Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement

[Peri Hartman via EV]

Well, this [buying parts from whoever is cheapest] happens anyway. There 
are plenty of "after market" parts for just about every vehicle.


I think the real issue with standard parts is the inflexibility it 
creates for new ideas. If you could predict what you would be doing for 
the next 10 or 20 years, you could have a standard. And that does happen 
for some things, like EVSEs. But really hard to pin down for something 
like a steering wheel.


Peri


If all manufacturers used standard parts, then when my Chevy breaks instead of 
going to Chevy, I go to whoever sells the part the cheapest.  So Chevy either 
loses sales on spare parts, or they have to drop their price, which makes Ford 
drop their price, etc. etc.
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org


___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement

[Peter VanDerWal via EV]

>> it would be nice if all the manufacturers standardised the skateboards
>> into a few basic versions (compact, midsize, etc.) but this goes
>> against their financial best interests, so I doubt it will happen
>> anytime soon.
> 
> Wouldn't such a design save them development costs, thus improving profits?
> I don't see why that wouldn't be in their financial best interests, but I
> may be missing something.

If all manufacturers used standard parts, then when my Chevy breaks instead of 
going to Chevy, I go to whoever sells the part the cheapest.  So Chevy either 
loses sales on spare parts, or they have to drop their price, which makes Ford 
drop their price, etc. etc.
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement

[Robert Johnston via EV]

Standardized parts means third parties making replacement parts without
needing to license, removing a profit line for them.

On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 at 18:50, EVDL Administrator via EV 
wrote:

> On 2 Aug 2021 at 21:42, Peter VanDerWal via EV wrote:
>
> > it would be nice if all the manufacturers standardised the skateboards
> > into a few basic versions (compact, midsize, etc.)  but this goes
> > against their financial best interests, so I doubt it will happen
> > anytime soon.
>
> Wouldn't such a design save them development costs, thus improving
> profits?
> I don't see why that wouldn't be in their financial best interests, but I
> may be missing something.
>
> David Roden, EVDL moderator & general lackey
>
> To reach me, don't reply to this message; I won't get it.  Use my
> offlist address here : http://evdl.org/help/index.html#supt
>
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>  The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the
>  present.
>
> -- Bill Watterson, "Calvin and Hobbes"
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
> ___
> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
> LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
>


-- 
Robert "Anaerin" Johnston
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement

[EVDL Administrator via EV]

On 2 Aug 2021 at 21:42, Peter VanDerWal via EV wrote:

> it would be nice if all the manufacturers standardised the skateboards
> into a few basic versions (compact, midsize, etc.)  but this goes
> against their financial best interests, so I doubt it will happen
> anytime soon. 

Wouldn't such a design save them development costs, thus improving profits?  
I don't see why that wouldn't be in their financial best interests, but I 
may be missing something.

David Roden, EVDL moderator & general lackey

To reach me, don't reply to this message; I won't get it.  Use my 
offlist address here : http://evdl.org/help/index.html#supt

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
 The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the 
 present.

-- Bill Watterson, "Calvin and Hobbes"
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement

[Peter VanDerWal via EV]

VW is 'sorta' doing that, perhaps a few others.

VW is designing a standardised base platforms (skateboard) and then putting 
different bodies on the skateboards.

Considering how simple EVs are, it would be nice if all the manufacturers 
standardised the skateboards into a few basic versions (compact, midsize, etc.) 
 but this goes against their financial best interests, so I doubt it will 
happen anytime soon.

My PGP public key: https://vanderwal.us/evdl_pgp.key

July 30, 2021 10:21 PM, "EVDL Administrator via EV"  wrote:

