Jan 22, 2015
Morristhecat I am wondering what the $30 - 1 hour subscription to the service manuals gets you. Is it a bunch of PDF's that one can download in the hour and read at your leisure, or is it just a web interface that you would have to madly navigate like "The Flash" to figure out what you need and quickly print it off? Has anyone used it? Not that I am needing service, I just think it would be interesting reading if it were in PDF form. Possibly for future reference for simple fixes as well.
In case you aren't aware, they are here:
service.teslamotors.com�
Jan 22, 2015
breser That's the first time I've ever seen anyone find a way to get service manuals. So I doubt anyone has actually done this.�
Jan 22, 2015
Saghost I'm with breser - your post and the link included are the first time I've seen any way for anyone outside of Tesla's chosen few to read the service manuals. This is a really good sign, but I have no idea what's inside the pay wall.
Given the financing model, I suspect it is not something where an hour's access will give you everything you'd need forever after.�
Jan 22, 2015
InternetDude I'm not positive but I think they legally have to provide access. I know Toyota, Hyundai and other companies have the exact same thing, you can pay a fee to login online and access repair data for a set time period.�
Jan 22, 2015
Morristhecat I am surprised that nobody has seen this before. I actually got the link from another post by @lolachampcar in another thread. Can't recal just where at the moment. I did a little more digging and found the following link, but it is only a google cache, the orignal doesn't work anymore. Not sure how long this will remain active. It eludes to an interactive PDF, whatever that means. It looks quite interesting though.
Tesla Model S - Repair Manual on Behance�
Jan 22, 2015
kennybobby From the terms and conditions for the manual subscription service:
The contents of this Site are intended for professional automobile technicians to repair or service vehicles in the market in which the applicable subscription is purchased only....
The Information is provided expressly for the purpose of use by professional automobile technicians who have special techniques and certifications. In cases where non-specialized or uncertified technicians perform repair or service using only the Information, or without proper equipment or tools, that practice may cause severe injury or death to the individual or other individuals and could possibly cause damage or malfunction to the customer's vehicle. Any vehicle damage or malfunction directly or indirectly caused by, due to or resulting from such service or repairs may not be covered by, or may void, the vehicle�s limited warranty....
$100 for 24 hours
$350 for a month
$3000 one year�
Jan 22, 2015
apacheguy First I've heard of it too. Is it mostly for body work or do the manuals also cover technical aspects like servicing the onboard charger or replacing the SIM card? Also odd that they charge for access. Is this standard for other manufacturers?�
Jan 22, 2015
EarlyAdopter Seems you can register for a "General Access (Personal)" account, but only if you reside in Massachusetts.�
Jan 22, 2015
Gizmotoy Interesting. Notably, Massachusetts is the "Right to Repair" state that has pretty serious laws about this. Oregon has some too, so it's also interesting they're not included. Perhaps their law isn't worded as aggressively?�
Jan 22, 2015
markb1 You can only select Massachusetts with "General Access (Business)", too.
Tesla, this is LAME! Open it up to everyone!�
Jan 22, 2015
gordo Yeah I had a credit card in hand ready to check it out, until i realized this is some kind of compliance thing for MA.�
Jan 22, 2015
Morristhecat Darn, that's too bad. :/�
Jan 22, 2015
apacheguy Can someone in MA please tell us what's inside?
This is weird timing. Has this existed all along? Doubt it. Why did Tesla all of a sudden decide to open subscription based service docs over 2 years after the MS entered production?�
Jan 22, 2015
Pollux [Edit: if you have a question, ask it quickly.]
I really, really hope I'm not opening up a can of worms. I'm not interested in becoming a "gateway" into Tesla's service docs.
Having said that: there are materials here for both Roadster and S. I purchased a one hour subscription, which is ending in a few minutes. Major sections as follows:
Service Manuals
==========
Service Manual - interactive. An exhaustive list of topics that you drill down into. When you get to a leaf node, you can generate a printer-friendly version. Lots of pictures. How to get at pretty much everything in the car. One interesting thing for me: I was interested in the SIM card. Turns out that you can drop down the bottom of the touchscreen area, somehow, then get access to a "SIM extender", then the SIM. Total time estimated to replace: 0.2 (I think that must be hours). Much less effort than what I'd previously imagined.
Parts Manual - takes a while to load. Comes as a PDF, probably can just be printed off or saved.
Labor Codes and Flat Rate Times
Circuit Diagrams and Connector Reference. Note that there are many versions of these, as changes were made during the production runs.
Service Documents
============
Searchable database of service bulletins and perhaps other stuff. Keyword searchable; also can search by document number, vehicle system; and play around with sort order. The documents that come back are PDFs.
Owner Manuals
==========
I believe this is all stuff owners already have access to.
In conclusion: if you're a service shop, you'll want a subscription for at least a little while and if your business expands to include regular Tesla customers you'll want the year-long subscription. The car's a moving target and you won't want to be operating with documents that are even a year old.
Alan
�
Jan 22, 2015
EarlyAdopter Do want.
(hurries off to look into getting a personal mailbox in MA...)�
Jan 22, 2015
yobigd20 next time run screen capture software, flip through all the pages real fast, then post it on youtube.�
Jan 22, 2015
islandbayy BRILLIANT!�
Jan 22, 2015
breser If he shared it I sure can't find him doing so.
That cache on google was from the 19th of January. So it seems like this is something recent. I'd bet that this was part of the new website.
- - - Updated - - -
And it'll be taken down very quickly because Tesla will just file a DMCA notice with YouTube for copyright violation.�
Jan 22, 2015
pgiralt Does the information on the site provide you access to the Service Menus (Access Code)? I would think this would be required for many repairs.�
Jan 22, 2015
richkae If I were Tesla I would give each car unique key material that generates a rotating code, and you have to log in to a Tesla server to ask for access to the specific car ( time sensitive ). That way they know whenever anyone wants to access the service menus on any car.
The backup to that would be a hardware dongle that I would tightly control.
Not saying Tesla's done it - just that's what I would do.�
Jan 22, 2015
pgiralt I know the codes do roll. Not sure if they are car-specific, but they do roll.�
Jan 22, 2015
apacheguy Hmm. How does a ranger access the screens if the car is outside cell reception?
I would be very surprised if Tesla released these codes to any third party.�
Jan 22, 2015
EarlyAdopter They are car specific, with the VIN serving as a seed.�
Jan 22, 2015
pgiralt You wouldn't necessarily need connectivity to a server to get the code as long as the software on their laptop has the algorithm needed to generate the code. Would be similar to the way SecureID / SafeWord generate time-restricted one time use passwords.
I'd also be surprised if they released the codes, but maybe as part of the service, access to those menus is required, so they'd be forced to by applicable laws. Maybe you need to use the subscription to generate the code as-needed. I'm just guessing here.�
Jan 22, 2015
Pollux Sorry, lotta info on the site, didn't happen to come across anything on this topic.
�
Jan 23, 2015
JFoX From the french site terms and conditions :
"L�UTILISATION DE CE SITE OU DES INFORMATIONS � DES FINS DE MARKETING EST STRICTEMENT INTERDITE. TOUT T�L�CHARGEMENT NON AUTORIS� EST INTERDIT. S�IL EST
D�MONTR� QUE VOTRE COMPTE AFFICHE UN TRAFIC EXCESSIF, IL SE PEUT QU�IL SOIT D�SACTIV� AUTOMATIQUEMENT ET DE MANI�RE PERMANENTE PAR TESLA SANS NOTIFICATION PR�ALABLE."
"Using this site for marketing purposes is stricly forbidden. Any unauthorized download is forbidden. If it is proven that your account uses an excessive bandwidth, it could be disabled automatically and permanently by Tesla without notice."
Edit :
On the upper-right corner you can choose region.
US terms and conditions state the same conditions :
"USE OF THIS SITE OR OF THE INFORMATION FOR MARKETING PURPOSES IS STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. UNAUTHORIZED DOWNLOADING IS PROHIBITED. IF YOUR ACCOUNT USAGE
DEMONSTRATES EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC, YOUR ACCOUNT MAY BE AUTOMATICALLY AND
PERMANENTLY DISABLED BY TESLA WITHOUT NOTICE TO YOU. "�
Jan 23, 2015
yobigd20 I read the U.S. Terms (there's a link at the bottom of the page) and they say the same thing. Obviously they don't want one person creating an account and sharing it with the world.�
Jan 23, 2015
NigelM Mod Note: personal comments are not tolerated. One post went to snippiness�
Jan 23, 2015
Gizmotoy I still wish I could buy the service manual for my car. The subscription model makes sense for shops, but not for owners. Owners just need the stuff that directly applies to their own vehicle. I have service manuals for all of my vehicles save the Tesla, and they're usually less than $500. Hopefully they offer something like that eventually, perhaps once warranties start timing out.
Of course the point is moot because I can't get either version here in CA.�
Feb 5, 2015
lolachampcar add me to that list Giz�
Feb 5, 2015
scottm There's no need for Tesla to invent whole new protection schemes to access the material.
Just put it up as links in documentation folder on MyTesla, you have to login first to get at it. Done.
They then know WHO and WHAT VIN you are getting the material for. They could even customize the material and filter it by that VIN car type (e.g. not include "D" specific stuff if you don't have a D).
Was it the Hyundai Equus that included the user documentation on an iPad that was found in the glove box upon delivery? I remember ooging over that class act.
Tesla could do A WHOLE SERVICE PORTAL that is tailored your service history and specific TSB's, recall, etc..
They could change the way the auto industry does service, and put that on its ear.
That will be the next most major competitive advantage of Tesla. "Open Service"
Want to really blow the industry's collective mind!? Make the portal contents follow the re-sale of a used Tesla. Next person has full, continuous, records...�
Feb 5, 2015
lolachampcar
yep, Tesla could do it much better..... The only hole I see in the above is what happens when one of us damages a car under warranty, hurts ourselves (getting shocked) or creates an unsafe condition for the car that reflects badly on Tesla? I believe there are enough positives associated with doing this to merit finding solutions for the negatives.
I can tell you that one of my first tasks will be understanding battery communication sufficiently well enough that I can one day use the MS battery pack exactly as designed with all safeties in place as stationary home storage. It is a lovely, well designed quality solution that, given the number of cars being scrapped, just begs to be used. How does Tesla permit me access to documentation knowing this is one of my interests?�
Feb 5, 2015
dhrivnak It appears they may be restricting access. I foe one think we need to push back on this. We should be able to maintain our car if we want and I have purchased service manuals for my other cars without issue.
"Thank you for contacting Tesla Motors Technical Support. Unfortunately the North America Service Manuals are only available to Tesla Certified Collision Centers as well as residents in Massachusetts under the 'Right to Repair Act'. Residents of other states will not be able to access this information. I apologize for any inconvenience."�
Feb 5, 2015
Gizmotoy It has to be a PR move, and a PR move alone. There are dozens of ways for me to kill or severely injure myself with a plain old ICE, including zapping myself with the low-tech 12V battery, and that doesn't prevent other manufacturers from providing full access to their shop manuals. There's no legitimate liability there, IMO. Indeed, it's likely that someone with the shop manual is less likely to injure themselves than someone performing the same task without one. They only reason for preventing access is that they don't want "Tesla owner kills self by doing something stupid" as today's headline. I get that, but at some point people are going to be working on these with or without the manual and that position will become counter-productive.�
Feb 5, 2015
breser If Tesla is so liability adverse, I'd suggest they stop running an automotive company. There are a lot bigger liability risks than this that they are incurring. I don't think this has anything to do with liability and everything to do with trade secrets.�
Feb 5, 2015
Gizmotoy I don't even know if it's that. Until maybe the last two weeks or so, the core components that Tesla wanted to protect as trade secrets weren't even serviceable components. Battery issue? Replace battery. Drivetrain/inverter issue? Replace drivetrain. That doesn't leave a whole lot that Tesla does that every other automaker doesn't do, and severely limits the amount of sensitive data in the service manual.
Further, the limited access itself doesn't do anything to protect those trade secrets. They're required by law to provide the manual in MA. It's trivially easy for a competitor to simply have a resident in MA look at the service manual legally. Restrictions on the service manual do absolutely nothing to protect your trade secrets if you put them in the service manual and the manual is available to everyone that lives in a state.�
Feb 5, 2015
mikeash I wonder if we could convince dealers that fighting Tesla on things like this would be more productive than trying to force them into franchising agreements they don't want. Let's get "Right to Repair" laws passed in every state! Dealers: you make more money off service than sales anyway, so just think of the cash you could make servicing Teslas if such a law were in place?�
Feb 5, 2015
markb1 Aren't dealers usually the side against right to repair? (Hey, further evidence that Tesla is wrong on this!) Dealers would rather not compete with independent shops.�
Feb 5, 2015
skboston They are, Right's To Repair law took quite a fight before becoming one, I hope MA sets the example and other states follow. It's nice to see that Tesla actually is complying with the law, I was left with the impression they are under the radar and aren't releasing this information yet.
I wonder what happens if someone downloads the information and shares it with the world.�
Feb 7, 2015
deonb No... Just no.
You can heat up a piece of metal with your car battery and burn yourself, but you can't "zap" yourself with a 12V car battery anymore than you can "zap" yourself with a 12v remote control battery.�
Feb 7, 2015
Gizmotoy Are you arguing that it's not possible to cause serious injury with a 12V car battery? They cause third degree burns *all the time*, sometimes badly enough to require skin grafts. Simply, a 12V battery pushing maybe half an amp is not comparable to a car battery pushing hundreds of amps, even at equivalent voltages.
If you're the slightest bit sweaty, or wearing jewelry, I can guarantee you that a 12V car battery is dangerous.�
Feb 7, 2015
deonb Current is drawn, not pushed. And Ohms law is not negotiable.
If your body resistance is at a certain level (let's say 1k - which means you are drenched in an electrolyte like saltwater), you will draw 12 milliamps from a 12v battery. It doesn't matter whether the 12V battery is the size of a coin, or the size of Texas - you will draw at most 12mA from it (I say at most, because a tiny battery may have a large ESR that will cause an internal voltage drop over low resistance, and thus prevents it from even delivering 12mA).
You only need 30 mA to kill you, which is far less than either a 12V car battery, remote control battery, or cellphone charger is capable of providing over low resistance. The reason it doesn't kill you is because you can't draw 30 mA from 12V through your skin - the resistance is too high.
I agree that with a 12V battery you can go and heat up something with low resistance, like a piece of metal, and burn yourself with that. That's not the same as zapping though. (I don't count burning myself on a warm stove plate to be 'zapping').
Sweating won't do it. Wearing jewelry - again you can melt or heat up the jewelry and get a burn from it. But again, not the same thing as zapping.�
Feb 7, 2015
Gizmotoy Well, I quite clearly never claimed it would kill. So essentially it boils down to a disagreement that I used the word "zap" to describe the sudden spark or burst of energy that accompanies being injured by a car battery. I mean, that's basically the precise definition of "zap" (it literally means a sudden occurrence often accompanied by a loud noise), but it's not really worth arguing over.�
Feb 7, 2015
deonb Ok, peace in that case
I meant 'zap' as in electrocution, where you would touch a + and a - voltage terminal and get an electrical shock.
Quite a few people take lots of care to make sure they don't touch the 12V terminals of a car battery, yet will show a careless attitude to the 400V 100uf capacitor right next to them.�
Feb 7, 2015
lolachampcar So you're telling me that all those Mel Gibson movies where the bad guys are getting ready to torture him with a car battery and jumper cables is BS???????
That is why they call it suspension of disbelief�
Feb 7, 2015
deonb Aww. I hope I didn't spoil Lethal Weapon for you!
You can always pretend that they had a 12V -> 500V boost converter between the battery and cable... and then also somehow found it necessary to ground one side of it so that Mr. Joshua can also get a shock from it.
It's always possible...�
Feb 8, 2015
FlasherZ One of my early lessons working in a blacksmith shop and full-service gasoline station was that you never wear rings - especially large high school class rings - while working on a car. It's more than a zap when negative terminal + wrench + ring + positive terminal meet, that I'll guarantee you.�
Feb 8, 2015
deonb Again, I agree it's not a good idea to touch pieces of hot and melting metal, or the plasma arc that forms as the leads get close to each other. It's also not a good idea to touch a blowtorch flame. But that's not the same thing as electrocution.
You can literally hold 12V terminals in your hand and weld with them if you don't get near the melting metal. See first minute of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDf2nhfxVzg
I've never felt anywhere near a noticeable current on my skin with a 12V car battery. Even dunking my hand into a saltwater solution. Tried it a bunch of times again yesterday - it just doesn't happen. Some people have said they feel a small tingle when you hold the leads onto the soft skin on their wrist if the skin is wet with saline, but I don't even feel that. You have to hold it on your tongue to feel anything.
I'm not saying 12V batteries aren't dangerous, and that it's a good idea to work on them with rings - they can heat up metal to the melting point, they can arc across close leads, they can release nasty gasses when shorted, they can fall on your head when you pull them off from a shelve... But they can't electrocute you.�
Feb 8, 2015
tga The first minute of that video is the best part. Also, see his encore at 3:00 - [email�protected] through a small piece of wire, held above body parts.
Don't try this at home, folks.�
Feb 8, 2015
linkster I have subscribed to your referenced Mehdi Sadaghdar's YouTube channel for quite some time. I have determined that he is an expert in many disciplines and I always study his educational and safety conscious tutorial vids before I embark on any home or automotive project. :crying:
How to change the brake pads of your car - YouTube�
Feb 8, 2015
tga I watched that, and thought, "This guy should be more careful. His car could fall off the jack and land on his foot. Oh, wait..."
Mehdi is either a masochist or a pretty decent cameraman; not sure which.
But to get back on topic - I posted this in the corresponding Roadster thread, but thought I'd add it here:
------------------
So they are granting access to the service manuals to MA residents under the right-to-repair law.
But the information is only one piece of the puzzle. Parts are key, too.
So the next question is, does the MA right-to-repair law compel Tesla to sell parts to MA residents?�
Feb 8, 2015
Pollux Also, does right to repair compel tesla to provide access to a car's diags? It so... How is that done?
hard to imagine being able to service the car without access to the diags.
�
Feb 16, 2015
Dennis87 I did buy access to the service manuals. But sadly the P85D service manual was not available for europe yet. The P85D parts catalog was
Is the service manual for P85D and specs available for US customers?�
Feb 16, 2015
apacheguy id be surprised if they maintained an entirely separate service manual just for the D. I mean it's essentially the same car except for the front motor and drive shaft, which nobody can service except for Tesla anyway.�
Feb 17, 2015
obrien28 I have been working a Model S CAN bus project recently (which I'm writing an Instructable for) so I ponied up the $100 for 24hrs worth of access. Lots of interesting stuff in the repair manual, you could probably strip the car down to the rivet using this guide, most images are CAD screenshots with a few real life ones mixed in, but overall quite nice quality. No information on what the various CAN ID's correspond to, or what their messages mean, so no luck on my end, but they did have detailed connector guides and schematics of everything in the car, which was somewhat helpful.
They really need to open this stuff up to all owners (not just MA) and not at these highway robbery prices, knowing how to change ones HVAC filter shouldn't require a $3,000/year fee to have access to repair info. BMW, Mercedes, Audi shop manuals are nowhere near this pricey (their parts are another story though). Even if they came out with a "lite" version stripped down for gear-head owners. It would be miles better then things are now, which is basically Apple's policy (even though I love the products and do repairs on them) not a dealer? "No Kool-Aid or Manual For You"�
Feb 17, 2015
FlasherZ Technically, at the moment Tesla doesn't have to comply with right-to-repair laws in Massachusetts, I posted about it here:
My P85 Salvage Story - Help! - Page 2
...but it's likely that things will change, so Tesla may as well get a jump start on it.�
Apr 8, 2015
Mark77a Jack Richard, EVTV, reviews the Tesla FULL workshop manuals (from MASS)
(1:17 + > EVTV Friday Show - April 3, 2015 - YouTube )�
Apr 8, 2015
lolachampcar Man this guy is terribly painful to listen to
I am curious to see if the motor/inverter requires any type of (RSA based) authentication over the CAN before it will accept the dual pot throttle torque demand input.�
Apr 10, 2015
JRP3 merge with Service Manual Subscriptions
I hadn't seen this posted, Jack Rickard mentioned it in his latest video.
https://service.teslamotors.com/
Supposed to only be for people in Massachusetts, but he found that putting in a Mass. zip for the billing address of the CC works.�
Apr 10, 2015
In2oil i wonder how much information one car retrieve in one Hour. Can you print or download the info from your TESLA.
Great Post thanks JRP3.
JB�
Apr 10, 2015
thegruf great spot (well I hadn't seen it before)
This alone has taken away one important hurdle to me purchasing.
In fact I am visiting the Tesla store tomorrow.
You may even be able to take a bit of credit for a new sale
Now wonder if they will sell parts outside the Tesla S/Cs�
Apr 10, 2015
obrien28 Actually it was already posted a while back in the Model S general forum, I paid for 24hr worth of access and boy was I impressed, full schematics, parts diagrams, service bulletins, everything but the CAN.dbc, for both the Roadster and Model S. While the site is meant to be viewed in a web browser if you are handy with wget then you could theoretically download the whole service manual in an hour or two. I'm not sure if Tesla would be too pleased considering the HUGE profit they are probably making (I mean $3,000 a year for access, I have built a lot of websites and they don't cost that much to maintain, especially when you need it for your own service departments) just look at the numbers $3,000/yr X ~350 people, with a conservative estimate thats slightly over $1M in revenue, plus they give it away for free if you are an approved collision center. Don't get me wrong, I think charging money is fair, but that much is just crazy, even more so if your not a repair center.�
Apr 10, 2015
glhs272 Glorious! A huge concern of mine has been lifted!�
Apr 10, 2015
green1 Looks like the "you aren't allowed to service it anywhere but with us" business model was found to not comply with Massachusetts law. But instead of doing the right thing and letting people anywhere work on the vehicle that they bought and paid for, Tesla decided to go the big business anti-consumer method of allowing access only in the one state that's called them out on it so far.
Hopefully enough other places have right to repair legislation that can force Tesla to do the right thing anywhere.
As for the cost of the access. I bet it's expensive because they don't want people accessing it, not because they want to make a profit. They probably talked to legal to find out how much of a barrier they could put up to access to this data without running afoul of Massachusetts law.�
Apr 10, 2015
lolachampcar if you think Tesla is expensive, do not even think about a McLaren�
Apr 10, 2015
wk057 I've seen the docs on the service site while I was in MA. They're completely useless.
The majority of the procedures include instructions for doing something in Tesla "Toolbox" software which is no where to be found.
Disappointed, and I hope an MA owner presses this.�
Apr 10, 2015
lolachampcar I believe the Mas. Law requires ALL tools to be made available. Other MFGs have software that runs using a Pass Through Programmer for communication.�
Apr 10, 2015
wk057 Definitely interesting considering their software tool is needed for ar least 4 our of 5 procedures.
My cousin and I got the 24 hour pass and were digging through everything the whole time. Definitely no where to get it.�
Apr 10, 2015
skboston I had a tech yesterday at my home replacing the door handle and at the same time was installing again 6.2.2 and when I asked him why, he said when you replace a door handle the firmware must be re-installed, which was odd to me, but he said that's the procedure.
Half way in the update, he noticed the car isn't accepting the firmware and after a few seconds he realized the car is connected to my Wi-Fi network, which prohibits the update to go through.
I asked him why exactly and he said that each time you load a firmware on the car, it has to be connected to Tesla's network and only then the server on the other side will allow the update to be uploaded through the laptop even though it's connected directly to the car. If there is no Car-Laptop-Tesla Server connection through their network update on the car is impossible.
OTA obviously is a different story.
He also said that is a bit tricky in areas with no cell coverage.
Not only that even for basic stuff like door handles you need to re-install firmware, you need permission from the Tesla server in order to do any work on the car. It makes those service manuals worthless for the most part, unless you have those proprietary software solutions used by Tesla.�
Apr 10, 2015
WillAustin They'll do whatever they can to make sure nobody is homebrewing any software changes.�
Apr 12, 2015
FlasherZ Could you please give me a pointer to the case reference where it was found not to comply with MA law?
Upthread, I specifically noted how Tesla easily defeats the law as written.
But moreover, your suggestion that "letting people anywhere work on the {object} that they bought and paid for" is rather ludicrous when we talk about advanced technology, only because you seem to suggest that Tesla should effectively hand out its proprietary information. I suppose you also believe Microsoft should have to hand you the source code to Windows and Office so that you can work on it as well, and perhaps Smith & Wesson should have to give you their manufacturing tooling data so that you can recast a barrel to your shotgun after it rusted.
See? The intention of the law is not to go that far - it's to address things like replacing more commodity components. The law is also designed to protect trade secrets, of which you could argue that most of Tesla's technology falls into right now.
I believe that Tesla intends to offer what it can to Massachusetts third parties along the spirit of the law, without compromising its intellectual property, which the law specifically protects. I did mention where there might be a hole requiring Tesla to make available some details.
However, emotionally, there are some here who don't agree with that stance because they're engineering types and are hungry for deep details of the vehicle they love. They're misapplying the intent of the Massachusetts law, in an attempt to get more details. Bottom line - Tesla doesn't have to give it up. This isn't Richard Stallman's technology communism utopia.�
Apr 12, 2015
jerry33 That's an interesting argument and covers the majority of software and firmware.
However, I can go to Toyota's website, pay a nominal fee ($15 for unlimited 24 hours was the last I heard), and download all the information on the Prius (it's not that easy because it requires downloading each individual PDF, and there are many--but it can be done. I've even done it for some sections). Yes, there are a number of items for which a THHT is required ($7K last I heard but that was a few years ago) so you'd have to be very interested to do that and it would preclude doing some repairs if you didn't have it, but the informations is available. I suspect that Toyota's intellectual property is of as much concern to Toyota as Tesla's is to Tesla.
Admittedly Tesla has a bigger problem than Toyota in that the THHT is proprietary hardware and Tesla just uses a laptop, so it's easier to copy Tesla's application, but getting the manual shouldn't be restricted any more than Toyota's is.�
Apr 12, 2015
lolachampcar I read Right to Repair as providing the owner and independent shops with the ability to repair the car. I believe the number of frustrated salvage buyers out there speaks to the lack of ability to repair.
.
.
Of course, it could come down to what the definition of is is should Tesla want to play that game.�
Apr 12, 2015
thegruf THe EU also have "Block Exemption Legislation"
eg http://iautouk.com/car-block-exemption-laws/
which require manufacturers to make information available outside franchised dealers.
Apart from the semantics, the intent is clear, and the only difference with the Tesla is the potential lethal exposure to high voltages.
But then that is down to any service centre top assess risk and ensure staff are adequately trained.
Regarding IP - didn't Elon recent open source all that anyway?�
Apr 12, 2015
lolachampcar He opened up use of Tesla patents; a completely different thing than IP.
