It's anti-consumer as hell, but is it really enough to keep servicing only to dealerships? Seems like someone can machine a tool head for this in like two seconds, it's just two prongs. What's stopping a manufacturer from selling tools for it and individuals/mechanics from buying the tool? Can they patent the tool and not sell it to anyone?
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
140 points (98.6% liked)
Hacker News
3290 readers
406 users here now
Posts from the RSS Feed of HackerNews.
The feed sometimes contains ads and posts that have been removed by the mod team at HN.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Get ready for black market socket sets. lol.
Which happened over and over again in past attempts. Like "TR Torx" or "Tamper Resistent Torx", the star bit with the hole in the middle. Yyoou can find matching bits in any decent bit set.
Fuck yeah, just adding more waste metal! Best economic system!
It prevents a portion of the population from bothering.
They will be available.
I feel like BMW charging a monthly subscription for the heated seats in the car should’ve been enough to stop anyone from buying their new cars, but they continue to sell!
Not only that but the recent disgusting design language and the lowering of interior quality and the reliability issues, none of it seems to affect them? People really only see the badge and nothing else.
The type of people who buy BMWs and the like don't do it out of concern for any practical considerations. It is a status symbol, and membership card, and sexual posturing all in one. The fact that they have to pay extra to have it serviced because the dealer has the only magic wrench that doesn't void the warranty is part of the allure.
And as stated elsewhere, by the time the thing is out of warranty and is on the third or fourth owner they'll be using hacked tools to do what should be easy but is made much harder by this shitfuckery.
Isn't it time for an open source car? Built with off the shelf components and 3d printable parts
Coming from the position of "I'm not sure it's possible to protect the source of a space frame chassis"
Things like the Locost 7 have plans in the wild, and quite a few have been built.
You kind of have to pick your poison in terms of "off the shelf". Does buying a BMW steering column or a Chevy crate engine count? The feasibility of casting and machining a block or head is way beyond most. (To the point where developing an open source engine would struggle to go beyond design phase without a company backing it IMO) a donor car is a good place to start, of course.
EVs may improve this, which would be good, though fucking with high voltage battery packs would be a negative.
Chassis is relatively straightforward so long as you stick to box section or tubing.
Body panels are tricky too, something like the Locost isnt too bad. Even more complicated is within the grasp of a dedicated home gamer - but we're talking big 3D printers/serious clay or polystyrene modelling skills/CF or GF moulding etc. high expense high skill.
If you're talking at the level of open source chassis produced by a few companies, few different companies do EV motors, few do trims, few do body work etc and then integrators put them together - I could see it working, it's not that dissimilar to how say VW/Audi/Skoda/Seat operate.
I do like the idea of PC style integrators and you spec the car you want, probably pricey though.
Why would someone design a car that anyone could copy? Even worse, how do you handle certain legal issues where the designer and manufacturer don't have a legal agreement with each other?
I suppose a business model similar to many open source projects? Any manufacturer can make it, charge what they deem a sensible price and then charge fees for maintenance, support and trouble shooting
How many open source projects include safety guarantees of use? I can legally sue car manufacturers for faults in design of the car that I or others purchase. Who do I sue with open source projects if the crash is due to a flaw in design?
The manufacturer? Why would that change.
Why would the manufacturer take on liability for a design issue they didn't design?
They built the thing and sold it as safe, the liability is implicit. If you produce something you need to produce it to established standards.
you need to produce it to established standards.
And what if the established standards get people killed? Open source doesn't provide a person or organization who is liable for design faults.
Again, the manufacturer, why would that change?
Because, in this case, the manufacturer didn't design the car.
Right, but they built and sold it. No-one is forcing anyone to use the design.
There's nothing stopping me from going online right now and grabbing a design for a car, building it, doing an IVA test and putting it on the road - the original designer is dead, who would get sued in that scenario?
Alternatively, can I copy the design of an existing model, build it to the exact spec, sell it to someone else and absolve myself of all liability if a design flaw is found in the vehicle?
I'm ignoring the fact an open source design is likely to get more analysis than just about any other car on the market.
who would get sued in that scenario?
There is no equivalent to an IVA where I live. It also is likely going to become a major government problem needing to process a sizeable portion of the country's vehicles through an IVA like process which requires an in-depth inspection and, a lot of times, comparison against the design standards for which the car was imported from.
And, as I noted earlier, the issue isn't analysis but liability. A lot of the burden involving design and verification falls on various manufacturers who designed the cars they manufactured. Hell, few countries allow people to build their own cars from aftermarket parts only. The supply chain is there, but no one is building older cars that they just have to assemble with aftermarket parts.
There is no equivalent to an IVA where I live. It also is likely going to become a major government problem needing to process a sizeable portion of the country's vehicles through an IVA like process which requires an in-depth inspection and, a lot of times, comparison against the design standards for which the car was imported from.
An IVA is only checking the car meets established standards - it won't say there's no design flaws or attribute liability. Hence my previous comment about meeting standards. Presumably there is type approval of some kind where you live. Again it's UK centric, I'm not a car lawyer and I've mostly skimmed the page, but there's nothing glaringly insurmountable in what I can find here:
From what research I've done in the UK at least the responsibility appears to fall on the manufacturer and I can't really see an argument for how it would fall anywhere else as they're the entity producing the product. By using the design there has to be a presumed level of acceptance that they have liability for the product. (I can't just go and make an exploding kettle and sell it and say "I downloaded these plans off the internet and built it, it's not my fault")
In reality they'd have insurance to cover it, the insurance would most likely require the type approval in place.
The supply chain is there, but no one is building older cars that they just have to assemble with aftermarket parts.
If the demand is there and the products are available and possible within the legal framework then it's happening. Believe it or not I watched a video on YouTube in the last 7 days about Tuksedo Studio in Indonesia who do pretty much that.
If it's not doable within the legal framework of a country it's a moot point.
Chinese subindustry manufacturers:
Hold my pork bun!
Wait, so they don't want people changing their own wheels if a tire blows out? What kind of crap patent is that?
Locking lug nuts are a thing already; this just sounds like they don't want to give the key to the end consumer.
Those, in my book, are single-use only, ready to have real screws/bolts replace them
I just patented BMW! Only the dealer can buy and keep the car.
I'll admit having your logo on the screws is, in itself a neat idea, not a good one, but I see why it's cool. making it propertary and control the production of who can remove it, is a terrible idea. and looking at it's design, it seems trivially easy to make a screwdriver for it.
Home machinists "Bet"
The Nazi mobile is anti consumer? Say it aint so!
Didn't they run slave labor camps at multiple points in their history?
I the part is not user serviceable, that means you have a lifetime warranty on service, and need to prove the price you charge for parts is reasonable.
Just saying...
As someone who used to turn wrenchs for a living, I can objectively say that those are the worst tool ever made.
thanks for your comment.
I always wonder if those are great (for the advertised reasons), like not as good as the exact bit you need, but good enough to be useful.
or complete shite.
now I know
I've got two. They're only for if I'm in a desperate pinch.
I didn't say it was good, but it could do the job
Coming soon to Harbor Freight.
They are really screwing the consumer
Wouldn't hold my breath on that one (edit) not to mention the massive cam-out risk of that shitty design