×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tesla Roadster Data Logging Format Reverse Engineered

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the we-know-where-you-plugged-in dept.

Python 141

s1axter writes with word that "the data log format for the Tesla Roadster has been reverse engineered and documented, now available in Python. (Python script linked in the post.)" From the linked blog entry: "Not only was I given a $110k car unrestricted I was requested to see what ECU information is available, collect and parse the data from it. Tesla Motors periodically collects information from their vehicles presumably to see what real-world driving the cars see. On original Roadster models there is no method to collect this information remotely thus someone must go out to the vehicle and collect it. The owner of the vehicle saw this and wanted to know what information was collected on these service calls ... Because I am a big fan of freedom to modify a program to fit ones needs, I have uploaded the ... python script to parse Tesla logs."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

141 comments

queue the lawsuit (0)

bananaquackmoo (1204116) | more than 3 years ago | (#34130974)

lawsuits and streissand effects coming in 3...2...1...

Re:queue the lawsuit (2, Interesting)

bobdotorg (598873) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131022)

lawsuits and streissand effects coming in 3...2...1...

No big deal. Most modern cars have, to some degree, a black box.

One car company even 'gives you one for free': you can hit the rev limiter fuel cutoff once a year, any more and you void the warranty for parts excessively worn by over revving. (dammit - I can't find the cite right now. The google is weak in me today.)

Re:queue the lawsuit (2, Insightful)

vipvop (34876) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131088)

The rev limiter is there precisely so you don't hurt anything, once a year would be ridiculous. What it can't stop is people with a manual transmission shifting to a lower gear when the RPMs are too high, which will create an unavoidable over-rev situation.

Re:queue the lawsuit (2, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131150)

One over rev isn't going to destroy any modern engine. It's the long term effect that they are curbing. Many very tine bits of damage acquired over time can be hard to differentiate from a 'bad' engine.

Re:queue the lawsuit (1)

ffreeloader (1105115) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131420)

One over rev isn't going to destroy any modern engine. It's the long term effect that they are curbing. Many very tine bits of damage acquired over time can be hard to differentiate from a 'bad' engine.

That depends on how far the engine goes above the redline. Sure over revving an engine 500 or 1000 rpm once or twice in its life time won't kill it, but what about 3000 rpm a time or two by doing something like going from 5th to 2nd gear at high speed? Chances are winding it up that tight is going to cause some damage and cause a measurable shortening of its lifespan. It may even destroy it right then and there by throwing a rod through the block or hitting a valve with a piston..

Re:queue the lawsuit (2, Informative)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132618)

Since the invention of the fuel injector, gasoline has been metered appropriately. Prior to that, cars used a carburetors which tended to run the fuel mixture too rich. This causes excessive washing of oil from the cylinder walls thus causing exponential wear and tear on the engine depending on RPM.

Now days with tight clearances, improved metallurgy, oils, and computer controlled injection; running high RPMs will not have that much of an effect on its life. If anything, you suffer fuel economy.

I used to drive my 99 Miata like I stole it. I actually tried to destroy the engine. I would float the valves often for the hell of it. This lasted for about 160K miles before I got rid of it (bought it used with 34K on it). Spark plugs indicate a clean burn (nice tan color), valve train and cam lobes in primo condition, and excellent compression on all four. Yup, engine tech has come a long way.

Re:queue the lawsuit (2, Informative)

plover (150551) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132896)

Now days with tight clearances, improved metallurgy, oils, and computer controlled injection; running high RPMs will not have that much of an effect on its life.

These days they're using the tight tolerances to build torque via intentionally higher RPMs instead of bigger pistons or increasing compression. It saves on fuel and engine size. But the higher RPMs create higher forces on the moving parts, "taking up" the slack the tighter tolerances and better materials gave them. Revving the engine over the manufacturer's published spec still risks damaging it.

Re:queue the lawsuit (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34133008)

You mean they are relying on higher RPMs with fewer pistons to create additional HP. Which makes sense given how some i4 engines can approach the same levels of power to that of a v6. But notice the displacement of these i4s. The pistons are massive in comparison to the smaller ones in a v6. By consolidating your displacement into fewer cylinders, there's less friction robbing you of power.

