4 ms·

Sounds like a software update. Maybe putting wifi and remote updating in the first place was the cheaper/better idea after all.

fma 6y ago
GM cars don't need wifi. GM pioneered the connected car via cellular modems through their OnStar program since 1996... Question is how much of your vehicle software do you expose.
- vvanders 6y ago
  > Dealerships will update the vehicle’s battery software beginning next week. Sound like you get to drive it in to the dealership anyway. If I remember correctly some of the dealership agreements mandate that the dealer handles software updates preventing some manufacturers from legally being able to OTA without dealer involvement.
  - archi42 6y ago
    Another point seems to be upgrade fees - e.g. with Volvo I have to pay for the dealers diagnostics software subscription, for the actual software update itself (yes, really), and for the time it takes because it blocks a slot in the dealers garage (and the diagnostics system). Upgrades effectively easily cost 700 Euro per year, and they can't even tell me what's actually changed (at least it's optional). If we only had the technology to roll out tamperproof updates, even if it was via a USB stick... /s (At least the map updates happen exactly that way). Ergo, I'm under the impression they're really just only using this to siphon more money from the customers.
    - fyfy18 6y ago
      This is for non-mandatory updates - things like navigation and updates to a slightly less crappy UI. For safety recalls the dealer bills the manufacturer for their time, so as the customer you don't need to pay anything (other than your time to take the car to the dealer). I have a 3rd hand Toyota, and after I bought it I noticed none of the recalls had been done. I called up my local dealer, they ordered the parts, then two weeks later they replaced airbags, fuel tank lid and updated the ECU without me having to pay anything.
      - archi42 6y ago
        Oh, the paid updates might affect the infotainment system, but might also affect the ECU instead - at least as far as I'm aware, and then of course this might vary depending on the model year. Updates as part of a recall are free.
  - numpad0 6y ago
    That sucks... but at the other end of the spectrum, Tesla have had issues with cars running into walls while the driver was enjoying self driving OTA content, or cars catching fire after new fast charging OTA content, in neither of the cases they issued recalls as legally defined. So I’m not so sure whether manufacturers should be allowed direct OTA updates without recalls or heavy regulatory oversights. Boeing could have designed MCAS on 737 MAX so that the company can rewrite its behaviors covertly and remotely, except that that isn’t how airplanes work. Why should it be how cars work?
    - bonestamp2 6y ago
      > I’m not so sure whether manufacturers should be allowed direct OTA updates without recalls or heavy regulatory oversights. I think there probably should be some oversight, but not all ECU updates are serious enough to warrant an official recall. Sometimes they're just cosmetic changes or improvements to the head unit's user interface. Sometimes they're bug fixes for convenience features that are not a risk to the operation of the vehicle. Sometimes they're compliance related (ex. Volvo updated my headunit so that the 360 surround camera view couldn't be the default view when shifting into reverse (a US law requires that the backup camera is seen when shifting into reverse).
  - mkhpalm 6y ago
    FCA will let you do your own software updates as long as you buy their micropod. I'll have to look up which ones require dealerships because thats a bit strange to me. A lot of dealerships have a guy they call to come do flashes for them. Usually an independent contractor that circles around dealerships of every make flashing things for everybody.
- Shivetya 6y ago
  Onstar was created to make money and its damn expensive. they really push it hard when buying any GM product. My Volt advisor at the time did a good job of explaining how it benefited him and the dealership and how long I would need to keep it active to help them; which was not beyond the free period so it was no big deal to me. what got annoying was more than once Onstar tried to put some app functionality behind a paywall. This included even the ability to check air pressure (last reading) and then remote start.
m463 6y ago
they should also update the documentation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halt_and_Catch_Fire_(computing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halt_and_Catch_Fire_(computing...
- segfaultbuserr 6y ago
  Alternatively, a technically valid but evil solution is updating only the documentation. Much cheaper to implement. Any hardware engineer will understand what does it mean by that ;-) A feature is broken? Just update the documentation and say it's broken, problem fixed! No need to fix the actual problem... An even more evil variant: still claim the feature works in the datasheet, but hide the problems in the erratas.
baybal2 6y ago
You cannot fix a chemistry error over the Internet
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ecpottinger 6y ago
  You can if the chemistry mistake causes problems if you charge too fast or charge to too high a voltage. Both can be avoided (fixed?) if the OTA update allows you to control the charging.
Twirrim 6y ago
This is just a temporary fix, limits the maximum charge level. They're still investigating the issue and coming up with a proper fix, they just know that it's happening to fully charged cars. For what it's worth, I popped out to our Bolt this afternoon after getting the email, and tweaked the max charge level to 90% from the panel. Easiy done.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  Wait, shouldn't you be charging to 80% in normal circumstances anyway, because keeping the battery at 80%+ for long periods of time deteriorates it faster?
  - Twirrim 6y ago
    We use the Bolt for almost all our. It doesn't stay above 90% for any great length of time.
stevenjgarner 6y ago
Yes. I think the real story here has nothing to do with fire risk, but that GM needs to drag 68,677 cars into the shop because they're too incompetent to master secure over the air updating of software. If a "risk" doesn't meet the metric of needing a recall I guess GM is just not going to fix it. If a brand already has over-the-air updating in place, inadequacies tend to get fixed big and small.

fma 6y ago

GM cars don't need wifi. GM pioneered the connected car via cellular modems through their OnStar program since 1996... Question is how much of your vehicle software do you expose.

vvanders 6y ago
> Dealerships will update the vehicle’s battery software beginning next week. Sound like you get to drive it in to the dealership anyway. If I remember correctly some of the dealership agreements mandate that the dealer handles software updates preventing some manufacturers from legally being able to OTA without dealer involvement.
- archi42 6y ago
  Another point seems to be upgrade fees - e.g. with Volvo I have to pay for the dealers diagnostics software subscription, for the actual software update itself (yes, really), and for the time it takes because it blocks a slot in the dealers garage (and the diagnostics system). Upgrades effectively easily cost 700 Euro per year, and they can't even tell me what's actually changed (at least it's optional). If we only had the technology to roll out tamperproof updates, even if it was via a USB stick... /s (At least the map updates happen exactly that way). Ergo, I'm under the impression they're really just only using this to siphon more money from the customers.
  - fyfy18 6y ago
    This is for non-mandatory updates - things like navigation and updates to a slightly less crappy UI. For safety recalls the dealer bills the manufacturer for their time, so as the customer you don't need to pay anything (other than your time to take the car to the dealer). I have a 3rd hand Toyota, and after I bought it I noticed none of the recalls had been done. I called up my local dealer, they ordered the parts, then two weeks later they replaced airbags, fuel tank lid and updated the ECU without me having to pay anything.
    - archi42 6y ago
      Oh, the paid updates might affect the infotainment system, but might also affect the ECU instead - at least as far as I'm aware, and then of course this might vary depending on the model year. Updates as part of a recall are free.
- numpad0 6y ago
  That sucks... but at the other end of the spectrum, Tesla have had issues with cars running into walls while the driver was enjoying self driving OTA content, or cars catching fire after new fast charging OTA content, in neither of the cases they issued recalls as legally defined. So I’m not so sure whether manufacturers should be allowed direct OTA updates without recalls or heavy regulatory oversights. Boeing could have designed MCAS on 737 MAX so that the company can rewrite its behaviors covertly and remotely, except that that isn’t how airplanes work. Why should it be how cars work?
  - bonestamp2 6y ago
    > I’m not so sure whether manufacturers should be allowed direct OTA updates without recalls or heavy regulatory oversights. I think there probably should be some oversight, but not all ECU updates are serious enough to warrant an official recall. Sometimes they're just cosmetic changes or improvements to the head unit's user interface. Sometimes they're bug fixes for convenience features that are not a risk to the operation of the vehicle. Sometimes they're compliance related (ex. Volvo updated my headunit so that the 360 surround camera view couldn't be the default view when shifting into reverse (a US law requires that the backup camera is seen when shifting into reverse).
- mkhpalm 6y ago
  FCA will let you do your own software updates as long as you buy their micropod. I'll have to look up which ones require dealerships because thats a bit strange to me. A lot of dealerships have a guy they call to come do flashes for them. Usually an independent contractor that circles around dealerships of every make flashing things for everybody.
Shivetya 6y ago
Onstar was created to make money and its damn expensive. they really push it hard when buying any GM product. My Volt advisor at the time did a good job of explaining how it benefited him and the dealership and how long I would need to keep it active to help them; which was not beyond the free period so it was no big deal to me. what got annoying was more than once Onstar tried to put some app functionality behind a paywall. This included even the ability to check air pressure (last reading) and then remote start.

m463 6y ago

they should also update the documentation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halt_and_Catch_Fire_(computing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halt_and_Catch_Fire_(computing...

segfaultbuserr 6y ago
Alternatively, a technically valid but evil solution is updating only the documentation. Much cheaper to implement. Any hardware engineer will understand what does it mean by that ;-) A feature is broken? Just update the documentation and say it's broken, problem fixed! No need to fix the actual problem... An even more evil variant: still claim the feature works in the datasheet, but hide the problems in the erratas.

baybal2 6y ago

You cannot fix a chemistry error over the Internet

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ecpottinger 6y ago
You can if the chemistry mistake causes problems if you charge too fast or charge to too high a voltage. Both can be avoided (fixed?) if the OTA update allows you to control the charging.

Twirrim 6y ago

This is just a temporary fix, limits the maximum charge level. They're still investigating the issue and coming up with a proper fix, they just know that it's happening to fully charged cars. For what it's worth, I popped out to our Bolt this afternoon after getting the email, and tweaked the max charge level to 90% from the panel. Easiy done.

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
Wait, shouldn't you be charging to 80% in normal circumstances anyway, because keeping the battery at 80%+ for long periods of time deteriorates it faster?
- Twirrim 6y ago
  We use the Bolt for almost all our. It doesn't stay above 90% for any great length of time.

stevenjgarner 6y ago

Yes. I think the real story here has nothing to do with fire risk, but that GM needs to drag 68,677 cars into the shop because they're too incompetent to master secure over the air updating of software. If a "risk" doesn't meet the metric of needing a recall I guess GM is just not going to fix it. If a brand already has over-the-air updating in place, inadequacies tend to get fixed big and small.