Automakers to gearheads: Stop repairing cars

[Wretched]

Automakers are supporting provisions in copyright law that could prohibit home mechanics and car enthusiasts from repairing and modifying their own vehicles.

In comments filed with a federal agency that will determine whether tinkering with a car constitutes a copyright violation, OEMs and their main lobbying organization say cars have become too complex and dangerous for consumers and third parties to handle.

Allowing them to continue to fix their cars has become "legally problematic," according to a written statement from the Auto Alliance, the main lobbying arm of automakers.

The dispute arises from a section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that no one thought could apply to vehicles when it was signed into law in 1998. But now, in an era where cars are rolling computing platforms, the U.S. Copyright Office is examining whether provisions of the law that protect intellectual property should prohibit people from modifying and tuning their cars.

Every three years, the office holds hearings on whether certain activities should be exempt from the DMCA's section 1201, which governs technological measures that protect copyrighted work. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization that advocates for individual rights in the digital world, has asked the office to ensure that enthusiasts can continue working on cars by providing exemptions that would give them the right to access necessary car components.

Interested parties have until the end of the month to file comments on the proposed rule making, and a final decision is expected by mid-year.

In comments submitted so far, automakers have expressed concern that allowing outsiders to access electronic control units that run critical vehicle functions like steering, throttle inputs and braking "leads to an imbalance by which the negative consequences far outweigh any suggested benefits," according to the Alliance of Global Automakers. In the worst cases, the organizations said an exemption for enthusiasts "leads to disastrous consequences."

Complex Software, Increased Risk

Industry concerns are mounting that modifying these ECUs and the software coding that runs them could lead to vulnerabilities in vehicle safety and cyber security. Imagine an amateur makes a coding mistake that causes brakes to fail and a car crash ensues. Furthermore, automakers say these modifications could render cars non-compliant with environmental laws that regulate emissions.

But exemptions from the DMCA don't give third parties the right to infringe upon existing copyrights. Nor does an exemption mean consumers don't have to abide by other laws and rules that govern vehicles passed by the National Highway Traffic Administration, Environmental Protection Agency or U.S. Patent and Trade Office.

"It's not a new thing to be able to repair and modify cars," said Kit Walsh, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's actually a new thing to keep people from doing it. There are these specialized agencies that govern what vehicles can lawfully be used for on the road, and they have not seen fit to stop them from repairing cars."

Aftermarket suppliers and home enthusiasts have been modifying ECUs for years without dire consequences. By tweaking the ECU codes, a process sometimes known as "chipping," they've boosted horsepower, improved fuel efficiency, established performance limits for teen drivers and enhanced countless other features. These innovations have contributed to a "decades-old tradition of mechanical curiosity and self-reliance," according to the EFF.

Those innovations could be curbed precisely at a time that automakers believe personalization of vehicles is emerging as a significant trend. Software is allowing for all sorts of technology, such as 4G LTE wireless connections, and motorists can use this software to choose from an increasing array of infotainment options. But the car companies, paradoxically, want to be the ones doing the personalizing.

The EFF thinks the industry's desire to block exemptions has more to do with profits than safety. As software becomes easier to update, automakers could sell these performance upgrades on an a la carte basis. Because a favorable ruling would strengthen their control of the software, the car companies could potentially force consumers to only have their vehicles fixed at their dealerships or preferred repair shops.

Last September, Ford took steps toward consolidating such control, filing a lawsuit against Autel US Inc., a diagnostic-equipment manufacturer based in Huntington, New York. Ford alleges the company unlawfully copied trade secrets and accessed on-board computer systems that relay technical information on diagnostic codes and repair data. The EFF says consumers should have the right to have their cars fixed by independent mechanics.

Jennifer Dukarski, an intellectual property and technology attorney from Michigan firm Butzel Long, said there's an additional reason automakers are getting more aggressive in the copyright realm. Court rulings in recent years have eroded their patent protections, so they're searching for alternate ways to protect investments in research and development.

"With a limited scope of protection," she said, "they're saying, 'OK, if I can't protect this via patent, how am I going to lock everything down? What's my next-best tool?' And I think using copyright law, it is kind of the only protection outside the idea of trade secrets. The problem is you're in a situation with a host of competing interests, and those are how much freedom will you let car owners have? What's the relationship with the information in this car you bought?"