Running at higher RPMs is not fuel efficient by itself. But depending on the cylinder count and overall displacement, I suppose in theory, a higher revving i4 can be more fuel efficient compared to a low revving v6. Again, buy virtue of less friction and reciprocating mass.

Re:queue the lawsuit (1, Troll)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34133560)

Which makes sense given how some i4 engines can approach the same levels of power to that of a v6.

Most I4 engines in European cars are more powerful than American V6 engines. I mean, Ford are still releasing engines based on the ancient Essex blocks, albeit drilled out to 4 litres, but they're still thirsty, clattery gutless boat anchors. Hell, the I4 turbodiesel in my van is quieter and more powerful than most Yank-tank petrols...

Re:queue the lawsuit (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#34134508)

Ford's 3.5 Liter Ecoboost engine is putting out 350+ hp and 350+ foot-pounds of torque. I sort of doubt your van matches that.

Re:queue the lawsuit (3, Informative)

s122604 (1018036) | more than 3 years ago | (#34134726)

Even tamer V6es like the ones going in the Chevy Malibu are in the 250HP range.

Buick's putting one in the lacrosse that goes around 380 or so..

There is no snobbery like euro auto snobbery, I think some of them actually believe that their low end VW, or opel or whatever would actually out-corner a Z06....

Re:queue the lawsuit (1)

s122604 (1018036) | more than 3 years ago | (#34134686)

"Most I4 engines in European cars are more powerful than American V6 engines. " -- Citation please?

Re:queue the lawsuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131410)

Not sure how that's applicable to a Tesla story, the car only has one gear.

Re:queue the lawsuit (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34134462)

What it can't stop is people with a manual transmission shifting to a lower gear when the RPMs are too high

Actually you can. Its called gear lock-out. When shifting to a gear would result in an over rev, the transmission can lock out the gear preventing the driver from shifting to the gear. My car has such a mechanism.

Besides, I've never even come close to noticing the lock-out unless I'm driving extremely aggressive, in which case, it has saved me from down shifting too low. The result, the vehicle is protected from driver abuse which seemingly, only results in extremely atypical driving conditions.

Re:queue the lawsuit (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131158)

You can hit fuel cutoff rev limit all day long, all year long and your warranty is not voided. The engine has been designed to operate up to that speed by the manufacturer, that's why the rev limiter is in place. Over revving is what voids the warranty, and on any modern car there is only one way of over revving, called "mechanical overreving" or "money shift" -- imagine an engine with a 8000rpm redline, shifting from 4th to 5th at said 8000rpm, and by accident actually downshifting into 3rd. This results in the engine spinning at 9500 or 10000 rpms for a second or two, possibly damaging the rod bearings, the crank, the valvetrain or the pistons, if there is contact between the crown and a valve that didn't close fast enough.

Re:queue the lawsuit (1)

Edmund Blackadder (559735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131440)

Hmm, the manual cars I had would simply not let you shift that low. There was some kind of mechanical thing that would prevent you from shifting into low gear if you are driving fast even if you had the clutch fully pressed.

Re:queue the lawsuit (1)

WoLpH (699064) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131700)

Usually you can shift it into the gear you want, you just have to push a bit harder ;)
Most cars also try to prevent you from shifting to the 1st gear when you're still going 50 kilometers an hours while breaking for a traffic light. Just push a bit harder and you'll succeed easily.

Re:queue the lawsuit (2, Insightful)

Kakari (1818872) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131794)

Yes, pushing harder will get it in gear, but at the expense of shortening your synchros life - much better for the transmission to hold off on ramming it into first until you're slow enough that it slides in easily. Or just leave it in neutral, let the clutch out and use your brakes. When you're ready to go again, just shift into first.

Remember: brakes are almost always cheaper than a clutch or a transmission rebuild.

Re:queue the lawsuit (1)

Lord Maud'Dib (611577) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131872)

Or double clutch to get it into that lower gear for the corner while braking to slow the car up.

Re:queue the lawsuit (1)

darthdavid (835069) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132974)

Of course make sure not to be breaking when you actually get into the corner, good way to slide off the road...

