You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This is extremely idealistic. Even in the less-aggressive-than-Tesla ICE modification world, the burden of proof is effectively on the owner, whatever the M-M act says.They can also only void your warranty if they can provide the part failed as a direct result of the aftermarket equipment (they can't).
This is extremely idealistic. Even in the less-aggressive-than-Tesla ICE modification world, the burden of proof is effectively on the owner, whatever the M-M act says.
In the real world at some point Tesla could blanket-void warranty on cars where they detect unauthorized software modifications (and possibly disable supercharging too) and you'd be left trying to sue them (if one bothered to opt out of binding arbitration).
I would advise people to stay stock software-wise if they are worried about warranty coverage.
I think it is important to remember that no software is being modified - the PB and CPC are intervening through the Gateway to send or change already existing CAN messages. There's a pretty big differentiator there in my opinion. If you "hacked" into the vehicle modules and rewrote/modified code - yeah that would probably be something Tesla would take issue with.
If you really want to blame anyone its Tesla themselves, its a travesty that you pay for a car and cant disable all these over invasive 'safety' systems. So they force people to pull a wheel sensor or buy a PartyBox.Think about what that would mean in court.
Tesla Lawyer: "during a routine self-diagnostic we identified a discrepancy in CAN signals between different modules in safety-critical applications and flagged the car for a physical inspection next time when the car is in for service. During service inspection, we found evidence of tampering with on-board networks. Hence, the car has been operating outside of OEM specifications. The Magnuson-Moss act does not apply. I rest my case."
In general, ICE aftermarket has been telling their customers the 'Magnuson-Moss act protects you' mistruth for ages. The law applies to OEM-spec replacement parts and does not cover parts not up to OEM spec. The burden of proof in showing the part led to failure is only for OEM-spec parts.
I doubt M-M act is even relevant for Teslas. These are software products to a large degree, the EV-specific case law is probably pretty thin, and it's more likely that some software-type laws will apply before anything else.
So, this is also likely:
Tesla Lawyer: "We found evidence that the user tampered with operation of Tesla software, which is against EULA. So, we have prevented the modified software from interacting with our networks. Since the user operated the software without complying with EULA, we are not responsible for any hardware damage that might have occurred"
The ICE reflash sellers kept (and still keep) telling the same "our reflashes are undetectable" story for years. Except that it was generally a lie and a ton of people ended up with denied warranty claims.
Look, I'm not against modifications. But the 'you gonna pay to play' is the proper mindset. There's a non-trivial chance Tesla will catch you and make you pay.
Just think about it - Tesla already know every single customer who take their cars to the track. It should be pretty easy to screen those cars for discrepancies, if they wanted to. They *probably* won't bother, but you never know.
And to the 'it's just a signal tampering, not software modification' argument:
If you modified the thermal sensor signal in your PC to allow it to run hotter/faster to circumvent software throttling, do you think your burned out CPU should be covered?