Coming soon: BlueCruise 1.3

[generaltso]

Also posted on page 2.

Sponsored

 

[Mirak]

Yeah, when technology moves into the realm of advertising, things like this tend to pop up. I'm assuming that Ford's testing shows the time BC is disengaged has decreased to 1/3rd of what was typically experienced by the previous BC version. And somebody turned this around to state that the engagement time increased by 3.

Ah. Yes, that would make a lot more sense. And this is not at all what Ford said. And you are almost certainly right that some marketing hack totally messed it up.

 

[cryptk]

Ok. So let's use a much lower percentage just as a hypothetical. Let's say BC 1.0 stays engaged 50% of the time. What is 5X longer than 50% in Ford-speak?

I mean, if it was being measured in terms of events, like number of time BC disengages, then I could definitely see Ford touting a 5X decrease in the number of disengagements (that would be great, btw). But Ford says the upgrade results in "5X longer engagement" which I don't think is mathematically possible unless we're starting at less than 20% engagement.

You are looking at it in percentages, look at it in miles driven and it makes a lot more sense. If previously it could stay engaged on average about 5 mi before a disengagement, and now it can stay engaged on average about 25 miles without a disengagement, that would be a 5x longer engagement.

Also, bear in mind that your drive with a hypothetical 98% engagement rate is not the same as everybody else's drive.

 

[Mirak]

As was said above, they're not comparing percentage of time engaged (as that wouldn't really make any sense), but average miles between disengagements. So, if it disengages currently (hypothetically) for 1 second every 100 seconds, that would be only 1% disengagement by percentage, but an average of only 99 seconds _between disengagement_. If that then improved to 10 seconds of disengagements, but only every 1000 seconds, it would be the same _percentage_ engaged, but would have gone from 99 seconds between disengagements to 990 seconds between, so a 10x improvement.

It looks like Ford is measuring by mileage between disengagements, not time, and obviously the numbers will be much larger, but hopefully that helps demonstrate what they're actually talking about.

Ok. This would also make sense LOL. So, another note to @Ford Motor Company, please explain what you actually measured.

 

[plosfas]

Ok. This would also make sense LOL. So, another note to @Ford Motor Company, please explain what you actually measured.

In the graph from the earlier linked article (which appears to have originated from Ford) it does state "miles between hands-free disengagements" as the metric, which is what I'm basing this off of.

 

[Mirak]

In the graph from the earlier linked article (which appears to have originated from Ford) it does state "miles between hands-free disengagements" as the metric, which is what I'm basing this off of.

Thank you.

 

[bp99]

Ok. So let's use a much lower percentage just as a hypothetical. Let's say BC 1.0 stays engaged 50% of the time. What is 5X longer than 50% in Ford-speak?

I mean, if it was being measured in terms of events, like number of time BC disengages, then I could definitely see Ford touting a 5X decrease in the number of disengagements (that would be great, btw). But Ford says the upgrade results in "5X longer engagement" which I don't think is mathematically possible unless we're starting at less than 20% engagement.

Their chart is labeled as 'miles between hands-free disconnects'. It's also based on an average of all cars reporting data. There will be some users that are outliers and have much better engagement than what is typical. Disconnects are likely a combination of both BC turning off for being outside the geofence/curves as well as drivers disconnecting for lane changes or other things like being scared by trying to pass a car while hugging the right edge of the lane.

So, as miles between disconnects, if you're currently getting 250 miles without it disconnecting, they're saying you could now potentially go 1250 miles if you didn't need to stop for charging. Although at that distance, it's likely you'd hit sections of roads that typically saw lower engagement than those you typically travel on and move you closer to the average.

 

[willowma]

Unlike seemingly most of the posters here I am using BC 1.0 on my 21 Job 1 and am content enough that I use it whenever I enter one of the many mapped freeways close to where I live near Boston. It makes driving much easier than before.
I've been waiting eagerly for OTA 1.2 and hope 1.3 does not delay further when I get it (given how long it took to get 1.0 OTA without EA access). I will have no trouble paying for the 3 years for $600 after the end of this year. If I still have the car after that would hope that the price is not as exorbitant then as Ford now seems to think it's worth. Would hate to have one of the best features turn to being one that I complain about.

 

[lindseybp]

Consistently impressed with Ford's continued OTA updates. I have grown to really love blue cruise on long drives. Actually dread driving our other (Japanese brand) car that does not have it. Kudos to Ford for really upping their game.

 

[leehinde]

Sounds like a 1.2.5, tbh.

 

[GuliblGuy]

Thanks @hybrid2bev !

my typical road trip on a divided highway, my BC stays engaged probably 98% of the time. How does one keep BC engaged 5X longer than that? What is 5X greater than 98% without exceeding 100%?

Forget not exceeding 100. Imagine it being engaged 490% of the time!

 

[hybrid2bev]

Can adaptive cruise and lane keeping be used together without using BC? That would be enough for me, no need to pay for a subscription.

Yes, the subscription is to have 'hands-free' instead of 'hands-on' BlueCruise.

 

[kindofblue]

In fairness if this was a tesla forum, Elon would say "24 hour clock is superior, live by it now" and then all Tesla owners would instantly say "24 hour clock, its awesome, just like having to back into every spot, its the future."

Actually backing into spots is much safer when you pull out compared to backing out. Just sayin'.

 

[MacherAWD]

Actually backing into spots is much safer when you pull out compared to backing out. Just sayin'.

Might well be, but do we want 1 person at 1 company deciding how people park? I mean 130 years of driving evolution has led to where we are.

 

[buffasnow]

Actually backing into spots is much safer when you pull out compared to backing out. Just sayin'.

Yeah, as a utility employee, I can be disciplined for parking nose-in when using a company vehicle. I pretty much back in (or better, pull through) when parking my personal vehicles. Other family members - not so much.

I do think I have much better visibility when pulling out of a parking space than backing out, but I'm not an evangelist about it.

Sponsored