Re:queue the lawsuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34133056)

Umm...pushing harder isn't really to be recommended. The preferred technique is known as double clutching, required with the old-style "crash box" (non-synchromesh) transmissions common in race cars and big trucks. It involves momentarily re-engaging the clutch while in neutral and synching the engine speed up or down to match the gear you're going to. Indeed, a really adept double clutcher can dispense with using the clutch altogether except when coming to a stop, and shift quite smoothly - yes, even into first. (I used to do this in my show-off high school days.)

Of course, this technique requires deliberately blipping the engine up a few rpm for a downshift, so there goes our conservative revving....

Re:queue the lawsuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131202)

Why wouldn't the rev limiter set at or below redline? And why isn't redline the max safe RPM? Warranty should be void if redline is exceeded, not achieved. (Like downshifting into too low a gear, for example.)

Re:queue the lawsuit (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131622)

The redline is the maximum RPM at which the engine is "safe", in that it is within design tolerances. Operating above the redline is possible, but basically at that point they're saying "you're on your own." Cutting off right at the redline would be keeping everything safe, but doesn't allow for the occasional need to go over, such as in the accidental example of missing a gear on the downshift - far better to allow a 5 - 10% overrun than to punish that with an immediate limit.

Re:queue the lawsuit (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#34134596)

It doesn't really seem there is any way to immediately limit a mechanical over-rev (well, not one that would do less damage to the engine than the over-rev).

Re:queue the lawsuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131662)

lawsuits and streissand effects coming in 3...2...1...

No big deal. Most modern cars have, to some degree, a black box.

One car company even 'gives you one for free': you can hit the rev limiter fuel cutoff once a year, any more and you void the warranty for parts excessively worn by over revving. (dammit - I can't find the cite right now. The google is weak in me today.)

You do realize that you arent 'over revving' if you hit the fuel cut. Your only 'over revving' if you shift into say 2nd, while at/near redline in 3rd.

Oh man. What a post >_>

Re:queue the lawsuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34132096)

Forget the stupid "void the waranty by hitting the limiter" comment .. Thats just insane.

Can you please cite some reference to a rev limiter that is based in anyway on/in the fuel system ?

Any/all rev limiters I have ever worked with have all been on the spark side of the power triangle ( compression / spark / fuel )

Playing with the fuel flow can cause way too many problems. A lean system can destroy an engine.

Re:queue the lawsuit (2, Informative)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34133572)

Any/all rev limiters I have ever worked with have all been on the spark side of the power triangle ( compression / spark / fuel )

Every car with a rev limiter in then engine ECU accomplishes it by cutting the fuel off. If you turn off the ignition, you continue to blow unburnt petrol vapour down the exhaust, where it will ignite in a spectacular killswitch backfire as soon as the ignition kicks back in. It will also destroy the catalytic converter.

Re:queue the lawsuit (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#34134644)

I get the sense from a couple of GM vehicles that I have driven that the ECU is also limiting fuel input in order to protect the clutch and transmission (i.e., the damn things barely drag themselves up a hill even with the pedal on the floor; and yes, I realize I should probably downshift).

Re:queue the lawsuit (2, Informative)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 3 years ago | (#34133696)

Hang on, I think there's some confusion here. First off, hitting the rev limiter does not damage your car. If revving at that level was going to cause damage, the rev limiter would be set lower. BMW's older M3 with clutchless manual SMG had a hidden feature where you could enable launch control by a combination of button presses, which would allow you to from rest floor the accelerator and on click into first gear it would launch at max attack. They enabled a feature where after 5 such actions they would void your transmission warranty.
Is this what you're thinking of?

Re:queue the lawsuit (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34134932)

One car company even 'gives you one for free': you can hit the rev limiter fuel cutoff once a year, any more and you void the warranty for parts excessively worn by over revving.

Reason to buy an old car #36,759

(the first 20,000 reasons are the dollars the car depreciates by in its first two years off the lot)

Re:queue the lawsuit (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131058)

lawsuits and streissand effects coming in 3...2...1...

I wonder if you could counter-sue through copyright of data. Unless there is a clause when buying the car saying that the company can copy data from your property, it is by rights, your data and when they download this black box of data they are infringing. Given that it is indeed a black box, an even better argument might well be that they are not only infringing on your data, but also blocking you from accessing your own data.

