Service Manual Subscriptions

[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!

Why? ... why the heck can't I?

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.

I am not understanding why Tesla think they are in a different position to any other auto manufacturer. ... Protectionism always ends badly.

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.

 

[wk057]

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.

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.

 

[thegruf]

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.

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.

 

[Red Sage]

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.

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.

 

[thegruf]

gotta love it when people resort to just being plain offensive

 

[Red Sage]

Nice of you to admit to your offence.

 

[thegruf]

:yawn:

move on please

 

[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.

 

[Danal]

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.

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.

 

[tga]

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.

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.

 

[qwk]

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.

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 - - -

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.

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.....

 

[JST]

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.

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.

 

[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.

1. The service manual is MANY individual web pages. Couldn't find a way to get PDF's.
2. 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.
3. As stated by others, many of the replacement directions include telling you to re flash the firmware using the toolbox.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.

Summary: it was interesting to see what was available first hand, but I doubt I will be going back for more information.

 

[qwk]

[*]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....

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.

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[okashira]

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.

1. The service manual is MANY individual web pages. Couldn't find a way to get PDF's.
2. 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.
3. As stated by others, many of the replacement directions include telling you to re flash the firmware using the toolbox.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.

Summary: it was interesting to see what was available first hand, but I doubt I will be going back for more information.

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...

 

[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.

 

[Danal]

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.

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.