11 ms·

If you read the article: > Do you want to require vehicle manufacturers to standardize on-board diagnostic systems and provide remote access to those systems a

by ezfe 3y ago

If you read the article: > Do you want to require vehicle manufacturers to standardize on-board diagnostic systems and provide remote access to those systems and mechanical data to owners and independent repair facilities? It would be clear that this is about on-board diagnostics/computer systems

calvinmorrison 3y ago
OBD is already standardized. For the most part, since 1996. There are specific software sets for doing more advanced operations, but these all talk over the ODB ports, which is done typically by an elm27 on a simple data line. The problem is there is standard and non standard commands you can issue and get replies for. The requirement should be "all cars with digital systems will come with a on-board diagnostic computer. The one for saab - pre OBD2 is almost impossible to find. It's called an ISAT and I only know of about 5 on the east coast. post ODB2 there's somthing called a "TECH2" that GM used across all their lineups. They cost between 400 and 1000 dollars depending on the addons and such. Instead, they should just build a tech2 into the car's infotainment system.
- jcrawfordor 3y ago
  OBDII is only a minimal standard, compliance requires only reporting that is related to emissions systems and engine systems that affect emissions. Basically everything else is manufacturer-specific and requires either a manufacturer diagnostic computer (every manufacturer has one) or third-party software with (usually reverse engineered) support for manufacturer diagnostics. Since CANbus became the normal implementation for OBDII, much of this is done by communicating with individual modules over OBDII using message sets proprietary to the manufacturer of that module. Newer vehicles incorporate more and more functionality into these modules, such that the usefulness of the core OBDII set tends to decrease. OBDII is really quite far from solving the problem - unsurprising because it wasn't intended to. It's an emissions standard, not a general diagnostics standard. Common modern fault points like the brake system and SRS are unaddressed by OBDII, and that's without getting into infotainment and telematics.
- buildbot 3y ago
  Wow someone else who actually knows that the Saab 900 had a diagnostic port! I miss my 900 Turbo. Tweaked the APC potentiometers for a little more boost :)
  - calvinmorrison 3y ago
    so that'd be the 900 not the 9000. The 900 had a diagnostic port that the ISAT could communicate with for resetting the SRS system, or to talk to the LH 2.4 systems which I think were just the non-turbos. The 9000 is a fully integrated system though, there's like 5 or 6 different modules and all sorts of ODB support from TCS to ABS to the HVAC controls, ECU, etc.
    - buildbot 3y ago
      Oh interesting! We had a 9000 when I was a kid for a bit but I never looked into it that deeply.
_ea1k 3y ago
I did, but it left ambiguities. There are already standards here (OBD), but extensions beyond that standard often require vendor software. It isn't clear what the actual requirements are. I can't imagine that they are requiring vendors to provide factory manuals and full technical information for free, for example.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > extensions beyond that standard often require vendor software now they can't :) > I can't imagine that they are requiring vendors to provide factory manuals and full technical information for free, for example. Why can't you imagine that? It doesn't cost them anything, and the car belongs to the owner, not them.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > I can't imagine that they are requiring vendors to provide factory manuals and full technical information for free, for example Here is another idea you cant imagine: no copyright protection and no property right on repair manuals. Just like there is no IP rights on medical procedures and any dicobered laws of nature.
  - _ea1k 3y ago
    For factory manuals, that'd be really nice.
whartung 3y ago
A ballot summary says this: > These laws require manufacturers to provide the same diagnostic and repair information to vehicle owners and independent repair businesses that authorized dealerships receive. They also seek to prevent manufacturers from mandating the use of exclusive tools or software. But that’s not what the law text says. As you mentioned the law is about access to the on board diagnostics, but nothing about the rest of the vehicle. A contrived example would be that the manufacturer needs to tell people how to reset the Oil Change sensor on the car. But has no obligation to share how to actually perform an oil change. No obligation to provide the torque value for the oil drain plug. So all this law obligates them to do is provide access to the diagnostic computers, but nothing about the actual mechanics of the vehicle. Perhaps this is legislated elsewhere. But here in California, I can not get the factory service manual for my motorcycle. It is unavailable. Were this legislation to have been passed here, i still may not have access. Yet that’s what the ballot summary says, “provide the same diagnostic and repair information”, but it’s not what the law as written says.

