Right to Repair

[Riviot]

Calling the 800 number and being told they don't have access to a parts catalog and they have no way to sell you a random bolt is a not the same thing as refusing to sell you a bolt. Characterizing this as Rivian denying you your rights is just hyperbole.

Any service center will give you the bolt and install it for you. And they will sell you many, many other parts, whether covered by warranty or not. All you have to do is ask them.

Your "right" to buy parts doesn't imply a "right" to have a service center nearby or a "right" to be able to purchase parts from a website.

When you live 5 hours from a SC and you can't call them directly for assistance... How do you ask them?

Sponsored

 

[bfilippo]

When you live 5 hours from a SC and you can't call them directly for assistance... How do you ask them?

Did you not text with your SC when you initially took delivery? I use that number and can still get directly to my SC if I have a question that isn’t directly related to a service appointment. As I’m 4 hours away, maybe that would work for you since others are saying they’re generally amenable at the actual SC? Which I believe, I’ve found the folks there very good to work with. Phone folks, they’re trying but don’t have any real insight.

 

[Riviot]

Did you not text with your SC when you initially took delivery? I use that number and can still get directly to my SC if I have a question that isn’t directly related to a service appointment. As I’m 4 hours away, maybe that would work for you since others are saying they’re generally amenable at the actual SC? Which I believe, I’ve found the folks there very good to work with. Phone folks, they’re trying but don’t have any real insight.

This isn't for me, to be clear. Just advocating for another member's problem.

Once you open a ticket and it's assigned a time/date at the SC, there's a chat with them that opens. I think they could clarify and better help in that chat than the general 800 number or service request ticket.

While it's a PITA to submit a ticket for something so trivial, it does capture data that can help identify fleet-wide issues. If they get 100+ tickets for losing a bolt and they're all from VIN 200-500, that'll tell them there was an issue in assembly and can help correct.

 

[bfilippo]

This isn't for me, to be clear. Just advocating for another member's problem.

Once you open a ticket and it's assigned a time/date at the SC, there's a chat with them that opens. I think they could clarify and better help in that chat than the general 800 number or service request ticket.

While it's a PITA to submit a ticket for something so trivial, it does capture data that can help identify fleet-wide issues. If they get 100+ tickets for losing a bolt and they're all from VIN 200-500, that'll tell them there was an issue in assembly and can help correct.

Agree, and yes sorry- was responding to original question but using your rhetorical for context.

I’m all for submitting tickets for this same reason. I never call unless they call me first to discuss the service request. Chat in app seems to be faster to get appointments scheduled in my experience as well.

 

[VSG]

When you live 5 hours from a SC and you can't call them directly for assistance... How do you ask them?

So what was the plan here? Just hope that nothing ever goes wrong with the vehicle or happens to the vehicle? And then when your hopes don't come true call the lawyers and make Rivian sorry they crossed you?

You missed what I said: Your "right" to buy parts doesn't imply a "right" to have a service center nearby

 

[cvneutron]

Disclaimer: I am a member of the Board of Directors for The Repair Association — Repair.org.

We work to introduce Right to Repair legislation in the United States at the state level, focusing on "anything that has a computer chip". Most of our bills get watered down to exclude important categories of devices that would otherwise be covered such as motor vehicles, forestry equipment, medical devices, etc. In some states, initiatives have focused specifically on sectors like motor vehicles (e.g. Maine, Massachusetts, etc.).

These types of initiatives typically only become necessary when the manufacturers refuse to do their part in making resources available proactively. John Deere had decades to comply with Right to Repair requirements before the first law was introduced and later passed, they knowingly decided to take an aggressive anti-R2R posture. Even once the laws did pass, they decided to maintain that posture and now with the FTC lawsuit, they get to spend a lot of money in litigation. The lawsuit could end up being settled (as is typical), dismissed (unlikely), or dropped (moderately likely given the new administration and differing priorities, though that wouldn't address the state AGs that have now joined in).