> On 30 Jul 2021 at 21:39, Haudy Kazemi via EV wrote:
> 
>> This is a battle being fought between lots of hardware manufacturers and
>> owners of devices ranging from cars to tractors to phones to laptops.
> 
> I had an insane idea in the 1990s, and it hasn't gotten any saner since. It
> was down the block from impossible then, and probably right next door to it
> now that EVs are actually in production, but it's kind of fun to dream
> about.
> 
> My thought was that switching the world to EVs was an opportunity to rethink
> the whole idea of how vehicles are designed, made, and sold.
> 
> We already have an open source EVSE. Why not an open source EV?
> 
> Call it the FLOSEV - Free, libre open source electric vehicle.
> 
> What I'm dreaming about is a simple, straightforward, no-frills reference
> design EV. No power windows, no fancy sound system, no self-driving or
> similar gimmicks and gadgets. Not even a specific body. Just a basic EV
> platform that, with minimal changes, could be built as a functional 2- or 4-
> door hatchback, small crossover, van, or pickup truck.
> 
> The design might be placed in the public domain, or it might follow the
> Creative Commons, BSD, GNU, or other similar open licensing ("copyleft"?)
> scheme.
> 
> Really ambitious EV hobbyists could build a FLOSEV from published plans.
> Organizations, nonprofit or for-profit, could develop kits, semi-kits, and
> finished vehicles. As with open source software, the design could be
> improved or "forked" by others, as long as they adhered to the terms of the
> license.
> 
> I know, an EV is orders of magnitude more complex than an EVSE. And there
> would be enormous regulatory hurdles, especially since you'd want to meet as
> many nations' standards as possible.
> 
> Financing the design would be a daunting challenge. For obvious reasons you
> couldn't approach venture capitalists. Heck, if any showed interest, you'd
> have to ward them off with tear gas and a large dog.
> 
> Donations would have to play a big part, but you'd have to be careful what
> foundations, individuals, and governments you approached. Look what
> happened to the Tropica / Xebra and the Solectria Sunrise when outside
> organizations got involved.
> 
> As I said, this is utterly whacko. I can see hurdles, and I'm ignorant, so
> I'm sure that an industry insider would see 50 foot walls topped with razor
> wire, flanked by guard towers, and protected by armed guards.
> 
> But it's still intriguing to contemplate and dream about. Wouldn't a FLOSEV
> knock the socks off of the big corporate automakers? :-)
> 
> Actually, the most likely scenario for something like this would be if the
> Chinese government sponsored development of an EV platform that Chinese
> automakers could adopt. That's not exactly what I have in mind though ...
> 
> David Roden, EVDL moderator & general lackey
> 
> To reach me, don't reply to this message; I won't get it. Use my
> offlist address here : http://evdl.org/help/index.html#supt
> 
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> Post-truth is pre-fascism.
> 
> -- Timothy Snyder= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> = = = = = = = = = = = =
> 
> ___
> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive
> LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement

[EVDL Administrator via EV]

On 30 Jul 2021 at 21:39, Haudy Kazemi via EV wrote:

> This is a battle being fought between lots of hardware manufacturers and
> owners of devices ranging from cars to tractors to phones to laptops.

I had an insane idea in the 1990s, and it hasn't gotten any saner since.  It 
was down the block from impossible then, and probably right next door to it 
now that EVs are actually in production, but it's kind of fun to dream 
about.

My thought was that switching the world to EVs was an opportunity to rethink 
the whole idea of how vehicles are designed, made, and sold.

We already have an open source EVSE. Why not an open source EV?

Call it the FLOSEV - Free, libre open source electric vehicle.

What I'm dreaming about is a simple, straightforward, no-frills reference 
design EV.  No power windows, no fancy sound system, no self-driving or 
similar gimmicks and gadgets.  Not even a specific body.  Just a basic EV 
platform that, with minimal changes, could be built as a functional 2- or 4-
door hatchback, small crossover, van, or pickup truck.  

The design might be placed in the public domain, or it might follow the 
Creative Commons, BSD, GNU, or other similar open licensing ("copyleft"?) 
scheme.

Really ambitious EV hobbyists could build a FLOSEV from published plans.  
Organizations, nonprofit or for-profit, could develop kits, semi-kits, and 
finished vehicles.  As with open source software, the design could be 
improved or "forked" by others, as long as they adhered to the terms of the 
license.

I know, an EV is orders of magnitude more complex than an EVSE.  And there 
would be enormous regulatory hurdles, especially since you'd want to meet as 
many nations' standards as possible.

Financing the design would be a daunting challenge.  For obvious reasons you 
couldn't approach venture capitalists.  Heck, if any showed interest, you'd 
have to ward them off with tear gas and a large dog.  

Donations would have to play a big part, but you'd have to be careful what 
foundations, individuals, and governments you approached.  Look what 
happened to the Tropica / Xebra and the Solectria Sunrise when outside 
organizations got involved.

As I said, this is utterly whacko.  I can see hurdles, and I'm ignorant, so 
I'm sure that an industry insider would see 50 foot walls topped with razor 
wire, flanked by guard towers, and protected by armed guards. 

But it's still intriguing to contemplate and dream about.  Wouldn't a FLOSEV 
knock the socks off of the big corporate automakers? :-)

Actually, the most likely scenario for something like this would be if the 
Chinese government sponsored development of an EV platform that Chinese 
automakers could adopt.   That's not exactly what I have in mind though ...

