Louis Rossmann Starts a GoFundMe to Get "Right To Repair" Legistation Passed Through a Direct Ballot Initiative.

[GOTSpectrum]

18 minutes ago, Quackers101 said:

yes, louis is allergic to apples.

oh wait? nvm.

 

Wouldn't fund, since this feels out of reach and in a different area.

But if it was for more a global project, would be into that.

Once the cats out the bag they will struggle to put it back in, if these schematics and software tools are made available in the US, they will certainly end up available everywhere 

[Moonzy]

5 hours ago, avg123 said:

cant wait for this to crash and burn and louis running away with everyones money.

this has scam written all over it. does he publish where all the money goes? 

 

there is no transparency. you are just transferring money to his bank account

This may be true but so far I can't see him doing that, yet

He might disclose how he's using his funds in his videos, I'm not too sure

 

I'm really curious as to what he'll do if the funds didn't hit the target, because it's still so far off

 

5 hours ago, avg123 said:

an apple hater. 

Thanks for making my day, bud

[Arika]

A step forward!

 

https://www.protocol.com/ftc-right-to-repair

 

Quote

The Federal Trade Commission told Congress "there is scant evidence to support manufacturers' justifications for repair restrictions" in a Thursday report that promised to consider new rules or enforcement around consumers' right to repair their goods

 

Quote

Consumer groups have long argued that manufacturers' limits on users' ability to repair items drives up costs and forces consumers to buy new goods before the useful lives of the items they already have are up — a problem that can be particularly acute with expensive electronic hardware.

Manufacturers can't condition warranties on consumers' using particular brands for repairs, but manufacturers have used a variety of other techniques to effectively curb repair rights, the FTC said, including limits on sharing parts and information, steering consumers to their own repair shops or partners, and enforcing software rights. Manufacturers say they are trying to protect intellectual property and device integrity.

 

[Kisai]

36 minutes ago, Arika S said:

A step forward!

 

https://www.protocol.com/ftc-right-to-repair

 

 

 

 

Quote

Manufacturers say they are trying to protect intellectual property and device integrity.

Screw em. If there is one thing we can do with less of it's "perpetual intellectual property rights".

 

I've said this before, but there is no reason for anything, be it patent or copyright to have as much "life" as it does.

- Patents should max out at 20 years, and "trivial differences" being appended to existing patents should not extend the life of them like they currently do, particularly with software and pharmaceutical patents.

 

Hell we could probably permanently kill all patents on drugs by just having a computer sit there and generate every chemical formula potentially possible and run an AI over it to see which matches existing pharmaceuticals, much in the same way someone could do this for music. Most will be trash, but the gold nuggets will long since been "prior-art" and copyright-free'd.

 

- More off-the-shelf parts, particularly batteries need to exist and not be blocked from use in existing hardware. How hard can it be to produce a LiPo cell that fits all cell phones, tablets, laptops, UPS systems and EV's. You can't seriously tell me that every battery has been custom-formed to fit every phone, laptop and tablet when the vast majority of batteries, particularly those in laptops are exactly the same, just the excess plastic is in various places so it won't fit other laptop models even from the same OEM.

 

There is nothing original or unique about batteries.

Apple MacBook Pro 15":

Dell Precision 5510

Look, both have 6 cells. Yes the shape is different.

But then you get nonsense like this:

Latitude E7470, 3 cell battery

 

 

Latitude 7280//7480/7290/7490

All that's different about these two batteries, physically is that one has the cells starting from the left, and the other has them starting from the right, basically the plastic bits are the only thing preventing them from fitting in each other. Voltage and capacity are the same.

 

So let's assume, for a moment, that a standard battery cell could be made. Like we have AA/AAA/C/D cell batteries, there is no reason why a standard for Lithium batteries for laptops can't be made. It would also greatly simply the recycling effort needed, and people wouldn't throw them in the garbage if they could get a deposit back on them. Just create a standard where the Lithium batteries click together like Lego bricks.

 

Likewise, computer screens. Existing laptop and tablet screens are all glued together, it's completely unnecessary, and could be made easier to repair by having a standard position for the hinge, eDP connector and USB 3.1 (for camera/microphones in the screen, or the input digitizer.) Many screens are just "cheap" with no filter/digitizer glass on them.

 

 

[avg123]

16 minutes ago, Kisai said:

 

Screw em. If there is one thing we can do with less of it's "perpetual intellectual property rights".

 

I've said this before, but there is no reason for anything, be it patent or copyright to have as much "life" as it does.

- Patents should max out at 20 years, and "trivial differences" being appended to existing patents should not extend the life of them like they currently do, particularly with software and pharmaceutical patents.

