What's new
By:

Car will not update. Lucid says needs new telematics module not covered by warranty. Is this normal?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tâm said:
The old module still has the old firmware, less than version 2.1.43, to reach the old defunct server addresses. That renders it useless as a backup.

Hardware without correct firmware is useless.
Click to expand...
I would still request it. How do we know that Lucid isn't just charging the OP to update the current module? I would hope not ....
 
bikeriderbryan said:
I would still request it. How do we know that Lucid isn't just charging the OP to update the current module? I would hope not ....
Click to expand...
Oh, please. Your anti-Lucid posts are starting to get tiresome. Certainly if you have something objective to add please do so, but baseless conspiracy theories will not be tolerated here.
 
Tâm said:
The old module still has the old firmware, less than version 2.1.43, to reach the old defunct server addresses. That renders it useless as a backup.

Hardware without correct firmware is useless.
Click to expand...
Agree but I’m surprised they don’t have a method for updating via direct connection to the car
 
SDHacker said:
...surprised they don’t have a method for updating via direct connection to the car
Click to expand...
I believe Lucid can manually flash old modules without replacing the whole hardware.

That's not the problem but Lucid doesn't explain the reasons, except it says it "can't."

It sounds like it's a company decision.
 
RM-S8 said:
Beyond "I belive", any substitution following?
Click to expand...
Well, would it help if probably a significant number of us opining are actually experts in the field, have been developing hardware/software interactions, firmware, and electronic components for 20+ years?

Based on fairly extensive experience, "I am pretty certain" - if it isn't the case, I'm pretty sure every expert in the field would call this a "design defect".

Now, as mentioned - there could be more to the story - if the module was actually damaged somehow by a previous owner, then OK. And there are ways that could happen if the battery were left to drain too far, etc. However, under Magnuson Moss, Lucid would be required to state that clearly if they believed that to be the cause. Otherwise it would be a violation of said act. They also would not need the specific clause in the warranty, since this would fall under the owner causing the damage by misuse.

The suggestions that these are "baseless speculations" or "conspiracy theories" are ignoring the fact that this isn't a particularly unique situation to Lucid, and I can't recall this from any other manufacturer.. ever. Including other manufacturers doing heavily software defined vehicle interactions. I bought my Taycan as a second owner, CPO - and they did in fact do this with the PCM in that car - their reasoning was it was just less hours for the tech to pull the module and swap it for an updated one than to go through the flash steps. However, they did not charge me for this - they clearly acknowledged it was their issue and it was just a cheaper approach for them internally under warranty. Which is fine.

As mentioned, we have all heard of needing to bring a car in to service to a manual update - that happens, and has happened to most modern vehicles. Needing a hardware replacement? Seems a first, hence all the discussion.
 
RM-S8 said:
Beyond "I belive", any substitution following?
Click to expand...
It would be a huge mistake for Lucid to not design the system to be flash-able over the wire in the service center. I don't believe they've made this mistake.
 
Tâm said:
I believe Lucid can manually flash old modules without replacing the whole hardware.

That's not the problem but Lucid doesn't explain the reasons, except it says it "can't."

It sounds like it's a company decision.
Click to expand...
levsha said:
It would be a huge mistake for Lucid to not design the system to be flash-able over the wire in the service center. I don't believe they've made this mistake.
Click to expand...

Both of these are assumptions based on the idea that you have all the knowledge. I keep repeating this, but on average, when I find that someone does something I think is dumb, and then doubles down and digs their feet in, *something else is going on* and there is *information I don’t have*.

Sometimes, that missing information changes *everything*. I don’t know if that’s the case here. I do know we do not have the full story, because by this point Lucid would have tried to save face, as we’ve seen before.

So the idea that this is a “company decision” as if somehow some policy has changed is almost certainly not true, because they would have simply stated that. It is simple to state “the policy has changed.”

Because they haven’t, that means this is not the same situation as the few vehicles that never got to 2.1.43, who were either flashed or whose TCUs were replaced for free. This never got close, and the resolution is clearly very different, and so something else is going on.

Until we have more information, which may never happen, the best we can do is commiserate with @rking0122 and wait to see if we ever find out the details.

