[HN Gopher] All design and engineering of the original Tesla Roa...
___________________________________________________________________
All design and engineering of the original Tesla Roadster is now
open source
Author : nimmerland
Score : 88 points
Date : 2023-11-22 18:31 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| rogerkirkness wrote:
| This is cool. We should require anyone with patents on IP to open
| source the trade secrets that go along with them when they come
| off of patent.
| majewsky wrote:
| What you're proposing is how patents are supposed to work. The
| original proposition is that you get time-limited legal
| protection in exchange for putting your invention in the
| commons. Of course this has been subverted e.g. by trash
| patents esp. in the software area where the description just
| says the equivalent of "magic happens here" on step 17.
| kiba wrote:
| It doesn't require trash patents. It just require engineers
| turned entrepreneurs wasting their time in court trying to
| enforce claim or testifying on behalf of their investors to
| enforce claim. Time spent in court is time not spent on
| engineering.
|
| Even if these entrepreneurs were successful, now you have a
| 20 years monopoly. That's not without cost to the economy at
| large.
|
| That's even assuming patents are necessary to disclose
| secrets. We have companies that specialize in benchmarking
| and reverse engineering products. Then why are the hell we
| need patents as soon as the product is available on the
| market and someone can duplicate it?
|
| If you have trade secrets to protect, why the hell would you
| leak it and hope that the arduous process of enforcing your
| patent claims would pay itself back? Lawyers are expensive.
| Aurornis wrote:
| I think you're confounding patent and copyright.
|
| To patent something, you must disclose it publicly.
|
| Trade secrets are kept secret, but as a result can't be
| patented. At least not directly.
|
| IP can be copyrighted, but it doesn't have to be patented.
| Copyright lasts much longer than patent protection.
|
| There's no practical way of determining which trade secrets "go
| along with" patents because that could describe literally
| everything the company does. It wouldn't make sense to force
| companies to reveal all of their secrets or surrender their
| copyrights as soon as their first patent expires.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| Would love to see any early plans for the 2 speed gearbox. :)
|
| Given that this is so heavily based on a Lotus Elise, it feels
| like the engineering scope is going to be quite different from a
| normal vehicle. It'll be interesting to see how much of the
| Elise's design will incidentally also be visible here.
| h2odragon wrote:
| also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38383061
| dang wrote:
| I guess we'll merge that thread hither. Thanks!
| pininja wrote:
| First off, I think it's important to recognize the intention here
| before getting into areas for improvement. There is a lot of
| material in here for the 2008-2012 Roadster. If I was an owner,
| I'd appreciate this level of access.
|
| I'm curious to get a lawyers take on their brief terms on this
| service page combined with these patent and "open source" terms
| [0]. Do these amount to OSD-compatible terms? I don't see any
| restrictions to immediately disqualify, but I also don't see
| explicit licenses everywhere I'd expect to see them. Also, I'm
| seeing this on my phone, so I haven't checked diagnostics
| software ISO file for source code.
|
| A nit, it's good practice to remove confusing confidentiality
| notices on schematics and hardware documents contained in their
| ZIP files.
|
| Is this textbook open source / open hardware? Not sure.. is it
| something published without restrictions other than "no
| warranty"? It appears that way.
|
| [0] https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#open-source
| Aurornis wrote:
| Seems like more than a "nit" to point out that they didn't
| really release much beyond the service manuals.
|
| Other than the 3 simple circuit boards, there's no CAD, no
| design files, no engineering, nothing.
| mdaniel wrote:
| I do appreciate you found a webpage containing the actual term
| "open source," unlike <https://service.tesla.com/roadster#:~:te
| xt=Disclosed%20Resea...>, which is linked to from the readme,
| but its actual content appears to be closer to "gl;hf" than any
| _licensing_ terms. Also, furthermore the open source link you
| found doesn 't contain the word Roadster, so it's further
| unclear whether the roadster has any such upstream repos to
| link to
| labcomputer wrote:
| Wasn't the body copied from a Lotus Elise?