David Roden, EVDL moderator & general lackey

To reach me, don't reply to this message; I won't get it.  Use my 
offlist address here : http://evdl.org/help/index.html#supt

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
 Post-truth is pre-fascism.

 -- Timothy Snyder= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
= = = = = = = = = = = = 

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement

[Haudy Kazemi via EV]

On Fri, Jul 30, 2021, 14:44 Peter VanDerWal via EV 
wrote:

> > On security: there are ways to guarantee local physical presence before
> > software/firmware is changed. A physical write-protect switch or a jumper
> > that must be moved is one of them. Some computers have required this kind
> > of thing before BIOS updates could be made.
>
>
> Most farmers are "physically" at their tractor when they load the hacked
> software with who knows what "extra features" created by the hackers.
>


The point was requiring physical presence to change firmware is one way to
mitigate risks of someone else remotely modifying firmware on connected
devices.

Similarly, a physical, manual on/off switch that actually disconnects a
circuit, cannot be remotely overridden. (Well, unless you have robots or
drones or servants on site who are willing to flip the switch at your
command.)

I also doubt the alleged "hackers" will have much interest in adding
"misfeatures" that break the equipment. The primary interest is in
bypassing the locks that the customer (some tractor owners) wants bypassed.
The user population is not all that large either.

(If the "misfeature" is something like ransomware added to a
firmware...owners may already feel the manufacturers are charging a ransom
to repair the hardware, and feel the risk is worth it. People will go to
great lengths to bypass restrictions they feel are unjust/unfair.)

All these issues could be mitigated by owner-friendly hardware and software
policies from the manufacturer. In short, mfrs should not block owners from
being able to maintain equipment sold to owners. (If the hardware is being
leased with included complete support/maintenance, that's fine. Just don't
sell something when it really is only being leased.)

In some cases that may also mean giving owners some level of software
access, if the software is needed to maintain the system. In other cases it
may mean a giving owners a way to unlock access when the company wants to
mark that hardware as 'end of life', or owner wants access before EOL, by
voiding a warranty.

This is a battle being fought between lots of hardware manufacturers and
owners of devices ranging from cars to tractors to phones to laptops. Louis
Rossmann has a lot of knowledge and experience in these matters.

Article and comments:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170322/04582036973/tractor-owners-using-pirated-firmware-to-dodge-john-deeres-ham-fisted-attempt-to-monopolize-repair.shtml
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on ?Right to Repair? enforcement

[Lawrence Rhodes via EV]

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:56:46 -0700
From: "Mr. Snarkey" 
To: ev@lists.evdl.org
Subject: Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on ?Right to Repair? enforcement
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed



> You just don't know what you are missing

I would encourage you to refrain from making assumptions on which you
have no basis to make a judgement.
My "conversion" is a factory conversion, not a home-built conversion
It nicely handles my needs, which are modest
I ~have~ driven it "cross county", but I don't expect that you'd know
how or why
Some of us on the EVDL have different needs from yours. Mine include
not driving a bug-eyed clown car that I can't fix myself. If they are
so wonderful, why did it take three of them to go 160k?
But I'd never assume to judge you or your needs based on mine
Enjoy your solar car fantasies, everyone needs to dream

Mr. Snarky,

The EVDL is about sharing knowledge. Please enlighten us on how you can drive a 
factory conversion cross country and what that factory conversion was? In my 
case the first was a lease. By 30k miles it was obvious the 2012 Leaf battery 
was a bummer. We didn't buy that lease out. The second bought used was a 2013 
Leaf for $14k 0% Nissan approved used car loan. 2,400 miles on the clock. It 
was like new. Paid off in 5 years at $256 a month. We just paid the simple 
principal. That car has over 60k miles on it. I just drove it 50 miles to Napa 
CA. It still had 52% charge left. Got a free Volta charge for the return trip. 
The third Leaf was $13,550 total including incentives and lease cost($216 a 
month for 3 years) plus $9,500 dollar buyout after lease. This car also has 
over 60k on the clock and we can coax 135 miles out of it down wind at 55mph. I 
will never again depend on anything I build as the cost to benefit just isn't 
worth it unless I can work with the dregs of the EV world. For instance an eGo 
scooter(got it free) modified with a couple of $100 dollar 12v Valence 
batteries. Had to baby it up hills. Worked reasonably well for around San 
Francisco. One of a kind. It's now hard to get Valence 40ah batteries for $100. 
I spent over 10k dollars for an abandoned conversion including a pallet of 8v 
batteries. It to was the first of the bubble cars http://www.evalbum.com/418 I 
stuffed 1,200 pounds of lead in and succeeded in not losing any interior space. 
It was good for the 2000's but didn't hold a candle to a simple Leaf and 
because of that I drove veggie diesel for a decade. Because of all these things 
including vegetable oil taking over my house I couldn't be more happy with my 
bug eyed car which I am sure if I had to I could simply diagnose and bolt in 
the proper part when needed...how hard could it be? So happy not to be 
wrenching unless I "want" to.  Yes. I hold strong opinions due to experience 
which I hope not to repeat. BTW solar cars are not fantasy 
https://solarteameindhoven.nl/  One just has to give up steel vehicles.  
Lawrence Rhodes 









