permission? If you break your engine control module, who, if not the original manufacturer, can provide you a new one that works for your car?
> How many cars sold in 2016 can be activated without the manufacturer's permission?
What do you mean with manufacturer's permission? The parts are sold independently of the vehicle as far as I'm aware. You can buy loads of ECUs for modern cars on the internet and there is no consequence of installing it.
Armin is right; further more, I suspect a lot of technology like MegaSquirt will continue to improve, and we'll have (thank god) aftermarket ECMs to put into these cars to give the user more control over the vehicle.
We can only hope that a similar movement to Linux on PCs builds up steam up in the automotive space, as many of us
like being able to understand, adapt, and improve on our
vehicles.
If you're going to go down that route (no pun intended), why not eventually ban everything but officially certified driverless cars from public roads? I suppose it gets into a bit of a philosophical question at some point --- some people just want to get from A to B as quickly as possible (with whatever currently technology allows), while others actually enjoy the driving experience and having control over their vehicle. Some might want the former at times, and the latter at some other times. The former is certainly going to be much safer than the latter, but you give up freedom. Personally, I prefer the latter even if it means I could get killed at any moment because the risk is all part of the experience; not only of driving but really just life itself.
> If you're going to go down that route (no pun intended), why not eventually ban everything but officially certified driverless cars from public roads?
I agree. That's the way its going to go. People kill 40K/people a year in the US simply driving, and injure/maim hundreds of thousands. There's no way self-driving cars aren't better than that.
Want to build your vroom vroom car? Own the entire stack down to the atoms? You'll get to drive it at track day at a track, not on a public road.
> Personally, I prefer the latter even if it means I could get killed at any moment because the risk is all part of the experience; not only of driving but really just life itself.
Agree, but that sentiment will die a slow death over the next few decades, just as those fond of the horse and buggy are no longer with us.
There likely exists a larger stockpile of fairly well-engineered manually driven cars than there were buggies during the advent of the automobile. This existing stock will likely buffer the robotic revolution of our roads somewhat. Also, I think the convenience delta from self-driven car to "driverless" car is smaller than that from keeping living horses to regular maintenance of an automobile.
> Also, I think the convenience delta from self-driven car to "driverless" car is smaller than that from keeping living horses to regular maintenance of an automobile.
The number of teenagers with driver's licenses is the lowest in history. Compound that with the 65+ cohort aging quickly, and older drivers being dangerous drivers (lower reaction time).
It's not a convenience delta. Its an experience and safety delta. We are talking tens of billions (if not more) of dollars in savings from taking the human out of the loop.
From your first link: "Getting a driver's license after turning 16 years old has become a lengthier process in recent years, as regulators instituted more safety hurdles. That has also led to a sharp decline in teenagers who are driving."
That said, this is going sideways because I didn't make a complete and clear post originally. Never mind.
> People kill 40K/people a year in the US simply driving, and injure/maim hundreds of thousands.
Not true. People kill 40K people by crashing their cars into them, not by "simply driving". Make crashing your car into people illegal and punish that. No reason to ban driving.
> Make crashing your car into people illegal and punish that. No reason to ban driving.
Except that people don't crash their cars deliberately, it's unintentional and unavoidable.
There's no point making it illegal to do something that only happens accidentally. People will still do it accidentally.
The only thing you can do is mandate changes to the system which remove the possibility that those mistakes will be made. Driverless cars are one possible change that we could make.
You appear to be advocating troublesome technological solution to a social problem (people going "screw emmisions, I want powerrrr!") which isn't even that widespread.
I don't believe I am. Verified software on your vehicle is no different than other safety features required by law. Break the law, you lose your right to drive, or you go to jail (depending on the severity of the violation).
I am _not_ arguing you shouldn't be allowed to tinker with your vehicle. You're just not entitled to the source code that runs it (unless you buy a car from a manufacturer that agrees to that as part of the sale agreement), nor are you allowed to make modifications and take it out on a public road if you could cause harm to others.
I've never bought a 2016 model car (maybe something changed this year?) so I have never heard about the concept of having to ask a manufacturer to "activate" your car before reading this article.
