My lightning got BRICKED with the software update. WILL NOT START.

[Jim Lewis]

Maybe stop listening to an AI that is grasping to provide a coherent answer that fits the leading question. Literally, AIs are giving you Confirmation Bias answers.

So, let's ask AI a different leading question:

Good point and great example! I shall have to remember to look more carefully at the questions I'm asking and try flipping the question 180 degrees to see what the contrary answer to the contrary question might be.

I don't think the "Confirmation Bias" is necessarily a wrong answer.

We're asking the AI, "Ford did this. Why in the world would they have possibly done this?"

Given that the questioner has stated to the AI that Ford took approach A, it's just trying to explain what could have motivated Ford to do so.

Now, you say Ford took the diametrically opposite approach B (which it didn't), what would have motivated Ford to do that? And it rationalizes "reality" entirely differently.

We look at approach A vs. approach B and think B, a dual boot system, would have avoided many problems. I agree that AI answers as to why Ford took approach A may be BS, but no matter what, Ford took approach A for some reason and managed to ignore all the good reasons for a dual boot system. Perhaps Ford just kept trundling along with a system that worked well enough on older, less complex vehicles for which plenty of ICE service technicians were available and did not consider it might be getting into water over its head with newer, much more computerized systems.

Sponsored

 

[PrimeRisk]

The fact that it is possible for Ford to fix it at a dealer means that it would be possible to provide a way for the owner to do it themselves - or some way for a tech to ‘phone into’ the truck to do the fix.

Back in the day I would literally dial into customer’s databases using our debugger and twiddle bits to get them going again. Usually at 1AM. It was rather fun when it was a large bank and the fix was to delete a few large financial transactions, I always wondered how that worked out…

For some issues this would be possible, especially since the vehicle has its own telematics and ability to connect to WiFi.

On a side note, I was just in my truck and it is currently downloading an update... Crossing fingers I don't have a bricked truck in the driveway tomorrow morning.

 

[PrimeRisk]

Good point and great example! I shall have to remember to look more carefully at the questions I'm asking and try flipping the question 180 degrees to see what the contrary answer to the contrary question might be.

I don't think the "Confirmation Bias" is necessarily a wrong answer.

We're asking the AI, "Ford did this. Why in the world would they have possibly done this?"

Given that the questioner has stated to the AI that Ford took approach A, it's just trying to explain what could have motivated Ford to do so.

Now, you say Ford took the diametrically opposite approach B (which it didn't), what would have motivated Ford to do that? And it rationalizes "reality" entirely differently.

We look at approach A vs. approach B and think B, a dual boot system, would have avoided many problems. I agree that AI answers as to why Ford took approach A may be BS, but no matter what, Ford took approach A for some reason and managed to ignore all the good reasons for a dual boot system. Perhaps Ford just kept trundling along with a system that worked well enough on older, less complex vehicles for which plenty of ICE service technicians were available and did not consider it might be getting into water over its head with newer, much more computerized systems.

Absolutely, we just need to be wary of the answers that AI gives us as the AI wants to please us with the answers. I do appreciate our spirited conversation of different viewpoints!

I believe a legitimate root of the answer as to why Ford chooses a less resilient approach comes down to one very simple thing: profits. I have no data to go off of, but I hypothesize that Ford has weighed out that rolling a bad update to some vehicles resulting very expensive recovery for a limited number of vehicles is cheaper than designing the more resilient alternative. I believe in the long run, this will not work out in their favor whether that is through a CrowdSource-scale screw-up or continued lack-luster sales for Ford EVs due to these reliability issues.

Yes, it would be more expensive to implement the resilient solution than not, but not significantly. Unfortunately avoiding insignificant expenses are still reduced expenses in Ford's approach. As we've seen, Ford is deleting very inexpensive options from higher trim levels and aggravating their customers. These decisions are well thought out and are designed to increase their profits. Case in point is the deletion of the Trailer Brake Controller from the 2024 Tow Tech Package. This encourages you to upgrade to the Max Tow Package or a Platinum edition vehicle. They save $100 or so by not including the hardware or make $100s (maybe $1000s) more by getting the consumer to pay for more options.

The unintended consequence is that there is no approved way to add the Trailer Brake Controller to any 2024 Lightning unless installed at the factory and to this very day Ford still advertises the Trailer Brake Controller as part of the Tow Technology Package. This has frustrated me to the point that I have filed complaints with my state's AG, Colorado Dept of Revenue Auto Industry Division, and the FTC for false advertising. I doubt that it will get Ford to fix anything, but the Dept of Revenue has already contacted me about my complaint for additional details and is opening an investigation. At a minimum, that $100 part will cost Ford more than that to simply review the complaint, much less respond as to why they are misleading customers.

 

[Newton]

I don’t think that they are trying to save money, I think that they just don’t know that there is any other way to deal with a critical failure of an update than “sucks to be you.” I would have had a really hard time writing the ”call a tow truck” screen.

Companies whose business is something other than writing software often don’t have people with the expertise (and scars) in software to do some of the things that they are attempting. The managers may not realize the amount of work that goes into keeping a large software company from devolving into chaos and the implications of what happens if it does - let alone the challenges of unattended unrequested updates. I have not been impressed by Ford’s software management, from the outside it looks like every truck has different bits of software for various items installed. You can’t possibly test all configurations, which really leads to the risk of bricking a number of trucks with an ill chosen automatically pushed software patch.

The concept of “last known good” configuration has been around for at least 50 years but it seems like many hardware manufacturers who dabble in software have not heard of it. I’m not surprised, when I moved from a software company that specialized in commercial databases to a consumer-oriented company that happened to have a database as a product, I was shocked at the lack of knowledge in the database team. You don’t know what you don’t know.

Nothing is more frustrating than sitting in a meeting listening to smart but untutured people trying to recreate concepts that are well known and taught in the better technical universities. You can’t convince them to follow what the industry already knows, once they start “designing” it they get stubborn. (I’m probably the same way). The only upside is that you sometimes get to play the brilliant prophet because you know exactly how the bad idea is going to fail - its in the textbooks…

 

[ChrisCon]

Just wanted to say that the original poster missed the most important part of this thread. @Gimme_my_MME working his magic.

looking forward to the post tomorrow when the issue is fixed very quickly by the dealer.

 

[potato]

I wonder if all this discussion of dual boot partitions is relevant to the Ford system where it's not just one monolithic computer being updated. It's a whole collection of independent modules.

Each independent module could have its own dual boot fully redundant setup, and you'd still have problems because maybe multiple modules need to be updated simultaneously to work together but one of them fails. There is no "system wide" rollback possible.

Not making excuses; just trying to understand the true depth of the bad design here.

 

[PrimeRisk]

I wonder if all this discussion of dual boot partitions is relevant to the Ford system where it's not just one monolithic computer being updated. It's a whole collection of independent modules.

Each independent module could have its own dual boot fully redundant setup, and you'd still have problems because maybe multiple modules need to be updated simultaneously to work together but one of them fails. There is no "system wide" rollback possible.

Not making excuses; just trying to understand the true depth of the bad design here.

In many ways what is implemented in today's modern car is very similar to complex Distributed/Industrial Control Systems (DCS/ICS) systems that run a vast amount of the world that you never see. Power Plants, Gas Plants, Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, and even the national electrical grid are all run by these systems, but they are never one large computer doing everything. Cars have dozens, even hundreds, of different control modules that run independently of the ECM just like these DCS/ICS systems. Each with their own little independent sets of instructions. If the control system cut off for any reason, they just continue to plod along continuing to perform their functions until brought under control again. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised in the least that these vehicle systems are not derivatives of these very systems. They all work in concert with each other through the control system, but if the conductor goes MIA, they continue to work off of their own sheet of music.

These systems also see software and firmware updates that have to be deployed to individual controllers across hundreds or even thousands of modules within a single plant and configuration management is of critical importance. The ECU or DCS/ICS does not administer these configurations for the most part. A separate configuration systems will manage and update the individual modules completely independently of the control system. If there is a set of updates that need to be deployed, it will manage this and if there are failures, it will also roll them back. These individual modules are incredibly resilient and failed updates rarely brick the individual modules. Many of these modules self fault check and if an issue is found, will refer back to the configuration system to reload the last known good configuration.

To answer your question, many of these DCS/ICS systems do have resilient designs, but the independent modules, say a vehicle brake controller vs a Programmable Logic Controller managing a fractionation tower in a refinery, have two different modes of operation. When communicating with the control system, it listens to it's orchestrated instructions. If that control system goes down, they revert to a different set of operating specifications. The break controller will no longer be able to react to inputs for Vehicle Stability Control or the ABS controller, but will still function to actuate the brakes if the brake pedal is pushed. The PLC will no longer be separating hydrocarbons, it will revert to a basic set of instructions that gracefully shuts down the process to ensure that an over-temp or over-pressure condition does not occur resulting in an explosion and fire.

Again the difference is between a single car on the road malfunctioning and causing a crash that could kill a handful of people and incidents of control system failures that could kill hundreds or thousands. Due to this risk, there is much more money and effort put into the design and resiliency of a DCS/ICS than a vehicle, but the lessons learned from these designs should be applied equally.

 

[TaxmanHog]

Beating dead horses, no one is changing the Ford Motor Company architecture in this thread, keep to the topic.

I want to know what the OP's causation issue was and that it's easily resolved as trusted members suggest, assuming we have a competent technicians on the ground.

 

[PrimeRisk]

Beating dead horses, no one is changing the Ford Motor Company architecture in this thread, keep to the topic.

Certainly not. I doubt Ford could change Ford's architecture at this point even if they wanted to.

I want to know what the OP's causation issue was and that it's easily resolved as trusted members suggest, assuming we have a competent technicians on the ground.

I very much hope it is resolved quickly and the OP is on the road again quickly. Unfortunately there is a shortage of well-experienced Ford EV techs. It's simple math, Ford only produces 29 EVs for every 1000 vehicles it produces. A full-time tech working at a Ford dealership is probably going to work on, at most, 800 vehicles a year, so it's going to be very tough to gain that experience and keep up with all of the quirks in the EVs among them.

 

[priceb]

The same lack of specially trained mechanics was also an issue when the first hybrids came out. I once was given a loaner when the only mechanic trained to work on hybrids had an emergency and no one else in the entire shop was able to finish the job.

 

[Ricks Lightning]

4 pages later and I learned we're not driving an electric F150. We're driving a very expensive laptop with wheels.

Maybe that's why Apple dropped its electric Vehicle program.

Rick

 

[FordEVr DAD]

Read up on the forum first on power supplies. There are less expensive power supplies than the Clore PL6100. It's really nice, though, if you don't have to break the piggy bank to buy it.

The other thing is that as long as Ford has the BCM lockout of independent FDRS users, you will be limited in what you can do. The general feeling is that Ford created this security requirement to thwart would-be hackers from stealing your vehicle by forcing a rigged BCM update. One would hope Ford could split off a security module for vehicle locks, etc., and still allow independent operators to access other main BCM functions.

For me, I'm happy to have the equipment, as if my truck manages to get bricked again somehow, perhaps I'll be able to get it restored without the "Get it towed and start waiting..." hassle. Being a geek, I was always interested in learning about FDRS and FORScan somewhere down the road. Thanks to Ford for giving me a reason to dive in that much sooner! When I described to my wife what Ford and its dealers were telling me, she didn't bat an eyelid about the price of the Mongoose cable and the PL6100! Good Luck in that department, too!

Despite all the ups and downs, including those with the Home Integration System and unreliable backup power transfer, I love my truck, too, and am really glad I got it. Would do it again without hesitation. Am 78 years old and figured there wasn't time to wait for the perfect EV with the long-range battery, etc. With luck, Ford will even sort all its truck software problems out while I'm still on the planet!

************************

Glad you are enjoying your truck. I really appreciate your input in this matter. I though the same way as you, I didn't want to keep waiting for the perfect EV. I just thought the lightning was perfect for our time. I got a call from Ford dealership yesterday afternoon and they said they finally were able to start my vehicle. I still have to leave it there per the dealership so they can fix other issues like the ACTIVE AIR DAM SYSTEM FAULT etc. Hope you have good holiday weekend.

 

[Gimme_my_MME]

************************

Glad you are enjoying your truck. I really appreciate your input in this matter. I though the same way as you, I didn't want to keep waiting for the perfect EV. I just thought the lightning was perfect for our time. I got a call from Ford dealership yesterday afternoon and they said they finally were able to start my vehicle. I still have to leave it there per the dealership so they can fix other issues like the ACTIVE AIR DAM SYSTEM FAULT etc. Hope you have good holiday weekend.

 

[FordEVr DAD]

This is unacceptable, anything automatically pushed must be able to be reverted. This could literally kill somebody in inclement weather. A young woman had a minor disabling crash in the rural area that I live during the winter, wandered off to get help and died of hypothermia. If this happens to me on the ferry I could trap 50 cars for an hour (I have seen it happen.)

How do you turn off automatic updates?

*****************************************

Saw this on one of the post from one of the forum members (This is an awesome forum-hats off to the one that is running this):

 

[FordEVr DAD]

Yikes - I'm so sorry! Please keep us updated. I had power train malfunction in the fall of '22 and three weeks later I was as good as new. Did encounter a new "issue" the other night - home with about 148 miles of range, plugged in and saw "Electrical system drain Service required" - reconnected charger and all is good - apparently these batteries / software is extremely tempermental @Ford Motor Company

*************************************************************

UPDATE

Yikes - I'm so sorry! Please keep us updated. I had power train malfunction in the fall of '22 and three weeks later I was as good as new. Did encounter a new "issue" the other night - home with about 148 miles of range, plugged in and saw "Electrical system drain Service required" - reconnected charger and all is good - apparently these batteries / software is extremely tempermental @Ford Motor Company

********************************************************************


UPDATE:

I did finally get a call back from the dealership yesterday afternoon (8/30/24) saying that they were able to now turn on the engine after doing an "inhibitor procedure". I will have to leave the truck with them because I have other thing that need work on like the ACTIVE AIR DAM SYSTEM FAULT etc. They said I could get the truck back next week possibly Tuesday.

Sponsored