Out of Spec F150L and Lightning over-mountain towing trip + ̶f̶r̶u̶n̶k̶ ̶o̶p̶e̶n̶s̶ emergency frunk release activated on the highway?!?!?!

[shutterbug]

Its not a defect, and it’s meant to do that…even at speed. Again, just in case someone tries to kidnap you. Granted this would be better if it’s in the back (ie truck) vs front. However the idea is still the same… to escape.

Not only is it a defect, it is a major one. The idea that the frunk could open and block the driver's view of the road while traveling at highway speeds, is a major safety issue, no matter what twisted logic is used. Even if someone was being kidnapped, how would opening a frunk on a speeding truck would help?

Sponsored

 

[SmoothJ]

Not only is it a defect, it is a major one. The idea that the frunk could open and block the driver's view of the road while traveling at highway speeds, is a major safety issue, no matter what twisted logic is used. Even if someone was being kidnapped, how would opening a frunk on a speeding truck would help?

Again, and I am sorry but I disagree on calling this a defect. An oversight, sure… a possible safety issue, yes… but not a defect. A defect would infer something that was not working as intended. I believe this is/was intentional and working as intended. With that said however, there should have been a pull handle or even a cover blocking the release so this accidental release would not trigger.

 

[Roy2001]

1.5 miles/kWh with 5000lb trailer? Sounds not possible, that is very good news indeed.

 

[shutterbug]

Again, and I am sorry but I disagree on calling this a defect. An oversight, sure… a possible safety issue, yes… but not a defect. A defect would infer something that was not working as intended. I believe this is/was intentional and working as intended. With that said however, there should have been a pull handle or even a cover blocking the release so this accidental release would not trigger.

If you don't like the word "defect", fine. Let's just call it a prime example of dumbassery. As far as I can tell, there is not one possible way for a frunk opening in the middle of freeway drive to end well. If some engineer thought this was a good idea, that engineer should seriously consider a career change. Maybe something less mentally taxing.

 

[Amps]

If you don't like the word "defect", fine. Let's just call it a prime example of dumbassery. As far as I can tell, there is not one possible way for a frunk opening in the middle of freeway drive to end well. If some engineer thought this was a good idea, that engineer should seriously consider a career change. Maybe something less mentally taxing.

I think you have taken quite a leap here. Nothing horrible happened to the driver on the interstate in the video.

I would imagine that there's logic installed to prevent the opening sequence to move past the initial stage of a latch release when the vehicle is moving. You would want to generate a warning that the frunk is occupied and someone or something initiated a release from the emergency button. (6 year-old going to surprise their parent by following them to the store, etc.) Obviously, you don't want a NASCAR hood scenario peeled up against the windshield at Lightning speeds–even that doesn't happen as much as it used to. The latching sequence I have been able to observe in the videos (and by forum member of a failed latch) reminds me of the old Cadillac trunk locks. When I was a kid, I used to call them "trunk suckers" because they would latch and then an electric motor would engage and pull the trunk lid all the way down. I have not seen one operate yet.

Maybe a YouTuber could conduct a reassuring experiment by getting an assistant to ride in the frunk while the vehicle is moving well below catastrophe speed and continuosly pressing the emergency release. My prediction is that it will generate a warning on the cluster and possibly resume the full opening sequence when the vehicle comes to a complete stop and in Park. In the owner's manual (p. 341), it refers to the emergency release button as having been 'turned on'. Also, 'frunk emergency release activated'. It may not even not do anything physical at all, just generate a red cluster warning to the driver to stop immediately.

 

[LightningShow]

Not only is it a defect, it is a major one. The idea that the frunk could open and block the driver's view of the road while traveling at highway speeds, is a major safety issue, no matter what twisted logic is used. Even if someone was being kidnapped, how would opening a frunk on a speeding truck would help?

It's not a defect, it's a design flaw. Defect means the system did not work as designed, in this case it worked as designed but the design is crap.

EDIT: It seems obvious that there should be a cover on the button but I also don't know whether the engineers considered this scenario or not. Maybe it *did* work as designed. The frunk didn't actually open so that could have been exactly what it was designed to do. I would prefer a physical cover to prevent the need for the electronics to "save the day" but maybe the engineers felt that was enough.

 

[LightningShow]

I'm watching the video now...the biggest take away from the video is that the EA network kind of sucks.

 

[RickLightning]

The primary release opened to the secondary latch and produced an on-screen red alert to pull over because the frunk had been released. The frunk did not open. It was caused by the internal 'kidnap release' when pressed by a jack handle for a large jack he was carrying.

This is where social media fails. The title of this thread is misleading and alarmist. As noted, only the primary latch opened, the secondary latch did not, and did not cause any issue. Yet post after post jumps all over this, and Google will pick up this stuff and amplify incorrect information.

Then you get a bunch of posts by experts in design of a required feature as to how it can be changed when they have no knowledge of the federal requirement. Putting a cover on it would be a total non-starter, because it wouldn't comply with the regulation.

It is not a defect, or a design flaw. If anything, it's operator error because he could have put something between the jack and the button to prevent it from being hit.

Gotta love the internets.

 

[LightningShow]

Which regulation lists the requirements of the trunk safety release mechanism?

 

[LightningShow]

This is where social media fails. The title of this thread is misleading and alarmist. As noted, only the primary latch opened, the secondary latch did not, and did not cause any issue. Yet post after post jumps all over this, and Google will pick up this stuff and amplify incorrect information.

