think your newer Audi is hard to service -now-?

[Brett Dikeman]

At 7:23 PM -0400 7/30/04, cobram at juno.com wrote:
>  "S Dewitt" <sdewitt at stx.rr.com> writes:
>
>>  Great! 50 dollar bolts!
>
>I think you're low balling...you seen what they charge for "normal" bolts
>from the dealer?  They'll probably charge the $50 just for "programming"
>or registering the new fastener....
>
>Once out of warranty, I suspect they'll be no problems using "stupid"
>bolts as replacements.

Not really.

For example, they're intending to make components impossible to 
remove without something to release the "smart" bolts, because there 
won't be room to get a tool in.  Remember, "smart fastener" is more 
appropriate than "smart bolt", because there's no head on the bolt 
for a tool; it may be entirely internal to the part.

   For example- a headlight, with no back clearance required to get in 
a wrench or screwdriver.  Push a button, clunk, out it comes. 
Assuming you get the old headlight out, how are you going to keep the 
new one in?  In both cases, the car's been designed with no space for 
tool access.

It's pretty scary- car makers will pretty much all switch over to it 
through either collusion or inability to compete with makers using 
the technology.  First, a car which is guaranteed to need OEM parts 
and dealer service can be sold for less.  Second, some of the 
advantages mentioned in the press release might save an auto company 
money in terms of assembly or servicing costs, or allow them to make 
a "better" car (ie the space saving measures).

It seems to be suggesting capitalizing on the public's fear around 
HID headlight and airbag thefts.  Question- it IS a great idea in 
that regard, but if intentions are honorable, why not allow the 
owner's key in the ignition, or within a foot radius of the bolt, to 
serve as authorization as well?  Oops!  True intentions come out.

Reminds me of the red-light camera proposal in some state(I forget 
which) where a state rep suggested amending the related legislation 
to include a provision for one or two warnings.  The suckers fell for 
it hook, line and sinker, and the response was "but...but...then we 
wouldn't make as much money!"  His response was, "so, is the purpose 
here safety, or making money?"  The bill never passed.

Brett
-- 
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~brett/