Right to Repair Bills!

[slipperybidness]

https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/23/right-to-repair-bills-introduced-in-five-states/

@TLS Guy

 

[herbu]

So if I own a company, pay engineers for months/years to design a product, build a mfg plant to make the product, establish a network and sell the product, the law will compel me to make repair parts and manuals available to anybody who asks?

Doesn't sound like a conservative plan.

 

[slipperybidness]

So if I own a company, pay engineers for months/years to design a product, build a mfg plant to make the product, establish a network and sell the product, the law will compel me to make repair parts and manuals available to anybody who asks?

Doesn't sound like a conservative plan.

So, as a consumer I pay big $ for a product, then it gets discontinued by the manufacturer a few years later, no parts are available and no knowledge on repairs is ever given to the end user!

As an end user, I absolutely have the right to expect that I should be able to repair my purchase and have support from the vendor. For that matter, I also have the right to hack it or repurpose it as I see fit.

 

[TLS Guy]

So if I own a company, pay engineers for months/years to design a product, build a mfg plant to make the product, establish a network and sell the product, the law will compel me to make repair parts and manuals available to anybody who asks?

Doesn't sound like a conservative plan.

No, we absolutely need the right to repair. Unless you are designing shoddy poorly engineered goods its in your interest as well.

A service manual that is easy to follow and has diagnostic codes clearly listed is a huge sales asset. In addition the knowledgeable consumer can tell if it a decently thought out and engineered product.

In addition if these laws come into being we might actually see the independent repair shops again.

In the good old days, your instruction manual had full circuits, including key voltage test points.

Now when we should be able to download manuals easily you can't find one, and one is never released for most products.

Cars were mandated to have OBD 1 and then and currently OBD II codes available to all. This has been a huge help. However the law listed which parts this applied to. As technology has progresses there are items in vehicles that we never thought of. So now in addition to OBD codes there are e-codes. Of course only dealers have access to these. I had a fault a while back and got a perfect scan form my OBD scanner. Turned out there was an e-code involved. This law does not apply to boats and other things like tractors that badly need them.

Worse, John Deere have said the information is copyright as far as electrical testing and diagnostics are concerned. They have been suing farmers for fixing there own equipment!

That meant that on a piece of logging equipment in trouble here I could not go near it. JD have been closing dealerships like crazy. I have to say with good reason, as they don't tolerate stupidity. The three round here have been closed up and two of those were very stupid indeed. So anyhow that piece of equipment had to hauled all the way to Grand Forks, 140 miles away.

So we do need this legislation. NO product should come to market without parts available and a complete service manual available to all, including all service and initialization codes, and how to obtain and enter them. If diagnostic tools are required these should be readily available to all at reasonable cost.

It would I think stop products being thrown together like most receivers. With local repair shops coming back it would soon get round which products were easy to service and which not. The modern approach is not even to consider serviceability on the over all design. What we have now is a disgrace.

Every one here should get involved and support this type of legislation with vigor.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

No, we absolutely need the right to repair. Unless you are designing shoddy poorly engineered goods its in your interest as well.

A service manual that is easy to follow and has diagnostic codes clearly listed is a huge sales asset. In addition the knowledgeable consumer can tell if it a decently thought out and engineered product.

In addition if these laws come into being we might actually see the independent repair shops again.

In the good old days, your instruction manual had full circuits, including key voltage test points.

Now when we should be able to download manuals easily you can't find one, and one is never released for most products.

Cars were mandated to have OBD 1 and then and currently OBD II codes available to all. This has been a huge help. However the law listed which parts this applied to. As technology has progresses there are items in vehicles that we never thought of. So now in addition to OBD codes there are e-codes. Of course only dealers have access to these. I had a fault a while back and got a perfect scan form my OBD scanner. Turned out there was an e-code involved. This law does not apply to boats and other things like tractors that badly need them.

Worse, John Deere have said the information is copyright as far as electrical testing and diagnostics are concerned. They have been suing farmers for fixing there own equipment!

That meant that on a piece of logging equipment in trouble here I could not go near it. JD have been closing dealerships like crazy. I have to say with good reason, as they don't tolerate stupidity. The three round here have been closed up and two of those were very stupid indeed. So anyhow that piece of equipment had to hauled all the way to Grand Forks, 140 miles away.

So we do need this legislation. NO product should come to market without parts available and a complete service manual available to all, including all service and initialization codes, and how to obtain and enter them. If diagnostic tools are required these should be readily available to all at reasonable cost.