Patents are only as good as your willingness to file suit.�
Apr 12, 2015
thegruf IP <> patents
fair comment - my bad�
Apr 12, 2015
FlasherZ Whlie Tesla has a laptop, part of the car interacts with Tesla's network, something that really isn't done on any other automobile at this moment. That's also going to be an interesting sticking point - will Tesla have to register anyone who wants to be able to play with his/her car on Tesla's internal, proprietary network admin tools?
There are some novel questions that I imagine will be settled over the next few years with regard to how manufacturers design and build. The architecture of the ICE is pretty standard. Despite the differences, the basic designs have been the same for many years. It makes sense, then, to allow for a wide playing field to do work on the commodity. Tesla doesn't have a commodity. It may *look* like another car but it's an entirely new thing, altogether. ("It's an entirely new thing.")
The Tesla, however, is a new beast, one which requires special training. It's no different than any other technology field. The interpretation that some here are offering, as I posted above, would be the equivalent of requiring Microsoft to release Windows source so that you could "work" on Windows. Instead, what you're likely to see, is what happened to TV repair over the years: my uncle was a long time TV and radio repairman, expert on the oscilloscope and able repairer of anything electronic; now the job's largely been relegated to step 1) turn TV on; step 2) see what its diagnostics indicate; step 3) replace indicated component; step 4) repeat until no more indicated failures. He doesn't get any specialized knowledge of the brands he sells. He gets the most basic of "service manuals" that just tell him to do that 4-step process.
The basis of "right to repair" was that one set of independently-owned shops ("franchised dealers", of which Tesla have none) was getting access to tools based on contracts, and another set of independently-owned shops ("independent repair facilities") couldn't get the same access to compete. Tesla's model has no independently-owned components.
I think such laws might help people who can't get certain parts from Tesla... that may be one of the positives. But I see great danger in forcing Tesla to open up its intellectual property in a Richard Stallman fantasy world.�
Apr 12, 2015
lolachampcar I keep seeing this "IP" and "source code" argument. I do not buy it.
I've used many a diagnostic tool on many different systems. MS is no different than any other mfg.'s diag package in that it exercises systems, initializes bits and re-programs (or requests such from the mother ship) modules. That is all a service diagnostic tool does.
The idea that the MB tech Tesla just hired away from the local dealership needs or has access to module or back end source code to do his job simply does not stand up to the intellectual curiosity standards I've come to expect from you Flasher.�
Apr 12, 2015
FlasherZ Well, it's a balance. I'm an engineer at heart and so I enjoy knowing what makes the car tick. I enjoy the tear-downs that are done, and knowing how things are engineered. At the same time, the business bone in me says that Tesla has a right to manage its own intellectual property.
I don't believe there should be a law requiring Tesla to disclose every one of its trade secrets under the auspices of "right to repair". That's never been a standard in consumer goods - while "no user serviceable parts inside" has never stopped me from replacing bad power supply caps, it also means that not just any average handyman with a Craftsman wrench can handle the job.
I point to your quote as the first example of exactly what should not happen:
Now, I want to let you know I'm not taking that out of context by suggesting that you are doing this, since you say that's one thing they need to prevent, but there are a few threads on here who are indeed trying to use the MA right to repair law as a weapon to get them that information. I pointed out in another thread to the armchair lawyers that the MA law, as written, does not apply to Tesla. So those who think that evil Tesla is being forced by good government to release its specifications so that they can drop the microphone on the 45-page, "691-HP or not?" thread probably need to look elsewhere.
As another point, I'll copy this from the other thread - MA does require, beginning for 2018, that manufacturers do provide diagnostic information, regardless of their dealer model:
It's still unclear to what level this applies to Tesla, though - "dealer" is specifically defined in that law such that it doesn't apply to Tesla, so it makes the requirements for information rather unclear.
In summary, I do believe that Tesla should 1) make parts available to anyone who can afford to buy them; 2) allow for diagnostics more than just Apple's "(sad mac) sorry, a system error occurred. <reboot>" approach - specifically, they should be able to tell you where the fault occurred so that you might simply replace the faulty part; 3) provide enough information to replace identical parts and turn them on (but not perform upgrades). Any reverse engineering beyond that should not be on Tesla but rather on those of us who are interested. Those who want to use MA's law to do that lose their argument (IMO), though, because it just doesn't apply here -- that law is designed to give an even playing field for independently-owned, manufacturer-affiliated and independently-owned, non-manufacturer-affiliated repair shops of a commodity product (the ICE car).�
Apr 12, 2015
green1 I can't, however tesla seems to be admitting it by allowing access to this info in MA and nowhere else. There is no other reason they would choose to allow just MA access, they'd either give our to everyone or no one.�
Apr 12, 2015
dhrivnak There are MANY things that can go wrong in a car that has nothing to do with high voltage. Every car I have owned I have been able to buy a shop manual. They have come in handy more than once. Now I need to contact the Rangers for pictures of how to fix or repair something. They can save time by allowing me to self service.
And high voltage is no more dangerous than a tank of fuel. Actually it appears to be an order of magnitude less dangerous.�
Apr 12, 2015
lolachampcar Flasher,
I understand your argument and I am not advocating the release of diag capability to facilitate reverse engineering.
My points were simply that (1) the Mas. law requires manufacturers to allow independent service shops AND individuals the ability to service Tesla product. That includes diag software as the car can not be properly serviced without it. Secondly, diag software is not source code.
Your point about the diag software potentially being used to reverse engineer module communication is spot on. If it were me, I would be sniffing CAN traffic while executing targeted diag communications with things like the battery and motor/inverter pair to isolate the desired CAN messages and decipher the return data in those messages (by comparing raw to engineering units provided in the diag screen). The fact that diag software can, and likely will, be used to reverse engineer the car's systems does not and should not absolve Tesla of its responsibility to provide such software. The owner's right to repair by his own hand or that of a non-Tesla shop trumps Tesla's interest in protecting their diag software from being used to reverse engineer.
There are a myriad of ways to use authentication for diag to car and module to module communication that can be used to effectively slow or even prevent reverse engineering.�
Apr 12, 2015
FlasherZ That is not "found to be in violation" or "admitting it". That's not how law works. Until there's case law or a written contract, those statements simply aren't true.
If that were the case, Tesla would be required to make a lot more information and tools available for sale to MA buyers. It seems to be supplying enough information to show MA that they really don't need to require Tesla to offer its tools to others.
- - - Updated - - -
Actually, the MA law does not require all manufacturers to offer service shops and individuals the ability to service the product. If you read the law, you'll find it doesn't apply to Tesla, in several different directions:
#1. "dealer" is expressly defined as an independently-owned franchise who purchases a license to use the manufacturer's mark for the purpose of selling the manufacturer's vehicle. Sections 1 & 2 require Tesla to provide to individuals and independent shops only the information they sell to "dealers". As Tesla has no "dealers" by the scope of the law, it is not required at all to offer anything.
