Non-mechanic tries to repair NJ flood Tesla

[mjannusch]

Seems like Tesla should have some sort of agreement with the insurance companies that if one is totaled like this that instead of it going to auction Tesla would pay a "core charge" to the insurance company to get it back and recycle/destroy it properly.

Leaving these damaged Teslas around out in the wild seems like a very bad idea.

[BATMAN]

Good point.
Why allow insurance companies to sell off salvaged Tulsa's if they are blacklisted anyway?

[Jeff V.]

I totally understand why Tesla would blacklist you from using their supercharging network if you fuck with their electronics, same with the body. It's all about the HV stuff, they do not want you messing with it because you could die multiple times by being stupid. Can you imagine someone making modifications to the undertray?! Yeikes!

I get that. One of the big Tesla hackers (Jason, wk057) has a similar perspective. But here's where the problem lies.

Tesla is not blocking your car at the Supercharger network. They log into YOUR CAR remotely, and disabling SC, which has the side effect of shutting down ALL high voltage charging.

They own the SC network. They do not own YOUR CAR. They have no right to go into a car that you legally own and disable or remove features, especially without any evidence that the charging system is compromised to begin with.

That same guy I mentioned earlier is the one who leaked the artwork for the P100D logo, based on his disassembly of their firmware. Once that got out, Tesla logged into his car can and rolled back the firmware to a previous version. Fortunately Jason already had the firmware files and was able to re-update his car. He then blocked Tesla's remote access because he had root on the car's OS

This isn't a kindle subscription. This is a $40-125,000 physical item that you've bought and paid for, with features that were intact at that time of purchase. They've got no right to log into it without your consent and start altering shit.

Like I said...if they want to secure the SC network, then block the car from connecting to the network. But don't alter the car itself.

[Chris95RT]

That's a dangerous path to head down I feel, but I don't disagree with you.

[Jeff V.]

Leaving these damaged Teslas around out in the wild seems like a very bad idea.

This is only going to get worse. Tesla is hardly the only hybrid or EV on the block. Plenty more are here, and lots more are coming out. I'm sure people said many of the same things when the automobile was introduced. You ride around on top of a tank of highly volatile, combustible liquid. How could we possibly let untrained people anywhere near these things? You store these bombs in your house! hnoes:

[Chris95RT]

Tesla is not blocking your car at the Supercharger network. They log into YOUR CAR remotely, and disabling SC, which has the side effect of shutting down ALL high voltage charging.

They own the SC network. They do not own YOUR CAR. They have no right to go into a car that you legally own and disable or remove features, especially without any evidence that the charging system is compromised to begin with.

I agree with everything you said, but to my original point- there aren't any smarts in the charging station itself most times and more often than not it's just a HV switch, and a PWM pilot signal and the smarts are all done on board. At least that's with AC/DC chraging, I'm not sure how the DC/DC stuff is done with Tesla's network.

But still, I'm sure the charging software is doing something behind the scenes to ensure battery health. If you start getting into the battery charging software and you don't understand the charging algorithm and you connect to a super charger (or any high level charging) things could go wrong quickly. So I understand balancing the want for tinkering, but throwing a rod on an engine is a lot less sever than a lithium fire because someone removed the hard charging limits on the battery or messed with the SoC/SoH estimation software.

I always go back to this to put this argument in a better frame, if Ford/Gm/Honda/Toyota/Fararri/etc can get sued for people leaving their vehicles on and accidentally killing themselves with carbon monoxide due to push button start, then why on earth would you let them mess with the limits for the driverless features, or the high voltage charging software.

[Chris95RT]

[quote=""Jeff V.""]This is only going to get worse. Tesla is hardly the only hybrid or EV on the block. Plenty more are here, and lots more are coming out. I'm sure people said many of the same things when the automobile was introduced. You ride around on top of a tank of highly volatile, combustible liquid. How could we possibly let untrained people anywhere near these things? You store these bombs in your house! hnoes:[/quote]

I know it's tongue and cheek, but you can see a lot of what's going on with this stuff and therefore it's relatable. A leaky fuel line, that's something I can see diagnose and fix, a fully charged 400v battery pack with a cell that's about to short? Or gas? I can't see that, and have to rely upon software to detect that for me. If people fuck with that, especially if they release it with the intent for distribution because it either increases their battery life, decreases charging time, etc. you're going to have an exploded cell.

