Dear reader: The debate over the issue to create federal legislation regarding the Right to Repair Act is expected to resume next year. Both sides have been vocal regarding their position on the issue, especially during the recent Automotive Aftermarket Industry Week (AAIW) held Nov. 1-6 in Las Vegas. But what are the shop owners saying? In our October issue, we asked readers to let us know their opinion of the Right to Repair Act. And to their credit, we received quite a bit of responses on the subject, both in support and in opposition. Below are some of the comments we received. Regardless if legislation is passed, one thing is certain - OEM technical information is vital for independent shops to stay successful and profitable. In the meantime, we feel it is important for those in the industry on both sides to be heard on this issue. So we thank all of you who took the time to respond to our question and we will keep you informed on any news on this issue as details arise. Ed Sunkin Editor Underhood Service Dear Underhood Service: In response to the questions about the Right to Repair issue: The main things that we have run into are the lack of reasonable-ness of the pricing for the information, and the costs associated with buying so many different scan tools. Since we work on all makes and models (except for some of the Europeans), this makes the costs pretty steep to keep current with tech info and equipment. We are a three-tech, six-bay shop and the price load is fairly steep as the industry is at the moment. Thanks. Bobby Dunn Triangle Car Care Raleigh, NC Ed: I am a member of ASA and am on the Mechanical Operations Committee. This year I am chairing the Information Availability sub-committee. We are exploring ways to help get information out to our members and other interested shop owners about the wealth of information, which is available to them and how to obtain it. I feel the Service Information availability agreements which have been reached with the OE manufacturers and overseen by the EPA, and the fact that the OE websites are to be evaluated for content early next year makes it unnecessary to enact legislation at this time. In our shop, we use Mitchell Information services. We usually find the necessary information needed for the repairs we perform in our shop. If we have any difficulty, I usually call Mitchell Information and they fax me the OE information I need. This is part of the service I pay for. I have had this available to me for quite some time. We also use iATN and IDENTIFIX as sources of information as well as using the OE websites if needed. If you have any suggestions that may help our committee in communicating with our members about the information that is available to them, I would greatly appreciate hearing from you. Thank you in advance for any help you may be able to offer. Sincerely, Robert Ayers, AAM Owner, Ayers Automotive Repair Santa Barbara, CA Ed: Enough is enough; already this issue has wasted too much time and money. Did ASA move too quickly? Yes. In retrospect, did they do "the right thing?" Probably not. Do the parts people have a chance at legislation that would grant them access to the intellectual property of the OEMs? Definitely not. Are those who are on the front line of diagnostics correct in their statement that the OEMs are not complying with the letter and intent of the agreement? As it applies to some OEMs, absolutely. As it applies to all OEMs in general, probably not. This industry is destroying itself from the inside out. The OEMs need only stand by and wait for the independents to implode. Someone needs to step forward, grab shop owners by the scruff of the neck and explain to them the facts of life. They are going to have to invest time in education and money in equipment or go out of business. It is no one's fault or responsibility but their own. Twenty years ago they spent $50K on "big box" diagnostic tools, today they have to spend $3K to $5K for each proprietary scan tool. Aftermarket tools are not the answer. They need to get high-speed Internet service for their PCs and laptops and get hooked up with Mitchell 1, ALLDATA and IDENTIFIX; all of them would not be unwise. The associations need to drop the pretense and egos and get together for the good of the industry that they are supposed to be serving. Rather than fan the flames, the fourth estate has to get the message out because if the industry "goes south" so do the advertising dollars and the publications. It is a huge task, let's get started. Sincerely, Joe Torchiana President, Torchiana Automotive West Chester, PA Dear Ed, After 26 years of Honda/Toyota repair I have closed my shop as of January. I am a full-time trainer now and still actively involved with shops. I see this issue from a few angles. As a tech if I don't have a computer next to me on a high-speed cable, then none of this helps me. As a shop owner, I need to specialize (isn't that what a dealer does?). As a trainer I need to stay up on new cars and have information for the class. As a car owner I want a good job at a fair price. Are all of these in sync? Yes, if you have money to spend. Dealers are not trying to work on every make. Smart? I would say so. There are enough cars in most large cities to allow for a specialty shop. Now, a small town is another matter. These men and women do have it tough. They always have. Do we go as we are now? Do we try legislation? Most