MisterZDX

I'm in Dallas. I did live in Atlanta a few years ago before relocating here. I plan to move back within the next 2 years and make ATL my permanent home.

If I was there and we met for coffee, we might have to switch cars...lol

krava

Why do you want to move to Atl? Someone posted some bad things about their potholes. I heard something about some kind of steel board the put down in the streets in ATL and your car can fall in those things. I am trying to get out of here to get to Dallas or some place myself. The only bad thing about Dallas is traffic.

George Knighton

If you think traffic is the only thing wrong with Dallas, I don't know how to begin to tell you, but I have some bad news for you.

:-)

EE4Life

TSBs 15-030 and 15-031 for the RLX and RLX Sport Hybrid were updated today with the repair procedure. See the TSB sticky thread for details.

krava

so do we need to wait for the letter to come in the mail or just go on up there?

George Knighton

I'm not sure if I'll get this done or not.

The only thing that has ever bothered me about the CMBSS is that it can be more aggressive than the ACC, even though they use the same radar system.

In other words, the ACC will wait too long to begin to slow the car, because it wants to be sure that the car ahead really has slowed, and that it's not a momentary aberration or misreading of events.

The ACC *will* start to brake the car, but because it has waited to be sure of the event it is seeing, the braking could be harder than you'd have tended to execute yourself, left to your own devices.

Meanwhile, the CMBSS is seeing the same events but because the ACC has waited so long it might very well give you a bunch of beeping and a big BRAKE NOW!! even though ACC has got it under control.

If you have passengers in the car, you can disturb them unnecessarily with this procedure, whereas a good chauffeur would have performed the same functions and maneuvers without upsetting anybody.

You as the driver expect what's going on, and you know that ACC and CMBSS are doing just fine, but your passengers who don't know the car will only realize that they've been thrown around a bit, and they mightn't care that the car knew what it was doing.

George Knighton

It's a matter of an analogue brain's "realization" of a whole picture, v. a digital brain's relentless analysis of two logical lines of data.

fsmith

George, I'm confused by your post. Are you saying that in updating the software to fix the CMBS bug they're going to make the ACC and/or the CMBS more conservative or less conservative? I think I hear you saying that the CMBS is now more conservative than the ACC and you are worried that it will be made more so?

I would assume that they are just going to (at least try to) remove the special false-positive signals they must have identified. But they can't very well make the CMBS less conservative given its primary function is safety. Also, I assume that, given how fast they got this fix out and how complicated (and safety-critical) this software has to be, they must have a pretty clear idea of what the problem and the fix is and be pretty sure that they are not going to mess anything else up. They presumably announced the problem as soon as they were made aware of it, and haven't had much time for testing. I was surprised they had a fix so quickly.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your reasoning for not wanting to apply the fix.

pgeorg

I think what George is trying to say is that he "likes" how the CMBS is working now, and he "likes" how conservative it is. I think he does not want the CMBS to be less conservative that what it is, assuming that that is what the recall will do after its applied. The only time that he is bothered by how conservative the CMBS is, it's when it intervenes with the function of the ACC.
I wonder if one of the things that the updated software fixes, is how it woks in conjunction with the ACC, maybe those two systems will be able to coordinate their actions better while working at the same time.....
I could be completely wrong though:-)

Zoommer

My notice says ACC/CMBS.

krava

I had the Break Now come on and the seatbelt jerk on me and I wasn't in any danger at all. Someone was turning right infront of me, maybe I got a bit close but I really really don't think so.

George Knighton

The look ahead is a little broad sometimes.

If somebody has moved from in front of you and into a turning lane, I get the feeling that the radar remains on that vehicle for a little too long.

Once you get used to it and you know that it'll be happening, you know to put your foot on the accelerator and point the nose slightly to over ride the ACC slowdown and the subsequent CMBSS Brake Now! warning.

George Knighton

That'd be nice. :-)

They're using the exact same input. I don't know why they'd have such different response parameters code.

TBC787

So this begs the question? If this is not applicable to the 2016 model year, when did they learn about this and what did they do different to the 2016 software to correct this issue? Seems it would be any easy fix it that's all there is to it.

Limelight

I've never had any false warnings but I had the recall performed at my local dealer on Friday...

George Knighton

Is it showing up for you at AcuraLink as a recall, anybody?

Malibu Flyer

Not for me but I am difenately going to get it done.

Today I was crushing along in the carpool lane at 74 mph when the CMBS flashed on with no obstacle in sight. I have turned CMBS off for now

fsmith

I had the CMBS fix done last week, and have two comments:

1. My perception is that the CMBS system is now more sensitive. The BRAKE warning seems to appear more often in cases where I clearly have the car under control and am not about to hit the car in front of me. It's happened twice in the past week, and before that it was very occasional. Could be coincidence, but worth watching in case others see the same thing.