I buy used cars and repair them myself. I wonder if this disqualifies me from ever owning an electric car? While more recent cars have begun down the troubling path of making less and less user-serviceable, most cars still have either official service manuals or 3rd party manuals (based on tear-downs), and a healthy after-market parts market.
If you a replacing an ECU on a car with a new one, you have to flash it with the right firmware for the vin number of the car. At least that's the case with Chrysler. My friend works at a Chrysler dealership as a tech, and he says that basically anything you now put in on the car, be it something complex, like the ECU, or something simple, like the windshield washer control module, it has to be programmed. If you don't program it, it doesn't work. On BMW M3 you even need a computer to "program" a new battery.
> On BMW M3 you even need a computer to "program" a new battery.
You're "calibrating" the battery. This has been around on BMWs for a long time (my 2008 535xi had this). If you replace the battery yourself and obviously can't program it in, the car will bitch endlessly, but it'll still work.
I bought a new (to me) motorcycle last week. It's a 2008 and it has loads of electronics (compared to my old bike). One of them is an immobiliser that deactivates when it detects a transponder inside the key.
The motorcycle comes with three keys: a red one and two black ones. The black ones will turn on the motorcycle but can't be copied. The red one can be copied and is intended as backup in case you lose the black ones. If you lose three the only way to turn the motorcycle on is to get a new ECU from the manufacturer.
That sounds terrible. The absence of crap like that is one of the things I love about riding a motorcycle. Does the manufacturer of that motorcycle not realize that they are sacrificing one of their competitive advantages by importing that kind of complexity?
I think maybe I'm not going to sell my 1995 Nighthawk after all! Sounds like it might make more sense to just keep it running, simple and straightforward, without having to worry about all this fragile automation.
I think it's possible to buy an ECU from a parts dealer. You wouldn't have to necessary go directly through the manufacturer. You might also be able to get one from a junkyard.
Yes but there are also 3rd party tools available to code ECUs, keys etc. Like the VAG-COM for VW and Audi cars. I don't need to ask vw's permission to add a new key to my car.
But think about it from another perspective: someone purchases Tesla car, decided to service it himself without sufficient knowledge, then later he resells his car to another individual, the person who buys his car enables the autopilot mode on a car and because of the poor service quality/mistake the original owner did to a car the autopilot goes crazy and steers your car into a brick wall, everyone will blame Tesla for that, but it's the original owner in fault, because he performed a service for himself and did it badly.
But you can say that about any kind of car, not just Teslas. You could have a guy fiddle with critical system X of a car (maybe suspension or steering) that if done incorrectly could endanger the lives of several people. How do you ensure that a used car is safe to drive? This is a solved problem: you bring the car to a professional mechanic and have him inspect the car, or inspect it yourself if you have the right knowledge. For a Tesla it would be no different; for the case of autopilot a mechanic might inspect all of the sensors (I'm sure Tesla has a utility program for doing this) and then flash the stock firmware onto the car.
> you bring the car to a professional mechanic and have him inspect the car, or inspect it yourself if you have the right knowledge
Or, a second hand Tesla might have a much higher market value if it has a recent inspection certificate from Tesla. Tesla don't have to enforce this on this basis because the market will.
I don't think other people would blame Tesla. People don't blame the manufacturer when someone services a car and doesn't put on the breaks correctly and causes an accident.
Remember how someone claimed their Toyota's brakes refused cooperating, and even though Toyota managed to prove it was the user-installed floor mat issue their sales fell through the floor and Toyota had to rekindle them with discounts, 0% financing and service guarantees?
People don't do deep research and follow-ups on automotive incidents. Best-case scenario is they have someone do it for them, like Consumer Reports. Typical-case is they see a car with a logo on TV or on top of a salvage truck and they make a mental note to avoid that manufacturer.
If it was done by an unofficial maintenance person, then no, not unless it's proven that it was Tesla's fault instead of the maintenance person.
Not sure how it works with official maintenance garages though. I'm sure there's a liability waiver signed somewhere, else there'd be a lot of big lawsuits about improper repairs by official maintainers. Unless there is no such thing as improper repairs. IDK
I don't think Tesla will be treated any differently than any of the other automobile companies when it concerns liability.
