Tesla Can Detect Aftermarket Hacks Designed To Defeat EV Performance Paywalls (thedrive.com) 209
As recently highlighted by a Tesla Model 3 owner on Reddit, your connected car knows when you've hacked it, and it might be logging that data to use against you in a future warranty claim. The Drive reports: The image you see above is a warning message popped up on the man's Model 3 infotainment screen after he installed the latest over-the-air OS update from Tesla a couple weeks ago. Prior to the update, he had also added an aftermarket module from an outfit called Ingenext that allows the dual-motor Model 3 to achieve its quickest 0-60 mph time without Tesla's requisite $2,000 "Acceleration Boost" option. Its presence didn't trigger a warning prior to the software update, and though the car still drove normally, the owner couldn't get the display to clear. Ingenext is a Canadian company focused on activating the latent performance and comfort features baked-in to Tesla vehicles. One particular modification developed by the company is called "Boost 50," a $1,458 upgrade which claims to shave up to a half-second off the zero-to-60 MPH time when installed in a Model 3 equipped with dual motors but not the performance option.
[...]
Ingenext's founder Guillaume Andre told The Drive that he feared Tesla could use the detection of aftermarket parts to justify blocking vehicles from using the Supercharger network and make customers "a prisoner of the Tesla system". The owner of the Model 3 that began getting the pop-ups told us that he planned to visit a Tesla Supercharger to ensure normal functionality, but has not yet reported the results of his findings. [...] Ingenext got to working on finding just how Tesla detected its "undetectable" mod. After some prodding, it was determined that the vehicle had used a separate communications network to detect the presence of the module and ultimately determined that a second small hardware module could be installed to combat the detection. Ingenext dubbed its fix the "Nice Try Module" and has already begun shipping it to customers.
The Tesla community is torn on this matter. Some argue that owners who purchased the module knew the risk of not going through the official channels, akin to using a cheat code to unlock a DLC upgrade in a video game. Others bring up the very valid point of right to repair -- but does that also include right to modify? After all, you do own the vehicles you spent upwards of $40,000 on. Nearly every enthusiast-focused vehicle has an off-the-shelf tune of some sort that can be purchased. Ingenext says that this is only the beginning of a fight that it anticipates will be an uphill battle, if not for it, than for all aftermarket companies who develop performance mods for Teslas.
[...]
Ingenext's founder Guillaume Andre told The Drive that he feared Tesla could use the detection of aftermarket parts to justify blocking vehicles from using the Supercharger network and make customers "a prisoner of the Tesla system". The owner of the Model 3 that began getting the pop-ups told us that he planned to visit a Tesla Supercharger to ensure normal functionality, but has not yet reported the results of his findings. [...] Ingenext got to working on finding just how Tesla detected its "undetectable" mod. After some prodding, it was determined that the vehicle had used a separate communications network to detect the presence of the module and ultimately determined that a second small hardware module could be installed to combat the detection. Ingenext dubbed its fix the "Nice Try Module" and has already begun shipping it to customers.
The Tesla community is torn on this matter. Some argue that owners who purchased the module knew the risk of not going through the official channels, akin to using a cheat code to unlock a DLC upgrade in a video game. Others bring up the very valid point of right to repair -- but does that also include right to modify? After all, you do own the vehicles you spent upwards of $40,000 on. Nearly every enthusiast-focused vehicle has an off-the-shelf tune of some sort that can be purchased. Ingenext says that this is only the beginning of a fight that it anticipates will be an uphill battle, if not for it, than for all aftermarket companies who develop performance mods for Teslas.
Is that something special? (Score:2)
Quite a few pieces of software I'm using have the ability to detect if they're running a version I modified and report it back. My banking software warns me all the time that my phone is rooted and therefore "less secure", etc.
And these checks are not years old, they are decades old - there were dos games that could do it.
Why don't we get a slashdot headline for every instance, what makes this one special?
Re: (Score:3)
All to easy. They have a record of the state you purchased 'THEIR' vehicle in. On the first update, they check the state of the software, if it differs in configuration from the original, they set the change in display. Technically upon that basis you can sue them for vandalism, it spoils the appearance of your home screen and invasion of privacy. Install a hack, set the vehicle to no longer allow updates, if it requires another hack get it. Contact your local representative and demand full access to the so
Re: (Score:2)
Technically upon that basis you can sue them for vandalism, it spoils the appearance of your home screen and invasion of privacy.
Good luck, dreamer, if you think you can sue and win against a corporation that has a paper value of 300b. Or "demand" anything from them.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you try these "demands" of Ford or Toyota, or just reserve all this outrage and purple piss for Tesla? And do you think your demands would be met from literally any automotive manufacturer, ever?
I think we all know the answer already.
dos games - terribly great example (Score:2)
DOS games were written by third party publishers, who were independent from the company that wrote the operating system, which was independent from the company that wrote the BIOS, which was independent from the company that manufactured the hardware for the PC.
now imagine one company does all of that, and it also makes the games.
you are beginning the path of turning the automobile industry from a PC style ecosystem into a Console style ecosystem.
now consoles are great..... but they are terrible for innovat
Re: (Score:2)
1. because Tesla
2. because misplaced outrage
3. because the provider of the mod fucking lies on their page saying it's undetectable remotely, when that clearly is horseshit:
IMPACT ON THE MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY
The Boost 50 module is undetectable remotely. However, when visiting a Service Center or when a technician visits your home, it is recommended that you remove the device beforehand. Installation and removal takes only a few minutes. Any purchaser or user of the Boost 50 module releases Technologies Ingenext and all its related companies from any responsibility regarding the full or partial validity of the manufacturer's warranty following the use of this equipment. We are not responsible for any modifications the manufacturer could do to your car (ex: turning off some features etc.).
Re: (Score:2)
It is special insofar as we are talking about a car here, not a 'pure' software product. Cars are sold, software is licensed under a contract. Now those two legally distinct concepts are merging in interesting ways. For modifying cars we have an established legal framework in most industrial countries: Usually the after-market parts have to be certified to conform to certain standards, and there are general regulations as to what constitutes a roadworthy vehicle. Within these limitations the manufacturer up
This will be an important fightEveryt (Score:5, Insightful)
So many pieces of hardware are coming out with the "software as a service" mentality that it's going to be a huge fight in the future between vendor control and consumer freedom. Where software is forcing you to pay extra for access to features the hardware is already capable of, then I have a severe problem. Everyone thinks RMS is a zealot, but this is the real fight for freedom that we are all going to have. Manufacturers have been waiting for the technology for "hardware as a service" forever, and Tesla is championing this right now.
This will not get solved without consumer protection laws. Now is the time to have that fight, before too many other people are on the bandwagon and lobbying to keep government out of their cash cows.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This issue is similar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Winning is still losing. If it's not legal to put all the bells and whistles in and then switch them off, then manufacturers will stop putting those capabilities in the hardware unless they're paid for up front. Otherwise they're just handing you a heavily wrapped package and expecting you not to open it.
In no case do I see this outcome being to the benefit of the end user. Heads they win, tails you lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the car model they're employing, it's the IBM AS/400 model. Put two processors on the backplane but only enable one. When the client needed more speed, a tech hooked up the second processor by adding or removing a jumper wire. If this functionality was never purchased, then the second processor might just end up used as a "fix" to extend the service life if the first one fails -- just jumper it up a little different. Yes, people could do this hack themselves, and many did once the cost of a service
In a word.... No (Score:5, Insightful)
When you purchased your Tesla/iDevice/tractor/car/toaster/pizza, the company spelled-out certain guarantees and/or levels of service at certain levels of cost. Here's the deal: YOU DO NOT GET TO DICTATE THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT. The company offers the terms at the point of purchase. If you don't like them, you are free to walk away. If you purchase, it means that YOU ACCEPT THE MANUFACTURERS TERMS. If you purchase and then voluntarily break the terms of the warranty, that's fine, but that means the MANUFACTURER IS ABSOLVED OF RESPONSIBILITY TO YOU. It..... cuts... both.... ways.
Therefore, you do not get to jailbreak your Tesla, blow it up along with several of your fingers and half your face, and expect the company to foot the bill for the replacement Tesla AND the cybernetic replacements for your face and part of your skull. Buddy, that's all on you. Furthermore, Tesla was providing certain services to your car that you might not qualify for anymore. Sucks for you.
