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

[borski]

I wonder if Lucid has employed similar tactics to Microsoft to prevent people from trying to reverse engineer their software.

Cute thought, but no.

 

[borski]

It just feels like bad coding to me. They can make their patches cumulative. Think about simple Windows updates, they are cumulative if you have something older that has not been updated for awhile. When I bought my 24 Touring the car had been sitting somewhere for 10 months. I saw somewhere the list of updates they had to do to get it to 2.3.10. (I forget where I saw it though). Furthermore this is not a case of not updating a car for 20 years. It has been relatively recent.

I’m sure making them cumulative is something they’re working on; it’s not trivial, as Windows has to update a single OS on a single CPU on a single motherboard. Lucid has over 70 updateable ECUs, last I checked, and some of them *they* don’t control (it’s vendored) but Lucid still has to be the one to deliver the updates. On Windows, you can download drivers after the fact, right? Can’t do that for a Lucid.

It’s a different problem.

Moreover, no, it wasn’t 20 years, but 20 months is a long long time. Remember that this hasn’t been updated well before 2.1.43, the update we were all talking about.

I’m a bit surprised to see this much back and forth on a topic like this.

In no universe is this situation an agreeable one for a vehicle …

To be ultra super clear: I agree. I think Lucid should fix this, and explain to OP what happened.

But it isn’t pitchfork-worthy either. On average, Lucid tries to do the right thing by customers; let’s give them a chance to look into what happened. Surely they’ve generated that good will, no?

Perhaps not with OP, which I totally get - but certainly with some of the members of this forum.

The most likely options here are:
1) a rogue service manager decided not to cover it, or,
2) something else is going on.

I can pretty much guarantee it isn’t as simple as “you didn’t update your car, sucks to be you.”

Warranty aside, there can be many life situations for owners where a timely software updates may not be possible. Likewise, having a car in a service or sales process it would actually be unlikely that software updates would be performed, critical or not.

Not for 20 months. And if it’s in service, they will update it for you. It is part of what they do with every single service, like a complementary wash or key fob battery replacement.

It sounds like the burden is on the latest buyer. Doesn't feel reasonable IMO.

The burden was on the original owner to install the updates.

The burden on the new buyer is to ensure the vehicle is delivered damage-free and with no issues. If it had a broken muffler, that would’ve been on the buyer too, unless he’d had the original owner fix it.

That’s not new.

What *is* new is that the car said it was up to date (which is confusing UX and not what that message means), and that Lucid does not have an officially published list of software releases, to my knowledge. Thus, even if @rking0122 had wanted to figure out the right version to update to, he would’ve had to find it on either this forum or a different enthusiast website.

The issue isn’t that the used buyer is a used buyer; it’s that you buy a car as-is, after inspecting it has all the things you think it does and everything is in working order. The definition of “caveat emptor,” unless you’re buying it from a dealership (there are lemon laws at play then, potentially).

But you can’t do that if you have no way of verifying the car is up to date. The answer should have been to talk to Lucid and confirm it before buying the car, but Lucid doesn’t make that easy.

That’s why I think Lucid should cover it. I don’t think they have the obligation to, as whatever happened with the original owner and them means they didn’t see each other for at least 20 months, missing at least one annual, because again: they would have updated the software for the original owner if it had gone to a service center.

But because it is confusing and Lucid does not publicize a list of releases (which I think they should), it is harder than it should be, and so I think it would be right for Lucid to cover it.

But it’s not absurd for them not to.

So the question to me is why a critical software update mentioned here isn't simply pushed without user intervention or consent. Tesla has no problem doing this and it's technically not a problem to recognize if the vehicle charge/state is ready to process the update.

I explained this above. A car being bricked in the morning ie extremely more infuriating than a phone.

I hated that Tesla did this and turned it off.

I turned off automatic updates on Unifi for the same reason; I’ll update it when I can watch it, because all too often it would update automatically and *take down my network*. No thanks; sometimes it did this when I was in Europe and couldn’t fix it. Hard pass.

Did anyone tag @mcr16. @rking0122 you should also try reaching out to him directly. I’ve seen he has been able to help resolve service disputes in other cases as well

She/her, fyi.

—
Moreover, none of this has anything to do with the “30 days” language in the warranty, so if anyone wants to discuss that, do it elsewhere please.

In addition, none of this has anything to do with “the update that they told us we must install” aka 2.1.43. This car never got close to there. That is completely unrelated.

