BMS Update?

[Slipstream]

I've emailed MG to see what they have to say. I get that many conflicting messages that it would be interesting to know once and for all.

 

[Dr Dave]

You say 'You just build the new workflow system on top of the existing old/flawed system.' Really do you think MG could be bothered to do this. I think not. The MG ZS EV was their first electric car sold for a very cheap price. This car was a tester we were very lucky to get the Comfort 2 update, some even got it for free.

The next MG ZS EV, coming out very soon, will have a similar software configuration with a few extra features, all digital dash etc. as the existing system is not flawed as you suggest.

What you are writing is pie in the sky wishful thinking based on a flawed understanding of how car companies design and implement software for budget vehicles. Tesla do have a much better integrated approach combining multiple cameras, radar, sat nav, artificial intelligence
etc. together, but they do spend a lot more on research and development and charge much more for their vehicles. You pay for what you get in the real world.

 

[JodyS21]

You say 'You just build the new workflow system on top of the existing old/flawed system.' Really do you think MG could be bothered to do this. I think not. The MG ZS EV was their first electric car sold for a very cheap price. This car was a tester we were very lucky to get the Comfort 2 update, some even got it for free.

The next MG ZS EV, coming out very soon, will have a similar software configuration with a few extra features, all digital dash etc. as the existing system is not flawed as you suggest.

What you are writing is pie in the sky wishful thinking based on a flawed understanding of how car companies design and implement software for budget vehicles. Tesla do have a much better integrated approach combining multiple cameras, radar, sat nav, artificial intelligence
etc. together, but they do spend a lot more on research and development and charge much more for their vehicles. You pay for what you get in the real world.

To clarify, I am not taking about the tech in the car, I am purely talking about their software update system/process.
Their process for installing the software updates on the car is flawed - reply on a human to do various things correctly, instead of the system just looking at what the current versions/configs are and doing the necessary updates. At the very least, there should be a check performed at the end of the process by the system to make sure the car is at the correct software level - it's quite pathetic that it doesn't even do this & could be VERY easily and cheaply implemented.

Tesla for example must literally spend 100s of millions more than MG on their actual cars IT systems, as much as I would like it I don't expect a high tech car like the Telsa for the MG money.

 

[Dr Dave]

To clarify, I am not taking about the tech in the car, I am purely talking about their software update system/process.
Their process for installing the software updates on the car is flawed - reply on a human to do various things correctly, instead of the system just looking at what the current versions/configs are and doing the necessary updates. At the very least, there should be a check performed at the end of the process by the system to make sure the car is at the correct software level - it's quite pathetic that it doesn't even do this & could be VERY easily and cheaply implemented.

Tesla for example must literally spend 100s of millions more than MG on their actual cars IT systems, as much as I would like it I don't expect a high tech car like the Telsa for the MG money.

It would seem from your posts you know more about writing software and updating systems than SIAC Motor, but wait they have 204,820 employees and a revenue of $106.7 bIllion.

In your words the company is 'pathetic' as it cannot perform process system checks.

It's great you know so much, and the 'pathetic' Chinese company knows so little. Maybe you, with all your expertise based on, as you have said previously, 'only from what I've heard/been told about' (hearsay) could get a job with SIAC and be employee 204,821.

You really don't know what you are talking about, just hearsay no empirical data, worse still what you are promoting is misleading and when using words like pathetic, would appear to be ignorant and offensive.

 

[Gomev]

It would seem from your posts you know more about writing software and updating systems than SIAC Motor, but wait they have 204,820 employees and a revenue of $106.7 bIllion.

In your words the company is 'pathetic' as it cannot perform process system checks.

It's great you know so much, and the 'pathetic' Chinese company knows so little. Maybe you, with all your expertise based on, as you have said previously, 'only from what I've heard/been told about' (hearsay) could get a job with SIAC and be employee 204,821.

You really don't know what you are talking about, just hearsay no empirical data, worse still what you are promoting is misleading and when using words like pathetic, would appear to be ignorant and offensive.

I have to agree with @JodyS21 to an extent, we can all tell the difference between good and bad front end systems, the user interface. These can be updated relatively easily without affecting the behind the scenes modules and what they do, which is what he is suggesting, not rewriting the entire software.
If some MG technicians aren't updating all the modules that the car and MG back office, via the computer connected to the car, tells them needs updating because they don't tick a box, then let the computer tick the box automatically if it needs doing, remove the chance for human user error.
I wouldn't imagine SAIC have 204,820 software engineers on their books and all of us have experienced their software and the occasional glitches.