If, at the point of purchase, Tesla says that installation of 3rd party wall-breaker devices or services voids their warranty, then Tesla is NOT responsible for your car once you go that route. If you do, you're in the wild, wild west baby and you're gonna have to take care of your own horse.
Re:In a word.... No (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree: someone who modifies their car (or anything else) loses their right to have it fixed under warranty. What's not okay is the car nagging you about it without you being able to clear the message. It should say "WE SEE YOU INSTALLED AN UNAUTHORIZED MODULE. PRESS YES TO AGREE TO VOID THE WARRANTY, OR REMOVE THE MODULE". If you press yes, it should disappear forever, because you've chosen to assume the responsibility.
Also, what's slightly disturbing is buying a car with features artificially locked by the firmware. But I guess the practice isn't new. Still, I find it a bti infuriating.
Re: In a word.... No (Score:2)
Why is that infuriating? Because itâ(TM)s instead of Tesla building a completely different motor and charging you for it? It used to be that if you could get a car that was made with two engine variants and you bought the V6, the way you upgraded to the V8 model was by buying another car or sourcing a new engine and replacing the whole shebang, at your own cost. Now you can decide you want the V6-equivalent and later upgrade to the V8-equivalent by the power of software. Thatâ(TM)s pretty neat.
But
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok you Tesla Shill. I'm calling you out because your argument doesn't make sense and it's in favor of Tesla.
Here's how it currently works:
You bought the car. It has 100% capability. But you're only getting, say, 80% out of it. That extra 20% you're not getting, but already payed for? Yea, that's an extra $2,000 just because.
It's the equivalent of buying an 8-cylinder engine and getting 6 cylinders out of it. You can pay $2,000 to use the extra 2 cylinders.
Go to the store, buy all your groceries. The store c
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft produces one Windows binary. You pay more for a 'key' to unlock Windows Pro on your computer that came with Windows Home, which enables features in the software that could not be run but that were present, and taking up space on your hard drive.
Everybody seems to find this acceptable.
Re: In a word.... No (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's how it currently works:
You bought the car. It has 100% capability. But you're only getting, say, 80% out of it. That extra 20% you're not getting, but already payed for? Yea, that's an extra $2,000 just because.
False. You didn't pay for it. But you can, retroactively, for $2000, and have it added to your car instantly.
You already received exactly what you paid for - you did not pay for the performance upgrade, and you did not receive the performance upgrade.
Your other examples are just as stupid, and fall to the same logic - you bought a product with stated specifications, and those specifications were delivered unto you. Now all of a sudden you want something else for free, which wasn't agreed upon.
modifies their car = non dealer oil change nag (Score:2)
modifies their car = non dealer oil change nag screen we do not need that.
Re: (Score:2)
Or how about:
System checksum fault detected: 0x30.F8.1C.D9.00.00.00.01
To clear this message:
- Remove detected module(s).
- Initiate full restart by pressing [here]
- If fault persists, schedule a systems check* at your service center
*service charges may apply
That would seem to be the only reasonable request, liability-wise.
Safety (Score:2)
I think its more nuanced than that.
Lets say your mod allows the auto pilot to follow cars really really closely. Should Tesla allow you to employ that mod?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be illegal here. It only voids your warranty if Tesla can prove that the modification was the cause of the fault.
Otherwise manufacturers would claim that putting 3rd party mats in your car would void the warranty. You'd see an "unauthorized bumper stick, warranty void" message on your dash.
Re: (Score:2)
The analogy is not exact since in the case of the Tesla you know 100% the hardware is capable of more but if you bought a model with X features for Y price and someone bough
Re: (Score:2)
If I replace the stock LED bulbs with more powerful ones to make to the trunk a bit brighter (which I have done), then voiding the warranty, preventing me from supercharging, nagging me on the screen about it every time I drive, or even preventing me from driving the car may be legally okay, but it's not ethically okay. (Thankfully none of these have occurred, but you get my point).
First Sale Doctrine (Score:2)
Modify your vehicle as you like. YOU signed the contract with Tesla.
Then sell if. To anyone else, like your wife, your buddy, your kid, your LLC.
The new buyer has no contract with Tesla, and the warranties remain in full force.
If Tesla won't honor that, lawsuits and losses will ensue for them.