It would I think stop products being thrown together like most receivers. With local repair shops coming back it would soon get round which products were easy to service and which not. The modern approach is not even to consider serviceability on the over all design. What we have now is a disgrace.

Every one here should get involved and support this type of legislation with vigor.

Some additional reading on subject if anyone is not familiar with John Deere practises:
https://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/
https://theamericangenius.com/business-news/farmers-cant-legally-fix-their-own-john-deere-tractors-due-to-copyright-laws/
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/nothing-drms-like-deere-farmers-cant-fix-tractors/

 

[Chu Gai]

I'd like to see summaries of the law in the fie states indicating just what it is they're addressing.

 

[herbu]

I understand what you guys are saying, and I too long for the good old days when you could take an appliance or car to any good independent repair shop. I still have a good local mechanic that can work on any of my vehicles, including the Ford tractor. But I'm not convinced it is a "right" or should be governed by law. That is the reason we seek out "reputable" brands instead of no-name knock offs.

Is it my "right" to take my Honda to a Toyota shop and expect a repair? Should there be a law that says New Holland has the "right" to get specs/parts/instructions for a John Deere repair? I'm not convinced.

If you don't like the prospect of future repairs on a Deere, don't get one. Personally, I take my Deere to the Deere shop for repair, my Chevy to the Chevy shop for repair, my Nissan to the Nissan place for repair, my Rolex to the Rolex shop for repair, etc.

Being a fan of capitalism and small government, I'm just not sure this is an area that requires government intervention. Perhaps the Deere issues are why Kubota and Mahindra are becoming more popular. Consumers are voting with their business.

I'm not really taking a stand here, because I don't understand enough about it. But this is my inclination. Y'all have changed my mind before.

 

[slipperybidness]

I understand what you guys are saying, and I too long for the good old days when you could take an appliance or car to any good independent repair shop. I still have a good local mechanic that can work on any of my vehicles, including the Ford tractor. But I'm not convinced it is a "right" or should be governed by law. That is the reason we seek out "reputable" brands instead of no-name knock offs.

Is it my "right" to take my Honda to a Toyota shop and expect a repair? Should there be a law that says New Holland has the "right" to get specs/parts/instructions for a John Deere repair? I'm not convinced.

If you don't like the prospect of future repairs on a Deere, don't get one. Personally, I take my Deere to the Deere shop for repair, my Chevy to the Chevy shop for repair, my Nissan to the Nissan place for repair, my Rolex to the Rolex shop for repair, etc.

Being a fan of capitalism and small government, I'm just not sure this is an area that requires government intervention. Perhaps the Deere issues are why Kubota and Mahindra are becoming more popular. Consumers are voting with their business.

I'm not really taking a stand here, because I don't understand enough about it. But this is my inclination. Y'all have changed my mind before.

The problem is that this area ALREADY HAS the government intervention! Did you read the articles linked for JD? The entire JD arguments are based on government legislation, DRM and DMCA in particular.

JD claims "it's against the law for an owner to modify the tractor"! You can't have said laws without the government! If there are no laws, then there are no crimes, simple logic.

And, with this knowledge, I agree that JD is now a company that I would NEVER give my $. That's how the capitalist votes.

Let the end user use or modify their device as they see fit! Keep the government and the DRM/DMCA out of it. DRM and DMCA ONLY HURT the honest end user! The dis-honest end user easily defeat such measures.

Basically, manufacturers would love to move to the model of "you don't own that item, you only own the license for that item, and we can revoke that license at any time for any reason that we see fit, and don't have to recompensate you for the lost item or time".

Also, how about those of us that are skilled enough to make our own repairs, and have the right equipment and tools to make repairs and perform the measurements? We don't pay someone to fix something that we can do ourselves cheaper, faster, BETTER (I know it's done to my high standards). Now, I have to take it to an authorized repair bozo or pay to be a licensed repairman for MY item?

What happens when your JD breaks down in the field? You are not legally allowed to diagnose it at all! Guess you gotta call the Authorized JD repairman and get him to come diagnose it in the field ($$$) and possibly get it on a trailer to get it to the shop (More $$$).

I can't even count the number of times that I have bought an item, taken it out of the box, and immediately voided the warranty, and I haven't regretted that yet.

I can tell you from my 15 years in the manufacturing industry, vendors of high dollar equipment don't make the huge profits on the equipment itself. Instead, the Big $ profits come from service and maintenance contracts! I have even had vendors offer to repair big $ equipment FOR FREE, if we will extend a service contract by 1 year!