Now, if we hear this happening more than once, you could make an argument it’s a policy change. But a single, unique, situation is not a trend or pattern.

I’m certain Lucid can flash old TCUs. And new ones. And that by this point, if it were as simple as being out $1400, they would likely have good-willed it to be done with the drama.

So, what’s more likely:
1) Lucid hates @rking0122 and its customers and has adopted a new policy of intentionally pissing people off, or,
2) There is important information we are not privy to.

If I had to make a bet, it’s the latter. Some people seem to want to bet on the former. Fine.

But, and this is important: none of us know, and all of us are guessing.
 
borski said:
Both of these are assumptions based on the idea that you have all the knowledge.
Click to expand...
Not so. An assumption happens when I don't have enough information.

I am not a chef. I don't cook. If I go to a fast-food drive-in for breakfast after hours as it's now noon, I won't be able to get it.

On the other hand, if I go to a restaurant with the same scenario, I most likely wouldn't get my breakfast menu at noon. However, if I give them a hard time, I can get my breakfast served. It's not a technological impossibility to cook breakfast at noon: the eggs are still there, the oven is still hot but the restaurant decides to cook me a scrambled egg or not.

Same as flashing a TCM. I am not a tech. I have no idea about the computer. However, I have seen that instead of flashing a BIOS of a Windows 10 computer to update to 11, some would prefer to get a brand new mini-PC instead. They just don't want to deal with how to download, how to unzip, how to follow a flashing procedure that might render the motherboard ruined if not done correctly...


borski said:
1) Lucid hates @rking0122 and its customers and has adopted a new policy of intentionally pissing people off, or,
Click to expand...
There's no hate in here. Just like I could not get breakfast at noon in general, but sometimes if I make noise in a restaurant, I can. There are no scientific or technical reasons (there's no air outside of the space station); it's just the policy.

borski said:
2) There is important information we are not privy to.
Click to expand...
Lucid explained: "cannot repair/flash/update"

It's just like you cannot get your breakfast at noon!

borski said:
But, and this is important: none of us know, and all of us are guessing.
Click to expand...
True.
 
The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round. The wheels on the bus go round and round, all day long. Yikes!
 
Htx lucid said:
I bought my pre-owned 2022 GT with 900 miles from a BMW dealer in 2023. I had a similar situation where vehicle was sitting in a parking lot for over 8 months and my software was not updated. To my good luck lucid was able to service it under warranty and was able to install current software. Since then I’ve had no issue getting over the air updates.
Click to expand...

8 months is a long time. If you don't mind, would you please clarify how it was fixed (should be on the receipt)? Was the module replaced or there's no mention of "replace," just the word "flash"?
 
borski said:
Both of these are assumptions based on the idea that you have all the knowledge. I keep repeating this, but on average, when I find that someone does something I think is dumb, and then doubles down and digs their feet in, *something else is going on* and there is *information I don’t have*.

Sometimes, that missing information changes *everything*. I don’t know if that’s the case here. I do know we do not have the full story, because by this point Lucid would have tried to save face, as we’ve seen before.

So the idea that this is a “company decision” as if somehow some policy has changed is almost certainly not true, because they would have simply stated that. It is simple to state “the policy has changed.”

Because they haven’t, that means this is not the same situation as the few vehicles that never got to 2.1.43, who were either flashed or whose TCUs were replaced for free. This never got close, and the resolution is clearly very different, and so something else is going on.

Until we have more information, which may never happen, the best we can do is commiserate with @rking0122 and wait to see if we ever find out the details.

Now, if we hear this happening more than once, you could make an argument it’s a policy change. But a single, unique, situation is not a trend or pattern.

I’m certain Lucid can flash old TCUs. And new ones. And that by this point, if it were as simple as being out $1400, they would likely have good-willed it to be done with the drama.

So, what’s more likely:
1) Lucid hates @rking0122 and its customers and has adopted a new policy of intentionally pissing people off, or,
2) There is important information we are not privy to.

If I had to make a bet, it’s the latter. Some people seem to want to bet on the former. Fine.

But, and this is important: none of us know, and all of us are guessing.
Click to expand...
I keep seeing the idea that we don’t have all the details. Respectfully, I don’t know what’s missing that makes any difference.

