3 ms·

Your attitude is incredibly short-sighted. If I can't repair the car myself, I do not own it. BTW Putting "your hands on your car" means doing basic repairs an

Your attitude is incredibly short-sighted. If I can't repair the car myself, I do not own it. BTW Putting "your hands on your car" means doing basic repairs and maintenance e.g. - I changed my oil on my car. - I've bled my brakes. - I fixed the H-strap as it was broken on my driver's side door. - I replaced the wiper system myself. This BTW would have cost several thousand pound to be done by a specialist (you have to remove significant portions of the dashboard to do this. - Replacing the rear shocks on my suspension. A vehicle is the second most expensive purchase people make after a home and yet because you disagree with how a small minority of people modify their cars, you are fine with the concept of ownership being erased and your vehicle forever being beholden to the manufacturer. It is incredibly short sighted. Modern cars currently are getting to a stage where they cannot be repaired by anyone except for the manufacturer. This will drive up prices of repairs (dealerships/specialists are already expensive as they are) and you won't be able to go to smaller shops to get your car serviced / repaired and these places will go out of business and jobs lost. This is already causing huge amounts of waste because cars are being scrapped because they are uneconomical to repair after minor accidents, or minor faults. Compare this with 15/20 years ago and I had a car that did 300,000 miles before it became uneconomical to repair (I still got £500 from the scrap man). Repairing a vehicle is much less wasteful than replacing it.

phoronixrly 1y ago
I was asking what they meant by that. I did not disagree with right to repair. To the contrary -- IMO vehicles must be completely repairable with freely available standardized general purpose parts, as opposed to pre-made custom assemblies at ungodly prices and limited production periods. Removing emissions functionality (which I explicitly listed), or safety functionality is not repairing your vehicle, it is altering your vehicle to your own benefit and at the expense of everyone else, and must be prevented by the government, and not by auto manufacturers. I thought this was implied with 'being frowned upon', because society and their government representatives frown upon stuff, auto manufacturers outright prevent it. Still, I reiterate, one must have the complete power to do so as part of owning a vehicle, just not the privilege of using it on public roads afterwards.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- GeekDill 1y ago
  > I was asking what they meant by that. I did not disagree with right to repair. You could have looked it up. It is a common expression. > To the contrary -- IMO vehicles must be completely repairable with freely available standardized general purpose parts, as opposed to pre-made custom assemblies at ungodly prices and limited production periods. They already kinda use standardised parts. Most manufacturers license parts from one another e.g. I have a Vauxhall, the chassis IIRC is the same as a Volvo. Super cars will have headlights from a Ford Focus. My Land-rover Defender 4x4 uses the same parts are other British Leyland cars of the same period e.g. the wiper system is the same as one on a Rover from the 1980s, the engine mounts are the same as the ones used in a Rover P4 from 1953. More modern cars and electric cars though need entire custom drive chains, electronic wiring, sensors and computer system that are not standard. > Removing emissions functionality (which I explicitly listed), or safety functionality is not repairing your vehicle, it is altering your vehicle to your own benefit and at the expense of everyone else, and must be prevented by the government, and not by auto manufacturers. Making your car un-roadworthy is already illegal. That is why yearly safety inspections (MOT) are required in the UK for any car that has been on the road for more than 3 years. If your car has obvious emissions issues you will be pulled over by the police. > I thought this was implied with 'being frowned upon', because society and their government representatives frown upon stuff, auto manufacturers outright prevent it. They already try to prevent it. Newer cars will detect this and may even refuse to start. It however like any restriction. It can be circumvented.
  - phoronixrly 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - GeekDill 1y ago
      Yes I had misinterpreted what was said and thus deleted my previous response. It is still the worst interpretation and that is generally considered to be disingenuous. Also most Americans don't use the term that way either.

phoronixrly 1y ago

I was asking what they meant by that. I did not disagree with right to repair. To the contrary -- IMO vehicles must be completely repairable with freely available standardized general purpose parts, as opposed to pre-made custom assemblies at ungodly prices and limited production periods. Removing emissions functionality (which I explicitly listed), or safety functionality is not repairing your vehicle, it is altering your vehicle to your own benefit and at the expense of everyone else, and must be prevented by the government, and not by auto manufacturers. I thought this was implied with 'being frowned upon', because society and their government representatives frown upon stuff, auto manufacturers outright prevent it. Still, I reiterate, one must have the complete power to do so as part of owning a vehicle, just not the privilege of using it on public roads afterwards.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
GeekDill 1y ago
> I was asking what they meant by that. I did not disagree with right to repair. You could have looked it up. It is a common expression. > To the contrary -- IMO vehicles must be completely repairable with freely available standardized general purpose parts, as opposed to pre-made custom assemblies at ungodly prices and limited production periods. They already kinda use standardised parts. Most manufacturers license parts from one another e.g. I have a Vauxhall, the chassis IIRC is the same as a Volvo. Super cars will have headlights from a Ford Focus. My Land-rover Defender 4x4 uses the same parts are other British Leyland cars of the same period e.g. the wiper system is the same as one on a Rover from the 1980s, the engine mounts are the same as the ones used in a Rover P4 from 1953. More modern cars and electric cars though need entire custom drive chains, electronic wiring, sensors and computer system that are not standard. > Removing emissions functionality (which I explicitly listed), or safety functionality is not repairing your vehicle, it is altering your vehicle to your own benefit and at the expense of everyone else, and must be prevented by the government, and not by auto manufacturers. Making your car un-roadworthy is already illegal. That is why yearly safety inspections (MOT) are required in the UK for any car that has been on the road for more than 3 years. If your car has obvious emissions issues you will be pulled over by the police. > I thought this was implied with 'being frowned upon', because society and their government representatives frown upon stuff, auto manufacturers outright prevent it. They already try to prevent it. Newer cars will detect this and may even refuse to start. It however like any restriction. It can be circumvented.
- phoronixrly 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - GeekDill 1y ago
    Yes I had misinterpreted what was said and thus deleted my previous response. It is still the worst interpretation and that is generally considered to be disingenuous. Also most Americans don't use the term that way either.