From 1 of the JD links:
John Deere, manufacturer of some of the world’s most popular tractors and farming equipment, recently submitted a letter to the U.S. Copyright Office asking it to forbid its customers from modifying the software that operates its machines. The implications here are huge: because of copyright laws, farmers cannot diagnose problems or make repairs on their own tractors.

Bottom line: according to John Deere, if you strip the DRM off your tractor to modify its behavior or run diagnostics, you are in violation of the DMCA.

 

[Swerd]

I'm a fan of both capitalism and good government. This proposal by John Deere smells strongly of 'Congressional Lobbyist' proposed legislation. It would only benefit the manufacturing company, not the customers or the independent repair companies.

I think a good analogy is the old monopolistic phone company we had in the past, The Bell Telephone Company, aka Ma Bell. They owned everything including the telephones and the wiring in our homes, which they graciously leased to us. They actually fined people who used their own "unleased" phones. That ended with a federal court ruling in the late 1970s that began dismembering the Ma Bell monopoly and the deregulation of telephone service in general.

John Deere, claiming that their copyright entitles them exclusive rights to repair their products, is clearly a step towards a monopoly and limits free trade. Their copyright only guarantees them the right to sue competitors who sell products using their designs or software.

 

[herbu]

Let the end user use or modify their device as they see fit!

I agree with that. Once you buy a commodity it is yours. You should be able to do with it whatever you want. The mfg can say you void the warranty if you mess with it, but it should still be your choice.

Somehow, with all the Deere tractors in the field, and all the owners who regularly do their own maintenance, it's hard for me to believe Deere's intent is to hamstring the owners.

 

[slipperybidness]

I agree with that. Once you buy a commodity it is yours. You should be able to do with it whatever you want. The mfg can say you void the warranty if you mess with it, but it should still be your choice.

Somehow, with all the Deere tractors in the field, and all the owners who regularly do their own maintenance, it's hard for me to believe Deere's intent is to hamstring the owners.

The intent is to keep all the revenue for repairs as first party JD revenue.

The thing is, and it was mentioned in a link, they could easily pull the diagnostics portion of the software out of the DRM and allow the end user to access that. But, they choose to hide it behind DRM, then say "it is illegal to remove DRM".

At my current job, I have cut out almost every single service contract for lab instrumentation and taken that work in-house. I either do the work personally, or I have a lab maint tech that does it.

Maybe once every couple of years we will have a problem that we can't solve, then we call in the vendor field service tech and pay on an hourly basis.

The amount of $ that I have saved my company by cutting out service contract fees is SUBSTANTIAL. Yes, there is some risk accepted with this approach, but the risk/reward ratio makes this a no-brainer.

 

[herbu]

One of the articles has this:

"If you’re six figures deep in a purchase, it’s troubling to hear that you can’t fix your own equipment. In his article, Wiens mentions one farmer — Kerry Adams — who can’t fix an expensive transplanter because he doesn’t have access to the right diagnostic software."

This isn't like the days when a product owner figured out how to modify/improve his purchase for his use. This sounds like a guy who thinks the mfg should be obligated to help him figure out how to modify/improve his purchase.

That's where this argument loses me. I think when you buy something, you should be able to do whatever you want with it. However, if you can't figure out how to do something yourself, you take it to the shop. Companies have put seals and tamper resistant mechanisms on their products for years. If you mess with it, it becomes obvious, and the mfg is no longer responsible for it.

Though the wording of the laws & regulations may need some work, I still find it hard to believe Deere really means that you don't own the tractor. And I'm still not convinced a company should be compelled to provide their diagnostic software to the public.

 

[shadyJ]

Regardless of whatever potential positive social effects these type of laws might have, these types of bills have no possibility of passing in the current political climate. So it is a purely theoretical discussion.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

That's where this argument loses me. I think when you buy something, you should be able to do whatever you want with it. However, if you can't figure out how to do something yourself, you take it to the shop. Companies have put seals and tamper resistant mechanisms on their products for years. If you mess with it, it becomes obvious, and the mfg is no longer responsible for it.

...

A couple of things come to mind.
Is the customer informed that they cannot fix the product or is after the fact.

Responsibility for that product? What does that really mean? That they will keep it operating on their dime or that they will try to fix it for $$$$.
Good thing the nuts and bolts are standard on the product so one can buy them anyplace instead of going back to the company for their proprietary bolt and the machine shop cannot make one for less.