___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement

[Peter VanDerWal via EV]

> On security: there are ways to guarantee local physical presence before
> software/firmware is changed. A physical write-protect switch or a jumper
> that must be moved is one of them. Some computers have required this kind
> of thing before BIOS updates could be made.


Most farmers are "physically" at their tractor when they load the hacked 
software with who knows what "extra features" created by the hackers.
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement

[Peter VanDerWal via EV]

My PGP public key: https://vanderwal.us/evdl_pgp.key

July 29, 2021 10:50 AM, "EVDL Administrator via EV"  wrote:

> On 28 Jul 2021 at 20:41, Mr. Sharkey via EV wrote:
> 
>> What finally killed [the Ford Focus EV] in my mind was that if it
>> needed more than the windshield washer fluid checked or brake pads
>> replaced, the stealership would be helpless and it would probably be
>> trucked to Portland (3 hours away) for service.
> 
> Ford doesn't teach dealer mechanices how to work on the cars their dealers
> sell?
> 

The dealer has to send them to training.   
In the town near me all of the 'dealers' are all owned by Lawley: Ford, Chevy, 
Toyota, Nissan, Kia, etc.  

Up until recently Lawley refused to support EVs, they wouldn't sell them, etc.  
I see they now have two 2021 Kia Nero EVs and 1 Niro plug in hybrid on their 
lot, but no other EVs or plug in Hybrids.

They do service the parts that are common with ICEs: brakes, onboard computers, 
etc.  but from what I understand they don't do anything with the high voltage 
components.
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement

[Peter VanDerWal via EV]

Some people feel that "Right to Repair" includes "Right to modify software", 
that was mentioned in the article.

My PGP public key: https://vanderwal.us/evdl_pgp.key

July 28, 2021 2:51 PM, "Peri Hartman via EV"  wrote:

> Honestly, I don't think that has anything to do with "right to repair." 
> Whether the right to repair exists or not, people can still install 
> hacked software. The right to repair gives the owner a chance to do 
> certain, legal kinds of repairs without voiding the warranty.
> 
> Peri
> 
> << Annoyed by leaf blowers ? https://quietcleanseattle.org >>
> 
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Peter VanDerWal via EV" 
> To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" 
> Cc: "Peter VanDerWal" 
> Sent: 26-Jul-21 16:31:13
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement
> 
>> I'm of two minds about this. While I applaud the fact that I can now fix my 
>> EV (if I choose too), I
>> also agree with John Deere's point.
>> Many(all?) of JD's bigger tractors have complex computer systems with many 
>> options that are
>> disabled in software unless you pay for the license to enable them, 
>> including fully autonomous mode
>> with remote control.
>> 
>> JD was having issues with farmers buying cheap bootleg software from former 
>> sovient block countries
>> to enable all of those features. Aside from the fact that this robs JD of 
>> sales, the farmers have
>> no idea what kind of quality control (if any) the bootleg software goes 
>> through, and worse yet any
>> possible 'extra' features those hackers have added.
>> 
>> The idea that large, dangerous, machines could end up under control of 
>> Russian hackers is pretty
>> scary considering recent events. They ould litterally wake them up in the 
>> middle of the night and
>> send them on a rampage if they wanted to.
>> 
>> Anyway, to prevent this JD's newer tractors will only accept software that 
>> has been digitally
>> signed by John Deere. This pretty much prevents farmers from doing any DIY 
>> software fixes, hacks,
>> etc.
>> 
>> Can you imagine what could happen if hackers got ahold of Tesla's source 
>> code? Suddenly all of the
>> Tesla's switch from self driving mode to self crashing mode.
>> 
>> My PGP public key: https://vanderwal.us/evdl_pgp.key
>> 
>> July 22, 2021 8:31 AM, "Mark Abramowitz via EV"  wrote:
>> 
>>> https://www.wired.com/story/ftc-votes-to-enforce-right-to-repair
>>> 
>>> - Mark
>>> 
>>> Sent from my Fuel Cell powered iPhone
>>> -- next part --
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL: 
>>> <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20210722/209b6609/attachment.html>
>>> ___
>>> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
>>> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
>>> UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
>>> ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive
>>> LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
>> 
>> ___
>> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
>> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
>> UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
>> ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive
>> LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
> 
> ___
> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive
> LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on ?Right to Repair? enforcement

