Ford will space out redesigns thanks to over-the-air updating system

[T-dubz]

https://www.autoblog.com/2020/12/15/ford-over-the-air-ota-updates-fewer-redesigns/

 

what do you guys think about this? The OTA sounds awesome (really disappointed that the sport didn’t come with sync 4), but I hope the part about fewer redesigns isn’t true. 

[akirby]

14 minutes ago, T-dubz said:

I hope the part about fewer redesigns isn’t true. 

Sounds like that was just speculation by the author not from Ford.

[rmc523]

Hard to tell if this line was from Thai-Tang, or his thoughts.

 

Thai-Tang's comments reaffirm the idea that technology is one of the most important measuring sticks in the automotive industry, even in the pickup segment. If owners can gain 10 horsepower or a pair of miles per gallon by tapping the "download" icon on their touchscreen, Ford might be able to get away with delaying sheet metal refreshes for longer than we're used to. Viewed in this light, model years ultimately might not matter as much as the version of the software that's running. It would mark a dramatic about-face for an industry that used to roll out new looks every single model year in a bid to one-up the competition and lure more buyers into showrooms. 

 

I think it's a mistake if true - I understand what they're thinking (customers can have features of a "new" model in the current one), but people still want a fresh design.

[akirby]

Ok I missed that statement.  I think it’s still just conjecture at this point.  Probably depends on what others are doing.

[Harley Lover]

This would be an example of following part of Tesla's business model (fewer model changes in favor of OTA updates) that I think would fail for Ford. Do the OTA updates, but not to the exclusion of redesigns. You're not Tesla, Ford.

[akirby]

12 minutes ago, Harley Lover said:

This would be an example of following part of Tesla's business model (fewer model changes in favor of OTA updates) that I think would fail for Ford. Do the OTA updates, but not to the exclusion of redesigns. You're not Tesla, Ford.

 

Tesla has no real competition right now so they can get away with it.  Ford doesn't have that benefit, especially with trucks.   I think it would only work if all mfrs did it at the same time.

[fuzzymoomoo]

I don't think it will mean longer times between sheet metal or body structure redesigns but I do think it will mean longer times for powertrain and electronic overhauls. You can't update body structures for crash regulations over the air. You can improve electronic software and (apparently) powertrain efficiencies. 

[Chrisgb]

I've thought for a long time that automakers should get away from  calendar dating and go to a decimal system, like how the Sync versions are classified. It is referred to as Sync 4, not, "The totally reimagined Sync 2021." The current Bronco would be Bronco 6.0, denoting the 6h generation of that vehicle. Trim, color, and software updates could be added at any time during the year without the albatross of waiting for a season or model year changeover. Software updates would be classified in hundredths (.01), hardware, such as new powertrain components, paint, trim, etc would be in tenths. and reengineering would move up a whole number. The year digit in the serial number would be replaced by the generation number.

[rperez817]

7 hours ago, T-dubz said:

https://www.autoblog.com/2020/12/15/ford-over-the-air-ota-updates-fewer-redesigns/

 

what do you guys think about this?

 

It's a great idea all around. A business model based on OTA updates and enhancements (including vehicle enhancements paid for by customers) and fewer, more focused redesigns will benefit both Ford and its customers.

[rperez817]

3 minutes ago, Chrisgb said:

I've thought for a long time that automakers should get away from  calendar dating and go to a decimal system, like how the Sync versions are classified. It is referred to as Sync 4, not, "The totally reimagined Sync 2021." The current Bronco would be Bronco 6.0, denoting the 6h generation of that vehicle. Trim, color, and software updates could be added at any time during the year without the albatross of waiting for a season or model year changeover. Software updates would be classified in hundredths (.01), hardware, such as new powertrain components, paint, trim, etc would be in tenths. and reengineering would move up a whole number. The year digit in the serial number would be replaced by the generation number.

 

Good ideas Chrisgb sir. I agree the numerical versions used for consumer electronics products makes perfect sense for automobiles too. With the auto industry moving to 100% electric, 100% autonomous cars supported by mobility services, cars are becoming more and more like consumer electronics all the time. 

[T-dubz]

I don’t know about you guys, but after 5 or 6 years I just get tired of looking at the same interior and exterior. OTA updates sound great for those 5 to 6 years I own it, but I’m still going to want something different after that. I wouldn’t buy a 2020 f150 if I just traded in a 2018. I would however buy a 2021 f150 because it looks different enough and brings a bunch of new features that You can’t add with OTA updates.