E
Re: In a word.... No (Score:2)
Too simple.
You pay for a working car, the manufacturer owes you one. If your modification breaks it, then ok, you lose warranty. But if your modification performs within parameters defined by the manufacturer, then they should still be liable.
If a bit flip is/does essentially the same as if Tesla would have done it, they're in for it. It would but different if, say, peformance cars would have an extra set of coolers for the battery, or a substantially different battery management software module to accomoda
Re: (Score:2)
No, the manufacturer cannot force you to agree to whatever terms it likes, that's why we have consumer rights laws setting out things like minimum warranty terms and on what basis that warranty must be honoured. Otherwise all car manufacturers would offer the same standard 5 minute warranty, no unauthorized oil changes, no 3rd party diagnostics etc.
Obviously if you blow your Tesla up that's on you. But these guys are just turning on features that Tesla themselves built into the car and disabled via software
It's well known that you don't own a Tesla (Score:2)
this is why Rich Rebuilds ditched Tesla (Score:2)
they have demonstrated that many of the people in their highest levels of management would prefer if nobody fixed their own Tesla, let alone modify it.
people think Apple is bad.... oy vey.
A person I know is an automotive engineer (Score:2)
Risk your car for $500 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
> But you aren't are you, you're getting the exact same as the guy who paid a bit more.
Clearly not, because the guy who paid more gets a higher performance software package. You are not paying for the high performance software.
Worth noting that I actually disagree with this business model, but there is nothing untoward about it either; You pay less, you get less. It's actually to the model's credit that you can pay that extra fee *at any time* to *instantly* receive the benefit, rather than having to phy
What about other hardware (Score:2)
I recall the storage guys where I work purchasing 48 port FC switches and licensing 24 ports. How would you all feel about finding a way to activate the other ports on the switch? Is it different because it is the company's money and not mine.
Honestly I am split on the issue and having a hard time reconciling what I feel is right, I know that it should be your hardware but those features are not what you purchased.
Same with ilo or idrac enterprise version, is using the same key across all your servers OK?
Re: (Score:2)
Did they hire Apple Engineers (Score:3)
I buy car; I own car (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You can. No one is denying this to you. Just don't expect the manufacturer to take any interest when you go crying to them for a warranty claim.
this is why i will never buy a tesla (Score:3)
"you want to go fast enough to pass the slower cars?" that will be an extra 5 thousand dollars, you see the slippery slope this leads to, i think consumers should avoid this sort of shenanigans,
Consequenses (Score:2)
This is a stupid battle to make against Tesla. If "We" win, then Tesla just stops selling the models with limitations, only having the expensive version on market.
Then we lose, because:
Alternatively, Tesla will stop making easy upgrades and will build separate models for each tier - thereby effectively locking you to a tier and it will bring up the prices for all models because of increased cos
Sigh. (Score:2)
Next stage - they encrypt or isolate all internal communications and you only get a read-only OBD.
Like almost every other car has/should do.
Why you think you can tinker in the internals of a device without consequence, "just because you own it" I can't really fathom. Especially where it can impact on other systems, safety, etc.
As far as I'm concerned this is no different to modding your car's ECU, and then expecting Ford to continue supporting your modded ECU. It was game over as soon as you replaced it.
I
When you buy a car, you buy the car (Score:3)
I have yet to need an additional 0.5 secs of 0-60, so I haven't purchased the Acceleration Boost as I have other immediate uses for $2000.
I can see a modification barring me from future software updates. Most cars don't get updates after you drive off the lot, and if they do have them, they're usually not free. I can also see a modification voiding a warranty, as would be the case for any other vehicle.
I draw the line at superchargers, though. Even with CHAdeMO DC fast chargers peppered around the US, you absolutely need access to the supercharger network to make any time-effective roadtrips in a Tesla. L2 chargers are just way too slow. Tesla should never revoke access to supercharging.
More SV poison (Score:2)
You certainly have the rights to modify (Score:2)
Re:Nagware in a car? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not nagware, fuck-you-ware. Used to be rear three decades ago, very much a standard for everything software now, owing to the myopic ideology that taught us greed is good and taking the piss is moral.
Re: (Score:2)
used to be rear
rare, even .
Re:Nagware in a car? (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL but I think the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act would prevent Tesla from retaliating in the form of voiding warranty, *potentially* even preventing supercharger usage. They'd basically have to prove that the aftermarket modification caused the problem that the warranty otherwise covers, and in the case of the supercharger it could be going against the intent of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO it's going to become a very contentious gray area. If Tesla software detects a modification, and shuts the car down, it's arguably the modification that caused the car to shut down. Then if the customer comes in with a warranty claim, Tesla can claim that the modification caused the problem and refuse to fix that problem under their warranty. MMWA would prevent them from voiding the warranty for altogether unrelated problems, fine. But is there a law that prevents Tesla from charging a punitively large
Re: (Score:2)
If Tesla software detects a modification, and shuts the car down, it's arguably the modification that caused the car to shut down.
I'm not sure that I follow ... if the manufacture has many ways to deal with the change - including shutting the car down sporadically, or ignoring it, how is doing the more dangerous of the two anyone's fault but the ones who thought "hey, let's shut down someone's car if we detect an aftermarket change, who cares if they started speeding down a highway!"
I'm not a lawyer, but I just can't help but feel that your assertion that "Tesla can claim that the modification caused the problem and refuse to fix tha
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO it's going to become a very contentious gray area. If Tesla software detects a modification, and shuts the car down, it's arguably the modification that caused the car to shut down. Then if the customer comes in with a warranty claim, Tesla can claim that the modification caused the problem and refuse to fix that problem under their warranty. MMWA would prevent them from voiding the warranty for altogether unrelated problems, fine. But is there a law that prevents Tesla from charging a punitively large amount for recovery from detected aftermarket modifications?
We already have cell phone manufacturers and network operators that make system software modifications incredibly difficult, locking down against modified ROM code, but I see little opportunity for the consumer to complain about this. If you brick your phone, you may be able to obtain community support if you're lucky, but the manufacturers don't appear inclined to help you at all.
So basically tesla would be able to brick your car with no recourse and blame it on you? Seems dodgy as fuck really. At best they should be able to say you've changed something, we aren't responible if it explodes and kills you but they cant essentially steal your car off you, the funcionality of it at least. Can they?
Re: (Score:2)
There's one thing I don't understand: Apart from whether or not Tesla should be fighting these modifications, what puzzles me is why you would pay $1458 for an unofficial unsupported upgrade with some kind of dongle that might cause all sorts of problems (including warranty on the pretty expensive drive train) if you can get the official upgrade for $2000 with one click in the Tesla app? Sounds like penny wise pound stupid to me, unless there's something I'm missing.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the modifications simply unlock functionality that Tesla will happily sell you it is going to be very hard for them to argue that it voided the warranty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Under UK law the manufacturer would have to prove that the modification caused the failure you are claiming for. If it went to court it would be balance of probabilities, which might work in their favour as they would be deemed experts in their own system and you might have to get your own expert to refuse the claim.
Re: (Score:3)
But since Tesla will reduce your warranty period if you buy some options, they can reasonably claim that it reduced your warranty duration if you hack in one of those options.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to here (and IANAL) ... but
I suspect it would be pretty easy to "prove" that virtually any modification to the software would introduce a non-zero risk of a catastrophic failure of a vital piece of safety equipment or logic system.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no, the act allows you to use 3rd party replacement parts. It does not allow you to modify your engine in order to get more power and still be covered by the manufacturer warranty. The mod in question is this: https://ingenext.ca/products/b... [ingenext.ca]. I don't know who would pay $1100 to plug that thing in their car to get an extra 50HP (when they already have something like 400?), especially when there is an official upgrade for a little more. And certainly if I plugged that thing in I would expect that I wo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you find the need to always stomp on it, well it sounds like you need a better car.
Re:Nagware in a car? (Score:4, Informative)
I have no problem with disallowing drivers from possibly interfering with the car's safety on public roads
What if a mod stops the said car from randomly hitting stopped police vehicles, is it a constructive or a destructive interference with "safety on public roads"?
Re: (Score:3)
What you described is driver inattention. All the autonomous features give several warnings not to take your hands off the wheel.
interfering with the car's safety = any non dealer (Score:3)
interfering with the car's safety = any non dealer work we do not need to go down that route. They need to remove any lockout for non dealer work for any car.
We do not need
dealer only oil changes.
dealer only tires.
dealer only $299 map updates.
dealer only seats
dealer only lights
etc
Re: (Score:3)
We do not need cars that are literally spyware. It's one thing to have a some connected services under the user's control, quite another to log everything they do so the manufacturer has ammo to reject warranty claims.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dislike Tesla for various reasons, however I have no problem with disallowing drivers from possibly interfering with the car's safety on public roads. Their whole platform (like all new cars) is software reliant, poke around in a carburetor and maybe the car doesn't run right, poke around in software and maybe the car starts ignoring user input...
That's very far-fetched and strongly smells of "somebody think of the children!" nannyism. Besides, I think there would be more wrong with the car if the software is even capable of overriding the steering wheel and/or the breaks (spoiler: it can't.) Oh, and software modifications to cars aren't new, that has been a thing since computers have been controlling the engine in the early 80s. In fact, fuel injection itself needs a central computer to operate, which replaced ye olde carburetor in virtually every
It overrides both steering and brakes - most new (Score:3)
Even my 2012 Dodge has ABS and traction control (overrides brakes) and oversteer/understeer protection (overrides steering input).
I'm curious what you thought ABS is.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just to be a little more specific for you, here is basically how it works and how to hack it to make the brakes not work:
At each wheel there is a two-wire magnetic sensor that fires each time the wheel spins, giving the speed that the wheel is rotating. That sensor is connected to the computer.
If the computer thinks the signal from the sensor indicates the wheel is almost stopped while other parts continue to turn, it takes that to mean the wheel is locked up, skidding. The computer reduces braking foece
Re:It overrides both steering and brakes - most ne (Score:5, Informative)
Actually your proposed hack would just disable the ABS leaving you with conventional braking. If you are driving along with the brakes off and the tone wheel sensor detects a zero speed from one wheel it assumes the sensor is broken and throws a fault and kills the ABS.
So don't make stuff up. I worked on the FMEA for an ABS when it first came out.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are driving along with the brakes off and the tone wheel sensor detects a zero speed from one wheel it assumes the sensor is broken and throws a fault and kills the ABS.
A broken sensor ceases to give a signal; that's easy to detect. A maliciously modified sensor signal could have an intermittently reduced speed signal. For example an aftermarket mod to exceed the speed cap could attempt to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
> you are driving along with the brakes off
Obviously to reduce someone's braking, you do it when the brake is engaged.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuel injection in modern cars is computer controlled, but it wasn't always:
https://www.enginelabs.com/eng... [enginelabs.com]
https://www.roadandtrack.com/c... [roadandtrack.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: Nagware in a car? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck that. I don't need a battery car that sandbags its performance potential. When I stomp on it, it's because I need to do so to merge safely.
-jcr
While I agree with your belief that speed is required to merge, I doubt it applies here, as these vehicles are highly capable of merge without modification. That said, there is something off putting about being penalized for modifying a product you own. especially a car.
It's like being told that if I were to hang a pine tree air freshener ( I never would) in my Dodge Durango (never owned one) that I would void the warranty.
That also said, I'd imagine that software may have an incredible impact on both perf
Re: (Score:2)
It's like being told that if I were to hang a pine tree air freshener ( I never would) in my Dodge Durango (never owned one) that I would void the warranty.
Nope.
It's more like swapping engine components then claiming warranty on the engine.
.
Re: (Score:3)
It's more like downloading a file from thingiverse and 3D printing a replacement part for your internal combustion engine, then expecting Dodge (in this example) to provide warranty coverage for the engine.
You can (probably) successfully argue that your 3D printed part doesn't impact the seat recline function, but you'd be hard-pressed to win an argument about anything connected to the engine with 3D printed parts installed on it.
Re: (Score:2)
The only retaliation they should be able to observe is disabling super charge and/or void your warranty.
The people I've seen do this on youtube no longer have a warranty, but they still have super charge access.
I'm sure some other people have done it for saving a few thousand, but I have a feeling that is going to be a small minority of owners.
This is just a battle of the freebies.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The sad thing is that they are not saving a few thousand. They are saving a few hundred.
Tesla offers the performance upgrade with warranty intact for $2000.
Ingenext offers this hack, which by the way they said would be undetectable (clearly horseshit) for $1100 [ingenext.ca], and then proceeds to indemnify themselves of all responsibility and remind you that you're fucked if you use this thing:
IMPACT ON THE MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY
The Boost 50 module is undetectable remotely. However, when visiting a Service Center or when a technician visits your home, it is recommended that you remove the device beforehand. Installation and removal takes only a few minutes. Any purchaser or user of the Boost 50 module releases Technologies Ingenext and all its related companies from any responsibility regarding the full or partial validity of the manufacturer's warranty following the use of this equipment. We are not responsible for any modifications the manufacturer could do to your car (ex: turning off some features etc.).
Yeah, but Tesla are the assholes here, right? What happened to people taking responsibility for their actions, even when warned
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Sandbags" ? It seems Model 3 has 450 HP, this is more than enough to drive "safely". There is no real case when you "need" those additional 50 HP for safety. It's just to have fun and I'm OK with it if that means I can get the standard model cheaper than the model with 50 extra HP.
But its the same model. You have those extra HP sitting right there except a software flag is keeping them there because you didn't stump up the extra cash. If you paid extra and actually got a more powerful motor that would be fine but you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Hmmm, maybe but CPUs dont cost 30 grand and up or brick your whole system if you overclock them.
CPUs are also a lot less likely to plow through a crowd of people before careening off an embankment and into someone's living room if something goes wrong...
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
Same as overclocking a CPU (Score:2)
Did you object when AMD was selling their unlocked CPUs at a premium price? Using them at a higher frequency increased the chance they might fail, so increased the expected cost of warranty replacement. A price difference though covered that.
If you buy this $1100 aftermarket chip instead of giving $2000 to Tesla, you end up using the car in a way it is more likely to fail, without actually paying the manufacturer extra for the higher expected cost of warranty support. The company to whom you paid the $1100
Re: Nagware in a car? (Score:3)
If you want the performance, pay for it.
He did. The performance car is exactly the same car as the regular one save one bit flag. So stop riding the "you've been had, suck it up and pay up" mentality as if it were a law of nature. It's only a cultural curiosity that pretty much sums up what's wrong with the world today.
Re:this makes sense (Score:4, Informative)
A little more to it than that. Equivalent part (Score:5, Informative)
Magnuson-Moss says the manufacturer can't require you to use a particular BRAND when things require replacement. You can use an *equivalent* oil, air filter, or whatever of a different brand. They can require use of their brand if they provide it free of charge, but that's irrelevant here.
It does NOT prevent them from pointing out (rightly) that the nitrous oxide system you put on your Camry to boost the horsepower by 150 is probably what caused you to throw a rod, and therefore deny warranty coverage.
Here, there is no part in need of replacement - Tesla isn't insisting that you buy their module when the old one goes bad. Rather, these owners are ADDING a new hardware module to the car. Magnuson-Moss doesn't say you can add whatever without affecting the warranty. Try adding a 5,000 pound weight in top of your car, then taking it in for warranty service on the transmission. Denied, rightly.
Even if the aftermarket module did replace a Tesla module, clearly it isn't equivalent. The aftermarket module sends more power thriugh the controllers and to the motors, making them both get hotter, and heat accelerates (and sometimes downright causes) failure. It's unlikely that the power curve of the aftermarket module matches that of the Tesla option, with the same calculation based on the temperature sensors. Car warranties cover "defects in materials or workmanship" by the manufacturer. When car that is sold as 200HP has problems when forced to run at 300HP (with unknown protections against overloading components), that's not a manufacturer defect.
There is ONE bit of good news for these modders in Magnuson-Moss. If the paint starts flaking off when the car is a year old, or the front suspension bolts that hold the wheel on were never installed, that's still a manufacturer defect unrelated to over clocking the motors. The fact that the owner installed a module that overdrives the motor won't void the warranty on the paint.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the aftermarket module did replace a Tesla module, clearly it isn't equivalent. The aftermarket module sends more power thriugh the controllers and to the motors, making them both get hotter, and heat accelerates (and sometimes downright causes) failure. It's unlikely that the power curve of the aftermarket module matches that of the Tesla option, with the same calculation based on the temperature sensors.
And what do you base this on?
Tesla will gladly send this same amount of power through the controllers when you pay $2000 extra. If this company can demonstrate that their mod does the equivalent (eg they have reverse engineered and worked out how to do identical) then are you good with this? What if their solution is actually better?
Because there is nothing in the article to state either way on this module's code vs Tesla code performance. The $2k was always just a cash grab "upsell".
Because Ingenext SAYS its not the same. And no dri (Score:2)
> if this company can demonstrate that their mod does the equivalent (eg they have reverse engineered and worked out how to do identical) then are you good with this?
In that case, Ingenext would be guilty of false advertising, because they say it's not the same. They say they've hacked the inverter to send more power to the motors than Tesla's Acceleration Boost does. They also say their product includes a "drift mode" that is totally unlike anything Tesla offers.
They *could* be lying, but I give them
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like Tesla but that is a ridiculous misunderstanding or misrepresentation of events. Tesla build functionality into their cars that isn't all available on the lowest selling tier. They could almost certainly produce the car cheaper if they only produced it to the spec of the lowest tier, but that adds complexity and it effectively removes the ability for the owner to purchase the upgrade; which if the owner would like to upgrade is in both the owner and T
Re: (Score:2)
It does NOT prevent them from pointing out (rightly) that the nitrous oxide system you put on your Camry to boost the horsepower by 150 is probably what caused you to throw a rod, and therefore deny warranty coverage.
They can point it out, but that doesn’t mean they can carve that message in the driver side door of your car. That is kind of what Tesla did: showing an indelible message on the infotainment screen. The people in the article aren’t disputing warranty issues, but are afraid Tesla will cripple the car remotely when it detects a modification, or block it from using the charger network. Tesla will (of course) justify the latter with safety concerns, but I wonder how legal that really is.
Re: (Score:2)
> but are afraid Tesla will ...
They could be afraid that Tesla will send Gru after them with a fart gun - until that happens I don't see much point in making up stuff to worry about. 2020 has enough real stuff to worry about, stuff that's actually happening.
> what Tesla did: showing an indelible message on the infotainment screen
I may have a different viewpoint on this due to my chosen career. I'm in information security and every day I have to notify someone that their shit got hacked. Just a momen
Re: (Score:2)
I sure wish Microsoft would provide a "fyi - somebody hacked your shit" message every time Windows system files get replaced
That's fine, but I wouldn't want that message if I was the one who replaced that file. And I wouldn't want the message to be an always-on-top popup that I cannot dismiss.
Burden of proof is interesting in these cases (Score:3)
The burden of proof issue is interesting in the cases.
Before the defendant auto manufacturer needs to say anything at all, the plaintiff must first show that the defendant failed to honor the warranty. The warranty typically says they will remedy "defects in materials or workmanship". The plaintiff therefore needs to show that there was a manufacturer defect which should have been covered under the warranty, and show that the manufacturer failed to address it as per the warranty. See:
Arnold v. Ford Motor
Re: (Score:3)
Lawyers, and literally every single vendor of performance modifications disagree with you. They all state that they are not responsible for any partial or full voiding of vehicle warranty due to installation or use of their parts. And this particular vendor is no different:
IMPACT ON THE MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY
The Boost 50 module is undetectable remotely. However, when visiting a Service Center or when a technician visits your home, it is recommended that you remove the device beforehand. Installation and removal takes only a few minutes. Any purchaser or user of the Boost 50 module releases Technologies Ingenext and all its related companies from any responsibility regarding the full or partial validity of the manufacturer's warranty following the use of this equipment. We are not responsible for any modifications the manufacturer could do to your car (ex: turning off some features etc.).
Why would they all indemnify themselves against something that, according to you, is illegal?
Riddle me this: if I have a turbocharged engine and add parts / create a fuel map that dicks around with boost pressures. Now, all of a sudden
warranty is one thing (Score:2)
look, the warranty on the drivetrain expiring is one thing.
you can't just wave the warranty on paintjob, the doors and such based on it.
furthermore you can't just hobble the car intentionally because you detected it wasn't under warranty and to discontinue other services to the car like the access to the supercharger network that you pay for in the cars price.
it's more like moving into the direction of making the car lose both it's warranty but also it's features that the warranty would have been on.
while s
Re: (Score:2)