 

[slipperybidness]

One of the articles has this:

"If you’re six figures deep in a purchase, it’s troubling to hear that you can’t fix your own equipment. In his article, Wiens mentions one farmer — Kerry Adams — who can’t fix an expensive transplanter because he doesn’t have access to the right diagnostic software."

This isn't like the days when a product owner figured out how to modify/improve his purchase for his use. This sounds like a guy who thinks the mfg should be obligated to help him figure out how to modify/improve his purchase.

That's where this argument loses me. I think when you buy something, you should be able to do whatever you want with it. However, if you can't figure out how to do something yourself, you take it to the shop. Companies have put seals and tamper resistant mechanisms on their products for years. If you mess with it, it becomes obvious, and the mfg is no longer responsible for it.

Though the wording of the laws & regulations may need some work, I still find it hard to believe Deere really means that you don't own the tractor. And I'm still not convinced a company should be compelled to provide their diagnostic software to the public.

JD concedes that you do own the hardware (ie the tractor), but you DO NOT own the software--you are implicitly granted a "license for the life of the hardware".

This isn't like the days when a product owner figured out how to modify/improve his purchase for his use.
Really? Why not??? What has changed? It's more complicated? Big deal, IF you are qualified to work on your own equipment, then you are qualified to work on your own equipment. The level of skill needed has nothing to do with it. Either you have the needed level of skill or you don't, nothing has changed there, right? I'm a person that works on Half Million Dollar lab equipment and industrial equipment routinely, more often than not, I won't even let the field service techs touch my equipment for certain tasks! They do the work, then leave, then I have to clean up their stupidity. Seriously.

Another great example--I modify XBox Game Controllers. I have done all sorts of mechanical mods, added buttons to the back, added hair triggers, changed SMD LEDs to other colors, installed/soldered in mod chips, etc. My next task on these projects is to actually program my own mod chips, then install them. I have the skill set to do this work! Mostly self-taught and by watching Youtube tutorials. If that were to become illegal, then I would be robbed of the opportunity to learn this new skill set for free, right?

This sounds like a guy who thinks the mfg should be obligated to help him figure out how to modify/improve his purchase.
Perhaps, but I didn't read it that way. If that is really the case, then I agree! You are a fool if you think the vendor is gonna help you to defeat or mod their equipment. I have modified industrial equipment and lab equipment at my job many times. I don't ask the vendor for help because I know it won't happen! Sometimes I have even spoken directly to the original designers and told them what we are going to do. What they told me in return was, "we can't approve of that modification, but we would like to know how that works out for you".

However, if you can't figure out how to do something yourself, you take it to the shop. Companies have put seals and tamper resistant mechanisms on their products for years. If you mess with it, it becomes obvious, and the mfg is no longer responsible for it.
Agreed, 100%! As the end user, I always balance my skill set vs. the task at hand vs the $ in my pocket vs the risk that I'm willing to take vs the reward of making a repair myself. If it doesn't make sense for me to deal with it, then I take it to the shop! In TX where we routinely hit 100+ degrees over the summers, I'm much more likely to take my car to the shop vs working on it in the driveway.

 

[highfigh]

No, we absolutely need the right to repair. Unless you are designing shoddy poorly engineered goods its in your interest as well.

A service manual that is easy to follow and has diagnostic codes clearly listed is a huge sales asset. In addition the knowledgeable consumer can tell if it a decently thought out and engineered product.

In addition if these laws come into being we might actually see the independent repair shops again.

In the good old days, your instruction manual had full circuits, including key voltage test points.

Now when we should be able to download manuals easily you can't find one, and one is never released for most products.

Cars were mandated to have OBD 1 and then and currently OBD II codes available to all. This has been a huge help. However the law listed which parts this applied to. As technology has progresses there are items in vehicles that we never thought of. So now in addition to OBD codes there are e-codes. Of course only dealers have access to these. I had a fault a while back and got a perfect scan form my OBD scanner. Turned out there was an e-code involved. This law does not apply to boats and other things like tractors that badly need them.

Worse, John Deere have said the information is copyright as far as electrical testing and diagnostics are concerned. They have been suing farmers for fixing there own equipment!

That meant that on a piece of logging equipment in trouble here I could not go near it. JD have been closing dealerships like crazy. I have to say with good reason, as they don't tolerate stupidity. The three round here have been closed up and two of those were very stupid indeed. So anyhow that piece of equipment had to hauled all the way to Grand Forks, 140 miles away.

