Last post on Oct 04, 2013 at 1:04 AM
You are in the Maintenance & Repair
What is this discussion about?
#500 of 577 Re: Maybe this is what is wrong [steve_]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Apr 25, 2012 (5:44 pm)
How 'bout an auto repair business that houses different businesses under one roof? You have a huge airplane hanger with specialists for Japanese, German, American makes (or whatever), then a radiator shop, AC specialist, car audio, upholstery, body shop, auto parts, 4X4 off roading, you name it. The various business co-own the entire property, share ideas, help each other out, trade customers. A governing board made up of reps from each business get to screen the credentials of all newcomers. When you leave, you sell your "share" back to the co-op.
One stop shopping.
#501 of 577 Re: Maybe this is what is wrong [steve_]
Apr 26, 2012 (2:54 am)
Maybe you should team up with your competitors instead. Let everyone specialize in what they do best, and have some kind of profit sharing to spread the revenues. Hire one guy with a truck to tow the dead vehicles between the shops.
I'll give you a day to think about what actually happens if someone actually tries to set this up.
Hint: Think cut-throat, and consumers rewarding the shop who boasts the cheapest price with their business whether they are tooled and trained to do the work or not. Essentially it's why so many are looking at R2R to save them from the way they have run their shops for the last twenty years......
I can't wait to see what the anti-trust crowd says when every independent shop in your county gets together under one umbrella.
Never going to see that happen, the shop owners each think they are the best that they can be, and that everyone else doesn't know what they are doing. They will all fail together because they have been trained to try and stand alone. Outside market pressures are only ensuring that none will escape unharmed.
#503 of 577 Re: Watch the Video on the website. [thecardoc3]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Apr 26, 2012 (5:10 am)
I went to the five videos on YouTube that the group has posted - looks like they blocked comments there as well.
"The auto repair bill is one of the most fiercely lobbied proposals on Beacon Hill, with more than two dozen organizations and companies employing twice as many legislative agents on their behalf."
Fierce lobbying - must be a whole lot of money at stake.
Senate accelerates right-to-repair bill (lowellsun.com)
#504 of 577 A letter to their facebook page
Apr 26, 2012 (6:00 am)
I just watched the video on the R2R site.
There are some parts of it that I find to be a little disturbing and in need of correction. It isnít the manufacturers who are advising shops and technicians to specialize in a limited number of makes; itís your fellow tradesmen who are making that recommendation.
For anyone who still thinks that they can do all makes and models they need to sit down and make an honest assessment of just what that would really demand of their shop and their technicians. As a full time technician and a part time instructor I study more than anyone can imagine. Getting all of the information in my hands to concentrate on just the big seven manufacturers that I support fully in my shop right now has proven to me beyond any doubt that today there is just too much to have to study and learn in order to be genuinely proficient on even that many vehicles. That means I have to decide which manufacturers are no longer going to receive full O.E. level support in my shop, and which ones Iíll continue with my present program.
Now that doesnít mean that certain services with specific nameplates wonít be performed here, but it does mean that I have to pick and choose carefully what I will do and what I wonít, and that isnít as much by my own choice as it is in looking out for my customers best interests.
By the way,
The trend for dissenting posts to be deleted from this site is also a problem so note this post is also being posted on the Edmunds.com forum here.
You can of course delete this off of your facebook page and likely block me as you have done to others, but is it really in the consumerís best interest to do that? I donít believe that is in the consumerís best interest to try and censor professional insights. The consumerís need to be informed about the technology that is in their cars and about the changes that technology is causing inside the auto repair trade. When it comes to owning the O.E. scan tools that is a financial burden that some shops and technicians stepped up and took a professional approach towards and yes it currently reflects tens of thousands of dollars of investment per manufacturer that has routinely been avoided by the majority of shops. At the same time (the last fifteen years or so) those same shops who didnít embrace the need for the O.E. tools have typically done a poor job when it comes to attending sufficient continuing education. Now thatís not saying they didnít attend any training but few if any technicians have attended enough training to be proficient at a dealership level on any one manufacturers vehicles as compared to a dealership technician, and no-one not even I have attended enough to be proficient at all makes and models. Continuing to attempt to have an all makes, all models approach would make Don Quixote look like a slacker.