[Deanh]

3 hours ago, Harley Lover said:

This would be an example of following part of Tesla's business model (fewer model changes in favor of OTA updates) that I think would fail for Ford. Do the OTA updates, but not to the exclusion of redesigns. You're not Tesla, Ford.

don't forget, Ford sells a SHITE load more vehicles than Tesla...so, IMO the more you see on the road, the quicker they become ho hum and require facelifts via MCEs...OTA upgrades don't upgrade exterior design at all...its just software, last I looked buyers sway more toward looks than tech.... 

[probowler]

5 hours ago, rmc523 said:

Hard to tell if this line was from Thai-Tang, or his thoughts.

 

 

 

 

I think it's a mistake if true - I understand what they're thinking (customers can have features of a "new" model in the current one), but people still want a fresh design.

This is giant failure waiting to happen. Smart phones today only work for so long before apps outgrow the hardware. Your phone slows down, it lags, apps crash. Pretty soon you have to constantly reboot your phone. Imagine that with your car infotainment center.

Personally, I wish cars would get away from those systems and go back to separate radios anc HVAC controls.

[rmc523]

19 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I don't think it will mean longer times between sheet metal or body structure redesigns but I do think it will mean longer times for powertrain and electronic overhauls. You can't update body structures for crash regulations over the air. You can improve electronic software and (apparently) powertrain efficiencies. 

 

That's a good middle ground that I agree with.  Otherwise, we've seen how Ford's long product cycles (or extremely mild updates.....Fusion for example) hurt various products in different segments.  Lengthening that even more sounds like a disaster.  But to your point, if you can cut down on certain parts of the redesign - like you said pushing out a software update vs. new powertrain - that can result in savings over a "regular" redesign of those parts.  Looks wise, though, they need to stay on top of keeping the products fresh.

 

17 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

It's a great idea all around. A business model based on OTA updates and enhancements (including vehicle enhancements paid for by customers) and fewer, more focused redesigns will benefit both Ford and its customers.

 

It really isn't "all around".  For some features, sure, but cutting redesigns is a mistake.

 

16 hours ago, probowler said:

This is giant failure waiting to happen. Smart phones today only work for so long before apps outgrow the hardware. Your phone slows down, it lags, apps crash. Pretty soon you have to constantly reboot your phone. Imagine that with your car infotainment center.

Personally, I wish cars would get away from those systems and go back to separate radios anc HVAC controls.

 

I do agree with the first part of your comment.  I'm sure there will be limits to what generation vehicles can get what updates to help with that.

[probowler]

10 hours ago, rmc523 said:

I do agree with the first part of your comment.  I'm sure there will be limits to what generation vehicles can get what updates to help with that.

What's unfortunate is that Automakers could future-extend (I won't say proof) these  systems by using better hardware, more ram and HDD space than the bare minimum in anticipation of future needs.

I think it's reasonable to expect a new vehicle purchaser to keep their vehicle for 5-10 years, and the vehicle operating system should be actively updated and supported during that time frame IMO.  With that being the goal and expectation, the hardware needs to be able to keep up with whatever software release schedule you have planned out during that timeframe.

[YT90SC]

On 12/15/2020 at 5:33 PM, probowler said:

This is giant failure waiting to happen. Smart phones today only work for so long before apps outgrow the hardware. Your phone slows down, it lags, apps crash. Pretty soon you have to constantly reboot your phone. Imagine that with your car infotainment center.

Personally, I wish cars would get away from those systems and go back to separate radios anc HVAC controls.

 

They can't make programming *in shop* work correctly WAY too often. Can't wait till this stuff bricks a PCM or other critical module sitting in someone's driveway or out on the highway.  

[silvrsvt]

On 12/15/2020 at 5:36 PM, rperez817 said:

 

It's a great idea all around. A business model based on OTA updates and enhancements (including vehicle enhancements paid for by customers) and fewer, more focused redesigns will benefit both Ford and its customers.

 

Tesla does it, so it HAS to be great.....sure...

 

[silvrsvt]

On 12/16/2020 at 9:43 PM, probowler said:

What's unfortunate is that Automakers could future-extend (I won't say proof) these  systems by using better hardware, more ram and HDD space than the bare minimum in anticipation of future needs.

 

But is the consumer going to be willing to pay extra for that?

[rperez817]

6 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

Tesla does it, so it HAS to be great.....sure...

 

Ford's strategy for OTA and redesigns is smart regardless of what other automakers including Tesla do.

[probowler]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

But is the consumer going to be willing to pay extra for that?

I don't know, I can't speak for others but I'd rather pay for a better radio than a 15th airbag or cross-traffic alert sensors.

You could look at it from Fords perspective, if a more reliable and robust infotainment system results in happier owners, and less warranty claims and repairs, that's a win/win... and you can justify the cost that way.

