| General > General Technical Chat |
| Right to repair, my problem with it |
| << < (19/39) > >> |
| rstofer:
--- Quote from: Brumby on July 20, 2021, 07:11:46 am ---Or let's say the ignition module was the same as used in dozens of other vehicles, but your particular one was "customised" under direction of the vehicle manufacturer to have a serial number that had to match one stored in your ECU or the engine wouldn't start. Is this really a matter of security (questionable in my book) or an example of restrictive trade practices, forcing the manufacturer into a position of control? * The above was written with the average motor vehicle in mind. Try re-reading with a piece of electronic equipment in mind. * --- End quote --- The auto manufacturer is being told to comply with certain regulations (emissions, among other things), forever and always. Of course they want to know which parts are being used for repairs and they want to know who is doing the repairs. The deep pockets in substandard repairs will be the manufacturers, not the individual owner. So, if the manufacturer provides the parts openly, they're on the hook for the customer's mistakes. Not going to happen. |
| langwadt:
--- Quote from: G7PSK on July 20, 2021, 02:36:42 pm --- --- End quote --- afaiu in Germany car manufacturers are required to make spare parts available for minimum of 10 years [/quote] Same here in UK, dealers get to be the only source for many components due to "proprietery" parts and some manufacturers require the onboard computers to be reset for simple things like lam changes otherwise the item is not recognised and wont work despite being a standard lam/bulb. Many smaller garages dont have the computer software required and its almost certain that the average motorist wont have the equipment, in the past all that was required to change said bulb was a screwdriver and the replacement bulb. Gone are the days where all cars had the same lights and you could replace them easily. Years gone by Rolls Royce lams cost £500.00 for a sealed beam unit the same one as could be purchased for £5.00 for an Austin mini or Rover or Jaguar the only difference was the units did not have the RR logo on them now the lights are made so they only fit one make or model, this can only be so that they can charge more ensuring that you cannot go elsewhere. wing mirror glass used to be availble at 70 pence each now you have to buy a complete unit for £350. [/quote] I read somewhere that the number of spare parts sold are a small fraction of a percent of the parts used for the initial production, so it can't be that much they make considering the hassle of keeping it in stock for 10 years. A only stocking and a selling whole units instead of a million part numbers makes sense, since the units probably came as a unit form a subcontractor anyway |
| cdev:
Manufacturers should be required to build products as much as possible with replaceable parts unless thre is a real need to use some special part. I mean whts with some bulb that costs an arm and a leg, does it have a LAN connection built in? When you buy a Rolls I guess you really have signed up for a cash extracting monster, but other cars, the bulbs should be easy to replace. Some semi-luxury cars are also very reliable and economical to maintain. Thats what I would want |
| robint91:
--- Quote from: Zero999 on July 19, 2021, 10:05:55 pm ---What a load of bollocks. If flight controls were so badly designed that easily be interfered with, they wouldn't pass the EMC tests themselves, otherwise we'd have terrorists taking down aeroplanes left, right and centre with radio transmitters. :palm: --- End quote --- Then why are we required to put our device in airplane mode during landing and take-off. Is prevention not better, licking the wound afterward. Something something Prevention paradox.... Shouldn't we better be safe that sorry? You can claim that it has NO risk. |
| SiliconWizard:
--- Quote from: robint91 on July 20, 2021, 07:49:36 pm --- --- Quote from: Zero999 on July 19, 2021, 10:05:55 pm ---What a load of bollocks. If flight controls were so badly designed that easily be interfered with, they wouldn't pass the EMC tests themselves, otherwise we'd have terrorists taking down aeroplanes left, right and centre with radio transmitters. :palm: --- End quote --- Then why are we required to put our device in airplane mode during landing and take-off. Is prevention not better, licking the wound afterward. Something something Prevention paradox.... Shouldn't we better be safe that sorry? You can claim that it has NO risk. --- End quote --- Well, it's a grey area. You can't claim there is absolutely no risk, but anyone involved with avionics these days will tell you there is very little risk of misfunctioning if passengers use their electronic devices. The most reasonable rationale for this, as far as I've heard, is mainly for the passenger's safety itself. Playing with cell phones, tablets, laptops during take off or landing could potentially be directly dangerous in case of turbulences or if something goes wrong. In particular, some landings can be pretty rough depending on conditions, and you don't want portable devices flying all over the place inside the cabin. That's also why it's reminded to put your stuff back under the front seat. Just a thought. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |