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

[Batteryman]

**UPDATE** Service center ran this by the "higher ups" and they'll do nothing other than allow me to pay the price to replace the module.

The idea that a hardware piece had a software update that no longer can be updated by any means other than replacement is absolutely ludicrous. It it could be updated X months ago, there's a way to update it now. The idea that hardware is unretrievable and bricked because of a lack of a past OTA software update, if true, is something I have never heard before and cannot wrap my brain around.

I can see that happening. At some point, updates can't get pushed and becomes a brick. It's up to the owner to be responsible and update software. If you buy a iphone and don't update and you get hacked? Is Apple responsible? It's a bit like that.

 

[rking0122]

We'd like to see that photo you took showing what update it was on when it said "you car is up to date". Does anyone remember what update came with the warning: "Install this or go to hell?" The drugs I'm taking (Lyrica) have erased my memory.

BTW, I feel like I need some Lyrica to erase this experience in my head altogether. As wrong and objectionable as I find this to be, I’ve authorized them to repair the car at my expense just to get my car back. I really want to fall in love with my Air again and I hope I do. I do think this car is better than this experience, and I hope once it’s back it’s smooth sailing.

Wife now won’t be preordering a Gravity though, at least at this time.

 

[Batteryman]

Except I did exactly that. And this is what the car told me. I suppose I should have come here to ask the numbers everyone was on…but that seems like a stretch.

If this is the case, you have a strong argument that Lucid should fix this under warranty. If car says it's up to date when you bought it, Lucid should foot the bill. I'm sure it costs Lucid few hundred dollars. Why lose good faith over this? Many investors lost thousands, a few even hundreds of thousands of dollars but still invested in their company. Though, this is an entirely different issue. But, money is money....

 

[Batteryman]

I think you have a strong case now. The vehicle says it's up to date. And as per you, Lucid did confirm that the warranty was up to date before purchasing the car. I would suggest reaching out to their PR folks or someone in twitter or any other medium. If nothing works, this is an interesting article for the EV-centric websites out there (InsideEvs?), it will also help as an awareness article for those who don't care much about software updates on their vehicle. I would never have thought of a clause like this for warranty. Such an attempt may help catch attention from someone at Lucid to change this warranty policy. It's quite possible that a vehicle on used car dealer lots sit for quite some time without any updates installed.

Agree, but isn't it ludicrous that a customer has to go to these steps? I'm not on social media and would never do that.

 

[suchluke]

I had telematics module replaced once already and it was covered under warranty. It wasn't due to missing updates but Drive System Fault issue that made the car inoperable both accelerator pedal assembly as well as telematics unit was replaced. I believe that your issue should also be covered by Warranty. If the time/mileage didn't make warranty expired then it should be covered. As a second owner you had no idea of knowing if the car missed the update or not. Sounds like Lucid is making it very difficult for the second hand owners to maintain and service their cars.

 

[Tâm]

I don't see how a failure to keep the software updated would destroy the telematics module.

Examples that failure to have the right software could destroy a hardware component such as the recent explosions of pagers and walkie talkies in Lebanon.

Another example is the computer virus Stuxnet that caused the centrifuge machines to overspin and were ruined in Iran.

Lucid should explain how the hardware was destroyed by keeping the version 2.0.158.

 

[Rogue]

BTW, I feel like I need some Lyrica to erase this experience in my head altogether. As wrong and objectionable as I find this to be, I’ve authorized them to repair the car at my expense just to get my car back. I really want to fall in love with my Air again and I hope I do. I do think this car is better than this experience, and I hope once it’s back it’s smooth sailing.

Wife now won’t be preordering a Gravity though, at least at this time.

This is probably the cheaper option. I doubt they have deleted their previous releases.

My work iPhone will say up to date after being a brick for 3 months, and I have to forcefully check for updates. The phone will claim it is up to date despite me getting locked out of most of the phone due to company policies.

An engineer is expensive. Let's say it would take 12-16 hours of time in the best case for an engineer to write a deployment script for your scenario, debug it, test it, peer review it, and any additional hoops specific to the automotive industry. You are likely roping in other engineers (at least 2) plus a PM plus dedicated testers and a test vehicle. Let's make the math really easy and say the whole process takes 40 hours of someone's time at a reasonable rate of $150. That is $6k total.

While the development process would likely be a one-time cost, there would still be a manual process to specify update, approve the procedure, and any other hoops specific to the automotive industry (liability and safety if something goes awry). I suspect this would still be at least $1,400 worth of time and resources.

