Jan 25, 2016
pgiralt And they are somewhat not needed anymore (at least not for me) ever since they added the feature where you can open the charge port by holding down the trunk button on the key fob.�
Jan 25, 2016
smac For clarification, in the old days you couldn't open the charge port from the key fob. This didn't matter if you had a UMC with it's built in button, but some of us didn't always use one (esp. in Europe/UK where the cars have type-2 ports, or in the US at public charge points).
Lola (and others) built an RF transmitter that copied what the UMC did to open the port, which saved clambering in the car and doing it from the dash, then getting back out and physically removing the cable. The benefit case for the device is greatly reduced now you can control the charge port by holding down the trunk button (for both open and unlock).�
Jan 25, 2016
lolachampcar in addition, all you have to do is touch the most recent charge port doors and they pop open. There really is no need for the fobs anymore.�
Jan 25, 2016
smac Didn't realise that, they don't work like that in Europe unfortunately
�
Jan 25, 2016
AWDtsla What a useful thing. Imagine if they removed the "charge port" button from the UI to make it super apparent that it's totally unnecessary and inconvenient :-/�
Jan 26, 2016
garygid This powerful little RF Charge-Port flap opener has quite a range,
with the possibility of opening all the flaps within ... something
like 100 feet. Somewhat embarrassing when I used it outside
a Service Center that had around 50 MSs parked nearby.
So, not really polite to use at or near a Supercharger.
But, it really does the job when the one in the SpC plug
will not work, or only work about 1 in 10 tries.�
Jan 26, 2016
lolachampcar I stopped by the Dania Beach Service Center to try the first example (before I turned the power amp all the way down). It got everything in the parking area in front and behind the building in addition to everything in the service area and every car in pre-delivery inspection in the adjacent space. It took me twenty minutes to close all the charge doors�
Jan 26, 2016
andrewket At least since VIN 60k or so the door will auto close after a few minutes�
Jan 26, 2016
Cyclone Just imagine the orchestrated movements being caught on film though with the new ports!�
Jan 27, 2016
islandbayy Should try it at the factory ;-) Had nearly 150 MS's parked outside the service. I had to park in a no parking zone just to be able to park and go in the service center during my road trip.�
Jan 27, 2016
Brass Guy Last I read, the push to open/auto close ports are on dual motor cars only. That did sound odd, maybe they were just using up the stock of old style ports on the single motor cars and now all cars have the new port?�
Jan 27, 2016
Troy That sounds about right. I remember reading something similar. Check out page 12 of THIS pdf file. You can read the numbers in the hidden section if you copy and paste somewhere. If the numbers are correct, rated capacity is just under 85 kWh and actual capacity just under 80. It looks like (on page 1 there is a photo of a module) they have measured the actual cells.
�
Jan 27, 2016
AudubonB
Feeding time at the Soo.�
Jan 27, 2016
stopcrazypp NCR18650B is typically quoted as a "3400mAh" cell (although spec sheet usually says 3350 mAh). Tested discharge at 200mA (4.2V to 2.8V) measures 12.142Wh of energy per cell so 7104 would be 86 kWh.
http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/Panasonic%20NCR18650B%203400mAh%20(Green)%20UK.html
Originally Tesla announced the cells would be 3.1Ah (which matches NCR18650A).
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/23/panasonics-3-1ah-batteries-to-be-used-in-the-tesla-model-s-hav/
At 11.047 Wh (actual might be a bit higher as this tested a protected cell and cut off at 2.8V) that is 78.5 kWh. Name plate would be 3.1 Ah * 3.6V * 7104 = 79.3 kWh.
http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/NCR18650A%20protected%20(Green)%20UK.html
The other factor is that some high capacity LG and Samsung cells use a 4.35V charging voltage, although I don't think any Panasonic cells do.�
Jan 27, 2016
islandbayy
That would be correct. Some do use higher voltages, however, this will also sacrifice longevity of the cell's life. 4.2 is generally considered "Full" in most cases for a Lithium Ion Cell. The panasonics could be charged to a higher voltage too, and gain capacity, however, once again, sacrificing cell life.
Personally, I believe when doing the "Max Charge" function on the Ludicrous Mode cars, I believe the cells are getting juiced to a slightly higher voltage. That would be the absolute WORST condition to leave the cells sitting in, but if your doing the "Max Charge" feature, chances are you will be draining it fairly quickly.
Also, the higher voltage would allow slightly more efficient operation at those power draws as well.�
Jan 27, 2016
LetsGoFast i assume you are referring to "max battery power", which simply raises the temperature of the pack.�
Jan 27, 2016
AWDtsla You need to do both for max performance.�
Jan 27, 2016
islandbayy Yes, I'm sorry, Max Battery Power. Yes, it raises the Temp of the pack, as well as additional charging.�
Jan 27, 2016
HankLloydRight Just brainstorming here, but if people are working on a Model S CAN BUS reader, are the following events transmitted on the CAN?
Brake Light On/Off
Left & Right Turn signals On/Off
Reverse Light On/Off
Charging Active/Stopped
If so, it might be interesting to marry a simple CAN BUS reader to the Rear Lighted Applique module so the module only needs to tap +12v power and the CAN BUS, and wouldn't require the 4-5 hour install process it needs now. The Applique module already is an Arduino, so maybe that could be used to filter the CAN messages for the few needed to trigger the applique.
Thoughts?�
Jan 27, 2016
wk057 Pretty sure this stuff is on the body CAN, but don't hold me to that.�
Jan 27, 2016
Andyw2100 I know this thread is drifting off-topic again, but I feel the need to address the above statement.
Max Battery Power has nothing to do with charging. It can be enabled at any time, not only when the car is plugged in and charging. From everything we know, all it does is heat the pack so that the maximum amount of power may be discharged quickly. There is no indication any where that it provides the ability to charge the pack to a higher SOC.�
Jan 27, 2016
apacheguy No, but if the pack is cold soaked enabling max power for 20 minutes will enable the pack to accept higher charge rates.
edit: Ah, gotcha. Read the post out of context, sorry.�
Jan 27, 2016
LetsGoFast So when I activate it driving down the road, where does the additional charge come from? I'm pretty sure you can only activate it when driving, it doesn't even function when charging. The only function described in the user's manual is "heats the battery to its ideal operating temperature."�
Jan 27, 2016
apacheguy If by ideal they mean 48 C, sure.�
Jan 27, 2016
LetsGoFast I've been playing with it a bit and I believe they are on CAN-2 rather than the body bus. I've stolen this from someone, but my notes point to ID 209 for the right turn, 20A for the left, 203 for the flashers and 504 for the brakes. I'm pretty sure the reverse lights are also on CAN2 and I know the regular lights are. I think active charging is mostly message 222 on CAN-3. I've not decoded it, but perhaps wk05 has. There are a bunch of CAN-3 messages you could tap -- I'm pretty sure the Chargers, the port and the battery chatter quite a lot about it.
i do think you could extract everything from the CAN bus, maybe the charge port light talks on CAN2 -- it would be nice to get everything off the one bus, for obvious reasons.