Lucid told me to bring it in because they could update, now they say they can’t. When I brought it in it was a warranty pay issue, now it isn’t. That’s why I posted in the first place.

No, I don’t know why the car seems to have never updated, which makes me wonder if the unit worked at all. I don’t know why the car displays a message that it’s up to date (Lucid calls that a “glitch” now. I can’t answer what the prior owner saw or heard or did or didn’t do. Maybe those are the details you’re feeling are missing.

I have no belief anyone hates me or anything like that whatsoever. I chalk this up to a young company still getting its legs, probably dealing with issues like this that aren’t very common on an ad hoc basis.

I recognize there are some on this forum that believe this horse has been beaten dead a few times over now, and in some respects it just has. I’ve resolved to just pay and move on. But I will post developments because I have been asked to, I do believe it’s relevant to the community, and that it’s easy enough to ignore if you find this thread as annoying as another political ad in November.
 
rking0122 said:
I keep seeing the idea that we don’t have all the details. Respectfully, I don’t know what’s missing that makes any difference.

Lucid told me to bring it in because they could update, now they say they can’t. When I brought it in it was a warranty pay issue, now it isn’t. That’s why I posted in the first place.

No, I don’t know why the car seems to have never updated, which makes me wonder if the unit worked at all. I don’t know why the car displays a message that it’s up to date (Lucid calls that a “glitch” now. I can’t answer what the prior owner saw or heard or did or didn’t do. Maybe those are the details you’re feeling are missing.

I have no belief anyone hates me or anything like that whatsoever. I chalk this up to a young company still getting its legs, probably dealing with issues like this that aren’t very common on an ad hoc basis.

I recognize there are some on this forum that believe this horse has been beaten dead a few times over now, and in some respects it just has. I’ve resolved to just pay and move on. But I will post developments because I have been asked to, I do believe it’s relevant to the community, and that it’s easy enough to ignore if you find this thread as annoying as another political ad in November.
Click to expand...
Screw the haters in this thread. Please continue to post updates. The more visibility this gets, hopefully it’ll bring to the attention of @mcr16 or others at Lucid. It really seems unacceptable to deny a warranty claim because the car was not updated. Like others have said, it’s very common for cars to sit for months at a dealership before being sold.
 
rking0122 said:
Got into an AT. Bought it with 1200 miles from someone else. The car is behind on updates. I do not quite know how far behind it is or why, but, service center told me I would have to bring it in to have them perform the updates to the car for me. I did.

Got a call today that the telematics module in the car is not communicating with the server, and they cannot repair/flash/update it even at the service center, it has to be replaced. It is also not a warranty item, it is roughly $1400. I was told that one of the updates somewhere in the chain of updates (however many were missed) that was missed somehow "missed an update window" and now the car simply won't connect anymore.

Has anyone had this situation happen to them before or heard of this before? This is a very very tough pill for me to swallow, particularly with a car with now 1800 miles on it. Any advice? TIA
Click to expand...
The primary purpose of any telematics module is to record data from the car sensors, and logs of usage, and send it back to Lucid at some point. Modern cars typically do this when they have WiFi coverage. This is a HW device, and it only has two states, working or not working. Since it’s a device directly connected to record data from subsystems, the only reason it would fail is if the device itself failed a) because the hardware is faulty, b) software Lucid wrote bricked the device from operating. Both reasons are 100% Lucid responsibility. Any hardware failure NOT due to an accident, reckless use (any such conditions described in manual or contracts) should be covered by warranty.

I would not accept this, the burden to prove it’s NOT their responsibility is their. Unfortunately the headache to pursue this course of action is unfortunately yours.
 
momo3605 said:
... It really seems unacceptable to deny a warranty claim because the car was not updated. Like others have said, it’s very common for cars to sit for months at a dealership before being sold.
Click to expand...
I think it's an abuse to cite out-of-date firmware to deny warranty in most cases.

It's justifiable in cases that a refusal to keep updated might break something as I mentioned earlier.

In this case, the cause of unreachable servers is Lucid's decision to switch servers.

On the other hand, if there's evidence that the hardware was tampered with such as someone has drilled a smiley emoji through the module, then sure, the owner needs to pay for the hardware replacement.

