Tesla remote detects Boost50 acceleration mod

[Apprunner]

There is nothing fraudulent or illegal about this mod, despite your continuous posts saying such but not backing it up with any kind of reference to what laws (atleast here in the USA) are being broken.

you may be right in terms of legality. My only argument is that Tesla has the right to refuse service and future updates to that car once you’ve modified it because you broke your terms of service. Neither is illegal and both are within their rights. As long as the owner is aware of this, mod away.

 

[MXLRplus]

It's also illegal to steal paid services from a company. If this device was flipping the bit to tell the car you paid 2k for the boost (plus also doing the door open or whatever nonsense) it'd potentially be illegal the same way a hacked satellite card saying you paid for HBO would be.

If instead they entirely wrote their own code to intercept canbus data input from the "not boosted" car and instead send out "here's our own commands to the drive units to make it act LIKE it's boosted" that'd be no issue.


What's interesting is if it's that second one, there's no good reason they couldn't have offered such a device for RWD cars too-- and they don't.


If I had to guess- they basically copied Teslas boost code (which only works on LR AWD cars obviously) and changed it JUST enough to avoid a lawsuit- but don't really understand the systems well enough that they could write their own from-scratch code to work on a RWD car.

But that's just a guess.

My guess based on experience is that it would be a civil matter, not criminal. When a company defrauded me to acquire my services for free, the police would not touch it.

 

[TEG]

I'm all for mods - want to change your wheels, tires, whatever?

I agree with much of what you have been saying, but even wheels & tires are safety related. If you installed really bad wheels that broke, or came off, you could have an out of control vehicle that could cause injury and damage.
Really bad tires can lead to out of control vehicles as well.
If Tesla had things their way, they would probably ban all aftermarket wheels and tires too, but that "train has left the station", and there is just too much of that going on for them to stop it.

 

[smatthew]

I think all that will happen is Tesla will encrypt the communications with the drive unit. Then if Boost50 comes up with a workaround Tesla can DMCA the producers for breaking the encryption. And flag accounts of everyone who that they detected using the boost50 mod. Because there is no way you can prove that the Boost50 didn't cause damage to the drive unit. Moss-Magnusen won't help you.
Seriously, I want to modify my Tesla. Once I'm completely out of warranty I'm getting a front drive unit installed in my LR RWD. But there is no way I would ever make a modification to my Tesla that would hurt my warranty.

PS: And again, I'm graced by the presence of ElectricIAC's disagree. I think that user just clicks disagree on anything Knightshade or myself write.

 

[Knightshade]

My guess based on experience is that it would be a civil matter, not criminal. When a company defrauded me to acquire my services for free, the police would not touch it.

Could be either depending on the specifics... there's both criminal and civil fraud statutes on the books most places. Burden of proof is lower in civil court though and more commonly the avenue pursued (and doesn't rely on a government prosecutor being interested in helping you)

 

[Siciliano]

So, going through this thread, it seems to me it would only make sense to do any of these "speed" mods *IF* and only if the creator(s) of said mods were 100% sure they only affected the motors themselves and nothing having to do with the automation systems, or any other systems. Whether or not that's even possible is a different story.

This reminds me of the threads about 2018 AWD owners (like myself) complaining that they have the same motors as the P... Tesla just software gimps them. It's not a mind-blowing difference from the AWD (with boost) to the P, but it's just annoying to know my motors would be capable of P performance with the press of a button...

I don't understand why Tesla doesn't just introduce another "boost" upgrade to push the motors to P levels. All they have to do is price the upgrade appropriately so as not to piss off P owners. i.e. if the P is $6k more than the AWD with boost ($8k total), then just charge $6k for the upgrade if the owner already purchased the initial boost. If they didn't purchase the boost, charge $8k. Simple??

 

[T3SLAROD]

A performance división for Tesla.... just saying

 

[Siciliano]

A performance división for Tesla.... just saying

Indeed. Why not? BMW has M, Audi has S, Jaguar has R, etc...

But when all of these cars start going out of warranty, the EV aftermarket business will explode onto the scene. I can envision it now - not only software boosts, but all sorts of hardware add-ons that enhance the performance of the motors and/or batteries. We obviously know there is room for improvement - just look at the P100D, or the new roadster. Tesla themselves keep pushing the envelope, thusly so will the aftermarket "engineers".

This is absolutely coming - it's inexorable.

 

[T3SLAROD]

Indeed. Why not? BMW has M, Audi has S, Jaguar has R, etc...

But when all of these cars start going out of warranty, the EV aftermarket business will explode onto the scene. I can envision it now - not only software boosts, but all sorts of hardware add-ons that enhance the performance of the motors and/or batteries. We obviously know there is room for improvement - just look at the P100D, or the new roadster. Tesla themselves keep pushing the envelope, thusly so will the aftermarket "engineers".

This is absolutely coming - it's inexorable.

I hope you are right. My biggest concern is Tesla taking SC access, other than the Aftermarket will need former Tesla employees that can work on updates to keep the car going.

 

[TMThree]

They can't boost the LR RWD output because it already delivers the same output as the P models on the rear

 

[Knightshade]

I don't understand why Tesla doesn't just introduce another "boost" upgrade to push the motors to P levels.

Because they can't offer it to 990 LR AWD cars- which means they'd have to explain to NEW owners why they're buying a car with a downgraded drive unit.