So we do need this legislation. NO product should come to market without parts available and a complete service manual available to all, including all service and initialization codes, and how to obtain and enter them. If diagnostic tools are required these should be readily available to all at reasonable cost.

It would I think stop products being thrown together like most receivers. With local repair shops coming back it would soon get round which products were easy to service and which not. The modern approach is not even to consider serviceability on the over all design. What we have now is a disgrace.

Every one here should get involved and support this type of legislation with vigor.

WRT boats, which I have serviced as a "factory-trained" tech, if it's not from Brunswick or Genmar (or another huge manufacturer), the dealer network is too small to provide service/parts to end users without them being required to go online or travel a great distance. Then, the techs, who probably won't look at their job as a career (if they actually think that far into the future), won't do a good job, may not go to the required training, move on after going to training and this leave the boat owners without the service they deserve. I have spoken to one manufacturer about opening regional service shops so their customers don't have to trailer the boat so far and they balked.

The problem this causes is people trying to repair their own products and what amazes me is that they wouldn't think of touching a $20K car, but they'll dive head-first into a fuel injected ski boat that costs $75K or more. Their first step- drag the parts cannon out of the shed and start throwing parts at it, then they go to a forum to ask why it's not running, complaining that it's a POS and the manufacturer has failed them. They decide that the 25/50/100 hour service is unnecessary and ignore the info stating that the dealer needs to do this to make sure everything is within spec and that nothing has changed, or to make sure nothing was missed at the factory- some of these boat makers only produce 3000 boats in a year.

To be fair, some dealers do a terrible job of servicing and diagnosing simple problems, which forces these people to find an alternative that may not be a good one.
Fortunately, many engine parts are the same as what GM used in their cars and trucks, so it's not a hopeless situation. Also, a few places sell marine parts and know how to diagnose & repair. I haven't worked on tractors, so I don't know that situation but I know people who have and they'll often dump something when it's hard to service- farmers have traditionally "done whatever it takes" to keep everything running because they just don't have time to screw around and manufacturers need to realize this. The EPA needs to understand it, too- they're responsible for OBDI and II, anyway. However, I'll take injection over a carb any day.

WRT electronics, the cost to make something now makes it a matter of "replace if it takes more than 15 minutes to find the problem" and with fewer kids learning advanced Math and Science, as well as parents deciding that their kid isn't going to work with their hands, training people to do this will be an uphill struggle.

 

[herbu]

JD concedes that you do own the hardware (ie the tractor), but you DO NOT own the software--you are implicitly granted a "license for the life of the hardware".

This isn't like the days when a product owner figured out how to modify/improve his purchase for his use.
Really? Why not??? What has changed? It's more complicated? Big deal, IF you are qualified to work on your own equipment, then you are qualified to work on your own equipment. The level of skill needed has nothing to do with it. Either you have the needed level of skill or you don't, nothing has changed there, right? I'm a person that works on Half Million Dollar lab equipment and industrial equipment routinely, more often than not, I won't even let the field service techs touch my equipment for certain tasks! They do the work, then leave, then I have to clean up their stupidity. Seriously.

Another great example--I modify XBox Game Controllers. I have done all sorts of mechanical mods, added buttons to the back, added hair triggers, changed SMD LEDs to other colors, installed/soldered in mod chips, etc. My next task on these projects is to actually program my own mod chips, then install them. I have the skill set to do this work! Mostly self-taught and by watching Youtube tutorials. If that were to become illegal, then I would be robbed of the opportunity to learn this new skill set for free, right?

This sounds like a guy who thinks the mfg should be obligated to help him figure out how to modify/improve his purchase.
Perhaps, but I didn't read it that way. If that is really the case, then I agree! You are a fool if you think the vendor is gonna help you to defeat or mod their equipment. I have modified industrial equipment and lab equipment at my job many times. I don't ask the vendor for help because I know it won't happen! Sometimes I have even spoken directly to the original designers and told them what we are going to do. What they told me in return was, "we can't approve of that modification, but we would like to know how that works out for you".

However, if you can't figure out how to do something yourself, you take it to the shop. Companies have put seals and tamper resistant mechanisms on their products for years. If you mess with it, it becomes obvious, and the mfg is no longer responsible for it.
Agreed, 100%! As the end user, I always balance my skill set vs. the task at hand vs the $ in my pocket vs the risk that I'm willing to take vs the reward of making a repair myself. If it doesn't make sense for me to deal with it, then I take it to the shop! In TX where we routinely hit 100+ degrees over the summers, I'm much more likely to take my car to the shop vs working on it in the driveway.

