TCU not being covered under warranty

[borski]

It may be legal to have that clause and enforce it, but that's an absolutely bull-sh*t, anti-customer policy to void a warranty for unrelated hardware just because the software wasn't updated within 30days.

That’s not what happened. The TCU is directly affected by not installing that software update, and requires replacement. Plenty of warnings were provided to the original owners via multiple means of communication.

I could understand saying that the software needs to be brought up to date to do warranty work, but the policy as is, is quite unfair.

At that point, why bother even making the updates skippable?

They are not skippable. You can schedule them for a convenient time, but you cannot skip them.

 

[Pragmatic]

I'm well aware of research required to buy used vehicles. In 40 years of purchasing car 75% (6) have been from private owners, and 25% (2 have been purchased new).
My complaints on this issue have more to due with Lucid's opacity in supplying service records. According to the original poster they would not supply records of work done, to protect the privacy of the original owner. Not sure this (privacy) is legitimate reason to not release those records.
Also I believe some of the OTAs were done to correct vehicle recalls (correct me if I'm wrong). If that is the case aren't they required to let the the respective buyer know there are open recalls on the vehicle. Further aren't they required to install those recall correcting OTAs on to any owner's (original or not) car without charge?

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

When I first reached out for an attorney to go after Lucid for my lemon, they told me I would be shocked how many 3-4th owners call them with 20 year old cars.

Does not surprise me. Isn't the new matra: it is ALWAYS someone else's fault, never mine.

 

[Northpointe]

Agreed. CPO is just another level of assurance, but due diligence is still required.

As a lawyer for a company of high tech products, I cannot tell you the frustration from dealing with second or third owners. That buy with no due diligence. When it turns out the product fails to perform, they expect the manufacturer to step up. Even after the warranty is up and with no privity of contract. You would think buying it at an estate sale would put the buyer on notice of the gamble they are taking.

A third-party pre purchase inspection can also help minimize the risk and typically costs less than $300.

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

I'm well aware of research required to buy used vehicles. In 40 years of purchasing car 75% (6) have been from private owners, and 25% (2 have been purchased new).
My complaints on this issue have more to due with Lucid's opacity in supplying service records. According to the original poster they would not supply records of work done, to protect the privacy of the original owner. Not sure this (privacy) is legitimate reason to not release those records.
Also I believe some of the OTAs were done to correct vehicle recalls (correct me if I'm wrong). If that is the case aren't they required to let the the respective buyer know there are open recalls on the vehicle. Further aren't they required to install those recall correcting OTAs on to any owner's (original or not) car without charge?

Your post and all its statements are not correct. Lucid's alleged opacity of disclosing private information is a matter of California and Federal law. And Lucid has fully met its legal obligations for NHSTA recalls, even if the prior owner of the car at issue negligently failed to update the software.

YOU BET Privacy is a DAMN GOOD reason not to release service records to POTENTIAL new buyers. If I have work done on my car, it is NOT the business of some numpty that may want to buy it. That person can get the information from me or I can authorize the dealer to release. I have often had a dealer print out my service history and show it to potential buyers. And let the Buyer beware if the seller DOES NOT provide a service history. When I bought a used Lucid 3 years ago, I could not get the service history before buying. SO, I had the seller obtain Lucid service records and give them to me. Easy. Lucid would not talk to me when I was just a potential buyer and I do not blame them.

First, I have NO idea if there were any ACTIVE true recalls on the Lucid car in question. But, you have convoluted the issue of true safety recalls vs voluntary updates vs service campaigns. Next, you need to know that Lucid does not participate in the NHTSA database. Nor is it required to so. And I could see the legal basis for Lucid saying that negligently failing to grossly update the system software was an intervening factor.
There is no law that requires the Manufacturer to do installation of a "true" recall if the owner of the vehicle fails to take advantage of it. The manufacturer comes up with the fix, offers it and then it is up to owner to have the work done. Or not.

All of this proves the point that you should not purchase a used car without careful due diligence. And if you cannot, walk on.

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

A third-party pre purchase inspection can also help minimize the risk and typically costs less than $300.

Agreed, very much, in principle. Maybe I am wrong, but finding a person that can do a pre purchase inspection on a Lucid? I doubt 10% of the owners on this form could do one. And I doubt our Lucid service guys are allowed to do them. Of the unique classic Porsche's I have owned, I always used a third party even after I did an inspection. But they were all ICE cars and the issues I was concerned about were ALWAYS mechanical.

I remember selling a rare 1972 911 to a very senior VP at GM. Sent him all the voluminous service records (no email back then). When he flew out to see the car, he came with magnets and a compression gauge. As they say, trust but verify.