That's why Lucid still asserted that the warranty is good. Thus, it can't explain why owner has to pay up.
 
rking0122 said:
I keep seeing the idea that we don’t have all the details. Respectfully, I don’t know what’s missing that makes any difference.

Lucid told me to bring it in because they could update, now they say they can’t. When I brought it in it was a warranty pay issue, now it isn’t. That’s why I posted in the first place.

No, I don’t know why the car seems to have never updated, which makes me wonder if the unit worked at all. I don’t know why the car displays a message that it’s up to date (Lucid calls that a “glitch” now. I can’t answer what the prior owner saw or heard or did or didn’t do. Maybe those are the details you’re feeling are missing.

I have no belief anyone hates me or anything like that whatsoever. I chalk this up to a young company still getting its legs, probably dealing with issues like this that aren’t very common on an ad hoc basis.

I recognize there are some on this forum that believe this horse has been beaten dead a few times over now, and in some respects it just has. I’ve resolved to just pay and move on. But I will post developments because I have been asked to, I do believe it’s relevant to the community, and that it’s easy enough to ignore if you find this thread as annoying as another political ad in November.
Click to expand...
To be super clear: you are exactly correct. I do not think anything you said is incorrect at all. The information we are not privy to is what happened *prior* to you getting the car, between the first owner, Lucid, and this TCU/vehicle.

That has nothing to do with your situation from your perspective, and that is also why it seems to me, at first glance, that Lucid should just good-will it. And in every single scenario that was anything like this before, they have. And if someone was at the update before 2.1.43, they would again, because that was the remedy described in the release notes for that release.

So yeah, from where you stand, I would feel precisely the same way. You are completely correct. And in that sense, I completely commiserate.

But I am not standing where you stand, and neither is anyone else here, which means the more interesting part is why this is happening, to which the answer is almost certainly not "Lucid decided to enforce a dumb new policy." That's all I'm saying.

That doesn't change your experience, even if we knew why. It just makes it much more interesting to understand.
 
NoseyReporter said:
You forgot up and down.

Damn it. That's the kids. Lolol
Click to expand...
Well, depending on the road and suspension tuning.... you may be right!

Initially this is the kind of topic that as a prospective buyer I am pretty interested in. However, I agree it's gotten very circular without any new information - but with a lot of emotional investment from certain commenters.
 
Tesla owner here...about to become a Lucid owner (Enough Elon! ENOUGH!).

I'm surprised to hear this "out-of-town" thread that may have stopped the car from updating. The Tesla I'm replacing updates while in the garage. I got a notice, and it does the update at 2:00 AM.
 
Science said:
Tesla owner here...about to become a Lucid owner (Enough Elon! ENOUGH!).

I'm surprised to hear this "out-of-town" thread that may have stopped the car from updating. The Tesla I'm replacing updates while in the garage. I got a notice, and it does the update at 2:00 AM.
Click to expand...

I have actually done an update to my Lucid in Illinois while I was in Hawai'i with my Lucid App. I don't believe there is a setting for automatic updates. Every time I've seen an update available, I have to tell it to do the update. I'm guessing it is because while an update is running, the car cannot be operated and it gives you 2 minutes to get out of the car if you set it to run from the car otherwise you will get locked in (I remember seeing some woman stuck in her Tesla during an update story a while back btw).

Anyway, I don't think Lucid offers any 'automatic' update feature at this point. Unless there is a connection issue, I don't see why or how there would be an issue remotely updating just like I have for an update. I remember being in Hawai'i and being 'warned' that that particular update will take 90 minutes... I LOLed thinking, okay, I'm enjoying a sunrise hike while my car is updating in the garage 4200+ miles away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
New Alexa stating “this update is not available now”
Replies
5
Views
3K
Chrry
Chrry
R
Purchasing used lucid vehicle warranty
Replies
6
Views
6K
Haggy
Haggy
A
Advice Needed: Best Way to Hardwire a 12V Tracker in Lucid Without Voiding Warranty
Replies
9
Views
2K
borski
borski
tonybot
2.3.0 Does not apply to RWD?
Replies
10
Views
3K
larrycpa
L
N
Insurance not being covered
Replies
13
Views
5K
kort6776
kort6776
Back
Top