BC 1.5 Hardware Requirements

[Mashedtators]

The question is: Will Ford add it in the future or not.

Sponsored

 

[Shawnson]

The 2025 Mach E has VERY different architecture. Different IPMA with a new strategy location, new SCCM, new IPC to name a few.

With that said: That does not mean the previous architecture is incapable of auto-lane change; the software is just not coded to do it. The question is: Will Ford add it in the future or not.

of course that is the question. And to that point, given Mach-e is now on a new infrastructure, will Ford maintain two branches or shelve the old BC 1.4 branch and just move forward. Given what we have seen, that does seem kind of likely.

 

[rugedraw]

of course that is the question. And to that point, given Mach-e is now on a new infrastructure, will Ford maintain two branches or shelve the old BC 1.4 branch and just move forward. Given what we have seen, that does seem kind of likely.

Considering the F150 is their bread-&-butter and best selling vehicle, it makes little to no sense that they would not continue to support it; especially BC being subscription based. The Lightning architecture (at least where ADAS is concerned) is the same as the F150, so you guys would benefit from that aspect.

Of course, it's just speculation on my part, but it would make good business sense to have it trickle down to the first-gen BC vehicles.

 

[Shawnson]

Considering the F150 is their bread-&-butter and best selling vehicle, it makes little to no sense that they would not continue to support it; especially BC being subscription based. The Lightning architecture (at least where ADAS is concerned) is the same as the F150, so you guys would benefit from that aspect.

Of course, it's just speculation on my part, but it would make good business sense to have it trickle down to the first-gen BC vehicles.

I completely agree. But then it brings us to the question, why would they ever put different hardware in the mach e that’s not in the f150.
And then we also have to ask ourselves, why did Digital Experience come first to expedition. And I would guess it’s to work out the bugs before kicking sync 4 to the curb for f150. So overall they just have a lot of disjointed activities, so it’s quite possible Mach E is their test bed for new sync hardware the same as expedition and explorer are for Digital Experience, and then we end up with both in next gen f150 and all the legacy stuff gets shelved.

 

[GDN]

I completely agree. But then it brings us to the question, why would they ever put different hardware in the mach e that’s not in the f150.
And then we also have to ask ourselves, why did Digital Experience come first to expedition. And I would guess it’s to work out the bugs before kicking sync 4 to the curb for f150. So overall they just have a lot of disjointed activities, so it’s quite possible Mach E is their test bed for new sync hardware the same as expedition and explorer are for Digital Experience, and then we end up with both in next gen f150 and all the legacy stuff gets shelved.

You're on to something, but why isn't there a generic test bed for all Ford vehicles and once the hardware and SW are worked out, then it fits nicely into anything you build. Ford is on a slippery slope of not being able to keep up. Killing the team that was working on next generation communications/hardware a month back is not going to bode well. Farley wants to leave too many cooks in the kitchen and it seems each model also must get some autonomy. They need to rethink some recent decisions.

 

[Shawnson]

You're on to something, but why isn't there a generic test bed for all Ford vehicles and once the hardware and SW are worked out, then it fits nicely into anything you build. Ford is on a slippery slope of not being able to keep up. Killing the team that was working on next generation communications/hardware a month back is not going to bode well. Farley wants to leave too many cooks in the kitchen and it seems each model also must get some autonomy. They need to rethink some recent decisions.

“Farley wants to leave too many cooks in the kitchen and it seems each model also must get some autonomy. They need to rethink some recent decisions.”

you hit the nail on the head. What is the point of continuing to make forward progress on anything that is not the “ground up skunkworks vehicle”? You’re doing everything BUT setting the groundwork for a future platform, because you’re going to release that skunkworks project, it’s going to go into the general ford ecosystem, and none of the existing employees will want anything to do with it because it’s not what they have been working on.

 

[MidAtlanticLightningClub]

You're on to something, but why isn't there a generic test bed for all Ford vehicles and once the hardware and SW are worked out, then it fits nicely into anything you build. Ford is on a slippery slope of not being able to keep up. Killing the team that was working on next generation communications/hardware a month back is not going to bode well. Farley wants to leave too many cooks in the kitchen and it seems each model also must get some autonomy. They need to rethink some recent decisions.

Don’t forget, the Mach E came out more than a year before the Lightning. Sure, Ford could have stuck with all the same hardware but they wanted the Lightning to be as good as they could, that meant a number of improvements on the Mach E.

 

[GDN]

Don’t forget, the Mach E came out more than a year before the Lightning. Sure, Ford could have stuck with all the same hardware but they wanted the Lightning to be as good as they could, that meant a number of improvements on the Mach E.

You're kind of making my point, and showing where Ford misses out. Every vehicle, every model they find a way to usually be one step behind current hardware and specs and just incrementally change every year. The prices paid for the vehicles warrant the best hardware you can get in your APIM, etc. When the Mach E was being designed if they had gone after the fastest most current hardware it would have lasted them several years and been perfect for the trucks. Instead they are fighting the same less than a year later for the Lightning. The cycle doesn't end. Just get on a solid 3 to 4 year cycle, upgrade, get good hardware. Keep a stable platform for a few years, then go another round of hardware upgrades across the board.

