Nanocom unable to read identity from car

[SaltyNalty]

Hello,

I've got a new Nanocom and I've followed the instructions to activate my code. However when plugged in to my 2005 D3 I get an error saying The system is not able to read to identification information from the car.
Cycling the ignition does not help. What am I doing wrong?

Cheers,

Saltyhttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190930/bd886d933c13c40603b23b721721b179.jpg

[cjc_td5]

A new nanocom? It would still be worth while connecting the nanocom to your computer and checking that the firmware is up to date. That has been the cause of similar issues with mine in the past.

[SaltyNalty]

I've updated to the latest stable firmware and getting the same result. Not sure what I'm doing wrong.

Cheers,

Salty

[BBS Guy]

Hiya SaltyNalty

I just happen to have noticed your post here, although of course support is best obtained via the dedicated Nanocom Technical support Forum or by filling in the contact us form on the nanocom web site to have our support staff directly assist you.

As the CAN BUS vehicle coverage on the Nanocom is covering many Types of vehicle models that are individually licenced, uses active Menu's and other intelligent processes, It has to read and decode the VIN from a number of different ECU's to validate the vehicle Model type.

We have of course attempted as best we can to make this flexible and allow a limited degree of variance.

To assist where there are problems, we have also thoughtfully provided a VIN tool you can find by selecting Nanocom> Applications>VIN TOOL
We have also provided a USER TEST in the same section where you can check both High and Low Speed CAN BUS's are working as they should.

When contating us it would be good to have the results of running both.

Another common problen is that sometimes CAN BUS vehicle ECU's, while working normally, are not responding diagnostically and need resetting.
This is done by a process commonly called a Hard Reset that involves disconnecting the vehicles power leads from the battery and shorting them together ( the vehicle leads not the battery terminals) for 10 seconds or so to drain any residual power from the ECU's before re connecting the vehicle to the Battery.

I hope this Helps

Regards Colin

[SaltyNalty]

Thanks for the reply Colin,

I have only just found the Nanocom forum and posted there for help.

The VIN tool comes up with NA in all slots, clearing the cache doesn't help.
It says it's communicating with both high and low speed CAN BUS's.

I'll give the car reset a go.

Cheers,

Salty.

[SaltyNalty]

I reset the car by disconnecting the battery and shorting the connections for a minute. I've still had no luck getting the Nanocom working.

Cheers,

Saltyhttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190930/6a1b632cbff19894132a687de601a4a8.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190930/6c1f2bcdf232ea764ef1bab66eaea66f.jpg

[BBS Guy]

Hiyas Salty

You are most welcome.

Many thanks for posting up and providing so much detail from the afore mentioned tests and having tried the hard reset.

At this point "clearing the Cache" would indeed not help.

I mentioned the intelligent processes that the Nanocom uses, one of which is that when it is first used on a vehicle it scans the vehicle, polling each possible ECU to figure what ECUS (optional) are actually fitted to it, IE vehicle configuration, EG if it has an Automatic gearbox ECU or not. This takes a bit of time so it will remember the specifiucations by VIN of any Vehicle it has already scanned and use that as a much quicker look up from then on. The Active Menu part I mentioned would by example mean that you would not see the Automatic gearbox in the menus if the nanocom did not detect one.

Of course we have provided the ability to reset and clear any learned Vehicle configuration should there have been a first learn scan problem or this be changed by the owner, IE retro fitting an ECU.

Clearly even from the little explanation I have provided here, we have implimented quite smart handling in the Nanocom, along with tests and functions to diagnose and cover all possibilities.

The results you have provided with pictures clearly show that both High and Low speed CAN Busses are working on your Nanocom.

But the VIN TOOL results you have pictured show that you cannot read even one VIN number from any ECU on the vehicle.

The VIN TOOL is not locked to any model, it just reads and displays the VIN reported by every possible ECU, regardless of optional fitment or if we use that in our checks or not. If it is a used ECU, regardless of model, this might give a different VIN and a Brand new ECU would also show something other than N/A before getting the VIN programmed.

The only way I know of to end up with a result of using the VIN TOOL that reads all as N/A is if you did not turn on the Ignition, which is certainly required for reading the Vehicle Identity, can you please confirm if you turned the Ignition on or not?

[SaltyNalty]

Thanks for the explanation. I've tried reading the VIN with ignition on, with ignition on and engine running and ignition off. All returned a NA result for the VIN scan.

