1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Ethics: standards vs proprietary vs dead end

Discussion in 'Generation 1 Prius Discussion' started by bwilson4web, Jun 14, 2010.

  1. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,375
    15,513
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    When working at the 'bleeding edge,' I've been on projects where we've had to make hard decision between 'standard' versus 'delivery.' So I am sympathetic that in 1998-1999, Toyota engineering had to freeze the design of the NHW11 "Data Link Connector" even though the OBD standards were still in a state of flux. You have to deliver product and the NHW11 arrived in North America. But now we know that some of the Layer 1 and 2 signals are not compatible with today's standard OBD/ISO 9141 mapping. Worse, some standard signals can trigger bad behavior in the NHW11.

    An accurate identification of these signals should be released as part of the Maintenance Manual or an equivalent document. Not just the proprietary names but actually referencing the standard they follow or a principles of operations document showing their Layer 1 and 2 characteristics. Trying to keep proprietary designs secret demonstrates bad faith with the customers who are saddled with a riddle that soon enough will be broken.

    Had Toyota (or their representatives) simply published a "here are the differences" between the NHW11 "Data Link Connector" and any of the current or recent OBD standards, everyone would applaud and think highly of their commitment to the customer. Then over-the-counter OBD companies could have provided an adapter, similar to the GM, Ford, Chrysler and German adapters that come with higher end scanners. But that is not what we are seeing.

    In the case of the NHW11 "Data Link Connector," we have made progress and should soon have a 3d party, non-copyrighted, reverse engineered, definition of Layer 1 and most of Layer 2. Given the NHW11 "Data Link Connector" is a dead end, the right thing would be for Toyota to release the technical specifications and at least get the credit.

    Bob Wilson
     
    #1 bwilson4web, Jun 14, 2010
  2. dogfriend

    dogfriend Human - Animal Hybrid

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    7,512
    1,185
    0
    Location:
    Carmichael, CA
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Unfortunately, I think their reasoning would be that releasing the info would not provide any "business advantage" for them. I think it is analogous to the people that believe Toyota should provide a path to upgrade to Li battery technology if/when they switch to Li battery tech in the new cars. I don't think they will ever do this because they make their money from convincing you to buy a new car, not from providing the means to keep your car viable indefinitely.
     
    #2 dogfriend, Jun 15, 2010
    1 person likes this.
  3. jk450

    jk450 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    596
    54
    0
    It appears that you are trying to paint this as a Toyota issue. However, there is no special "Toyota communication issue" running rampant in the industry. You are using poorly engineered scan tool software. Indeed, you were advised that it was poorly engineered, and had communication issues, before you bought it. Yet you bought it anyway. That's your choice, but why blame Toyota for your decision?

    There is no need. An independent technician who wants a scan tool that will reliably communicate with a wide variety of vehicles, including the NHW11 Prius, will simply purchase a scan tool from a company with a good reputation, plug it into the vehicle, and go to work. As the cost of such tools typically starts north of several thousand dollars, that technician probably won't waste time looking at sub-$500 "solutions" that are marketed as much toward the hobbyist market as the automotive technician market.

    Lack of knowledge is a barrier to competent repair of the Generation 1 Prius. Scan tool communication is not a significant issue, unless the user hasn't educated themselves about the scan tool market, and has purchased substandard equipment.

    There is no need to make such an effort. The average independent technician is not being hampered by the problems you are experiencing.

    Many do. It's not rocket science. For example, Toyota designed their own scan tool for dealership use, yet when they opted to release a low-cost version of that tool to the aftermarket, they simply specified an existing communication cable that was already in production. That cable does not act like your Autoenginuity cable. Other cables also work well. You can read about them in this forum.

    I will assume that "we" refers to you. Again, that is because your stated experience is limited to (a) ultra-cheap code readers, which often cost less than $100 and are notorious for having communication problems with all makes despite reading only the most standardized part of the datastream, and (b) the Autoenginuity software, which has a reputation for communication problems, and runs less than $500 for Toyota vehicles. The price tag alone is a red flag.

