Service Manual Subscriptions

[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.

 

[Danal]

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.

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...

 

[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?

 

[Danal]

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?

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.

 

[Gizmotoy]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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! =)

 

[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).

 

[markb1]

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! =)

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.

 

[lolachampcar]

yes, but it is IP distributed under license/agreement.

 

[zwede]

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.

Cool stuff:
Fun with Tesla motor - DIY Electric Car Forums

 

[neroden]

So, I have absolutely no problem with Tesla defending a copyright.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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:

 

[apacheguy]

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.

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.

 

[Ingineer]

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.

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.

 

[lolachampcar]

I wonder if they have battery communication authentication.

 

[wk057]

I wonder if they have battery communication authentication.

Some basic analysis of this done by someone else suggests this may be the case, actually.