4 ms·
It would be nice to see a focus on repairability, but I don't think that's ever going to happen. Even if we don't end up with complete parts serialization, whe
by donmcronald 4y ago
It would be nice to see a focus on repairability, but I don't think that's ever going to happen. Even if we don't end up with complete parts serialization, where the manufacturers hold all the keys, the trend described in this article is unavoidable due to the complexity of systems that improve your quality of life when you're driving. IE: People want things like collision warning systems.
A big part of the issue is the manufacturers don't care if a repair procedure is too complex or if the equipment required is too expensive. That's a benefit to them because it means less independent repair shops and dealer networks will simply pass that cost on to the customer because customers have no alternatives.
My family has always purchased cars that are just off warranty, so about 5 years old, and driven them for 5-15 years. The less money we had, the longer we drove them. We've always done our own repairs. However, that's changing because there are some things we simply can't fix. My dad has never driven a vehicle that costed more than $100 per month and has always owned a vehicle that I'd consider reliable. Those days are gone.
I think something that could help would be if the right to repair movement pushed for some kind of limited repair or downgraded repair mode. For example, the article talks about the complexity of doing a wheel alignment due to calibrating lane drift sensors, etc. I think vehicle owners should be able to opt out of that and simply lose those features if they're not required for the car to function. IE: Get the wheel alignment, skip the convenience features.
Of course, we all know the opposite will happen. The vehicle industry will lobby the government to have those complex features become requirements "for safety" and the only option we'll get as consumers is to buy overly complex, overly expensive vehicles. I guess another option may be to rent or lease and never own anything which might be the ultimate goal of the industry regardless of complexity.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y agoYou’re phrasing these things as negatives but ignoring why they will be adopted. Safety. I don’t want to be driving on the road at all, unless it’s for sport on a closed track. Since I must, since this is America and public transportation is not profitable, I want everyone else to driving the safest vehicles possibly affordable. That lane drift sensor has prevented numerous distracted drivers from causing accidents with their negligence. Opting out of the sensors is more directly reckless than emissions defeating devices on diesels.
- djbebs 4y agoIf you want that, you're welcome to pay for it yourself. I dont think lot of people would reject an offer to replace their cars with a newer and safer version. But thats not why you want, is it? What you really want is for someone else to pay for your desires.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y agoI think you’re projecting and arguing in bad faith with this comment. Perhaps you should read the site guidelines.
- djbebs 4y agoPointing out the raw reality of the policies you're advocating for isn’t arguing in bad faith, its merely demonstrating that the rethoric you're using is disguising an entirely different reality. If I am incorrect about what I pointed out, please point out what exactly I am incorrect about so I can review and correct. If on the other hand i misunderstood your argument, then please feel free to clarify it to reflect the specifics of what you propose. I am happy to engage on the actual facts and the underlying realities of those facts.