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

Safe and reliable production changes, and how Rivian recently got this wrong

blog.substrate.tools

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: Safe and reliable production changes, and how Rivian recently got this wrong

#31

Post by dmoy »

sarchertech wrote: post #20
huytersd wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one can read that thread.

TLDR paved roads are generally designed to handle large trucks and construction equipment. On such roads passenger vehicles (even heavy electric vehicles) have a negligible impact on pavement life. The difference in road wear between a 2k lbs. vehicle and an 8k lbs vehicle is too small to matter.

Okay that makes sense, basically amdahl's law.

I guess it'll be interesting when we are trying to support electric medium duty or heavier trucks, like WA is trying to do. Guess they'll be subject to Class 7 & 8 weight anyways, because if you try to make a currently-medium-duty truck into an EV it's way over the limit.

I mostly just have doubts about our current revenue model scaling for it (since it's heavily reliant upon gas tax and the truck weight $$ amounts don't match up), and the general lack of lighter EVs in the US. Something will have to change there

I'd be totally happy in the city with a 2-2500 lbs BYD Seagull or whatever. But that vehicle doesn't exist in the US.

Re: Safe and reliable production changes, and how Rivian recently got this wrong

#32

Post by Prcmaker »

kelp wrote: post #24
nijave wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imo the current continuous update while letting customers beta test new updates starts to fall apart as the cost of the hardware increases. Bricking am expensive smart phone is infuriating, but bricking an expensive household appliance or even more expensive automobile is a non starter. The signed image on USB seemed to be the norm from maybe 2010-2020 but it seems cellular connectivity has gotten too cheap and telem…

In the case of Rivian they have been pushing very meaningful improvements on a roughly monthly basis via OTA. I got my R1T in June 2023 and since here are a few things they've improved, just off the top of my head, not bothering to look it up: 1. Significant improvement to ride quality via different / better suspension tuning. 2. Ability to schedule warming the cabin and pre-condition the battery 3. Completely redesi…

It's not that I don't want improvements, I modify my cars for exactly that reason, but I want reliability. Improvement to the ride quality shouldn't be a manufacturers after-thought. UX adjustments are nice, adding further visibility to system features, great. OTA updates on systems impacting car functionality or safety, no. These things should be tested thoroughly enough before release to not require periodic updating. They should be stable and tested enough that an difficult to apply update is a reasonable cost. These are not the systems to fail and fix on repeat.

Re: Safe and reliable production changes, and how Rivian recently got this wrong

#33

Post by MattGrommes »

froh wrote: post #3

> In this post I’ll be discussing a recent over-the-air (OTA) software update to Rivian vehicles that went badly. It is speculative; I have no insider knowledge of Rivian’s software, systems or practices. and then it goes into canary testing, "pre flight tests" and rollback

Those are very common practices and he's clear about saying "that probably means..." and "This seems like...". Seems like fine writing to me.

Re: Safe and reliable production changes, and how Rivian recently got this wrong

#34

Post by kelp »

steelframe wrote: post #30
kelp wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of Rivian they have been pushing very meaningful improvements on a roughly monthly basis via OTA. I got my R1T in June 2023 and since here are a few things they've improved, just off the top of my head, not bothering to look it up: 1. Significant improvement to ride quality via different / better suspension tuning. 2. Ability to schedule warming the cabin and pre-condition the battery 3. Completely redesi…

> But, for the type of person who just wants the car to stay the same as it was the day they bought it, and never change, it's not the vehicle for them. I never said I didn't want updates. What I said is that I want to understand what the updates are and then choose to upgrade or downgrade when and how I see fit. Or better yet make the updates OSS and then let me do my own builds with the features and functionality I…

I wasn't trying to suggest what you personally want or don't want. Just that I could see how some people do not want their car interface to change, or even ride quality to change.

Re: Safe and reliable production changes, and how Rivian recently got this wrong

#35

Post by vel0city »

dmoy wrote: post #31
sarchertech wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TLDR paved roads are generally designed to handle large trucks and construction equipment. On such roads passenger vehicles (even heavy electric vehicles) have a negligible impact on pavement life. The difference in road wear between a 2k lbs. vehicle and an 8k lbs vehicle is too small to matter.

Okay that makes sense, basically amdahl's law. I guess it'll be interesting when we are trying to support electric medium duty or heavier trucks, like WA is trying to do. Guess they'll be subject to Class 7 & 8 weight anyways, because if you try to make a currently-medium-duty truck into an EV it's way over the limit. I mostly just have doubts about our current revenue model scaling for it (since it's heavily reliant…

A vehicle the size of a Seagull is practically a non-starter in the US in terms of mass-market appeal. Most US consumers think of the Chevy Bolt as too small of a car, and that's like 20" longer than a Seagull.

Re: Safe and reliable production changes, and how Rivian recently got this wrong

#36

Post by esalman »

wilg wrote: post #27
esalman wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, infrastructure is more more important, and railway infrastructure is much more sustainable to maintain in long term.

Unrelated gibberish

If you live at a place with decent public transport, you'll ditch cars first thing. That's the biggest argument against cars.

Re: Safe and reliable production changes, and how Rivian recently got this wrong

#37

Post by ohthatsnotright »

earthscienceman wrote: post #29
kelp wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hadn't heard about the Volvo one! I had a 2022 Volvo C40 before I got my Rivian R1T. When I first got the Volvo the GPS and LTE connection would periodically stop working for a day or two. They pushed a fix for it. Later they added CarPlay, which wasn't there when I got the car. Good updates. But not as frequent at Rivian. Was Volvo able to fix it with another OTA or did people have to go in for service?

Imagine being rich enough to buy high end cars every year and worry about OTA updates. What a world.

Beats being so poor you can't afford a car, or the only car you can afford is slowly rusting itself away or one no-longer-mass-produced part away from making a repair out of your financial reach. I'd take bad OTA updates anyday.

Re: Safe and reliable production changes, and how Rivian recently got this wrong

#38

Post by dmoy »

vel0city wrote: post #35
dmoy wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay that makes sense, basically amdahl's law. I guess it'll be interesting when we are trying to support electric medium duty or heavier trucks, like WA is trying to do. Guess they'll be subject to Class 7 & 8 weight anyways, because if you try to make a currently-medium-duty truck into an EV it's way over the limit. I mostly just have doubts about our current revenue model scaling for it (since it's heavily reliant…

A vehicle the size of a Seagull is practically a non-starter in the US in terms of mass-market appeal. Most US consumers think of the Chevy Bolt as too small of a car, and that's like 20" longer than a Seagull.

Which is really a shame :/

I want a $10k small car for just intracity trips. Easier to park, small battery charges fast enough at home even on 120V 20A. Cheaper to insure.

Re: Safe and reliable production changes, and how Rivian recently got this wrong

#39

Post by wilg »

esalman wrote: post #36
wilg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unrelated gibberish

If you live at a place with decent public transport, you'll ditch cars first thing. That's the biggest argument against cars.

I agree there are better arguments. My point was that the specific argument I was replying to was bad.

Re: Safe and reliable production changes, and how Rivian recently got this wrong

#40

Post by froh »

MattGrommes wrote: post #33
froh wrote: post #3

> In this post I’ll be discussing a recent over-the-air (OTA) software update to Rivian vehicles that went badly. It is speculative; I have no insider knowledge of Rivian’s software, systems or practices. and then it goes into canary testing, "pre flight tests" and rollback

Those are very common practices and he's clear about saying "that probably means..." and "This seems like...". Seems like fine writing to me.

sure. my point is that the title doesn't say a thing about what it actually is about, and what the article is about indeed.
Post reply on HN