- - - Updated - - -
Hey, I didn't write? it, I just cut and pasted.�
Jan 28, 2016
garygid There is a pdf version 0.1 by wk057 that lists some CANx MsgIDs and
their data field meanings. Is there a later compilation of the many
more interesting values found on the CAN buses?
If not, you may PM your compilations to me and I will maintain
a document for the 6 CAN buses that we know about:
CAN on OBD pins 1 & 9 (is this CAN 1 ?)
CAN 2, 3, 4, 6 on the Diagnostic Connector
CAN on the Pilot line (is this CAN 5 ?)
Are there any other CAN buses of interest?
Perhaps we should include the Chademo CAN bus, as CAN 9 ?
Or, perhaps someone else is willing to do this?
Thanks, Gary�
Jan 28, 2016
lolachampcar Others are now working on some of the logging stuff so I started its own thread.
Chassis CAN Logging To ASCII Text Plus Graphing�
Jan 29, 2016
Cyberax Some progress on Android Auto integration. Right now it's in a state where I can see it running on Tesla: AndroidAuto - YouTube�
Jan 29, 2016
smac I'm confused. It looks great, but are you thinking this would run on the Tesla touch screen?
I am very tempted to build a setup in my Lotus, replacing the head unit and mounted phone (which connects via A2DP) with such with an Android based tablet, so I can see how it would work there, but I'm struggling to see how this would work with the Model S, or what benefits it gives over stock.
(apologies if I'm being dense).�
Jan 29, 2016
Cyberax Yep. I'm planning to run it on the central console, probably in place of the browser.�
Jan 29, 2016
redfran Success! cool!�
Jan 29, 2016
artsci If we could do this it would make installation of the lighted rear appliqu� a breeze as it would eliminate most of the physical wire connections. How can we make this happen? It's beyond my capabilities.�
Jan 29, 2016
TheBlackKnight The way to make it happen:
Have someone do a capture of the chassis canbus (seems to be bus 6 which is pins 4 and 11 on the diag connector I believe). First capture a bunch of traffic without doing anything. Then do a capture with triggering the brakes on/off. Then do on with turn signals on/off. Then do one with reverse lights on/off. The charging active/stopped might require access to the powertrain bus (can3) that most of the discussion here has centered on. I don't know that anything charge related would be on CAN6. It sounds like people already have some clue of which messages encode the various lighting options.
I don't know much about your Applique modification but it's said that it is arduino based. Are you using an 8 bit processor? Have you even bought a shield for an 8 bit Arduino? They do exist and would probably be sufficient for what needs to happen here. But, if you need access to two buses that could complicate things. It seems like CAN6 runs to the body control module but not to the actual lights so I don't know how close to your module the CAN6 wires will be running.�
Jan 29, 2016
wk057 I'm sure there is a chassis can bus somewhere closer to the install point. Figuring out the messages should be pretty simple. However, keep in mind that Tesla has changed CAN message formats with their software updates. There is nothing to stop them from doing something that would require the applique to also be updated at some point.�
Jan 29, 2016
islandbayy How about trailer hitch wiring? That would be a bonus!�
Jan 29, 2016
smac I don't disagree it isn't outside their capabilities to change the messages.
If it is outside their CBA factor though, Elon can instruct his engineers all he wants to change messages in his desire to own the cars forever, but ultimately it's futile
BTW Before we all pat ourselves on the back, with VW/Toyota's resources if they aren't already miles ahead of where we are on this thread I'd be amazed.�
Jan 29, 2016
obrien28 @HankLloydRight @artsci
I'm shocked that no one has looked into the CAN2 body bus, it was the second thing I played around with after I got started with all this, the lower speed coupled with low message/sec count make it pretty easy to figure out. Almost everything on the wish list is present on that bus. I think Danal was doing the electronics for the appliqu� but if you want to put me in touch with whoever does the programming I will gladly help them integrate the CAN side of things, I also may have a lead on which trunk wires to tap into to get access to the CAN2 bus. Plus we only need to look at maybe 3 ID's on one bus so with hardware ID filtering an 8-bit micro should work fine.
Link to my CAN2 decodes Tesla Model S CAN IDs - CAN2 - Body.csv�
Jan 29, 2016
lolachampcar Nicely done obrien!�
Jan 29, 2016
HankLloydRight Awesome. Danal did the Arduino hardware and the onboard firmware for the Applique controller. He'd be the best one to figure out what's needed to take a CAN bus inputs to filter and use as triggers. If he can't help out, I'm sure what he did was pretty straightforward -- although the programming for the Applique itself is pretty complex with the timing and colors. As a last resort, we could have a second Arduino to read the CAN bus and then trigger the +12v inputs to the Applique controller.�
Jan 29, 2016
MikeBur Would this latter idea also open up potential to use CAN bus message(s) for charging status...?�
Jan 29, 2016
wk057 Charging status is on the power train CAN bus.�
Jan 29, 2016
HankLloydRight So we'd need to tap/log/filter two different CAN busses to get charging status, unless we can find something else on the body CAN bus like lighting up the charge port.�
Jan 29, 2016
wk057 The charge port sits on the power train bus for sure. I don't think there are mirrors of that on the body bus.�
Jan 29, 2016
faughtz So thanks to all of you, I have cell voltages:
But look at 65-72.
Thoughts?�
Jan 29, 2016
MikeBur wonder if the charge door status is on body bus then? ;-)
Not perfect, as not indicative of active charging status, though would be better than nothing...�
Jan 30, 2016
Ivo-G For what it's worth (coming from a junior member you also don't know personally or on this board), Jan (jpet) is a very admired and valued member of the Belgian and Dutch Tesla community, and one who's views and methods are always much respected and valued by those lucky and smart enough to listen to what he has to say.