Cheers,

Salty

[BBS Guy]

Hiyas Salty

You and likely other readers interested here and reading this thread are most welcome for the somewhat detailed explaination of the Nanocoms "intelligent" process on CAN BUS based vehicles and the tools and options provided, and as an assist to try and help you figure what your problem is, likewise I also appreciate your quick response too.

However after your latest information that states that you did have the Ignition on which not having that is the only way I know how to get all N/A results, I am now at something of as loss for further thoughts and Ideas at this moment, which is ironic as at this point as even if you contacted our support staff they would also be likely asking me for ideas.

The problem I / We have is that as I mentioned before, the VIN TOOL is not tied to any Model, in fact it is not even tied to any Manufacturer that is part of the Ford Group either, so if you plugged this into a Ford Fiesta or a Volvo etc you would almost certainly get at least some VINS displayed rather than N/A.

N/A means an ECU did not respond at all to a request for its VIN, and far from being optional ECU's, we are talking about mandatory fitted ECU's like Engine Management, Body Control, Airbag, ABS, Instrument Pack, Park Brake, Air suspension and so on. There is no filtering of replies, so new ECU's, used ECU's, even if taken from a different model, of course as well as correct ECU's as fitted to the Vehicle when origionally manufactured would all be shown as something other than N/A.

Sadly, despite our very best efforts to support any customer and owner of our equipment with a problem, we can only go on what we are told has been tried and tested as per our requests and at some point, despite our wishes to avoid un required returns, even if we feel a customer quickly says Yea, Yea, Yea, tried all that and it is still not working, or a genuine and inexplicable case, the only option we have is to offer an RMA for the equipments return to be tested again, despite eveything being extensively tested before it is shipped and / or any suspicions we may have that there is nothing wrong with it.

Of couse occasionally in the past we have indeed found very occasional and strange problems with a Nanocom, but then we use that to learn and adjust and add to our testing process and of course in such cases cover ALL costs.

If you wish an RMA Salty, just ask my support staff directly using the contact us on the Nanocom Web site and they will oblige.

ATB

[SaltyNalty]

I've gave the VIN tool a go in the wife's Ford Territory and it returned all NA there as well.
I'll get in touch with support staff and go from there.

Cheers for the assistance,

Salty.

[BBS Guy]

Hiyas Salty
You are most welcome for my assistance.

I did say "almost certainly" in respect of other vehicles using the same tech, as that is of course somewhat theoretical, but non the less all N.A. results with the VIN TOOL on your D3 with the IGN on is just plain wrong and as wierd as heck.

I gotta tell you that as the designer of your Nanocom Evolution 2, I can't help but wonder and try to imagine what could be wrong to cause this case where you get both busses reported as detected but then no response to any request for VINS.

I see you have now corrosponded with our support staff and have arranged return of your Nanocom under RMA.

FYI the first thing after being checked in and documentation added is that ANY and ALL returns are put on my desk.

So I personally will certainly be watching for and awaiting your Nanocom and will be personally testing the VIN TOOL and more with your Nanocom on my own personal CAN BUS Land Rover etc.

My hopes are only that i will find something that we can ultimately use to improve our testing process.

I will of course advise here accordingly, so as not to leave this thread you started un finished

ATB

[SaltyNalty]

I'm able to post my unit back today. It will be good to find out what's going on.
I plugged my cheap ELM327 bluetooth OBD reader in today and it was able to read the vehicle VIN and realtime info.

Cheers,

Salty

[SaltyNalty]

Of couse occasionally in the past we have indeed found very occasional and strange problems with a Nanocom, but then we use that to learn and adjust and add to our testing process and of course in such cases cover ALL costs.

If you wish an RMA Salty, just ask my support staff directly using the contact us on the Nanocom Web site and they will oblige.

ATB

Yesterday I got my unit back from Black Box Solutions in Cyprus. I plugged it in and it worked straight away! So it ended up costing me a bit more for postage but I'm very happy to have a working unit.

BBS Guy, do you know what was wrong with the unit?

Cheers,

Salty

[BBS Guy]

Hiyas SaltyNalty.

It's been a little while now, but I am now back here with the Good, the Bad and the Ugly ;-)
I had wanted to post earlier and started a reply, but got way laid on finishing this post until I got prompted by yours.

An ELM327 uses only OBD legislated access which is for Engine management only and does not even have low speed CAN BUS connectivity, so it's not really a good yardstick TBH.

But regardless, your Nanocom's journey did indeed mean it got to be returned and on my Desk.