I imagine Tesla's ahead of the liability game right now. Meaning, I imagine they know exactly where, and when someone accesses their vechicles computers? I'm already calling them their computers? We are buying the cars? We own the vechicle? Right? I'll accept full liability after the warranty expires? Like always?
I don't like this trend towards, "Only the factory can work on the device." It's not fair. It's seems like it violates antitrust laws.
It's not just Tesla who doesn't want you to touch their products. It's a lot of companies. It's that Rolex, Patek, Audermars Piguet, any fancy watch you happen to have on your wrist.
I included luxury watches because people don't realize when the warranty runs out on that Rolex; good luck finding an independent Watch Repairer to fix it with Rolex parts.
See Rolex will only sell to authorized dealers. Guys like me, who refuse to pay some sham organization thousands of dollars to be become wotep certified, can't buy watch parts. Rolex wants you to send the watch to the factory, at factory prices. That boutique you bought it from, just sends the watch back, and adds charges to the final factory repair price. Which equals a lot of money for a simple service.
So, in all reality, if you can't bring/authorize repair of an item to whomever you want, including the owner; you are leasing said item? What am I missing?
I forget the name of the Act, but in the U.S. you are allowed to make minor modifications to automobiles, without affecting warranty. For example, you can change the exhaust, and car companies can't disavow you. I sound like The Donald?
I don't think Tesla is even under this Act, which makes there secrecy of product more troublesome.
If companies require us to bring product only back to the factory for repair, guys like me will never buy their product.
>I don't like this trend towards, "Only the factory can work on the device." It's not fair. It's seems like it violates antitrust laws.
No, it doesn't. That's ridiculous. Antitrust laws are about monopolies, and Tesla does not have anything resembling a monopoly. They're a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall auto fleet (even for new cars), they're a very small manufacturer compared to the giants like GM, Ford, and Toyota, and even if you restrict yourself to electric cars they're not the only choice (Leaf, BMW i3, etc.).
What it does seem to violate, however, is the spirit Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975. In fact, the Massachusetts law which the article mentions was made precisely because of automakers making it nearly impossible for independent mechanics to service cars; this wasn't an issue in 1975 since cars didn't have computers back then, but now they all do.
>I forget the name of the Act, but in the U.S. you are allowed to make minor modifications to automobiles, without affecting warranty. For example, you can change the exhaust, and car companies can't disavow you.
Yep, that's the Magnusson-Moss act. They can only refuse to honor the warranty for cases where they can show the problem was directly caused by the aftermarket part or service. But the end-run around it is not providing service information and not allowing access to computerized tools needed to work on the vehicle. So if, for instance, as discussed in the article, GM makes it so that replacing the master cylinder requires the $10k service tool, they can claim they're not in violation of the act because you can buy the master cylinder (or even an aftermarket one), and the fact that you can't get the $10k computer isn't their problem because that's how the car is designed.
>If companies require us to bring product only back to the factory for repair, guys like me will never buy their product.
The problem here is: what do you do when ALL automakers do this? That's why we need laws preventing this behavior.
This is why you do a pre-purchase inspection and demand a record of services performed on any car you're interested in buying. Most private party used car sales are AS IS. The minute the new owner drives away it's his problem. You should know the condition of your car, and if you're driving one that's unsafe, that's on you.
I'm sure Tesla is working hard to try and prevent that; few electronics manufacturers like people messing with their code. Different interests though; with Apple and co it's to prevent free / pirated apps (and them missing out on app store income), and maybe to a lesser degree prevent their platform from looking bad by bad apps. With Tesla it'd be more of a liability issue, I'm sure.
> I think we're going to start seeing "jailbroken" Teslas soon after they start falling out of their warranty period.
This seems particularly likely for the Model 3, given the likely "everyday supernerd" demographic, and simple missing features like working ODB-II interfaces [1].
That's no reason not to pass information about speed and distance travelled over the port. I capture that information as I drive. And Tesla could easily include electric car specific information that enthusiasts would enjoy capturing.