Another question central to balancing the competing interests in the proposed exemptions: Once customers purchase a device, must they only use it specifically as the manufacturer intended or can they modify it for their own particular needs?

GM: Telematics Industry Threatened

For their part, manufacturers say they're more concerned about potential losses than new revenue streams. Tinkering with the ECUs can void a car owner's warranty, but automakers remain concerned with their liability if third parties make changes that could result in physical or financial harm. They noted unsavory mechanics could easily manipulate odometers, and make cars appear to have fewer miles on them than they actually do, a problem for unsuspecting used-car buyers.

Granting exemptions would "deliberately weaken" protections put in place to ensure safe operation and regulatory mandates, General Motors said. Without such protection, the company said it would re-evaluate its entire electronic architecture. It could take the draconian step of removing telematics units, which control many real-time safety and infotainment features, from cars entirely.

Exemptions "would offer a serious, and potentially fatal, blow to the future of automotive telematics," GM wrote in its comments. "Absent this protection, vehicle manufacturers, including GM, may be forced to consider reducing offerings or withdrawing these systems from the market."

The Copyright Office has granted exemptions to the law in the past, and will consider 27 different exemption requests in its current deliberations. Most of the proposed exemptions have nothing to do with the automotive, covering copyright issues on everything from medical devices to eBooks to smart televisions.

"What's interesting is this is a unique situation," Dukarski said. "A lot of those exceptions are simple and straightforward. These ones, you've got some oddball nuances about reverse engineering, and it depends on how you're looking at things. ... "You have to question, 'How secure does it need to be? Does it affect a safety system?' You are dealing with a much more nuanced issue, and the results are tangible."



Automakers: We Know Our Cars Better

Manufacturers and their lobbyists have submitted comments on six of the 27 proposals. The specific topics cover: unlocking mobile connectivity devices, unlocking consumer machines, jailbreaking all-purpose mobile computing devices, vehicle software diagnosis repair and modification, and software security and safety research.

If there's a recurring theme in the comments beyond their assertions of ownership, it's that they say they know the intricacies of these ever-more-complicated software systems better than consumers and third parties. The Association of Global Automakers says the manufacturers and their suppliers "best understand the interdependence of automotive systems and are in the best position to know whether a modification, regardless of how slight, would disrupt another system."

Comments from equipment manufacturer John Deere took a more condescending tone toward independent and amateur mechanics, noting that circumventing protected technology should be "against public policy because individual vehicle owners do not have the technological resources to provide safe, reliable and lawful software for repair, diagnosis or some dubious 'aftermarket personalization, modification or other improvement' that is not directed toward repair or diagnosis of the vehicle."

Yet manufacturers have sometimes failed to find flaws in their own products or understand the relationships between various systems. In Congressional hearings devoted to uncovering why General Motors took no action for a decade in fixing a deadly defect in ignition switches, lawmakers noted the company failed to understand the connection between the ignition switch moving to the "accessory" position and airbag non-deployments. At latest count, at least 84 motorists have been killed in accidents caused by the defect.

Perhaps as troubling, auto-industry leaders failed in recent years to recognize countless cyber-security vulnerabilities in vehicles. It wasn't until outside researchers conducted high-profile and sometimes embarrassing demonstrations of how cars can be hacked before automakers took steps to address cyber threats. Without an exemption, this sort of research could be illegal.

In that respect, cyber-security security researchers might enhance vehicle safety more than the occasional amateur error may cause harm. All the more reason, Walsh said, that automakers and independents should be considered on equal footing.

"It's just a myth that the manufacturers are the only people who can make improvements," he said. "That's why maintaining that choice is really important."

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/20/a...s-car-repairs/

[Vesper Martini]

looks like they are more concerned about 3rd Party mechanics.

This could kill off an industry and force Motorists to go to dealerships for all service work and repairs, even after Warranty's have expired.

not surprised John Deere is involved

[mik]

Sounds like a good reason to recycle your old car, if you pay your $ xxx000 dollars you should be able to tweak your own property.

[aussie muscle]

trying to stop people saving a few bucks?