Lock and Load!

Re:queue the lawsuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131130)

The problem with your argument is that there's nothing to go on.

I can't even see evidence Tesla actually cares one bit.

Re:queue the lawsuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131146)

It will happen sooner or later. This may be the start of car manufacturers acting like asshole device manufacturers that prevent customers from treating the product how they like. E.g. Apple and Sony.

Re:queue the lawsuit (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131248)

In the USA data is not protected by copyright. Besides, you gave them permission to copy it. As for "blocking" your access to the data: how are they doing that? You have possession of the car and are free to do anything you want to with it.

Re:queue the lawsuit (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131472)

It would be very tough (read: impossible) to argue that data logs automatically generated by an ECU constitute creative content, and it is creative content that is copyrightable. Furthermore, the data logs would more than likely be owned by the owner of the car, not the company that built the car. Ergo, the owner of the car would own the copyright on the logs (if such a silly thing could exist).

Now, if you got a hold of the ECU's source code, that is a different story, but reverse engineering the ECU software is perfectly legal.

Re:queue the lawsuit (2, Funny)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131172)

StupidShitCorporationsDo.Enqueue(Lawsuit);
BullshitThings.Add(StupidShitCorporationsDo.Dequeue());
BillshitThings.Dispose();

Could have saved time by just ignoring the suit. Shame society doesn't for the frivolous ones.

Re:queue the lawsuit (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131414)

I wouldn't expect any lawsuits, reverse engineering is well established as a legal activity.

Now, there may be some DRM on the logs in the future, at which point reverse engineering suddenly becomes illegal.

God I hate the DMCA.

woohooo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34130980)

logs for an overpriced pile of duck shit

Re:woohooo (1)

haruchai (17472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131038)

But it's a wicked fast pile of duck shit - it slides by you so fast, it doesn't leave a stain - and that's from a standing start. Besides, there are many overpriced piles of automotive avian ejectamenta - I'd sooner own a Tesla than any other, even a Porsche or ( although my teenage self would shudder to hear my middle-aged self say it ) Lamborghini

Re:woohooo (4, Insightful)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131112)

But it's a wicked fast pile of duck shit...

Not really. Its top speed [wikipedia.org] is a "mere" 125 mph, something my 33 year old Porsche can (or could, when new) beat.

As far as acceleration goes, though...yeah, it's very zippy.

Re:woohooo (4, Insightful)

DrInequality (521068) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131208)

Most places you want to drive, top speeds are greater than speed limits so acceleration is more significant.

Re:woohooo (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131254)

Most places you want to drive, top speeds are greater than speed limits so acceleration is more significant.

You've never wanted to drive on the Bonneville salt flats? [wikipedia.org]

Re:woohooo (2, Funny)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131394)

I took my Mustang out there about ten years ago. It was fun but I never really got the salt out of all of the places it found a way into.
Protip: Don't drive there in early morning except in high summer - the salt is wet and sticks like nothing you've ever seen before.

Re:woohooo (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132004)

I'd never take my Roadster to the salt flats. If I'm going to the flats, I'm going to break a ground speed record. Anything less is a waste of time.

Re:woohooo (1)

haruchai (17472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131382)

That's why I pointed out "from a standing start". Not that the top speed is "electronically limited" - I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering just how fast it would be unlocked.

Its 1/4 mile times are pretty fearsome, too.

And for the price you're not giving up too much versus a Porsche 911, except for top speed ( significant difference ) and range ( if you plan to go more than 200 miles round-trip )

What Porsche do you have?

Re:woohooo (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131538)

1977 911S (2.7L) Targa, 340,000+ miles =)

I do wonder what the Tesla could do sans a governor, but since it only has one forward gear, I imagine it might get a little upset in the ol' rev department...

Re:woohooo (4, Informative)

Teancum (67324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132206)

The Roadster has a governor? I've never heard of such a thing. The main deal is that the RPMs in the engine start getting to insane levels turning the engine + drive train into a huge flywheel which takes increasingly larger amounts of energy (it increases geometrically, not linearly) to spin even faster. If that is a governor, then so be it, but removing THAT governor is simply removing the engine altogether.