likely less than 2% of independent shops/techs are working on either. ASA and AASP have two different ideas. Try them both, as we are. Is this our biggest problem? I say no. The old saying from the 1960s applies - "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." We will ultimately get what we work for. Time will tell. Craig Van Batenburg Automotive Career Development Center Worcester, MA Attention Underhood Service: In 2002 and 2003 I had the opportunity to help Toyota with the development of their TIS online information system as a Beta tester. At the conclusion of testing they hosted a focus group meeting with the programmers from Japan, the independent techs and a group of Toyota dealer techs. In a discussion I had with the programming lead I told him that if they would provide the specifications and the strategy for each system, they could stop publishing diagnostic flow charts because we would not need them to reverse engineer their systems any longer. The dealer techs almost quoted me in their statements. The response from the programmers was that techs could not diagnose problems with vehicles armed with only this information. I think we were successful in convincing them that we could. I have not seen any dramatic changes in the way information is provided yet but, that is a big ship to turn. I think that one of the biggest challenges we have is getting automakers to realize that techs in their service bays and ours are very sophisticated. During the week at CARS when the manufacturers were providing us with training, it was very clear that they just don't know what we know or need. We have to be very proactive about getting them the feedback they need through NASTF so that we can avoid legislation that will increase our cost of information and certainly will put the whole industry into a compliance-only mode. I think that legislation will result in the manufacturers meeting the criteria that is set for them and going no further. It is harder to take the proactive approach but, it is very evident in my contact with the OEs that it is the better and more expedient approach for everyone. The automotive industry has grown up. Like doctors and dentist and homebuilders, we HAVE to deal with issues outside of the shop EVERY DAY. If we do not, we can only blame ourselves when things do not go our way. If you think you can write a comprehensive law that will protect the independent sector, I encourage you to look at how easily insurance companies worked around our efforts to provide anti-steering legislation and to look back 10 years and tell me how you would have anticipated the information needed to service and repair hybrid vehicles or to use Mode #06 to assist with OBD II diagnosis. Even the manufacturers didn't see that one coming until the independent sector showed them how we could use it. Like your business, your industry and your life, you only get back what you put in. Donny Seyfer Seyfer Automotive, Inc. Wheat Ridge, CO Dear Ed, Thanks for the opportunity to speak to the information availability issue. Since the agreement was signed by the OEMs and ASA, the increase in information, availability of scan tool updates, OEM scan tool availability and OEM website information has been nothing short of amazing. Manufacturers that had stonewalled us for years now make the information available. There are issues to be resolved but they are minor compared to what we faced two years ago. Even the critics acknowledge the improved information flow and their ability to fix cars they struggled with before or turned away altogether. This year we have repaired 40+ vehicles that we would have turned away previously. That's money in the bank and satisfied customers in our database. The great thing is we didn't have to wait years and years for legislation if that happens at all. With the FTC letter, it looks pretty iffy. They see many problems with oversight and implementation. The good news is we have the benefits now and have a complaint process controlled within our industry. Having control of the process is always better than being dependent on a third party to do something. There are those who are afraid the OEMs will hold out information in the future. There are always those who fear the future and believe "the sky is falling." I am not one of those. Should that happen, we have assurances from both the Senate and House leadership that they will act and act quickly because there would be justification. Currently there is no justification because the OEMs have done what they promised. It happens to be the exact same thing the legislation asked for. I say we continue with a process that is working until it fails. If then we need to legislate - so be it. We have many other pressing issues to solve rather than using valuable time and money on an issue well on its way to resolution. The biggest challenge now is to get the industry to use what is available. Most shops utilize less than 20% of what is available currently. Even if there were more resources available, would they be used? Look at all the alleged problems of information availability and less than 100 complaints to NASTF. Most of the complaints I have found in the last year haven't been that the information or tools aren't available, but that the shop owner didn't want to spend the money to get it. If only the shortage of qualified technicians or the cost of good health insurance could be