Replacement parts – true to type?

What would be the outcome if a wider array of replacement parts were subject to Type Approval?

By Neil Pattermore | Published:  28 December, 2017

The aftermarket has developed for well over a century to provide choices to the vehicle owner concerning how their vehicle is repaired, with an increasing choice of replacement parts and emanating from all of this, ‘affordable mobility’ for vehicle owners and drivers.

However, this may now be under threat, and with it, the very basis of your business as a part of the  aftermarket value chain. In the past, replacement parts have principally been in one of three categories. First, lower cost items without any specific requirements – other than they fit and work. Second, parts which are specifically designed to be of matching quality that directly emulate the original part. Thirdly, original (OEM) replacement parts that formed part of the original vehicle design when it was type approved.

This choice and availability of spare parts is provided by both local and national distributors who provide a wide range of replacement parts that allow vehicles to be serviced and maintained throughout their life, with the lower priced parts becoming more popular as the vehicle gets older. The UK Consumer Rights legislation imposes that any part, which now also includes any digital content, must be ‘fit for purpose’ and cascades into a ‘duty of care’ and ‘liability’ between the parts distributor, the garage and the vehicle owner.


Under review
Unfortunately, there is a cloud on the horizon. The existing vehicle Type Approval legislation is currently under review in Brussels and although the existing version contains requirements for some replacement parts to be type approved, it is being proposed to implement an extension of these Type Approval requirements to cover more replacement parts. The Type Approval of these replacement parts is deemed necessary to ensure that vehicles continue to comply with their original ‘whole vehicle Type Approval’ requirements throughout their service life and is seen as an increasing issue with automated systems and autonomous vehicles.

Existing type approved replacement parts include windscreens, tyres, headlamps, catalysts, exhaust systems, DPFs and brake disks, drums, shoes and pads. These all show an ‘E’ mark that confirms where they were tested to meet type approved requirements, e.g. E1 is Germany. System and component Type Approval requires that a ‘sample of the Type to be Approved’ is tested by the ‘Technical Service’ (i.e. a test centre) to the requirements of the relevant European Directive, which is increasingly now based on the UNECE Regulations agreed in Geneva. Its technical specification is documented and that specification forms part of the approval. Both the parts distributor and the workshop need to be confident that an audit trail back to the original replacement parts manufacturer’s certificate exists to prove that the part is legitimately type approved to protect their own liability, should they be challenged to prove that the part’s Type Approval marking is legitimate.

This proposed widening of the replacement parts Type Approval is not a simple problem. Apart from braking components being covered under UNECE Regulation 90, there are no dedicated test methods for these replacement parts. This creates two significant issues. Firstly, when a vehicle is type approved, it is the system that is tested (i.e. engine emissions, steering, braking etc.) but for replacement parts, it is not clear what specific replacement item should be type approved. For example, should it only be the principle components such as an electric motor, or would it be just a bolt or washer that helps secure a steering rack? Secondly, as there are no test methods established, would this mean that a component could only be tested on a complete vehicle and if so, unless it is a new vehicle, how do you know if other components on that vehicle are working correctly?

Clearly, it is not clear.


Burdens and costs
This proposal also means significant additional burdens and costs to complete these new obligations which ultimately will have to be paid for by the consumer. This is likely to lead to increased cost of servicing and replacement spare parts, but without any direct benefit to the consumer over what is happening in the market today. It would also mean that specific design and functional specifications would need to be provided by the vehicle or system manufacturers, which is likely to raise intellectual property and design rights issues.

Enforcement will be a market surveillance issue, but there are limited resources available from the Governmental agencies, so all workshops would now need to be confident of the legitimacy of the Type Approval marking of components before installation. This has already led to dawn raids on parts distributors in some European countries. Ultimately, this proposal is likely to impose less choice for consumers, as fewer parts manufacturers would risk the cost/volume investment, with higher prices for those parts that remain available.

From the vehicle manufacturers‘ perspective, they conduct whole vehicle Type Approval which includes all systems and their inherent parts and components. For the vehicle manufacturer’s replacement parts, they are deemed to be Type Approved if they are identical to those fitted to the original type approved vehicle. For aftermarket replacement parts,  each replacement part would have to be tested for each of its applications, meaning not only finding examples of the actual vehicles, but also the test centres that can conduct the Type Approval testing. There is a real proportionality’ issue here, especially with no dedicated test methods for the Type Approval of these replacement parts.