I have seen several friends buy old Tesla's, that were fully inspected, and still substantial problems came up. Now more than ever, buying a used EV is caveat emptor.

 

[Northpointe]

Agreed, very much, in principle. Maybe I am wrong, but finding a person that can do a pre purchase inspection on a Lucid? I doubt 10% of the owners on this form could do one. And I doubt our Lucid service guys are allowed to do them. Of the unique classic Porsche's I have owned, I always used a third party even after I did an inspection. But they were all ICE cars and the issues I was concerned about were ALWAYS mechanical.

I remember selling a rare 1972 911 to a very senior VP at GM. Sent him all the voluminous service records (no email back then). When he flew out to see the car, he came with magnets and a compression gauge. As they say, trust but verify.

I have seen several friends buy old Tesla's, that were fully inspected, and still substantial problems came up. Now more than ever, buying a used EV is caveat emptor.

I also doubt that the service department at Lucid would do a pre-purchase inspection (PPI). Not only do they not have the bandwidth but it also undercuts the value of their pre-owned program. If you want a used car that’s been fully vetted by Lucid, buy a CPO.

Lemon Squad claims to do Lucid PPI’s. But like you I would consider this in addition to your own due diligence not in lieu of.

 

[Worldwide Beagle]

I also doubt that the service department at Lucid would do a pre-purchase inspection (PPI). Not only do they not have the bandwidth but it also undercuts the value of their pre-owned program. If you want a used car that’s been fully vetted by Lucid, buy a CPO.

Lemon Squad claims to do Lucid PPI’s. But like you I would consider this in addition to your own due diligence not in lieu of.

My money is on lack of bandwidth, not hurting CPO program.

My local Audi dealer service manager told me years ago that doing pre purchase inspections for people off the street actually helped their CPO and other sales. First, it got people into the dealership, and then they would really learn about the used car's true condition especially about stuff that was not obvious or did not affect drivability (torn axle boots, tie rods, engine mounts). Then these potential buyers would see that the polished CPOs, fully covered and guaranteed.

 

[Macrocosmcwh]

Guys…. I am good with it now…

Over it…. 1500 is not that big of a deal.

Bottom line:
If service is due- it should show that SERVICE IS DUE when car is “started”
If updates aren’t optional to instal- DONT MAKE THEM OPTIONAL. They should remain on screen until they are updated. Every time.
I’ve been as you all know in the car biz for 30 years. I am not an idiot when it comes to buying cars.

I’m over it, but Lucid is 100% wrong in this. Your can’t make something optional if it isn’t.
Sadly you have to inform consumers if something is due….

End of the day the back of EVERY SUNSHADE IN AMERICA READS “Warning do not drive with sunshade in place” for a reason….

The car was nearly perfect in every way I wanted it to be. The price was right… getting my car back day after tomorrow and I am moving on! I want to wish Lucid the best…. And my ownership the best…. I hope this is the only hitch I have…. Which it will be because now I am moving onto the extended warranty I purchased and I KNOW THEY ARE GOOD!

 

[borski]

Guys…. I am good with it now…

Over it…. 1500 is not that big of a deal.

Bottom line:
If service is due- it should show that SERVICE IS DUE when car is “started”
If updates aren’t optional to instal- DONT MAKE THEM OPTIONAL. They should remain on screen until they are updated. Every time.
I’ve been as you all know in the car biz for 30 years. I am not an idiot when it comes to buying cars.

I’m over it, but Lucid is 100% wrong in this. Your can’t make something optional if it isn’t.
Sadly you have to inform consumers if something is due….

End of the day the back of EVERY SUNSHADE IN AMERICA READS “Warning do not drive with sunshade in place” for a reason….

The car was nearly perfect in every way I wanted it to be. The price was right… getting my car back day after tomorrow and I am moving on! I want to wish Lucid the best…. And my ownership the best…. I hope this is the only hitch I have…. Which it will be because now I am moving onto the extended warranty I purchased and I KNOW THEY ARE GOOD!

The update was never optional, for what it’s worth. It just had a time limit. Once the server was down (which wasn’t for a long time), it was no longer able to be installed, as the server didn’t exist. As far as *that* TCU is aware, there is no update anymore.

That doesn’t make it optional. Updates do not disappear, in general, if you do not install them. You cannot skip an update.

This update, after ample warning, had an expiration date.

 

[doubletwist]

That’s not what happened. The TCU is directly affected by not installing that software update, and requires replacement. Plenty of warnings were provided to the original owners via multiple means of communication.