solved this quickly. Thank you for the opportunity to sound off. Charlie Elder, AAM Ray Gordon Brake Service Tallahassee, FL Hi Ed: We have no problems getting information. We use IDENTIFIX Direct Hit, and iATN, we get a lot of info there. We have ALLDATA and use the OEMs' websites also. If the bill would get passed, I think it would hurt us and take a long time to get in place. John L. Francis Jr. President, Francis Automotive Services West Chester, PA Hi Ed: I think the whole thing is another way for the manufacturers to put a squeeze on the independent market. The fact that you have to buy "time" on the 'Net for certain vehicle manufacturers (as far as I'm concerned) is a product of the times. Cars are not like they were even 10 years ago, so naturally the sophistication of repairs has to follow suit. Granted, if a repair shop was to buy the "time" to all the manufacturers, it would be over $35,000 a year. But I don't think anybody in his right mind would do that. I buy time in regard to when I need it. Just today I had to log onto the BMW page to obtain info on a repair. I personally like the web info, it's not second-hand info. It hasn't been run through a middleman and chopped up into different sections. My thoughts are that the independent market has to wise up, make the grade and perform the repairs on today's cars with the proper knowledge and equipment. For those who do not wish to do so, well, find another line of work. One backdrop to this whole concept of "info" free society is the backyard do-it-yourself kind of guy. With the cost of the testing equipment and the test procedures are more complicated than ever, he is, for all intents and purposes, wasting his time. Home mechanics have been an American tradition since the Model T, and no, I don't think that will ever changed. As changes are made to the systems in cars, the shade tree mechanic will have to evolve along with those changes. On the other hand, another problem I see is the dealership mechanic departments. Take VW for example, some of their systems are VW "only." You hear it all the time from the body shops and some customers that it takes weeks to get an appointment. You know, this whole thing could backfire on the manufacturers. If the only place to get the vehicle fixed is at the dealer and the delay in repair time is so extensive, why in the world would I buy that model of car? Why not buy something else that can be repaired elsewhere, with less hassle? If the manufacturer is going to operate in that method then why not have the manufacturer come down to our level and offer the same software, equipment and training to a choice number of independent shops to work on their vehicles. This way an independent shop could hold the certification in that manufacturers' vehicles. This could guarantee a reasonable amount of independent work being performed outside the dealership but at the same quality level that they are trying to maintain at their shops. I'm all for the right to repair, the right for information and the right to obtain the dealer level scanning equipment. If the cost of repairs offset the cost of doing business with the right equipment then I don't see a problem - the problem is getting used to that fact. Scott "Gonzo" Weaver Superior Auto Electric Tulsa, OK Dear Underhood Service: I own and operate Roy's Auto Inc. in Estherville, IA. We employee three techs, and my daughter and I run the front-end. Most of what I know about the Right to Repair bill pending and the efforts so far in the industry, including the pact inked between ASA, trade groups and the automakers have been gleaned from comments in the iATN forums. In being a member of iATN and a regular reader of the forums, I have a pretty good feel for who knows what they are talking about, the people who have earned my trust, those who day in and day out make the most sense all seem to be against a legislated cure-all. They seem to feel the current agreement is working well. I know in our shop we have not had any real problem. My feeling is if it is good enough for Steve Brotherton, David Lanspeary, Lance Mossman, etc., it is good enough for me. Russell McLoud would be another voice of reason I listen to. This group has fought the good fight, made persuasive arguments backed with facts and logic. Listening to them is what makes me say what we have is good. We don't need legislation. Roy Gage Owner, Roy's Auto Inc. Estherville, IA Mr. Sunkin, In your column, you asked for comments about shop owners' feelings regarding the legislation issue and how it affects my business. I have had more than a passing interest in this issue. Among other things I am a contributing editor at "ImportCar" magazine; a Babcox publication. My specialty is Mercedes-Benz, but I have written about BMW also. In my desire to improve my shop's training and information on BMW's cars, I joined the two online BMW technical groups and have since become the Chairman of the Communications Committee of the IAIBMWSP. I also have been a founding member of the OSS committee. I would hope you were aware of these groups and in the area of access, specifically the historic OSS group. In 2001 the EPA asked that BMW meet with independent BMW technicians to allow them to help evaluate BMW's late plan for dealing with the EPA's mandate for information and tooling to repair emissions-related failures. A group was formed with about 20 technicians and was informally