[Jay Summet via EV]

On 7/29/21 6:56 PM, Mr. Sharkey via EV wrote:
Mine include not 
driving a bug-eyed clown car that I can't fix myself. If they are so 
wonderful, why did it take three of them to go 160k?


Yes, Gen1/1.5 Leaf's look a bit weird.

I've dismantled a 2013 completely and was quite impressed with the 
general layout of components, minimum number of unique fasteners used, 
ease of access to most components and crash protection (of the salvage 
one I disassembled).


I feel that it would be as easy to fix/wrench as any other factory auto 
if needed, but so far I haven't had to do any maintenance other than 
replace the cabin air filter, 12v accessory  battery and the windshield 
washer fluid on my 2015 driver.


I am also a fan of the Leaf.

Jay
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on ?Right to Repair? enforcement

[Mr. Sharkey via EV]

> You just don't know what you are missing

I would encourage you to refrain from making assumptions on which you 
have no basis to make a judgement.


My "conversion" is a factory conversion, not a home-built conversion

It nicely handles my needs, which are modest

I ~have~ driven it "cross county", but I don't expect that you'd know 
how or why


Some of us on the EVDL have different needs from yours. Mine include 
not driving a bug-eyed clown car that I can't fix myself. If they are 
so wonderful, why did it take three of them to go 160k?


But I'd never assume to judge you or your needs based on mine

Enjoy your solar car fantasies, everyone needs to dream



Choose to be safer online.
Opt-in to Cyber Safety with NortonLifeLock.
Plans starting as low as $6.95 per month.*
https://store.netzero.net/account/showService.do?serviceId=nz-nLifeLock&utm_source=mktg&utm_medium=taglines&utm_campaign=nzlifelk_launch&utm_content=tag695&promoCode=A34454
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on ?Right to Repair? enforcement

[Lawrence Rhodes via EV]

I have built and still tinker with EVs of all sorts. My Nissan which I probably 
couldn't diagnose or fix anything on has been a blessing. It meets all my 
needs. I could never make a car like that for 14k which is what I paid used and 
new for my two Leafs. Your conversion will never go cross country unless it is 
a solar bicycle. You just don't know what you are missing. 160k miles on three 
Leafs.  Lawrence Rhodes
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement

[Mr. Sharkey via EV]

> Ford doesn't teach dealer mechanices how to work
> on the cars their dealers sell?

Considering how hard the "big three' automakers are trying to build 
market and sell EV's, how much time do you suppose they invest in 
teaching the repair department in a stealership serving a town of 
5,000 to fix a car that they will probably never see?


Case in point: Some years back, I had one of my vehicles aligned at a 
very reputable alignment shop. As I was picking up the car after the 
alignment, there was a roll-back tow truck just heading out with what 
looked to be a very new VW Toureg on board. I inquired about this and 
was told that after the body shop across town got done with a 
relatively minor collision repair, it was brought in for some 
suspension repairs. They had no trouble sourcing and installing the 
parts, but the nearest alignment shop that had the proper 
computerized equipment to interface with the vehicle's active 
suspension was in PDX, so off it went. And this was in the state's 
then-second largest city of 130,000.


Eventually, the Focus got donated or leased at a donation price 
($0/tax write-off) to one of the local non-profits. I saw it around 
town with graphics on the doors for a few months, then it 
disappeared. Probably sitting on the back lot of the stealership, 
waiting for a gizmo to make the optional shoe-shine pedals function again...




Choose to be safer online.
Opt-in to Cyber Safety with NortonLifeLock.
Get Norton 360 with LifeLock starting at $9.95/month.*
https://store.netzero.net/account/showService.do?serviceId=nz-nLifeLock&utm_source=mktg&utm_medium=taglines&utm_campaign=nzlifelk_launch&utm_content=tag995&promoCode=A23457
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement

[EVDL Administrator via EV]

On 28 Jul 2021 at 20:41, Mr. Sharkey via EV wrote:

> What finally killed [the Ford Focus EV] in my mind was that if it
> needed more than the windshield washer fluid checked or brake pads
> replaced, the stealership would be helpless and it would probably be
> trucked to Portland (3 hours away) for service. 