 

[Shawnson]

You're kind of making my point, and showing where Ford misses out. Every vehicle, every model they find a way to usually be one step behind current hardware and specs and just incrementally change every year. The prices paid for the vehicles warrant the best hardware you can get in your APIM, etc. When the Mach E was being designed if they had gone after the fastest most current hardware it would have lasted them several years and been perfect for the trucks. Instead they are fighting the same less than a year later for the Lightning. The cycle doesn't end. Just get on a solid 3 to 4 year cycle, upgrade, get good hardware. Keep a stable platform for a few years, then go another round of hardware upgrades across the board.

Yep, that’s what they do.
Although in this case I really don’t think they would have changed the ipma or sensors too much from Mach E to Lightning, to F150, to Lincoln’s, to Expedition, etc. the rear radars are in the lights (and given mach e had 1.2 first, we know those weren’t an issue). The ultrasonics are probably the same across the board for buying power. The front radar could be different but again, buying power. The cameras are likely different given Mach E would have different visibility scenarios than a full size truck with surround view and towing but I’m pretty sure only the front facing camera is used in BC.

if anything, I’m guessing 1.5 with its auto lane changes and its ability to get out of the way of upcoming rear traffic is using additional cameras which is why it need more hardware (extra vision processing).

If this isn’t the end of the road for f150 hardware, I am guessing whatever version it gets, will have the software altered for the capabilities of the truck. I could be wrong but putting my professional opinion to work here, that’s what makes sense. I’d put 4:1 odds on the new mach e hardware being substantially
More powerful than the Lightning/F150 hardware, not playing catchup. (Also f150 came out in 2021 with copilot 2.0 which as far as i can tell is what set the bar for the lightings hardware.) don’t forget, lighting is actually closer to f150 in architecture than Mach e is to any other corporate sibling.

 

[BSEE SPARKY]

Considering the F150 is their bread-&-butter and best selling vehicle, it makes little to no sense that they would not continue to support it; especially BC being subscription based. The Lightning architecture (at least where ADAS is concerned) is the same as the F150, so you guys would benefit from that aspect.

Of course, it's just speculation on my part, but it would make good business sense to have it trickle down to the first-gen BC vehicles.

I don't see that it makes any business sense. Last time I checked Ford sells Pickup trucks. They aren't in the software business. Not saying they could not offer a software/hardware/firmware update to allow BC 1.5 or other, but that would be very new thing for Ford. They would rather offer new features in a 202x F-150. Then they sell a new truck. That has been there business model for around 100 years. After all that is what caused the end to model T. Why buy new model T, it's the same as old model T.
Just my opinion.

 

[Storm Breaker]

Perfectly said without saying. Poetry.

 

[TaxmanHog]

With respect to leading edge technology, ie. processors for these units, can Ford get assurances from the vendors that they can produce in the volumes needed for the entire portfolio of vehicles, assuming they make a leap forward to leading edge, vs mid-life or trailing technology available.

The tariffs may be impacting what subcontractors are be able to produce.

 

[GDN]

With respect to leading edge technology, ie. processors for these units, can Ford get assurances from the vendors that they can produce in the volumes needed for the entire portfolio of vehicles, assuming they make a leap forward to leading edge, vs mid-life or trailing technology available.

The tariffs may be impacting what subcontractors are be able to produce.

If Ford would commit there are vendors that would put them at the forefront. Part of Ford's problem is not everything carries their name - they get subcomponents from many people. If the manufacture puts their money on the dotted line, the chip makers will commit. We know one automaker that did very well with this concept during Covid.

I don't know who relies on what chips either, but I do know TI - yep they still are a big player, is committing some big money to new US factories for more of the commodity chips.

 

[Shawnson]

I don't see that it makes any business sense. Last time I checked Ford sells Pickup trucks. They aren't in the software business. Not saying they could not offer a software/hardware/firmware update to allow BC 1.5 or other, but that would be very new thing for Ford. They would rather offer new features in a 202x F-150. Then they sell a new truck. That has been there business model for around 100 years. After all that is what caused the end to model T. Why buy new model T, it's the same as old model T.
Just my opinion.

Just the nature of the software defined vehicle, which the Chinese, and American EV companies are embracing. Ford doesn’t get a vote in this TBH. They aren’t big enough.

 

[GDN]

I don't see that it makes any business sense. Last time I checked Ford sells Pickup trucks. They aren't in the software business. Not saying they could not offer a software/hardware/firmware update to allow BC 1.5 or other, but that would be very new thing for Ford. They would rather offer new features in a 202x F-150. Then they sell a new truck. That has been there business model for around 100 years. After all that is what caused the end to model T. Why buy new model T, it's the same as old model T.
Just my opinion.

In the world we live in you adapt and change or you find yourself on the outside looking in. It's the nature of the beast and SW and luxury features are all that they've got to sell vehicles with. More and more younger buyers will continue to help them see that over the years.

I will likely own another car someday in a few years. I'm a bit biased to start with but I'll walk straight to Tesla and them only, simply for their commitment to SW. Plus their latest models are huge improvements in quality and ride. The change is coming and Ford better start reacting. Current models truly aren't bad, but they need to take that next leap soon.

Sponsored