#2. Section 3 says "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require a manufacturer to divulge a trade secret." A greater majority of Tesla's technology can be classified as a trade secrets.
The law also expressly disclaims all non-diagnostic information and telematics information. So I suppose you could make the argument it's a good idea all-around to make those diag screens available, but the provisioning/programming laptop is probably out of scope.
See 2013 Right to Repair Law | Massachusetts Right to Repair for the specific language of the law.�
Apr 12, 2015
apacheguy Besides the legal argument, I do think Tesla will eventually need to release service manuals. Everyone else seems to so I don't see why we should give Tesla a pass on this one. As more and more cars come out of warranty, folks shouldn't be limited to Tesla SvC for all repairs.�
Apr 12, 2015
breser Massachusetts is the only state with a right to repair law at all. It could be that Tesla's lawyers concluded that the law did apply to them. It could be they just wanted to avoid a potential suit over not complying. It could be they fear negative publicity over not complying, even if they technically don't have to. It could be they just are trying to comply with the spirit, even though they've concluded the letter doesn't apply to them. It could be they figure not complying will result in another initiative resulting in legislation that does apply to them.
I didn't say your theory had no value, in fact I think there are plenty of reasonable theories. What I did say was we don't know for sure and that your tone was uncalled for. This is a discussion board, so let's discuss this. But there's absolutely no reason to be condescending about something that none of us can prove.�
Apr 12, 2015
FlasherZ ...over time, the technologies underlying the car will begin to standardize - such as locations for HV disable cut-loops, etc. This is where these types of manuals will be necessary. My point was that those people who are trying to gain access to this service information, expecting to learn about the deep details (e.g., so they can wind their own motors or wire in their own cameras, etc.) are going to be disappointed in many if not most cases. And there will be independent service facilities who can replace modules in the car. Tesla's warranty makes it a non-issue for most owners right now, though.
There will be a requirement in 2018, depending upon how you read the MA law. As to how far Tesla believes it needs to go? No one knows.
- - - Updated - - -
I agree that it was inappropriate. However, the original quote said this:
"was found" has a specific determination to it, meaning that it was determined by an administrative agency or court of law. I asked for a specific reference to how it "was found" to be that way, and the argument changed to "well, Tesla wouldn't have done it unless it was the case", to which I argued the same argument breser makes -- that perhaps they were considering optics, or anticipating a future change to law, or perhaps just wanted to store a bit of political capital with Massachusetts since that's where they had a lot of fights in the past.
But "was found"? No. Even a lay person reading the law and the definitions (linked above) would reach the conclusions. To think that Tesla can't read that dealer is defined as "any person or business who, in the ordinary course of its business, sells or leases new motor vehicles to consumers or other end users pursuant to a franchise agreement and who has obtained a class 1 license pursuant to sections 58 and 59 of chapter 140 and diagnoses, services, maintains or repairs motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines pursuant to said franchise agreement" and read the definition of "franchise agreement" as "an oral or written arrangement for a definite or indefinite period in which a manufacturer or distributor grants to a motor vehicle dealer a license to use a trade name, service mark or related characteristic and in which there is a community of interest in the marketing of new motor vehicles or services related thereto at wholesale, retail, leasing or otherwise" is not cutting them much slack at all.�
Apr 12, 2015
green1 I said "was found" I never said "by a court of law"
But you're determined to read what you want in to it, by all means, go ahead.
Seems pretty straight forward to me. MA law has right to repair, Tesla doesn't want to go to court over it.�
Apr 24, 2015
JRP3 In his latest video Jack claims that Tesla is suing him and forced youtube to take down the video where he discusses this. Jack thinks he has a good fair use case and will be counter suing. I'm 100% with Jack on this one. Jack has the temperament and the finances to mount a good case.�
Apr 24, 2015
qwk While I've disagreed with Jack a whole lot in the past, I agree with him 100% on this also. If Tesla want's to SELL cars, they need to support their customers. Otherwise they need to stop selling, and just lease(good luck with that). Furthermore, while Tesla has great service, the actual repair work sucks, as my car is going in the 3rd time next week, for the same problems. With that kind of track record, making a case for not allowing self-repair is going to be tough.�
Apr 24, 2015
bonnie (fyi - I always read 'was found' as 'by some agency or court'.)
Easy enough to resolve ... when you said 'was found', who was it found by?�
Apr 24, 2015
lolachampcar Right to repair is one thing.... Right to use repair documentation to reverse engineer is not the same thing in my book. Although I may not be taking Tesla's side on this, I can better understand the argument for not supporting reverse engineering as, mark my words, some day someone will have one of their hair brained projects result in a fire or an accident. All the news will be able to say is a Tesla this or a Tesla that. At no time will anyone report that dumbA** XYZ used perfectly safe parts in a bad way to bring about his/her own demise (assuming Darwin is at work).
Again, not sure I can support it but at least I understand it.�
Apr 24, 2015
Danal Do I own my car or not?
It really is that simple.�
Apr 24, 2015
Rockster In Tesla's Code of Business Conduct, the first sentence of Section 1 (Compliance with Laws, Rules and Regulations) is: "Obeying the law, both in letter and in spirit, is the foundation on which this Company's ethical standards are built."
This suggests that Tesla is interested in following the spirit of the law, even if a strict interpretation argues that the law doesn't apply to them.�
Apr 24, 2015
bonnie There are plenty of things that I own that 1) only run executable code, and 2) for which I don't have a right to source code or diagnostic tools.
I'm not saying what Tesla should do here or not, only pointing out that *owning* something gives you the right to use it, destroy it, sell it, etc. It doesn't give you the right to have everything that went into the making of it, so that you can modify it.�
Apr 24, 2015
markb1 Can you reference the point in his video where he talks about it? The intro to his video is longer than most YouTube videos! (No exaggeration!)
- - - Updated - - -
Found it!
EVTV Friday Show - April 17, 2015 - YouTube
Someone mercifully posted this in the YouTube contents. Now can anyone point to the part of the previous video that Tesla is apparently suing over?�
Apr 24, 2015
FlasherZ This is somewhat discussed in another thread, too:
Trade secrets are expressly protected by the MA law, so anything internal to the car and its operation (other than simply replacing modules or flashing packaged firmware) is likely not going to be disclosed as part of "right to repair".
Do We Own Our Vehicles? General Motors Says No. - Page 3�
Apr 24, 2015
JRP3 That video has been taken down from youtube. You can still download the original from Jack's EVTV.ME website in the video archive section. The exact time stamp for that video was posted earlier in this thread.