Originally Posted by mik

... if you pay your $ xxx000 dollars you should be able to tweak your own property.

Yes, they are copying off the games software industry who are warring against gamers modifying their games (also using copyright). the big difference is you may 'license' games, rather than buying it outright, unlike a car.

They'll probably also try to outlaw people 'destroying' their car on purpose, like that Jeep owner.

this is definitely rant worthy

[marty351]

If I buy a Rembrandt painting and decide to use it as a candlewick, that's my choice.

[Franco Cozzo]

This is going to be war on small business owners, so stand up and be counted.

There was something similar here recently where the courts sided against 3rd party workshops in favor of manufacturers too.

[2011G6E]

Oh dear this again...

Those of us "of a certain age" (OK, I turned fifty a few weeks back) will probably remember many times this sort of thing has been brought up over the decades.
Usually it's car companies saying that cars older than X number of years should be off the road, usually five or ten at most. They quote Japan with it's very young fleet (usually only about three years old) as an example. Of course they don't do this to boost sales...it's purely out of concern for the safety of then driving public...yes, that's it...*cough*...

Then motorcyclists have had to put up with suggestions that only "approved" parts can be used to repair the bikes...by which they meant only factory parts. Of course once the maker stops making the parts...well put two and two together...

Then they had something for cars and bike called by various terms..."type approved" replacement parts was one, which was similar to the bike parts idea. They wouldn't actually force you to buy factory parts...other aftermarket parts might be available...however the maker of those parts would have had to go through an approval process by the manufacturer to say they "approved" of the parts. You don't have to be much of a cynic to realise very few bits and pieces would be "approved"...
It would have killed off the entire second hand industry and auto parts stores around the country overnight. Once again, you had to use manufacturer approved parts to fix or service your car...and if they were no longer available...? Too bad.

Of course they're not making you buy only factory parts...if you can find parts somewhere else, then go ahead...oh that's right...the only parts you'll be able to buy will be factory approved original stuff...whoops.

They come up with these sort of brilliant ideas every five to ten years or so, I think just to judge opposition to the concept and see what happens...

[GasoLane]

Lets not forget that this in an American article.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Lets not forget that this in an American article.

It is, but with signing and/or ratification of the TPP imminent, it will be an issue here too.

Originally Posted by zilo

A mate of mine recently got a piece of software that convinces a BMW/Audi/merc that it is connected to the factory database computers....( he has a dump of all the data!)

The european car scene is starting to rebel with all this software lock up stuff they are trying to set us up with.

The German big three were not happy about that software getting into the public domain let me tell you

[Stefan]

I think everyone here is missing the point... this looks at isues relating to modifying ECUs.

AS electronics are now responsible for accellerating, steering and braking (esp, cruise, electric steering) somone dude messing with the ECU and getting it wrong can be dangerous.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by Stefan

I think everyone here is missing the point... this looks at isues relating to modifying ECUs.

AS electronics are now responsible for accellerating, steering and braking (esp, cruise, electric steering) somone dude messing with the ECU and getting it wrong can be dangerous.

True, the same can also be said about engine mods to "analogue" cars and suspension, steering, brake enhancements.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by Stefan

I think everyone here is missing the point... this looks at isues relating to modifying ECUs.

AS electronics are now responsible for accellerating, steering and braking (esp, cruise, electric steering) somone dude messing with the ECU and getting it wrong can be dangerous.

Don't think for even a second that they are solely referring to the electronic systems within a car. Their IP crusade covers the entire vehicle. The manufacturers are looking at extracting maximum coin from the "purchaser", pre- and post sale all with full govco sanction.

And they will get it with the TPP.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by Stefan

I think everyone here is missing the point... this looks at isues relating to modifying ECUs.

AS electronics are now responsible for accellerating, steering and braking (esp, cruise, electric steering) somone dude messing with the ECU and getting it wrong can be dangerous.

I agree with this, ECU's control features like Stability control and park assist. they will argue a tuner will muck up the emission controls.

But the way I read the article, is that they were looking for total control.

and where does it stop? for example Panel Beaters need to re-fit airbags and other safety features. cars will get written off all to easily

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

This is going to be war on small business owners, so stand up and be counted.