The most WTF part of that article to me was "if hackers are able to find a way to unlock the 40kwh versions to hold a 60kwh charge (which are physically identical batteries limited by software)" ...Seriously?
Ah, another youngster who didn't hear the one about the IBM mainframe upgrades done by moving a jumper.
P.S. it's kind of funny that people who make a living from the sale of goods with zero marginal production cost (i.e. additional copies of a program) get weirded out by "pay-by-value" from hardware manufacturers ...
There is a diesel generator company that makes semi-truck sized mobile generators for backup purposes/remote locations. The difference between the cheap vs expensive variants is around $250,000. They only difference is the cheap one has software to limit the output. Now if you could hack that you could save yourself quarter of a mil.
My fear is high-tech components in a car. We may come to a point where we can't replace most of the gears simply because of technology unavailable.
But that being said, a lot of Tesla customers are wealthy and they are probably happy to either get a new one, or send back to the factory/certified repair shop.
On the contrary: Cars are replaceable because they are high-tech. Ford and GM work extremely hard and pay big money for industrial engineers to ensure that every part of their cars are replaceable, and to set up the supply chains to create a thriving after-market environment.
The fact is that Tesla simply isn't prioritizing user replaceable car parts yet. That's fine, as Tesla has a grossly different business model than Detroit.
Replaceable parts is the cornerstone of long-term reliability of machines. And it takes a lot of technology, design, and engineering to make that happen. Electric cars, as a newer technology, don't really know what parts fail in the long term, or what should be or shouldn't be replaceable yet.
In any case, I can imagine a set of gears that doesn't have any supply chain, and may be hard to replace. Just because a transmission is made of mechanical parts doesn't mean its actually practically replaceable: you need suppliers who are building the parts as well as mechanics (or books / guides) that share the knowledge of replacing those parts.
Similarly, I imagine that future electric cars will figure out what should be replaceable. Tesla clearly hasn't figured it out yet however.
> A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer.
Yes, but on the other hand it is best to view a car as a service, because this makes sure that the interests of the manufacturer (or service provider) are aligned with those of the user: no more "planned obsolescence"; and the manufacturer will plan ahead for recycling of materials because this is in their best interest (unlike when you buy a product, where the manufacturer couldn't care less).
This is becoming a new trend, and it is a good thing. The user pays for a service, and the provider has to provide the service for the optimal cost, without hidden costs such as for replacement, repair, etc.
1. If I wanted DaaS (Driving As A Service) I'd hire a taxi or Uber. I own my car(s) because I don't want to be dependent upon some service provider if I need to get somewhere.
2. When I buy something, I am an _owner_ not a user.
3. Unnecessary dependence on phoning home to the mothership is a huge mis-alignment between the interests of customers and manufacturers. This is why the "Internet of Things" has so far been a disaster (and will continue to be a disaster). Really, it should never be acceptable for your thermostat or your smoke detectors or your refrigerator, or yes--your car, to require constant permission from the manufacturer in order to work.
EDIT:
3a. To me, there are acceptable and unacceptable reasons for such devices to request connections back to home base, but it should always be optional (i.e. the device should work as advertised without connectivity):
- To ask for permission to continue functioning: Unacceptable
- To enable remote-controllability of the device by the manufacturer: Unacceptable
- To harvest customer personal information to be sold or used for marketing purposes: Unacceptable
- To report behavioral or analytics data for the purpose of improving the product: Marginally acceptable
- To enable remote-accessibility or controllability of the device by its owner: Acceptable
- To integrate with valuable 1st or 3rd party services which cannot be provided entirely from the device: Acceptable
All the points you named can be solved by contracts and litigation (perhaps, yes we might need stronger consumer protection). What can't be solved (from what we've seen so far) is manufacturers polluting the environment to no end except by making their products into services.
> 2. When I buy something, I am an _owner_ not a user.
Yes, please get over it. If you don't own a car, your car will not take up useless spacetime. Imagine what cities could look like without parking spots!
