Apr 25, 2015
Red Sage Man. I don't remember if I replied on this thread before or not... I remember doing so on a thread at the Tesla Motors site once or twice... But man, the Hater-Ade seems strong with this thread!
There is an old saying that goes, "This is why we can't have nice things." I think it applies here. There are people who desperately want Tesla Motors to fail. Those people are willing to do anything, even blatantly lie about their actions, in order to discredit the products Tesla offers. Those people will manufacture 'defects' then sue under local lemon laws. Those people will host 'demonstrations' of the supposed inherent danger of high voltage electricity that fries kittens. Those people will swear their children developed autism as a direct result of exposure to the magnetic field from the drivetrain.
Tesla Motors knows [DURNED] well the position they are in: Beset on all sides by those that want to see them destroyed at any cost. Surrounded by those who have come to realize that this company may actually succeed and thrive rather than die on the vine as hoped. Plotted against by sinister forces who predicted their failure and may now wish to help along their prophetic expectations in some divine, or nefarious fashion.
Tesla Motors is protecting themselves against a viable threat. Threats posed by the sinister, the greedy, and the stupid. Sure, you may not be among them. You may be an honest tinker, good with your hands, happy to tweak and wrench and adjust automotive hardware to fit your own needs in a responsible fashion. That doesn't mean you have an inalienable right to the benefit of the doubt in that regard... at this time.
If you really truly want to protest Tesla Motors being 'restrictive' you may adequately voice that position by NOT buying their products for the next couple of decades. I'm sure that by then you'll be able to get full service on a Tesla Motors vehicle at the Midas, Pep Boys, or AAMCO of your choice. By then AutoZone and NAPA Parts stores nationwide will be able to give you off-the-shelf components to maintain or modify electric cars to your heart's content. Come the Summer of 2035 you will even be able to trust the automotive service departments at Walmart, Sam's Club, Sears, or Costco to profesionally provide exemplary care for your Tesla. And the Tricorder App on your Apple� Holographic OmniTool� i9-S will provide all the diagnostic data you could hope for in a moment's notice while doing your own shade tree mechanic work on an old Model S that you trailer out to Pomona Speedway every other weekend.
Be patient.�
Apr 25, 2015
wk057 I'm not sure what any of this really has to do with basic service and diagnostic info being made available.
Also, in your future Apple still exists, which is a problem for me.
�
Apr 25, 2015
thegruf lol.
Sure there may be Tesla haters, there's Ford haters and Toyota haters too, but for me that is not the issue being discussed here.
Further I can entirely understand in modern electronics that parts need to be "coded" to the system, even that HQ needs to be informed of changes (build a very powerful component reliability index if nothing else)
The wider issue is maintenance of these cars outside warranty, with a new manufacturer pushing technology potentially resulting in higher than average unreliability, I contend that crippling service costs will be very damaging to the brand, hit residuals hard and have a negative overall bearing.
One track is ongoing maintenance contracts thoughout the life of the vehicle, but I see no reason why in a controlled manner and without jeopardising IP, Tesla cant release service tools to permit sensible replacement of parts to help owners manage the maintenance costs once outside warranty period.
The easier and chepaer the vehicles are to maintain, the stronger the residuals and the stronger the new vehicle offer.
In adddition, the type of owner that can perform reasonable maintenance commonly tend to be strong ambassadors for the brand.�
Apr 25, 2015
Red Sage Wow. I gotta say, that is a convoluted, speculative, demeaning load of [BORSHT]. At least you used some qualifiers. But the statement leads to the fundamental conclusion that you don't trust the technology, or the company that put it together. Anyone with that attitude is not likely to be satisfied, even if all their demands are met. Please, if you own a Tesla product, sell it immediately. You would be better served by having something that meets your expectation of unavoidable failure.
In retail anything that makes life easier for consumers also makes things easier for criminals. With networked computers the primary rule is, 'Don't trust the client.' When it comes to automobiles, people who claim they 'only want to do routine maintenance' are often the same ones who say, "Let's open 'er up, an' see what makes it tick!". This, in automotive parlance, is right up there with, "Here, hold my beer..." as a known precursor to imminent disaster.
Be honest. You know as well as I do that given the resources, many people will do truly stupid things and then take no personal responsibility for their own actions. They will do things that break the car, then want to get warranty service on it. They will do things that ruin the car, then blame the ol' hunk-o-junk for their own error. They will raise hell on YouTube about how Tesla Motors was 'unfair' to them and should 'stand by their product'.
Here's the thing: Tesla doesn't give a flaming fig about how handy and capable you are with ICE vehicles. If you want to work on their cars within the next decade, be prepared to lobby for a course in their proper maintenance so that you can become personally certified to do so. Right now, Tesla Motors cannot afford to 'just trust you' to 'do things right'. They are willing to trust you to drive the cars... at pseudo-legal speeds... without crashing through multiple barriers and into a tree... most of the time. But no -- they are NOT going to 'trust the client' this early in the game. That would be unwise on a wide range of levels.�
Apr 25, 2015
thegruf gotta love it when people resort to just being plain offensive�
Apr 25, 2015
Red Sage Nice of you to admit to your offence.�
Apr 25, 2015
thegruf :yawn:
move on please�
Apr 25, 2015
JRP3 thegruf has a valid point, even if you don't like it: Higher repair costs out of warranty could hurt resale value. The used market is more sensitive to costs, obviously, and the potential of high service costs will negatively impact resale, which will ultimately negatively affect new car demand.�
Apr 25, 2015
Danal I am one of the ones who says "Let's open 'er up". In fact, I drove my P85D home and immediately began a physical dis-assembly to photo parts that had not seen the light of day on this forum (or anywhere else that I could find). Literally the night I got it home, the entire Frunk area was opened and photographed. Are you saying that makes me a criminal? Really? Or a disaster waiting to happen? I have modified EVERY SINGLE car I have owned. From putting keyless entry (via a codepad on the door) on cars before it was offered, to custom lighting, to putting in my own "car stereo" system... and more.
Let's get very specific. What, in your opinion, is OK for me to do to ANY car I "own"? And if I can do it to my Brand XYZ pickup truck, why can or can't I do it to my Tesla?
1) Put in an aftermarket seat cushion that raises my very short wife's sight-line?
2) Tapping into the brake/tail light wires? On the Pickup for a trailer harness... on the Tesla for a "Lighted T"?
3) Replace a burned out light bulb in a tail or head lamp assembly?
4) Replace tires when they wear out?
5) Use aftermarket wheels?
6) Replace the sound system amp and speakers?
Come on, get specific, tell my why or why not? Any one of those things could cause an accident. So why, suddenly, when replacing the door handles (which are actually LESS likely than some of the above to cause an accident) is a computer required, and online 3G access from the factory???
I am truly seeking to understand your point of view. Because the examples you've given so far about "trust" come from a framework that assumes the car is still theirs. And it is not. It is mine.�
Apr 25, 2015
tga The problem with your argument is that it only applies to the propulsion system, which is really the only unique part of a car. Brake jobs, suspension work, body work, tire changes/rotation, etc are the same on all cars. There's no magic parts on the Tesla made of unicorn horns that need to be blessed by a shaman upon installation.