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| Yep, the original Tesla Roadster was based on the Lotus Elise,
| but they stretched the wheelbase a couple of inches, and from a
| glance you can tell that the body panels were changed.
|
| There are some good comparison shots here:
| https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articles/lotus-elise-vs-te...
| mdaniel wrote:
| I didn't realize there was a tracker for the launcher
| Roadster https://www.whereisroadster.com/ - I clearly
| misremembered that they sent it into the Sun
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| Takes an insane amount of energy to actually launch
| something into the sun.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Yes the chassis (aluminum tub) was licensed - they had to make
| some changes for the EV bits.
| bri3d wrote:
| The opposite, really - the chassis and basic suspension design,
| as well as most of the interior parts, are from the Elise. The
| rear sub-frame, hubs (5-lug vs 4-lug), complete drivetrain,
| brakes, and all body components besides the windshield are
| specific to the Roadster, though.
|
| The Elise itself was sold in several forms with a ton of
| different ICE drivetrains (Rover 4-cylinder, Toyota 4-cylinder,
| Toyota 6-cylinder, GM Ecotec) and is popular for these kinds of
| custom drivetrain builds, since it was a highly modular
| platform - fundamentally the Elise is an aluminum tub with a
| front composite crash structure glued and a rear tubular
| subframe bolted on.
| wrs wrote:
| "All design and engineering" -- even for Elon that's a ridiculous
| statement. Not only does this come with the disclaimer "It ...
| may not accurately reflect the actual production models or parts
| sold.", it doesn't include any software source at all.
| wannacboatmovie wrote:
| It says "original Roadster".
|
| This is like when MS released the source of MS-DOS 1.0 and
| crying "this is bullshit" because they didn't include the code
| for Windows server 2022.
| buildbot wrote:
| What? If it doesn't include the code to run the car, it's
| like shipping MS-DOS 1.0 without any code at all. Your
| comparison makes no sense
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| It's like if MS released the source of MS-DOS but the only
| files in the release were the graphic design files for the
| floppy disk box art.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| I really don't understand why he is so willing to post such
| obviously verifiable lies. He also said he open sourced the
| twitter algorithm and what we really got were a few files which
| did not make it possible to understand the algorithm.
|
| And then even when he posts obvious, verifiable lies, there is
| a crowd of people who believe him anyway.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| No source code ???.
| dfox wrote:
| The diagnostic tools are apparently mostly written in Perl, so
| they come with source code in the ISO. So, there is at least
| some source code.
| mattlondon wrote:
| Is it? Just looks like the service manuals?
|
| I was kinda hoping to see actual drawings for e.g. the panels or
| the seats or whatever. So if I really did want to build one
| myself or create replacement parts I could do so.
| alufers wrote:
| Huh, their diagnostic software is a Puppy Linux ISO that you are
| supposed to run in VMWare. That's one way of software
| distribution :O
|
| https://github.com/teslamotors/roadster/blob/main/Diagnostic...
| wannacboatmovie wrote:
| This is what people did in the era before containers.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| This is how Microsoft distributes games. You're playing a VM.
| Toutouxc wrote:
| Could you explain what you meant?
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| This is not "all" of the roadster. You cannot build a functional
| car from scratch with this info.
| itsyaboi wrote:
| What is missing?
| alistairSH wrote:
| Everything? They released the service manuals and a few
| circuit board designs.
| qwertox wrote:
| I think it's cool.
|
| Also the "Parts Manual (EPC)" [0] is interesting since it
| contains the part numbers of a couple of models (maybe all, I
| don't know what models they offer) and is very well organized.
| I'm not sure I'd find this for my VW.
|
| [0] https://epc.tesla.com/#/catalogs
| bri3d wrote:
| What's missing from https://parts.vw.com/ ? The Tesla UI is a
| little better, I guess. It's also not particularly difficult to
| find the VW parts catalog software, EKTA.
|
| There's an industry-standard set of interchange formats for
| spare part number listings called PIES and ACES. Unfortunately
| no vendor I'm aware of openly shares the underlying PIES/ACES
| data.