We are a long way past the days of misconfigured refresh and sync settings in X11 frying hardware (monitors). Are you saying that the previously released firmware that was still running somehow broke the hardware? I'm really curious as to what the mechanism would be for not installing an update causing the TCU to fail.

They are not skippable. You can schedule them for a convenient time, but you cannot skip them.

Except apparently it is skippable, or it would have eventually installed regardless of the user's failure to press the "Ok install it now" button.

The update was never optional, for what it’s worth. It just had a time limit. Once the server was down (which wasn’t for a long time), it was no longer able to be installed, as the server didn’t exist. As far as *that* TCU is aware, there is no update anymore.

That doesn’t make it optional. Updates do not disappear, in general, if you do not install them. You cannot skip an update.

This update, after ample warning, had an expiration date.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that Lucid spins up a separate, ephemeral "server" for each version of firmware it releases?

I'm really struggling to understand how, barring the eventual complete failure of Lucid as a company) there could be any kind of "expiration" of the availability of a given version of update that isn't artificially, and intentionally instigated by Lucid, and I genuinely can't think of any legitimate reason why they would intentionally bake in such an expiration.

Are they too broke to afford to publicly host a few hundred gigs of firmware? It's not like there's going to be a huge cost of bandwidth on the old versions once they are down to a few straggling vehicles still needing to download them.

Even IF, for whatever reason they decided to stop hosting old versions on publicly available endpoints, they should at least have copies available to service centers to be able to manually install.

I'm not claiming to know everything, but like I said, with 30+ years experience in IT, software development and hosting companies, I'm at a loss as to why Lucid has this requirement.

And again, if their software and hardware is so fragile as to REALLY need to update quickly "or else", then they should force the update to install non-interactively. after a reasonable grace period.

 

[borski]

We are a long way past the days of misconfigured refresh and sync settings in X11 frying hardware (monitors). Are you saying that the previously released firmware that was still running somehow broke the hardware? I'm really curious as to what the mechanism would be for not installing an update causing the TCU to fail.

There was an old update server. The TCU is looking for it. It was a third party. Said server no longer exists due to an architectural change; they no longer use that third party. Thus, that TCU cannot be updated as the server to provide updates that it looks for no longer exists. Ample heads up was provided.

Except apparently it is skippable, or it would have eventually installed regardless of the user's failure to press the "Ok install it now" button.

Updates, in general, are not skippable. You cannot install 2.9.2 without first installing 2.8.0, etc. This one had a (long) deadline. The reason it appears “up to date” is because the server at which it is seeking updates no longer exists.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that Lucid spins up a separate, ephemeral "server" for each version of firmware it releases?

No. At that update, Lucid switched from a 3rd party OTA delivery provider to an in-house one, iirc. After some significant amount of time, the third party turned that server off. That was a critical update to install. Lucid mailed, emailed, texted, etc.

 

[TahoeMichael]

A third-party pre purchase inspection can also help minimize the risk and typically costs less than $300.

Good luck finding a 3rd party inspector in most locales who will know enough about Lucid to read the warranty and realize they need to ensure that software updates aren't far enough behind to void the warranty. If we were talking about buying a Toyota, then I'd agree with you.

 

[TahoeMichael]

There was an old update server. The TCU is looking for it. It was a third party. Said server no longer exists due to an architectural change; they no longer use that third party. Thus, that TCU cannot be updated as the server to provide updates that it looks for no longer exists. Ample heads up was provided.


Updates, in general, are not skippable. You cannot install 2.9.2 without first installing 2.8.0, etc. This one had a (long) deadline. The reason it appears “up to date” is because the server at which it is seeking updates no longer exists.


No. At that update, Lucid switched from a 3rd party OTA delivery provider to an in-house one, iirc. After some significant amount of time, the third party turned that server off. That was a critical update to install. Lucid mailed, emailed, texted, etc.

I'm sticking to my guns on this one: a failure to update that's severe enough to void the warranty needs to have a latching warning that persists past some cloud server being available to tell you the car is out of date. This is just bad design on Lucid's part. I can understand why someone in the software team never thought through this particular scenario, but that doesn't change my conclusion. It would be more forgivable if Lucid had demonstrated a wide array of edge cases their software team didn't bother to think through.

 

[tmichael]

Guys…. I am good with it now…

Over it…. 1500 is not that big of a deal.

I'm with @Macrocosmcwh

This horse is dun dead! It is obviously not a widely seen problem. All potential used buyers have been educated. Once again, the forum has done a phenomenal job educating and informing owners and potential owners of a quirk they need to pay attention to - forum members, you rock!

Dream Ahead!