Brake pads are brake pads. I can put any vehicle on my lift and do a competent and safe brake job or tire rotation. There's no reason I need to be treated like a criminal because the car has a Tesla logo on it.
I suspect, at some point in the future, when much of the fleet is out of warranty and the anti-Tesla fury over fires and electrocution has died down, Tesla will relax this stance. If they really don't want service to be a profit center (and this may change, since Elon will probably be gone long before we get to this point), I could even see the diagnostic software and service manuals being available for a (nearly) free download.�
Apr 25, 2015
qwk It's very easy to type all kinds of opinions on a forum when you have no skin in the game. How many $100k checks have you written to Tesla?
- - - Updated - - -
That is just Tesla's protocol of new firmware after every hardware update. THEY do it every time. This doesn't mean it has to be done. Been there done that.....�
Apr 25, 2015
JST I agree with everything you say, except after spending $600 for what amounts to new wiper blades and remote batteries, I have my doubts about Tesla's current commitment to not making service a profit center.�
Apr 25, 2015
thimel I took a one hour look at the service manual
Last night I paid the $30 for a one hour subscription to the service manual. I wanted to see for myself what was available and what wasn't. Here is what I learned.
Summary: it was interesting to see what was available first hand, but I doubt I will be going back for more information.
- The service manual is MANY individual web pages. Couldn't find a way to get PDF's.
- I did not see any trouble shooting directions or block diagrams about how things work. It was dominantly directions on how to replace any individual part.
- As stated by others, many of the replacement directions include telling you to re flash the firmware using the toolbox.
- I'm planning to add lighting to my trunk as some others have done. I was hoping to find the type of connector that is used to connect to the LED lights that come with the premium lighting package. That way I might be able to connect to their connector instead of splicing into the wire. There is a big database of connectors, but I couldn't find that one. Perhaps just didn't get the right search term.
- I was curious how the HP difference between the front motors on the P85D and the 85D came about. Different inverter? Different motor? Different firmware? I couldn't even find the inverters in the parts list.
- The schematics are all in one big PDF file. Without a lot more documentation about the functionality of the blocks that are connected together by the wires shown, it is difficult or impossible to understand how things work.
- From the parts list, one can get a glimpse of how Tesla makes continuous hardware changes. There are many notes about using one part if a car is built before a certain date and another if after.
�
Apr 25, 2015
qwk This is because most of the diagnosing is done by looking at the car's logs. Since there is data on everything along with a time stamp, it's both very time consuming, and difficult to make sense out of all that information, unless you work or have worked for Tesla engineering.�
Apr 25, 2015
kiefer Thimel: As to your question number 4: If you have done arduino boards, the male header connector you would use there, fits perfectly into the LED connectors in your trunk.
/Martin�
Apr 25, 2015
Duma Here is a perspective from someone who does not tinker with cars but whose father was a mechanic and eventually had a very successful, small, independent Mercedes Benz repair shop.
Historically car manufacturers have mostly tried to be opaque about how to service their vehicles, even to third party, qualified mechanics. That was his experience when he retired in 1990 before cars acquired all the computers they have today. Even so, the manuals were often not enough without training that was provided only to dealer mechanics. For time to time he had to use his friends inside Mercedes Benz dealerships to get nonpublic information. And that was when most cars used basically the same technology and control systems were just starting to be electronic rather than physical systems that you could touch.
Tesla appears to be trying to play the same game by withholding repair manuals, but I suspect that it is for an entirely different reason. In keeping with the old paradigm, most cars have fixed firmware, so you can replace the part without worrying about the software. For most cars the transition to software has affected some of the error diagnosis but little of the actual repair work. Tesla's architecture is that not only is virtually every aspect of the car controlled by software, but also most, if not all, of the software can be updated. The car is designed like a software platform, a very different approach from any other car. One side effect is that replacing what are self contained subsystems in other cars requires a software assist. And that software assist needs to be managed with excellent security. The net is that there is both a unique training aspect and a security certification aspect to enabling someone to work on a Tesla. How many third party mechanics would be willing to pay the cost of such training and security certification, given the relatively small number of Teslas on the road? Since Tesla needs to be more careful about trade secrets with third parties, such training would also require more effort than training for their own employees. Is that worth it to Tesla at this time? So far Tesla appears to only have addressed the subject of collision repair by third parties.
Yes, there are some parts of the Tesla (tires, brakes, lights) that are the same technology as other cars, and it is frustrating that this information is getting lost (withheld) because Tesla is not separating the parts that are not tied to the software to the many parts that are. But I am not convinced that there is malicious intent by Tesla to monopolize the servicing of Teslas. I think they are just very busy trying to spin up production and service and superchargers that they have not gotten to addressing third party service yet, in part because there is not much point while most vehicles are still under warranty. As the first Model S come off warranty, they will need to start addressing this, and then we can judge them on how they do.�
Apr 26, 2015
Danal Duma,
I agree that it is too early to judge Tesla as a company. I do not agree with words like "requires" a software assist, and "must" be managed with excellent security.
First, it is entirely possible, and in some ways even easier, to design a mutli-node system so that it reacts properly when a given node joins or leaves. There is some evidence that Tesla has done this... at least one car with the "old" style charge port had a "new" charge port installed (not by Tesla) and the "open/close" buttons popped up on the center console. Something "saw" the new charge port on the Can bus and reacted properly, with absolutely no updates to the center console software. This whole "install replacement door handle motors and re-flash" is somewhere between laziness and needles proprietary lock-in.
With regard to "requires excellent security", there is a lot to be said for physical access. Updates that come "over-the-air"? I'm all for encrypted, signed, packages. Update from the port physically in the car? If there are extra requirements, these are again either laziness or lock-in.
Perhaps the strongest evidence that this is not "required" can be found through a real world example: Avionics. Aircraft instrument systems rapidly computerized over the last decades. This started with multi-million dollar systems for airliners. These systems are very "closed" in one way... but even those systems have excellent documentation available to anyone who purchased a system. And, computer avionics have 'trickled down' so strongly in the last 10 years that my very simplistic 'bush plane', a single-engine, two seat, STOL (Short Take Off and Landing) back-country plane... even that airplane has a 'glass panel' (see below). It is a "CH750" for those who are wondering, built in 2011. So about 4 years old.
The system in my CH750is a Dynon Skyview. Is that system 'closed'? Exactly the opposite. The manufacturer publishes all the wiring diagrams, all the interfaces, all the data formats on the various serial and bus ports. All in the installation and maintenance manuals. So does Grand Rapids, and Garmin, and so forth. They all publish EVERYTHING. Oh, and if you install a new module, say a second "Air Data and Heading Reference", the main display module 'notices' the new one, and updates the new one to the same firmware level as the rest of the system, before it will boot to the point it displays a panel. No proprietary laptop program. Just works.
Where is their security? Physical access. You must plug a USB memory device into the panel to upgrade it. Simple, and effective. In the 3 years I've owned the airplane, I've put on six or eight software releases. No issues, and no fear (on my part) that anyone is going to do anything 'bad' to my airplane systems. If they wanted to do something bad, once they are in my hanger, there are so many simpler ways...