I'm not quite as far as he is as I don't have my car yet, but I certainly intend to learn as much as I can about the inner workings of the Model S. And so far he's the one I've learned from the most.�
Jan 30, 2016
LetsGoFast I spent some time looking for it this morning and I don't think so. Appears to only exist on CAN-3, it appears that the light and the door open/close are all on the same message.�
Jan 30, 2016
glhs272 Wow, looks like Module 12 is way out of balance with the rest of the pack.�
Jan 30, 2016
apacheguy Yikes. Doesn't look good at all. Are you sure there isn't a bug in the reporting algo? Seems too far off to believe that the BMS wouldn't pick up on that.�
Jan 30, 2016
Zextraterrestrial 11 & 12
Oh. Way more for12 though but 11 vs the rest is a bit high too
Is there 6 cells per module? If so 2 of 11 are high? Or am I looking at it wrong�
Jan 30, 2016
wk057 I assume you're using the updated code for calculating the voltage? I made a correction to Jack's initial method here: Let the hacking begin... (Model S parts on the bench) - Page 64
Although, I don't think that would account for such a discrepancy. You might have some groups of cells with a couple of bad fuses if those numbers are right. Since you're seeing two sets of four voltages in a row reading incorrectly (ie, two CAN messages) I think it's more likely a reading/parsing error.�
Jan 30, 2016
jpet What happens when you do another capture when the car is at a lower SoC?
Do all cells go down in voltage and are cell 65 to 72 still at a significantly higher V than the rest?�
Jan 30, 2016
faughtz I don't think it was a parsing or algorithm issue. It occurred over multiple captures. It was surprising to me that there was this much imbalance. However after about 10 miles this morning, I captured this:
I am using the updated conversion factors. Thanks wk057; and what a valuable asset your bench will be.
As I have never charged beyond about 60kWh (P85D), I thought this might be more info, but maybe not.
Looking forward to more discovery.�
Jan 30, 2016
jpet When I saw it at first, I was also thinking about variables that were not initialized properly and still had a previous value in them. Don't know it that is even possible with the software you are using to present the values.
Good to see that the issue got resolved. I also charge my car to a SoC of 70% if I don't need the range. But, I do a range charge at least once every 2 months to trigger the balancing. Can't wait to receive the CAN bus logger I ordered to see what my daily cycling between 30 and 70% SoC really does to the cells. I will finally be able to find out how fast they tend to go out of balance.�
Jan 30, 2016
andrewket What is your rated range at 100%? Mileage?�
Jan 30, 2016
faughtz I have never paid much attention to rated range, I use % charge, and typically drive about 100 miles/wk.
Probably not clear above, but even when I was at a few % charge and charged to 100%, I never saw more than 60kWh going in. Doesn't make sense, esp with losses. Very interested in better understanding true capacity.�
Jan 30, 2016
Cyberax BTW, what's the pinout on the FAKRA Ethernet connector? I'm getting my cables tomorrow (finally).�
Jan 30, 2016
obrien28 Ask and you shall receive. This pinout seems to be consistent across model years, however the connector location may vary, the early cars had it behind the drivers side end cap, while newer ones (VIN >60K) bundle it together with the TDC under the dash.
Shell connector reference:
Pinout
TX+ = 1
TX- = 2
RX+ = 3
RX- =4�
Jan 30, 2016
MikeBur Ho hum, thanks anyway. I don't believe there's even a CAN power bus access port in the rear is there?
rep in your inbox for trying though�
Jan 31, 2016
jpet All of my range charges can be found in the MaxRange Tesla Battery Survey sheet. Search for jpet
I have ordered a CAN bus logger because I want to get beyond the calculated Tesla rated range figure and I also want to get a better understanding of why / when my car gets power limited when I push it.�
Jan 31, 2016
lolachampcar I'm heading up to the SuperCharger in a bit and will capture and drop box a SC session.�
Jan 31, 2016
zdre Out of interest, which logger did you order?�
Jan 31, 2016
jpet I ordered the SavvyCAN for Tesla Model S from EVTV.
I assume this device will get me up and running in no time.�
Jan 31, 2016
Danal Actually... this was discussed back when the Applique controller was developed. See post #192 in the original thread. The concern was that tapping the CAN bus was "too intrusive" and would "raise the ire" of Tesla, possibly even voiding the warranties of vehicles where this was done. Please note, I am not the person who said any of that... there was a lot of discussion on the boards, and several 2+ hour phone calls between the principals where all but a few minutes of the call were discussing just exactly how we wanted to interface to the car. Intellectual property lawyers were consulted, and so forth. Furthermore, please remember it was a VERY different climate among owners and Tesla (the company) at that time... WK057 didn't have his bench setup, there were no threads about CAN on the forums, Tesla had recently shut down an owner for doing something on the Ethernet, and many other things.
That was then, this is now.
I am very open to going to the CAN bus for interfacing the applique. In fact, I'd strongly prefer the CAN bus. At this moment, I have not kept up with all the research that others have done, so let me ask a couple of questions:
1) Where is the "Can2" bus physically available toward the rear of the car?
2) Which bus does the Tire Pressure interface controller use? It happens to be the thing that we are picking 12V from right now, and that would certainly make it easy to get to a CAN bus...
3) I've looked at the "CAN2 Body.CSV" file. I see message 504, with various bit patterns for LT, RT, Brake, and so forth. Here is the absolutely key question: Do those messages appear in "real time" as the turn signals flash??? This is required to keep the "zip light" effect in sync.
I'm sure I'll have more questions, let's start with those three.
Thanks,
Danal (electronics and programming)�
Jan 31, 2016
HankLloydRight Yeah, now that you mention it, that does sound vaguely familiar, and I now remember the arguments against it.
But say we tap the CAN bus connector under the touchscreen and run one cable back to the controller, it would be very easy to open up the panel and disconnect the CAN connector and hide the other end before going in for any service. No taps, no problem, and the Applique could still work with just the mobile app.
Or even better (and more expensive) have a BT-LE connection between wherever the CAN tap is, and the Applique module, and then we can just pull the CAN sending unit before any service visit.�
Jan 31, 2016
Danal Let's find one in the back of the car. The current install instructions say to pick up 12V from "pin 8" of the liftgate control module, a RD-GY wire. This module is in the starboard side of the trunk area.
A little birdie just told me this same module's Pin 3, WT-BR, is CAN+ and Pin 13, BR, is CAN- for the body control can bus. I'm just not absolutely certain that the little birdie's nomenclature of "Body Control CAN Bus" is the same as CAN2 referenced in this forum. If it is, this will be trivially easy.