Actually it wasn't posted in this thread, my mistake. Too many threads, and vidoes :redface:�
Apr 24, 2015
apacheguy Agree that media/public perception is playing a role here. But Tesla keeping a lid on it can only continue for so long. Eventually, with more cars coming out of warranty, the incentive will be removed for folks not to tinker with their cars. It'll happen eventually and I think Tesla ought to come to terms with it just like every other car manufacturer has.�
Apr 24, 2015
markb1 Well, I don't think Tesla has much to worry about, in this case, because this guy's videos are unwatchable! But seriously, dick move, Tesla!�
Apr 24, 2015
yobigd20 my god I can't watch anymore of his video, it's like scraping nails on a chalkboard. asdlkghkawegnlkawenglkgn awlfglke jw.egw.w.............�
Apr 24, 2015
tga I can think of a bunch, just in my kitchen (microwave, refrigerator, range, heck even my toaster oven). But none of these manufacturers refuse to sell a service manual or parts to non-factory/non-authorized repair personnel.
You left out "repairing", which is key to the discussion. As far as I'm concerned, if you own something, you should have the right to have anyone, including yourself, repair it. I can do a brake job on a car without reverse engineering the ABS system and decompiling the embedded code in the ABS controller, but I have to be able to get the parts (and possibly the instructions, if there's something unusual about the job).
Not that car manufactures haven't been making this difficult for years; long before the Deere/DMCA silliness discussed over here Porsche made it hard for independent shops to get a PST2 tester and only then for something like $15k and (IIRC) Mercedes wouldn't release a lot of service info, which (again, IIRC) was part of the push behind Mass right-to-repair.�
Apr 24, 2015
FlasherZ I think I made it 5 minutes into one of his videos once. I suspect it will be just as futile to point out that MA's right-to-repair law doesn't apply to Tesla. And pressing harder will just make Tesla separate its service information into two chunks -- those "pretty circuit diagrams" he talks about will be restricted to Tesla engineering, and the only documents available will be of the kind that have a 1-page flow:
Step 1. Disconnect connector from module, P/N 135001.
Step 2. Remove 4 bolts holding module in place.
Step 3. Remove module.
Step 4. Install module, using 4 M6x12 bolts.
Step 5. Re-connect connector to module.
Step 6. Using the touchscreen, use service diagnostic 001, reprogram firmware, to install firmware on the newly-installed module.
How... valuable.
(I do agree that parts should be made available, provided that they can be validated and tied to a car.)�
Apr 24, 2015
wk057 That schematic above is the high voltage interlock loop wiring. Actually a pretty important safety feature of an EV in general. In particular that diagram shows that the battery pack brain is in charge of this safety feature, which is pretty cool.
The diagrams like this on the service site are actually pretty nice and would be helpful with any repairs involving wiring.
Unfortunately the majority of the procedures require Tesla's diagnostic software, which is not available on the service site.
So, let's say I smash my door and want to repair it. I order the parts from Tesla, they send them to me. I follow all of the procedures to replace the door, door handle, etc. Now I physically have everything connected and installed correctly... but my door is useless.
Why? At the very and of the procedure for this particular procedure it explains how to use Tesla's Toolbox software to flash firmware on to the door control modules when they're installed.
So bottom line, this is completely useless for actually repairing the vehicle since nearly everything requires this unavailable software. This shows that even a pretty basic repair is impossible using the documentation exposed without their software. There are many other things with the same issue. Replace damaged parking sensors? Reflash the park assist module. Repair the power lift gate? Oh yeah, that needs flashing too. Replace parking brake hardware? Flash! Replace main screen(s)! Double flash! Audio amp? Flash!
I'm not talking about reverse engineering here. While that'd be cool, I don't expect Tesla to facilitate that. But if I want to do a simple repair like replace my door myself (something I have done on other vehicles in the past without any issue)... why the heck can't I?�
Apr 24, 2015
lolachampcar We seem to be mixing a bunch of issues into one big pot then responding to them in mass.
As I see it-
Tesla should make their manuals and repair information available to all owners.
Tesla should not be required to make their manuals, schematics and repair info available to hackers trying to reverse engineering the communication protocols for the drive train. Mind you, I want this. I'm excited about the potential of building a rail around that motor/inverter/dif unit. I'd also like to know how to talk to the battery so I can one day use it as part of a home PV/inverter system. I just do not think Tesla has any responsibility to provide that kind of information to me.
I can understand why Tesla went after some (really painfully boring) dude on the internet openly flaunting and publishing Tesla's repair documentation without their permission. Anyone think this guy had to click an acceptance stating he was in Mass and was purchasing the information for the correct purposes? I do not know for sure but I would guess he did. There is a good chance that what the guy did was wrong and Tesla simply called him out on it.
If you have an issue with something that is happening, please point to exactly which point you are commenting on. I often learn from other's point of view which is why I hang here but it has been a bit difficult to follow some of the arguments on this thread.�
Apr 24, 2015
wk057 Yes. I've used the service site (via a relative in MA) and there are multiple pages of agreements to click through to get to the documentation, all of which basically says "If you copy this anywhere, your a** is grass." And each diagram and document is branded with similar legalese which says it shouldn't be copied (easily visible in the one posted which even goes as far to say that it is a "confidential trade secret" of Tesla's).
While I think there probably is a fair use argument to perhaps show some of the site itself... I'm not sure if Tesla's ToS or whatever is legally able to supersede "fair use"... I'm not a lawyer. It's not an NDA on the service site or anything, so, not really sure how that'll go. Good luck to him, though, since I think every owner should just have this documentation available under "My Tesla" as it is.�
Apr 24, 2015
Gizmotoy Would not the first statement immediately apply to the second? What do you see as the dividing line? Certainly there's no reasonable way to provide the service manuals only to those falling outside the definition of "hacker." Conversely, hackers wanting to learn communications protocols aren't the type to wait for manuals, as we've seen through the efforts of yourself (nice charge port fob!), those sniffing Ethernet traffic, and many others.
The lack of service manuals only really harms owners who must visit Tesla/approved shops for out-of-warranty service, and provides Tesla with only a flimsy shield against those interested in how the car works. It's entirely possible that not sharing the manuals is more dangerous.
What's interesting from recent news is that Tesla notably didn't stand behind the DMCA with the other auto manufacturers (Carmakers Want To Use Copyright Law To Make Working On Your Car Illegal) regarding firmware, but yet they clearly agree fully with the sentiment. I wonder why there's a disconnect.�
Apr 24, 2015
lolachampcar I think Tesla has a duty to owners to make maintenance documentation available so that we can support our cars ourselves or use outside third party shops if we choose.
I did not for a minute think Tesla had any duty to provide me service or design related documentation so that I could reverse engineer the charge port fob data packet. That is on me. If I can figure it out on my own, good for me. If I'm not smart enough, then I can not build a fob. Either way, Tesla has absolutely no obligation to support my effort.
This is what I meant by separating the points for which you are taking issue. I agree on manuals/docs for service. I do not agree that Tesla has any obligation to support hacking as I see service and hacking as two very different things.
