[HN Gopher] Tesla Recalls 2M Vehicles over Autopilot Software Issue
___________________________________________________________________
Tesla Recalls 2M Vehicles over Autopilot Software Issue
Author : rgbrgb
Score : 140 points
Date : 2023-12-13 15:00 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| filoleg wrote:
| Note: "tesla recalls" == "tesla pushes OTA software update (just
| like any regular OTA update)"
| ekianjo wrote:
| gotta love the NYT for accurate headlines
| kristofferR wrote:
| It's not incorrect, it's just confusing:
|
| https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/24/is-recall-really-the-
| ri...
| trident5000 wrote:
| The NYT is more than capable of making a clear headline.
| These are not stupid people. But they do have goals.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| The headline is perfectly clear and is not using language
| in a new way. The National Highway Traffic Safety
| Administration (NHTSA) issues recalls for safety related
| issues. The way the manufacture resolves the issues can
| differ.
| sickofparadox wrote:
| If the average user on HN needs an explanation that a
| word in a title actually has a completely different
| effective meaning, I'd say that it is unlikely to be a
| clear title.
| toast0 wrote:
| I agree, Tesla should change the name of their driver
| assistance suite.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| I see no evidence that the average user on HN needed an
| explanation. I think a small minority needed one.
|
| Here is Tesla's recall page:
| https://www.tesla.com/support/annual-and-recall-service
|
| Several of these were fixed with OTA updates. Tesla
| doesn't seem to be confused on the meaning of the word.
| This very site has had these exact OTA recall submissions
| for years.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| I would say on HN you're far more likely to get some
| "whell ahcktuwally" comments in the most
| counterproductive way, particularly because there are so
| many Tesla and Musk fans that immediately become
| defensive vs any negative news or criticism of each and
| engage in semantic quibbling to deflect.
|
| Recall is the correct word to use for this sort of NTSC
| action. Most people understand what it means and don't
| care about OTA vs plugging in an ODB port.
| filoleg wrote:
| > Most people [...] don't care about OTA vs plugging in
| an ODB port.
|
| Yes, they do.
|
| For the former, you just let the car autoupdate and
| that's it. For the latter, you gotta drive to a
| dealership/service center and leave your car there so
| that the service center employees can resolve it via
| "plugging in an ODB port."
|
| One requires much more work and effort than the other on
| the part of the driver. For one, I think most people
| would care about having to potentially take a day off
| work + figure out their transportation while the recall
| issue is being resolved at the service center.
| NickM wrote:
| Sure, you're technically correct, but when the average
| person reads "recall" they typically assume something
| very different. Doubly so since this isn't even a bug
| fix, just a new requirement to add additional safety
| checks above and beyond the ones already there.
|
| There's no reason the headline couldn't have read
| something like "Tesla Issues Software Update at Request
| of NHTSA", which would be less likely to confuse the
| average reader, but also less attention-grabbing.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| In the old days, recalls meant the car had to go back to
| the dealer for a fix. Then "recall" got a legal meaning,
| and as we moved to cars that could be updated at home,
| the term stuck because it is now enshrined in official
| regulation. It is just anachronistic terminology now like
| "hang up the phone."
| nickthegreek wrote:
| The average person can learn what the term means when
| they get the notification in the mail from Tesla (which
| will state that there is a recall and it will be handled
| by an OTA update). Or they could read the article and not
| rely on the headline to get their full understanding of
| the issue. If the average user panics from the
| headline... good. This is a safety issue and they should
| be made aware of it.
| acdha wrote:
| The average person understands "recall" to mean
| "something about my car may be unsafe, I should read it".
| If you've owned a car, you've gotten plenty of these and
| many of them are minor - for example, when I lived in San
| Diego I did not race to the dealership when Subaru put
| out a recall telling you to have the underbody inspected
| for defects which could cause elevated corrosion with
| frequent exposure to road salt because I knew my vehicle
| didn't fall into that category. The recall mechanism
| meant I got it taken care of a year later when I had
| other work being done.
|
| The only people claiming to be confused here appear to be
| Tesla fans who are reacting emotionally to their favorite
| company getting negative attention. I see no sign that
| any of them were concerned about a standard industry term
| before today.
| rgbrgb wrote:
| what do you think their goals are? where do they get
| them?
| trident5000 wrote:
| I actually dont think this article/headline is that
| egregious. But in general anything having to do with
| Musk/Tesla is going to be put in a negative light. And I
| think we all know why. Election season, twitter
| ownership, etc etc.
| jondwillis wrote:
| As an observer:
|
| Elon is a cringey based edgelord, accelerated the decline
| of their favorite platform (Twitter), re-platforms and
| signal boosts people/grifters with dangerous ideas, and
| all of that outweighs, in their estimation, whatever good
| will he earned with Tesla/SpaceX in the prior decade.
|
| Oh, he's also a generationally wealthy South African.
| They're on one side of the culture war, he's (newly?) on
| the other.