And, just to be clear: There is no more litigious environment than light aircraft. Aviation is also quite a bit more unforgiving of mistakes than driving. So please don't try to tell me that things have to be closed to be secure, or because of lawsuits, or because of safety. All the "closed" stuff is either turf (for long term profit) or laziness, or both.
�
Apr 26, 2015
okashira This is lame. I was a big supporter of Tesla's direct sales, but now I am starting to second guess my stance. I support right to repair...�
Apr 26, 2015
FlasherZ Once again, I think there is confusion regarding "right to repair" versus "publication of every trade secret Tesla has".
"Right to repair" means that you can a) diagnose a broken module, b) order the appropriate replacement for the broken module, and c) install the new module to replace the broken module. I do agree that Tesla needs to open up 1) parts ordering, 2) simple instructions to diagnose and replace the modules, and 3) the ability to push firmware to newly-replaced modules.
However, the quoted text above that asks about the type of connector used for the LED lighting, the pin-outs with protocol specifications for a CANbus-connected LED lamp, specs on the HP differences between motors and inverters? That's not "right to repair", that's "engineering specification".
Engineering specifications and trade secrets are not covered under right to repair. They're expressly carved out of the Massachusetts law, defined as "trade secrets".
I do want to see Tesla open things up a bit more so that I could replace my suspension parts if I chose to do so, or could replace a bad instrument display if I wanted to. But I don't expect them to give away the crown jewels under some BS interpretation of right to repair.�
Apr 26, 2015
Danal
There is no confusion on my part. I am not asking for trade secrets. I am asking for repair oriented documentation.
And... Attempting to conceal anything that a person with physical access can figure out is fairly silly. Such as connector types that you can just look at or measure, pin outs that can be discerned with a voltmeter or oscilloscope, and so forth. Lack of documentation on these raises the barriers for owners are maintenance people, and yet doesn't slow down competitors one iota.�
Apr 26, 2015
lolachampcar The car is yours. Have at it. Pull out your scope and meter and go to town but please do not complain when Tesla chooses not to document that connector pin out for you or otherwise explain the signals. That is your job when you are reverse engineering the car you own for your own purposes.
Sure, if you need to check a particular signal to properly troubleshoot an issue then Tesla should document it for that purpose. The problem with this thread is that people are mixing service and hacking. One you should expect Tesla's help with while the other you should not.
And before you say "I'm not confusing anything" remember that you are responding to (and quoting) a post on trade secrets not covered by the Mass Right to Repair law. If your point is that Tesla is not providing sufficient data to repair then please avoid quoting a post on the trade secret element of the discussion. This will help keep me from being confused and help me follow the logic of the different arguments.�
Apr 26, 2015
Danal
I did not, and have not, and will not, ask for trade secrets.
I'm simply pointing out that not having a wiring diagram doesn't slow down a competing automaker. Whereas having a wiring diagram makes it a lot easier for me to install extra lighting. Is that "hacking" by your definition?
P.S. Late Edit: I am really glad to see your opening statement "the car is yours". Elsewhere in this forum, others have denied that...�
Apr 26, 2015
lolachampcar of course it is yours and I was an early advocate for proper documentation several years ago.
I understand the desire to do things like add on lighting and such but also understand how Tesla might view their obligation to their customers to provide repair only docs. Where I disagree with other posters is when they defend the EV hacker dude when he complains about being legally harassed by Tesla for posting certain documentation. The information was provided to him presumably under the agreement that he was in Mass and that the information was being provided in support of servicing Model S. Others that have seen the agreement (I have not) have indicated there is some sort of an agreement not to reverse engineer in it. IF any of this is true then I have a hard time defending the guy. He is free to hack away at anything Tesla ships to customers. Once Tesla ships it, we are all free to have a go at it. What I am not free to do is gain access to technical information with the promise not to use it in certain ways fully knowing that is exactly what I intend on doing.
Your point on an owner adding lighting highlights the need for this discussion. What is and what is not acceptable use? We can all site extremes but what are the common sense limits?�
Apr 26, 2015
Danal
100% with you. The guy who got a doc under certain terms and then posted it on the internet... bad, bad, bad.
Among other things, "copyright" is civil. That means the government will not (or at least is not supposed to) pursue it on behalf of citizens. That further means that the copyright holder must pursue it, or a potential infringer can point out to the court a known instance from the past where the copyright holder did not defend it... and get the action dropped. This is all well established precedent. The net effect is: "Defend it, or lose it".
So, I have absolutely no problem with Tesla defending a copyright.
I do wish they'd just let me pay the fee and look at the documents that my fellow Americans in MA can see... Maybe the next time I'm there, I can legally look.�
Apr 27, 2015
Gizmotoy I wanted to reply to your early post and didn't get a chance, but since this post is similar, I think at least part of the issue here is that there is no clear delineation between what information is useful for repair and what is only "useful for hacking." It seems to me, any documentation provided for the former is bound to be useful for the latter. Especially depending on how loosely you define the word "hacker."
Bus communications protocols? I'm with you. No one is providing anything like that, and they likely shouldn't be required to. Beyond that, it gets a bit more tricky, I think.�
Jun 12, 2015
Ingineer If Tesla is going to make this data to individuals and independent repair shops in MA because of the law there, they should just let us all have access. I'd gladly pay for the subscription, but since they will not officially allow it, I can't. This kind of thinking is what causes some unscrupulous individual to start pirating the manuals on Ebay for $20 a pop, then they lose the extra revenue of subscriptions. If I can't buy it officially from Tesla, I'd definitely be tempted to get it from the "gray" market. (Not black market if you can't get it through official legal channels)
I 100% support Tesla and I want to see them do good things, but keeping this data from those of us that supported them by ordering cars just doesn't sit well.�
Jun 17, 2015
Ingineer The "trade secret" argument is not valid. Elon has on multiple occasions stated his goal at Tesla is to move automotive transportation into a sustainable future. He welcomes and encourages other automakers not only to compete, but he has specially stated anyone can use any of Tesla's patented IP without needing to license or even inform Tesla that they are doing so. He has offered other manufacturers access to the SC network (for a shared price) and even stated Tesla is definitely willing to supply technology and battery packs to other manufacturers. He has proven this by supplying packs and powertrains to Toyota and Diamler.
No other (profit driven) automaker would even consider offering unlimited free supercharging for life, which has got to be really costing Tesla a lot of $. (Especially not a startup automaker still trying to get into mass sales!)
Any other automaker interested in Tesla's "secrets" simply has purchased a MS and sent it to their R&D labs for disassembly. I have a friend that works for Ford in this capacity, They buy many competitor's models all the time and tear them apart. Companies like IHS, that's all they do! (see Teardown- Tesla 2013 Model S - IHS Technology )
Tesla's customers are the ones being mostly hurt by withholding simple things like wiring diagrams. Hell, my 1980 Peugeot 505 had a very tiny wiring diagram in the back of the owner's manual (A must-have for French made cars of that era! =)�
Jun 17, 2015
lolachampcar I suspect their primary concern is for things like the motor/inverter reverse engineering that is going on where they used the schematics to, in part, figure out how to get the drive unit of a MS to spin up. Any bad publicity that comes from someone screwing up a MS will blow back on Tesla and not the person doing the screwing up. It is a fact of life that any engineer would like to protect themselves from even at the expense of "doing the right thing" by their customers with support documentation. The simple fact that the information in only available in places where Tesla is forced to provide it points to just how badly they want to keep us from tarnishing the Tesla brand (if I am right in my assertions).�
Jun 17, 2015
markb1 Note that patents != trade secrets. Patents are not secret at all. I don't think Tesla has ever committed to giving away its trade secrets.