 

Hell we could probably permanently kill all patents on drugs by just having a computer sit there and generate every chemical formula potentially possible and run an AI over it to see which matches existing pharmaceuticals, much in the same way someone could do this for music. Most will be trash, but the gold nuggets will long since been "prior-art" and copyright-free'd.

 

- More off-the-shelf parts, particularly batteries need to exist and not be blocked from use in existing hardware. How hard can it be to produce a LiPo cell that fits all cell phones, tablets, laptops, UPS systems and EV's. You can't seriously tell me that every battery has been custom-formed to fit every phone, laptop and tablet when the vast majority of batteries, particularly those in laptops are exactly the same, just the excess plastic is in various places so it won't fit other laptop models even from the same OEM.

 

There is nothing original or unique about batteries.

Apple MacBook Pro 15":

Dell Precision 5510

Look, both have 6 cells. Yes the shape is different.

But then you get nonsense like this:

Latitude E7470, 3 cell battery

 

 

Latitude 7280//7480/7290/7490

All that's different about these two batteries, physically is that one has the cells starting from the left, and the other has them starting from the right, basically the plastic bits are the only thing preventing them from fitting in each other. Voltage and capacity are the same.

 

So let's assume, for a moment, that a standard battery cell could be made. Like we have AA/AAA/C/D cell batteries, there is no reason why a standard for Lithium batteries for laptops can't be made. It would also greatly simply the recycling effort needed, and people wouldn't throw them in the garbage if they could get a deposit back on them. Just create a standard where the Lithium batteries click together like Lego bricks.

 

Likewise, computer screens. Existing laptop and tablet screens are all glued together, it's completely unnecessary, and could be made easier to repair by having a standard position for the hinge, eDP connector and USB 3.1 (for camera/microphones in the screen, or the input digitizer.) Many screens are just "cheap" with no filter/digitizer glass on them.

 

 

Quote

To someone new to battery testing and certification, the number of lithium battery standards, governing organizations, and regulations can be overwhelming. One problem is that these various standards and organizations sound all too similar: UL 1642; IEEE 1625; IEEE 1725; ISO/IEC 17025. Industry veterans further complicate understanding by simply referring to the standards’ numbers: 1642; 1625; 1725; 17025. And sometimes, people truncate even further (IEC 60086 becomes 086). Plus, in addition to battery standards, there are technical committees (such as TC108) and sub-committees (such as SC 21A). And, of course, the organizations themselves: IEEE; IEC; IECEE. Sound confusing? Take a look below: There are U.S. entities and their European counterparts. Japan has their own standards, as do other parts of the world. Equipment manufacturers often have additional internal standards and specifications which they apply in order to better protect both their brand and consumers. Some regulations are statutory requirements, while others are guidelines, and some are not mandatory at all but are essentially required if company wants to sell their product to a retailer or device manufacturer who requires all device components to be safety listed.

Seems like there are standards for Li battery. The problem is there are too many standards.

I skimmed through the article but you can give it a read.

 

Microsoft Word - The Regulatory Maze of Lithium Battery Safety - Final White Paper (batterypoweronline.com)

[GOTSpectrum]

Another RTR video

 

 

[LAwLz]

On 5/7/2021 at 9:16 PM, Moonzy said:

I'm really curious as to what he'll do if the funds didn't hit the target, because it's still so far off

I asked that a couple of pages ago and never got an answer.

The campaign is set up so that Louis gets the money regardless of whether or not the goal is hit.

 

So if he raises 3 million of out the 6, he will get 3 million dollars, which apparently won't be enough to do what he needs to do. He even said himself that it will cost 5 to 20 million dollars, so even if he reaches the 6 million dollar goal he could just say "sorry, it wasn't enough" and not do anything.

That coupled with the fact that 6 million seems like a really unobtainable goal makes me question the entire thing. 

 

Maybe he has explained it somewhere and I have missed it (don't watch his channel and haven't followed this closely) but to me it seems like very important piece of info and I can't find it anywhere.

[GDRRiley]

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Maybe he has explained it somewhere and I have missed it (don't watch his channel and haven't followed this closely) but to me it seems like very important piece of info and I can't find it anywhere.

he has stated if he doesn't get enough to push for it, he will get right to repair lobbyists in every state

timestamp

 

[Spindel]

Not to put any value in to the topic at hand but this might, if successful, come out in a way a lot of people didn't really imagen when screaming "right to repair". 

