Auto manufactuerers want to prevent people from modifying or working on their own cars.

alfadriver wrote: Let alone the whole liability issue- right now when you retune your ABS, when there is an accident- who is liable? And if you cause injury, will your insurance company cover that if you modified that? This is why the IIHS even exists.

Nope, it is still the fault of whomever crashed the damn thing for being a E36 M3ty driver. All these nannies need to stop, just like warning labels on EVERYTHING!!!!

Hi, I am probably enemy numero uno on alfadriver's hit list for removing/disabling ABS from everything.

This sort of approach would have its limitations.

I'm not sure something like a fuel map or other data settings can be copyrighted, owing to a lack of creative work in it. I haven't read the DMCA, but it seems like a program that injects alternate values into an ECU would not be a copyright violation if it was developed independently of factory code. (If it were a leaked copy of a factory programming tool, that would obviously be a problem.) Likewise, a reverse engineered scan tool would be tough to hit with a copyright violation

On the other hand, if somebody is passing around a complete snippet of code that's been tweaked, I could see that being a violation of copyright laws, pretty easily. Particularly since once the code is running around loose, a different OEM could get their hands on it and port it to their own vehicles if there weren't a restriction in place.

In reply to yamaha:

In an ideal world where everyone accepts responsibility. But I don't know a single being that lives in that magical place.

Let alone the idea that you modify the car, and then sell it- not telling the new owner of the mod. And THEN it gets into an accident due to the mod.

This board is a pretty small set of drivers, and even then, most of the "nannies" make this board better drivers. And I'll bet most will dispute this, as everyone thinks they are just like the best F1 drivers out there. For the rest of the massive fleet- the "nannies" have done a good job reducing the number of fatalities even while the number of cars and miles drive have gone up.

In reply to MadScientistMatt:

The question is, how draconian are the OEM's these days? That answer seems to be ever changing towards very.

I love nannies, like when my city decides it needs to put up 5 signs telling drivers theres no shoulder when clearly there hasnt been one in the last 50 years of the roads existence. This is a scenic road on the original natchez trace and was the most canopied road (covered by trees) in the us..not anymore but they think it's "safer" ha! The auto manufacturers can shove their new fancy pants cars directly up their sphincter.. im happy without abs, ps, ac, or airbags in my 23 year old car. End nanny rant

In reply to alfadriver:

Personally, I return the vehicles to OEM standards when I sell them...because personal responsibility yo.

As far as safety goes... I think its more the fact of ever increasing crash standards that is lowering fatalities, not the electronic aids. Also, it seems most of the people with BLISS never look in their berkeleying mirrors anymore, which is a horrifying revelation to me....as those systems don't always pick up bikes in the next lane.

In reply to chiodos:

23 years old means 1992. So it has either an airbag or seat belt runners.

Never knew that power steering was a nanny- just made steering easier. Or A/C- which makes driving more comfortable.

You car does have 5mph bumper nannies.

Back when we were at a new car dealer in 1991, I recall some old guy complaining that new cars were too much back then. Some things never change.

Dashpot wrote: In reply to kanaric: "These idiot companies" are trying to protect their business model.

By pissing off enthusiasts? Riiiight

Meanwhile Subaru has had ECUs that have opensource programming tools and they haven't combated it one bit and have had continual profits and sales growth in this country for the past 15 years.

I say these idiot companies because they are too interested in defending against perceived slights over appealing to what their customers want. This is the same logic that defends premium channels and cable companies despite netflix making 90 billion dollars or whatever obscene sum. Comcast would rather lose profit and have their shows pirated because there is no ease of customer use and they are not appealing to the customer's wants. Same with companies like Ubisoft for video games loading things up with DRM. They keep trying to load their E36 M3 up with DRM but people still pirate their games, the DRM just makes it more complicated and annoying for their actual customers. They are idiot companies. They are totally backwards in thinking and people of the younger generations EXPECT different behavior. Any company with recent success follows a modern business model like this. A business model of making their product easily accessible to ALL their customers and doesn't try to limit them at every corner. There is a comparison in virtually every industry.

No, people want an appliance that Just Works.

Let me know when that logic allows Apple to overtake the PC market and when companies with poor reliability reputations like mini, VW and Mercedes stop selling cars.

Not the person who buys a Boss 302 as an enthusiast. Or buys a Focus ST and wants and tuner car. Sorry.

It's easy to show the other side- one of the most popular phones is also one of the most restricted for apps- the apple.

And people jailbreak them all the time which is effectively the same thing as ecu tuning.

Meanwhile the most popular operating system on phones is android which is based on open source software and has an open app store with many free products on it.

If Ford internalizes all "performance modding" and actively gives cease and desist to anyone who makes superchargers, suspension, exhaust, etc for the car tuners and enthusiasts leave in droves to companies like Subaru. Even if they make a focus rs they would lose their image with enthusiasts in I would bet little over a decade if even that. Then you can have your "appliance that just works" company.