called the OSS committee for the online information service BMW had created in Europe: OSS. We first met with the EPA, CARB, ETI and BMW in 2001 (I think - time flies) and viewed their online information system. We posed a number of questions and scenarios and the realization existed that in the demonstrated state we would not be able to repair all situations with their planned system. This lead to further communications, promoted by the EPA. To make a long story short, at the time, BMW was one of the worst about access to info and the eventual written communications to our persistence on an answer was a very negative reply to our needs that went eventually to the senate hearings. It played hard against the manufacturer's case that they were cooperating and that there was no problem. The rest is history as you pointed out with the NASTF agreement. A very tough embattled group of independent BMW technicians has since seen their world change. You would almost have to witness it to know the change that has taken place. From an impossible situation, we now have access to tools and information at every level with only minor security issues still around. Our shop now owns factory tools for MB, BMW, Volvo, Porsche, Saab, Honda and Toyota. We regularly subscribe to the factory information sites for all those cars. The only lack of info we now face is due to our own lack of preparation and training. We work on a number of car lines with more emphasis on MB and BMW. We acquire the training we need on those car lines. Occasionally we send jobs away on the lesser car lines due to our own inability to do it all. Not only do I believe the world has changed for information access due to the NASTF agreement, I am also very worried that the current attitude of cooperation will end if the manufacturers are heavily threatened with legislation. We have a good, functioning agreement in the NASTF agreement and I personally believe that to continue to threaten the manufacturers with legislation without failure in the agreement to be disingenuous. Put my name on the list of technicians/shop owners against house bill HR 2735. Stephen Brotherton, President Continental Imports Chairman, Communication Committee, IAIBMWSP OSS Committee Member Gainesville, FL Ed: I have been on this trail for sometime as a very concerned shop owner and training provider. I have written a class on ESI (Electronic Service Information) which is available through AVI in video format as well. I have taught this class to many shops across the country, including a one-year version of the material with 35-40 area shops in a 48-hour format. I feel as if all the information we ever use (and need) is there! It's just no longer free like in years past. Also the word electronic retrieval also concerns many shops, as they have been more than slow to embrace e-mail in the service bays, etc. The comment of the shop owner (that it costs $37,000 a year to subscribe) is pretty bogus as well. No shop ever needs all that information and even if we had it all, it would be like the dog chasing the bus - what in the world would he do with it if he had it? The one-time access charge is a more than fair way to allow access to this information and in most cases that's all we ever need anyway. The imports claim I hear from time to time is a purely minority item as well. Do I really care if Volvo information costs more? Probably not. Did you know there was more trailer hitches put on GMC pickups last year alone than Volvos sold in the USA? We as a service group can't focus on these minority service issues. Let the Volvo folks pay more if that's what it takes. Maybe if the owners quit buying, the info would become readily available. I feel at this time that the money spent on any "Right to Repair acts" would be better spent on using what we have and learning actual strategies of the components we have to deal with every day. Jim Linder "The Injector Guru" Linder Technical Services Indianapolis, IN Ed: Just read your article and thought I should respond. I own and operate T.D.S. Auto Repair, Inc., in Sioux Falls, SD. I have operated T.D.S. for the past 28 years as an independent general repair facility. We use both the Mitchell data base as well as iATN for most or our repair information. The right to repair issue does affect me in that we do need information to continue repairing our customers' vehicles. In my belief, government involvement in our industry pertaining to this issue will only slow the process down or stop the flow of information. The repair information is one subject and the parts production or duplication is another. We have a working agreement now and it should be left as it is. Terry Steenholdt, Owner T.D.S. Auto Repair Sioux Falls, SD Dear Ed: I have been in business for 25 years. I have had no problems getting information or parts to repair my customers' cars and trucks. I subscribe to ALLDATA and IDENTIFIX for information. So far I have not seen a car that I could not get repair information on. I feel like we, as an industry, should inform the 49% that did not know that they could subscribe to original equipment websites. Education is the key to the repair of vehicles. We shop owners and techs must spend time and money to stay abreast of all new methods of repair information. Thanks for your time. Reggie Denney, Owner Reggie Denney Auto Repair Eden, NC Note: Some letters may be edited for content and grammar.