The promise of a more generic platform for a scan tool and flashing capability is the one facet of all of this that has an appeal to it, that is if it would indeed be plausible. Unfortunately the march of technology has already made it apparent that trying to tie the industry to some single platform will only cause heartache as the J2534 protocol is limited in scale and speed and it fell behind what is currently used by a number of manufacturers more than five years ago. Iíll be the first to say I wish a single interface would work, that would have saved me a fortune that I wish I had a way to get back today. But because of my current multi-manufacturer investment and experience I can see why J2534 simply isnít capable of living up to the dream.
The expense of tooling up for as many makes as I did is prohibitive and it was a bad idea to even try. No one will attend enough training to be proficient in more than a few brands. There simply isnít enough time in the day to do that, let alone the financial resources that such an undertaking would require. A tool that works on everything even if it was plausible canít make up for the gap in training that would still exist and we owe it to our customers to come to grips with and be honest with them about that.
#505 of 577 Re: Watch the Video on the website. [steve_]
Apr 26, 2012 (8:56 am)
Fierce lobbying - must be a whole lot of money at stake
Yea, way more money than what the auto repair trade itself represents. Basically nobody gives a damn about the corner garage, so whatever they are after has to be worth a lot more than that.
#506 of 577 Re: A letter to their facebook page [thecardoc3]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Apr 26, 2012 (10:35 am)
so then why didn't you like the "automotive supermarket" idea? It solves that very issue.
#507 of 577 Re: A letter to their facebook page [Mr_Shiftright]
Apr 26, 2012 (1:17 pm)
The automotive supermarket idea would in fact cause simply another version of why I came to this site the very first time. Shops are struggling with the cost of trying to keep pace with technology. Trying to build a big shop like you reference would require a substantial cash flow and that would only be possible with less experienced technicians selling and performing a lot of basic maintanence services. Just like the dealerships that Mr. Reed and NBC targeted last year. That is something that not only can get out of control easily (as they proved) , it has a tendency to (at least for a while) reward the practice of only doing "flushes" and leaving the more difficult work to a handful of senior technicians who surprisingly often get the short end of the stick when diagnostics are not charged for correctly and so in return aren't paid correctly for taking the time that is really necessary to perform all of the steps in a disciplined manner.
Mr Kinsman has contacted me and is promising to get me even more in depth information about what their one size fit's all scan tool should be able to do. I hope I will also get to see first hand what some of the costs would be. But, and it's a big one. Even if they can build a great tool that has some durability that still won't address the education gap.
BTW my Carvoyant demo came today. I'll see exactly what it can do in short order.
#508 of 577 Re: A letter to their facebook page [thecardoc3]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Apr 26, 2012 (2:17 pm)
I'm not following your logic. If a certain specialist is a highly trained and successful tech, running a successful shop, then why can 10 specialists run 10 successful shops? They are merely in the same location. Nothing else has to change.
I'm on the beta list for Carvoyant, too. Lemme know how it goes!
#509 of 577 Another R2R letter
Apr 27, 2012 (5:23 am)
There is a side to all of this that is likely not apparent to many techs and shops who's concentration is primarily focused on simply serving their customers needs day in and day out. As some point out development on 2015's is already completed and the 16's and 17's are well on their way. We (I) experienced the nightmare of purchasing tools like the StarScan first hand when we stepped up and bought the tool only to have it be superceeded twice before we even made the last payment on it. To date it hasn't even retuned a quarter of it's cost and that's not counting the time that was required to use it. When Chrysler was selling it, someone already knew it was a lame duck but they sold it anyway.
New vehicles today contain the capability of circumventing us and the dealers as well with the wireless technology that is being built right into the cars. Where at one time doing reflashes and module setups were part of the revenue streams that compensated shops for making the required investment in tools and software it's already being phased out of our future business plans. As people move towards one side of this debate or the other they all need to recognize any "tool" today will have a limited lifespan as the technology in the cars continues to advance at a ever faster rate. OBDII is going on tewnty years old. OBDIII technically already exists but it hides under names like Sync and On-Star (among others). As a shop owner/technician my greatest concern is that I may yet again purchase another tool that someone else knows is already outdated. Maybe it will fill a lot of gaps for many shops on vehicles up to a given model year and we all need to know exactly what year that is, or will be. No matter what the lifespan of the "tool" must be made clear for shops and techs to make informed decisions.