There was something similar here recently where the courts sided against 3rd party workshops in favor of manufacturers too.

Good to see my opinion hasn't changed from 8 years ago

[SumoDog68]

There is always two sides to the story . Manufacturers design ,manufacture and supply a complex product - it is fair to say that no one knows it better than they do. When some claim that they can "improve performance " by various modifications they are mostly doing it in limited area of performance rather than manufacturers the whole picture approach.
While increasing some aspects of performance is possible there is always some reduction in performance in a different area. Manufacturers set their limits and parameters for a car as a unit and with reliability and safety in mind.
I don't think car makers care about anyone tinkering with their cars as long as they don't have to cover the damage in warranty costs.

[mik]

Originally Posted by SumoDog68

There is always two sides to the story . Manufacturers design ,manufacture and supply a complex product - it is fair to say that no one knows it better than they do. When some claim that they can "improve performance " by various modifications they are mostly doing it in limited area of performance rather than manufacturers the whole picture approach.
While increasing some aspects of performance is possible there is always some reduction in performance in a different area. Manufacturers set their limits and parameters for a car as a unit and with reliability and safety in mind.
I don't think car makers care about anyone tinkering with their cars as long as they don't have to cover the damage in warranty costs.

When you say "car makers know their cars better than everyone else" ,
some might contest that statement when they have to go 5 times to the the dealership to fix a gearbox problem or to find and fix an electrical gremlin or a suspension issue .

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by mik

When you say "car makers know their cars better than everyone else" ,
some might contest that statement when they have to go 5 times to the the dealership to fix a gearbox problem or to find and fix an electrical gremlin or a suspension issue .

The Dealer is not the manufacturer, but a licensed reseller of the manufacturers product. thus Manufacturers claim stands.

I doubt this will amount to anything this time but as mentioned above with legislation like the TPP looming if there is the will by the auto manufacturing and or any industry there is the way.

However how dare we stand in the way of a company making money, you wouldn't accept anyone standing in your way to make a living?
You want to buy something you may have to do so under the manufacturers rules, signing away rights is not a new concept. those rights in this case may be choice of repairer and parts supplier.

I really believe the complexity of body panels, lights and other commonly damaged adornments on cars are designed such that its not economically viable for the aftermarket to replicate hence ensuring only one supplier. Genius stuff really.

JP

[mik]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

The Dealer is not the manufacturer, but a licensed reseller of the manufacturers product. thus Manufacturers claim stands.

I doubt this will amount to anything this time but as mentioned above with legislation like the TPP looming if there is the will by the auto manufacturing and or any industry there is the way.

However how dare we stand in the way of a company making money, you wouldn't accept anyone standing in your way to make a living?
You want to buy something you may have to do so under the manufacturers rules, signing away rights is not a new concept. those rights in this case may be choice of repairer and parts supplier.

I really believe the complexity of body panels, lights and other commonly damaged adornments on cars are designed such that its not economically viable for the aftermarket to replicate hence ensuring only one supplier. Genius stuff really.

JP

Yes they are not the manufacturer, but they are the nominated repairers and the face of the motor company for cars as far as the customer is concerned,
and they are supposed to know how to repair the brand of car they are selling/representing with their "trained technicians",
how often over the years gave we seen various problems come up In many brands that took them multiple goes to get a repair of a problem part done satisfactorily, and in some cases the problems ended up being more of a patch up, and after market guys ended up coming up with a better solution/ fix ?

[zilo]

A mate of mine recently got a piece of software that convinces a BMW/Audi/merc that it is connected to the factory database computers....( he has a dump of all the data!)

The european car scene is starting to rebel with all this software lock up stuff they are trying to set us up with.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by zilo

A mate of mine recently got a piece of software that convinces a BMW/Audi/merc that it is connected to the factory database computers....( he has a dump of all the data!)

The european car scene is starting to rebel with all this software lock up stuff they are trying to set us up with.

What software is it because we had some serious issues trying to access information in the ECU on my Focus, its locked up very well on Siemens ECUs.

Does it work with other manufacturers or just the big 3 Euros at the moment?