    It appears that you are referring to w2co's work. It sounds like a fun project. But that project is an attempt to fix Autoenginuity's poor engineering, not Toyota's secret conspiracy. While no scan tool - even those produced by the automakers themselves - is perfect, quality aftermarket tools are not riddled with the constant issues that plague the Autoenginuity.

    There is simply no real need, and no real market for such information. Although Toyota is far from perfect, they are at present the industry leaders in providing easy access to diagnostic information. This isn't an ethics issue, but a quality issue. Buy decent tools, and your problems will go away.

    One last point: knowledge of non-automotive networks does not necessarily translate to a broad understanding of automotive networks. If you want to learn about the subject, the ISO and SAE standards are available for purchase. CARB and EPA regulations are also extremely relevant. Keep in mind that there will be a lot of reading involved. However, if you wish to build a foundation on which you can begin to understand automotive networks from a systematic point of view, you'll have made a decent start.
     
    #3 jk450, Jun 15, 2010
  4. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,375
    15,513
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Hummm, so secrecy about a $50 diagnostic bus might motivate someone to get rid of their $5,000 car and buy a $25,000 replacement? Somehow, I'm not convienced.

    Back in May, I reported the false ABS errors to AE who in turn said 'they are real.' When independent confirmation via Firestone was reported, AE claimed Firestone is also wrong. So thanks to a clue by w2co, I built my own adapter and have a workaround for:

    • non-standard Toyota signals on the NHW11 OBD connector
    • AE mishandling a customer complaint
    The interface definition for the NHW11 OBD connector was paid for 10 years go but today Toyota secrecy continues to cost time and materials and AE's reputation. It may have led other OBD/ISO 9141 code readers being seen as flawed and certainly the ScanGauge group has been imacted.

    As for introducing LiON battery technology, the Enginer group is selling more LiON batteries for private Prius usage than Toyota. Heck, AutoBeYours installs plug-in kits. Toyota secrecy hasn't been very successful in stopping those efforts. Rather, it has shown Toyota to be 'slow to the party' and the Chevy Volt is five months from release, the Tesla is already on the streets, and Fisker is somewhere out there.

    In the Marines, we used to say, "Lead, follow or get out of the way." Toyota secrecy is 'in the way'.

    Bob Wilson
     
    #4 bwilson4web, Jun 15, 2010
  5. RobH

    RobH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    2,369
    979
    70
    Location:
    Sunnyvale, California
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Toyota isn't going to spend development money on NHW11 design at this point. All of the people who could do a good job on it are busy working on the next great thing.

    About the only people who have the real info are the Denso engineers who are responsible for the Techstream software (and obviously the MasterTech people who worked on the earlier scantool). They obviously have some level of privileged access to the original designs. But they also have done their own extensive verification (reverse engineering?) of how the devices actually behave. This process is expensive, and it's in Denso's interest that they get paid for the effort. They're certainly not interested in giving away the information to competitors who sell scantools.

    Beyond new investments in completed technology and competition, there are several other reasons I would expect Toyota/Denso to be mum on NHW11 protocols. The protocols are a hodge podge of messages that finally worked well enough to leave in the product. They certainly don't look like a well architected, top down design that would win any esthetic awards from a standards committee.

    So what's a mechanic supposed to do to maintain a Gen1 Prius? Toyota's preferred answer would be that they get the business. Denso's preferred answer is that someone purchases a copy of Techstream. Neither of which helps the shadetree mechanic. And thus the aftermarket suppliers of scantools like Auto Enginuity have a market. You just wish they could get accurate information in a timely manner without having to do extensive reverse engineering.
     
    #5 RobH, Jun 15, 2010
  6. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,375
    15,513
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    For vehicles within the traditional 10 years of manufacturing support, I agree. But there comes a time when a product has reached 'end of support' where even bug-fixes are no longer going to be applied. At that time, the right thing is to let the owners have a reasonable data dump and everyone move on.
    Been there, done that, shipped product. But it wasn't like I called it an OBD connector and put an undocumented 'squib' on one of the lines. When AE falsely claimed the ABS codes were real and then dismissed Firestone's report (I faxed it to them), something solved by not passing all signals, it is functionally the same thing as wiring a software squib. It is a false signal.
    Wishes? No, just fair and open competition not based upon misleading use of the OBD connector. That this is common practice simply means we are likely to see more legislation mandating standards that could be avoided by industry practice along the Unix/Linux lines.