|
| They want him stripped of influence. Or maybe they're
| just really big fans of Kia and Volkswagen, dunno.
| acdha wrote:
| In this case, the goal is using the industry standard
| term to refer to a specific action defined under U.S.
| law. It's called a recall because that's the term used by
| the legislation delegated to the NHTSA by the Congress:
|
| https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/und
| ers...
|
| The only confusion I see on this point is from people who
| based on their history appear to be Tesla fans and
| presumably are letting their loyalties to the company
| trigger a defensive reaction.
| me_me_me wrote:
| only if you could find people who have their way with words
|
| But that must be confusing for them too...
| cush wrote:
| It's very mildly confusing but it would be more confusing
| to change the name. There are systems in place to ensure
| recall fixes are performed and consumers take recalls very
| seriously, so they will take action to ensure it's updated
| (OTA isn't infallible). Overreacting is better than under-
| reacting.
| suoduandao3 wrote:
| "Technically correct - the best kind"
| Oras wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > Tesla began issuing an "over-the-air software remedy" to
| certain vehicles on Tuesday, safety officials said. The
| remaining vehicles will receive software updates later, and all
| updates will be free for the cars' owners.
|
| I was confused as to why Tesla needs to "recall" when they can
| do OTA update. The title is misleading
|
| _surprise_
| solardev wrote:
| It's because the NHTSA forced them into a safety related
| "recall". It's not just a regular OTA update.
|
| Tesla has a long history of being dishonest about Autopilot
| capabilities and dangers, and it's killed several people so
| far. The NHTSA is forcing them to make some tweaks.
|
| (Not arguing that autopilot is on the whole any more or less
| safe than human drivers. Just that Tesla has a history of
| misrepresentation.)
| Oras wrote:
| > It's because the NHTSA forced them into a safety related
| "recall". It's not just a regular OTA update.
|
| And how does this "recall" work? Is it physically taking
| the car to a branch to apply the update? I'm curious to
| know.
| acdha wrote:
| It can be over the air but calling it a recall also
| brings notification requirements and means that if you
| bring it in to the service department they'll do it for
| you, too.
| solardev wrote:
| It's an OTA update, as you know. It's great that they can
| do this.
|
| It's just a semantic thing. I think the actual mechanism
| (that there is a regulatory body that can force auto
| makers to improve safety, whether OTA or in the shop) is
| cool, but I agree that the word "recall" is confusing.
| It's just a holdover from old processes. Maybe the
| terminology will change in time. Probably not.
| hiddencost wrote:
| No. Recall is a legal term, and just means Tesla is
| required by law to fix a defect. And that certain
| penalties and duties apply to them. The recall can be
| totally remote.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| You know some "recalls" have a required fix of "throw the
| thing away" right? Recall just means the government is
| making you do something to a giant subset of your product
| fleet, usually for safety reasons.
| filoleg wrote:
| The only difference between a regular OTA update and this
| one is that you will also get a letter in your mailbox
| notifying you of this.
|
| If you miss that letter in the mail or don't read
| patchnotes, this recall OTA update will get autoinstalled
| just like any other regular OTA update without you even
| noticing anything special about it.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > Tesla has a long history of being dishonest about
| Autopilot capabilities and dangers, and it's killed several
| people so far. The NHTSA is forcing them to make some
| tweaks.
|
| From the article:
|
| > > The update will add new, more prominent visual alerts
| and checks for the Autosteer function, which is part of
| Autopilot. The National Highway Traffic Safety
| Administration said there may be "increased risk of a
| crash" when Autosteer is engaged and drivers do not
| "maintain responsibility for vehicle operation."
|
| I don't buy this. Tesla's driver monitoring during
| autosteer is among the most annoying in the industry, and
| it has even more protections than other systems (like how
| BlueCruise used to [maybe still does] allow you to take off
| your seatbelt without deactivating).
| solardev wrote:
| It's probably a negotiation they had, and that was the
| compromise they reached.
|
| We all want 100% safe auto driving. We're not there yet.
| Tesla wants to pretend we are, the NHTSA doesn't, we end
| up with occasional situations like this where things get
| marginally safer and more annoying.
|
| Just growing pains for a young industry, I hope.
| brandonagr2 wrote:
| It is a regular OTA update.
|
| Negligent drivers have killed people, not autopilot
| capabilities. Take the example in the recent Washington
| Post article where a driver ran through a stop sign at a T
| intersection, left the road, and killed a bystander.
|
| What the article didn't say is that the system reduced
| cruise set point to 45 mph due to the road type, but the
| driver was _holding down the accelerator pedal_ to maintain
| 60 mph as it flew through the stop sign. The driver
| admitted they knew they were responsible for the
| controlling the car.
|
| What is your evidence that drivers not knowing Autopilot
| capabilities, and not intentional misuse by negligent
| drivers, killed several people?
| solardev wrote:
| It was an update forced by the NHTSA after an
| investigation and negotiation.
| electrondood wrote:
| 1. Every time one of these articles comes out, the
| investigation concludes 10 months later that the driver
| was at fault.
|
| 2. The hero metric is what is the rate of crashes
| _compared to the general population not using Autopilot_.
|
| Tesla make it abundantly clear that the driver is still
| responsible for monitoring. This is analogous to a dev
| just deploying copy-pasted code from ChatGPT without
| checking it. You still supervise/monitor the result.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| That's because legally, they are. However, it hasn't
| stopped Tesla from doing things like hold press
| conferences (in the case of a fatal collision with a
| Semi) to talk about how the car had warned the driver to
| hold the steering wheel, and neglect the trifling detail
| that it had done that _once_ , and it was _eighteen
| minutes_ prior to the accident. Tesla will happily throw
| you under the bus to try to protect the reputation of FSD
| /AP.
|
| > Tesla make it abundantly clear that the driver is still
| responsible for monitoring.
|
| Tesla had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing
| this. When AP first launched, the steering wheel checks
| were every _fifteen minutes_ , then reduced to five. It
| has only been through repeated cajoling that it is down
| to where it is now.
|
| Let's not forget that "The driver is only in the seat for
| legal purposes. The car is driving itself." is still on
| Tesla's website to this day. (And in a sense, it is
| accurate - the legal purposes just include trying to
| shield Tesla from as much liability as possible). Oh, and
| Smart Summon. "Bring your car to you while you deal with
| a fussy child" (and still maintain complete awareness of
| your car...)
| tzs wrote:
| > It is a regular OTA update
|
| Tesla is mailing a letter to all affected owners about
| this. Does Tesla normally do that for regular OTA
| updates?
| acdha wrote:
| > What the article didn't say is that the system reduced
| cruise set point to 45 mph due to the road type, but the
| driver was _holding down the accelerator pedal_ to
| maintain 60 mph as it flew through the stop sign. The
| driver admitted they knew they were responsible for the
| controlling the car.
|
| Do you have a source for that claim? The earlier news
| coverage said that the driver set the speed to 44mph, and
| that the data was unclear whether the autopilot or driver
| accelerated. If you have something like a court document
| that would be great to clarify.
| fleeno wrote:
| That wasn't my comment, but I happened to have the source
| already open:
| https://twitter.com/Tesla/status/1734374558105293081?s=20
| acdha wrote:
| Thanks - I hadn't seen more recent sources than the NYT
| story which had it at unclear a couple of years ago:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/business/tesla-
| autopilot-...
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I thought Tesla was known for being dishonest about its FSD
| feature, not AutoPilot, which is a less ambitious lane
| keeping/auto cruise control feature?
| solardev wrote:
| Sorry, you're probably right. I have a hard time keeping
| track of their confusing names.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| How many people have been killed by cruise control do you
| think?
| filoleg wrote:
| > It's not just a regular OTA update
|
| Thematically and semantically, sure, I agree, it isn't.
|
| Functionally, it is, as it installs just like any regular
| OTA update and doesn't require the driver to do anything
| differently compared to a non-recall OTA update.
| asylteltine wrote:
| Because it's a legally mandated thing. You know, because
| Tesla lies about bugs, features, and safety issues all the
| time.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > Tesla decided this month to voluntarily administer a
| recall.
| hiddencost wrote:
| Which means they chose not to contest the NHTSA.
| dharmab wrote:
| NHtSA can force them to recall the cars, the "voluntary"
| part is to save face.
| MBCook wrote:
| It's not misleading. This is a NHTSA forced recall. That
| means something legally.
|
| The automaker is required by law to correct it.
|
| That does not mean the car must physically go in, it's just
| that until recently that's how everyone did it because they
| didn't have OTA updates.
|
| A recall is still a recall.
| jfoster wrote:
| "Legally mandated OTA update" would not be misleading.
| rgbrgb wrote:
| Yeah I was wondering about that too. I got a software update
| that seemed to add auto steer to my non-self-driving model y. I
| tried it a few times on the highway but it seemed erratic
| (switching off randomly and dangerously engaging regenerative
| brakes in the fast lane). Won't be trying again until next
| update (if it sticks in the car).
|
| edit: corrected autopilot (cruise control) -> self driving
| chankstein38 wrote:
| I don't own a Tesla but when I was a kid we had Sega Channel
| and I remember waking up on the first day of a new cycle,
| excited to see what games had randomly been chosen to be
| listed. This is how I imagine update day going with a Tesla
| lol "Did they include any exciting features? Take anything
| good away? Gotta wake up and go find out!"
| dylan604 wrote:
| I hope this is in jest, and I'm assuming it is. The fact
| that this is even allowed to happen is bewildering to me.
| The fact that the car can perform totally different from
| one day to the next because of an OTA update you knew
| nothing about is insane. Even if there are UI notifications
| on the 65" TV in the console, NOBODY reads them. They just
| scroll through and click accept/okay as quickly as
| possible. They are already late for work, and still have to
| drop off the ankle biters at daycare. "Sorry boss, but I
| would have been here on time if I hadn't been forced to
| read a new EULA on my car"
| jsight wrote:
| IDK, there've been a lot of nice quality of life
| improvements in those updates over the years. Eg, moving
| wiper controls to the buttons and configurable quick
| controls. The cameras have improved quite a bit from
| software updates too. And obviously there are more basic
| things too, such as updates to media apps and better
| integration with MyQ garage door openers.