It's next stage of its trip saw me personally take it to my own vehicle and test it out and low and behold it did exactly as you stated in confirming both CAN busses were detected but no ECU replied t a request for its VIN

One might consider it Bad that it passed CAN BUS testing but then did not read any VINS, but actually thats Good because it means its return was not a wasted journey. There is after all nothing worse than having equipment returned that we cannot find a problem with that means a really ugly situation of not only wasted money and time but also both us and a customer not knowing where the problem really is.

So we got to work, I personally went through the schematics with one of the production staff, figuring what could possibly cause this, seeing where such a problem might be and he started physically checking the closely related items.

It was not long before he found a solder joint on a simple resistor that looked OK but was actually bad and would affect only transmissions on the CAN bus that was kinda a wow / revalation moment.

CAN bus detection simply looks for existing messages on each CAN BUS but a VIN check sends (if working properly) a request to ECU's to provide their VINS. With the transmit not working, it is understandable that the ECU's did not reply, giving the all N/A results.

Not surprisingly, and likely of no real comfort to you, this is the first time we have ever seen this happen despite having now supplied many thousands of Nanocoms.

Sometimes despite our very best efforts and intentions, things can happen that we cannot or could not reasonably be expected to pre imagine or predict, and in such cases it is what we do about it that really matters.
In this case, As copied in by SaltyNalty in my previous response, we have indeed discovered that we need to add VIN reading as a check to all Nanocoms that was immediately implimented, and will indeed cover ALL costs in such cases as this.

Please forward us the documention / costs of returning this Nanocom to us for re imburement and accept my hublest apologies for the inconvinence of having to return it as well as my and my entire staffs appreciation of your assistance in helping us identify a way to improve our service and pre dispatch product testing process.

ATB

Colin

[4runnernomore]

Can’t ask for better customer service than that.

[DazzaTD5]

support is best obtained via the dedicated Nanocom Technical support Forum


To be blunt... owners will get better support here than on your support forum. Replies on your forum are typically generic "have you updated to the latest firmware etc etc"

[BBS Guy]

To be blunt... owners will get better support here than on your support forum. Replies on your forum are typically generic "have you updated to the latest firmware etc etc"

Hiya Daz

As per my first post on this thread;

I just happen to have noticed your post here, although of course support is best obtained via the dedicated Nanocom Technical support Forum or by filling in the contact us form on the nanocom web site to have our support staff directly assist you.


As stated, I just happen to have come across this thread, but may well not have done for weeks or even months, as I am sadly rather too busy to trawl though the many forums I frequent as and when I am able.
So it really was not the best method to ask for support and assistance from BBS, and although it did work out in this particular case and I chose to respond personally, as I found it interesting because as detailed, this case was quite unique, it should not set some precedence of expectant support for BBS products via the AULRO forum.

My support staff however, as part of their daily role do respond rapidly and of course follow normal support process in respect of first checking the most obvious has been done, bear in mind that just as their replies may seem repetative and generic, so are most issues. Then of course escalating to the technical staff and eventually me if required, very quickly.

Just because we are a company / business, does not mean we have Microsoft like resources, we do try our very best to provide good products at a fair price, test them as best as possible before shipping and support them thereafter as best we possibly can.

But we are only human and as detailed in this thread, although this may be a 1 in 10,000 case we never imagined or encountered before, we are willing to learn and act on it accordingly.

ATB

Colin

[DazzaTD5]

Hiya Daz

As per my first post on this thread;


As stated, I just happen to have come across this thread, but may well not have done for weeks or even months, as I am sadly rather too busy to trawl though the many forums I frequent as and when I am able.
So it really was not the best method to ask for support and assistance from BBS, and although it did work out in this particular case and I chose to respond personally, as I found it interesting because as detailed, this case was quite unique, it should not set some precedence of expectant support for BBS products via the AULRO forum.

My support staff however, as part of their daily role do respond rapidly and of course follow normal support process in respect of first checking the most obvious has been done, bear in mind that just as their replies may seem repetative and generic, so are most issues. Then of course escalating to the technical staff and eventually me if required, very quickly.

Just because we are a company / business, does not mean we have Microsoft like resources, we do try our very best to provide good products at a fair price, test them as best as possible before shipping and support them thereafter as best we possibly can.

But we are only human and as detailed in this thread, although this may be a 1 in 10,000 case we never imagined or encountered before, we are willing to learn and act on it accordingly.

ATB

Colin

Colin,
I realise that you likely don't have time to offer support outside of your own forum / business. My comment on support was more meaning other AULRO members here do have good knowledge when it comes to Nanocom issues. Awhile back I couldn't save a map file to my Nanocom, it was suggested by other members to use a different known brand of memory card, this resolved the issue I was having.

Great point you make regarding most issues are also repetitive and generic.