As a second owner, you did not contribute directly to Lucid's revenue. Your case is the most likely case of this occurring (exchange time between owners). There is no margin for them on your secondhand purchase, and servicing vehicles is a well known revenue stream for all manufacturers (some more than others). The expense could be much worse for a luxury vehicle for a repair item not caught during inspection pre-sale.

 

[rking0122]

I don't see how a failure to keep the software updated would destroy the telematics module.

Examples that failure to have the right software could destroy a hardware component such as the recent explosions of pagers and walkie talkies in Lebanon.

Another example is the computer virus Stuxnet that caused the centrifuge machines to overspin and were ruined in Iran.

Lucid should explain how the hardware was destroyed by keeping the version 2.0.158.

Yes. It makes zero sense. I build computers for fun and routinely flash firmware on all kinds of things all the time. I can understand why it couldn’t now be done remotely OTA perhaps. But I don’t understand how it bricks hardware or prevents them from reprogramming, even if there was a cost for the labor to do that. None of this makes sense to me.

Cost of being an early adopter with a young company maybe. Doesn’t make me feel great about my LCID holdings either.

 

[pjdcorp]

*That* is valid and compelling evidence for Lucid to comp it; there you go. Now you have the reasonable expectation that the car should have let you and/or the previous owner know of the update, and as far as you could tell, it was up to date.

That’s a much stronger case.

Agreed. A reasonable person would presume they could rely on such a message from Lucid.

 

[rking0122]

This is probably the cheaper option. I doubt they have deleted their previous releases.

My work iPhone will say up to date after being a brick for 3 months, and I have to forcefully check for updates. The phone will claim it is up to date despite me getting locked out of most of the phone due to company policies.

An engineer is expensive. Let's say it would take 12-16 hours of time in the best case for an engineer to write a deployment script for your scenario, debug it, test it, peer review it, and any additional hoops specific to the automotive industry. You are likely roping in other engineers (at least 2) plus a PM plus dedicated testers and a test vehicle. Let's make the math really easy and say the whole process takes 40 hours of someone's time at a reasonable rate of $150. That is $6k total.

While the development process would likely be a one-time cost, there would still be a manual process to specify update, approve the procedure, and any other hoops specific to the automotive industry (liability and safety if something goes awry). I suspect this would still be at least $1,400 worth of time and resources.

As a second owner, you did not contribute directly to Lucid's revenue. Your case is the most likely case of this occurring (exchange time between owners). There is no margin for them on your secondhand purchase, and servicing vehicles is a well known revenue stream for all manufacturers (some more than others). The expense could be much worse for a luxury vehicle for a repair item not caught during inspection pre-sale.

I hear you in some respects. And I appreciate the perspective. But It wouldn’t take Lucid an hour to write a line of programming and implement it so it doesn’t literally say the car is up to date when it isn’t. That would have avoided all of this.

And there’s no way to know, seeing others have had bad telematics modules too, that the prior owner even had a chance or the warning to do an update.

 

[segbrk]

I guess part of the problem is that "your vehicle is up to date" really means "no update is available for your vehicle at this time." Unlike most things we're used to updating, Lucid doesn't just put the latest version out there and let people install it, it has to be "pushed" to each VIN (or group of them). If the car isn't there waiting for it or the owner doesn't accept it, after some time, it will no longer be available. For the sake of buyers like you, it would be ideal if it showed the build date or date last updated on that screen. Maybe that's something we should suggest.

I still don't understand why this is happening though. I feel like we're missing something, or they're not communicating something clearly as to why the TCU needs to be replaced at all.

 

[rfc805]

This is really nothing but a good way to tank resale values and hurt sales. To people defending this with other tech products: Show me another one where the window is *30 days*.

The comparison to an iPhone update and your iPhone being hacked is not a serious one. Apple does not attempt to void your iPhone warranty in this situation. In fact, if you bring it in, they'll certainly help you recover it.

This policy wouldn't be unreasonable if it were more like 1+ years, but 30 days is completely unreasonable. Saying something like "Beyond 30 days will require a service center visit for a manual update." Yeah, that's OK.

I'm skeptical this is actually legal under Magnuson Moss, not that it's worth litigating. Just because you explicitly state the warranty is voided doesn't actually mean you can do so. FTC has gone after plenty of companies trying to do this.