Honestly I'm disappointed people here are defending this line of thinking by these companies. All trends, all evidence, and what we here want to do with cars contradict it and the logic behind it.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to yamaha: In an ideal world where everyone accepts responsibility. But I don't know a single being that lives in that magical place. Let alone the idea that you modify the car, and then sell it- not telling the new owner of the mod. And THEN it gets into an accident due to the mod. This board is a pretty small set of drivers, and even then, most of the "nannies" make this board better drivers. And I'll bet most will dispute this, as everyone thinks they are just like the best F1 drivers out there. For the rest of the massive fleet- the "nannies" have done a good job reducing the number of fatalities even while the number of cars and miles drive have gone up.

I used to be able to out-brake ABS. In cars made in the early 90's. I have resigned that I no longer can.

I also love turning off the traction control and sliding around neighborhoods at 10-20 MPH in the snow, or much higher speeds on closed tracks.

Similar sliding at 70 MPH on the highway makes me wet my pants, so I leave the traction on to keep my pants dry.

Finally, I love the fact that ABS and Traction only kick in IF I HAVE ALREADY SCREWED UP, which, usually in those cases I am in no mental condition (read: freaked out) to drive a car at 100% anyway.

lets face it, freedom is only a concept! try and live your life totally free?

kanaric wrote:

Dashpot wrote: In reply to kanaric: "These idiot companies" are trying to protect their business model.

By pissing off enthusiasts? Riiiight Meanwhile Subaru has had ECUs that have opensource programming tools and they haven't combated it one bit and have had continual profits and sales growth in this country for the past 15 years. I say these idiot companies because they are too interested in defending against perceived slights over appealing to what their customers want. If Ford internalizes all "performance modding" and actively gives cease and desist to anyone who makes superchargers, suspension, exhaust, etc for the car tuners and enthusiasts leave in droves to companies like Subaru. Even if they make a focus rs they would lose their image with enthusiasts in I would bet little over a decade if even that. Then you can have your "appliance that just works" company. Honestly I'm disappointed people here are defending this line of thinking by these companies. All trends, all evidence, and what we here want to do with cars contradict it and the logic behind it.

In that case - good for Subaru. I hope they dominate the tuner market (that's like .01% of the of the car market). Don't buy a Ford and don't even think about a German brand.

All the other reasons presented (patents, warranty,liability, service, emissions, etc)say they have a valid case for protecting their interests. I don't have a dog in this fight but I see a lot of lawyers getting rich off it.

In reply to Dashpot:

The better question is "Has Subaru fixed their piston that falls apart problem yet?" Even with tuning, the #4 still failed on the last gen sti....and being dicks warranting them.

simple solution - put a megasquirt on it - no copyright issues there, since it completely replaces the factory electronics. The more mfrs lock down factory ECU's the more standalones will flourish and become easier to install and use.

Doesn't parody give you pretty wide berth around copywright laws?

Just claim you're the Weird Al of tuning and you're making fun of how E36 M3ty the factory tune is.

Someday something like this may make sense, particularly if or when driverless cars are around the corner.

So far as i can tell we are atleast 25-40 years off from that point (prototypes being tested is still a huge way off a nation wide fully automated system for automated driving, my opinion being a nation-wide system needs to be accepted for driverless cars to be a thing, as driverless cars themselves mixing with manually driven cars actually brings up lots of potential issues/disputes/conundrums)

As is i find this pointless for anything other then bottom lines and legal disputes, in the real world there is no such need for such laws at this current point in time. If anything it works to prohibit advancement in the industry (just my opinion)

However where ever there is money for somebody to be made, or a way to push legal responsibilities and loss of possible money in a key area, this type of thing will happen.

Ottobon wrote: So far as i can tell we are atleast 25-40 years off from that point (prototypes being tested is still a huge way off a nation wide fully automated system for automated driving, my opinion being a nation-wide system needs to be accepted for driverless cars to be a thing, as driverless cars themselves mixing with manually driven cars actually brings up lots of potential issues/disputes/conundrums)

You'll never see a flag day like that, the economics don't work. Nobody will buy an autonomous cars if they can't use it autonomously, so if it's ever going to happen it has to be an incremental thing, which means autonomous cars need to be able to interact with human-driven cars.

What you'll see (in fact, what we've already seen) is a gradual increase in the autonomy of cars. Basic cruise control was the first step, now we have adaptive CC systems that can measure the distance to the car in front of you and brake to not hit it. I've talked to someone who handles stop-and-go freeway traffic by setting his adaptive cruise control to 60 and letting the computer handle all of the gas/braking for him, he's just turning the wheel. I think it's a Benz of some kind, but not sure which. There are also lane departure warnings today, some of which will even turn the wheel to move you back towards the center of the lane if you start driving towards the edge.

Yes, we're still a long way of from a truly autonomous vehicle that can operate anywhere, what you're seeing today is automation that can handle the more narrowly-defined environments that have fewer oddball situations in them. Freeways don't often feature kids chasing after balls in the street, for example. Remember that the car doesn't have to be perfect to be acceptable, it just has to be better than the average driver.

The real challenge isn't going to be the tech, it's going to be sorting out the legalities. If my autonomous car and your autonomous car get into a wreck, whose fault is it? Mine? Yours? Google's? What if an autonomous car injures or kills someone? If I'm drunk can I have my autonomous car drive me home without worrying about a DUI?