The limiting factor is the current draw from the battery pack. Expand the battery pack, and you might go faster, but at the expense of killing your acceleration time due to additional weight.

I suppose you could hook up a Mr. Fusion or some other massive energy source that could kick the car into overdrive, but once you get past 88 mph you would be looking at temporal displacement when that happens too.

Re:woohooo (1)

Dare nMc (468959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132832)

In electric motors, current creates torque; voltage is speed. To up the speed you would have to up the voltage. However it will be limited by the insulation between windings, exceed that voltage and it will arc through the insulation and the motor will melt beyond repair. Happens to electric drive trucks down hills; speed past supply voltage motors become generators, keep going self induced meltdown. Add insulation, efficiency goes down, motor gets bigger... Torque has similar issues, More current for torque needs larger diameter windings or losses and heat increase, heavier motor... Basically if the motor has spare capacity, it is heavier than needed and room for efficiency and cost improvements (doubtful.)

Re:woohooo (1)

Teancum (67324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132994)

It should be noted that the Tesla engine uses an alternating current motor instead of a direct current motor. In fact, that is why it is called "Tesla Motors" in in part that the original patent for the engine design being used on the Roadster was filed by none other than Nikola Tesla himself, where the RPMs on the motor are being regulated by the voltage frequency. It really is some cool tech, and part of their "secret sauce" that distinguishes what Tesla Motors is doing from some of the other electric vehicle manufacturers.

You are correct that there are a whole bunch of compromises that end up having to be made when trying to tweak performance on an electric automobile, which is why I find it annoying when I see people ripping on the Roadster when they don't have a clue about what went into its performance.

Going 120 mph max with a 0-60 in roughly 4 seconds certainly isn't the performance envelope of a golf cart.

Re:woohooo (1)

Cytotoxic (245301) | more than 3 years ago | (#34134270)

Going 120 mph max with a 0-60 in roughly 4 seconds certainly isn't the performance envelope of a golf cart.

This is true, but after driving a roadster one of the ways I described the experience was that it was like driving the world's fastest golf cart. The mindblowingly instantaneous acceleration is only encountered in an electric, and the foot-off-accelerator instantaneous deceleration of the electric takes some getting used to. Take your foot off the "gas" in a Tesla and you don't coast like you do in a 4-door sedan, you decelerate fairly hard. All-in-all I highly recommend taking the Tesla for a spin. It will induce giggles like a carnival ride.

Re:woohooo (4, Funny)

The Great Pretender (975978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131468)

My 1985 hover car idles at 125 mph, while I ignore this story to brag about how cool I am

Re:woohooo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34132782)

That's cool. My 1985 Delorean can only go up to 88mph. It punches a fabric of space-time continuum past that speed. :-(

Re:woohooo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131552)

My econobox can hit 125 mph, too, but that's not the point. It tops out at 125 mph because it only has a single gear. They could have equipped it with more gears and gotten a higher top speed, but they didn't feel that speeds over 125 mph were a practical enough concern that they should give up the advantages they gained by have one gear.

The Tesla can do a quarter mile in ~12.6sec at ~105mph. It's pretty clear that it doesn't run out of oomph at 125mph, it's just not designed to run any faster than that. It has plenty of punch right up through 124 mph.

Re:woohooo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34132436)

That's a fast quarter mile, but I don't understand how that supports your conclusion about the top speed.

I used to have a motorcycle that could do a quarter mile just slightly faster than the Tesla (12.1 seconds @ 109 mph), but the bike's top speed was just slightly lower than the Tesla at 118 mph.

Re:woohooo (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 3 years ago | (#34132730)

But is that limited by horsepower or a governor? Makes a big difference. Plus, 125MPH is still 45MPH faster than the legal speed limit anywhere in the US. Not that that means a damn thing. But anyway, as long as it's not a horsepower limit...if you're spending that kind of money and plan on going that fast, I'm sure you can find a way to get it reprogrammed. And since it's right at 125MPH, I'd imagine it's a programmed limit and they're using U or H rated tires. Could be wrong though.