[cs123]

Interesting developments. Not sure what the end game of car manufacturers is here, especially since they have little interest in the car after the warranty runs out and the dealerships are flat out servicing a 15yo car. Are they going to now supply parts and support cars for 20-30 years, doubt that.

More worrying is that they are building components that are proprietary ie coil packs, power steer components which will need to be reverse engineered to talk to a manufacturer's PCM.

[cheap]

Just what the world needs - more vexatious copyright litigation (sarc)

If they get the go ahead, I predict there will be a growth in 3rd party ECU manufacturers who will make zillions of dollars selling complete replacement plug compatible ECU's to allow the owner to do what they like.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by cs123

Interesting developments. Not sure what the end game of car manufacturers is here, especially since they have little interest in the car after the warranty runs out and the dealerships are flat out servicing a 15yo car. Are they going to now supply parts and support cars for 20-30 years, doubt that.

More worrying is that they are building components that are proprietary ie coil packs, power steer components which will need to be reverse engineered to talk to a manufacturer's PCM.

I know with Honda they announced some time back...with motorcycles at least...to guarantee they will supply spare parts for 30 years from manufacture date.
I even went into Toyota and found that I could actually pay less for the driveshaft center bearing assembly and a couple of other small bits for our 1982 Celica than I would through aftermarket suppliers. This even seemed to surprise the spare parts guy that they still had the parts list on their computers.

Not implying all makers will do this..."planned obsolescence" is a term from 1970's USA that we should do our best to leave in the past...

[falconnut]

Well we are going to need more dealerships because the ones we currently have are ****

[Mr Brooksy]

OK, let's say that the automotive makers succeeded (which I highly doubt), then to avoid a massive infrastructure melt down (how many people would suddenly not be able to get to and from work due to no transportation including public transportation because they are out dated?), do courts order manufacturers to build all possible OEM parts at the original prices? This is only fair as the auto makers have already recouped their costs from model to model (so they say).

That way they could live up to their claim that they are not pushing in this direction for purely profit reasons.

That then should also include original servicing costs, and original purchase service standards (we wish!). Does that also mean that for every vehicle that was ever produced the car makers have a responsibility to provide upgrade parts to match current day requirements at the same price as the original parts they replace for safety reasons of cause. It is the auto manufacturers main concern is it not?

Only a bribed judge would be so stupid as to see this as anything other than a money grabbing attempt.

Also if this was to be passed then how many other manufacturer's of other every day tools/computer equipment/software etc would jump on board?! No sorry Mr Smith you can not buy a logitech mouse for your Apple laptop. You must only buy an Apple approved mouse. Or sorry Mrs Smith, you can not buy that brand of dish washing tablets for your dish washer as it is not authorised to be used by your manufacturer. Here, this is the only brand you can use that will not effect the original use and safety of the dish washer!

I am going over the top with my examples but, isn't that the same level of argument the auto makers are using?

[Trump]

This is concerning on multiple levels. The implication of such a move is that it would effectively mean that no one actually owns their car. The $xx,xxx they hand over is essentially a licence fee to use the car until it craps out (or is mandated by govco).

It would also decimate the aftermarket parts industry as manufacturers would be exceptionally reticent to enable the industry (by way of licencing) to keep making parts and become competition.

[uniacidz]

Think might be better to relate to Australia

http://www.news.com.au/finance/busin...-1227096523670

[aussiblue]

As I indicated in the FG workshop manual thread this approach and recent decisions has what has stymied access to factory workshop manuals for the general public http://www.aaaa.com.au/files/issues/...n%20151214.pdf

and the related press release http://www.aaaa.com.au/news.asp?id=196

16 December 2014 - A Win for Australian Car Owners - Vehicle Data Sharing


The Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association (AAAA) Choice of Repairer campaign launched in 2009 achieved its aim when peak industry bodies signed a voluntary agreement on 15 December 2014 to make vehicle data sharing a reality.

The Agreement on Access to Service and Repair Information for Motor Vehicles was signed by five organisations representing key industry and consumer groups – the Australian Automobile Association, AAAA, Australian Automotive Dealer Association, Australian Motor Industry Federation and the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries.