This is just my view and I am open to other's viewpoint.�
Apr 24, 2015
thegruf I am not understanding why Tesla think they are in a different position to any other auto manufacturer.
Okay there is one difference - the potentially lethal high voltages within the vehicle, but there again putting your hand into the alternator belt of a running ICE can have a negative outcome too.
Every aspect of every vehicle can in theory be reverse engineered, mechanical or electronics.
Tesla do not have a monopoly on the concept of IP, every manufacturer has IP they want to protect.
Firmware is possibly the most difficult to reverse engineer, depending on your point of view.
Coding modules is nothing new, pretty much all manufacturers do this anyway.
And tools are made available for precisely this.
Tesla are treading a very fine line between innovative and forward thinking, and restrictive practices.
The latter will get increasingly difficult to defend and eventually the brand will be smeared by repeated legal challenges.
Cant speak for you guys in the US but Europe (eventually) can get pretty feisty about restrictive practices, and even as things stand now I can see reason for inquiry.
I have said before, and dont mind repeating that Tesla have a real opportunity to really rip up the rule book and put the rest of the established auto industry into all sorts of difficulty by opening up, in a controlled way, ongoing maintenance of these cars.
New owners will flock to a brand they see as offering a genuine alternative to long term maintenance, residuals will remain strong and the eco benefits stronger.
Protectionism always ends badly.�
Apr 24, 2015
Danal We will have to agree to disagree, because you don't own them."Everything that went into the making of it" is quite different from "ability to self maintain and modify".
For example: Manufacturers have in the past used fasteners that required tools that are not commonly available. Hex or Star with a stud in the middle (so the driver has to have a hole), tri-screws, etc. In today's day and age, these tools are commonly available. Heck, even Amazon, who is not exactly the tip of the spear in rebellion, sells them.
Do you believe these should be banned?
If you believe they should be sold, help me see the spectrum between them, and service manuals for a car.
- - - Updated - - -
thegruf, I'm in agreement with your overall points. I'd go so far as to say Tesla is quite far on the wrong side of that line by not making their maintenance manuals available. In fact, if I'd fully realized they don't, I'm not absolutely certain I would have purchased the car.
It is quite literally the ONLY new car I've ever purchased for which I do NOT have the factory supplied maintenance manuals.�
Apr 24, 2015
yobigd20 They can follow the Apple way and say we don't own the software which AFAIK apple's won those suits many times.�
Apr 24, 2015
JRP3 I don't think Tesla needs to provide assistance to anyone who wants to hack or reverse engineer their systems. I do think repair manuals showing component replacement, along with any diagnostics that may be required to do the job, should be available. My problem with the legal action against Jack in this case is that it seems to be similar to someone who buys a book being sued for copying a page or two for use as examples for commentary. I'm not a lawyer but it would seem to fall under fair use, but maybe I'm wrong.�
Apr 24, 2015
qwk FYI, quite a few of those replacements you listed will work fine without new firmware. Major components, especially different revisions are a different story.�
Apr 24, 2015
FlasherZ Fair use only covers material you were licensed to have in the first place. You can't steal trade secrets / private documents from a company using misrepresentation, then claim fair use to redistribute it or talk about it widely. If your license to the copyrighted material is contingent upon not redistributing it, no amount of "fair use" claims will save you.�
Apr 24, 2015
JRP3 Jack did pay for access, though may have entered the wrong zip code number, by accident of course. I suppose that could be a problem.�
Apr 24, 2015
lolachampcar and likely clicked on an OK saying he would not do what he turned right around and did. I suspect this is the crux of the issue.�
Apr 24, 2015
wk057 Just going by what Tesla's documentation says.
Also, another fun thing: you can't bleed coolant lines without their software. lol.�
Apr 24, 2015
qwk What I find interesting is Elon's release of the patents to other automakers, goes against everything that Tesla is doing in regard to their technology. Kind of like the moniker that EV's need no maintenance, yet Tesla cars have a recommended $600 annual maintenance cost. Actions speak way louder than words.....�
Apr 24, 2015
wk057 The patents thing seemed more like a publicity thing than anything to me.
The $600/yr maintenance plan is actually not such a bad deal, IMO. Deals with brake fluid, coolant, transmission fluid (yes, we have transmission fluid that is good for something like 12 years/150k miles), pano roof maintenance (clean drain lines, grease rails, calibrate the two motors), wiper blades, general diagnostics, cabin air filter, A/C charge and desiccant bag, tire rotation, torque suspension components, torque steering gear, wheel alignment, clean radiators, plus inspection and checking of a bunch of other components like the frunk latch. I'm pretty sure the service plan include brake work also... not that it's needed often.
Basically a bunch of stuff that you probably should have done to any vehicle annually, but most people don't do. I'm happy to let Tesla pick up my car once per year and take care of it.�
Apr 24, 2015
markb1 Having a license is not required. Certainly you can't steal it, but if someone else does, you might be able to get away with publishing parts of it under fair use. Case in point: Sony Pictures.�
Apr 24, 2015
skboston FYI, I had my door handles replaced and while this was fairly simple procedure and took about 20min in my driveway, the firmware update that was required took about 30 minutes more and yes you must re-install the latest firmware if you're replacing a simple thing like a door handle.
Almost anything you do on a Tesla requires an update to it's firmware, let alone you must have an approval of the server in Tesla HQ before an firmware install is allowed on the car, in other words if your car isn't connected to the 3G network and communicates with Tesla HQ, you can't do a firmware update.
As an example, when the technician tried to install the firmware from the laptop directly connected to the car, he couldn't do it and at first glance he was surprised, but then realized my car was connected to my Wi-Fi at home. He explained it to me that the car needs an "approval" from the Tesla server on a secure network (think the 3G connection in the car) before any firmware updates/re-installs happen. He also said it's quite the task to do in areas with no signal coverage.
All of this trouble for a stupid door handle replacement....
I love Tesla and what they do, but this game with us being forced to bring our cars to Tesla for even the smallest thing frustrates me quite a bit.
If I want to work on my car, I be able to do so and that's as simple as it should be.
Right now, everything is fine as my car is still under warranty, but I'm worried that in an year or so it won't be and I will have to pay the crazy $175 per hour labor rate for even the smallest thing.
Let's face it, the car is amazing, but has many flaws and components of it seem to fail quite a bit, my next service visit has 7 things that the car needs fixing and it just broke 20k miles. I've never had this with any other vehicle in similar mileage and if I did have something I could fix it myself.
I don't need a software approval to replace something minor.
The sad reality is that everything companies make these days is designed to be complicated on purpose, just so the average Joe can't work on it and fix it for 1/10 the cost. I don't buy the crap that companies tell us that it's wicked expensive to replace a battery or brake pads for example.
In this department I'd say Tesla is the worst as everything is controlled by software at every step and no outsider has access to the tools and Tesla charges crazy labor rate if it's out of warranty issue and many cars on the road today are/or about to enter that part of their life.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét