Rivian "fat finger" error bricks vehicles' infotainment systems

midian182

Posts: 9,745   +121
Staff member
Facepalm: In another example of how connected vehicles can go wrong due to human error, EV company Rivian has blamed a "fat finger" error for an OTA update that bricked some infotainment and main instrument display systems. A fix is being rolled out today, but a few customers may need to visit a dealer for physical repairs.

Rivian put out and quickly canceled the OTA software update 2023.42 on Monday. It was supposed to introduce bug fixes and improvements to the much-maligned proximity locking feature, which automatically unlocks and locks doors when someone exits or approaches a vehicle.

Unfortunately for owners, the update instead managed to bork some Rivian R1T and R1S infotainment systems and instrument display screens when it stalled before completion.

Rivian VP of software engineering Wassym Bensaid confirmed the problem on Reddit, admitting that it was a "fat finger," - I.e., someone hit the wrong key - that resulted in the wrong build with the wrong security certificates being sent out.

The post says the issue impacts the infotainment system; the instrument display screens were also affected in some cases. The bad news is that resetting the vehicle or putting it in a sleep cycle will not solve the issue.

Rivian says a solution has been developed and it is rolling out today, but some customers' vehicles may still require physical repairs.

"This is on us - we messed up," Bensaid wrote.

Human error incidents like these have been around for decades, of course. Some Redditors have shared their experiences of being the ones blamed for having fat fingers, including a person who caused an outage of a major AWS service, and another who claims to have deleted Shark Week.

Software failures have been a more recent problem for vehicles since the advent of connected cars. The technology can be incredibly useful when it works, but a survey in July showed an overload of tech in vehicles had driven down owner satisfaction year-on-year for the first time in almost three decades.

Permalink to story.

 
First off, I respect a company more when they own up to their mistakes.
Secondly as much as I love technology, I am not a fan of overloading cars with computers and IOTs. I want a car that is a car. Hopefully that makes enough sense.
 
To add, Electrek is now reporting this affected about 3% of vehicles and that an OTA update is coming to solve it tomorrow: https://electrek.co/2023/11/15/rivian-fixes-infotainment-software-bug-via-ota-around-3-affected/
Seth Weintraub said:
The build that was supposed to go out was tested for months on regular vehicles but a single human copy/paste error sent the wrong build out. That process is also being overhauled so that multiple checks of the build go out before it is released to the wider customer group.

Owners who are affected, again around 3% of the fleet according to Rivian, should see an update on their phone app and should initiate the process from there. For those few who don’t use an app with their Rivian, they must call the Rivian service line to initiate the update from there.
 
First off, I respect a company more when they own up to their mistakes.
Secondly as much as I love technology, I am not a fan of overloading cars with computers and IOTs. I want a car that is a car. Hopefully that makes enough sense.
It makes perfect sense. Cars can be fun toys, but first and foremost they are tools. Very expensive tools. Tools you expect to work the same way they have always worked, because nobody expects a $80000 vehicle to be taken down by an OTA update.

This trend of new EV makers entangling the radio and the drivetrain is ridiculous. The radio should be a separate system that can be swapped out.
If someone made a simple EV that had a basic double-din radio that the owner could swap they'd sellout within a day.
BRING BACK THE DINS.
Toyota is making one and it starts at $10,000. We'll see if it ever makes it to the US
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/...truck-first-drive-review-japan-mobility-show/
Nope. Will never pass safety regs. This is an asia only vehicle, or for markets that resemble the requirements of 60s america.

Much as I want one, itll never happen.
 
Nope. Will never pass safety regs. This is an asia only vehicle, or for markets that resemble the requirements of 60s america.

Much as I want one, itll never happen.
There are talks of one with airbags and ABS breaks for markets that require it. It'd only add around $5,000 to the cost of a car. The compact truck market is currently the fastest growing in the US right now. The people who want mid and full sized trucks right now have them. Currently we have the Ford Mavrick, Hyundai Santa Cruz and the Chevy Colorado.

Even if to make it legal is Western markets it costs an extra $5,000, there are so many people who are tired of security problems, electrical problems, now car makers have become anti right to repair and you need special computers you can only buy from them to flash things like window regulators. And who's to say one of these Over the Air updates doesn't brick the air bags or safety systems in the car? Rivan got lucky, this could be just as easily disabled the pressure sensor on your break petal.

This is a dream vehicle for me. Reminds me of my buddy who used a golf cart as a truck on his small farm
 
As a non-American, what does "DINS" stand for?
DIN was a standard for in car radios. That rectangular hole your radio went in was a standardized size, allowing third party replacement. Some cars had a double DIN, allowing you to use larger radios with screens. A DIN radio also used a DIN connector, meaning you could swap radios without custom wiring.

In the mid 2000s car makers abandoned this design in favor of more integrated and graceful designs that allowed more functionality but made replacement near impossible without significantly more jank/work.

 
First off, I respect a company more when they own up to their mistakes.
Secondly as much as I love technology, I am not a fan of overloading cars with computers and IOTs. I want a car that is a car. Hopefully that makes enough sense.
It's probably difficult to find consumers who are willing to spend $70k on a vehicle with a dashboard from the 70s. I certainly wouldn't buy a simple vehicle at premium vehicle prices. The Harley Davidson sales model won't work on me.
 
Currently we have the Ford Mavrick, Hyundai Santa Cruz and the Chevy Colorado.

Even if to make it legal is Western markets it costs an extra $5,000, there are so many people who are tired of security problems, electrical problems, now car makers have become anti right to repair and you need special computers you can only buy from them to flash things like window regulators. And who's to say one of these Over the Air updates doesn't brick the air bags or safety systems in the car?
Critical safely systems do not normally have a single point of failure and there is no need to connect them to the infotainment systems. As far as I know the only car maker that's against right to repair is Tesla. If you don't want cars to move on there are tons of old cars still available on the used market, but with your three cars you don't seem that concerned about it or about saving money.
 
Critical safely systems do not normally have a single point of failure and there is no need to connect them to the infotainment systems. As far as I know the only car maker that's against right to repair is Tesla. If you don't want cars to move on there are tons of old cars still available on the used market, but with your three cars you don't seem that concerned about it or about saving money.
You can look into this yourself, but car manufacturers are putting electronics in things that don't need them so they can hide behind copyright and intellectual laws so dealership repairs mandatory and "made to fit" parts incompatible.

They've even gone as far as suggesting passing right to repair laws will get you raped.


I'm not a big fan of vice news but this is actually one of the better articles covering it.
 
It's probably difficult to find consumers who are willing to spend $70k on a vehicle with a dashboard from the 70s. I certainly wouldn't buy a simple vehicle at premium vehicle prices. The Harley Davidson sales model won't work on me.
I figure someone would miss interpret my meaning, but that is my fault because I do not like to write everything out. I am more of a straight to the point person, which is ironic since I am a tinkerer and like to know how things work too. I will list a couple points:
  • Vital computer systems in a vehicle should be separate from nice to have systems.
  • I am fine with improvements that help assist the driver like rearview cameras for example, but should not take control (could be debated for some cases.)
  • Not everything should be touch screen. If you are driving and want to turn on the air or something, I go by feel since I do not want to look away from the road.

I am not against advancements just sometimes companies go overboard. TVs is still one of my biggest peeves. I do not want a so called "smart" TV, I just want a TV.

Finally, simple is better than complex but there ultimately has to become a balance.
 
Back