Delighted AAAA Executive Director Stuart Charity said the agreement facilitated by Federal Minister for Small Business Bruce Billson is a victory for common sense. “This agreement ensures independent repairers can access all information required for the diagnosis, body repair, servicing, inspection, periodic monitoring, and reinitialising of the vehicle, in line with the service and repair information manufacturers provide their authorised dealers and repairers,” said Stuart Charity.

“AAAA launched the Choice of Repairer campaign because independent repairers want to give the best service to their customers and repairers were concerned that car owners were being disadvantaged by either a lack of some data or the difficulty in getting the data.

“For over five years, the AAAA persisted in delivering this message to government – to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, to Ministers and other members of Parliament.

“This result is a win for consumers and their local independent repairers. The AAAA invested thousands of hours advocating to get this issue on the agenda. It is also a wonderful reminder about commitment. If the argument is right, if the evidence is there, and if you have support of your community or membership, you should never give up.

“The parties have agreed to give Australian vehicle owners rights similar to those enjoyed in Europe and the USA. (My comment: but not the same as the USA). The accord creates a level playing field enabling independent aftermarket workshops to compete with the car company authorised dealerships.

“The agreement is a win-win-win for all parties. It promotes consumer choice for owners of 17 million vehicles – particularly those in regional areas where there are fewer dealerships. It helps 22,000 small workshops remain business. And the vehicle manufacturers will earn a fair price for the data that they share,” he said.

Agreement safeguards

This agreement is based on the principles that consumers should be able to choose who maintains and/or repairs their motor vehicle and that motor vehicle and motor vehicle component manufacturers, Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), have a right to protect intellectual property and be paid for sharing vehicle repair and service data.

The agreement also obliges repairers to acknowledge the importance of obtaining and using the repair information provided by OEMs to ensure repairs are carried out correctly to assure the safety of consumers.

The accord establishes guidelines for the operation of the agreement under a steering committee, which will meet at least once each year and provides for a dispute resolution process. The steering committee will include one member of each signatory organisation with the ability to access professional mediation by an agreed third party, if the signatory parties are unable to resolve a dispute internally.

Parties to the agreement also acknowledged that the emerging vehicle telematics technologies enabling increased transmission and use of data relating to vehicle use, performance and diagnostics presents emerging challenges for all stakeholders. To address these challenges, the parties will implement a process to develop protocols relating to vehicle data access and ownership with progress to be reported in 12 months.

“The AAAA recognised that as time marched on, so too did the technical complexity of modern vehicles – they are now computers on wheels. To provide consumers with an open and competitive service and repair market, we knew that independent workshops must have access to the data required to keep customers safe and mobile.

“The AAAA acknowledges the significant work by all signatory parties to the agreement in achieving this historic outcome for the automotive industry. We also thank Minister Billson for his outstanding leadership on the issue, as well as the Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for their commitment to resolving this critical consumer issue,” said Stuart Charity.

An arrangement that provided qualified private repairers get access but not individual consumers. In the USA the "Right to Repair" lobby is also about consumer getting the information. See http://www.righttorepair.org/about/default.aspx

The Right to Repair Act is bipartisan legislation that would require automakers to provide the same service information and tools to independent auto and maintenance shops, as well as to consumers, that the automaker dealership service centers receive.

Noting in Canada and Europe:

The European Union has passed Right to Repair and an aggressive effort is currently underway in Canada. Right to repair is clearly a global issue whose time has come

More on the campaign in Europe here: http://www.r2rc.eu/. It seems they are looking for an outcome similar to the arrangement in Oz where end of line consumers are also left out in the cold.

Unfortunately it seems the cosy arrangement in Australia between the AAAA and the vehicle manufacturers was blessed by our motoring organisations representing consumers and we and publishers like Haynes and Max Ellery were left out in the cold so it is going to get even more difficult to get access to workshop manuals. Time to get the Australian Motorist Party on to it perhaps.
__________________
regards Blue

[AUwindsor]

y'all wake up that the banking families are our global government. they own all federal reserves, they own most corporations. the entire money system is a scam

we don't actually own ****. good luck

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by AUwindsor

y'all wake up that the banking families are our global government. they own all federal reserves, they own most corporations. the entire money system is a scam

we don't actually own ****. good luck

LOL

Car thread dude