2. Since the update, my NAV system has been acting up a lot, with a daily reboot ("Lost power and signal, please wait ...) that locks up the upper screen for about a minute, and one full-on system crash, in which the NAV system froze up and I had to leave the car off for five minutes to get it back. I DO NOT SUSPECT THE CMBS UPDATE, but I mention this in case other people see the same thing. I suspect it is unrelated and I am going in tomorrow to have the system fully reset. (Thanks to pgeorg for his suggestion in a different thread for how to do this myself, but I think I'll let the dealer do it this time!)

holografique

^ you might want to check to see if the "sensitivity" setting for CMBS was reset to it's default value after the update was done. That's assuming that you changed it previously to a setting other than the default.

I know I had to change mine as I believe the default setting is set to trigger based on the furthest distance possible, and thus was going off way too much, (no I'm not one of those drivers that rides peoples ass, but...)

I have not had the recall done yet, frankly tired with the recalls. But will have it scheduled to be done on the next oil change.

fsmith

My FCW/CMBS setting is the default Normal, as it was before. I'm wondering if other owners have changed this to Short to decrease the false alarms?

TSX69

I have yet to receive a letter & when I check my VIN on Acura Owners Site | Exclusive Knowledge, Service, & Benefits, it shows no recalls. I would have thought that all 2014 Advances would have been included ... ?

I am not a big fan of CMBS or ACC. Even when set at the lowest setting, it leaves way too much space between me & the other car. Not that I am trying to tailgate but I would prefer it a little tighter, especially if there is a line of people behind me.

It also tends to brake more than I would like. For instance, when going around curves it detects the car in the other lane & brakes. Sometimes, the car in front of me will be making a right turn & even tho I am far enough behind that they will complete the turn before I get there, the car will brake ... rather harshly I might add.

George Knighton

My KC2 VIN does not show up as having any recalls right now, so I'll probably just leave it alone.

I've got addicted to ACC. :-) I will very often take secondary roads in my travels, just to avoid the mess that 95, 395 and 495 can turn into even when it's nowhere near rush hour.

On 28, for example, speed limit 45, everybody does 55, but it varies with lights that can be red ¾ mile ahead, or a farm tractor has to pull out, or somebody out of the area really feels he has to do 45 because he doesn't know the radar pickets are watching for somebody going over 60.

It's just invaluable. I used to do this with a 4G TL 6-6, and with the RLX and ACC, I arrive feeling much, much better. Getting to work is much better and getting home is much better. I can do more at either end because I feel that much better after arriving.

On these country roads, setting to two hash marks is enough distance, normally.

That happens to me only rarely. There's a couple of spots where I know it's going to happen, so if somebody moves over to the right turning lane, I know that I might as well move my foot onto the accelerator to over ride the ACC, and then when I'm past the road where somebody's turning, I just let off again.

It's not perfect, but it is a big relief just as it is.

:-)

TSX69

Even tho Acura Owners Site | Exclusive Knowledge, Service, & Benefits said that I had no recalls, I called my local dealership & they told me otherwise so I got it done this weekend.

pgeorg

My dealer called me today to let me know that i should make an appointment to have this recall done.
Did you notice anything difference in how the CMBS and/or ACC is functioning?

George Knighton

Got a letter yesterday about the CMBS flash, but VIN check still says no recalls.



I'll do it at the next service, but I'm still not experiencing any trouble.

neuronbob

I received my letter yesterday. I had already scheduled my first oil change for next weekend, so the recall will be done then.

neuronbob

Just had the recall done along with first oil change this morning. My invoice lists that as in the recall notice, they also did a brake light ACC relay test. I'll be testing in the upcoming week to see if there's any change in the car's behavior. Interestingly, my A1 service message came on as I prepared to go to the dealer early this AM. Good timing!

TampaRLX-SH

Remember the Acura commercials when Solar Sensing Climate Control came onboard? "If your Acura knows where the sun is, just think what else it might know..."

So if your driving to work one day and you hear "...*beep*.... I am sorry but that necktie does not go with that color shirt, Bob. Would you like to calculate a route to Brooks Brothers?"

Colin

Close the pod bay doors

neuronbob

"I know you and Bob were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that is something I cannot allow to happen, Colin."

neuronbob

FIFY and



I just read this:

Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway?With Me in It | WIRED

Hopefully, on Acuras, the drivetrain and safety systems are separate from Acuralink.....

TampaRLX-SH

I believe the exposed issue is where remote access to the car is linked to the drive-train. This is typical of cars that have a remote start from the web via smartphone or web page.

Acura chose not to have this via Acura Link. You can get gauge information and passive systems (door locks, flash lights & horn) but none engage the drive-train. By not having the web remote start the drive-train systems are not connected.

Instead Acura chose the 2 way remote start via the fob transmitter, which is not an online access, but encrypted radio frequency.

fsmith

Sorry, Tampa, but I read the article a bit differently. Apparently (and as you say) there was no direct link between the cellular system and the car's drivetrain systems. But the (white hat) hackers managed to get into the infotainment system via the cellular connection, and they then managed to run code in that system in the car that allowed them to connect - through that system - to a completely separate piece of hardware that controls the car's driving functions.

So whether or not the manufacturer chooses to allow internet access to driving functions is not the real issue, I think. The issue is, once an outside connection is made to any one system in the car, how good the firewall is between that system and the others. I watched this video last night and I found it pretty scary.

We have had demonstrations in the past of hackers getting into car driving systems, but only while having physical access to the car; this is way more serious. And I think it demonstrates, not for the first time, how pushing new technologies out to consumers is way more important (and way easier) than worrying about the privacy and security issues those technologies create.

Although there will always be bugs in any code, Fiat's statement that it has a "system quality engineering team dedicated to developing and implementing cybersecurity standards for all its vehicles" does little to reassure me at this point. I am not a Luddite. I know a lot about technology, which makes me all the more wary of companies that create new technology functions and then create teams to worry about security, instead of making security a major and primary goal of the original development effort. This story is a wake-up call to all car manufacturers.

Malibu Flyer

I agree 100% with Fsmith.....we are now driving numerous computers that have four wheels. This friendly hack represents a wake-up call to auto manufacturers to work more on cyber security. The Wired article highlighted the fact that once the hackers got access to the car they were able to rewrite the firmware in order to take over the cars systems.

Acura's systems maybe more secure [or maybe not] than Fiat's but anything can be hacked. While it is somewhat scarey, it is a side effect of having the benefits of technology. I will take that tradeoff but auto manufacturers need to not neglect cyber security.

neuronbob

The article reminds me of ATMOS from Dr. Who.....

...and I agree with fsmith. Makes my S2000 with less sophisticated computers seem more appealing, honestly.

Anything can be hacked.

fsmith

I guess Fiat/Chrysler is taking this more seriously than they did last week when they put out a patch for owners to download, and claimed it affected only 470,000 cars. The fact that they didn't know how many cars might be affected is also pretty alarming. Definitely a wake-up call for the industry. Slow down, folks, and take security more seriously.

Fiat Chrysler Recalls 1.4 Million Vehiclesto Defend Against Hacks - Bloomberg Business

Malibu Flyer

The real awake up call is that the manufacturers need to realize that the auto business requires more tha great mechanical engineers, it also requires a great technology experts. They have to build these capabilities in house instead of relying on third party suppliers. Technology is really a mission critical item and too important to the future to out source. Acura's RLX, especially the Sport Hybrid is a prime example. The car is great mechanically but only fair to middling in the infotainment system. While mechanical engineering will stay important, the importance of technology will only grow.

fsmith

I just came across two documents that may be of interest to anyone thinking about the recent remote hacking into the driving controls of a Jeep and what it all means for the push to make our cars totally connected.

The first is a NHTSA document (submitted by Fiat Chrysler last week) that shows that Fiat Chrysler knew in early 2014 that it had (pretty carelessly) left electronic doors open in the firewall between the radio and the driving systems of these cars, fixed the bugs in mid 2014 for 2015 cars, but didn't tell anyone about the issue with older cars until this month after the hackers went public. One thing to note, aside from the cavalier attitude of Fiat Chrysler, is that the fixes had to be made by suppliers because the various components of the cars were not all under the programming control of the manufacturer. Question: ten years from now is anyone going to go back to fix security holes in ten-year-old cars, especially those involving suppliers no longer being used?

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs...5V461-1264.pdf

The other is an article from a 2011 Scientific American that basically says that these hacks (calling into one car unit that is meant to connect to the internet and jumping over to driver controls) will happen unless the car manufacturers step up their security game.

Highway Robbery: Car Computer Controls Could Be Vulnerable to Hackers - Scientific American

I would also note that it is not only our auto manufacturers, with their slow refresh cycles, that have problems with security. Even our tech-stars have problems with security, as the two recently discovered bugs that can easily hack Android phones (one all Android phones, one about half of them) demonstrate. Given the stakes for auto safety, aren't our car manufacturers going to have to be better at security than our smartphone makers?

Lastly, both the Jeep episode, with its multiple component suppliers, and the Android bugs, with the multiple handset makers who control the software patches that Google may make, cause me to think that Apple has a pretty good thing going with its "we make the hardware and the software" mantra, at least as far as security and software patching go. Maybe Apple SHOULD make a car!

George Knighton

What should happen is that Apple join up with Tesla.

Tesla and Musk have a great very basic idea, but I don't think that Tesla by itself understands consumers well enough, as evinced by some of the complaints some of us have been making about quality of materials, lack of seat adjustments, lack of headroom, and so on and so on....

fsmith

Since Apple has already hired dozens of experienced auto engineers for their unannounced car-something project, they just might be able to give Tesla the "fit and finish" that its cars don't yet have.