Reduced choice
Behind this issue, some vehicle manufacturers and also some Member States consider that although vehicles are subject to Type Approval, aftermarket replacement parts are not and this is deemed as being both unfair and un-regulated. It is claimed that by Type Approving aftermarket replacement parts, that it will create a level playing field for all replacement parts, but I don’t agree –  it seems to me that the vehicle manufacturers have the most to gain and that it will ultimately be the consumer who suffers through having a reduced choice of replacement parts, which will also be more expensive.
 

Today, for just about every other part or component of the vehicle there is no current requirement for ‘E’ marking or any form of direct testing to pre-determined standards. If a part is replaced and the vehicle remains safe, secure and roadworthy, it is perfectly acceptable – if aftermarket parts did not fit and work correctly, then they would not be fitted or they may flag a fault code or fail an MOT.

FIGIEFA (the European association of spare parts distributors) have robustly challenged these proposals as both unwarranted and disproportionate. Additionally, they consider that it would distort competition, rather than improve it and would raise costs with very limited benefits. Repair workshops would increasingly buy original parts from their local dealer to minimise any risk of using non-Type Approved parts – undermining the competitive choice of the Aftermarket and increasing consumer costs.

Sorry, but did I miss who would be the major beneficiary from all of this?


xenconsultancy.com

Related Articles

  • Staying ahead in the aftermarket 

    The automotive aftermarket is facing a period of great opportunity and change. With sales of new cars in decline, third-party parts providers are recognising the increasing importance of aftersales service. Faced with increasing competition and evolving customer expectations, garages must adapt their processes and adopt new technologies to succeed.

  • SO FAR... so good 

    You may have read about some of the challenges that the aftermarket has faced over the last year or two as part of the vehicle Type Approval revisions – with their inherent ‘rights of access to repair and maintenance information’ and the associated fight to maintain access to the vehicle data via the ever-so-not-so-humble 16 pin OBD connector.

    The draft vehicle Type Approval document has been agreed by the European Commission and the Council (Member States), but has now to be approved by the European Parliament before becoming the final version which in turn, will become new legislation. However, as many of the key aftermarket amendments were tabled by the Parliament, it seems unlikely that these will be changed, but there is always an uncertainty until the final plenary vote is done.
        
    So once agreed, that will be that, as they say. Unfortunately not, as the devil is in the detail.

    Legal reference
    Firstly, there is the additional problem of existing Block Exemption and Euro 5 Regulations which do not provide the critical legal reference to enable access to in-vehicle data beyond just emissions. The standardisation requirements are included, but not the data and information for the wider diagnostic, repair and maintenance data. This means that vehicle manufacturers can claim that access to the vehicle and the corresponding ‘wider data’ does not have to be provided. This is currently being challenged by the Aftermarket Associations in Brussels, but no solution has yet been agreed for those contentious claims and there will be many vehicles on the roads with restricted access before a workable solution can be agreed and implemented.

    As vehicle manufacturers are likely to be in contradiction with these existing Type Approval requirements, it is also likely that they will have to provide access, but this may well be through the use of electronic certificates. As each vehicle manufacturer has their own certificate strategy (process, access criteria, data available etc.), this is still a significant problem and in some cases could mean multiple certificates are needed to work on the different vehicle systems on specific models. It is also important that certificates can be used without the necessity of having to use the vehicle manufacturer’s dedicated diagnostic tool and an online connection to their server to generate the required certificate when using the 16 pin connector.

    However, the new vehicle Type Approval legislation should now provide the legal reference for the physical connector and critically, also contain a reference to the data needed for diagnostics, OBD, repair and maintenance, but beyond these important requirements there are still other elements which have yet to be discussed or agreed.

    Logical cascade     
    These other issues revolve around the secure access for independent operators, together with the exact data that will be made available once access has been granted. This may sound strange, but the 16 pin OBD port is increasingly seen as a high security risk access point into the in-vehicle networks. Consequently, some form of controlled access is highly likely to be implemented, even for such seemingly mundane tasks as checking safety system trouble codes when conducting an MOT test. This is also likely to be a ‘certificate based’ system and this introduces a whole range of new challenges!

    To understand these various issues more clearly, there is a logical cascade which starts with the legal requirement for a connector to be fitted to a vehicle. This is covered as part of vehicle Type Approval legislation, and this legislation also includes the need for the connector to be standardised from both the aspect of the physical shape and connector pin layout, but also what data or information is needed for emission systems, as well as the communication protocols that must be used. All these legislative elements have been in place for more than two decades, but the wider use of the 16 pin connector for diagnostic, repair and maintenance requirements had until the current revision of the vehicle Type Approval legislation, not been legally referenced. Now that this has (hopefully) been addressed, the next key discussions will be about who can access the vehicle via this connector, how this can be authenticated and once access is provided, what data, information and functions will be supported.

    As mentioned earlier, this is likely to require electronic certificates, but to avoid the ‘wild west’ of different processes, access conditions and data availability, a standardised process should be considered by the legislator which also uses a single and independent point of access for certificates from all vehicle manufacturers. It should also be possible to access in-vehicle data without a certificate when the vehicle is in the workshop, although software updates may require certificates. When the vehicle is being driven, ‘read-only’ data should still be available and a certificate should only be needed if some form of ‘functional’ testing is required, but this should be considered as the exception. As there is an increasing use of ‘plug-in’ devices being used to allow remote communication with the vehicle when it is being driven for services such as insurance, or remote monitoring for prognostics and predictive maintenance, arguably, the importance of the OBD connector is increasing for these telematics services – even if the data it can provide is restricted in relation to what is available via the vehicle manufacturers’ embedded
    telematics systems.

    Further requirements
    Once data is accessed, the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which comes into force in May this year, will impose further requirements for the use and handling of personal data.  A fundamental issue will be that much of the data contained in the vehicle can also be considered personal data and is subject to data protection legislation. Critically, the customer must give their consent to the use of this data by a positive action or statement – it cannot be assumed.    

    As you can see, it may be ‘so far, so good’, but the simple task of continuing to plug into the 16 pin connector and diagnosing or repairing the vehicle is going to be far from simple, with many hurdles and challenges yet to be addressed, but the aftermarket associations, both in the UK and with their pan-European partners, are continuing to fight for the ability to do so.


    xenconsultancy.com

  • OBD provision and data access included in provisional Type-Approval legislation  

    The IAAF and FIGIEFA have welcomed news that crucial provisions on the OBD connector and access to RMI have been included in the proposed EU legislation on Vehicle Type-Approval regulation.

  • New high-demand parts from Klarius  

    Klarius has just released almost 50 emission control parts including all the most in-demand new requests from early 2018. New components in this release include exhausts for the Ford Focus Mk 3 and fifth generation Polo, new catalytic converters (CATs) for Land Rovers and Range Rovers,  diesel particulate filters (DPFs) for the Citroen Relay 3.0 HDI van, exhaust mountings for the Renault Clio 1.2 and new exhausts for the Volvo XC60. The new exhaust, CAT and DPF components are available on the now standard next morning delivery service, backed by a two year warranty and a Fit-First-Time guarantee.
    www.klarius.eu

  • New Klarius catalogue offers 10,000+ parts 

    Klarius has launched a new web-based parts directory. The WebCat 2018 provides complete online access to 10,000+ parts including exhaust components, catalytic converters, DPFs and fitting kits. Each part is not only searchable by the Klarius part number but also by competitor reference and OE reference. Each result displays a technical drawing of the full emission system, with all components and kits clearly labelled for easy identification. New parts data will appear on the WebCat first, before being added to other commercial cataloguing systems such as TecDoc and MAM. With the Klarius R&D department adding new-to-range parts on a daily basis, updates will be frequent.
    webcat.klarius.eu/catalogue

Most read content


Search

Sign Up

For the latest news and updates from Aftermarket Magazine.


Poll

Where should the next Automechanika show be held?



Calendar

Click here to submit an event

Facebook


©DFA Media 1999-2016