    My costs are trivial, it is a hobby. But what happens to the independent shop that buys a $300-400 AE to fix Toyotas. An NHW11 Prius shows up and their first diagnostic attempt shows a massive failure of the ABS system? They are screwed because they don't have the luxury of time that I have.

    Figuring stuff out, reverse engineering, is fun but collaboration on some of the simpler stuff means we can work on the really hard things ... where muther nature offers us a teaching moment.

    Bob Wilson

    ps. At least there is a 7.5 A fuse to the 12 V. battery and not just a fusible wiring harness.
     
    #6 bwilson4web, Jun 15, 2010
  7. dogfriend

    dogfriend Human - Animal Hybrid

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    7,512
    1,185
    0
    Location:
    Carmichael, CA
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Yes, exactly.
     
    #7 dogfriend, Jun 15, 2010
  8. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,375
    15,513
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    No one is asking for development money, just an interface control document for the existing Data Link Connector showing layers 1 and 2. I would like above layer 2, the application interface document but understand that might only be available via a fee . . . for some as yet undisclosed document title and fee.

    Bob Wilson
     
    #8 bwilson4web, Jun 15, 2010
  9. jk450

    jk450 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    596
    54
    0
    A competent independent shop isn't going to spend 300 to 400 dollars on software, expecting to get a full-fledged scan tool. Just their yearly software update costs for one of the scan tools they already have will probably cost more than that.

    And if for some reason a competent technician were to have such a tool forced into their hands, they would likely recognize the communication issue for what it was right away, put down the tool, and reach for something that works.
     
    #9 jk450, Jun 15, 2010
  10. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,375
    15,513
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Actually Auto Enginuity believes they are selling to:
    I have my complaints with AE but they are compounded by Toyota not being open and up front about the "Data Link Connector" (aka., OBD.) Blame goes to the ones who failed to publish what should be an open interface. Worse, when it leads to other small businesses 'going down the rat hole,' it is nothing to be proud of.

    Bob Wilson
     
    #10 bwilson4web, Jun 15, 2010
  11. jk450

    jk450 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    596
    54
    0
    - What small businesses did Toyota send "down the rathole" by not making a data protocol open-source?

    - The auto industry doesn't make such protocols open source. How is this a Toyota-specific problem?

    - Have you asked Toyota for the information that you are looking for, and if so, what was their reply?
     
    #11 jk450, Jun 16, 2010
  12. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,375
    15,513
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    It is the signal definitions of the connector, the layer 1/2, and for sure, Auto Enginuity is on that list. Auto Enginuity's problems are based upon both mine and others who have communicated with them. They are lost down the rathole of Toyota secrecy.

    The bad practices of "the auto industry" should not be the standard Toyota goes by nor anyone else. Toyota didn't grow by adopting the crappy quality practices of GM, Chyrsler and at one time Ford. The way to grow market share is to lead and means standing above the crowd.

    That is an excellent suggestion. Take this posting as 'asking Toyota.'

    Bob Wilson
     
    #12 bwilson4web, Jun 16, 2010
  13. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,375
    15,513
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    New information:
    Hummm, sounds like someone who's initials are TOYOTA might have withheld some technical information. Gosh darn, a couple more small businesses sent down the rathole. Absent an accurate, open standard, we are left with no choice but to diagnose the broken parts.

    As a customer (or potential customer because I have more than one OBD scanner,) my only interest is in a quality product for a fair price. I have no problem with doing what TOYOTA has failed to do ... provide accurate, tested information to address this problem ... it is how I protect my tool investment.

    Bob Wilson
     
    #13 bwilson4web, Jun 17, 2010
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)