On the other hand, the service manual doesn't seem to qualify as a trade secret anymore, now that it's published, albeit in a limited way.�
Jun 17, 2015
lolachampcar yes, but it is IP distributed under license/agreement.�
Jun 17, 2015
zwede Cool stuff:
Fun with Tesla motor - DIY Electric Car Forums�
Jun 17, 2015
neroden I have a problem with it because of unclean hands. Tesla's a repeat copyright infringer, after all.
I'm sure that Tesla is keeping the repair manuals secret to try to discourage hackers/modders/customizers. This won't work; it just makes the modders mad, and makes them more likely to do dangerous experimentation. Therefore it is a stupid thing for Tesla to do.�
Jun 18, 2015
JRP3 The motor and inverter has already been hacked by at least two different groups, so if keeping that secret was the intent it's already failed. My guess is it's more an attempt at avoiding some individual causing damage and/or injury that might reflect badly on Tesla, but I don't think it's going to be effective. It's a bad policy that needs to be changed.�
Jun 18, 2015
Ingineer Not that I want to see this, but I predict Tesla is going to release a firmware update with more security on the CAN bus. A simple cryptographic challenge in the inverter would make it harder to re-use the motor.�
Jun 18, 2015
lolachampcar JRP3,
I agree with you but note that the information helped the hacking process along which is likely why Tesla waited to the last minute (cars coming out of warranty??) to release the info and only where forced to do so by law. I believe the information was used in exactly the way Tesla knew it would be and not for the intended purpose of the release. The guy who pulled the info even touted skirting the state resident requirement for access. I've not attempted to access the info but I would not be surprised if you have to agree not to use the info for reverse engineering prior to getting access (just a guess on my part). I would have a problem agreeing not to do something to gain access to info then turning right around and doing it anyway.
ING,
I was surprised there was no authentication at the component level in the system. I'm hoping the BDM port is open as I would like to look at the code. Picking up code from an S85 and P85 should shine a very bright light on the current limit tables thus making very short duration high performance inverter operation a possibility. I've asked for high res pics of the micro on the other thread.�
Jun 18, 2015
JRP3 My understanding is that Eldis on DIY built his own control board that bypasses the Tesla inverter control board and simply controls the high power switching electronics on it's own. Tesla can't code against hardware :wink:�
Jun 18, 2015
apacheguy Why would they care? There's no way TM is going to be on the line as a result of an unsanctioned use of their motor. Folks have been modding car parts and tinkering for decades and I don't see any reason to waste resources to put a stop to it now.�
Jun 18, 2015
Ingineer Well, for one, with the CAN frames out in the wild making it so easy to enable the drive system, it also makes it easy for the unscrupulous to steal a Model S. Crawl under the car, get access to the CAN bus, clip on a little dongle which unlocks the car, then enables the drive system and hop in! That would make the model S about as easy to steal as a 1967 Chevy.�
Jun 18, 2015
lolachampcar I wonder if they have battery communication authentication.�
Jun 18, 2015
wk057 Some basic analysis of this done by someone else suggests this may be the case, actually.�
Jun 18, 2015
Ingineer Well, since the inverter will apparently allow drive w/o any signals from the BMS, all that's needed is contactor closure. That's available by a hardware line on the pack connector. (apparently used by Tesla service tools)
You could make a dongle that plugs into the motor and tells it what it wants to hear, just like Jack's "Hack Team" did and then jumper the contactor closed.
I should probably stop giving people ideas. =)�
Jun 18, 2015
JRP3 That would be one thin thief.
Is it that exposed?�
Jun 18, 2015
Bangor Bob S'okay, people have already thought of this and far more. From simply clipping a canbus monitor set to "monitor all" onto an innocuous, out-of-the-way place during a firmware update, to cloning the IMEI and putting the SIM into a phone and capturing remote unlock messages, etc...
Things will get interesting once secondary-market owners with no warranty and no reverse-engineering restrictions start getting hold of the cars. Casting a wider net, I'm sure the Gen2 Rav4 EV and Merc B EV owners would love to unlock the full performance of their Tesla drivetrains, for instance...�
Jun 18, 2015
Ingineer Yup, there is a connection easy to access under the car, without needing to jack it up. All you have to do is
I originally blabbed it out, but came to my senses and redacted it. =)�
Jun 18, 2015
wk057 From what I can tell there is no way to "jump" the contactor without digital communication. The tools Tesla service use for working with the packs has digital comm.�
Jun 19, 2015
Ingineer What about Pin 7?�
Jun 19, 2015
wk057 Tried it with a real pack... doesn't work. I had gotten this info back when I got my first pack for my solar project and was still deciding if I should keep the pack intact or not.
Still need digital comm to allow this line to function.
The contactor driver/economizing circuit is part of the BMS board also, so just throwing power at them doesn't really work well.�
Jun 24, 2015
Danal Crawl under car? Hack in to CAN bus?
�
Jun 24, 2015
lolachampcar Funny
Got a bud building a massive array to do both RipeMD collision and RSA factoring at the same time...... There are some really hard headed people out there.�
Jun 24, 2015
Ingineer Well, if you remember the BMW fiasco in Europe, it's pretty scary. Someone built a device that made it easy to make a key for late model BMW's and thieves were driving them away en masse.
There's a big difference between someone ballsy enough to pull up with a tow truck and someone stealthily (and silently) driving your MS away in the middle of the night.�
Dec 29, 2015
Btr_ftw I have obtained a manual as I am a Mass resident.
Is there a way to save the entire manual for later viewing. I have a 24 hour access license...�
Dec 29, 2015
SabrToothSqrl I sure hope so.
Can you get the one for the X?!�
Dec 29, 2015
pgiralt From what I understand, the agreement you agreed to when you signed up for access specifically prohibits you from doing that.�
Dec 29, 2015
Ingineer Use wget or similar: Make Offline Mirror of a Site using `wget` | Guy Rutenberg
- - - Updated - - -
If it's for your own personal use, that falls under "fair use" I would think.�
Dec 29, 2015
AmpedRealtor Did anyone here ask for legal advice, anyone? We all know that the only reason Tesla is even offering these documents for limited review is because they were forced to do so by law in the State of MA. Tesla will not be damaged in any way by someone saving a copy of the manual on their computer. Now back to the discussion...�
Dec 29, 2015
green1 Unfortunately it's a difficult question to answer without having access because it depends a lot on the format they are presented in, how the login is handled, etc.
wget is a great tool, but it has limited ability to deal with scripts and different authentication methods,
tools that automatically flip pages and do screenshots are neat, but the end result is sub-optimal, and they count on a lack of scrolling, or at the very least, a consistent amount of scrolling
text copying relies on the manual being in a text form rather than image.
It also depends just how much data there is to get, for small amounts the easiest answer is often to just bite the bullet and spend a bunch of time manually saving pages, for larger amounts you might never finish.