 

What I'm thinking of is like SAABs (and Citroëns for that matter, but I'm guessing Citroën isn't really known in US) where you, to change the light bulb in the headlights, either need to have the hands of an 8 year old girl or disassemble the entire front part of the car. 

 

Technically you can do it yourself, but in practicality an overwhelming majority won't. 

 

And just today looking at the phone market all phones you can replace the most common parts that needs replacement, that is, screen, buttons and battery. Most people just don't/can't do it themselves. 

 

We need to be clear right to repair is not the same thing as the right to repair by yourself. And the most likely outcome of this will be exactly that, manufacturers pointing to (or in some cases expanding) existing programs were they repair consumers stuff, this will not mean the average person will be able to do it by themselves (and in my opinion it should not).  

[Kisai]

27 minutes ago, Spindel said:

 

What I'm thinking of is like SAABs (and Citroëns for that matter, but I'm guessing Citroën isn't really known in US) where you, to change the light bulb in the headlights, either need to have the hands of an 8 year old girl or disassemble the entire front part of the car. 

 

Technically you can do it yourself, but in practicality an overwhelming majority won't. 

 

Honestly, the way some things are designed, you'd think they were designed by people trying to make more money for the service center.

 

Like if I were to design a car from scratch, the first thing I would do make an EV with batteries on the ceiling of the car so the battery can be removed/ejected in case of fire to the battery. That would of course require engineering designs to make the vehicle operate with that higher center of gravity (see the ford explorer rollovers), and tire pressure. When the battery is underneath the vehicle, it makes it hard to access in an accident. Where if it was on the top, it could also be removed for recharging, and more tinker-type people could remove the battery pack and swap them between city battery and extended distance batteries. 

 

Another design oversight that applies to all cars, and was especially a problem in the last year due to the chip shortage, would be for the computer system to be redundant through the entertainment system. So if a computer component fails, the entertainment unit could take over until serviced at the expense of turning off the bluetooth, wifi and LTE/5G radio to prevent it from being a method of taking over the vehicle.

 

 

[Spindel]

7 minutes ago, Kisai said:

 

Another design oversight that applies to all cars, and was especially a problem in the last year due to the chip shortage, would be for the computer system to be redundant through the entertainment system. So if a computer component fails, the entertainment unit could take over until serviced at the expense of turning off the bluetooth, wifi and LTE/5G radio to prevent it from being a method of taking over the vehicle.

 

Wasn't it Chrysler that had no separation between the computer system in the MCU and the ECU and remote connectivity that allowed hackers to basically take control of the entire car (throttle, brakes) from an laptop while driving next to that car by using an exploit in the MCU. I mean even if you turn off the radios when doing the switch you could in theory already injected an attack vector before hand. 

 

No thanks, the ECU should not be connected to any other system (specially not a connected system) in the car. 

 

Also while MCU usually have many many times the processing power of the ECU in a typical car the ECU is a damn robust system because it is designed to be "simple" and just robust. Looking at all different MCUs in different cars that sometimes crash or just become laggy for 20 seconds (for no apparent reason) I would not really like that computer to control essential parts of my car/engine. 

[Commodus]

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

Honestly, the way some things are designed, you'd think they were designed by people trying to make more money for the service center.

 

Like if I were to design a car from scratch, the first thing I would do make an EV with batteries on the ceiling of the car so the battery can be removed/ejected in case of fire to the battery. That would of course require engineering designs to make the vehicle operate with that higher center of gravity (see the ford explorer rollovers), and tire pressure. When the battery is underneath the vehicle, it makes it hard to access in an accident. Where if it was on the top, it could also be removed for recharging, and more tinker-type people could remove the battery pack and swap them between city battery and extended distance batteries. 

 

Another design oversight that applies to all cars, and was especially a problem in the last year due to the chip shortage, would be for the computer system to be redundant through the entertainment system. So if a computer component fails, the entertainment unit could take over until serviced at the expense of turning off the bluetooth, wifi and LTE/5G radio to prevent it from being a method of taking over the vehicle.

 

 

Mind you, if the battery was on top, you'd risk burning the heads of the occupants in a fire and could forget about having a sunroof or solar cells. And you'd better hope the support pillars don't collapse.

 

I'd say the battery should stay underneath, just make it easier to detach.

 

 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

Like if I were to design a car from scratch, the first thing I would do make an EV with batteries on the ceiling of the car so the battery can be removed/ejected in case of fire to the battery. That would of course require engineering designs to make the vehicle operate with that higher center of gravity (see the ford explorer rollovers), and tire pressure. When the battery is underneath the vehicle, it makes it hard to access in an accident. Where if it was on the top, it could also be removed for recharging, and more tinker-type people could remove the battery pack and swap them between city battery and extended distance batteries.