It's a great vehicle, but there's a reason it's my first ever lease, and why I don't think I could ever consider actually purchasing or owning a Lucid. I hope they're following this.

 

[rking0122]

This is really nothing but a good way to tank resale values and hurt sales. To people defending this with other tech products: Show me another one where the window is *30 days*.

The comparison to an iPhone update and your iPhone being hacked is not a serious one. Apple does not attempt to void your iPhone warranty in this situation. In fact, if you bring it in, they'll certainly help you recover it.

This policy wouldn't be unreasonable if it were more like 1+ years, but 30 days is completely unreasonable. Saying something like "Beyond 30 days will require a service center visit for a manual update." Yeah, that's OK.

I'm skeptical this is actually legal under Magnuson Moss, not that it's worth litigating. Just because you explicitly state the warranty is voided doesn't actually mean you can do so. FTC has gone after plenty of companies trying to do this.

It's a great vehicle, but there's a reason it's my first ever lease, and why I don't think I could ever consider actually purchasing or owning a Lucid. I hope they're following this.

Brings up a good question. If a lease owner doesn’t keep up with updates (I suppose a lease owner may be less interested in caring?), do those cars end up here too? Is Lucid going to allow the banks financing these cars to have to eat this too?

 

[coma24]

I haven't read all 3 pages, but I was in the same boat when I purchased mine 2nd hand from a dealer (only as a result of my attempt to purchase a demo from Lucid falling through due to the vehicle being damaged prior to transport). The dealer had failed to apply software updates while the car was in their possession.

My transaction with the dealer was held up while awaiting funds to be returned by Lucid, so perhaps that was why, when the time came to replace the TCM, they did it at no charge. That, or they wanted to be gracious while repairing numerous steering wheel issues. Or, the policy might simply have changed and they are enforcing the terms of the warranty more closely.

 

[maractwin]

As a software engineer, I have some idea what is probably going on behind the scenes on this one.
When 2.1.43 came out in November 2023, they said you had to install this one for future updates to work. I think they changed how the updated software is stored in the cloud. So cars running software older than 2.1.43 could see updates through that version, but not anything newer because they weren't looking in the right place to find them. And in the 11 months since that version came out, they must have taken the older updates off line (possibly to save on cloud hosting fees for the infrastructure they were no longer using). So your car running something older than 2.1.43 does not see any new software out there. Assuming these guesses are correct, your car can no longer do over-the-air updates. But a service center plugging into the car should still be able to apply updates to get past this block. There's no reason this should break the telematics board, it just takes more effort to update it now.

 

[coma24]

As a software engineer, I have some idea what is probably going on behind the scenes on this one.
When 2.1.43 came out in November 2023, they said you had to install this one for future updates to work. I think they changed how the updated software is stored in the cloud. So cars running software older than 2.1.43 could see updates through that version, but not anything newer because they weren't looking in the right place to find them. And in the 11 months since that version came out, they must have taken the older updates off line (possibly to save on cloud hosting fees for the infrastructure they were no longer using). So your car running something older than 2.1.43 does not see any new software out there. Assuming these guesses are correct, your car can no longer do over-the-air updates. But a service center plugging into the car should still be able to apply updates to get past this block. There's no reason this should break the telematics board, it just takes more effort to update it now.

Nearly typed the same thing. The release notes specifically said that customers needed to apply the update within a given amount of time, otherwise they wouldn't be able to apply the update via OTA, but would instead need to have the update performed at the service center. That was precisely what happened to me when I bought my car, it was out of date and couldn't receive any OTA's because it was trying to speak to the old cloud infrastructure, which had since been taken down.

They had no issues, however, replacing the TCM at the service center under warranty and applying the first couple of updates. Once it was on a sufficiently modern version, I was able to remotely perform the remainder of the updates outside of business hours via the app. The car was good to go by the next morning.

It's unclear to me if ALL TCM's were being replaced as a campaign, or only those that were 'behind'.

OP, attached is a screenshot of the work order in case you want to present it as evidence that they certainly have replaced TCM's under warranty in the past. I do agree it's short sighted for them not do the replacement since this specific situation is out of your control. It's going to cost them more in goodwill than the little bit of revenue associated with a replacement TCM.

 

[vav493]

This is probably the cheaper option. I doubt they have deleted their previous releases.

My work iPhone will say up to date after being a brick for 3 months, and I have to forcefully check for updates. The phone will claim it is up to date despite me getting locked out of most of the phone due to company policies.

An engineer is expensive. Let's say it would take 12-16 hours of time in the best case for an engineer to write a deployment script for your scenario, debug it, test it, peer review it, and any additional hoops specific to the automotive industry. You are likely roping in other engineers (at least 2) plus a PM plus dedicated testers and a test vehicle. Let's make the math really easy and say the whole process takes 40 hours of someone's time at a reasonable rate of $150. That is $6k total.

While the development process would likely be a one-time cost, there would still be a manual process to specify update, approve the procedure, and any other hoops specific to the automotive industry (liability and safety if something goes awry). I suspect this would still be at least $1,400 worth of time and resources.

As a second owner, you did not contribute directly to Lucid's revenue. Your case is the most likely case of this occurring (exchange time between owners). There is no margin for them on your secondhand purchase, and servicing vehicles is a well known revenue stream for all manufacturers (some more than others). The expense could be much worse for a luxury vehicle for a repair item not caught during inspection pre-sale.

(maybe getting a little defensive since i’m a second-owner myself ) but to your point sure, second-owners don’t directly contribute to revenue but… is it really worth building a reputation that cars going for over $100,000 are only engineered/designed/built to be good enough for one owner? of which, some non-trivial portion of the first-owners group thinking it is worth chunking the vehicle after some average of 10,000-15,000 miles - at least based on the mileage i was seeing when i was browsing inventory listings. it almost screams Shien/Wish except with an insanely high price tag. (okay, maybe closer to Zara if i’m being nicer )

my point being is that the pre-owned market should be important to them too imo. for brand, reputation, reliability, service revenue, etc.. it gets the cars back on the road (which helps with recognition). there are a lot of things that companies invest in and give care to don’t directly contribute to revenue (kinda like Lucid’s recent partnership with Hermès)

 

[hellolucid]

Except I did exactly that. And this is what the car told me. I suppose I should have come here to ask the numbers everyone was on…but that seems like a stretch.

this really sucks. i would be annoyed. maybe one of the moderators can tag the Lucid employee here and hopefully they can do something about it?

 

[rking0122]

Nearly typed the same thing. The release notes specifically said that customers needed to apply the update within a given amount of time, otherwise they wouldn't be able to apply the update via OTA, but would instead need to have the update performed at the service center. That was precisely what happened to me when I bought my car, it was out of date and couldn't receive any OTA's because it was trying to speak to the old cloud infrastructure, which had since been taken down.

They had no issues, however, replacing the TCM at the service center under warranty and applying the first couple of updates. Once it was on a sufficiently modern version, I was able to remotely perform the remainder of the updates outside of business hours via the app. The car was good to go by the next morning.

It's unclear to me if ALL TCM's were being replaced as a campaign, or only those that were 'behind'.

OP, attached is a screenshot of the work order in case you want to present it as evidence that they certainly have replaced TCM's under warranty in the past. I do agree it's short sighted for them not do the replacement since this specific situation is out of your control. It's going to cost them more in goodwill than the little bit of revenue associated with a replacement TCM.

Thanks for this. I’m going to shoot by the service center today. Anyway, the tags on my loaner car are expired and I am hoping they have the updated sticker. I will bring this up to them when I arrive.

 

[Tâm]

From the Lucid warranty:

1. What Will Cause the Warranty to Be Voided?
   The Lucid New Vehicle Limited Warranty will be voided, and no warranty coverage will be provided in the following situations:
   ● Failing to properly operate your vehicle in accordance with the specific instructions and recommendation regarding the use and operation of your vehicle as provided in the Owner’s Manual.

New Vehicle Limited Warranty - Version 2022.25 9

● Failing to install required software updates within 30 days after notification that an update is available.

In some cases, a refusal to update could lead to loss of warranty.

In the past, when Lucid needed to identify which cars had defective parts (contactors that open and cause unexpected loss of power), owners needed to be willing to accept the OTA to fix the affected cars. If not, the car might be affected, and while driving at 100MPH, a sudden loss of power could occur, and a whole series of mishaps, damages, and accidents might happen. Lucid might not cover the costly expenses.

Keeping the old version without the diagnostic feature does not cause defective parts. It only prevents us from knowing whether the faulty parts are in the abovementioned case.

Back to the Telematics module: It looks like it's an obsolete module that either needs to be flashed, but it might be more efficient to sell and install a brand new module then take that obsolete module back and flash it in bulk.

That still doesn't explain why it's not covered by the warranty, though.