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.
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:
lolachampcar said:
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?
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:
(d) (1) Beginning in model year 2018, except as provided in subsection (e), manufacturers of motor vehicles sold in the commonwealth, including heavy duty vehicles that are not heavy duty vehicles built to custom specifications sold in the commonwealth for commercial purposes, shall provide access to their onboard diagnostic and repair information system, as required under this section, using an off-the-shelf personal computer with sufficient memory, processor speed, connectivity and other capabilities as specified by the vehicle manufacturer and: (i) a non-proprietary vehicle interface device that complies with the Society of Automotive Engineers standard J2534, Society of Automotive Engineers J1939, commonly referred to as SAE J2534 and SAE J1939, the International Organization for Standardization standard 22900, commonly referred to as ISO 22900 or any successor to SAE J2534, SAE J1939 or ISO 22900 as may be accepted or published by the Society of Automotive Engineers or the International Organization for Standardization; (ii) an onboard diagnostic and repair information system integrated and entirely self-contained within the vehicle, including, but not limited to, service information systems integrated into an onboard display; or (iii) a system that provides direct access to onboard diagnostic and repair information through a non-proprietary vehicle interface, such as ethernet, universal serial bus or digital versatile disc. Each manufacturer shall provide access to the same onboard diagnostic and repair information available to their dealers, including technical updates to such onboard systems, through such non-proprietary interfaces as referenced in this paragraph. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require a dealer to use a non-proprietary vehicle interface specified in this paragraph, nor shall this chapter be construed to prohibit a manufacturer from developing a proprietary vehicle diagnostic and reprogramming device; provided, however, that: (i) the manufacturer also complies with this paragraph; and (ii) the manufacturer also makes this device available to independent repair facilities upon fair and reasonable terms and otherwise complies with subsection (a).
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).