It's not exactly apples to apples.

Plus all engines basically do the same thing with air fuel and spark, to charge Li+ batteries requires knowledge of the chemistry and specific failure modes behind it.

[Jeff V.]

there aren't any smarts in the charging station itself most times

Tesla's SC network is capable of authenticating cars based on VIN and other data it gets through the charge connector. This will be critical once the model 3 launches. The S and X have free charging for life built into the purchase price. But the 3 will be subscription based.

So yes, they could easily block the car at the charger.

As far as the fuel stuff goes, people learned to fix that. Fuel, airbags, drive by wire....we can fix all of that, and all of it has the risk of injury or death if handled incorrectly. Airbags are literally explosives, and I fuck with those regularly. I hope to eventually install a newer Mitsu DBW system in my truck. Hell, the car can fall on you if it's not supported correctly. We'll learn to fix the HV stuff too.

[Chris95RT]

Err'ing on the side of Tesla there, they may be protecting against the future when not all DC/DC chargers are controlled by them. And blocking it at their network, may not protect them from all the DC/DC networks.

And I just don't see the relationship between all those things and this, all those things are things with failure modes that are visible and don't require software to diagnose problems with (incorrectly installed airbags, leaky fluids, etc), with the exception of drive by wire. You're not allowed to fuck with the software that controls and diagnoses that function, and for good reason since messing with that can lead to unintended acceleration.

We've already learned to diagnose, fix and reliably operate the HV stuff, with software, and if someone messes with that then you're going to be at a disadvantage- even if that doesn't lead to premature failure of a part. I think what you really meant to say is that we've learned to tweak and do aftermarket repairs on all the other stuff, but my original point still stands is that a lot of that is easily relatable. For example some batteries can't be charged past 95% and below 20% due to over under charging the cell, could you imagine someone looking at that limit and saying, I WANT 100%!

I just don't see the relationship you're trying to paint between a car falling on you if not supported correctly, and someone turning off a software function for a HV battery pack and flashing their car thinking they'll get a performance boost out of it when in turn you're putting it into a dangerous state. Regardless, my original point still stands- Tesla is just CYAing themselves incase someone does something stupid and tries to sue them for it. I don't think it's malicious, much like how the OEMs don't want you in the control strategy in a PCM.

I could concede that calibration tables for performance might be a better argument, however. But that's not the thesis of my argument.

[Jeff V.]

You're not allowed to fuck with the software that controls and diagnoses that function

Really? We're not 'allowed' to mess with a lot of things, but we do it anyway. The throttle maps have been available for Mitsu and many other manufacturers for a few years now. AEM even sells a standalone ECU that can work with DBW throttles. Oh, wait...it's 'for off road use only'

For example some batteries can't be charged past 95% and below 20% due to over under charging the cell, could you imagine someone looking at that limit and saying, I WANT 100%!

Can you imagine someone looking at a gas engine and thinking I WANT 1000 HORSEPOWER! You risk damaging your engine, your car, and yourself. You start fucking with the charging system on your EV, you risk damaging your pack, your car, and yourself. What's the difference? Just like we had to learn how to deal with carburetors, then fuel injection, then ECU mapping and boost pressure and direct injection....we'll learn to deal with electrical packs. Some people will fuck up their cars or themselves. Some won't.

I just don't see the relationship you're trying to paint between a car falling on you if not supported correctly, and someone turning off a software function for a HV battery pack and flashing their car thinking they'll get a performance boost out of it when in turn you're putting it into a dangerous state.

Because someone who doesn't know what they're doing can cause property damage, injury, or death. EVs are not some special little oyster that only the anointed few can open.

Can you imagine the shitstorm if GM was able to retroactively lock you out of using certain kinds of fuel stations, just because you repaired your car and didn't pay them for a costly re-certification? Maybe it'd be ok for them to remotely log in and disable your cruise control and limit your speed to 55 because you put unapproved wheels and tires on your truck? (You laugh, but there were discussions about that when I worked at GM Techline)

Tesla has no right to alter YOUR property. It's not a rental or a subscription, where they retain ownership.