To me the really cool parts of an autonomous vehicle aren't so much the idea that it can drive me around (although for dealing with commute traffic that would be great), it's that it can drive itself around without me in it. Long-term parking at the airport? Who needs it, I can send the car home to park itself in my driveway. Nowhere to park in the city? The car can "orbit" for a while, find itself a street parking spot, then come pick me up when I call it. Pizza delivery? Nah, I'll just send my car to go pick it up. Put a special lock on the trunk so that the pizza place can open it, but not the doors.

Back on the original topic, I can see why auto manufacturers really don't want you messing with the programming in things like the ABS and stability control systems. Getting software to do the right thing all the time is hard, and there's no way an aftermarket chip company is going to have the quality control resources of an OEM. Retuning the ABS system for better racetrack performance is likely to introduce bugs.

IIRC this isn't the first time this concept has tried and failed. as said before Sema Action Network....

Flight Service wrote: IIRC this isn't the first time this concept has tried and failed. as said before Sema Action Network....

Again, look at computers, especially mobile ones. Locking down computers had been tried and failed many times, and eventually it was considered a suicide plan to even try such a thing...right before Apple successfully locked down smartphones and brought about the dominance of curated computing.

codrus wrote:

Ottobon wrote: So far as i can tell we are atleast 25-40 years off from that point (prototypes being tested is still a huge way off a nation wide fully automated system for automated driving, my opinion being a nation-wide system needs to be accepted for driverless cars to be a thing, as driverless cars themselves mixing with manually driven cars actually brings up lots of potential issues/disputes/conundrums)

What you'll see (in fact, what we've already seen) is a gradual increase in the autonomy of cars. Basic cruise control was the first step, now we have adaptive CC systems that can measure the distance to the car in front of you and brake to not hit it. I've talked to someone who handles stop-and-go freeway traffic by setting his adaptive cruise control to 60 and letting the computer handle all of the gas/braking for him, he's just turning the wheel. I think it's a Benz of some kind, but not sure which.

There are many cars that let you use lane-control and auto-following together as "ghetto autonomous highway driving" - my dad's boss did this with an LR3. And some new cars will soon come out with proper autonomous highway driving.

I can understand the issue, and having worked for a few large OEMs myself, I definitely respect the concerns, but it's the whole public mindset thing that bothers me. This issue aside, I hate how many laws surround everything, and how litigious everything is. A protectionist law surrounding repairing your own damn car? You've got to be kidding me. If automakers really need that, maybe what it really means is that they have some failings they need to fix within their own organization. That would be much more productive for everyone involved than yet another ridiculous law.

I'm fine with renting a car as a service model from the OEM and not being responsible for PAYING for any upkeep or repairs I didn't cause by accident or abuse. It would be nice if that was offered, really. But it isn't. A lease isn't quite that good so....

If I OWN the car, then it is mine and I will do as I see fit whether it's legal or not. Because berkeley you, that's why. In fact, if they are even marginally successful at making my life difficult I'll make my own damn car using their parts. So there.

And yes, my smart phone is rooted and running all open source ROMs and software where ever possible. Fruck you too phone company starting with V. My $600 hardware, my rules.

Also, why does everyone feel like they need to be protected from everything these days? Can't let kids play outside - it's dangerous and they might get dirty. I ride a motorcycle, and the number one comment is 'but it's so dangerous!' Camping is dangerous. Talking to people you don't know is dangerous. Gas cans have these stupid E36 M3ty impossible to use nozzles because apparently those are dangerous. But people are still okay with texing and driving. It drives me nuts. Seems like prudence and common sense are vanishing, to be replaced by ridiculous laws to keep people from potentially, maybe making cars a little more dangerous.

yamaha wrote: In reply to MadScientistMatt: The question is, how draconian are the OEM's these days? That answer seems to be ever changing towards very.

But there are legal limits on how draconian they can be. For example:

1. OBD2 codes are required to be an open standard, ruling out preventing somebody from marketing an OBD2 scan tool.

2. Reverse engineering a communications protocol to make a more in depth scan tool is likely to be OK - it sounds as if the company Ford was going after went somehow beyond using a sniffer between an ECU and a scan tool to make their own, like using some Ford document that they'd been sent for some other purpose.

3. You can't call copyright violations on something that has no relationship to OEM computer code whatsoever, like an MSPNP.

Granting exemptions would "deliberately weaken" protections put in place to ensure safe operation and regulatory mandates, General Motors said. Without such protection, the company said it would re-evaluate its entire electronic architecture. It could take the draconian step of removing telematics units, which control many real-time safety and infotainment features, from cars entirely

Oh teh noze! (Insert rolleyes here)

Automakers are trying to pass these laws because of crony capitalism. Instead of providing good service with good prices, especially regarding maintaining cars out of the warranty period, they want to pass laws to force consumers to give them more money. I don't want to get too political in this section, but we need to get money out of politics so companies can't get laws like these passed just to make more profits, especially since it hurts consumers and small companies.