Where I might start would be a semi-automated solution, check to see if your browser cache is storing it, and if so, increase your cache size as much as you can and manually visit as much as you can, don't read it, just click through as quick as you can, then copy the cache to another location when done.�
Dec 29, 2015
Btr_ftw They do not make it easy in the least (by design obviously)
I used wget but it does not bring back a whole heck of alot, the only pages that are html based are the ones that are "view printer friendly version" pages.
thanks for the info by the way!�
Dec 29, 2015
yobigd20 Screen capture software can record the entire desktop screen as a movie. That's one easy way. Or you can take individual screenshots. It also depends on the format it's delivered to you. May be a way to capture a PDF or something somehow. Might require digging into the source code of the web page.�
Dec 29, 2015
EVenthusiast HTTrack is another effective tool that might be worth a shot.�
Dec 29, 2015
Quantum` I'm sure it's making web pages on-the-fly from a database. We don't know what you're looking at but I'm confident that this is how they do it. So best bet is to manually get the print pages.�
Dec 30, 2015
Btr_ftw No manuals for the x yet. But there are service bulletins to replace the rear seat bolts as they are not production grade and may fail�
Dec 30, 2015
Fezzik Sometimes its easier to print the pages and then scan them in later into PDF�
Dec 30, 2015
Btr_ftw Thanks everyone. I tried httrack as well. No dice. It looks like the main menu system is java based so nothing to grab there. The individual pages are also java. The only portion that is html is the "printer friendly" page, and I believe those are called from the database when requested.
They are pretty smart. All the pages pulled require scrolling in a small window so automated screen capture software wont work either.
Not only that but when I view the cached html files they are just jibberish.
I would post screen shots but since Tesla browses this forum Id rather not ruffle too many feathers�
Dec 30, 2015
JRP3 Tesla shared their patents with the world but won't provide a service manual for vehicle owners...�
Dec 30, 2015
lolachampcar They do a lot of things for appearance sake.
As my dad used to say, watch what they do not what they say.
Or, if you prefer the Swedish version, if the terrain and the map disagree, believe the terrain.�
Dec 30, 2015
wk057 Yep, the patents thing was most certainly a publicity stunt.
The service manual site used to be a bunch of static HTML pages, but they recently modified it to be UIDs generated on the fly to make it pretty much a royal PITA to save any significant portions of it.
I mean, this is stuff that really should just be available to everyone. But I guess it's mostly useless info anyway. Just about every procedure involves "Perform a firmware update" or something equally impossible to do without Tesla's proprietary software "Toolbox" that they aren't putting up for download or anything.�
Dec 30, 2015
Btr_ftw The parts manual to me is laughable...
Need a dc to dc converter? RESTRICTED
Need a drive motor? RESTRICTED
Need a touch screen? RESTRICTED
Along with several other electronic parts I need...�
Dec 30, 2015
AmpedRealtor Can you shrink each service manual page to fit inside of a single window? If so, you can take a screen shot of the whole window on a Mac and store all the files in a folder. Then you can assemble all of those files into a PDF by dragging them to Adobe Acrobat. Next, apply a crop to all pages that will remove all of the extraneous window elements so all you see is the content. It's a bit labor intensive at first, because you would need to do a manual capture for each page, but once you've done that, you have all of the pages.�
Dec 30, 2015
ItsNotAboutTheMoney I'm sure we'd be interested in following the case, should you ever move to MA.�
Dec 30, 2015
wk057 Yeah, definitely a good thing I don't live in MA. Probably more likely a right to repair law happens in NC than me moving to MA though.�
Dec 30, 2015
thegruf must be a vpn that terminates in MA ...�
Dec 30, 2015
Ingineer I've figured out how to reflash firmware w/o needing the Tesla Toolbox. Undoubtedly, they will change it soon in attempts to prevent it.
Please don't bother PM'ing me to ask how, unfortunately I can't share. Once the DMCA exemption for car hacking comes, then maybe I'll change my stance.�
Dec 31, 2015
jaguar36 Most useful post of the year right here!
Shouldn't the Tesla Toolbox fall under the right to repair act too? The missing part numbers doesn't matter much as I'm sure Tesla wouldn't sell you them anyway.�
Dec 31, 2015
apacheguy Is this on a live car running 7.x? Or is it on a bench setup running 6.x? I thought Defcon already showed how to pull down a firmware bundle.�
Dec 31, 2015
wk057 Reflash being the key here. I think Tesla's term is actually "redeploy"
Not a way to pull new firmware, just reinstall the last downloaded firmware. This is what I figured out anyway.
Correct me if I'm wrong.�
Dec 31, 2015
FlasherZ I've said this before, but those who keep insisting that Tesla is subject to the MA law as written need to read the judgment from the MA dealership case in favor of Tesla, where the judge noted that based on the wording of 'dealer' and 'franchise agreement' defined in the law, that Tesla may not be subject to the law because it does not issue 'franchise amendment's and therefore does not have 'dealers':
EDIT for clarity, since it didn't appear that someone understood why I was quoting the case here: While this case was about requirements related to sales of vehicles (as green1 noted below), those very same definitions in that very same section of MA law are used by the right-to-repair law.
For what it's worth, I support the idea that Tesla should make available their support/repair documentation, but not engineering information, along with the idea that they should sell any and all parts to owners or their agents (with appropriate safeguards to keep people from buying hundreds of motors, etc., for those who want to use them for retrofits and such).
That said, anyone who thinks this is a slam dunk case that only needs someone to sue Tesla in MA is quite disillusioned.�
Dec 31, 2015
green1 That had nothing to do with right to repair, and as Tesla's lawyers obviously think the law does apply to them, and have likely investigated this far more than you have, I suspect they're more likely correct.�
Dec 31, 2015
FlasherZ Nevermind. For those who haven't made up your mind, read the judgment above and the actual text of the MA law which points at the same definitions.
I support the position that the information should be available, but the EU RtR regulations are likely to be more successful in driving change vs. MA law., IMO.
I think Tesla has about 18-24 months before we'll see the repair situation change.
Good luck and Happy New Year!�
Dec 31, 2015
Ingineer Yes, it's a firmware "redeploy", there is no need to download anything from Tesla servers and everything needed is already present on the local systems. This is also an important distinction for salvage cars for which Tesla has blacklisted.
Slight OT, but I've determined that if the cars are still connected to Tesla after they have blacklisted them, they will actively go in and change the configuration, such as removing supercharging. Ethically I believe this crosses a line. Tesla should not go into your car and alter the configuration without your permission. If they want to tell the supercharger to deny access to particular cars, that's their business (though is also open for debate), but actively disabling something in a car where those features have been bought and paid for is wrong in my book. In one case I looked at on a 60kWh car, the car was originally sold w/o supercharging, then the customer upgraded to supercharging and specifically paid Tesla for it, so the configuration was changed to permit access. Then, the car was salvaged and Tesla actively went in and removed supercharging. This is clearly wrong in my book.
I also believe is would be "right" to make service info available to (at least) qualified people. If they are worried about liability due to high-voltage danger, they could require a test for those that want access. I would be fine with this, but to blanket deny everyone is a mistake and will only serve to harm the brand long-term. Their stance on after-accident cars is also going to damage the brand by increasing cost to insure, and in fact, many insurers have already effectively declined to insure the Model S entirely. This will effectively devalue the cars soon and reduce the resale value. This is a shame, as presently the Model S holds it's value well, and is a selling point.