Re:woohooo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34133758)

There's only one gear, and 125 mph is 13,500 RPM, which is considered redline.

You're probably right that it's limited by software that can be hacked around, but it's not like a normal car where you might hit the governer at 4,000 RPM with a 7,000 RPM redline.

Who knows if the 13,500 RPM redline is arbitrary, but as rotation speed goes up, stress on the engine goes up geometrically. Bypassing the software and revving it to 15,000 RPM could very well damage it. Or it could be fine, but are you willing to risk over-revving a $100K car?

Re:woohooo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34133304)

Well, I have to say "fast" is a pretty vague term... you could just as well apply it to a lap time as maximum speed.

Though in the end it is fairly useless on the track as well - a late model C2S (which probably cost 3/4 the price) beat it around the (relatively slow) Top Gear track, and while you wait 4h to recharge it after ~50 miles you can refuel the 911 in a couple minutes. So on a reasonably fast track you get 45 minutes of driving and then are done for the afternoon.

Only in a stright line (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 3 years ago | (#34133876)

Take a look at the comparison of the Tesla vs the Elise that TG did the Tesla handled like a pig round the corners

Well you know... (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131024)

When I get my hands on a $110K electric car I'll be sure to try it out! Might be a while, though.

Re:Well you know... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131064)

Have you asked?

I was listening to a report on the New porche. The person doing the report called the dealer, and the dealer delivered the 100K+ car to his apartment. Then just left the keys with him. Never checking who he is.

Re:Well you know... (4, Funny)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131160)

I was listening to a report on the New porche.

I found the report on the New gazeboe much more entertaining.

Re:Well you know... (1)

camperslo (704715) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131078)

All we need now is a way to plug in the smartphone of our choice, the script ported to phone apps, and a dealer willing to let us take a Roadster out for some test driving. To be a valid test drive, one should get to go until the fuel/power runs out.

I knew it! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131090)

It's all an evil scheme to find out how many Starbuck's Lattes' I get in a week.

Please move along ... nothing to see (5, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131200)

All he is doing is bragging about a python script that he himself admits to be simplistic and ugly. The binary format was decoded by two other posters in a bulletin board who also wrote a windows parser but the original guys did not think it warrants any kind of bragging like this. And he is not posting the logs either due to privacy concerns. So unless you are curious about seeing someone's ugly hack of a python script, just move along, there is nothing to see here.

Re:Please move along ... nothing to see (3, Funny)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131500)

a python script that he himself admits to be simplistic and ugly.

Isn't that statement redundant? All python code is simplistic and ugly.

.

I kid! I kid!

Re:Please move along ... nothing to see (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131696)

but he admits it

Re:Please move along ... nothing to see (1, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34133580)

Isn't that statement redundant? All python code is simplistic and ugly.

That's true of any very high-level language, like Python, Ruby, Haskell, Pascal or C.


Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment

Dear slashdot janitors,

Between your stupid "It's been 20 seconds since you hit reply", the entirely unusable new comments system, the "new" user pages and this seemingly random delay before you can reply to another post, you are slowly making your site harder and harder to enjoy using. Do you really want to drive readers and commenters away? Please fix the broken stuff, before adding cheesy-looking "lightbox" popups for logins and other such pointless crap.

Thanks,

Gordon

Re:Please move along ... nothing to see (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#34134450)

>>Isn't that statement redundant? All python code is simplistic and ugly.

That's true of any very high-level language, like Python, Ruby, Haskell, Pascal or C.

This is why I only program in Perl.

Re:Please move along ... nothing to see (1)

Degro (989442) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131976)

Hey, at least he's not trying to sell anything. This is a step up from the usual slashvertisement/slashnouncement 'stories'. Anyway, I thought building on top of other people's work was still a good thing around here.

Re:Please move along ... nothing to see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34132796)

Ok, I happen to have a Tesla and in trying to hack it so I can attach it to my solar grid I have not been able to find said easily available scripts. The only ones provided exist as one guy who will send you a decoded file if you send it to him over email as he does not publish the fill script. So unless you have first hand knowledge and happen to decode your tesla data files every day sit down and shut up.

Re:Please move along ... nothing to see (1)

randallman (605329) | more than 3 years ago | (#34133172)

I think you're being too harsh. I looked at the script and it's very short and fairly easy to read. How can you complain about that? I couldn't get to the website to download the Windows tool, but I'm going to guess it's a compiled exe (could be wrong), which means it's not easy for the user to edit. By contrast, the user can easily tailor the Python script to fit their needs. In addition, the script also serves as format documentation. He clearly commented sections such as "daily record", "error record" and "1 second record".

Re:Please move along ... nothing to see (1)

Teancum (67324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34134318)

What surprises me here is that this guy didn't bother simply writing to Tesla asking them for the data format? While it has been changing, particularly in regards to the partnership with Toyota, Tesla Motors has typically been quite open about what they are doing and more than willing to work with the after market & car hacker crowd. They certainly are a small enough company that a simple letter (snail-mail) or very well formed e-mail to J.B. Straubel (the engineering head at Tesla and co-founder of the company... arguably having a better claim as co-founder than Elon Musk) simply asking for some of the details. If that approach was tried and failed, then I could see this being a big deal.

Some of the other automobile company, perhaps there would be a point to hacking the data format here, and some automobile manufacturers may have even deliberately obfuscated the data in some way to make hacking the information . But to me the first thing I would do is to simply ask for the format in the first place, and being a customer owning one of these vehicles is likely going to be enough to give credibility to the request. Somebody developing an after-market data massager is likely going to get some support too.

Besides, I think this data has been hacked already or there are documents about the data format floating around in other forums if you really wanted to look. I've heard about some other folks who've hacked into the data format to retrieve information about the light signals (brake lights, turn signals, hazards, etc.) which is contained in the data stream. There is likely much more "out there" if you simply asked in the proper forums.

author is not the author (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131210)

all he did was read some posts in a forum, find someone's work on reverse engineering the format, and the made a python version. wow.

Slashdot summary wrong, film at 11 (1)

dch24 (904899) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131276)

The summary is wrong, but still, s1axter was the first to publish code that could read the log format.

It's not completely reverse engineered yet. And he used other guys' work.

That's pretty normal for the reversing world. Queue a soviet russia joke here.

Re:Slashdot summary wrong, film at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131528)

In Soviet Russia, the joke laughs at you...

Re:Slashdot summary wrong, film at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34132892)

In Soviet Russia, they know the difference between "queue" and "cue"?

Re:author is not the author (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34131496)

Yeah, consider me totally fucking underwhelmed. "So I Googled how to get the data off the car, then I Googled how to read the data, then I wrote a program to read the data! Aren't I great?!"

I'd love to mess around (0, Offtopic)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131232)

with a Tesla, too.

But then it would mean having to go outside.

Choices, choices ...

Wow (2, Funny)

Jethro (14165) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131266)

I'm surprised took so long, given the immense popularity of that car.

Re:Wow (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 3 years ago | (#34133232)

It didn't take this long. There was already a proof of concept windows binary that decoded it. It's just now been done in Python--messier.

It also contains... (1)

wholestrawpenny (1809456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34131432)

..a real-time man-bear-pig tracking network formed by the immense fleet of Tesla vehicles. They expect to have the creature's location pinpointed by 2015. Did you really think Al Gore was involved because of the green initiative?

another lame timothy article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34132378)

another lame timothy article

Unremarkable and boring (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34132588)

What an achievement, copying a file from a filesystem over USB. A real reverse engineer would have picked a more complex problem (like a real mass production car) and not tooted his own horn on slashdot after making such minor headway. Hope your principal recommends you graduate from high school a year early, or whatever, s1axter.

Why not just plug into the ODB II port? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34133044)

The Tesla has a gas engine and so by law must have an ODB II port for emissions control. Why bother with propritary hackery when you can just plug in and take advantage of existing hardware and diagnostic toolsets?

Re:Why not just plug into the ODB II port? (2, Funny)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 3 years ago | (#34133702)

"The Tesla has a gas engine "
For fuck's sake...

Re:Why not just plug into the ODB II port? (1)

Teancum (67324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34134240)

Amen to that, brother! Sometimes people don't have a clue for what they are talking about, and this one takes the cake!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...