Ford doesn't teach dealer mechanices how to work on the cars their dealers 
sell?

> It doesn't have turbo motorized toilet paper dispensers or the in-dash
> espresso maker 

Don't give them ideas.  :-\

David Roden, EVDL moderator & general lackey

To reach me, don't reply to this message; I won't get it.  Use my 
offlist address here : http://evdl.org/help/index.html#supt

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
 I will never be seen taking to the streets to defend my poetry. 
 The carpenter doesn't fight for his trusses. No one can fight 
 morally for his nose or his feet, his teeth, or his hair.

-- Pablo Neruda
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement

[Mr. Sharkey via EV]

There are some on this list who are holding back from purchasing a 
production EV due to the perception that the offerings are too 
"closed source" for their sensibilities. Whether it be remote shut 
down, forced updates, feature takebacks, or just plain data tracking (spying).


Some years back, while my conversion EV was sitting with a deceased 
L/A battery pack, the local Ford stealership had an EV Focus on the 
lot. They had had it around for some time without a buyer, and it was 
deeply discounted. Maybe it was time to ditch the old EV and embrace the new.


I went by the lot on a Sunday to check the car, knowing that I 
wouldn't be assaulted by a sales associate before I could take a 
critical walk around the car.


I decided that I didn't really like the looks of the car, it was kind 
of swooshy, with a non-declaratory, somewhat feminine design. It was 
also a four-door, which I detest.


What finally killed it in my mind was that if it needed more than the 
windshield washer fluid checked or brake pads replaced, the 
stealership would be helpless and it would probably be trucked to 
Portland (3 hours away) for service. I compared this mentally with my 
conversion EV, in which I know every system and sub system and how to 
repair it on the side of the road with a paper clip and a bent 
screwdriver. I decided that the purchase price of this car, applied 
to repairing my existing EV, would net me a car I could be proud of, 
repair myself, and which would completely fill my needs.


As it turns out, I ended up spending about a tenth of that amount to 
purchase another EV'er's unsuccessful conversion vehicle, which I 
parted out to transform my own car. It doesn't have turbo motorized 
toilet paper dispensers or the in-dash espresso maker, but I can live 
without that stuff. Cup holders would be nice, though.


Will Right-to-Repair make matters better? It seems it could. My 
interest would be in small consumer products that are field 
serviceable, things like cabinets/enclosures with removable fasteners 
instead of glued/sonic welded shut, access to specialty repair 
components at a reasonable cost, and service manuals/schematic 
diagrams so that defects can be located and repaired.


Will we see Chilton and Clymer repair manuals for Bolts, or Tesla 
Repair for Dummies any time soon? Doubtful. I have an 80-year-old 
Ford tractor that still runs and works hard. I could build a second 
one entirely from after-market parts if I wanted, and still come in 
with more change in my pocket than buying a new JD...




Choose to be safer online.
Opt-in to Cyber Safety with NortonLifeLock.
Get Norton 360 with LifeLock starting at $9.95/month.*
https://store.netzero.net/account/showService.do?serviceId=nz-nLifeLock&utm_source=mktg&utm_medium=taglines&utm_campaign=nzlifelk_launch&utm_content=tag995&promoCode=A23457
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement

[Haudy Kazemi via EV]

I agree, repairability is more important than manufacturers maintaining an
iron grip. And that iron grip almost certainly has holes too, which can be
exploited by malicious parties...whether or not owners have access. The
question isn't whether 'bad guys' may get access... it's whether the 'good
guys' will also have access.

Owners should not need to resort to holes to gain freedom to carry out
their own maintenance and repairs and hardware replacements. Repairability
is critical for keeping equipment functional, at reasonable prices, over
the long term. I'd say it is also more important on large, expensive, long
life hardware than on small electronics, though in both cases repairability
helps reduce waste.

On security: there are ways to guarantee local physical presence before
software/firmware is changed. A physical write-protect switch or a jumper
that must be moved is one of them. Some computers have required this kind
of thing before BIOS updates could be made.


On Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 17:57 (-Phil-) via EV  wrote:

> Hacking features is one thing, but denying access to the ability to repair
> is another.   If the "baby has to be thrown out with the bathwater" so we
> can repair things, then so be it.  Manufacturers will find a way to
> monetize the features some other way.
>
> Allowing access to diagnostics and the ability to install replacement parts
> has nothing to do with firmware security.   You can most definitely have
> both.
>
> This is coming from a guy who has rooted over 3000 Teslas in order for the
> owners to be able to repair them.   I'd say I'm qualified.
>
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 2:28 PM Peter VanDerWal via EV 
> wrote:
>
> > I'm of two minds about this.  While I applaud the fact that I can now fix
> > my EV (if I choose too), I also agree with John Deere's point.
> > Many(all?) of JD's bigger tractors have complex computer systems with
> many
> > options that are disabled in software unless you pay for the license to
> > enable them, including fully autonomous mode with remote control.
> >
> > JD was having issues with farmers buying cheap bootleg software from
> > former sovient block countries to enable all of those features.  Aside
> from
> > the fact that this robs JD of sales, the farmers have no idea what kind
> of
> > quality control (if any) the bootleg software goes through, and worse yet
> > any possible 'extra' features those hackers have added.
> >
> > The idea that large, dangerous, machines could end up under control of
> > Russian hackers is pretty scary considering recent events.  They ould
> > litterally wake them up in the middle of the night and send them on a
> > rampage if they wanted to.
> >
> > Anyway, to prevent this JD's newer tractors will only accept software
> that
> > has been digitally signed by John Deere.  This pretty much prevents
> farmers
> > from doing any DIY software fixes, hacks, etc.
> >
> > Can you imagine what could happen if hackers got ahold of Tesla's source
> > code?  Suddenly all of the Tesla's switch from self driving mode to self
> > crashing mode.
> >
> > My PGP public key: https://vanderwal.us/evdl_pgp.key
> >
> > July 22, 2021 8:31 AM, "Mark Abramowitz via EV" 
> wrote:
> >
> > > https://www.wired.com/story/ftc-votes-to-enforce-right-to-repair
> > >
> > > - Mark
> > >
> > > Sent from my Fuel Cell powered iPhone
> > > -- next part --
> > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > URL: <
> >
> http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20210722/209b6609/attachment.html
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
> > > No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> > > UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> > > ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive
> > > LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
> > ___
> > Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
> > No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> > UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> > ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
> > LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20210728/e49c4302/attachment.html
> >
> ___
> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
> LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHI

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement

[(-Phil-) via EV]

Hacking features is one thing, but denying access to the ability to repair
is another.   If the "baby has to be thrown out with the bathwater" so we
can repair things, then so be it.  Manufacturers will find a way to
monetize the features some other way.

Allowing access to diagnostics and the ability to install replacement parts
has nothing to do with firmware security.   You can most definitely have
both.

This is coming from a guy who has rooted over 3000 Teslas in order for the
owners to be able to repair them.   I'd say I'm qualified.

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 2:28 PM Peter VanDerWal via EV 
wrote:

> I'm of two minds about this.  While I applaud the fact that I can now fix
> my EV (if I choose too), I also agree with John Deere's point.
> Many(all?) of JD's bigger tractors have complex computer systems with many
> options that are disabled in software unless you pay for the license to
> enable them, including fully autonomous mode with remote control.
>
> JD was having issues with farmers buying cheap bootleg software from
> former sovient block countries to enable all of those features.  Aside from
> the fact that this robs JD of sales, the farmers have no idea what kind of
> quality control (if any) the bootleg software goes through, and worse yet
> any possible 'extra' features those hackers have added.
>
> The idea that large, dangerous, machines could end up under control of
> Russian hackers is pretty scary considering recent events.  They ould
> litterally wake them up in the middle of the night and send them on a
> rampage if they wanted to.
>
> Anyway, to prevent this JD's newer tractors will only accept software that
> has been digitally signed by John Deere.  This pretty much prevents farmers
> from doing any DIY software fixes, hacks, etc.
>
> Can you imagine what could happen if hackers got ahold of Tesla's source
> code?  Suddenly all of the Tesla's switch from self driving mode to self
> crashing mode.
>
> My PGP public key: https://vanderwal.us/evdl_pgp.key
>
> July 22, 2021 8:31 AM, "Mark Abramowitz via EV"  wrote:
>
> > https://www.wired.com/story/ftc-votes-to-enforce-right-to-repair
> >
> > - Mark
> >
> > Sent from my Fuel Cell powered iPhone
> > -- next part --
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20210722/209b6609/attachment.html
> >
> > ___
> > Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
> > No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> > UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> > ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive
> > LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
> ___
> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
> LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement

[Peri Hartman via EV]

Honestly, I don't think that has anything to do with "right to repair." 
Whether the right to repair exists or not, people can still install 
hacked software. The right to repair gives the owner a chance to do 
certain, legal kinds of repairs without voiding the warranty.