Tesla; if you are reading this, please consider changing your policies ASAP. It's only going to hurt if you don't! I'll be happy to talk to anyone at Tesla about this, feel free to contact me.�
Dec 31, 2015
FlasherZ Ingineer-agree with you on all points there. I have my doubts that they can scale to Model 3 under these policies.�
Dec 31, 2015
JST
As a matter of legal interpretation, I think you are correct, FlasherZ--if the question were ever litigated, I suspect Tesla would be on firm footing arguing that the law doesn't apply to them.
At the same time, it could very well be that Tesla has decided that it's not worth getting into a dispute about. After all, arguing that this law does not apply to direct sales could supply ammunition to those arguing that the dealer model has pro-consumer benefits.
And as others have said, as a practical matter, the "right to repair" information is basically useless given the other restrictions that Tesla has put on the supply chain, so it doesn't matter much one way or the other.
I think the 18-24 month timeframe is pretty optimistic. At some point, Tesla likely will have to reexamine how it deals with third party repair shops, especially as more and more vehicles age out of warranty. But I don't see that happening soon.�
Dec 31, 2015
Ingineer Oh, and for those that don't yet know: Once most Model S cars has been in an accident, insurers will usually "total" these cars for otherwise repairable damage. This seems to be because they only allow repairs by a select few body shops (read: intentional monopoly). Then, these cars go to auction and people buy them, but find they cannot buy parts because Tesla has two roadblocks; one is not selling certain parts to ANY owner (such as certain body parts), and secondly; blacklisting salvage cars so no parts whatsoever can be obtained, even something as benign such as coolant fluid.
If you want any parts for your car, Tesla asks for the VIN, and will only sell to an owner is the parts are not "special" (in their opinion) and providing the car has not been totaled by your insurance company.
- - - Updated - - -
Definitely. They need to change their policies ASAP. Otherwise it's going to greatly jeopardize their mission.�
Dec 31, 2015
JST
Will it? That's an interesting question. Keeping a tight grip on access to parts and repair information will certainly piss off a small percentage of the more DIY owners, and it will likely also keep repair costs higher than they otherwise would be.
That said, what percentage of people would actually refuse to buy a car just because they would have to have the car serviced at a factory store? My guess is that a large chunk of the people who buy luxury cars end up going to the dealer for service even after warranty, either because of simple inertia or out of a perception (rightly or wrongly) that doing so is better. Finding a quality shop to work on your car can be a PITA, even where service info is readily available.
I said above that Tesla is going to have to reexamine the way it deals with 3rd party shops, but the more I think about it, the less I am sure that is correct. They may well perceive a distinct advantage in keeping control of their repair chain, even for used cars.�
Dec 31, 2015
jaguar36 Is there anything we could do that would have a reasonable chance of convincing Tesla to change their policies, both with regards to the Service manual, the diagonostic software, and the parts availability.
I think a lawsuit, in MA or the EU would be the most effective. Even if as FlasherZ says legally Tesla is in the right, I think the negative publicity of a lawsuit would be enough to force them to change their policies. However not only would it be expensive, but I think the negative publicity would be something we would all rather not happen.
Perhaps just contacting Tesla directly? Is there a good way to do that?
- - - Updated - - -
Its going to hurt Tesla, particularly while their service locations are rather sparse. While alot of people take their car to the dealer, those dealers tend to be pretty close by. There are also a ton of indy shops that specialize in MB/BMW/Lexus, so there is a large population not taking their cars to the dealer.
The increase in insurance costs and the difficulty of getting insurance will be a larger driver to new car sales I suspect though.
End of the day the question will be if it hurts sales enough for Tesla to care. At this point its certainly not. In two years, when there are a significant number of out of warranty Model Ss, maybe. Even then though it won't be *that* many cars. 5-10 years down the road, then yes its certainly going to be a big deal.�
Dec 31, 2015
wk057 I'd be pretty tempted to help such folks, where Tesla modified the configuration without permission, get that configuration back to where it was, especially on an 70,85,90 (and maybe a 60 where it can be proven supercharging was previously paid for). Pretty sure that someone could easily bring a case against Tesla for this. On the flip side, I'm pretty sure Tesla couldn't bring a case against an owner who fixed their configuration after Tesla remotely altered it. In exchange for my assistance I think I'd want to see the Tesla-powered SIM card physically destroyed.
70, 85, and 90 kWh cars were all sold with supercharging enabled. There should never be one in the wild that doesn't have it enabled. That's obvious fraud if it is the case, IMO. Unless someone can find some license agreement that I'm unaware of related to supercharging.�
Dec 31, 2015
lolachampcar Does Tesla not have liability when it comes to allowing a "salvage" level damaged car to SuperCharge? Can the SuperCharger "deny" access to a car?
I ask these questions as I can actually see a justifiable reason for Tesla to go in and alter the configuration of a vehicle provided the vehicle is the source of the authentication required for SuperCharging.
As for the rest of the discussion regarding Tesla's policies, I've stated from the very beginning (early 2013) that applying a Valley software company my way or the highway mentality to a car company was going to cause trouble.�
Dec 31, 2015
Mike K I agree. If the car is the source of authentication then I don't have an issue with it. Actually, I don't really have an issue with it either way and I owned a salvage car. It seems like semantics to me. Either way the car can't access the supercharger network so who cares if they go in and flip a switch to disable an option that you wouldn't otherwise be able to use anyhow?
There's good reason for disabling supercharging though. In my instance, I took delivery of the car with non-working air conditioning. I had no clue that the AC also cooled the battery and apparently neither did the car as it never tossed up any kind of warning for the AC system not working which is a bit disconcerting. It even got to the point on a hot day where it said it was lowering cabin cooling effectiveness so it could cool the battery and knowing full well it was trying to use the AC to cool the battery it didn't give me any kind of warning that it was failing to do so.
Now you throw that car on a supercharger, where it really needs the AC cooling abilities and combine that with the fact the car apparently doesn't know when it's cooling system is failing to cool the battery and you're potentially in for a world of hurt. I'm sure the battery would simply stop charging if it got too hot however it's better to disable this function on these cars rather than risk damaging the car further or the charger itself. Likewise, I don't think they have any obligation to support these cars as far as the supercharger network goes.
What I do take issue with is the complete lack of support for salvage cars. As far as I know, if you have a salvage BMW, BMW will still service the car. You just have to pay. They'll still sell you parts. You just have to pay for them. Tesla has a pretty firm "We won't touch it" policy. And that ultimately was what caused me to turn around and flip my salvage car. I had one key and thought to myself, how ridiculous would it be if I lose this key at the gym and suddenly I own a paperweight that Tesla won't program a key for? And that was a very real possibility.
The bottom line is many minor accidents are likely to salvage these cars because insurance companies don't want to drop 10k into a car to then find out it needs a 45k battery. It's almost always easier to write it off. So there are plenty of perfectly safe salvage cars out there and it's a pity they basically tell those people to pound sand.�
Jan 1, 2016
Ingineer So presently, the car's options file controls whether cars can supercharge. The SC protocol sends the VIN, so it would be easy for Tesla to block cars at the SC level, but as of now it's controlled by the car.