Manufacturers like Tesla have taken a position to proactively make service information available for their owners even in localities where it is not required. As an owner you can download all service information for your vehicle in a PDF format, and IIRC you can purchase those parts directly through Tesla as well even when you're not an authorized service center. That's good! Rivian has not done the same (to my knowledge). In either case, Rivian and Tesla repairs would be difficult for an everyday consumer because they use software to "pair the functionality" of a part that has been replaced with the main ECU (or whatever you call it, I'm not a car guy). This practice is known as "parts pairing" and is increasingly being addressed through our latest version of the Right to Repair legislation as of 2024 (e.g. in Oregon's law, and in Colorado's law) but wasn't included in earlier versions (e.g. in New York's law, in California's law). I'm unclear if that same provision exists in the Maine or Massachusetts legislation, but I would assume not. Without these provisions, simply making the parts and tools and documentation available is not good enough, Rivian would need to offer a mechanism to pair the parts with the vehicle again after replacement or you'll get an annoying notification and probably a part that doesn't even work as intended if at all.

As I mentioned at the top, our template legislation doesn't exclude vehicles, however, vehicles are often excluded by the legislatures in the statehouses once introduced. This happens due to safety concerns, often pushed to the extreme by lobbyists representing the manufacturers directly or by trade groups representing the manufacturers as a whole. If you want Rivian to do the right thing without needing a law to be passed (as an R1T owner, I do!) then we need to pressure Rivian to make this policy change much in the same way Tesla has. Suppose Rivain fails to do so or does it in a way that is less than sincere. In that case, we need to push state representatives to introduce the legislation (which would hopefully be enough to get the manufacturers to cave or offer an MOU as in the case of Massachusetts). We have state pages spun up to assist with contacting your legislator with a template letter, but obviously you can always reach out to your representative directly.

 

[Rivianero]

Disclaimer: I am a member of the Board of Directors for The Repair Association — Repair.org.

We work to introduce Right to Repair legislation in the United States at the state level, focusing on "anything that has a computer chip". Most of our bills get watered down to exclude important categories of devices that would otherwise be covered such as motor vehicles, forestry equipment, medical devices, etc. In some states, initiatives have focused specifically on sectors like motor vehicles (e.g. Maine, Massachusetts, etc.).

These types of initiatives typically only become necessary when the manufacturers refuse to do their part in making resources available proactively. John Deere had decades to comply with Right to Repair requirements before the first law was introduced and later passed, they knowingly decided to take an aggressive anti-R2R posture. Even once the laws did pass, they decided to maintain that posture and now with the FTC lawsuit, they get to spend a lot of money in litigation. The lawsuit could end up being settled (as is typical), dismissed (unlikely), or dropped (moderately likely given the new administration and differing priorities, though that wouldn't address the state AGs that have now joined in).

Manufacturers like Tesla have taken a position to proactively make service information available for their owners even in localities where it is not required. As an owner you can download all service information for your vehicle in a PDF format, and IIRC you can purchase those parts directly through Tesla as well even when you're not an authorized service center. That's good! Rivian has not done the same (to my knowledge). In either case, Rivian and Tesla repairs would be difficult for an everyday consumer because they use software to "pair the functionality" of a part that has been replaced with the main ECU (or whatever you call it, I'm not a car guy). This practice is known as "parts pairing" and is increasingly being addressed through our latest version of the Right to Repair legislation as of 2024 (e.g. in Oregon's law, and in Colorado's law) but wasn't included in earlier versions (e.g. in New York's law, in California's law). I'm unclear if that same provision exists in the Maine or Massachusetts legislation, but I would assume not. Without these provisions, simply making the parts and tools and documentation available is not good enough, Rivian would need to offer a mechanism to pair the parts with the vehicle again after replacement or you'll get an annoying notification and probably a part that doesn't even work as intended if at all.

As I mentioned at the top, our template legislation doesn't exclude vehicles, however, vehicles are often excluded by the legislatures in the statehouses once introduced. This happens due to safety concerns, often pushed to the extreme by lobbyists representing the manufacturers directly or by trade groups representing the manufacturers as a whole. If you want Rivian to do the right thing without needing a law to be passed (as an R1T owner, I do!) then we need to pressure Rivian to make this policy change much in the same way Tesla has. Suppose Rivain fails to do so or does it in a way that is less than sincere. In that case, we need to push state representatives to introduce the legislation (which would hopefully be enough to get the manufacturers to cave or offer an MOU as in the case of Massachusetts). We have state pages spun up to assist with contacting your legislator with a template letter, but obviously you can always reach out to your representative directly.

