2024.39 Software Update Release Notes (Gen1 and Gen2)

[R1Thor]

The damage would be odometer fraud.

Which again, is insignificant (how many people would earnestly be doing that?), and probably written off in some legalese.
Versus, not allowing people to make the change, whereas we're inadvertently forced to be reporting erroneous miles.

That said, do the math. Honestly. At best, you're typically going to shift less than 2% of your reported mileage.
Let's assume the largest tires people are running (which would probably be irresponsibly large and wouldn't fit well) are say 285/60R22 and they originally had 275/55R21. That's a difference of 7%. So every 107 miles, you're only reporting 100. Over 50,000 miles, you've only 'saved' 3500 miles. That's not going to change the value of your trade/resale very significantly. And I doubt anyone's going to do that. Even if they did, we could argue, they're a dishonest person who's going to figure this out anyway. Hell, whatever 'added value' you're going to see in the 3500 miles less reported is likely offset by whatever you just spent on your silly-sized tires that are going to ruin your efficiency and ride anyway.

Point being: I earnestly think that's a false narrative. I don't see any good way this pans out for anyone to limit our abilities to reconfigure the computer for our desired wheel+tire combo.

But maybe your criminal mastermind has other ideas I haven't thought of, so by all means, enlighten me as to how you think this could be a net positive for a dishonest person and a net negative for Rivian's liability.

And again, Rivian has GPS they can poll to validate it matches the speedometer. Probably, what, 3 lines of code??

It's not rocket science.

Sponsored

 

[godfodder0901]

Which again, is insignificant (how many people would earnestly be doing that?), and probably written off in some legalese.
Versus, not allowing people to make the change, whereas we're inadvertently forced to be reporting erroneous miles.

That said, do the math. Honestly. At best, you're typically going to shift less than 2% of your reported mileage.
Let's assume the largest tires people are running (which would probably be irresponsibly large and wouldn't fit well) are say 285/60R22 and they originally had 275/55R21. That's a difference of 7%. So every 107 miles, you're only reporting 100. Over 50,000 miles, you've only 'saved' 3500 miles. That's not going to change the value of your trade/resale very significantly. And I doubt anyone's going to do that. Even if they did, we could argue, they're a dishonest person who's going to figure this out anyway. Hell, whatever 'added value' you're going to see in the 3500 miles less reported is likely offset by whatever you just spent on your silly-sized tires that are going to ruin your efficiency and ride anyway.

Point being: I earnestly think that's a false narrative. I don't see any good way this pans out for anyone to limit our abilities to reconfigure the computer for our desired wheel+tire combo.

But maybe your criminal mastermind has other ideas I haven't thought of, so by all means, enlighten me as to how you think this could be a net positive for a dishonest person and a net negative for Rivian's liability.

And again, Rivian has GPS they can poll to validate it matches the speedometer. Probably, what, 3 lines of code??

It's not rocket science.

NHTSA estimates that 450,000 vehicles are sold each year with fraudulent odometer readings costing American consumers over $1B a year... Pretty significant in my book.

 

[R1Thor]

NHTSA estimates that 450,000 vehicles are sold each year with fraudulent odometer readings costing American consumers over $1B a year... Pretty significant in my book.

Check that.

Is that from people setting wheel diameters differently or from hacking the ECU?

Or doing the Ferriss Bueller thing?!

I'd bet you $1000 that wheel swaps are an insignificant (if even included in the calculus) portion of that fraud number.

In fact, my quick Google-analysis suggests the top 3 methods of ODO fraud are as follows:
1- ECU Hacking
2- Replacing the ODOmeter (or instrument cluster in an older vehicle where it's easy to do so)
3- Odometer Rollback (electronic or mechanical, again based on vehicle age)

 

[godfodder0901]

Check that.

Is that from people setting wheel diameters differently or from hacking the ECU?

Or doing the Ferriss Bueller thing?!

I'd bet you $1000 that wheel swaps are an insignificant (if even included in the calculus) portion of that fraud number.

In fact, my quick Google-analysis suggests the top 3 methods of ODO fraud are as follows:
1- ECU Hacking
2- Replacing the ODOmeter (or instrument cluster in an older vehicle where it's easy to do so)
3- Odometer Rollback (electronic or mechanical, again based on vehicle age)

For the record, I'm with you. I think giving the end user the ability to modify their tire size to calibrate the speedo/odo could be done in a responsible manner. And I'm 99.9% sure they've already committed to this.

But aside from the odometer fraud piece of it, they also need to account for the tire size in many of their Driver+ tools, as well as the Birdseye View camera and associated mosaics and image straightening algorithms. I feel this is the real reason it has taken so long to roll out a 'basic' feature.

 

[R1Thor]

For the record, I'm with you. I think giving the end user the ability to modify their tire size to calibrate the speedo/odo could be done in a responsible manner. And I'm 99.9% sure they've already committed to this.

But aside from the odometer fraud piece of it, they also need to account for the tire size in many of their Driver+ tools, as well as the Birdseye View camera and associated mosaics and image straightening algorithms. I feel this is the real reason it has taken so long to roll out a 'basic' feature.

You're bringing up good points.
So, apologies if I'm seeming dismissive or argumentative for the sake of arguing. I guess I'm just taking the devils' advocate approach. Maybe because I have an unreasonable emotional bias on this one...

However, for the sake of complete thought: I *think* that (again--good point, BUUUUUT) the birdseye view and other angles are also potentially irrelevant in this calculus.

Why do I think so?

Because even between the 2 configurations that Rivian 'supports,' there's a 0.5" difference in Radius, tops? So, maybe a 1/2" height difference overall? I can't imagine how you'd *need* to adjust or calibrate anything based on 1/2" difference, when someone neglecting to maintain proper tire pressure on worn tires will see that variance accounting for nothing else.

AND, our vehicle height adjusts up to 6" when driving (low to highest, depending on mode and setting).

So, there's either A) already variability baked into the system or B) the system can adjust and/or compensate accordingly. I'm guessing A based on my experience.

I guess at this point, I need a *very* compelling reason why Rivian cannot easily include this setting to understand the thought behind _not_ including it. While you give potential points, I, personally, don't see any of them as particularly risky or solid reason not to. But that's just one person's opinion, and my wife will tell you I'm wrong more than I'm right!

 

[godfodder0901]

You're bringing up good points.
So, apologies if I'm seeming dismissive or argumentative for the sake of arguing. I guess I'm just taking the devils' advocate approach. Maybe because I have an unreasonable emotional bias on this one...

However, for the sake of complete thought: I *think* that (again--good point, BUUUUUT) the birdseye view and other angles are also potentially irrelevant in this calculus.

Why do I think so?

Because even between the 2 configurations that Rivian 'supports,' there's a 0.5" difference in Radius, tops? So, maybe a 1/2" height difference overall? I can't imagine how you'd *need* to adjust or calibrate anything based on 1/2" difference, when someone neglecting to maintain proper tire pressure on worn tires will see that variance accounting for nothing else.

AND, our vehicle height adjusts up to 6" when driving (low to highest, depending on mode and setting).

So, there's either A) already variability baked into the system or B) the system can adjust and/or compensate accordingly. I'm guessing A based on my experience.

I guess at this point, I need a *very* compelling reason why Rivian cannot easily include this setting to understand the thought behind _not_ including it. While you give potential points, I, personally, don't see any of them as particularly risky or solid reason not to. But that's just one person's opinion, and my wife will tell you I'm wrong more than I'm right!

No apologies necessary... I've been known to have some rather spirited discourse around here as well

 

[norivian]

I think it actually is only doing regen on the front wheels. I've noticed on mine that if I accelerate heavily enough to engage the rear clutch and then immediately regen it will use both motors for Regen. But if I'm gently cruising it'll only use the front.

Noticed that too but i did not pay attention at what speed. Anyone know?

 

[Erik+]

Update is live. Installing now.

 

[Revelation]

Yep, 2024.39.01 is installing.

and installed.

 

[djsider2]

still I yearn for a way to use my bike rack brake lights without ruining the vehicle's safety features

Also without fully engaging in AWD all the time, significantly lowering the range on freeways

 

[GratfulDon]

Happy haloween

 

[-0—poody—0-]

Does anyone have any details about this part of the update?: “More information about the engagement of the rear drive system in auto-AWD”.
What driving conditions would activate this and where would we see the notification? I tried different drive modes mashed the accelerator to activate the rear motor but not seeing anything. Gen1 DM truck. Thanks

 

[godfodder0901]

Does anyone have any details about this part of the update?: “More information about the engagement of the rear drive system in auto-AWD”.
What driving conditions would activate this and where would we see the notification? I tried different drive modes mashed the accelerator to activate the rear motor but not seeing anything. Gen1 DM truck. Thanks

I think that was only in the Gen 2 notes, wasn't it?

 

[mpshizzle]

I think that was only in the Gen 2 notes, wasn't it?

No it was on both. No idea what it means either

 

[MidnightRivian]

Spooky settings are live. Make sure your car and app are both updated to the latest version.

Sponsored