On a car without functioning AC or a compromised glycol loop, the pack will rise in temp and have a high delta-T during supercharging, so the BMS will lower the charge current decision and this will cause supercharging to taper much faster then usual, but the battery should not be harmed.
The only reason I can think that Tesla would have a valid reason for disabling SC'ing on a car would be a safety issue or some electromechanical problem with the charge port. Since HV safety and charge port health (temperature) are fully monitored by instrumentation, if there was excessive HV leakage current or excessive temperature, the car would fault and SC would not work. So what is their reason?�
Jan 1, 2016
Btr_ftw This is what I'm gathering as well. I'm sure this is by design so rangers can fix cars in the field sans internet connectivity.
I'm going through this same thing.
I did a quick search for "restricted" in Tesla's parts section and there is alot of stuff there that they won't even sell you even if you have a perfectly working non salvage car. I'd LOVE to see what happens when someone out of warranty (which is coming soon) needs a drive unit, or dc-dc converter, touch screen etc...
I'm really scratching my chin here when I see a salvaged model S fetch 50k+ at an auction... I think to myself... "Do they know what they are up against???"�
Jan 1, 2016
JRP3 A car just caught fire in Norway apparently while SCing. Don't know if it was salvage or not. http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/59770-Short-Term-Tesla-Price-Movements-2016?p=1301027&viewfull=1#post1301027�
Jan 1, 2016
qwk Their reason is probably a thirst for more new car sales, and the fact that anything more than an easy repair gets engineering involved. The engineering man hours needed to get some of these salvage cars going is probably more than Tesla can handle.�
Jan 1, 2016
wk057 Personally, I would consider having the supercharging option disabled on the 70, 85, or 90 kWh Model S itself to be a problem that needs to be corrected. If Tesla wants to block certain VINs at the supercharger, then so be it, but having it disabled on a car that came with it enabled as a standard option is obviously wrong.
Sure, Tesla can claim safety issues as a reason to those who don't know any better. But as Ingineer mentioned, all safety related things with the HV are monitored on both sides of the system (car and supercharger) and would fault (and not charge) if there were an issue. Even if the AC doesn't work in your car, you could still supercharge until the pack got too warm and it would just taper the power accordingly. I've supercharged a few times and never heard the AC compressor kick on, especially in colder weather. (OT, but all evidence I have suggests that the Model S battery cooling system is only good enough to slow the heat build up in the pack. It is in no way capable of maintaining a set pack temperature while supercharging, only slowing the temperature rise.)
The *only* thing I could see being a potential problem would be a physically damaged car-side charge port that physically damaged the supercharger connector. But, this could do so even if the car couldn't charge just by plugging in the cable, or would still be potentially caught by the safety systems due to increased resistance and/or temperature at the connector.
This is a case that is going to eventually come up in the courts if Tesla keeps with this operating strategy. As an owner, I've never received or seen any type of license agreement or contract relating to supercharging or use of the supercharger network. The only official thing I have is a line item on my MVPA and winder sticker that says "Supercharging Enabled." Tesla is not allowed to modify my vehicle's configuration after purchase, and specifically the "Supercharging Enabled" portion being car-side. So, what gives? Beyond that just marketing stuff like "free for life" and such.
Pretty sure what they're doing when they disable this option remotely without the owner's consent is illegal, and if I ever somehow ended up in the position of being on the receiving end of that particular crime I'd be pursuing it legally no questions asked. As far as I'm concerned it'd be no different than if Tesla came and stole my "Tesla Red Brake Calipers" or "White Alcantara Headliner".�
Jan 1, 2016
Lrz FYI: "General Access (Personal)" subscription works from Norway (Europe). (Just tried an hour subscription with correct details for my region)�
Jan 2, 2016
Mike K We'll have to agree to disagree. From their perspective the car is no longer supported. That means 3G/ LTE radio, supercharging, ability to be repaired, etc all go poof on salvage cars. You can argue the legality of them disabling supercharging on the car side versus the supercharger side but you're just arguing semantics as either way the car will not be allowed to supercharge any longer. I think any parallel between them disabling this car side and them physically stealing options from your car is a bit silly.
- - - Updated - - -
Whoops, almost forgot why I came here tonight. I got access to the manual. I'm not entirely sure why they're making this so difficult to obtain. I mean, I understand charging for it and not just handing copies of it out on the street corner but as far as only offering it in MA because of legal obligations, that I don't get. There's nothing really proprietary here. I was really hoping to see some troubleshooting flow-charts but nothing. The manual is a glorified instruction manual for disassembly/ reassembly. Still interesting but you're not giving away the family secrets here.
For those wonder, the manual is easily downloaded. The technical service bulletins are all PDF. You can just click on them and save. The service manual itself opens up in a frame but has an option for a printer friendly version of each page which puts all the info on one scrolling page that you can then save. If you're on a Mac it will save the entire page, pictures and all. Windows might do the same.
Those not in MA, access with a Greendot Money Pack. Sign up with an MA billing address, fund the card and use the temporary card number you get on the Tesla site. All told it will take just a couple minutes.
If there's traffic detection that's shutting you down when you access too many pages too quickly, it's not working. I loaded/ saved maybe 60% of the manual and almost every Technical Service Bulletin with no issue. In fact, I only paid for an hour access and two hours later I'm still in the manual. Perhaps that's some sort of glitch. I'm going to go back and save what I didn't get the first time. I pretty much ignored all the dual motor stuff since I have an S85.
Biggest surprise I've seen so far: the motor for the panoramic roof is in the dashboard to the left of the steering wheel. That's a first for me.�
Jan 3, 2016
wk057 They can disable 3G/LTE all they want. That's something they provide and pay for and can be done without ever touching the car. I'm free to replace their provided SIM and service with my own on a salvage car and pay for my own access.
Disabling supercharging on the car also disables CHAdeMO charging and any other DC fast charging. Again, while Tesla is free to tell their network of chargers that VIN xxxxx isn't allowed to supercharge, they're not allowed to remove paid options from my car without my consent. That's pretty black and white and certainly is equatable to physically removing other line item features that are in my MVPA. So if prior to Tesla screwing with the configuration remotely I could use a CHAdeMO station, and afterwards I can not, Tesla has stolen a feature that was paid for as part of the vehicle.
And the pano roof motors (yes, there are two) are not in the dashboard... not sure where you saw that. Maybe you mean the control module?�
Jan 3, 2016
Mike K That's a fair point. I had a salvage car that was fixed well and roadworthy and I contemplated keeping it. The CHAdeMO adapter was something I was planning on buying, knowing I wouldn't have supercharger access. Finding out that that would not have been supported would have indeed upset me as like you noted, it's not related to Tesla's proprietary charging at all. If there's no way to make this change on the car without also disabling a completely unrelated service then I'm right there with you.
I'm looking at a very detailed diagram that directly contradicts you. Likewise, I just went outside and jammed my ear where the diagram shows it to be and then opened my roof. Indeed, the motor is in the dashboard. Anyone can go out to their car, stick their ear up against the lower dash, just under the wood trim to the left the of the steering wheel, open their pano roof and listen. You can very clearly hear the motor behind that panel and the service manual very specifically calls it a sunroof motor and shows it connected to a drive tube. I suspect they have a flexible drive running down the a-pillar with a worm gear at the end.
