More ADAS Target Debate
Now that I have been completing more ADAS calibrations I feel more comfortable asking questions and joining some of the debate. My question is for the "OE only" tool only crowd - how far do you take this? By OE only tools, are you talking about just scan tools and targets? Or do you take it one step further and use every OE tool to find the center line and so on. Would you use another brand stand with an OE target? Do you have 6 bubble levels in your truck, all OE?
Matthew, I think that to play it safe the OEM will always say to use 100% their product. They can't control the aftermarket or what they come up with. I would propose geometry works whether you are the aftermarket or OEM. If you are able to assure the same measurements with the aftermarket product as with the OEM it should not matter. That being said, we all have a target on our backs every
If I'm not mistaken, I-car does indeed endorse Autel's ADAS system. Does anyone have definitive evidence either way? Even if they do, will that be "good enough" in the event the unthinkable happens?
From: Ask I-CAR Team <email@example.com> Date: January 21, 2019 at 2:42:03 PM MST To: "Jason E. …" Subject: Re: I-CAR position on tooling I-CAR does not endorse any tools, equipment, products, or services. I-CAR has Sustaining Partners: i-car.com/sustainingpart… I-CAR has an Industry Training Alliance:i-car.com/Home/Education…
Matt, Having been through a European OE ADAS class, having the right scan or a scan tool with the right software is a must. Using the alignment machine to help set up and center the calibration equipment was a must. By the way, it took 3 hours to set and perform 4 calibrations with 4 more still needing to be done. Dynamic steering was done in 10-15 minutes instead of 30-45 minutes of driving…
I find that everything in life, including this topic is based on reasonableness. You sound like an articulate individual. If you are able to articulate why, what and how you did it, and the end result is correct, appropriate and professional, I would feel confident in that result. I would not go and make my own targets, use pirated software etc. Speaking for myself, I use only genuine OEM
Dean, I would be more skeptical of the aftermarket targets than the software. The software only instructs the module to perform a task, and that task was created by the OEM. It’s no different than a SAS relearn IMO. The targets, reflectors, mats, mirrors, etc are an interesting story. I have demoed Autel’s system, but only currently use OEM targets, reflectors and stands as of right now. In
garagewire.co.uk/garage-wire-vi… just some interesting info if you want to copy paste the link.We have gone the oem route for scanners and targets.I would see if any aftermarkets are oem approved.
Those doing a large amount of calibrations are setting the industry standard for professional service of these systems. "Industry standards are, in essence, criteria within a particular field of business, and are generally the minimal accepted requirements followed by the members of that industry. In this way, it provides those in a legal setting with an easier to define guideline for defining
Sadly, too many industry professionals push for non-professional solutions (IE NON approved procedures, targets, tooling). I don't understand why we are willing to go above the engineer's heads and use tools that were NOT developed by the people who designed the systems. In time, if the aftermarket develop tools that the OEM's determine to be sufficient, that is one thine (Hunter and Nissan, for
Just a point; when I joined iATN in the 90s using a scope to test and diagnose was not approved by any OEM or aftermarket part manufacture. Up until relatively recently using a scope still was not an approved method. So you are saying that all those non-professional unapproved tests done by all those hundreds of techs were improper and shouldn't have been done? If so, why are they proper
WOW, that is a stretch for a comparison. Testing a CKP with a scope and performing an ADAS calibration are to completely different worlds. IMO
Recent awards in lawsuit may cause us all to think twice about manufacturer standards. repairerdrivennews.com…jur…;
So if I'm following your train of thought, those that have performed 1000's of incident-free calibrations with Bosch's A/M system, CAS of NE's system, Autel's system. Texa's system, etc are wrong in using A/M equipment? Those calibrations are or aren't setting setting the industry standard?
Bob, Reference the John Eagle lawsuit above. Everyone's seen it by now. I've spoken to many techs who admit to having glued on those roof panels as well. So far, their cars have been incident free. See, they are just waiting for the incident to happen and the right lawyer to latch on after it does. So, yes. The 1000's of calibrations with anything but the recommended tooling and procedure can
Does anyone have a direct link to an "incident" with any system that involved an improper calibration resulting in a problem? I am aware of one incident involving a Toyota Lane Departure calibration done at a dealer using OEM equipment that was called into question after a subsequent collision. That one didn't go anywhere, except for a lot of lost time by the defendant. Another potential
Well said Bob. I think that we need to put more focus on quality control and less focus on what tool you are using. In order for a calibration technician to be found liable for a collision caused by improper calibration two things must happen. First the vehicle must be calibrated incorrectly. Second the vehicle must be involved in a collision that can be directly related to the calibration
Mike, If the tool that you are using has the ability to print-out or save a digital copy of the before and after calibration numbers, and they show the adjustments to be in spec, you should be ok. This doesn't matter if the tool was an AM or OE. FYI In class I was able to move the calibration number to be off and not set codes, this was done so the techs would have to set the calibration to
While I think documenting your results is a great idea I don't believe it will release you from any liability. While I have not done every static calibration out there from what I have seen the final results that may be presented on the screen can easily be manipulated by moving the target slightly. This means that a lazy calibration technician could get a failing result due to a physically
repairerdrivennews.com…cbc…; Great post Mike. Here is an interesting bit from the northern neighbors. While manufacturers require the driver be in control at all times and escape most liability for any mishap, who is to say that some where down the line another approach may be deemed justifiable. With the manufacturers identifying the specific composition of the paint, diffuse
Excellent, healthy discussion here. Just to add some color to this content...I assume most of you responding are techs/shop owners at mechanical repair facilities? I have been in both dealership and IAM mechanical shops for 20+ years, but for the past 7 months have been in the collision sector. It is very different, primarily because a significant number of the ROs are third party pay
Really great contribution sir. Thanks for taking the time and contributing what you have aquired during your tenured experience in the collision sector. It sounds as though you are a real hands on, in the trenches type person. Doing this work everyday. I thank you for that. We need all the help we can get out here. Hey, would you be so kind as to share with the group what OEMs have a
Dean, All the OEMs have relationships with the major carriers, because they rely on one another to make sure the vehicles are properly repaired when in a collision. The collision shop (and the related insurer) will see issues that the OEM engineering teams had not/did not think of, and consequently have to develop repair procedures post-production. Most of the major carriers have research
I suppose the collision industry is a little different in my part of the country. Here, the insurers have very little if any influence in the repair procedures. Although, I do know of one that does require only OEM replacement parts. One of the companies I work with happens to be one of the largest collision centers in the US. They do all of their pre/post scans almost exclusively with
Mike, I was referring to scan software in my original post, not targets. There are OEMs, like Toyota, that provide the targets in their service information that you print on your shop inkjet/laser printer, and there are OEMs where there are part #s in their T/E catalog but they would never ship it to you. There are 4-5 companies with targeting kits available right now that are considered
I have not run into any part numbers related to ADAS calibrations that I could not purchase aside from some discontinued or superseded numbers I have seen in some Honda and Hyundai SI. Is that what you are referring to? I do know of some that are rental only. I am of the belief that the calibration function is not performed inside of the scan tool or passthrough and that it is happening on the
Mike, I was in attendance at the CIC meeting when that discussion was being referenced. There are a couple of takeways: Rozint is referring to those who purchase the information from ETI and those who steal it. That is "licensed data to make an aftermarket scan tool" or pirated, non-licensed, which is illegal but readily available from all the tool trucks and W/Ds. Kaboos is referring to HDS…
So I am lost in all of this. It sounds like you are saying that since the scan tool does not perform any of the functions of the calibration other than command the module to do so correct? If that is the case I don't understand how using an aftermarket tool should cause any more liability than an OEM tool. Either it can perform the calibration or it cannot. I do understand software licensing
Mike, I like the way you operate! I was thinking the same thing here. Well said, and I think it had to be said. It deteriotates into a sales platform. It becomes less about fixing cars and less about building a brotherhood, which is what this industry needs, much more than what this conversation has become. To be honest I am really disappointed and discouraged at the direction this thread
To both Matt and Dean: Please re-reread the threads above. You are completely missing the point I was and am making. I‘m not selling anything in this thread. I am trying to inform the readers what is happening at both the OEM level and now the insurer level. THEY are deciding what tool THEY approve, and if/when you deviate from that the liability shifts to the shop. Any arguments about whose
Mr Augustine, Thanks for your interest in vehicle safety. Thanks for taking the time to " inform" us "readers" what is "happening" at the OEM and insurer level. Robert, do you really believe that " right now, by and large that is not being done" referring to shops not fixing cars to OEM standard? How does one come to that conclusion, with only 7 months experience? I'm in shops everyday
Dean, I've been in the automotive repair business for over 25 years. The last 9 years I worked as a Technical Training Manager/Diagnostic Manager for a National Franchise with 180+ locations, where we serviced 14,000/week. The comment I made regarding not using service information is a direct result of observation of 1000+ technicians over a 9 year period AND the comments directly from the 4
Bob, I meant no offense. By OEM tooling I was not referring to only their devices. A lot of my OE tooling is with Drew devices. I have a Cardaq M and DrewLink that is used with OE software subs. Specifically Honda, Toyota, GM, Detroit Diesel, Cummins, and Navistar.
Bob, Making a statement that if you are not using an OEM tool or your companies Drive software than the liability shifts from the OEM to the shop is absurd. If a shop calibrates an ADAS component they are liable regardless of what tool they use. Liability never "shifted", Period. Just as they are liable when removing wheels. I think there are folks in this industry attempting to spread fear
It's not that it will relieve you of liability. Using OEM shows that you have done the best you could to do the job correctly. Using aftermarket or homemade does not say this. Listen to Todd Tracy talk about repair procedures, he flat out says he will own you for not using the correct procedure. When reading SI, they give part numbers, this makes the tool part of the procedure. It's not an
What it sounds like you're saying is that if you calibrate a vehicle incorrectly, with a factory tool, that you will not be, or be less likely to be held accountable for a subsequent collision that is caused by an ADAS failure on said vehicle. I don't believe that. It would seem to me either the vehicle is calibrated correctly or it isn't. If the vehicle is calibrated correctly and the system
I think you're an intelligent man Bob. I don't think you believe that if a vehicle you had previously calibrated is involved in an ADAS fault related collision down the line, that Todd Tracy while representing the plaintiff, is going to look and see that Bob Heipp did the calibration and drop the lawsuit because Bob Heipp only uses OEM tools and procedures.