by ezfe 3y ago

calvinmorrison 3y ago

OBD is already standardized. For the most part, since 1996. There are specific software sets for doing more advanced operations, but these all talk over the ODB ports, which is done typically by an elm27 on a simple data line. The problem is there is standard and non standard commands you can issue and get replies for. The requirement should be "all cars with digital systems will come with a on-board diagnostic computer. The one for saab - pre OBD2 is almost impossible to find. It's called an ISAT and I only know of about 5 on the east coast. post ODB2 there's somthing called a "TECH2" that GM used across all their lineups. They cost between 400 and 1000 dollars depending on the addons and such. Instead, they should just build a tech2 into the car's infotainment system.

jcrawfordor 3y ago
OBDII is only a minimal standard, compliance requires only reporting that is related to emissions systems and engine systems that affect emissions. Basically everything else is manufacturer-specific and requires either a manufacturer diagnostic computer (every manufacturer has one) or third-party software with (usually reverse engineered) support for manufacturer diagnostics. Since CANbus became the normal implementation for OBDII, much of this is done by communicating with individual modules over OBDII using message sets proprietary to the manufacturer of that module. Newer vehicles incorporate more and more functionality into these modules, such that the usefulness of the core OBDII set tends to decrease. OBDII is really quite far from solving the problem - unsurprising because it wasn't intended to. It's an emissions standard, not a general diagnostics standard. Common modern fault points like the brake system and SRS are unaddressed by OBDII, and that's without getting into infotainment and telematics.
buildbot 3y ago
Wow someone else who actually knows that the Saab 900 had a diagnostic port! I miss my 900 Turbo. Tweaked the APC potentiometers for a little more boost :)
- calvinmorrison 3y ago
  so that'd be the 900 not the 9000. The 900 had a diagnostic port that the ISAT could communicate with for resetting the SRS system, or to talk to the LH 2.4 systems which I think were just the non-turbos. The 9000 is a fully integrated system though, there's like 5 or 6 different modules and all sorts of ODB support from TCS to ABS to the HVAC controls, ECU, etc.
  - buildbot 3y ago
    Oh interesting! We had a 9000 when I was a kid for a bit but I never looked into it that deeply.

_ea1k 3y ago

I did, but it left ambiguities. There are already standards here (OBD), but extensions beyond that standard often require vendor software. It isn't clear what the actual requirements are. I can't imagine that they are requiring vendors to provide factory manuals and full technical information for free, for example.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
> extensions beyond that standard often require vendor software now they can't :) > I can't imagine that they are requiring vendors to provide factory manuals and full technical information for free, for example. Why can't you imagine that? It doesn't cost them anything, and the car belongs to the owner, not them.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> I can't imagine that they are requiring vendors to provide factory manuals and full technical information for free, for example Here is another idea you cant imagine: no copyright protection and no property right on repair manuals. Just like there is no IP rights on medical procedures and any dicobered laws of nature.
- _ea1k 3y ago
  For factory manuals, that'd be really nice.

whartung 3y ago

A ballot summary says this: > These laws require manufacturers to provide the same diagnostic and repair information to vehicle owners and independent repair businesses that authorized dealerships receive. They also seek to prevent manufacturers from mandating the use of exclusive tools or software. But that’s not what the law text says. As you mentioned the law is about access to the on board diagnostics, but nothing about the rest of the vehicle. A contrived example would be that the manufacturer needs to tell people how to reset the Oil Change sensor on the car. But has no obligation to share how to actually perform an oil change. No obligation to provide the torque value for the oil drain plug. So all this law obligates them to do is provide access to the diagnostic computers, but nothing about the actual mechanics of the vehicle. Perhaps this is legislated elsewhere. But here in California, I can not get the factory service manual for my motorcycle. It is unavailable. Were this legislation to have been passed here, i still may not have access. Yet that’s what the ballot summary says, “provide the same diagnostic and repair information”, but it’s not what the law as written says.