 

[jamesie]

SAIC created the software that produced the bongs......need we say more!

 

[Dr Dave]

SAIC created the software that produced the bongs......need we say more!

If you did not like the bongs on a test drive, you could opt to buy another car. However MG listened and updated the software, pretty good.

 

[jamesie]

If you did not like the bongs on a test drive, you could opt to buy another car. However MG listened and updated the software, pretty good.

Point is it doesn't matter how big an organisation is they can still make poor designs.

However, is it essential to have the new BMS if the old one is working perfectly?

 

[Dr Dave]

Point is it doesn't matter how big an organisation is they can still make poor designs.

However, is it essential to have the new BMS if the old one is working perfectly?

You can improve over any design.

If the BMS is working perfectly there is no need for it to be updated. The only BMS which requires immediate update is BMS 1016620R40, where the car indicates a low battery voltage and a large cell imbalance.

My car had the bad BMS it was updated by my dealership and had comfort 2 installed (free of charge). The update operation was easily carried out by the dealership.

My car now shows a range of 187 miles 449 volts and 0.021 cell imbalance, battery state of health 100%. The top end state of charge is 93.1% which is correct for the latest BMS 0210622EU1. All confirmed with my own OBD II diagnostic.

This is why I argue there is absolutely no problem with the software implementation used by MG.

 

[Cocijo]

That’s useful information regarding the bms versions - I’ve not seen that before. I understood that lowering the top end voltage of the pack to c450v was something MG wanted to do across all ZS cars to improve battery longevity but i‘m not sure if MG plan to do this - my car is on the 455v bms and i have no issues so I’m wondering if MG will touch it.

 

[Dr Dave]

That’s useful information regarding the bms versions - I’ve not seen that before. I understood that lowering the top end voltage of the pack to c450v was something MG wanted to do across all ZS cars to improve battery longevity but i‘m not sure if MG plan to do this - my car is on the 455v bms and i have no issues so I’m wondering if MG will touch it.

MG will update to the latest BMS at service unless you tell them not to.

 

[Gomev]

This is why I argue there is absolutely no problem with the software implementation used by MG.

But there is a problem with the use of the software by some technicians. We have all seen the stories of the comfort 2 update where not all of it has been done because the technician didn't tick all 3 boxes required for it, plus others that have missed the charge while unlocked update etc. etc.
The key is to remove as much human error as possible.
It's the most common gripe on this forum, the cars are great, the dealers aren't.

 

[Dr Dave]

But there is a problem with the use of the software by some technicians. We have all seen the stories of the comfort 2 update where not all of it has been done because the technician didn't tick all 3 boxes required for it, plus others that have missed the charge while unlocked update etc. etc.
The key is to remove as much human error as possible.
It's the most common gripe on this forum, the cars are great, the dealers aren't.

In the future MG should not offer software updates. You buy the car that's what you get. Then there is no technician intervention or human error, and therefore no more gripes. This would sort the problems.

 

[Cocijo]

An interesting suggestion. Do you think all EV manufacturers should take this approach or just MG?

 

[Dr Dave]

An interesting suggestion. Do you think all EV manufacturers should take this approach or just MG?

If a manufacturer gets a lot of 'gripes' when trying to improve a product why bother.

My experience is MG have done a good job of addressing user feedback with the comfort 2 optional software update. My car was updated without any difficulties at all and is performing correctly. Updating the software is a pretty simple process.

However some here have bought MG cars from dealerships who seem to be underperforming in terms of their knowledge. They should have taken a sensible approach and checked the quality of service (eg. using this forum) before purchasing, as you might check out a builders credentials and recommendations, before contracting them to build an extension to your house.

Each manufacturer will decide if software updates are desirable and if over time they will continue to offer them. In some cases eg. Tesla (for the time being) it is a selling point, this may change as they gain more experience in the marketplace alongside considering what the competition offers.

 

[JodyS21]

This is getting a bit silly and almost into an argument - which I'm not interested in having.

I'll just say it once more, I am talking purely about the system they use to perform updates.

I think it is a fact not hearsay that it clearly is a rubbish system otherwise we wouldn't know of so many people who's cars have been in for updates and they've not been done correctly.
In my personal view I do consider it a pretty pathetic system, to not even check afterwards that the updates have been performed correctly and that the car is now in the correct state is. No one with a reasonable level of competence would firstly design a system/process like that or secondly sign it off to be used. It is standard practice to check signature/checksums etc after any update to ensure the integrity.

I do wonder, if they are using a really old service update system, that was never intended to be used other than on very rare occasions - back when cars were simpler, though that said cars have had multiple ECUs etc for a long time now and received updates during services.

Discussing the tech in the car is a completely separate issue.
I could point out numerous things (that we all think) should still be changed, but we all bought into the car knowing 'why' it was cheap!
Personally I don't think I would've bought the car had I had it pre-comfort 2 update, it sounds awful back then. I find it hard to believe that it somehow got shipped like it was back then and no one thought/pointed out the numerous ridiculous feature during the development of it.

 

[Cocijo]

Not all software updates are about addressing customer gripes or general improvements.
Some involve critical updates involving vehicle safety and these must always be carried out.
Other updates involving major vehicle performance issues are also essential.
it’s always interesting to hear alternative views.
The future general update model for EV’s in the longer term may well move more towards a Microsoft office 365 type of update with subscription. pay each year and get the latest version.
As the world transitions to EV’s the software update process must become effortless, transparent and easily managed and controlled by both customer and provider. We’re a little way away from that at the moment.

 

[Dr Dave]

I think it is a fact not hearsay that it clearly is a rubbish system

I have yet to hear one fact, statistic or evidence from anything you have written so far. All you do is complain, state things are rubbish and talk about computer software development systems as if you know more about them than a multi billion dollar company, which you don't.

Have you actually done some coding in C++?

MISRA-C is a set of guidelines designed to minimise bad code when using C++, check them out.

I remember receiving my first C developers pack back in 1979 which was easier than the direct 'machine code' I had been using up to then, ah the good old days. Building and amending automotive software is certainly not as easy as you would make out.

 

[JodyS21]

I have yet to hear one fact, statistic or evidence from anything you have written so far. All you do is complain, state things are rubbish and talk about computer software development systems as if you know more about them than a multi billion dollar company, which you don't.

Have you actually done some coding in C++?

MISRA-C is a set of guidelines designed to minimise bad code when using C++, check them out.

I remember receiving my first C developers pack back in 1979 which was easier than the direct 'machine code' I had been using up to then, ah the good old days. Building and amending automotive software is certainly not as easy as you would make out.

LOL you're very funny mate.
I'm not going to send you my CV, but I'll say C++ I started doing about 20 years ago now - I wrote the coding & design standards for one of the biggest banks in the UK many years ago so I don't need to be lectured about something that is completely irrelevant to this like C++ coding standards!
I was lead designer on some of the very complicated core systems at said bank for many years worth 10s of millions of pounds annually. Oh and slightly relevant to the topic in hand, for a year I was a lead on designing a complete lifecycle change management system used by thousands of people, which BTW encompasses the deployment of complicated not simple software changes such as I am talking about with the small MG car service update system.

So to summarise, I do know what I am talking about actually regarding this.

I am not an expert on firmware type software be it in the automotive industry or any other, but it's irrelevant, software is software, logic is logic, you do not design a software update system like what is being used.

Their update system is rubbish, numerous people have shared their experiences of it, it is a fact. You seem to have had a great experience with it, your car was manually updated correctly, I am very happy for you, others haven't been.


@Dr Dave How about this, as I am not here to have a stupid argument with you.
If I am wrong then I will certainly admit it, I actually like to learn and evolve knowledge.

See if you can get more people on the forum to agree with you that the software update system MG are using to update our cars is a good system that works well and doesn't cause any issues.
If you can, I will apologise unreservedly to you for suggesting that is it an agreed fact that their system for applying updates is rubbish.

All the best
Jody

 

[JodyS21]

Not all software updates are about addressing customer gripes or general improvements.
Some involve critical updates involving vehicle safety and these must always be carried out.
Other updates involving major vehicle performance issues are also essential.
it’s always interesting to hear alternative views.
The future general update model for EV’s in the longer term may well move more towards a Microsoft office 365 type of update with subscription. pay each year and get the latest version.
As the world transitions to EV’s the software update process must become effortless, transparent and easily managed and controlled by both customer and provider. We’re a little way away from that at the moment.

I can imagine it going the way you suggest.
I would imagine critical / safety related updates would be applied free/at service time.

I can see that improvements, could be a bit like sat nav maps updates, subscription or pay.

I don't know about others, but BMW have their connect subscription thing or whatever it's called, that gives you extra features like remote control of things, so subscriptions for cars already exist.

Ooh, maybe a subscription could tie in with a data connection being available within the car (inc. wifi hotspot), that would make it an attractive package to many people.