 

[Tâm]

@ OP,
It looks like Lucid will not badge, apparently they have their reasons.
So the OP has two choices, keep posting, or pay $$. If there's is no money to pay, establish "go fund me", or whatever is being called.

He already said on the Post #81 that he hopes this thread is informational for others to avoid the out-of-date hardware costly fee. He agreed to pay. He wants to move on.

 

[JohnAStebbins]

As another point of information, I'm facing a similar (but not identical) problem. I purchased a used Air Dream about a month ago. The About page says the software is up to date. But the software version is 2.1.47 (so after the software version of doom 2.1.43). WiFi and cellular connections seem fine. I discovered I am out of date only by reading these forums.

I sent an email request for guidance to customer care more than a week ago. Have not gotten a response yet, but will give it at least 10 days before escalating. I'll try my local mobile service hub next (Salt Lake City).

 

[Pragmatic]

20 months is easy and not totally rare if you're dealing with an estate in probate.

 

[bikeriderbryan]

It just feels like bad coding to me. They can make their patches cumulative.

Agreed but a simpler way would be to just do patches starting from where the OP car is. If for example my car is running 2.0.3 and we are now on 2.2.10, just start with the next patch after 2.0.3 and keep patching until one gets to 2.2.10 or whatever is the latest version.

Oh well I guess this would be too easy and simple.

 

[Tâm]

Agreed but a simpler way would be to just do patches starting from where the OP car is. If for example my car is running 2.0.3 and we are now on 2.2.10, just start with the next patch after 2.0.3 and keep patching until one gets to 2.2.10 or whatever is the latest version.

Oh well I guess this would be too easy and simple.

The receipt on post #56 shows that even with the free Telematic Control Module/Unit replacement, the Service Center still had to do "OTA flashing overnight."

It looks like as explained in that post, the out-of-date TCM still got the obsolete shutdown server ports on the cloud. That means since it doesn't get the current active cloud server address, it couldn't download any firmware to do "OTA flashing overnight."

Thus, it looks like Lucid's solution is to get the new TCM because it doesn't reach for the dead ports on the cloud, it would reach for the active ports on the cloud in order to do "OTA flashing overnight."

Interesting for engineers just to get to the right cloud but costly for consumers.

 

[rfc805]

The receipt on post #56 shows that even with the free Telematic Control Module/Unit replacement, the Service Center still had to do "OTA flashing overnight."

It looks like as explained in that post, the out-of-date TCM still got the obsolete shutdown server ports on the cloud. That means since it doesn't get the current active cloud server address, it couldn't download any firmware to do "OTA flashing overnight."

Thus, it looks like Lucid's solution is to get the new TCM because it doesn't reach for the dead ports on the cloud, it would reach for the active ports on the cloud in order to do "OTA flashing overnight."

Interesting for engineers just to get to the right cloud but costly for consumers.

Not to mention if they know what they're doing, they should be able to just connect the vehicle to a private network which will pretend to be the old addresses/ports and provide the necessary updates. Given that they control the entire backend here, this shouldn't be rocket surgery.

 

[HC_79]

The OP paid for the module and posted more to share his experience. I think we can put this thread to bed.

 

[borski]

As another point of information, I'm facing a similar (but not identical) problem. I purchased a used Air Dream about a month ago. The About page says the software is up to date. But the software version is 2.1.47 (so after the software version of doom 2.1.43). WiFi and cellular connections seem fine. I discovered I am out of date only by reading these forums.

I sent an email request for guidance to customer care more than a week ago. Have not gotten a response yet, but will give it at least 10 days before escalating. I'll try my local mobile service hub next (Salt Lake City).

Almost certainly not the same thing; updates should have no problem being pushed to you, or service can install them for you (likely their preference).

I wouldn’t wait 10 days; I would just contact service directly or text or call CS. They should be able to handle it for you.

 

[borski]

20 months is easy and not totally rare if you're dealing with an estate in probate.

There are always exceptions to every rule. If this were a car that was part of an estate in probate, I imagine Lucid may act differently too, if they knew that.

Agreed but a simpler way would be to just do patches starting from where the OP car is. If for example my car is running 2.0.3 and we are now on 2.2.10, just start with the next patch after 2.0.3 and keep patching until one gets to 2.2.10 or whatever is the latest version.

Oh well I guess this would be too easy and simple.

That is precisely how it works. The only difference is that this car is *so* out of date that it cannot access any of the new OTA software.