| mdaniel wrote:
| To save others the bother of finding the relevant link:
| https://epc.tesla.com/en-US/catalogs/301 is the Tesla Roadster
| but if one drills into (e.g.) "10.15 - Door Shells and Beams -
| Door Shells and Beams - 1" <https://epc.tesla.com/en-
| US/catalogs/301/categories/22077/su...> then it does seem to
| _enumerate_ the parts but does not provide any details other
| than an internal part number and conceptually the assembly
| order of them
| SilverBirch wrote:
| I wonder what the motivation for this is. I can't imagine this
| would be a priority for a company currently going through hell
| with their new model. Are the dropping some servicing support?
| Aurornis wrote:
| The linked page is here: https://service.tesla.com/roadster
|
| I see 3 circuit boards and a GitHub repo that has an .ISO of the
| diagnostic software. They include DBC files that define the CAN
| interface, but that's it.
|
| There's basically nothing here? Or am I missing something? No
| firmware, no CAD, no design files, no engineering data. It's like
| they released the service manuals and a couple PCB release files
| they scrounged up from someone's e-mail, but there's very little
| in here beyond what you'd get from service manuals or from having
| a PCB in your hand and following traces around. The PCBs are
| extremely basic.
|
| I don't get it. Was this just a trick to get headlines from
| journalists who don't know how to interpret the files on the
| website? Or was there supposed to be more and it's just not up on
| the website yet?
| stefan_ wrote:
| Did someone test this at all? It takes like 3 clicks to get to
| a "not found".
| nvy wrote:
| >Was this just a trick to get headlines from journalists who
| don't know how to interpret the files on the website?
|
| You're discussing a Twitter post by the same guy who knowingly
| committed securities fraud ("funding secured.") in order to
| protect the share price of his company.
|
| One of the greatest grifters in history.
|
| Do you expect him to be honest and upfront in his PR dealings?
| primitivesuave wrote:
| Definitely a PR stunt - it wouldn't even be possible to service
| an existing Roadster, as the "special tools" are not open-
| source as well.
|
| https://service.tesla.com/docs/Public/Roadster/Original/1.2....
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| > just a trick to get headlines
|
| Yes.
| blagie wrote:
| I drive the cheapest possible car.
|
| I'd seriously consider paying double that for one which was
| genuinely open-hardware.
|
| I'd never consider Tesla since the way it works, you buy the
| physical hardware, but in practice, Tesla controls your car. It's
| not true ownership. This seems like a 180 degree turn. At least
| for me, it would seriously increase the odds of buying a car and
| the price I'd be willing to pay.
|
| It'd be interesting to see a company pull this off with an in-
| production car. Knowing the crowd, ideal audience would either be
| a pickup truck or a basic sports car.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| You could say this about almost all modern cars.
|
| This is the same issue that is leaking into phones, TVs, PCs,
| and other devices:
|
| If you don't purchase the cloud-sub, that piece of hardware is
| just expensive paperweight.
|
| We keep reading that people are willing to pay for a "Dumb TV",
| etc. Yet they are not startups or manufacturers stepping up.
| All words, no action ?
| jacobr1 wrote:
| > We keep reading that people are willing to pay for a "Dumb
| TV"
|
| They aren't though. People might be willing to chose a dumb
| tv, all else being equal. But not pay _more_ for a dumb TV.
| With subsidies from the smart tv services, it isn't cheaper.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > This seems like a 180 degree turn. At least for me, it would
| seriously increase the odds of buying a car and the price I'd
| be willing to pay.
|
| Take a look at the linked files before you get too excited.
| They didn't release much more than the service manuals.
|
| There's very little source material on the page. 3 simple
| circuit boards and some definitions for the CAN interfaces.
| They released an .ISO of the diagnostic software, but that's
| generally floating around on the internet for most cars if you
| know where to look anyway.
| megous wrote:
| Lol, nope.
| GianFabien wrote:
| No source code?! Not much value in replicating a PCB if you have
| to write all the code from scratch.
| petsfed wrote:
| I mean, if you have the firmware binary and the relevant
| arguments for the ISP (that is, In-System-Programmer), that's
| sufficient to make some PCBs do their jobs. Maybe not _these_ ,
| but you don't need source code as such to program a thing.
| adamvalve wrote:
| Interesting timing for such bullshit when this is on the front
| page of HN as well
| https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/21/23971138/tesla-gigafacto...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-22 23:01 UTC)