Then you get a bunch of posts by experts in design of a required feature as to how it can be changed when they have no knowledge of the federal requirement. Putting a cover on it would be a total non-starter, because it wouldn't comply with the regulation.

It is not a defect, or a design flaw. If anything, it's operator error because he could have put something between the jack and the button to prevent it from being hit.

Gotta love the internets.

No, it’s definitely a design flaw. When you have a safety mechanism that can inadvertently be triggered during normal use I don’t think there’s any other way to classify it. Even if you can’t put a cover on it then it could have been oriented in a way that would not allow for activation with normal loading.

 

[metroshot]

Which regulation lists the requirements of the trunk safety release mechanism?

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...hicle-safety-standards-interior-trunk-release

 

[vandy1981]

Then you get a bunch of posts by experts in design of a required feature as to how it can be changed when they have no knowledge of the federal requirement. Putting a cover on it would be a total non-starter, because it wouldn't comply with the regulation.

Take a trip to CarMax and survey the emergency releases in manually operated trunks. Most require pulling on a cord, which would probably be a better approach than a large push button that could be activated by shifting cargo.

 

[Amps]

No, it’s definitely a design flaw. When you have a safety mechanism that can inadvertently be triggered during normal use I don’t think there’s any other way to classify it.

There is no indication that it triggered anything besides the driver warning and primary latch release (probably). The owner's manual clearly states that the emergency release is turned on.

A quick look at the regulation posted above reveals that it requires the system to work while the vehicle is moving within five minutes, despite GM's request to waive. (Utah family driving around looking for their five kids unaware they were dying in the trunk, among other things.) I could see this as increasingly dire warnings and power reductions over the course of five minutes if the Frunk driver doesn't stop the vehicle.

Maybe somebody that has a truck will test the system just to instill confidence.

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/01-20831/p-193

 

[vandy1981]

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...hicle-safety-standards-interior-trunk-release

Interesting, thanks for sharing. It looks like NHTSA made an amendment to account for frunk releases while in motion.

I updated the thread title to more accurately describe what happened. It seems that only the primary latch should release while in motion, assuming the system is operating correctly.

S4.3(b) For passenger cars with a front trunk compartment that has a front opening hood required to have a secondary latch position, actuation of the release mechanism required by paragraph S4.1 of this standard when the passenger car is in motion (at a speed of 3 km/h or more) must release the primary latch position, but not the secondary latch position. At all other times, actuation of the release mechanism required by paragraph S4.1 of this standard must completely release the trunk lid from all latching positions of the trunk lid latch. The passenger cars described in this paragraph are excluded from the requirements of this standard until September 1, 2002.

The agency notes that the amended text requires actuation of the release mechanism when the passenger car is stationary or moving at a speed of less than 3 km/h to release the latch completely from all latch positions, regardless of the previous state of the latches or whether the primary latch has been released during passenger car movement. Since NHTSA is granting this request, the agency does not have to address Porsche's request to provide manufacturers the option of disabling the interior trunk release system when the vehicle is in motion.

 

[LightningShow]

Then you get a bunch of posts by experts in design of a required feature as to how it can be changed when they have no knowledge of the federal requirement. Putting a cover on it would be a total non-starter, because it wouldn't comply with the regulation.

Here are the requirements laid out by NHTSA in FMVSS 401. You can see in S4.3(b)iii that for a front trunk the primary latch must be released and secondary latch must remain latched if the vehicle is traveling over 5 km/h. So, the system did exactly what it was required to do. However, there is nothing in the standard that prevents a transparent plastic cover over the button. It only requires that the mechanism can easily be seen (S4.2(a)).

Gotta love the internets...

S4. Requirements.

S4.1 Each passenger car with a trunk compartment must have an automatic or manual release mechanism inside the trunk compartment that unlatches the trunk lid. Each trunk release shall conform, at the manufacturer's option, to either S4.2(a) and S4.3, or S4.2(b) and S4.3. The manufacturer shall select the option by the time it certifies the vehicle and may not thereafter select a different option for the vehicle.

S4.2(a) Each manual release mechanism installed pursuant to S4.1 of this standard must include a feature, like lighting or phosphorescence, that allows the release mechanism to be easily seen inside the closed trunk compartment.

(b) Each automatic release mechanism installed pursuant to S4.1 of this section must unlatch the trunk lid within 5 minutes of when the trunk lid is closed with a person inside the trunk compartment.

S4.3(a) Except as provided in paragraph S4.3(b), actuation of the release mechanism required by S4.1 of this standard must completely release the trunk lid from all latching positions of the trunk lid latch.

(b)

(1) For passenger cars with a front trunk compartment that has a front opening trunk lid required to have a secondary latching position or latch system, actuation of the release mechanism required by paragraph S4.1 of this standard must result in the following:

(i) When the passenger car is stationary, the release mechanism must release the trunk lid from all latching positions or latch systems;

(ii) When the passenger car is moving forward at a speed less than 5 km/h, the release mechanism must release the trunk lid from the primary latching position or latch system, and may release the trunk lid from all latching positions or latch systems;

(iii) When the passenger car is moving forward at a speed of 5 km/h or greater, the release mechanism must release the trunk lid from the primary latching position or latch system, but must not release the trunk lid from the secondary latching position or latch system.

(2) The passenger cars described in paragraph S4.3(b)(1) are excluded from the requirements of this standard until September 1, 2002.

Sponsored