See the thread from the SR guys SUPER PISSED that those have apparently switched to the 990 and feeling they're getting screwed and getting an "inferior" car somehow.

They can't boost the LR RWD output because it already delivers the same output as the P models on the rear

I didn't say LR RWD (very intentionally so for that exact reason).

I said RWD.

They could, easily, boost the SR and SR+ since they have the same rear drive unit as the LR RWD and P do. (the battery is smaller, but the actual inverter is part of the drive unit, not the battery)

(disclaimer-Again this might be limited to 980 cars only, which is up till very recently ALL SRs- that wouldn't really change anything though as there's plenty of 980 SRs out there, and EG already has a 980-only mod available in the stage 2 unlock for LR AWD so unlike Tesla they're fine offering a 980 only mod)

 

[ElectricIAC]

I hope you are right. My biggest concern is Tesla taking SC access, other than the Aftermarket will need former Tesla employees that can work on updates to keep the car going.

SC can be turned back on. Free even.

 

[dmurphy]

SC can be turned back on. Free even.

And I hope Tesla sues the everloving *sugar* out of anyone who does. That’s theft of service, plain and simple.

This is why we’re about to get trounced with encrypted firmware across the board ... to stop a$$hats.

 

[ElectricIAC]

And I hope Tesla sues the everloving *sugar* out of anyone who does. That’s theft of service, plain and simple.

This is why we’re about to get trounced with encrypted firmware across the board ... to stop a$$hats.

Well: then Tesla shouldn’t be blanket turning off DCFC.

Folks. Tesla is in the big leagues now and this comes with big league problems. Deal with it.

 

[dmurphy]

Well: then Tesla shouldn’t be blanket turning off DCFC.

Folks. Tesla is in the big leagues now and this comes with big league problems. Deal with it.

Don’t steal services. Deal with it.

 

[SomeJoe7777]

The difference is - we’re talking about a module that interrupts and rewrites signals on the CANbus between the throttle input and the drivetrain. Based - not on specs or APIs - but on reserve engineering of how the car works.

I do not have this mod nor have I seen it, so I am not privy to exactly how the mod works. But if what you are saying is true, that the mod operates by intercepting actual CANbus packets, deleting them, replacing them with generated ones within the mod hardware, and injecting those modified ones onto the CANbus, then I can tell you exactly what's about to happen.

I have seen some references/predictions that Tesla is going to encrypt and digitally sign all CANbus packets in the v11 software. If that occurs, the entire mod will no longer work and the developer will likely not be able to make it work, at least not without a LOT more effort.

You may be able to keep the mod working and running under v10, and heck, maybe you can go ahead and deal with the "incompatible modification" error message. But given that one of the biggest features of the car is constant refinement and improvement via OTA updates, you're then going to have a choice between the mod and Tesla software updates, you're not going to be able to have both. And if you want Tesla to work on the car, they're going to insist that you update, which will render the mod non-functional.

 

[Big Earl]

It's also illegal to steal paid services from a company. If this device was flipping the bit to tell the car you paid 2k for the boost (plus also doing the door open or whatever nonsense) it'd potentially be illegal the same way a hacked satellite card saying you paid for HBO would be.

Correct, but Boost50 isn’t a bit flipper.

If instead they entirely wrote their own code to intercept canbus data input from the "not boosted" car and instead send out "here's our own commands to the drive units to make it act LIKE it's boosted" that'd be no issue.

That’s what this is. It still voids the drivetrain the warranty but doesn’t seem like Theft of Service to me.

What's interesting is if it's that second one, there's no good reason they couldn't have offered such a device for RWD cars too-- and they don't.

I think EG realizes that the RWD cars don’t have unused performance headroom like the early AWD cars do.

If I had to guess- they basically copied Teslas boost code (which only works on LR AWD cars obviously) and changed it JUST enough to avoid a lawsuit- but don't really understand the systems well enough that they could write their own from-scratch code to work on a RWD car.

But that's just a guess.

I’m certain it isn’t a bit flipper; as you said, that would be theft of service and be incredibly risky for EG and whoever builds this device. This is pretty risky as it is, IMO, if for no other reason than voiding the powertrain warranty, although most of that risk is on the customer, not EG.

 

[drtimhill]

With the investment of chasing “million mile” batteries, there’s some that think Tesla could eventually stop selling cars, effectively just offering long-term rentals or subscriptions to prevent losing some of the inherent advantages. With ever increasing range and other fast charging, Tesla will already eventually lose one of their biggest advantages in supercharging (I personally don’t find it that advantageous). After that, one of the biggest aspects of the Tesla ecosystem is data. Look for the market to erode that imo.

Dont forget the pretty large IP portfolio they have built up. The next few years will be interesting, as there are a lot of claims from the upcoming makers about range etc (Lucid/VW etc). Talk it cheap, we shall see if they manage to actually approach/pass Tesla (and in some ways I hope they will, competition is never bad for consumers).

 

[Knightshade]

I think EG realizes that the RWD cars don’t have unused performance headroom like the early AWD cars do.

But- it does have headroom. On the SR and SR+

Which suggests they could only do it on the AWD because they had Teslas boost code to copy/reverse engineer, and have no such example for a RWD only car to start from.

 

[ElectricIAC]

But- it does have headroom. On the SR and SR+

Which suggests they could only do it on the AWD because they had Teslas boost code to copy/reverse engineer, and have no such example for a RWD only car to start from.

SR/+ are limited by their pack just like the MR was.