Stop reading into what was written and read what was written. "It's not that it will relieve you of liability." "If a tech/shop gets taken to court for an ADAS failure, everything written about homemade and aftermarket targets will come back to bite the person that said it." What I mean by this is if you stray from the procedure, everything on written on the internet will be use to get the
The way I see it, correlating a negligent repair procedure that compromises the structural integrity of a vehicle, with the idea that a part number of the tool used to perform a repair can prevent a technician from performing negligent calibration procedures or from being held liable for said procedures is a stretch. Making an implication that publicly made comments about homemade or
The king of homemade targets accusing me of negligent repairs, that's rich. Let me ask you this, if you check the BSM on a Toyota product and it does not read or is out of spec, how do you address it? We start with having the bumper pulled. Do I need to leave measuring on the floor during the process, you and I both know the answer. How do you bring the BSM sensor into spec with a mallet?
You have repeatedly implied that I have made or use homemade targets. You are clearly manipulating a statement I made a while back about the quality of the welds on the OEM radar targets. I stated that I could have made something that looked better out of scrap metal I had lying around in my garage. Can you explain your king of homemade targets comment? Speaking of manipulation, It doesn't
It would be nice if the insurance companies were concerned with making sure repairs were done correctly per OEM terms. We all know that isn't the truth. The insurance companies are actually doing the exact opposite of what you are implying. Check out this article that talks about what actually happens when a collision shop makes it clear to the insurance companies that they will not deviate
Almost everything you said above is true, except the position on the Insurance Co not wanting the vehicle repaired correctly. There are lots of articles that can be cited, but they are only telling one side of the narrative. The mother ships of the insurance companies that I work with ALL told me their goal is to return the vehicle to “pre-crash” condition, using OEM procedures. Problem comes in
I'm not sure if you are disconnected from the industry, or intentionally intending to mislead folks. What an insurance company told Bob is irrelevant. Your Sears analogy hits the nail on the head. Just because they advertise wanting to have the vehicle repaired correctly means nothing, and should fool no one. If the company's processes and policies are focused on profit and not correct
Mike, we have mutual objectives, which is correct vehicle repair. I can assure you I am way more connected than your little world. Since you were not in any of the meetings I was with the insurerers, your conjecture is irrelevant on what was discussed. Others here are actually interested in working together, not bloviating and trying to prove how smart and relevant they are. You are welcome to
Misleading people to think that the insurance companies are going to force collision repairers to use your tool is not considered working together. No insurance company is going to mandate scans with your tool for any reason other than cost savings. Period. Working together isn't approaching the insurance companies in an attempt to low ball the going rate for a pre/post scan in order to drive
Says the leader of the misleading/personal agenda in this thread. You are cordially invited to attend the next CIC meeting in Nashville and voice your concerns about those of us who are promoting the OEM Positions. You might actually learn something new. Somehow, however, I doubt it, since you obviously are already an expert in everything.
This looks like a letter from State Farm to Select Service repairers instructing them to deviate from the OEM position statements. Or I suppose this could be interpreted as manipulating the OEM position statements. Obviously, this isn't a new practice for State Farm either. repairerdrivennews.com…cus… Thoughts on this? I thought it was also interesting that the letter mentioned
Bob, can you name the 4 or 5 companies producing targeting kits that you refer to above? Who considers them “acceptable alternatives” and by what means were they deemed so? I‘m not so sure using an OEM scan tool is the end-all when scanning vehicles REMOTELY. There are bugs and glitches, and I was not impressed when having to work behind one of my collision center’s post-scan done a couple of
Bob, If you have not read my network communication posts yet, that would be a good primer for the rest of my answer for the 2nd half of your question. diag.net/msg/m4srohynns… From what I have seen, Autel, Bosch, Hella, CAS and the OEM channels are all offering targets with varying degrees of completeness. Similar to the OEM scan discussion above, who considers them acceptable
Thank you everyone for your replies. Here are some of my thoughts that started this post. With ADAS I keep seeing the John Eagle case cited. My impression of this case is it was more about procedure than tooling. So the roof was not welded, had it been welded properly with a generic welder would there still have been a case? Should the body shop need to have a welder purchased from Honda? My
Good synopsis Matthew. The short answer is the OEM and the insurers want the OEM procedures followed in all collision repairs. Right now, by and large, that is not being done. That is the underbelly of all of this. One of the missions of DN is to promote better skills and encourage techs/shops/industry to up their game.
Hot off the press from CIC this morning
& this demonstration from I-CAR on target tolerances: youtu.be/5a2mYZ7Nm88
Mr Augustine, I think this thread wants to go home, let it go. It's over.
Then kindly stop posting. You posted nothing relevant,helpful or insightful to this subject. At the very least Augustine has provided industry insight. Youve done nothing but misconstrue his posts and or motives and youre not helping anyone. Take your own advice and let it go......