I believe you and I are in full agreement.

Perhaps the only difference was in our default assessment of the problem. Upon hearing about this issue, my first thought was that Deere doesn't really intend to make it illegal for people to work on their tractors. Maybe I'm naive. Maybe I'm too trusting in the power of consumers to vote with their wallet and put companies with nefarious intent out of business. Both are possible.

But when it comes to what rights an owner should have, I agree with everything you said above.

 

[TLS Guy]

OK, so this is the real world. My excavator contractor had a Kobelco excavator sold to him by one of the local JD dealers. One that is no longer in business now.

Well one day the only thing that worked on the machine was the engine. Nothing else worked.

As is usual with modern engineers they need taking out to the wood shed daily. Once you loose power or hydraulics you can't move the machines. You can not tow them, because no manufacturers that I know of include a manual hydraulic release/bypass valve. That would be easy.

So the nearest dealer were hundreds of miles away and no help. No one would make diagnostics available. The JD dealer who sold it changed various items over 3.5 months and the excavator sat where it broke down.

I did eventually track down the electronic and hydraulic circuits. After a lot of work and deduction I was able to point to the offending solenoid. This was duly ordered and installed and the machine moved again.

Several things need to happen here. There needs to be laws that require uniformity of diagnostic protocols.

Every owner and every shop whether the dealer or not should have easy access to the full service manual, diagnostic codes and scanner to obtain them.

The same goes for our electronic albums.

JD have one hell of a nerve, as all their excavators are repainted Hitachis.

No wonder people voted Trump.

 

[slipperybidness]

As is usual with modern engineers they need taking out to the wood shed daily. .

LOL, right!

And take away their participation trophy while you're at it.

 

[Midwesthonky]

As is usual with modern engineers they need taking out to the wood shed daily. Once you loose power or hydraulics you can't move the machines.

I suspect the decision not to include a hydraulic relief valve was made by a marketing/management team to save a few $$.

I can understand the desire to keep your software proprietary as it governs how you meet certain regulations. But it does make it difficult as an owner to diagnose when things go wrong.

I fix my CNC myself. The manufacturer is over in Italy and their tech support and main operation in the US is in Atlanta. Their whole solution to issues is for me to pay for a tech to fly in from Atlanta (when the tech becomes available) and have the tech take a look. So as the machine owner, I'm supposed to sit with this equipment idle until a tech becomes available and then commit to at least $5,000 in the hope that he can fix it? I don't think so.

On one issue, the tech figured it was a bad pneumatic valve. The manufacturer's repair part cost...$400. If I let them do the repair, I would have been out roughly $5,000 or more depending on his time. I found the manufacturer of the valve and bought one for $65 and replaced it myself. It wasn't the problem.

If the manufacturer wants the repair/support business, they need to have regionally placed techs. I would pay for a guy to drive up from Chicago. I am not going to pay to fly a guy in from Atlanta. Needless to say, I am not going to buy from this manufacturer when it comes time to replace the CNC. Support is huge. The last fiasco was a drive motor for the Y-axis on the CNC. The encoder on the motor was bad. Fine, except they used a spec motor/encoder that is so finicky that the encoder can't be field replaced. Fine. I'mm buy a new motor/encoder combo. Oh wait, it's a Euro spec motor and Yaskawa Europe won't let Yaskawa North America touch their stuff because having global support for all of your products would make since but you have pissing contests over territory so the customer is left in the lurch. Fine, the CNC manufacturer has a motor in stock in Atlanta. $2,600 later it's over-nighted in. Awesome! I'm off and running...wait, there is no pulley on the new motor and there is no way to get the old one off. Tech support call later (1 hour delay) and the old pulley is a heat shrink fit and the US tech support didn't know about the pulley as it's not in their parts diagram and there is no part number for it. Their best solution is for me to wait 6 days to get a motor and pulley shipped in from Italy. Yeah, I can't afford another 6 days down. $260, 4 cycles of a acetylene torch and impact wrench at a local motor shop and I have a pulley off the old and on the new motor. I'm back up and running 5 days earlier than the best option.

If I couldn't work on the equipment I own, I would be out of business. Actually, the equipment would be sold and I'd be running stuff that I could work on. I can't afford to drop a crap load of coin every time a piece of equipment doesn't work right. I can't afford to be down for a long time either.