Many thanks for pertinent and useful info on this topic.
Probably a much more powerful position to team up with big movers in this area than for individual Rivian owners to simply complain (although both are probably needed).

Checked out your website. I do wish you offered a nice big repair.org bumper sticker I could stick on the back of my R1T, rescued from a salvage yard with 3k miles on it. In spite of the small dent, it's the best vehicle I've ever owned.

 

[HaveBlue]

I'd love to be searching for an air leak that is setting the left front on the bump stop as of half way home today but, alas, I have an appointment in the middle of April. I've amassed tens of thousands of dollars worth of tools over past few decades and the only service I am allowed to perform on my truck is changing wiper blades. They'll be fixing rodent damage, also, from sitting for 3 months.
I suppose I could buy some parts from someone parting out a wrecked one.

Here you go. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nkcn...6-23.pdf?rlkey=8f5cy6yuawwt81b2y57i60pj1&dl=0


Rivian is currently developing a service information website to support independent service providers and vehicle owners. In the meantime, for third-party service providers, please contact [email protected] for repair, maintenance and service parts information. For R1 owners seeking service support, please contact the Rivian Service Support Team at (855) 748-4265.

 

[Riviot]

Here you go. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nkcn...6-23.pdf?rlkey=8f5cy6yuawwt81b2y57i60pj1&dl=0


Rivian is currently developing a service information website to support independent service providers and vehicle owners. In the meantime, for third-party service providers, please contact [email protected] for repair, maintenance and service parts information. For R1 owners seeking service support, please contact the Rivian Service Support Team at (855) 748-4265.

Can we get more of these? Perhaps from an anonymized account instead. Between your user info here and the link, I found out way too much about you. Rivian can do the same and pressure you to take it down.

 

[Rivianero]

These are public documents. Nothing confidential is being exposed.

When I get to my computer I will post the general site.

 

[HaveBlue]

I'm not sure if posting the source will eventually get it blocked, I pondered. I've seen issues like that too.

 

[Rivianero]

Again, trying to clarify that the information posted is publicly available.

Here is the site with all Rivian service bulletins, released to the public:
OEM1Stop Tech Info Site
There are similar pages for other manufacturers.

NHTSA is another source of public technical information on vehicles, including technical service bulletins, safety ratings, recalls, investigations, etc.
NHTSA Info for Rivian Models

 

[NY_Rob]

These are public documents. Nothing confidential is being exposed.

Who knows what Rivian considers confidential...
When asked why there are no fuse circuit descriptions (you know... fuse 11 is for headlights, fuse 12 is for seat heater, etc..) or even a mention of the word FUSE in the 400+ page Rivian owners manual an owner was told "that is proprietary information" and to this day, there is still no info on fuses for the Gen 1 vehicles even though there are two fuse boxes which contain over 60 fuses in said vehicles.

It's very clear Rivian wants you to spend money on their product, they absolutely do want you to use and enjoy it.. but they in no way want you the owner wrenching it. They are playing it way too close to the vest regarding right to repair IMO.

 

[SPITmadFIRE]

- Well, of those 100, likely 90 of them it's because of something under warranty--so they're going to need Rivian Service.

To be fair, this isn't how warranty service is handled by other automakers. Dealerships are franchises and request X hours of labor rate from the automaker in order to repair warranty work. The automaker then approved or amends the warranty request.

Individual shops can definitely make ends meet doing warranty work, but it's ruthless. If Rivian says a job should take 4 hours, the shop has to complete the work in less than 4 hours to turn any real profit. If it takes them longer than 4 hours, they lose money on the job.

 

[HaveBlue]

Who knows what Rivian considers confidential...
When asked why there are no fuse circuit descriptions (you know... fuse 11 is for headlights, fuse 12 is for seat heater, etc..) or even a mention of the word FUSE in the 400+ page Rivian owners manual an owner was told "that is proprietary information" and to this day, there is still no info on fuses for the Gen 1 vehicles even though there are two fuse boxes which contain over 60 fuses in said vehicles.

It's very clear Rivian wants you to spend money on their product, they absolutely do want you to use and enjoy it.. but they in no way want you the owner wrenching it. They are playing it way too close to the vest regarding right to repair IMO.

Passenger:

Driver:

Here ya go
Driver:

Passenger:

Sponsored