They can refuse to support it, they can refuse to service it, and they can refuse to charge it on their network. But they have no right to cripple it once I've paid for it.

[BillyC]

[quote=""Jeff V.""]

They can refuse to support it, they can refuse to service it, and they can refuse to charge it on their network. But they have no right to cripple it once I've paid for it.[/quote]

That simply isn't true in this day and age sadly.

Look up what John Deere is doing with their software/tractors (and like you said, GM is all for it.)

[vr4]

1000hp in an engine isn't a few keystrokes away

[Jeff V.]

That simply isn't true in this day and age sadly.

That's directly related to what Tesla is doing. There's some lawsuits about it, as I recall.

I don't think there's a Federal law about it, but some states have a 'right to repair' law. The OEM is supposed to make available the service manuals and diagnostic tools a 3rd party would need in order to conduct diagnostics and repairs. These resources are supposed to be identical to what they provide to their franchised dealers.

I've actually bought short term subscriptions from mitsubishitechinfo.com to get that exact information and software. As far as I know, all of the automotive OEMs that sell in the US, offer this.

Tesla has blocked all of that, except in states where they've been forced not to. So the flooded Tesla guy actually has access to the service manuals thanks to Massachusetts law. But somehow he still can't get the diagnostic software.

I guess John Deere gets away with it because farm equipment is exempt from those laws. It's utter bullshit.

And just because the laws force access to the documentation and tools, the OEM isn't forced to provide parts. So they can force you to go to their chosen and often over priced shops. Massachusetts apparently has ONE Tesla authorized body repair center. Nobody else is even allowed to obtain the parts. They don't sell nearly enough cars for there to be cost effective 3rd party replacements.

This is going to bite them in the ass when they launch the model 3. Not so much for the DIY crowd, but because someone who buys a $35,000 car isn't likely to have multiple other cars to drive while the Tesla is in line for 2 months at a repair shop 200 miles away, over a fender bender.

[Jeff V.]

1000hp in an engine isn't a few keystrokes away

How much additional torque can you get out of a Duramax or a Cummins with just a reflash? 1000hp is an exaggeration, but not by much.

I'm not even sure it took a 'few' keystrokes to do this. I think it was all of one button press to make an old S4 outrun a new RS4.

https://www.youtube.com/v/2KfMY96v_Gc[/youtube]

[Jeff V.]

The entire thing is less about safety and intellectual property than it is about profit. These manufacturers want to squeeze every last dime out of their consumers, and they sure as hell don't want that stream of profit to end once the initial sale is complete. They want every moment of ongoing ownership to be part of a paid subscription. From initial purchase to ongoing maintenance, use and upgrades, if they can charge you for it over and over again, they will damned sure do so.

If they allow outsiders to have knowledge and resources to repair or alter their product, they lose out on that ongoing revenue.

Every day you actually own less and less of the property you paid for.

[Chris95RT]

I sadly don't have the time to do you service and go back and forth, but latent failure modes with electricity and specifically batteries are a lot more dependant upon temperature, charging control, etc than engines are. You can't blow up a 1kHP car when it's in your garage, charging, a failed or on it's way to failure battery pack with software functions turned off can be.

You shouldn't be allowed to mess with the pedal processing features in a drive by wire system, just like you shouldn't be messing with charging controls or installing unverified aftermarket charging stuff in your car- the engineering going into those to make them robust in all the different edge cases is a lot more than a chinese guy fucking with it to get it working. So I just don't see it as a profit motive, as much as them covering their asses from being sued to oblivion.

Remember, Ford and every other push button OEM got sued because someone in a MKT killed themselves by forgetting to turn their car off because it was push button. That's the baseline man, can you imagine if their garage burned down and took little fluffly with it because they decided to install some after market software that was unverified? You have to protect against foreseeable misuse, that's functional safety 101 and that's what I see Tesla doing. I'd might agree with your profit incentive if I didn't see the OEMs getting sued for silly shit.

Poking around inside of HV electronics has 0 room for failure once you touch contactors, electricity is a different beast than an engine- you cannot see what's going on and most people don't understand it/aren't intuitive enough about it.


I mean I get a cold sweat thinking about someone fucking with their adaptive cruise control calibration because they feel it's not aggressive enough, holy shit can you imagine that?

[Chris95RT]

I don't think there's a Federal law about it, but some states have a 'right to repair' law. The OEM is supposed to make available the service manuals and diagnostic tools a 3rd party would need in order to conduct diagnostics and repairs. These resources are supposed to be identical to what they provide to their franchised dealers.

Only if the part that isn't under repair isn't something HV related, or structural.

Massachusetts apparently has ONE Tesla authorized body repair center. Nobody else is even allowed to obtain the parts. They don't sell nearly enough cars for there to be cost effective 3rd party replacements.

This is going to bite them in the ass when they launch the model 3. Not so much for the DIY crowd, but because someone who buys a $35,000 car isn't likely to have multiple other cars to drive while the Tesla is in line for 2 months at a repair shop 200 miles away, over a fender bender.

This is all free market banter, if Tesla wants to compete with the big boys they'll need to figure out a better way to support their cars. Otherwise, don't buy them and buy a Bolt/FusionPHEV etc, problem solved with that.

The throttle maps have been available for Mitsu and many other manufacturers for a few years now.

Mapping, tables, and calibration is one thing, but functional strategy code is a completely different thing. What I'm concerned about is you turning off your break override feature because you caused a DTC after mapping your throttle to be at 100% all the time accidentally.

[BillyC]

[quote=""Jeff V.""]

Every day you actually own less and less of the property you paid for.[/quote]

for sure...here's an excerpt from an article I've read about John Deere.

We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Very Idea of Ownership

General Motors told the Copyright Office that proponents of copyright reform mistakenly “conflate ownership of a vehicle with ownership of the underlying computer software in a vehicle.” But I’d bet most Americans make the same conflation—and Joe Sixpack might be surprised to learn GM owns a giant chunk of the Chevy sitting in his driveway.

Essentially (and I could certainly be wrong), what you guys did with the code from the Mitsu ECU's is illegal.

Please don't think I agree with it at all, but what you've said is becoming more true each and every day.

[Chris95RT]

I can see ya'lls point of view, but I can see the OEM as well. On the OEM side:

1) You have to worry about functional safety features being turned off.
2) You have to worry about someone reverse engineering your stuff, which you spent a lot of time developing on and stealing it.

From the tinkerer:

1) You want to be able to recalibrate things, and change how things run without having to pay the OEM for an upgraded calibration.

I don't think it's right to say they own it, but Tesla in this case has to protect themselves from someone installing a battery pack or messing with the HV electronics and causing irregularities in charging it especially when you're not there. I'd imagine the JD thing is more them protecting their secret sauce.

[Jeff V.]

I sadly don't have the time to do you service and go back and forth, but latent failure modes with electricity and specifically batteries are a lot more dependant upon temperature, charging control, etc than engines are. You can't blow up a 1kHP car when it's in your garage, charging, a failed or on it's way to failure battery pack with software functions turned off can be.

All the more reason to provide ample documentation regarding diagnostics and repairs. People WILL try to repair and upgrade these things, whether Tesla likes it or not. Their refusal to do so is just encouraging people to dig that much deeper and more enthusiastically.

As far as being 'allowed' to tinker with things...well, we need that. Eventually it's in the OEMs best interests to simply stop supporting this stuff. They can't realistically support it forever. But cars aren't like iPhones, where you can just afford to toss is out after 2-3 years. Most of this problem would go away if they'd offer affordable and/or standardized diagnostic tools and documentation. We wouldn't have to 'hack into it' just to figure out how to fix it. The side effect of hacking it is we also figure out how to modify it along the way. OBD2 is a tiny step in the right direction, but it's falls woefully short of being truly useful for anything beyond basic emission controls.

If they can't or won't support them after a certain time, then end users and independent repair shops need to be able to do so.

Otherwise they need to do like Matt said and buy these pieces of shit back when they're no longer 'useful'.