You could do the same thing with battery’s on the bottom. Just put the battery on rails at a slight angle, so that when clamps of some sort are released, it can slide out.

 

 

anyways is some cars it’s just a couple bolts and enough strength to lift... 500is pounds of.... the battery. That’s how it is I’m our Prius (though that’s a hybrid).

[Kisai]

7 hours ago, Commodus said:

Mind you, if the battery was on top, you'd risk burning the heads of the occupants in a fire and could forget about having a sunroof or solar cells. And you'd better hope the support pillars don't collapse.

 

I'd say the battery should stay underneath, just make it easier to detach.

 

 

Where as when the battery is beneath the car, you risk burning the occupants since the fire is going UP, and can't disconnect it, and a fire department can't put out the fire unless the car has actually rolled over.

 

Honestly sunroof/moonroof's are a scam, and they leak. I'm not saying you can't have a car with them, but you would just have different vehicles that have such things (eg sports cars, 2-door models) that were designed for it.

 

I mean realistically, the way cars are designed now, where the occupants are in the middle, with a truck/boot and a hood/bonnet is the safest location, but not the most aerodynamic, so what you actually want is two batteries, one mounted in the "hood" and one mounted in the "trunk", and you operate the car with just the front battery unless running in extended range mode. However you can also see where this is a problem as well, as usually the spare/compact-spare tire goes under the trunk, and someone over-filling the trunk could damage the battery if they do stupid things.

 

Like there are risks no matter where you put the battery, but when it's underneath the cabin, it risks damage from actually driving.

[Quackers101]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

Where as when the battery is beneath the car, you risk burning the occupants since the fire is going UP, and can't disconnect it, and a fire department can't put out the fire unless the car has actually rolled over.

Unless one could disconnect it through AI emergancy release? And having two spots on the vehicle might not be too good either, but all depends on the crash and fire. Multiple areas, can lead to more areas that could become a danger-zone? Also makes me wonder about water cooled batteries that tesla talked about, pros and cons. So why can we just YOLO it like NASA by blowing things up for... safety and stability reasons? XD

Quote

Like there are risks no matter where you put the battery, but when it's underneath the cabin, it risks damage from actually driving.

Like when tesla solved their battery issue of catching fire from rubble hitting it on the road, by slapping on a steel plate under it?

[Kisai]

50 minutes ago, Quackers101 said:

Unless one could disconnect it through AI emergancy release? And having two spots on the vehicle might not be too good either, but all depends on the crash and fire. Multiple areas, can lead to more areas that could become a danger-zone? Also makes me wonder about water cooled batteries that tesla talked about, pros and cons. So why can we just YOLO it like NASA by blowing things up for... safety and stability reasons? XD

Like when tesla solved their battery issue of catching fire from rubble hitting it on the road, by slapping on a steel plate under it?

Still didn't stop some cars from catching fire. Now add flooding and unpaved road dangers.

[Donut417]

3 hours ago, Kisai said:

so what you actually want is two batteries, one mounted in the "hood" and one mounted in the "trunk",

If I recall correctly the Toyota Pris had its battery mounted in the trunk. Seen a video on ChirsFix's Youtube channel of him changing out the battery. Granted the car is a hybrid but to me it would make a lot of sense to have the battery in a location where it can easily be serviced. Because these batteries have to be changed out eventually, why make it a whole big ordeal, when you can make it easy to a bit cheaper. 

[mon1ka]

On 3/31/2021 at 2:33 PM, SlidewaysZ said:

Doubtful right to repair for technology will happen. Tech companies have way way way deeper pockets than car manufactures. Also people working on their own car is already a big thing. Car companies didn't loose that much by having to allow right to repair for your car. I mean just look at the amount of auto shops compared to computer shops. Apple especially and other phone and technology companies have a lot to loose by allowing people to easily repair their electronics.

sadly i agree with you. Most large firms are gonna get pissy about it.

 

Louis is a very consumer first guy so im glad he's running it, but im a little sceptical about how far it'll go.

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, Donut417 said:

If I recall correctly the Toyota Pris had its battery mounted in the trunk. Seen a video on ChirsFix's Youtube channel of him changing out the battery. Granted the car is a hybrid but to me it would make a lot of sense to have the battery in a location where it can easily be serviced. Because these batteries have to be changed out eventually, why make it a whole big ordeal, when you can make it easy to a bit cheaper. 

Yeah. Like the entire problem with the battery pack in the Tesla is that it's entirely the bottom of the car. The Tesla battery looks like 6 Prius batteries glued together.