Question on electronic frunk release

[Motomax]

I guess the assumption is you're coming back to your car from the store, it's already locked, you unlock it, then pop the frunk so that you can put your groceries in there. They probably didn't think of a case where you may be at a car show and everything's already unlocked and want to show off the frunk (or perhaps dismissed it as irrelevant).

I think if you’re exiting the car they just assume you would pop it from the screen or the latch release.
I think the real miss is being able to just walk up and pop it without the code if the key(phone) is nearby.

I swear an old Taurus we had was able to pop the trunk without the code first. Just swipe to illuminate the buttons and hit the trunk number. I could be wrong though.

Sponsored

 

[DevSecOps]

Ok so here's my observation for clarification. When you go to the keypad, it has a light up top. Hitting the 7-8, or holding it, lights up the light as of it's your entry code being entered. My code doesn't have that key at all, so that eliminates that possibility. But I assume that it thinks you're entering your code.

You CAN enter the code when already unlocked and then hold 7-8 and it pops the frunk, but the code is initially needed in all circumstances.

 

[timbop]

Ok so here's my observation for clarification. When you go to the keypad, it has a light up top. Hitting the 7-8, or holding it, lights up the light as of it's your entry code being entered. My code doesn't have that key at all, so that eliminates that possibility. But I assume that it thinks you're entering your code.

You CAN enter the code when already unlocked and then hold 7-8 and it pops the frunk, but the code is initially needed in all circumstances.

hmm, that's a real shame. It's a case of requirements not being thought through - needing the added security code is senseless if the car is already unlocked: you could simply open the door and pop the release manually, so simply holding down the 7-8 key to pop the frunk is no more "dangerous" with an unlocked car. Requiring PaaK is also a fail; you can start, stop, lock, and unlock from FP without PaaK, so again popping the trunk is trivial.

Ford has gotten so much right with the Mach E, but yet the last bit they keep missing

 

[scoopman]

It's like there's some person in Ford who keeps insisting that the frunk is a hood under which is an engine and the mach e must follow all the rules for a traditional hood release because safety first and people wouldn't do that often anyhow.... That person needs to start losing some of the discussions, not sure why they are making it difficult here.

 

[DevSecOps]

Requiring PaaK is also a fail; you can start, stop, lock, and unlock from FP without PaaK, so again popping the trunk is trivial.

Don't quote me on the PaaK. That's why I said "I think". I have PaaK activated so someone else would have to check that doesn't have it activated.

I personally would rather a double key combination on the fob over the key pad. But I use PaaK exclusively so it doesn't bother me at all.

I understand your frustration tho. It's similar to my frustration over this hour long line for ramen ?

 

[timbop]

Don't quote me on the PaaK. That's why I said "I think". I have PaaK activated so someone else would have to check that doesn't have it activated.

OK, you're right we should wait until that is confirmed before I complain about it

Oh, and the fob having a missing button is really the bummer. In europe it has the frunk button, but not here because of the regulatory snafu. I paid $300 for a second fob already because PaaK is such a mess - and that fob is missing the button also- so that is somewhat crummy as well.

 

[UsernameChecksOut]

It's a case of requirements not being thought through...

Was just about to say that you sound like a software person. Lo-and-behold, your profile says that!

I've gotta express as a former software person myself, I observe that Ford seems to be having incredible difficulty with pushing out software updates/fixes in a timely and error-free manner. It suggests that Ford's software team is either understaffed, inefficiently led, or that the foundation of their software stack was poorly designed/implemented. It may be a combination of all of the above. This makes me sad. :'(

 

[HuntingPudel]

<snip>.
Ford has gotten so much right with the Mach E, but yet the last bit they keep missing

Luckily, the small details like this are all first-world problems. Hopefully, we can lobby and get a software fix in the future. ?

 

[timbop]

Was just about to say that you sound like a software person. Lo-and-behold, your profile says that!

I've gotta express as a former software person myself, I observe that Ford seems to be having incredible difficulty with pushing out software updates/fixes in a timely and error-free manner. It suggests that Ford's software team is either understaffed, inefficiently led, or that the foundation of their software stack was poorly designed/implemented. It may be a combination of all of the above. This makes me sad. :'(

I have generally worked for very small companies, but I spent the longest year of my life working for a giant entertainment company headquartered in philadelphia. I was working on a brand new product that they created a whole now infrastructure for that was supposed to be "startup" that was "outside" of the existing core culture. The team was created mostly from scratch hiring outside folks, but (too) much of the management came from other areas of the company. They even had this new team housed across the street from the HQ building to try to isolate it and give it a "startup" feel. It didn't work very well, mainly because they still had to interface with the rest of the empire - which was full of individuals whose careers where intimately linked with the "old" products and services. The net result was that it ended up being not very different than the rest of the company, with just as many toxic individuals trying to build their own little fiefdoms. They had some really good people at the core of the new group, but they had to fit within the overall culture to ultimately accomplish anything.


I doubt if Ford's culture is as toxic as that place I worked, but certainly "team edison" still has to rely on the rest of the established culture to get anything delivered - they cannot possibly do everything by themselves. I am certain they hired some of the best people they could find, but those people can't do everything. So I very much suspect that Ford's ingrained culture is getting in their way - even though everyone means well and wants success - it's just that they can't undo a century of ingrained processes, credos, and priorities

 

[RSH]

Although I would prefer not to put in the code before pressing 7-8, I'm fine with it. It's only another 2 seconds max to put in the code. Right now, having to actually open the door to pull the latch then leave the car to go to the frunk makes it not worth the effort to use. Can't wait til the frunk becomes useful with the 7-8 or a working button on the app for us non-GT folks.

 

[BMT1071]

It's like there's some person in Ford who keeps insisting that the frunk is a hood under which is an engine and the mach e must follow all the rules for a traditional hood release because safety first and people wouldn't do that often anyhow.... That person needs to start losing some of the discussions, not sure why they are making it difficult here.

I'd say it's more likely that federal regulations are to blame.

 

[NewGuy]

hmm, that's a real shame. It's a case of requirements not being thought through - needing the added security code is senseless if the car is already unlocked: you could simply open the door and pop the release manually, so simply holding down the 7-8 key to pop the frunk is no more "dangerous" with an unlocked car. Requiring PaaK is also a fail; you can start, stop, lock, and unlock from FP without PaaK, so again popping the trunk is trivial.

Ford has gotten so much right with the Mach E, but yet the last bit they keep missing

It’s more dangerous because it’s not a real button, and it’s in a place that’s easy to accidentally bump.

I imagine they want to prevent a situation where someone hits it inadvertently and doesn’t realize it till they’re driving down the highway later.

 

[BMT1071]

It’s more dangerous because it’s not a real button, and it’s in a place that’s easy to accidentally bump.

I imagine they want to prevent a situation where someone hits it inadvertently and doesn’t realize it till they’re driving down the highway later.

The warning on the dash will alert you before you even put it in drive, much less get out on the highway.

 

[timbop]

The warning on the dash will alert you before you even put it in drive, much less get out on the highway.

exactly: the car knows the hood is popped and can even prevent you from shifting out of park, just like it does if you leave the charge cord plugged in.

 

[BMT1071]

exactly: the car knows the hood is popped and can even prevent you from shifting out of park, just like it does if you leave the charge cord plugged in.

It can prevent the shift, but does it? I haven't tested that. I can tell you it cancels a remote start if you pop the frunk.

Sponsored