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| When you buy a Tesla you are signing up for this. Some
| people don't like it but many do. (Most of these changes
| are genuine improvements.) There are plenty of
| competitors out there if you prefer to go without such a
| feature.
| csa wrote:
| Are you a new Tesla owner?
|
| > I got a software update that seemed to add auto steer to my
| non-autopilot model y.
|
| All (edit: new since 2019) Teslas come with autopilot. "Full
| self driving" is an add on.
|
| > I tried it a few times on the highway but it seemed erratic
| (switching off randomly and dangerously engaging regenerative
| brakes in the fast lane)
|
| "Switching off" usually means that it can't identify the lane
| it's supposed to be in. Was this some sort of a rural
| highway, a highway under construction, and/or a poorly
| maintained road?
|
| The braking is called "phantom braking", and (since a very
| good update in spring 2022) usually only occurs when there is
| some sort of substantial deceptive visual issue like oil
| lines, asphalt sealant, a reflection of the sun, or visual
| mirages (when the road looks shiny/reflective due to temp
| diffs).
|
| For me personally, phantom braking only happens on a couple
| of (crappy) roads at certain spots for me, so I just don't
| use AP at those spots.
|
| In general, AP is super consistent. Other than an overdone
| name, it works really well. If it was just called "advanced
| cruise control", people wouldn't be shitting themselves over
| the feature. It's just adaptive cruise control with lane
| assist, two features that many cars have, and Teslas happens
| to have implemented quite well (imho).
| throwup238 wrote:
| You literally just described every defining feature of
| California roads.
| csa wrote:
| > You literally just described every defining feature of
| California roads.
|
| Eh... it has to be egregious.
|
| I live in California, and I only have problems on two
| spots between Bakersfield and Barstow. The rest are
| literal construction sites with unmarked lanes.
|
| Other than that, I have no issues 99% of the time I use
| AP when driving in NorCal in the Bay Area and surrounding
| areas (Napa/Sonoma to the north, Sacramento to the east,
| and SLO to the south). I use AP a lot, so I feel
| confident stating how reliable it is in these areas.
|
| If someone finds that it doesn't work for them in one of
| these areas, I'd almost guarantee that it's in a specific
| spot for a specific reason.
| szundi wrote:
| Actually the name is not overdone itself, as autopilot is a
| simple airplane software that keeps it on a line basically.
| Funny how Tesla hype gave it more clever meaning.
| reureu wrote:
| I've been driving an M3 since 2020 and have put 40k miles
| on it, mostly over road trips throughout California and the
| western half of the US.
|
| Phantom braking has always been a bit of an issue -- when I
| first got the car, I just wouldn't use cruise control in
| heavy traffic, but felt ok using it once out of a city. In
| the past year or so, it's been so bad I'm scared to use it
| at all, and I've filed multiple complaints with the NHTSA.
| I'll be driving on I-80 through Nevada or Utah and every
| ~10 minutes the car will slam on its brakes. This is dry,
| consistently lit, consistent colors, minimal bridges
| casting shadows, etc.
|
| I wish there was a way to make my cruise control
| "dumb"/non-adaptive just to stop the random abrupt braking
| in the middle of nowhere.
| csa wrote:
| Are most those 40k miles in the last year or so?
|
| > I just wouldn't use cruise control in heavy traffic
|
| Assuming you're staying in one lane for a bit, AP
| actually shines in heavy traffic (especially stop and
| go).
|
| > I'll be driving on I-80 through Nevada or Utah and
| every ~10 minutes the car will slam on its brakes.
|
| Two points:
|
| 1. The update I spoke of was in spring 2022. AP improved
| a lot with that update for me. Shadows stopped triggering
| phantom braking. Trucks driving it adjacent opposite
| lanes on highways stopped triggering phantom braking. It
| took away the most egregious errors, imho. So if you're
| talking about trips mostly before the spring 2022 update,
| i can believe it. If it's after spring 2022, then...
|
| 2. Nevada can have lots of reflection mirages due to
| desert heat. Not sure about Utah, but it wouldn't
| surprise me if that was the cause there as well (if it
| happened have the 2022 update).
|
| I have my criticisms of teslas as cars and as a company,
| but autopilot is not one of them.
|
| > I wish there was a way to make my cruise control
| "dumb"/non-adaptive just to stop the random abrupt
| braking in the middle of nowhere.
|
| Agreed. This is one feature I hope that they are forced
| to make.
|
| My biggest use case of it would be when it's raining. AP
| still forces auto wipers when it's raining, and it often
| runs too long (when there is no more rain) and/or too
| fast.
|
| Of course, since I live in CA, rain is rarely an issue.
| NickM wrote:
| That's weird, I've had a Model 3 since 2018 and it
| definitely used to have some issues with phantom braking,
| but for the last ~year it seems to be totally fixed (at
| least for highway driving, still sometimes gets confused
| on surface roads). Even in the past though I never had
| anything close to what you're describing where the car
| slams on the brakes every 10 minutes in good conditions.
|
| Are you running an old software version? You might try
| bringing it in for service because what you're describing
| definitely doesn't seem right.
| peterept wrote:
| Auto-pilot is not on all Teslas as it was a paid upgrade
| til mid-2019. My M3 does not have auto-pilot!
| csa wrote:
| Thanks. Fixed.
|
| I didn't realize early M3s didn't have it.
| rgbrgb wrote:
| I meant self-driving haha. Had it for 2 years but the names
| are still confusing. I'm like 99% sure autopilot did no
| steering before this update. Now it will try to go around
| curves on its own, but as I said it was randomly turning
| off (engaging the brakes unless you press the
| accelerator)... similar to the phantom braking stuff before
| but more shocking because it's steering too.
| seeekr wrote:
| I think at some point the absurdity of the numbers (now it's
| 2M, soon it'll be 10M, 50M, ...) will become so great that
| NHTSA will stop calling this a "recall", and then this term
| will no longer be usable for clickbait article titles.
| Absurdity because it'll get harder and harder to imagine how a
| company might bring in millions and millions of vehicles in for
| service repeatedly, from a logistics and cost perspective, and
| still be able to grow and make a good profit.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _and then this term will no longer be usable for clickbait
| article titles._
|
| It's not clickbait, that's ridiculous. The essence of the
| article is the results of the investigation. NHSTA has a
| process, they investigated and issued a recall. The fact that
| it can be fixed OTA doesn't change the intent of what's
| happening. I mean, at what point does the first comment stop
| being, "It's not a recall!" Who cares.
|
| I'm more interested in the obvious questions, like: does the
| update actually make anything safer? If it's so easy, why
| didn't Tesla do it on their own?
| solardev wrote:
| > If it's so easy, why didn't Tesla do it on their own?
|
| It's situations like this that make me not trust Tesla and
| Musk. I always feel like they're misrepresenting the
| vehicle's capabilities, and I have no idea what I'm
| actually getting in terms of autopilot capabilities.
|
| When I rode in a friend's Tesla, the real time display of
| the sensors did not inspire confidence. It missed a lot of
| cars and pedestrians.
|
| I think the technology has a lot of transformative
| potential, but between their continuous hype over
| substance, ripping out lidar to be cheap, etc., it's just
| really hard to trust them.
| acdha wrote:
| > I'm more interested in the obvious questions, like: does
| the update actually make anything safer? If it's so easy,
| why didn't Tesla do it on their own?
|
| Tesla has advertised many features which do not work
| reliably or, in some cases, at all. If they don't want to
| admit that, they're going to resist - especially if it's
| going to fuel a class action lawsuit claiming that this
| feature is not in the state it was sold as.
|
| The NHTSA does not have that conflicting set of incentives.
| electrondood wrote:
| It is clickbait. Tesla hasn't "recalled" 2M vehicles,
| they're pushing a software patch. "Recall" is specifically
| jargon. It's a regulatory action. However (and this is
| precisely why this headline is clickbait) it has an
| alternate, more common meaning to the general population,
| which is "your car has a defective part, is unreliable, and
| needs to be brought in to have that part replaced."
|
| This is a "recall" the same way your code needs a "recall"
| when you find a bug. It's not.
| strofcon wrote:
| "your car has a defective part, * _is unreliable*_ , and
| needs to be brought in to have that part replaced.".
|
| Precisely! NHTSA determined that these vehicles are
| unreliable in this specific case, and thus need fixing.
| Glad we're on the same page. :-)
|
| (I know, you want to pretend that it only ever means
| "physical repair" in everyone's mind, but that's a pretty
| big projection on your part.)
| acdha wrote:
| You not being aware of the use of the term doesn't mean
| it's clickbait. All a recall means is that the NHTSA is
| using its legal authority to have Tesla ensure that all
| vehicles with a safety concern are fixed. If Tesla can
| ship an update that easily, they can send the NHTSA a
| report showing each VIN having been verified as having
| the right firmware version.
| LordKeren wrote:
| NHSTA needs to reevaluate the usage of "recall" in
| situations where nothing is being physically recalled to
| the manufacturer's facilities. It is only confusing people.
|
| There are much clearer ways to phrase what has occurred
| like "Regulators force Tesla to issue mandatory OTA update
| to address issues with auto pilot"
| orwin wrote:
| Sorry, but do all teslas have starlink or whatever
| satellite provided connections? Are all cars connected to
| the internet? Until that happens, I want a recall that
| _can_ be fixed by an OTA update called a recall.
|
| Because for sure my parents' next car will have OTA
| capacity, but also be disconnected by my dad. If it needs
| a software update, that vehicle will be driven to a
| garage. If you don't issue a recall anymore, it'll be
| dangerous.
| phkahler wrote:
| Tesla gets to address recalls via OTA software updates right
| up to the point where they can not. Then, as you note, 2M+
| vehicles needing physical replacement parts or rework will
| kill them because they have no way to do that. EVs are simple
| enough that they might avoid that scenario entirely.
|
| But imagine one of those massive castings developing cracks
| and needing some reinforcements welded on in the field, or
| really any part. FEA is probably the most important tech that
| Tesla is dependent on.
| cush wrote:
| Just because a manufacturer applies a fix OTA doesn't make it
| not a recall. Recall is just a term. Regulators issue the
| recall. How the manufacturer performs the fix can vary.
| LordKeren wrote:
| Yeah, but it is plainly obvious that "recall" is a loaded
| term here. Yes, it is strictly true that it is the name for
| the thing that regulators are saying-- But nothing is getting
| "recalled" in the literal meaning of the word. "Tesla ships
| mandatory software update OTA to address bug" is much more
| accurate to how this affects real people.
| MBCook wrote:
| It is loaded. It means a critical safety issue has been
| found by the government and they're forcing it to be fixed.
| That comes with various timeline and notification
| requirements.
|
| That's all it means.
|
| Whether or not you have to drive to a specific building to
| get it done is not and never has been a requirement of the
| recall process. That's just how automakers have done it,
| mostly out of lack of OTA and unwillingness to send techs
| to invidual peoples houses.
| light_hue_1 wrote:
| We need a different word. This is not a recall.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Software update with a critical fix?
| cush wrote:
| How would you manage this? If a recall is ordered, and a
| OTA update is possible... undo the recall and change the
| name of the recall...?
|
| Again there's no way for the regulator to know how the
| recall should be fixed. It makes no sense to give it a
| different name just to appease the semantics of not
| actually driving the car to a shop to fix the problem.
| LastTrain wrote:
| Why, what harm is being caused by using this one?
| leetgirl83 wrote:
| They will never put "software update" and "recall" in the
| same headline. That will defeat the purpose of their
| headline, which is to make Tesla look bad.
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| Words matter. "Recall" had a very specific meaning in the
| past before OTA updates: your vehicle was _recalled_ to
| the dealership to be retrofitted for safety reasons,
| which is obviously very inconvenient for the owner of the
| vehicle. These OTA "recalls" are safety issues too, but
| the wording still implies the inconvenience of dropping
| your car off to be altered by a mechanic, _which is not
| the case_. New terminology would be preferable.
| acdha wrote:
| Contact your congressional representatives and let them
| know that you feel strongly about this word. The NHTSA
| has been delegated authority to ensure the safety of the
| American vehicle fleet and the official name for the
| process where a manufacturer makes sure they notify every
| purchaser that a defect needs to be corrected uses that
| term.
| cush wrote:
| There's not much to debate in convenience vs safety...
|
| It's an implied inconvenience (taking the car in) that
| doesn't actually exist (people aren't actually taking
| their cars in), vs accurately conveying a public safety
| message (the recall indicated the car needs to be fixed).
| OTA updates aren't infallible. It's safer to be over
| cautious.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| _It means a critical safety issue has been found by the
| government and they're forcing it to be fixed._
|
| Manufacturers can initiate recalls, they aren't always,
| or mostly, issues found by the NHTSA. They are required
| to report them to the NHTSA who track and monitor them. I
| wouldn't say they are necessarily "critical" either. Here
| is the list of recalls for a 2005 Toyota Camry, for
| example.
|
| https://www.autosafety.org/vehicle-safety-
| check/2005-toyota-...
| thejazzman wrote:
| In reality, it's like someone being given the opportunity
| to retire before being fired. It's a polite chance to
| take ownership rather than it being forced. Apparently
| Tesla has to be forced.
|
| As an owner with Auto Pilot I don't know how to feel.
| It's most likely just going to make the product more
| annoying / less useful rather than inherently safer.
|
| I mean, you can't install radar through an OTA, so... :(
| moolcool wrote:
| The term is rightfully loaded, and it is being used
| correctly. The hazard being an OTA patchable software issue
| doesn't soften the risk, so why soften the language?
| spiderice wrote:
| Because having one word mean two different things is less
| clear than having two words that mean two different
| things.
| strofcon wrote:
| Except that the word, "recall", doesn't have two
| different meanings. It literally means the same thing
| here as it does for a recall wherein a Jeep has to have
| its shifter replaced / tweaked / whatever.
|
| Just so happens that the latter can't be fixed via
| software, because it's not a software-based safety
| failure.
|
| The former is fixable via software update, because it is
| a software-based safety failure.
|
| Both, however, are safety failures. Both need to be
| fixed. Both situations incurred regulatory requirements
| to notify customers and provide a timely fix at no cost
| to affected customers, whether within or without the
| vehicle's warranty.
|
| In short: both are recalls, and recall means the same
| thing in both cases: notify, fix, or face regulatory
| consequences.
| filoleg wrote:
| > Except that the word, "recall", doesn't have two
| different meanings.
|
| To the car owner who has to deal with a "recall", it
| functionally does.
|
| One type of a recall requires you to drive to a
| dealership/service center and leave your car there while
| the issue is being resolved. The other type requires you
| to do nothing aside from just waiting for the OTA update
| to install.
| jandrese wrote:
| I think the difference is with any other manufacturer an
| announced recall means you are scheduling a service
| appointment with the dealership, taking time off work,
| finding a babysitter, doing the rental agreement paperwork if
| it is a lengthy fix, etc...
|
| With Tesla no action on your end is required. The car will
| download the fix and apply it automatically.
| filoleg wrote:
| Yes, I am aware. I have no issues with using the word
| "recall" for this either, as long as it is clarified that it
| is resolved through OTA and doesn't require a drive to a
| dealership.
|
| And that's because most people have no idea that recalls
| resolved trough OTA are even a thing. Makes sense to me that
| a lot of people wouldn't be aware, since OTA updates aren't
| entirely common in cars yet.
|
| As for "why", since "it is still a recall, the only
| difference is how it is addressed"? Because to an actual
| person dealing with a recall, it makes a significant
| difference whether they gotta drive somewhere and leave their
| car there to get fixed vs. their car autoupdating OTA
| overnight while the car is parked safely at home.
| itslennysfault wrote:
| I appreciate the clarification here. I read this headline this
| morning and it made me think they had to "(physically) recall
| 2M vehicles" as-in take them off the road completely.
|
| With a cup of coffee it feels a bit more like "take them into a
| service center to fix them" but even that is far larger than
| the truth.
| sidcool wrote:
| I commented on a post on X stating about the recall. I said
| that it's an OTA. But many people said technically it's a
| recall.
| vorticalbox wrote:
| Is it? I don't see android "recalling" android devices every
| update.
| ahahahahah wrote:
| Yes, it is. A recall is about the fact that there are
| unsafe devices, not about how they get fixed.
|
| > A recall is issued when a manufacturer or NHTSA
| determines that a vehicle, equipment, car seat, or tire
| creates an unreasonable safety risk or fails to meet
| minimum safety standards
| sidcool wrote:
| Yeah, technically it is called a recall because of
| NHTSA's terminology. But it's not a recall in traditional
| sense. It's an OTA, where customer's cars don't have to
| be physically recalled.
| contravariant wrote:
| Android is not the agent there. A phone manufacturer could
| and should recall devices they send out if they turn out to
| have some serious flaw.
|
| It's fine if they can push the update remotely, but if it's
| something that warrants a recall they should at least check
| with everyone that they managed to install the update.
|
| Of course by now we've accepted security bugs as just the
| normal state of things, so it's hard to think of something
| serious enough to warrant a recall. An overheating battery
| perhaps, assuming it can be solved with a software update.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| > The update will add new, more prominent visual alerts and
| checks for the Autosteer function, which is part of Autopilot.
|
| Nothing was actually broken but regulators just insist on more
| alerts and Tesla just implemented those and is rolling them out
| with a routine software update. But that's a less dramatic
| headline.
|
| Actual recalls are less frequent unless there is a hardware
| problem like the wheels falling of a toyota:
| https://electrek.co/2022/06/23/toyota-recalls-bz4x-electric-...
|
| Some, manufacturers of course don't have the ability to do OTA
| updates for their cars and need to recall the car to perform
| software updates. Especially firmware of components sourced
| from third parties (e.g. engine software) is usually a bit more
| tricky. Even with manufacturers that do have OTA updates, it's
| often limited to just the entertainment software.
|
| Tesla doesn't have that issue because they design components in
| house and don't have a lot of external software suppliers (if
| any at all). So, they can fix just about any software issue
| with over the air updates and make the car better over time.
| Some of the Chinese EV manufacturers do the same. But more
| manufacturers should do that.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| This is a very biased reading of things.
|
| "Tesla recall: nothing actually broken"
|
| "Other manufacturer recalls: wheels falling off"
|
| If I look at the recalls for my cars, they're far more
| mundane. "A passenger detection module may not detect a
| passenger. The vehicle will automatically deploy air bags in
| that seat position". "The passenger side camera may get foggy
| in cold weather".
|
| And I don't think throwing shade at Toyota there helps a lot.
| Perhaps remember that Tesla has shipped vehicles with missing
| brake pads, unglued windshields, etc.
| sockaddr wrote:
| Yup
|
| A bad if/else is equivalent to a broken physical part if it
| controls a physical part.
|
| Also, these OTAs have a habit of breaking other things on
| my car along the way. It's just slop all the way through.
| ahahahahah wrote:
| You clearly don't know what recall means as your statement is
| completely wrong. The recall is not equivalent to how it's
| resolved. You could turn that into an arrow instead. I.e. due
| to the recall, Tesla is pushing an ota that will address the
| safety concerns.
|
| To help you better understand in the future:
|
| > A recall is issued when a manufacturer or NHTSA determines
| that a vehicle, equipment, car seat, or tire creates an
| unreasonable safety risk or fails to meet minimum safety
| standards.
| dharmab wrote:
| The recall report:
| https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/RCLRPT-23V838-8276.PDF
|
| This recall is specifically targeted at the system that monitors
| if the driver is paying attention.
| jsight wrote:
| Thank you, the report itself is more useful than most of the
| news articles.
|
| TBH, this sounds like... not much. The alerts will be louder
| and more prominent, and maybe it can't be turned on close to
| stop signs or traffic lights now. Not that engaging it there
| was normal before. :shrug
|
| The so-called "FSD" feature seems to be unaffected, since its
| operational domain was already different.
| flutas wrote:
| So when is Toyota (the only other system I have experience
| with) going to be recalled? Their system is worse than Tesla's
| and will just randomly disable itself with zero alerts.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _will just randomly disable itself with zero alerts._
|
| That's how it encourages the driver to pay attention!
| Xenoamorphous wrote:
| Dupe? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38625652
| martini333 wrote:
| "Owner notification letters will be mailed in accordance with 49
| C.F.R. SS 577.7." That's a lot of mail...
| agloe_dreams wrote:
| What is that, a quarter million min in postage alone?
| itslennysfault wrote:
| That is what a company like this calls "budget dust"
| electrondood wrote:
| It's so stupid. Or... they could just display the change notes
| on the dash when they push a software update.
| acdha wrote:
| Here's the actual legal requirement:
|
| > In the case of a notification required to be sent by a
| motor vehicle manufacturer, by certified mail, verifiable
| electronic means such as receipts or logs from electronic
| mail or satellite distribution system, or other more
| expeditious and verifiable means to all dealers and
| distributors of the vehicles that contain the defect or
| noncompliance.
|
| I think that would cover them having a pop up on the
| dashboard as long as they were confident that the driver
| couldn't miss it and they could log that it was seen.
| sschueller wrote:
| Such OTA's by auto makers should be required to be reviewed by a
| 3rd party. A bad update can kill people.
|
| I assume OTAs for planes have a strict process defined or
| approved by the FAA which needs to be followed. Does the NTSB
| have such a thing in place or is it just the wild west?
| syngrog66 wrote:
| in other news the world's 50 billion-ish Linux, Windows and Apple
| devices have also all been "recalled" hundreds of times in the
| last few years alone
| strofcon wrote:
| I too enjoy putting "quotes" around a word to make it seem like
| it means the thing I want to _pretend_ it means, instead of
| engaging honestly with the actual situation. :-)
| trust_bt_verify wrote:
| Regulators forced them to update their product to mitigate a
| safety issue that was found? Or maybe you are misunderstanding
| the correct usage of 'recall' in the article and are applying
| it incorrectly to other situations.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe]
|
| More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38625652
| jsight wrote:
| To be rolled out in "2023.44.30" -- soon as part of the annual
| holiday update, which will get hype as a holiday update instead
| of a recall.
|
| Nicely planned from a PR perspective. :)
| LoganDark wrote:
| Updates, not recalls. A software update shouldn't be called a
| recall.
| strofcon wrote:
| It should when it's required by the NHTSA and comes along with
| mandatory reporting, notification, and deadline obligations,
| along with optional _free_ on-site execution of the fix.
|
| That's what makes it a recall. A software update is the
| mechanism, the recall is the "Tesla did something wrong and is
| being held accountable" part.
| LoganDark wrote:
| I'm not saying it shouldn't _count_ as a recall, but for the
| consumer it 's just an update.
| sentientslug wrote:
| I'm not sure there is a need for a distinction here,
| legally it is considered a recall whether or not it can be
| resolved with an update.
| LoganDark wrote:
| I meant the title of the _article_ probably should have
| used the term "update". To someone like me who doesn't
| know anything about vehicles, I was totally confused to
| see Tesla "recalling" vehicles over _software_.
| Symmetry wrote:
| Level 2 and 3 automation are just not something you can
| reasonably expect humans to be able to participate in. If you're
| not providing input you're not going to be paying enough
| attention.
|
| https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-level...
| avgDev wrote:
| I'm surprised by the inability of many HN'ers to understand what
| a "recall" means. How you fix it doesn't matter. OTA or dealer
| visit recall is a recall.
| fleeno wrote:
| From my Model Y manual:
|
| "Autosteer is intended for use on controlled-access highways with
| a fully attentive driver. Do not use Autosteer in construction
| zones, or in areas where bicyclists or pedestrians may be
| present."
|
| GM and Ford both restrict their systems to controlled access
| highways, and are hands free when doing so. I wish Tesla would do
| something similar.
| leetgirl83 wrote:
| Seriously, why can't the headline just say "Tesla to issue
| Autopilot software update for 2M vehicles"?
|
| As if the purpose of the headline is just to make people think
| this is a massive product recall.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-13 23:02 UTC)