Peri

<< Annoyed by leaf blowers ? https://quietcleanseattle.org/ >>

-- Original Message --
From: "Peter VanDerWal via EV" 
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" 
Cc: "Peter VanDerWal" 
Sent: 26-Jul-21 16:31:13
Subject: Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement


I'm of two minds about this.  While I applaud the fact that I can now fix my EV 
(if I choose too), I also agree with John Deere's point.
Many(all?) of JD's bigger tractors have complex computer systems with many 
options that are disabled in software unless you pay for the license to enable 
them, including fully autonomous mode with remote control.

JD was having issues with farmers buying cheap bootleg software from former 
sovient block countries to enable all of those features.  Aside from the fact 
that this robs JD of sales, the farmers have no idea what kind of quality 
control (if any) the bootleg software goes through, and worse yet any possible 
'extra' features those hackers have added.

The idea that large, dangerous, machines could end up under control of Russian 
hackers is pretty scary considering recent events.  They ould litterally wake 
them up in the middle of the night and send them on a rampage if they wanted to.

Anyway, to prevent this JD's newer tractors will only accept software that has 
been digitally signed by John Deere.  This pretty much prevents farmers from 
doing any DIY software fixes, hacks, etc.

Can you imagine what could happen if hackers got ahold of Tesla's source code?  
Suddenly all of the Tesla's switch from self driving mode to self crashing mode.

My PGP public key: https://vanderwal.us/evdl_pgp.key

July 22, 2021 8:31 AM, "Mark Abramowitz via EV"  wrote:


https://www.wired.com/story/ftc-votes-to-enforce-right-to-repair

 - Mark

 Sent from my Fuel Cell powered iPhone
 -- next part --
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20210722/209b6609/attachment.html>
 ___
 Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
 No other addresses in TO and CC fields
 UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
 ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive
 LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org


___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement

[Peter VanDerWal via EV]

I'm of two minds about this.  While I applaud the fact that I can now fix my EV 
(if I choose too), I also agree with John Deere's point.
Many(all?) of JD's bigger tractors have complex computer systems with many 
options that are disabled in software unless you pay for the license to enable 
them, including fully autonomous mode with remote control.

JD was having issues with farmers buying cheap bootleg software from former 
sovient block countries to enable all of those features.  Aside from the fact 
that this robs JD of sales, the farmers have no idea what kind of quality 
control (if any) the bootleg software goes through, and worse yet any possible 
'extra' features those hackers have added.

The idea that large, dangerous, machines could end up under control of Russian 
hackers is pretty scary considering recent events.  They ould litterally wake 
them up in the middle of the night and send them on a rampage if they wanted to.

Anyway, to prevent this JD's newer tractors will only accept software that has 
been digitally signed by John Deere.  This pretty much prevents farmers from 
doing any DIY software fixes, hacks, etc.

Can you imagine what could happen if hackers got ahold of Tesla's source code?  
Suddenly all of the Tesla's switch from self driving mode to self crashing mode.

My PGP public key: https://vanderwal.us/evdl_pgp.key

July 22, 2021 8:31 AM, "Mark Abramowitz via EV"  wrote:

> https://www.wired.com/story/ftc-votes-to-enforce-right-to-repair
> 
> - Mark
> 
> Sent from my Fuel Cell powered iPhone
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive
> LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

Re: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement

[Peri Hartman via EV]

5-0 in favor. Sounds like this will stick around across administrations. 
That's a great plus for the future of EV owners.


Next up: I hope we will see legislation to prevent EV manufacturers from 
disabling or crippling car functionality, excluding features which they 
charge extra for up front. We need this protection in combo with right 
to repair. If you repair a Tesla battery, they can block you from L3 
charging. (In this case, I understand their liability, but there needs 
to be a reasonable middle ground.)


Peri

<< Annoyed by leaf blowers ? https://quietcleanseattle.org/ >>

-- Original Message --
From: "Mark Abramowitz via EV" 
To: ev@lists.evdl.org
Cc: "Mark Abramowitz" 
Sent: 22-Jul-21 08:31:42
Subject: [EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement


https://www.wired.com/story/ftc-votes-to-enforce-right-to-repair/

- Mark

Sent from my Fuel Cell powered iPhone
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20210722/209b6609/attachment.html>
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org


___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org

[EVDL] FTC vote on “Right to Repair” enforcement

[Mark Abramowitz via EV]

https://www.wired.com/story/ftc-votes-to-enforce-right-to-repair/

- Mark

Sent from my Fuel Cell powered iPhone
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org