Not to mention if they know what they're doing, they should be able to just connect the vehicle to a private network which will pretend to be the old addresses/ports and provide the necessary updates. Given that they control the entire backend here, this shouldn't be rocket surgery.

Sure, they can. This is a thing that is almost certainly possible. But: it takes time (which is money), effort, and is a significant distraction to build for the very very few cars in this situation.

It goes against every “repair all the things” bone in my body, but sometimes a replacement really is both more cost-effective and less time-consuming.

 

[Tâm]

Sure, they can. This is a thing that is almost certainly possible. But: it takes time (which is money), effort, and is a significant distraction to build for the very very few cars in this situation.

It goes against every “repair all the things” bone in my body, but sometimes a replacement really is both more cost-effective and less time-consuming.

We only know of only 2 cases so far: rking0122 who started this thread, and coma24 who gave us the free replacement receipt.

If Lucid had given rking0122 the replacement for free, we wouldn't have this thread with 112 messages asking whether the firmware fix would cost out-of-pocket or not.

I think this is a failure in public relations.

 

[Cosmo Cruz]

never had a problem with these.

 

[borski]

We only know of only 2 cases so far: rking0122 who started this thread, and coma24 who gave us the free replacement receipt.

If Lucid had given rking0122 the replacement for free, we wouldn't have this thread with 112 messages asking whether the firmware fix would cost out-of-pocket or not.

I think this is a failure in public relations.

No, as I’ve stated half a dozen times in this thread, these are completely unrelated.

@coma24 had issues updating to the 2.1.43 update. If that update failed and/or you didn’t install it, you would have to have it done at a service center, or service would replace your TCU. This was an issue caused by Lucid switching servers, and so they comped it. That makes perfect sense, and if @rking0122 were even close to 2.1.43 I would pretty much guarantee it would be the same situation. The *release notes* for that release provided the remedy - bringing it to a service center for installation.

@rking0122’s vehicle is nowhere near 2.1.43. This means that the vehicle had not been updated for far longer and well before the 2.1.43 update that would have caused the TCU issue like in @coma24’s case. That makes it a very different situation, as even if Lucid had wanted to make good on this, the previous owner would never even have had a chance to get up to date as they hadn’t updated in 8 months before that. I do not know if this was the previous owner’s fault, as I do not have context. Literally none of us do.

What I do know is this case is *not* like the others, despite all of us wanting this to be a 2.1.43 case. I don’t know the details, but I do know it isn’t the same.

 

[Tâm]

...I discovered I am out of date only by reading these forums...

There goes the issue: Owners have to depend on unofficial sources to find out whether they are out of date or not.

Since out-of-date firmware might cost money or warranty, Lucid needs to find a better way to inform owners that they should not rely on what the screen on your car says because your firmware is out-of-date.

 

[borski]

View attachment 24245never had a problem with these.

Just don’t walk by any

 

[borski]

There goes the issue: Owners have to depend on unofficial sources to find out whether they are out of date or not.

Since out-of-date firmware might cost money or warranty, Lucid needs to find a better way to inform owners that they should not rely on what the screen on your car says because your firmware is out-of-date.

Yup, agreed. I do think a big lesson here is that a public release listing is a good idea.

For 2.1.43 they did email every owner and post all over social media, but I agree with you.

 

[bikeriderbryan]

That is precisely how it works. The only difference is that this car is *so* out of date that it cannot access any of the new OTA software.

But Lucid service can and they can send the updates to the car.

 

[Cosmo Cruz]

Just don’t walk by any

I'm surprised you young-ens know about 5-1/4 floppies. My first programing class was in MS-DOS ...and yes, printers almost never worked back in the day. I see that in 2024 printers are still the most unreliable part of tech. Still trying to create the "paperless office", by making proprietary 0.002 ml ink cartridges for every printer.

 

[levsha]

Re: second ownership. I will say they have mentioned several times to me that as a second owner I am entitled to less than they might offer an original owner. For instance there is some wrinkling in the leather in the center of the backseat and I casually asked the service department if that was common. (I know it is because I have seen that in photos of cars on this site.) I was told if I were the original owner they might consider some "steaming?" process for me to smooth it out...but as a second owner they will not do such goodwill kinds of things. Second owners also have less functionality on their Lucid.com accounts in terms of seeing car data. It absolutely is not a big enough deal for me to care about, but there is a lower standard for second owners. I have seen others on this site say similar things.

That should be reported to consumer protection rights agency in most of european countries to be investigated: a legal owner shouldn't be discriminated based on the fact they are 2nd owner.