[theoldwizard1]

OTA software updating as a way eliminating design cycles is BS !  It is there strictly to reduce the cost of "re-flashing" modules !

 

I worked on engine control software last century and was on the "support" side until 2007.  I believe that the PCM software is still the only one that is "mostly" (>90%) written internal to Ford.  Some modules may have a combination of Ford and vendor software (ABS/traction control). The dozens of other small modules are all purchased as a "black box".

 

In the 90s, Ford got "burned" when they started using more computers for "other" tasks.  I think it was a very early version of the GEM/SJB that they had to replace 3 times during one model year.  Yes, I said REPLACE because the software was "cast" into the silicon (true ROM, not EPROM, not Flash).  They quickly redesigned the module to include Flash.  (PCMs had been using some type of re-programable memory since the 80s.)

 

Segue - The F150 has always been the most complex PCM software because of the number of engines, 2wd/4wd, rear axle ratios and emission regulation (and in the past, transmissions) combinations.  They would commonly have a dozen or more different software calibration.  (Some may be familiar with the "tear tag" system.  It used to be only 2 letters !)  There was not enough space to store that many modules, pre-programmed, on the final assembly line, so the modules were pre-arranged in the proper build sequence "off line".  It was only a few years ago (<10) that an "in process" programming device was custom built to flash the module as it went down the line.  (They were retrieved at the end of the line, recharged and delivered back to the front of the line.)

[rperez817]

27 minutes ago, theoldwizard1 said:

OTA software updating as a way eliminating design cycles is BS !  It is there strictly to reduce the cost of "re-flashing" modules !

 

I worked on engine control software last century and was on the "support" side until 2007.  I believe that the PCM software is still the only one that is "mostly" (>90%) written internal to Ford.  Some modules may have a combination of Ford and vendor software (ABS/traction control). The dozens of other small modules are all purchased as a "black box".

 

In the 90s, Ford got "burned" when they started using more computers for "other" tasks.  I think it was a very early version of the GEM/SJB that they had to replace 3 times during one model year.  Yes, I said REPLACE because the software was "cast" into the silicon (true ROM, not EPROM, not Flash).  They quickly redesigned the module to include Flash.  (PCMs had been using some type of re-programable memory since the 80s.)

 

Segue - The F150 has always been the most complex PCM software because of the number of engines, 2wd/4wd, rear axle ratios and emission regulation (and in the past, transmissions) combinations.  They would commonly have a dozen or more different software calibration.  (Some may be familiar with the "tear tag" system.  It used to be only 2 letters !)  There was not enough space to store that many modules, pre-programmed, on the final assembly line, so the modules were pre-arranged in the proper build sequence "off line".  It was only a few years ago (<10) that an "in process" programming device was custom built to flash the module as it went down the line.  (They were retrieved at the end of the line, recharged and delivered back to the front of the line.)

 

Thank you theoldwizard1 sir for sharing your experiences working on Ford vehicle computers. What do you think about the "agile" approach that computer engineers use these days for consumer electronics products to reduce design cycles and get updates applied faster? Can this approach be used for computers in cars and trucks?

[akirby]

21 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Thank you theoldwizard1 sir for sharing your experiences working on Ford vehicle computers. What do you think about the "agile" approach that computer engineers use these days for consumer electronics products to reduce design cycles and get updates applied faster? Can this approach be used for computers in cars and trucks?

Agile is based on continuous development and deployment (every 2 weeks).  It could be used for software development internally but probably not continuous delivery even with OTA updates because of the amount of testing and certification required.  I would expect OTA software deployments to happen every 6 months.

[rperez817]

4 minutes ago, akirby said:

Agile is based on continuous development and deployment (every 2 weeks).  It could be used for software development internally but probably not continuous delivery even with OTA updates because of the amount of testing and certification required.  I would expect OTA software deployments to happen every 6 months.

 

Thank you akirby sir for the explanation, very helpful.

[bzcat]

This article is just conjecture but the underlying point is really a dumb idea. Model cycles are getting shorter mainly due to the hyper competitive market in China, not longer. Ford already has the longest model cycle of all the major car companies in the world and we saw what happened to Ford in China... went from #4 selling brand to almost complete irrelevance in 7 years. 

 

The average model for sale in China has lifespan of 2.5 years before major facelift. Let that sink in... if you don't do a complete exterior facelift and refresh in 30 months, Chinese buyers thinks your car is old and outdated. And that number is an average... GM and Hyundai China routinely update their cars with what we will call mid-cycle update in the US just 18 months into the life those models. 

 

The article may be just talking about F-150 in particular. Pickup buyers are different and seems to prefer consistent exterior appearance, and it is an unique US-market centric vehicle not subject to the same competitive pressure that Ford faces in China with its other vehicles.