I'm not going to post the picture because that's a no-no I'm sure and I only saved the manual for my own information but this is a pretty easy one to verify. I don't blame you for not believing me though. It's a pretty odd location.�
Jan 3, 2016
lolachampcar Putting aside right and wrong for a minute......
I'm trying to think through what I would do in Tesla's shoes. The car is salvage. I'm not sure what that means as I've made parts and repair so expensive that the darn thing can be totaled for a tooth ache but, hey, I'm not taking any responsibility for that because, presumably, the customer has insurance so the insurance company is paying for everything. What I do care about is ANY Model S fire as that is a nail in my coffin. I do not care if I am disadvantaging the salvage after market as the car is salvage and not for the road. I'm going to do everything I can to keep that battery from being charged and thus keep it from catching fire. This will include reaching my paws into an asset I do not own and making a configuration change to keep the car from being fast charged by any DC charging device. I'm smart, want what I want and will do what I think is best without (as much) regard for what my customer or current owner of the salvage think.
Again, right and wrong aside, I can see why they are doing what they are doing. This includes making access to repair data as difficult as possible (to keep people like me from using salvage batteries for their home PV storage�
Jan 3, 2016
JST I was right there with you until the end, but it strikes me that one side effect of limiting repair info/access is that the batteries become *more* susceptible to tinkering.
After all, if you can't use the damn things to
power a car, what are you going to do with them?
Honestly, the best way for Tesla to do this would be to retain ownership of the battery and just lease it to you. That way they could simply take and recycle (or destroy) the pack from any salvage car. There are all sorts of ways this could be structured so that it wouldn't look like a traditional lease.
Alternately, they could just put requirement in the MVPA that you sell back the battery from any salvage car, though I am not sure that would be enforceable.�
Jan 3, 2016
lolachampcar JST,
I'm most certainly not defending the policies. I've been very vocal when it comes to criticism for what I see as a Silicon Valley Software House my way or the highway way of doing business. I was just trying to put myself in their shoes and verbalize the thought process.
I agree that there are much better, more customer centric, ways of doing this. Tesla is very customer focused when it comes to the big things with lots of visibility (direct sales model, Service Center warranty repair, etc.) but it is a completely different story when it comes to raw business issues with very little if any exposure. Wholesale trade offers to returning Model S customers always jumps out to me.
The stakes are so high with this one that I really do not see them budging.
I do have to give them credit for dramatically lowering parts costs to their repair shops. I'm getting a door replaced and the cost has dropped from $950 for the door shell two years ago to around $700 today. The shop told me the front bumper cover had dropped from around $1200 to around $300. That said, the monopoly Tesla has created with their repair center authorization scheme still makes a small dent door repair a $3500 event when the new door shell itself is around $700.�
Jan 3, 2016
Ingineer Also, without good service info, people will DEFINITELY still try to repair the cars, and doing it "in the dark" makes it even more likely it will be done poorly and result in a fire.
And with this policy effectively guaranteeing it will be almost impossible to insure a Tesla soon, then what? Several major insurers already either refuse to insure a Model S or price it so high that you will go elsewhere.�
Jan 3, 2016
Mike K You know what, I'm going to change my opinion on this again thanks to your post. The complaint is that Tesla is reaching in and changing something that you own, after the state of purchase. If I kept my salvage car I think that would be a valid gripe, especially if the change they're making is disabling third party fast DC charging however they're not doing that. They're not stripping me of options because 99.9% of the time I don't own my car after it's been in an accident serious enough for insurance to write it off. The insurance company then owns it. And frankly I don't think the insurance company much cares if supercharging is turned off car side or supercharger side. It's up to the eventual buyer to do their due diligence, factor in the cost of repairs, familiarize themselves with Tesla's policies with salvage cars and decide what the car is worth to them and if they want to take on that challenge.
But this notion that Tesla is reaching in and changing something on my car and taking a paid option away from me seems like a farce because for that to happen the car needs to be considered a total loss and if that happens I'll get a check and the car won't be mine for them to steal options from.�
Jan 3, 2016
JRP3 Another way of looking at it is supercharging is for the life of the vehicle. Once the vehicle is totaled it's no longer "alive" and anyone trying to re-register it is essentially raising it from the dead.
The effect on insurance and resale value because of limited repair options, salvaged or not, IS going to negatively impact the company at some point if it's not properly addressed. Depreciation will increase which will make it harder to charge a premium for a new vehicle.�
Jan 3, 2016
3mp_kwh This just doesn't fly, knowing how "minor" damage leads to total loss. When the cars are worth 40k, how little will it take to claim dead?
The September MA hearing, on 3383, was curiously right ahead of the dealer bill to block Tesla. Right to repair is to be a federal rule in 2018, (only 2018 models fwd), but 3383 is also a separate MA push for more general electronic devices. I saw a guy in a wheel chair make a compelling testimony on this one, as he repairs the mobile chairs and, like cell phone users and other medical device people, was frustrated by the forced salvage of otherwise good product. It may not exclude autos.
I appreciate Tesla wanting to retain control, but something similar to the CPO program's beginnings is where they are headed. They don't need the BS issues of $20k-40k used Tesla buyers hounding them. I have the manual, and as mentioned, its repair/replace and cites "toolbox" for drive train. You don't get software, or anything close to OBD II access.
If they are listening, what I hope they appreciate is the after warranty culture that exists for most marques. It isn't something to be taken for granted, and needs to be developed. Their whole business model hasn't got the resources to deal with chronic, out of warranty issues on 4-6 year old cars. Why wish this on yourself? What capacity is the 20k-40k Model S buyer going to have to access refurb parts, that could otherwise cost them $5,000 from a Service Center? Air spring units new from Continental? The non-drive systems alone stand to sink post-warranty value of a Tesla. I know a GM guy, in MI, who I can send a spedo cluster to, another the nav "head unit"/"MCU", etc. Outside of Tesla's warranty, there is a lot else that needs to happen beyond worrying about deactivations from the mother ship. Glad I'm not in the cohort, but I appreciate the pioneers�
Jan 3, 2016
JRP3 I don't think that's relevant. The insurance company declares it a "totaled" vehicle, which changes it's title to "salvage". That seems to be a legal status change which the state recognizes.�
Jan 4, 2016
jaguar36 How is Tesla alerted to a vehicle being totaled? Its not right that they make any changes to the car based upon an arbitrary decision by a 3rd party.
Do any other manufactures pull features like 3g/LTE when a car is totaled? Tesla is not alone in having connected cars these days.�
Jan 4, 2016
msnow In California I'm pretty sure it's public information. The "salvage" registration label follows the VIN.�
Jan 5, 2016
Ingineer They also get a notification when there is a crash, so they know a vehicle is damaged, and that may be when they decide to pull access.�
Jan 5, 2016
lolachampcar There are also auto-disable elements within the design that "trip" when the car is hit bad enough in certain directions (12V charge disconnect being one ?????). These systems have to be re-inabled by Tesla.�
Jan 5, 2016
jaguar36 Sure, but there are alot of instances where very minor crashes have totaled a Model S, so there has to be some other notification to them.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét