Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A recent software update was not successful. Your vehicle cannot be driven

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 189 posts

Re: A recent software update was not successful. Your vehicle cannot be driven

#171

Post by alphabettsy »

mikem69 wrote: post #133
alphabettsy wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An Audi doesn’t need a software update to replace a light from my experience. Also, my experience with Audi and BMW are that community tools exists to let you flash modules and change settings all on your own. Try that on a Tesla. Tesla is way ahead on software imo, but I don’t want my car to be like modern smartphones where they’re dependent on the manufacturer to maintain and keep working.

Mine did - had to code the module to the car.

This is usually because the modules are generic and don’t know how to behave, for example, a light fixture needs to know if it’s US or Germany and work accordingly. You could’ve done it yourself with the proper software and knowledge is my point and most things don’t require this.

Re: A recent software update was not successful. Your vehicle cannot be driven

#172

Post by whstl »

benj111 wrote: post #47
hgomersall wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel it's not completely impossible to design a system that is properly partitioned, such that an update failure to the seat heating software doesn't brick the car. Updates to core systems should be rare in the extreme.

I would say part of the problem is that they want the option of updating seat heating software, rather than actually properly testing the up and down buttons and the thermostat.

That's an extreme example, but: definitely.

Having an interface to turn seat heating on/off if simple stuff. Having the upgradeability, DRM, the subscription thing, and circumvention protection is significantly more complicated.

Re: A recent software update was not successful. Your vehicle cannot be driven

#173

Post by Sirizarry »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #170
torstenvl wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am struggling to understand what it is you're trying to communicate. The original point is that it's quite clear that motor vehicles can physically operate without software, and so therefore smart automotive systems should use graceful degradation in order to avoid situations such as in the OP. Are you disagreeing that a motor vehicle can operate without software? Or are you disagreeing that a vehicle should contin…

My point is that software is essentially required to build the "basic car" they propose, and all software components potentially need updates. There are valid arguments both ways whether they only happen at dealerships or also OTA or some third way, but they need to happen regardless. One example where software is practically required is the backup camera. Would you prefer a series of lenses and mirrors? None of that…

I wasn’t part of the original convo but I also think you’re missing the point. The backup camera is not part of a “basic car” and a series of mirrors is how we’ve backed up and parked for decades before backup cameras were invented. Seriously imagine the most basic car you can imagine. I mean as little to no software as possible. That’s the basic car. Any other addition, anything else that someone might slap into the car, should not affect the basic cars functionality if turned off or otherwise impaired. This is obviously possible and the example of cars are with basic systems not NEEDING an update and still driving fine is evidence of this.

Re: A recent software update was not successful. Your vehicle cannot be driven

#174

Post by AlotOfReading »

Sirizarry wrote: post #173
AlotOfReading wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that software is essentially required to build the "basic car" they propose, and all software components potentially need updates. There are valid arguments both ways whether they only happen at dealerships or also OTA or some third way, but they need to happen regardless. One example where software is practically required is the backup camera. Would you prefer a series of lenses and mirrors? None of that…

I wasn’t part of the original convo but I also think you’re missing the point. The backup camera is not part of a “basic car” and a series of mirrors is how we’ve backed up and parked for decades before backup cameras were invented. Seriously imagine the most basic car you can imagine. I mean as little to no software as possible. That’s the basic car. Any other addition, anything else that someone might slap into the…

Perhaps this is a difference of definition, but when I think of "basic car" I understand that to mean the minimum vehicle that can legally operate on the road. Brakes, steering, lights, mirrors, airbags, etc. Backup cameras, AEB, and emissions controls, are all part of that now for better or worse.

As far as NHTSA is concerned, backup cameras are just as mandatory as working brakes. You can't build a vehicle that doesn't have them, and most (all?) states prohibit operating vehicles without these features. Tesla, Mercedes, Nissan, Toyota, Honda, and Subaru have all had safety recalls because of issues with software failing to display that image properly.

Older vehicles don't comply with these newer regulations and are only allowed to operate because of grandfather clauses.

Re: A recent software update was not successful. Your vehicle cannot be driven

#175

Post by torstenvl »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #170
torstenvl wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am struggling to understand what it is you're trying to communicate. The original point is that it's quite clear that motor vehicles can physically operate without software, and so therefore smart automotive systems should use graceful degradation in order to avoid situations such as in the OP. Are you disagreeing that a motor vehicle can operate without software? Or are you disagreeing that a vehicle should contin…

My point is that software is essentially required to build the "basic car" they propose, and all software components potentially need updates. There are valid arguments both ways whether they only happen at dealerships or also OTA or some third way, but they need to happen regardless. One example where software is practically required is the backup camera. Would you prefer a series of lenses and mirrors? None of that…

> My point is that software is essentially required to build the "basic car" they propose, and all software components potentially need updates.

Both of these are obviously false. Automobiles have existed longer than automotive computers, and lots of software continues to function without updates. I suspect you're aware of both facts.

Re: A recent software update was not successful. Your vehicle cannot be driven

#176

Post by torstenvl »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #174
Sirizarry wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn’t part of the original convo but I also think you’re missing the point. The backup camera is not part of a “basic car” and a series of mirrors is how we’ve backed up and parked for decades before backup cameras were invented. Seriously imagine the most basic car you can imagine. I mean as little to no software as possible. That’s the basic car. Any other addition, anything else that someone might slap into the…

Perhaps this is a difference of definition, but when I think of "basic car" I understand that to mean the minimum vehicle that can legally operate on the road. Brakes, steering, lights, mirrors, airbags, etc. Backup cameras, AEB, and emissions controls, are all part of that now for better or worse. As far as NHTSA is concerned, backup cameras are just as mandatory as working brakes. You can't build a vehicle that doe…

There is no NHTSA standard I'm aware of that requires a vehicle to become inoperable if the backup camera loses functionality. There are no states I'm aware of that require a vehicle to become inoperable if the backup camera loses functionality.

Please provide the C.F.R. link or state statute link you're talking about.

Re: A recent software update was not successful. Your vehicle cannot be driven

#177

Post by smsm42 »

mikem69 wrote: post #134
smsm42 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I replaced two of my lights in my car and I had to re-adjust the carpet piece that covers it. That's all I had to do, no software updates, no service centers, nothing. Are we going in the future to have to call a service center for a software update when we replace a floor mat or a windshield wiper?

What car do you drive? Go replace the headlights in a modern vehicle and see what happens. You have to code the module to the vehicle.

Not a Tesla, this is for sure. As long as there are any cars with physical controls and replaceable lightbulbs on the market, those are the ones I'll be driving. Fortunately, this is still very much the case, especially if a car for you is a means of transportation, not the expression of your ego.

Re: A recent software update was not successful. Your vehicle cannot be driven

#178

Post by AlotOfReading »

torstenvl wrote: post #176
AlotOfReading wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps this is a difference of definition, but when I think of "basic car" I understand that to mean the minimum vehicle that can legally operate on the road. Brakes, steering, lights, mirrors, airbags, etc. Backup cameras, AEB, and emissions controls, are all part of that now for better or worse. As far as NHTSA is concerned, backup cameras are just as mandatory as working brakes. You can't build a vehicle that doe…

There is no NHTSA standard I'm aware of that requires a vehicle to become inoperable if the backup camera loses functionality. There are no states I'm aware of that require a vehicle to become inoperable if the backup camera loses functionality. Please provide the C.F.R. link or state statute link you're talking about.

You're missing how FMVSS works. They're all mandatory unless they're one of the listed exemptions to the make inoperative prohibition (part 595) or otherwise stated. States regulate that generally by some variation of "operating an unsafe vehicle" rules, e.g. VC 24002 in CA. Those rules deliberately take a wide view of what unsafe means, but broadly include things that would prevent passing inspections like failing to meet FMVSS. Note that I'm not talking about the actual chance of getting dinged for operating a vehicle this way, because we all know there's effectively no real enforcement here.

Re: A recent software update was not successful. Your vehicle cannot be driven

#179

Post by torstenvl »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #178
torstenvl wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no NHTSA standard I'm aware of that requires a vehicle to become inoperable if the backup camera loses functionality. There are no states I'm aware of that require a vehicle to become inoperable if the backup camera loses functionality. Please provide the C.F.R. link or state statute link you're talking about.

You're missing how FMVSS works. They're all mandatory unless they're one of the listed exemptions to the make inoperative prohibition (part 595) or otherwise stated. States regulate that generally by some variation of "operating an unsafe vehicle" rules, e.g. VC 24002 in CA. Those rules deliberately take a wide view of what unsafe means, but broadly include things that would prevent passing inspections like failing t…

Cali. Veh. Code 24002 does not require a vehicle to become inoperable if the backup camera fails. It does not reference backup cameras at all in the text, and there is no case law to support that interpretation.

You have been given plenty of opportunities to make your case and have refused to do so. I think it's pretty clear by now that you're just being disingenuous.

Re: A recent software update was not successful. Your vehicle cannot be driven

#180

Post by AlotOfReading »

torstenvl wrote: post #179
AlotOfReading wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing how FMVSS works. They're all mandatory unless they're one of the listed exemptions to the make inoperative prohibition (part 595) or otherwise stated. States regulate that generally by some variation of "operating an unsafe vehicle" rules, e.g. VC 24002 in CA. Those rules deliberately take a wide view of what unsafe means, but broadly include things that would prevent passing inspections like failing t…

Cali. Veh. Code 24002 does not require a vehicle to become inoperable if the backup camera fails. It does not reference backup cameras at all in the text, and there is no case law to support that interpretation. You have been given plenty of opportunities to make your case and have refused to do so. I think it's pretty clear by now that you're just being disingenuous.

Please enlighten me. What are the vehicle codes that specify which component failures render a vehicle unfit for operation? Let's say something obvious like brakes or lights.
Post reply on HN