I have cited John Huetter of Repairer Driven News several times in the last few months and today I am linking an article from Nov 29^th.

John does an excellent job of providing information with a minimum of opinion. Understanding of facts should precede action and John is providing an overview of the facts that will form the basis of action.

John’s article is about a 2017 Mazda 5, which is another example of ‘just a car’; very nice but very affordable so a lot of them will be on the road.

The facts that are presented in the article, about vehicle structure and electronics imply that the correct action will be to pay careful attention to model specific structure and electronic systems.

The technology in this vehicle will not respond well to last year’s repair methods and metrics. The owner paying for his own repair will have trouble embracing the extra cost for needed safety factors that are invisible, the insurance company working with last year’s KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) based heavily on fast turn around and cost minimization will have trouble with it and the collision shop will have trouble with the cost of equipment and training.

However, using these outdated methods the car will still leave the repair shop looking and driving as it did before the accident and nobody is judged or held to account if safety factors have not been carefully considered.

Putting real effort into getting it right takes time and is expensive; it is a lot easier for participants to keep their heads in the sand and keep working to last year’s performance measures.

To start with myself and the collision repair business I own, my decision has been to invest heavily now in equipment and training in order to be able to stay in the business and repair vehicles 5 years from now. This makes business life more complicated and less short term profitable, but it is about long term survival and profit. Many others have followed this model, but by no means the majority.

Another group of collision shop owners, after taking an intelligent look at the technology that is coming at them have made the decision to make only maintenance investments and make as much money as they can for the 3 or 4 years remaining under the old model of the collision repair business.

A third group of repair industry people, much larger than it should be, barely has a clue that things have changed; they just keep ‘repairing’ cars like they did 5 years ago and 10 years ago.

Insurance companies market their products primarily on price. They will spend as little as they can on claims so that they can keep their rates as low as possible. The first one to raise rates in order to offer better claim service will lose short term business to competitors who have not raised rates. In legitimate defense of this business model, consumers buy on price and very few (none) of them read the policies they buy and in any case they don’t think about the claim side of the equation.

In further partial defense of the insurance industry the vehicle owner who is paying out of pocket for his own repair is very concerned about price. It is easier to sell him at $1,200 rather than $1,500 if the $1,200 repair looks the same on the surface.

Yesterday I wrote about the lack of regulation in the vehicle repair industry. In many jurisdictions there are no rules (although in many areas of America the hot potato of liability is tossed back and forth) and insurance companies will happily pay less rather than more for a repair. With this lack of regulation the repairer who chooses not to invest in equipment is in an excellent short term position. The cars are going out the door, the insurance company is not being asked to pay for sophisticated repairs, nobody has to think outside of yesterday’s box and the vehicle owner is once again now the wiser.

The intent of this site is to inform owners about the current state of vehicle repairs, it is not to pick sides on who is getting it wrong. The insurance companies are working hard to get to the needed new model and until they see the path that they will be taking there will be a lot of incomplete and incorrect repairs.

The repairer side is equally in need of a new business model. They are currently being paid for incomplete repairs and the incentive for better work is limited. Complete Next Accident Ready repairs first require very good research and documentation, which in turn require skills that are not yet widely available to the industry. The physical repair then requires specialized current equipment and the skills to be able to use that equipment; the equipment and training are expensive and not trivial to incorporate into existing workplaces.

Here is an example; this one involving the recalibration of a forward facing camera after a windshield replacement.

• First we have to know that is a needed step
• Then we have to ask the insurance company to pay for it, because it is not yet automatically in the system.
• The equipment to do this calibration is available to the aftermarket, but at a cost of close to $6,000 for the one brand only and we would need the training to use it. We may get to that point but we are not there today.
• The recalibration can be done by the dealer at a cost of $135; we will get a discount of 15% on this so our margin is $20.25.
• For this $20.25 we have already made several phone calls and now have to drive the car to the dealership and then go back to pick it up the next day.
• The customer, who had been hoping for a one day turnaround now needs a service car and an explanation of why the car is not ready.

It is little wonder that not a lot of calibrations are being done, the car will not signal the owner in any way that the camera may be out of calibration and it is easier for most repair shops to simply not know about this needed step, either willingly or through true ignorance. Insurance companies will pay it out as a complete claim and not question why the calibration was not done. The repairer did not have to spend time on a procedure that had no profit and the insurer paid less than it would have. For now these two are happy with the outcome and the owner is none the wiser.

This will change, but it is the current reality.

This post may come across as very vague, but only three paragraphs are being used for something that could go on for pages, which no one would read.

SEMA is the Specialty Equipment Manufacturers Association and despite its name has become the operator of one of the two major showcases for collision repair equipment, technology and education. There is a significant, almost overwhelming trade show floor and four days of seminars and presentations on a wide range of topics.

After the first day, I am encouraged by the information I was taking in. There was nothing that suggested the themes and issues highlighted in previous posts are wrong, but there is a hint that progressive operators may be able to find a way through the chaos of the technological change that is happening.  Words like culture, scale, documentation and training came up in different presentations. The path forward will not be presented in a simple way that everyone can follow, because at this time the path forward is not yet known.

The indicators are there however that those who are ready to participate in the development of the way forward will be able to collectively get to a point where cars are being repaired to true pre-accident condition.

A friend in Ontario sent this link to a Province article by Mike Smyth. Yes the wonders of the internet, he is in Ontario, I am in the lower mainland but he saw the BC article that I missed completely.

Mike had a point to make about expensive parts being one reason why insurance costs are rising and he made that point accurately.

However, his article invites a bit more comment; the cars need to be repaired correctly. A broken headlight is easy to see, and the cost of replacing the light can be determined. With the Mazda example the new light gets put in, aimed, high and low beam checked and away you go, with the insurance company paying close to $2,000. But did anyone check if the lights have Auto Dimming or Active Cornering Response and do these features need to be recalibrated. The camera behind the Camry windshield may turn on and send information, but if it is not aimed correctly it will send the wrong information and the auto braking feature will not be there for you the next time it is needed.

To continue the example of how carefully repair procedures have to be researched before repairs start, I have no idea if Mazda 5 headlights have any auto features (I made up the Active Cornering Response phrase, but it sounds as real as Lane Watch which is a current Honda feature) and I don’t know if the Camry camera controls Auto Braking. I would need to go to one of a few sources of information to determine if these features are in these cars or not. If I think I know because the last Mazda 5 we worked on did not have these features I am getting it wrong, one trim level difference and many almost invisible features can be included.

And as a fun comment on the Tesla that Mike led off with. I hope ICBC sold that with solid documentation to keep it from being registered after repair. My guess is that it will be repaired, because there is no market for Tesla used parts and whoever bought it will figure out a way to register it somewhere. If Tesla thinks it can’t be repaired they will not supply parts nor technical information so whoever does the work will be improvising and whoever buys the car will not be buying a Tesla but something that could be a called a TesLike. That car will definitely not be ready for its next accident.