-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Service Manual Subscriptions
- Thread starter Morristhecat
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model S
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
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
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Tesla shared their patents with the world but won't provide a service manual for vehicle owners... 
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm sure we'd be interested in following the case, should you ever move to MA.
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.
thegruf
Active Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
green1
Active Member
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.
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!
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!
Last edited:
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.
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.
Similar threads
- Question
