Service Manual Subscriptions

[tga]

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 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.

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.

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.

 

[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.)

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[wk057]

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.

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.

 

[Gizmotoy]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Danal]

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.

We will have to agree to disagree, because you don't own them.

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.

"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 - - -

Tesla are treading a very fine line between innovative and forward thinking, and restrictive practices.

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.

 

[yobigd20]

They can follow the Apple way and say we don't own the software which AFAIK apple's won those suits many times.

 

[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.

 

[qwk]

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?

FYI, quite a few of those replacements you listed will work fine without new firmware. Major components, especially different revisions are a different story.

 

[FlasherZ]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[wk057]

FYI, quite a few of those replacements you listed will work fine without new firmware. Major components, especially different revisions are a different story.

Just going by what Tesla's documentation says.

Also, another fun thing: you can't bleed coolant lines without their software. lol.

 

[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.....

 

[wk057]

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.....

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.

 

[markb1]

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.

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.

 

[skboston]

FYI, quite a few of those replacements you listed will work fine without new firmware. Major components, especially different revisions are a different story.

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.