They can also be partially solved by refusing to do business with companies that sell products with customer-hostile terms. The only problem would be the day every car manufacturer on Earth decides to behave in this way. Fortunately, while there are a significant number of people like me around, there will always be a market for "things you can buy use without asking permission from the manufacturer".
I find the car I own to very usefully occupy spacetime. If I didn't I wouldn't have bought it. And I am glad that I don't have to phone home to Toyota in order to start it each morning or to repair it. Quite frankly, I don't care what a city would look like without parking spots.
Have we learned nothing from Comcast? Has everyone forgotten Hush-A-Phone?
The user pays for a service, and the provider then tries as hard as possible to lock them in so the cost can be maximised. The interests are fundamentally at odds in that the user has money and the provider has shareholders who are trying to pry it from the user's hands.
The manufacturer will also not plan to recycle the thing unless they're in the EU where they're legally obliged to do so. Does your mobile contract include handset recycling?
So, I own a Toyota. I don't need permission from the manufacturer to fix anything, or change anything. It's much cheaper than a tesla, but it will likely last longer. I have no restrictions on how I drive it other than traffic laws. It's not as fast in a straight line, but it's much better on a track and significantly lighter. Everything you describe is a huge downgrade in my personal freedoms, with no clear benefits.
You are so much more optimistic about the motivations of these "providers" than I that I am struggling to find any common ground where we could have a discussion. All I see are new opportunities for exploitation and control driven by rent-seeking behavior.
If the market is open and competitive then your concerns should be addressed by other vendors. There is no need, nor is it possible, for every product to be appropriate for every consumer. The 'motivation' for these providers is to achieve a return on investment, they can only do that by creating a value proposition that the market approves, which is not the same things as a value proposition that everyone approves.
It isn't entirely clear to me if 'rent-seeking' is the appropriate description here though. You aren't being forced into to this type of arrangement and are free to purchase from other vendors. I'd like to see a bit more regulatory capture, government mandates, and so on before it makes sense to me to start talking about 'rent-seeking'.
For example, the byzentine dealership laws in many states and the lobbying by dealers to maintain the status quo via legislation seems more like rent-seeking to me.
Examples? What causes the increased complexity? Market demand? Government regulation? What prevents competitors from appearing or for exiting vendors to offer different products at different levels of 'complexity'?
Sure, but lock-in is a means of reducing market competition and thereby enabling rent extraction. Lock-in practices are an example of rent-seeking behavior.
>I think we're going to start seeing "jailbroken" Teslas soon after they start falling out of their warranty period. I'm surprised it hasn't happened already. You'd think that out of the thousands of people who have already bought one of these cars, there might be one out there with both the skills and desire to actually own what they paid for.
You seem to forget how much these cars cost. Anyone who can afford $75k-100k for a car is not that likely to want to spend a lot of their time hacking their car.
By contrast, the car I now have, a lowly Mazda3 (costing between about $17k-30k; a nice model can easily be had for about $20k or so) has a touchscreen infotainment system running Linux, and a bunch of people have been busy making hacks for this system, even including getting Android Auto running on it! But when you can get a car like this for less than $20k, that means you have a bunch of young owners, probably in college, who have the skills and spare time to mess with that stuff and spend time on forums talking about it. There aren't likely to be many Tesla owners in college; they're likely to be middle-aged at the youngest, and have a McMansion and family to take care of; that's not someone who has a lot of free time to hack on car computers.
this is incorrect. Teslas have very little depreciation. Trying to buy a preowned or used is still very pricey. At least at this time. I think people that buy 100k car are less inclined to care about the after market value. The people probably also don't care to service the car themselves. Even at 40k I think this probably still holds true.
This is mostly due to pent up demand from very wealthy customers who are not price sensitive. When Tesla (or competition) can satisfy new car demand and start selling to less wealthy consumers, the story will change
Of the handful of people I know that have bought Tesla's, they are very much not of the hacking mindset. I'm not saying this is forever true, but I think the type of person that can actually afford one usually has the "premium" and "executive" mindsets (if I can makeup some terms). That is, they'd rather pay extra for 98% of everything they want and not have the worry of needing to get their hands dirty (the premium mindset). And if there is a problem? They replace/trade-in/buy more premium services to get what they want. They have "their people" take care of it. These aren't intended to be negative descriptions, but more of an informal observation of how people in executive positions with resources available tend to prioritize their time and effort. But of course you'll eventually get more hackers drawn to the car in time.
There are certainly software hackers who are not interested in hacking mechanical devices, working on cars, or even understanding them. I'm not one, but most of the other software devs I know are. Their cluelessness about how cars work is almost funny.
Most software devs don't have the Hacker Mindset (TM) at all. If you use "sw devs" and "sw hackers" interchangeably, that's the source of your confusion.
> I think we're going to start seeing "jailbroken" Teslas soon after they start falling out of their warranty period.
You sure about this? Because I am sure many of the Teslas are just leases and with how the calculation looks it's more interesting to get a new car at the end of the leasing period than to try to buy it out.
Even with leasing, the used cars won't be immediately destroyed, so it's reasonable to assume they will be sold to people, and these people will have an interest in inexpensive maintenance and repair.
The battery pack comprises such a large portion of the car's value that the value proposition of a used electric vehicle is mainly "battery pack + miscellaneous". Tesla is experimenting with hot-swapping the battery pack (theoretically allowing you to exchange old batteries for brand spanking new) https://forums.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/battery-swap-sta... but so far we don't hear any plans of wide support for this.
Two different things. In the context of the parent, aftermarket means parts available from non-OEMs. I can go to the local NAPA and get spark-plugs for my Jeep produced by multiple companies.
> To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car
It's an ideal car from my point of view. They're a necessary evil in most parts of the country, and the more they become like a 2-year contract iPhone the better.
If you want a 2-year contract car, then lease them and then cycle through cars.
For everyone else who makes sane financial decisions, we kind of want a car that will be repairable 10 years from now. Besides, the majority of people can't afford a new car anyway, and rely on the used-car market.
The people who buy used-cars will greatly appreciate long-term repairable cars, even if the "lease 5 cars over 10 years" crowd cycles through cars and flaunt their disposable income... someone is typically going to end up purchasing those 2-year old cars and then run with them until they die.
I think it's the other way around: by restricting who can service the car, they are artificially keeping the resale value up, which works out to cheaper financing (after all, you finance the difference between purchase price and resale price).
How is restricting who can service the car supposed to keep the resale value up? It means the prospective buyer will have to pay more for repairs when they're necessary, the cost of which comes out of what they'll be willing to pay for the car.
Is service by third party mechanics really the dominant factor in creating lemons, and not design or manufacturing defects or abusive driving by previous owners?
One of the largest factors is probably a lack of servicing. By requiring all servicing to be done by Tesla (who presumably keep records) they eliminate the "yeah I had that service done but I lost the receipt" scenario: If Tesla says that they didn't service a car, the buyer knows that it wasn't serviced.
Which the seller can mitigate by either keeping their receipts or having Tesla service the car, so the reduction in resale value would only apply to sellers who didn't do that, and then it's their own loss.
If they offer a stronger warranty they don't need to prevent service by third party mechanics, because nobody is going to pay a third party mechanic to do service the manufacturer would do for free under warranty.
"Jailbroken", exactly. The mobile industry has taken this lockdown approach as well. It's working for them. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it works for the auto industry too.
I'm not sure this is inherently bad or good. I don't like it personally, but I do see the reasoning. Self-driving cars probably shouldn't be hackable, and the first attempts need to be airtight as possible (what with the media jumping at every chance to spread FUD). But it concerns me that the days of opening the hood to hack away at your pickup truck might someday, largely, go away... That's not good for anyone.
To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. And, when the manufacturer places a threatening call to the "owner" after he tries to get diagnostic information from his own car [1], well that's so far beyond crossing the line it's not even funny.
I think we're going to start seeing "jailbroken" Teslas soon after they start falling out of their warranty period. I'm surprised it hasn't happened already. You'd think that out of the thousands of people who have already bought one of these cars, there might be one out there with both the skills and desire to actually own what they paid for.
1: http://gas2.org/2014/04/14/road-slightly-traveled-hacking-te...