I will probably not be able to take my car apart and physically verify until about 3 days from now, if anyone wants to check in the meanwhile.�
Jan 31, 2016
obrien28 I to have a little "birdie", he gave me some more specific information, it looks as though everything you need is available in a spot that you are already tapping into. To answer your question, yes CAN2 is the body bus (which runs at 125kb/s).
Power Connector: molex_31372-1000
CAN2 Signal Connector: jae_mx34020sf1
CAN2+ = Pin3 BR/WH
CAN2- = Pin13 BR
12V Fused at 30A (cabin fuse box 2) = Pin8 RD/GY
GND = Pin7 BK�
Jan 31, 2016
pgiralt What are the chances of obtaining the male and female versions of the connector to build a tap cable that can be put in without having to physically tap any of the wires?�
Jan 31, 2016
wk057 Pretty simple. Most of Tesla's connectors are pretty standard. I was actually going to suggest this until I saw you had already suggested it.
Also, it's worth noting, for the record, that tapping a line or anything like that can not legally void your warranty. You're quite literally allowed to do whatever modifications you want to your car. It is your car (unless you leased). If those modifications don't cause any problems, then there are not any legal warranty problems. The only time warranty issues come into play would be if your modification were the cause of damage/failure of a part that is under warranty. I think Tesla would be pretty hard pressed to prove that tapping a couple of lines and reading some CAN data would cause damage to something that is under warranty, especially if it were done with a male and female connector in front of a minor module like suggested.�
Jan 31, 2016
Danal Connectors? Dead easy. I already have the connectors for the under-panel CAN bus. I just need to look at the ones I'm thinking about on the Liftgate Controller.
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah, I actually pointed out the Magnuson-Moss warranty act back when this was all first discussed. The group consensus was still "don't", including that of a couple of IP attorneys who were also Tesla owners.
Anyway, that's all history. I've already ordered a couple of different CAN chip breakout boards for some experimentation.
- - - Updated - - -
Yummy!
As mentioned, I have some chips on the way. Probably going to run something much "less" that you guys who are trying to read entire buses, maybe inject someday, etc. Keep it cheap, simple, and filtered, for the applique module.
The original is/was an Adafruit Trinket Pro. This is an Arduino clone, although the software was all developed in Atmel Studio (not the Arduino IDE) to make development and debugging easier on me. The main reason for the Trinket was the built in USB interface, that does NOT require an end-user to understand how to find a serial port. This is/was to allow much easier re-flashing, should that ever become necessary and/or optional upgrades.
I see I'm being my typical long winded self. Where I was headed: I'm not at all married to Arduino clones, or even Atmel processors, if CAN bus interface requires we go elsewhere. However, looking at the info so far, well, this all looks pretty darn straight forward, including modifying the existing firmware. In fact, I may (barely) have room to make it "universal" and "auto-sensing" on the existing platform. Maybe.�
Jan 31, 2016
HankLloydRight Yay! Go Danal!
Yeah, I think the landscape has changed a little bit. I think the previous fervor came from one or two users who had installed the Mobile-Eye unit, which did tap the CAN bus, but not to just read messages, but inject them as well (at least that was my understanding). That is a lot more invasive and cause of potential damage (and hence warranty issues) that just reading the CAN messages for triggers. As long as we're not injecting anything, and not impeding the network in any way, I don't think we would have an issue. Also, if the module is easily removed during service, there's even less risk.
On my two previous hardtop convertibles (MB SLK and BMW Z4 -- both now sold),I had installed a "SmartTop" controller, which did read and inject messages into the CAN and provide other convenience features related to raising and lowering the top. Since it changed the way the open/close buttons work, it included a "service" mode that disabled all features for when the car was to go in for service, so the dealers' computers wouldn't detect it, and the buttons would operate to OEM spec. Unless the service center popped open the remote areas where the units were installed, they'd never know it was there.�
Jan 31, 2016
Danal Oh, and until my "lesser" chips get here, I have a CANbusTriple in hand. I'll be tapping and sniffing soon. Maybe within the next few days.
- - - Updated - - -
Most of it came from an individual, an attorney who had a very low serial number (don't remember if it was a signature or just after) who'd had to have several things flat out replaced. I seem to remember the whole charge port was replaced twice. Anyway, apparently the service center gave him more than a little grief about some factory parts that were shipped on later versions of the car, and "retro-fitted" to his car. Seemed a bit strange.
Anyway, all ancient history.
- - - Updated - - -
That's pretty cool!! I believe the Applique will be entirely passive, but if it isn't... well, there will certainly be a service mode!�
Feb 1, 2016
green1 Tesla can say anything they want, but they don't write the laws they have to follow.
We all know that Tesla is extremely hostile to anyone who wants to do ANY work whatsoever on their car, be it simple maintenance, or major retrofit. It WILL come back to haunt them once there's competition, but for now we just have to deal with it and point out (strongly) every time they step over their legal limits.�
Feb 1, 2016
chickensevil Whew, took me 3 days of reading this thread off and on to get through it all. Major props to everyone contributing as this was one thing I was really looking forward to finally happening on someone's car. I'm a bit surprised it took 3.5 years before the flood gates were opened on this subject. It reminds me of console hacking and there is a correlation with those that Tesla should learn from.
Excluding current generation consoles, because I honestly haven't kept up, all the consoles starting with the PS1 carried forward to the PS3/Wii/Xbox360 were hacked for similar reasons that you all are doing to your cars. To do things to it that you want to do, but not really trying to cross the obvious legal lines (pirating in the case of consoles). The interesting parallel is the PS3 vs all the others. Every other console has typically been hacked within 6-9 months of them being on the streets except the PS3 which lasted something like 2-3 years. Why? Because at first Sony allowed people to have their own Linux kernel and do pretty much what people wanted to do without prirating software. Sony patched out the kernel and didn't ship with it starting with the slim Model and what do you know within 6 months of that happening it was hacked.
I say this on the off chance that Tesla is reading this thread that you would do more for the security of the car if you just allowed people access to what they want, which is largely harmless things (modding their displays to show custom content, readouts of all the various network data, and putting custom visual mods on their cars). What did you actually end up with because people didn't have this? We have at least two people who have implanted malicious code on their own cars, with access to technically do things that would be illegal (e.g. enabling of disabled features not paid for... Although at least here on the forums I haven't seen that) and for what? So they can see what their power guage is doing, or their battery readouts... Really Tesla? It is on the freaking screen if you have the password... Or otherwise available on the CAN. Instead, these people were so inclined they could sell off or otherwise profit from screwing the company over... Not that they would do that, or that I am at all suggesting they do that (I am an investor after all)
So in the end, and I think someone else said it as well, hopefully this pushes Tesla down the road of releasing this information on their own. Based on recent interviews it would appear that they are entertaining the whole screen mirroring idea for your phone through an in car app... All they need to do on top of that is give access to the dev/service screens in a read only mode. As others have stated this is already there... Just make it accessible.
In the meantime, carry on with what all you beautiful people are doing with your cars. If I hadn't just bought a new car in Dec. I might be more willing to tear apart my own dash and root the OS... So I am certainly looking forward to a jailbreak that requires minimal removal of dash pieces (and also the proper instructions on what to do after you have physical access that hopefully doesn't involve removing NAND or a pair of tweezers to short your memory blocks into leaking information, or some other obtrusive hack. I don't want to ruin my 100k car, I just want to have a little more freedom on the content those gorgeous displays can put out!!!�
Feb 2, 2016
smac OK So I've pulled some logs and just had a quick mess through some stuff.
First thing was to have a poke around the lifetime stats. Some of it is quite interesting!
- Battery total miles is 13,708 miles however my car only has 12,291 miles on the clock (weird!!)
- Lifetime discharge is at 6,539 kWh (vs. 6,977kWh charged). This puts total Wh/mi at 530Wh/mi vs my lifetime average on the display which is 350Wh/mi.
Message ID 0x0382 has the following data: 4D 72 67 9D 76 0 70 24
Which if my code is right equates to my 60 having 59.8kWh of battery (So pretty much as advertised, unlike the 77kWh figure we've seen reported from the 85kWh packs
Interestingly all the remaining figures tally with 77-78% of the 59.8kWh figure which is what the dash was reading. Energy buffer seems set at 2.8kWh.
I did a 0-60 run, but it certainly won't be as impressive as the PxxD cars�
Feb 2, 2016
supratachophobia I'm curious to know is the battery total miles are the amount above rated wh/mile. In other words, if you drive above EPA rated, does Tesla have an alogorithim that says this battery has been treated "harder" than EPA rated range?
Also, is lifetime discharge no including regen put into the battery while driving?
Lastly, if total wh/mi at 530 is also without regen thrown in to make it 350wh/mi.?�
Feb 2, 2016
snooper77 That would imply a battery round-trip efficiency of 93.7%, or a loss of 6.3%. That seems pretty good, but realistic nontheless.�
Feb 2, 2016
smac All good questions, and I was wondering the same things. (esp. the whole issue of regen being the discrepancy).
I guess at least in part this is why Tesla are less than keen on showing some of these figures, it potentially opens up a barrage of questions from owners.�
Feb 2, 2016
wk057 Keep in mind that the battery total charge and discharge includes regen. So while the dash Wh/mi numbers will show the net result after regen, the battery total numbers do not. For example, if you start at a stop, accelerate until you utilize 1 kWh, then regen to a stop, both the charge and discharge lifetime values will increase accordingly, while your dash will show the net of discharge minus regen. The lifetime counters only count up, never down.
Additionally, the BMS appears to keep track of its mileage on its own based on messages from the rear drive unit for speed. Mine is actually pretty accurate compared to the dash (+/- 1%), so unsure why yours is so far off. Wonder if your battery was in fact partly used. That'd be interesting.
Seeing a 60 pack report a full capacity at 59.8 kWh and the 85 kWh packs reporting ~77 kWh does kind of make me a bit angry, admittedly, and fits my original predictions/assumptions from earlier almost exactly.�
Feb 2, 2016
Johan Me too. The real world range and performance reports also support this fact: the the difference between the "85" vs "60" battery is quite a bit less than 85/60=1.42 would suggest. More like 77/59.8=1.29. Worth the $$$? It's a subjective choice but one easier to make correctly if we were given fair and correct info (just like the 691 hp and what-not).�
Feb 2, 2016
wk057 Even if you just go by RWD version mileages this should have been evident: 265/200 = 1.33 ... pretty close to 77/59.8 = 1.29. Definitely more realistic than 85/60=1.42. The weight difference between the 60 and 85 kWh packs is something like 200 lbs, definitely not significant enough to account for such a discrepancy in range either.
*shrugs*
<rant>
I don't want to derail my own thread here, but in all honesty (and I just posted this in another thread) I now have zero trust for Tesla. I no longer believe any published spec or advertisement/announcement is truthful. If there was any trust left at all, figuring out the real "85" kWh capacity wiped out whatever was left. When they released the P85D, Tesla used (read: abused) the trust I did have previously to basically swindle me into a pricey trade-up for very little real gain and a promoted feature set that was essentially paid for but unusable until a year later. The way I see it I paid for 691 HP, 285 miles of range, autopilot before summer '15, and an 85 kWh battery. The reality is that I received 463 HP, 247 miles of range, autopilot a year after purchase, and a 77 kWh battery. Sorry Tesla, not falling for your crap ever again. As my own protest I sold off 100% of my rather long TSLA position several months ago (nearly ~3k shares all together). I no longer even own a single share of TSLA because I have no longer have any faith in the company to be honest with customers. That's a surefire way to drive a company into the ground, and I'd have to be an idiot to keep a large investment in such a company.
Now, here's the funny thing. As a 463 HP, 247 miles of range, 77 kWh, AWD EV with autopilot.... it's an amazing damn car. There was absolutely zero need to promote fake specs and lie about the car when the real specs are already the best the market has to offer. It just makes no sense to me whatsoever that Tesla has decided to just promote false and misleading key specifications in order to get more sales in the short term while people slowly work out the truth.
</rant>
Back to hacking...�
Feb 2, 2016
smac Yep I sort of assumed it was the total that had gone through the pack. Effectively regen has "saved" me �220
That is certainly a conundrum. I'd partially assumed it was the BMS basing it from driven miles vs. rated. The 60 packs may be used / binned or well who knows. I certainly don't think I have anywhere near enough evidence to write a letter to them.
The whole 60/85 thing never made sense to me. The numbers have never added up.
The "hump" in the pack seemed like a last minute engineering change to crack 300 ideal miles for headlines, and using dummy cells seemed a logistical PITA. FWIW I've long suspected the 70 was the "original intent" for the car.
Look on the plus side though, I have got much worse performance, and it's blatantly clear Tesla have no love for the 60 owners in the EU. I get a distinct impression they wish they'd never had the car on the design studio here.
I'd love to see a log from a 70!!�
Feb 2, 2016
green1 If you get angry at them again, can you protest by telling me how to root my car?�
Feb 2, 2016
pgiralt The real question now is how much capacity does a 90 pack really have?�
Feb 2, 2016
kennybobby Nothing feels better than a good rant to help get it out of your system...Well almost nothing,
Look a Kitten...�
Feb 2, 2016
wk057 lol
My guess, based on rated miles, is probably about 81-82 kWh usable, or 4-5 kWh more than the "85". Would be cool to get some CAN logs. If anyone with a 90 or 70 is anywhere nearby and would let me plug up to their diagnostic port to snag some data, that'd be very nice of you.�
Feb 2, 2016
glhs272
I am not saying I know anything more about this than you do, but, even when my 60 was new I could never get close to actual 60kwh out of the battery. 55kwh is about it. That would get me about 208 rated miles (not 200). Therefore the correct rated miles ratio should be 265/208=1.27. I have been keeping track of the degradation (hasn't been much), so we will see how that changes. I have seen 77kwh (edit 77.5) out of an 85kwh battery (Bjorn), so I think the 77/55 = 1.4 (edit 1.41) ratio is more closely aligned with usable reality than 77/59.8 is, despite whatever you are seeing in your hacks.�
Feb 2, 2016
smac Thing is even at 320bhp with 200 miles and no AP, it's an amazing car. Despite having a faster weekend toy, I still love the Tesla and don't know what else I will swap it for.
Ironically I only bothered getting into this because I have felt lied to from day one when dealing with Tesla. I have never had this urge to go reverse engineering any other car I've owned.
<speculative rant>
The only half logical reason I can come up with is we are missing people who can kick Elon in the shins when he opens his mouth still at the point the engineers haven't even worked out if this promise is vaguely deliverable.
</speculative rant>
Anyway back on track. I'll continue wherever I can with the hacking and the 60 peel back...
- - - Updated - - -
I have drawn 56kWh out of mine at 12k miles old (c. 190 miles)
Do you have an A or a B pack ?�
Feb 2, 2016
glhs272 I guess I have never run mine to full stop. The most I have tried to get out of it was 54.9kwh, that was with 5 more rated miles left. So I guess that points to about 56.5 kwh usable capacity. B pack.
Edit: And I thought I was doing good with this run... I guess I should have been shooting for 59kwh?
�
Feb 2, 2016
AWDtsla I'm still scratching my head over this one. The only thought I have right now is what if the thermal losses inside the battery are so large in comparison the drive usage, that adding more batteries significantly increases the total energy used. Ok that could apply to all the lines and inverter too.. Maybe an experiment like having both cars in valet mode then do energy usage comparisons.
The weird thing is the math in the cars for rated miles reconciles. But then again, I see the trip meter is totally wrong and my actual power usage around 70% more than reported by any of the 3 trip counters. So it was probably just programmed that way.
I've never driven a P85D, but driving a P85 after P90D, I wouldn't put the difference "little real gain". It feels like going from amazing to completely mundane. Extra capability used almost constantly.�
Feb 2, 2016
smac Here's mine (B pack also)
FWIW with an EU car I set off with 172 miles on the display. It is impossible to make my car show over 200 miles irrespective of settings
I should add 50% of that was with cruise control set to 70mph.�
Feb 2, 2016
supratachophobia This is truly the real question. Is this an attempt to "make it right" like the p90d ludicrous mode was?�
Feb 2, 2016
AWDtsla According to the rated mile math it's not. Let's say P*D is rated at 310 Wh/mi, as reported by the energy analyzer. Then 253*.310 = 78.4 kWh, and 267*.310 = 82.8kWh, or approximately the advertised capacity minus ~6-7kWh for each battery. But my assumption was this is bricking reserve plus charging reserve, maybe it can be proved otherwise.
edit - but I agree it's pretty disappointing to advertise a capacity that is never usable. Almost as disappointing as the car lying to me everyday about the energy it has used.�
Feb 2, 2016
supratachophobia Anything we can do about it? I guess the argument is the car goes as far as it is advertised (probably a big reason they didn't do EPA certification for 90kw). But the argument to that is, no one ever sees rated range under anything but ideal conditions (like 10% of the time maybe). You add a little HVAC and highway speeds, then forget about it.�
Feb 2, 2016
DrJeff Remember when hard drives were advertised with X Mb storage, but due to formatting they could never actual store that capacity. There are precedents for advertising vs real use being disconnected.�
Feb 2, 2016
Danal Does anyone with CAN monitoring equipment know, or can you do a quick experiment and find out:
On the CAN2 (body) bus, does message 504, which shows headlight and tail light status, does that message repeat in "near real time" as turn signals flash?�
Feb 2, 2016
wk057 Welcome to the battlefield.
Tesla's 85 kWh rating needs an asterisk (up to 81 kWh, with up to ~77 kWh usable)�
Feb 2, 2016
obrien28 Based on my in car time it appears they do, there is also a special ID that displays whether or not you enabled the emergency flashers.
I have PM'd you with a special link to my GDocs spreadsheet that has some more detailed information.�
Feb 2, 2016
chickensevil Wk, I have a brand new 90D that I would be happy to throw into the mix and am relatively speaking to most in this thread, "just down the street" from you. I am in Northern VA so would be happy to drive down some weekend. Plus it would be cool to check out your setup! Happy to help in whatever way I can
I figured I was so late to this party noone would need my help,�
Feb 2, 2016
garygid Cautions on attaching to an existing CAN bus:
1. Keep the attached lines fairly short, and do not terminate the +/- pair with a Resistor.
The two required termination resistors will already be at each end of the existing bus.
2. Avoid Writing to the existing bus, since that can change the timing of other messages.
Eventually, we might learn enough to be able to write something meaningful to the car,
but even then the writing is likely to interfere with other messages. So, for now, no Writing
when dealing with a real moving 2.5 ton vehicle.
3. In real CAN message Receiving, the receiver supplies (writes) an ACK bit to the bus.
If your Reader writes this ACK bit, you will likely interfere with the intended recipiant.
So, to just Listen in, you must configure your hardware to Read but NOT write the ACK bit.
4. Real CAN hardware includes several buffers (usually a dozen or more) to be used to receive messages,
to allow receiving two or more messages that are head to tail (little or no space/time between them).
Some simple CAN support libraries do not include support for these extra registers, and these libraries can
appear to work well, but they will miss a message that begins too soon after the end of the previous message.
There are some applications where one is logging just infrequent messages, or often repeated messages,
and one does not care if occasional messages are dropped (not received). But our goal was to log all the
messages, for doing a more complete analysis while investigating the meanings of the messages.
-------------
All these warnings from experience.
So, we do not terminate existing buses, do not Write or generate ACK bits,
and only Listen (passively) by using multiple CAN hardware receive buffers.�
Feb 2, 2016
markwj Aw, where's the fun in that?
But, seriously good advise. Well written.
Another reason to operate in 'listen only' mode, at least until you know what you are doing, is that if you get the communication rate wrong, you can seriously mess the bus up when in active mode.�
Feb 3, 2016
smac I'm not sure that's quite what is happening here. HD manufacturers were at least consistent across their ranges and amongst each other
A better precedent would be cordless power tools.
An old DeWalt 18v Drill had an 18v battery... A new DeWalt 20v Drill has an 18v Battery
Why because people shopping for a new drill naturally assume the 20v packs were better viewing the items side by side on a shelf. Interestingly this method of measuring batteries is not allowed in the EU, so our identical DeWalt battery packs can only be sold as 18v.
18v vs 20v Lithium Ion Power Tools - The Truth Uncovered - YouTube�
Feb 3, 2016
smac So just as well I didn't send a letter 0x562 != 0562. Battery odo now matches car odo! :redface: (Doh!)
I've double checked the other figures and they still stand.�
Feb 3, 2016
lolachampcar that 0x will get you every time�
Feb 3, 2016
hnhhzy can you upload a tesla firmware package?
and which can MSGID is upload the new firmware bin and notify upgreade? thx..�
Feb 3, 2016
TheBlackKnight That's the best reason, in my opinion. If you are in listen only mode then an incorrect speed setting does nothing to anything else on the bus. Your end just throws a bus error and drops out. Then you change the speed and try again until you find the right one. Otherwise it isn't that dangerous to work in normal mode. Normal CAN is not deterministic at all and so there isn't a lot of harm in adding some extra frames. There is always a bit of uncertainty to the bus at all times. Senders try to send whenever they can and it is inevitable that some collisions will occur on the bus. This holds true whether there is only official traffic or whether you're trying to send some frames as well. There is also the potential that you could ACK a frame that somehow didn't get properly received by the proper node. In that case you told the sender it went through OK but the receiver didn't get it. That would be a rare event and usually OK but it could mess things up in some limited situations. So, the safest option is still to work in listen only mode. But, there are legitimate uses of normal mode - you just should know what you're doing.
I guess my only real point to all of this is to argue with the "likely" point that Gary made. The problems outlined are most certainly not all that likely, just possible. When driving that is probably a good enough reason to use listen mode unless you absolutely have to. I have never had anyone have any trouble with doing captures in a moving vehicle while using normal mode. Maybe I should knock on wood now. I will still admit it isn't as safe as listen only mode. I completely agree that one should use as many buffers/mailboxes as possible on the capture hardware. Frames can come in at upwards of 4000 frames per second (in theory... the tesla never does this) so you could be getting more than one per millisecond. You'd better have a bunch of buffers or a very fast processor or you could miss some. I prefer, for this reason, to use interrupt driven reception on a fast processor so that frames are immediately buffered upon reception. Some processors even support DMA (direct memory access) such that the canbus hardware can write frames into memory itself and thus you have a very high probability of receiving every frame reliably. I'd recommend against a strictly polling approach when the bus load is high. I'm somewhat leery of using external CAN hardware as well. Plenty of people use SPI connected canbus hardware but that adds an extra layer of latency that I really don't want.�
Feb 3, 2016
Bangor Bob So... Who's going to be first to log the bus during a software update? Get all the seed/key pairs for the various modules, etc...
- - - Updated - - -
Straubel should be the one doing that kicking, no?�
Feb 3, 2016
faughtz
I have wondered about this for a while. I have never been able to pump more than about 65kwh into my P85D.
Why?
That has not made sense. It's about the data. Thanks wk057.
Here is the end result of my P85D charged from 11% to 100% at a SC, allowing the current to go to zero.
�
Feb 4, 2016
JER If anything, I'd expect the opposite. The 85kWh pack has higher voltage, right? I^2R losses in power transmission should therefore be lower for a given load, given that less current is required for the same power.
All specifications are aspirational; apply the Musk Correction Factor to predict real results. MCF=(2+RAND)/3 or thereabouts.�
Feb 4, 2016
AWDtsla Real-world driving cycles should mean that you pull more power from a larger pack, because you can. i.e. It would be stupid for a driving cycle in a P90D to have an identical power draw curve to a 70D in the same exact cycle.�
Feb 4, 2016
garygid Someone tried to log CAN messages on a Tesla MS85, using a listen-only setup,
but "accidently" (from the factory) there was a solder jumper on the AVR-CAN board
that allowed the ACK bit to be written to the CAN bus ... and someone's car "barfed"
(did not work properly). Fortunately, when the logging cable was removed, all was
OK, someone discovered the jumper, removed it, and logging-by-listening worked fine.
Hence, my important warning is most likely more than "likely", but perhaps not a certainty.
In any case, I felt that you should be warned. Cheers.�
Feb 4, 2016
lolachampcar and then you have to ask why you would want to ack a message when you were not the one the message was intended for?????? Listen only always unless the message is for you. Sometimes gateways use ack to identify modules live on the bus.�
Feb 4, 2016
wk057 I'm working on a little low-horsepower CAN board that I'm going to use to try and control some Tesla hardware on the bench. So far so good, and I can send frames at the same rates that the car does from my little 8-bit MCU and a total of $5 in parts. Definitely not good enough to be a logger, but is capable of picking out messages with hardware filtering.�
Feb 4, 2016
Andyw2100 Google translate "wk057 to English" mode translates that to:
"I'm working on a little low-horsepower CAN board that I'm going to use to control my P85D in a few days."�
Feb 4, 2016
TheBlackKnight Well, any active node has no choice. ACK is part of the message acceptance algorithm. If you receive a frame and accept it then you will set ACK. Listen only mode just disconnects the TX line so that your ACK goes nowhere. Thus, your choices are to be in listen only mode and only receive traffic or be in normal mode and be able to send when you want to and always ACK anything you receive. That is why the EVTV devices are always in normal mode at this point - it's just easier since the hardware and software is meant for transmission as well. I probably really should implement listen only mode for completeness and absolute safety but I have never heard of anyone screwing up a CAN bus by attaching an active node. I have worked with a lot of different electric cars - Model S, Think City, Nissan Leaf, custom cars. Not a one of them ever had a problem with my attaching a listener device that wasn't in listen only mode. A lot of other people have used the same tools on various cars. I've never heard of any issues that can be traced to being in normal mode. Allowing a device to send ACK is only really a problem either if you have the wrong bus speed set or if the bus is in very bad shape. So, I find myself agreeing that listen only mode is the proper way to go for absolute safety. But, I also find the proposed danger to really not exist. In practice I have never once had a single issue with just leaving my tools in normal mode and going about my business. That's easiest for me because I want the ability to inject traffic any time I choose.
Also, consider something else: how many frames do you suppose the center console ACKs? Probably quite a few / most of them. And, the car doesn't wrap itself around a tree. The console is most certainly not in listen only mode but monitors very many messages in order to be able to display the data and configure what is going on. WK has shown that there are debugging screens on the console that can read pretty much any message on the bus. That makes it both an active node and ACK'ing all frames. Things still work because that's exactly how the bus was designed to be able to work.
I couldn't put it past someone to use ACK to identify things on the bus but that would be a very foolish way to do it - for reasons that should be clear from the preceding paragraph. More often things on the bus are enumerated by some higher level protocol like J1939 or CANOpen. This is safer. Anything can ACK any message at any time for any reason. It is a very bad bit to rely upon for much of anything. All it says is that someone, somewhere, thought that they successfully received that message. No more, no less. To really confirm reception one would need a reply frame. This is also why so many frames have counter bits in them. You can't figure out if the opposing end got the frame by ACK because anyone can ACK. But, you can look at the counter and see if it is a dupe or if it has skipped ahead or backward.
Anyway, my arguments are pretty much academic I guess. In practice you won't go wrong if you use tools in listen only mode when you are doing straight captures. Sometimes you need to do a capture while also poking a stick into the beehive to see what happens. Then you can't be in listen only mode but, from my experience, nothing bad will happen due to being in normal mode. Just sharing my experience which seems to be different from some other people's experience. This could come down to hardware. I use the EVTV hardware and Kvaser hardware, not cheap $5 boards or anything like that. If you are using a kazoo and a can of silly string to monitor your canbus then perhaps you should use listen only mode for safety.�
Feb 5, 2016
markwj Agreed: If you can, use listen mode if you're just logging. Less likely to screw things up.
Regarding the technical implementation in the CAN protocol, it is rather neat and deserves explanation. There is no specific ACK frame being transmitted back (for the CAN transfer layer). All that is happening is that while the transmitter is sending a frame, it is also listening for how that frame appears on the bus. If one transmits a 1 and another simultaneously transmits a 0, the result is 0 on the bus. 0 always overrides 1.
In this way, the transmitter can detect collisions, and the neat ID prioritisation scheme works (the lowest ID wins). Think of it as sending a 1, then looking on the bus to see what is there - if it is a 1, all is ok, but if a 0 you know someone else is transmitting at the same time. The ID prioritisation scheme works by the lower priority transmitter sending a 1 as part of the ID being transmitted, but seeing a 0 on the bus, then it knows someone else is transmitting a higher priority ID (the lower the ID, the higher the priority), so it stops transmitting, backs off, and tries again later.
Part of the transmitted frame, near the end, is an 'ack slot' - a bit that the transmitter sets to 1. All receivers who are handling that message are supposed to transmit a 0 there if they got the frame so far ok. The transmitter looks at the bus as it sends the 1 for 'ack slot'. If it sees a zero it means one or more receivers got it ok.
Interestingly, this cannot be used for complete error detection. If two receivers get the frame, but one sees an error, we'll get one setting the 'ack slot' to 0 and the other (who sees the error) leaving it as 1. The result is the transmitter sees a 0 and assumes it went ok.�
Feb 5, 2016
Whitmarsh It strikes me that, given all of a Tesla's many attributes and the ease with which it can be configured, it might be an ideal car for people with physical handicaps of various kinds. For example, someone with a gammy (is that a uniquely British word?) right leg might be able to use the right-hand roller as accelerator and brake - roll to accelerate, press to brake. Or the steering load could be tweaked for someone with weak arms/shoulders, etc, etc, etc. WK057 - in your meanderings through the Tesla's innards, is this something you might keep in mind?�
Feb 5, 2016
garygid Comments on Evaluating CAN logging systems.
When trying to log all the CAN messages, the challenges are greater than when
logging just a hardware-filtered subset of the messages, but the principles are the same.
I do not have a CAN3 log or a real CAN3 analyzer.
However, maybe the developer can better describe his constraints.
Usually handling 3 or 4 messages with no gaps between them is the first
hurdle. Next is buffering bursts of perhaps 3000 per second, and
then the limitations of getting data written to a file.
I found in writing to a flash device that typical writes could go
quite fast, but occasionally there would be large delays, like 700 ms,
that required a very large buffer.
Then, when there IS a buffer overflow, how is it handled?
I counted the missed messages and inserted a pseudo-CAN
error message into the data stream that contained the number
of missed messages.
Can he inhibit the generation of the Recieve ACK bit, if needed ...
but this might not be important, at least in most cases.
How does he handle termination, and is there provision to
handle single-sided CAN signals?
Find out how he is handling these problems.
Then, he should be able to test by generating messages
on one Pi and receiving on another.
Is he able to capture more than one CAN bus simultaneously?
Does he time stamp each message with second and millisecond
that it was received?
Does he add Date-and-Time pseudo-CAN messages at the start
of each new minute?
Can the log files hold something like 40 million messages,
to allow logging for at least 2, possibly 3 hours?
We think that 2 CAN buses in the Tesla are 500k, two are 125k, and
a hidden one is 33.33k (the Pilot). Is there an easy option
to select the bit rate, or an auto-baud setting?
Cheers, Gary�
Feb 5, 2016
jpet Andy, be careful mentioning the words horsepower and P85D in the same sentence without adding an asterisk somewhere. :biggrin:�
Feb 5, 2016
apacheguy May I ask what this will accomplish? I mean is it just for the sake of testing or is there something cool you'd be able to do that you otherwise wouldn't? I guess I'd just worry that this would raise eyebrows in Tesla's engineering dept and possibly force them to implement security on the CAN busses.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét