1. Once upon a time, cars had no software and no OTA updates. If there was a serious defect it had to be returned to a dealership for the defect to be rectified. This was a recall, i.e. an official order to return to a place. The NHTSA has the authority to require and coordinate recalls.
2. Then cars got software, but had no OTA updates. If there was a serious software defect, the car had to be returned to a dealership for them to install a software update. This was still called a recall - you still have to take the car back to the dealership, after all, and the NHTSA is still involved.
3. Then cars started receiving OTA software updates. As 2. established that a software update for a serious defect is called a 'recall', and the NHTSA is still involved through their recall-coordination authority, this is still called a recall even though the car doesn't have to be returned to a place.
The term recall has specific legal meaning that differentiates it from other notices like TSBs. A recall must be issued when an issue brings a vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS (the regulations determining what's road legal). Manufacturers and dealerships are not allowed to sell vehicles with outstanding recalls, and they're usually required to fix recalls regardless of warranty status for affected consumers. It doesn't say anything about the actual solution (which might be as trivial as a new manual), only the legal responsibilities that come with the notice.
4. Then cars started receiving OTA software updates, but a significant percentage of the cars already suffer irreparable damage to their computers before they installed the update, and therefore still have to be taken to the Tesla service center for repairs.
It's a "recall" because frankly there is still a good chance you are going to have to go into a service center, even if the OTA update works.
I don't have expertise in why the language is used, but I'd imagine:
* this is the language traditionally used in automobiles
* the term probably has a specific meaning with regulatory and culturally established implications throughout organizations that touch maintenance and safety
* it may get more meaningful for whatever subset of autos that didn't/can't receive the OTA update
> it may get more meaningful for whatever subset of autos that didn't/can't receive the OTA update
I know that for my old ICE car, they keep track of what recalls I apply. I'm usually notified multiple times, when there's recalls.
I suspect that lawyers are why they do it. If your brakes don't work, and you run over a kid, whether or not it was a known recall, and, whether or not you applied it, will likely have a lot to do with how the legal process works out.
- "Recall" statistics are a factor in new car purchases. I don't particularly care if the fix is OTA, but I do care about a brand's propensity for releasing safety-critical garbage. Skirting around those aggregations and consumer reports by skirting around the language is good for Tesla and not for purchasers.
- If it's not a "recall," there isn't much of a government paper trail for consumers when the OTA update goes awry. You don't even know if you should have such and such version of the software, and if the patches are non-linear then it's non-obvious even to experts examining your car's current status whether it's been applied or not.
- OTA updates for cars seem fraught with peril. Have you ever seen a bricked Tesla driving down the road? It's terrifying. Have you ever been the driver of such a Tesla while not in cell range? It's more terrifying because you don't know if the charge will last till you have cell service or what will happen if you're stuck in the middle of nowhere. Did they ensure the update would only apply after you've turned the car off and on again? Even if they did, if you drove your car and the steering/brakes/gas suddenly behaved differently, do you think you'd be more or less likely to crash? Whether they can technically solve the thing with an OTA update or not, it seems prudent (not that it's happening yet) to force people to make a proactive decision to opt in to the change.
"Have you ever seen a bricked Tesla driving down the road?..."
I'm having trouble making any sense whatsoever out of this paragraph. It does not appear to bear any relationship whatsoever to Tesla OTAs. They don't apply while you're driving. The vehicle must be in park and is inaccessible until the OTA has successfully completed. If for whatever reason the update can't complete successfully, the vehicle rolls back to its previous software version.
Driving a "bricked" Tesla isn't a thing. Worrying about not being in cell range isn't a thing. Installing an OTA does not involve any kind of act of "turning the car on and off again".
- they knew the assist was dangerously broken
- while people drove around with this dangerous code running they worked on improving the code so they could say it is now "fixed"
- released the update
I see how this is the most... efficient... way to handle the situation, from a monetary perspective. But this is not how I, or anyone I know, would handle life-critical code. Not to bring politics into yet another thread, but this is not a smart or human way to handle things.
First, you disable the damn road assist. It's an optional feature, FFS!
The way the fix is applied is irrelevant. The important thing is that their vehicles have a safety issue and it needs to be fixed and documented for each vehicle.
I can't speak for the auto industry but I used to work in durable medical equipment and anything that involved fixing devices that are already in the field is a recall for legal purposes. Adding new functionality wasn't a recall, but if we claimed a device did a thing and then realized that we have to change the hardware or software in order to actually make the device do the thing, then that was a recall (technically a CAPA, "corrective or preventive action").
A "recall" is a legal term of art referring to a (voluntary or government-mandated) fix for a safety-related issue affecting a motor vehicle.
Recall has multiple meanings; in this context the meaning intended was "to summon back" to a location specified by the manufacturer so that the fix could be implemented.
In modern times, "recall" for vehicles has been conflated with the term-of-art "recall" that is used with respect to consumer products, for which the intended meaning was "to return or revoke."
(For those who don't see the difference: the first meaning is temporary, the second is permanent.)
As a service to the many people who still think of recalls as being physical in nature, they could call it a soft recall (as opposed to a hard recall).
> Tesla on Friday said it was recalling 376,000 of its electric vehicles in the U.S., due to a failure of the power steering assist feature that could make the vehicles harder to steer, particularly at low speeds, raising the risk of a crash.
I'm curious what happens if this fails and you try to use FSD. Is it:
• Power steering assist only applies to manual steering so FSD notices nothing different,
• Power steering assist does assist FSD's steering, but FSD uses feedback from what the car actually does to decide how to steer and so it will compensate for the change in steering characteristics,
• It will notice something is off with the steering and tell the human to take over, or
Because Tesla falls in the "startup" category in most people's minds (whether it _should_ fall in that category is irrelevant). And this is a forum run by startup investors, and frequented by startup investors. QED.
A recall on a car means that the manufacturer has identified a safety-related defect in the vehicle and is taking some action to correct it. It doesn't matter if it's OTA or the customer has to bring it in. Can we please stop pissing about the language every single time?
Anytime they have a software update for a "recall", I imagine what the headlines would look like if Apple had to "recall 2 billions iPhones for a security fix"
Sure it can, if the overcharge protection built into the battery malfunctions for some reason. There is speculation that a battery overcharge bug was fixed in a recent update issued to old Pixels.
You'd be surprised how many phones are involved with car accidents though.
The issue here is with the word recall, which is slightly alarmist This is a bit of a non-event for owners and they'll get a completely routine over the air firmware upgrade soonish with some mandated changes. No dealers are involved. Just a simple update.
Somehow a lot of these recalls are limited to the US only. Which raises a few questions of course about the rest of the world and what Tesla is doing there. I think it's just the language and the processes of the NHTSA that result in this clickbaity reporting. Also a lot of cars ship without over the air update capabilities. What happens with recalls for those?
For example, when the wheels may come off in a Toyota (NHTSA 23V432000), it's somehow less news worthy than when it is about a Tesla. That one got a "do not drive" advice along with the recall BTW, as you'd hope. It only affected a few hundred cars fortunately. But I bet more care owners and mechanics did work to double check they weren't affected. That happened 2 years ago. Not all recalls are similarly scary, of course. Most are quite boring actually. Especially Tesla ones.
There's a helpful tool (https://datahub.transportation.gov/stories/s/NHTSA-Recalls-b...) that allows you to slice and dice recall data by manufacturer. There are a lot of recalls. The vast majority are real recalls involving component replacements from car manufacturers that are mostly not Tesla. Tesla seems to be able to address their issues via software mostly. By the numbers, maybe be careful with Ford, GM, or Toyota. Lots of recalls for those. Parts falling of causing crashes. Electrical failures resulting in drive train failure mid drive. You know, minor issues like that. Totally not worth reporting on hacker news because it doesn't involve Tesla or Elon Musk.
This also raises a few interesting questions about the software quality of other manufacturers. Apparently they ship bug free software (try explaining that to VW owners) or their software is just not getting a lot of scrutiny. Is Ford really that good at software or updating it? Or maybe the NHTSA is a bit selective with their scrutiny here? On a positive note, really nice of them to do free QA for Tesla.
As a Tesla owner who was the recipient of one of these famous "OTA" updates I can assure you that many of these recalls also involve needing to take your Tesla into the service center because the horrible software managed to actually damage the hardware.
For example as this article clearly says: "some 2023 Model 3 sedans and Model Y crossovers running older software could face an overvoltage breakdown, potentially overstressing motor drive components on the printed circuit board." If you look it up there are "many such cases" lol.
Personally I'm on the second computer for my Tesla, and I'm sure it won't be the last time some terrible software bug burns out the computer or circuit board.
While we're swapping anecdotes, I own several Teslas, starting over six years ago, and have never experienced this. I've also never met a person in my life who has experienced this.
In contrast, I've had recalls from other manufacturers take so long (several years), that my vehicle died before I was able to get them applied. I've had a recall where the OEM is refusing to make it available to me, because it only occurs in "cold" weather.
Tesla's recalls are better than the rest of the entire industry.
I often hear Tesla supporters say that Tesla builds a car around a computer while other manufacturers are just stuffing a computer in their car.
From experience, to me the problem with Tesla cars is that the computer isn't that great in the first place, and build quality and ergonomics of the actual car are clearly an afterthought.
I'd much rather have a mid-tier computer in a Toyota-level car than the most expensive Acer laptop in a Kia.
Yes, I find the language misleading. Recall to me is synonymous with call-back. Which means I have to bring back, return it. On your PC, when you do a software update, you are not returning your operating system, you are rebooting your PC. Return vs. reboot. Quite a difference.
“Recall” is and has always meant that a version of the product has a public critical safety defect, not the remedy.
“Initiated safety recalls require a manufacturer's action to announce and remedy the defects.
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. Most decisions to conduct a recall and remedy a safety defect are made voluntarily by manufacturers prior to any involvement by NHTSA.”[1]
Note how it only talks about the presence of a critical problem, not how it is solved. A “recall” is stating that the defective version of the product in the field must be “removed” and replaced/updated with a non-defective version at the manufacturer’s expense.
The only reason this is confusing is because Tesla has been actively and intentionally misusing the term and sowing confusion to downplay the number of critical safety defects in their cars.
But I agree, at this point Tesla has sufficiently poisoned the term that they and everybody else can convince customers that they do not have critical safety defects because they can fix them remotely.
As such, the term should be replaced with “public critical safety defect notice” which is clear, precise, accurate, and can not be misused.
With many (most?) car companies, a software update is a call-back.
My Ford, with a cell connection, receives OTA updates for stuff like the entertainment system, but I've had to bring it in a couple of times for updates to safety systems.
Note in particular there is no statue of limitations on some issues. All that protects Ford from having to recall (as in government forced recall) every model T to install seat belts, airbags, crumple zones, TPMS, backup cameras and the like is the courts generally will agree that those things were now known back then and so we shouldn't hold old systems to new standards.
Note that buffer overflow attacks have been known since the 1980s. If there is a problem with internet connected windows 3.1 courts should ignore it since microsoft didn't intend for that to be connected to the internet. But windows 95 was intended to connect to the internet and Microsoft probably should recall and patch all buffer overflow vulnerabilities in it. (but they can continue to not support modern AES encryption because that was not know in 1995)
In my experience, hardware defects are usually ignored. If you're lucky, an "errata" will be published somewhere and you won't get a fix unless you buy a new one.
As others pointed out, it is a legal requirement. I kind of think tech should be regulated the same way. At least if the product has >X amount of users.
I know the dangers are not as immediately obvious as the automobile industry, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
We live in a world where consumer technology interacts with medical equipment, heavy machinery, security systems, etc.
A part was failing due to overvoltage/overwork, leading to 3000 or so related warranty events being triggered in the field, so they have to do a fix to affected vehicles. Because it's a regulated field, though I'm sure soon enough they'll be able to just sweep it under the rug.
Every Tesla story on here sees the same "just a software update" thing, but this is a software update to fix a serious issue that hit thousands of vehicles.
The difference is in the first paragraph of the article:
"due to a failure of the power steering assist feature that could make the vehicles harder to steer, particularly at low speeds, raising the risk of a crash."
Point is that phones and computers are constantly getting software updates, in which many bugs are patched. We don't get headlines announcing that the phones are being recalled.
The use of regulatory jargon isn't that bad. I mean, the word "recall" has a specific meaning to the DOT and a specific set of requirements and this action is being taken under that regime. It's a "recall". That the etymology is confusing is unfortunate, but language just does that sometimes.
So it's nice that we have these people called "journalists" who help us navigate this kind of jargon maze by explaining for the lay reader what the actual meaning of the complicated regulatory communication is.
Except that this particular journalist decided to bury that fact ("The company has released an over-the-air software update to fix the issue, it said.") in the seventh paragraph, just a dozen words from the end of the article. That's just straight up malpractice. Reuters is actively trying to harm their readers understanding of the issue.
It's becoming increasingly important to abandon the idea that a journalist's job is to sell you an accurate picture of what's happening in the world. A journalist's job is to farm attention and customer data and then sell it to advertisers.
Readit News
"The company has released an over-the-air software update to fix the issue, it said."
2. Then cars got software, but had no OTA updates. If there was a serious software defect, the car had to be returned to a dealership for them to install a software update. This was still called a recall - you still have to take the car back to the dealership, after all, and the NHTSA is still involved.
3. Then cars started receiving OTA software updates. As 2. established that a software update for a serious defect is called a 'recall', and the NHTSA is still involved through their recall-coordination authority, this is still called a recall even though the car doesn't have to be returned to a place.
4. Then cars started receiving OTA software updates, but a significant percentage of the cars already suffer irreparable damage to their computers before they installed the update, and therefore still have to be taken to the Tesla service center for repairs.
It's a "recall" because frankly there is still a good chance you are going to have to go into a service center, even if the OTA update works.
* this is the language traditionally used in automobiles
* the term probably has a specific meaning with regulatory and culturally established implications throughout organizations that touch maintenance and safety
* it may get more meaningful for whatever subset of autos that didn't/can't receive the OTA update
I know that for my old ICE car, they keep track of what recalls I apply. I'm usually notified multiple times, when there's recalls.
I suspect that lawyers are why they do it. If your brakes don't work, and you run over a kid, whether or not it was a known recall, and, whether or not you applied it, will likely have a lot to do with how the legal process works out.
- If it's not a "recall," there isn't much of a government paper trail for consumers when the OTA update goes awry. You don't even know if you should have such and such version of the software, and if the patches are non-linear then it's non-obvious even to experts examining your car's current status whether it's been applied or not.
- OTA updates for cars seem fraught with peril. Have you ever seen a bricked Tesla driving down the road? It's terrifying. Have you ever been the driver of such a Tesla while not in cell range? It's more terrifying because you don't know if the charge will last till you have cell service or what will happen if you're stuck in the middle of nowhere. Did they ensure the update would only apply after you've turned the car off and on again? Even if they did, if you drove your car and the steering/brakes/gas suddenly behaved differently, do you think you'd be more or less likely to crash? Whether they can technically solve the thing with an OTA update or not, it seems prudent (not that it's happening yet) to force people to make a proactive decision to opt in to the change.
I'm having trouble making any sense whatsoever out of this paragraph. It does not appear to bear any relationship whatsoever to Tesla OTAs. They don't apply while you're driving. The vehicle must be in park and is inaccessible until the OTA has successfully completed. If for whatever reason the update can't complete successfully, the vehicle rolls back to its previous software version.
Driving a "bricked" Tesla isn't a thing. Worrying about not being in cell range isn't a thing. Installing an OTA does not involve any kind of act of "turning the car on and off again".
(Owner of multiple Teslas for 6+ years).
How often has this happened?
- they knew the assist was dangerously broken - while people drove around with this dangerous code running they worked on improving the code so they could say it is now "fixed" - released the update
I see how this is the most... efficient... way to handle the situation, from a monetary perspective. But this is not how I, or anyone I know, would handle life-critical code. Not to bring politics into yet another thread, but this is not a smart or human way to handle things.
First, you disable the damn road assist. It's an optional feature, FFS!
The way the fix is applied is irrelevant. The important thing is that their vehicles have a safety issue and it needs to be fixed and documented for each vehicle.
The term shouldn't be overloaded.
When you see a recall you shouldn't have to wonder if it's a download or if you need to take the car in.
They could have clarified that it was a software update in the title. But they never do.
It's not going to be an OTA software update for everyone.
Recall has multiple meanings; in this context the meaning intended was "to summon back" to a location specified by the manufacturer so that the fix could be implemented.
In modern times, "recall" for vehicles has been conflated with the term-of-art "recall" that is used with respect to consumer products, for which the intended meaning was "to return or revoke."
(For those who don't see the difference: the first meaning is temporary, the second is permanent.)
Recall has a specific legal meaning for calls. That’s why it’s used. The law authorizes the government to demand “recalls”.
It does not specify how that’s done. Software update, dealership visit, roaming packs of mechanics.
This isn’t a conspiracy to make Tesla look bad, it’s the correct term.
https://www.tesla.com/support/software-updates
Dead Comment
https://news.dealershipguy.com/p/software-related-vehicle-re...
Dead Comment
It is about so much more than how the fix gets delivered.
I'm curious what happens if this fails and you try to use FSD. Is it:
• Power steering assist only applies to manual steering so FSD notices nothing different,
• Power steering assist does assist FSD's steering, but FSD uses feedback from what the car actually does to decide how to steer and so it will compensate for the change in steering characteristics,
• It will notice something is off with the steering and tell the human to take over, or
• Something else.
Dead Comment
There is no such thing as zero bugs. You will have to rollback sometimes.
But I'm sure you're perfect.
How do you know if you haven't tried?
The issue here is with the word recall, which is slightly alarmist This is a bit of a non-event for owners and they'll get a completely routine over the air firmware upgrade soonish with some mandated changes. No dealers are involved. Just a simple update.
Somehow a lot of these recalls are limited to the US only. Which raises a few questions of course about the rest of the world and what Tesla is doing there. I think it's just the language and the processes of the NHTSA that result in this clickbaity reporting. Also a lot of cars ship without over the air update capabilities. What happens with recalls for those?
For example, when the wheels may come off in a Toyota (NHTSA 23V432000), it's somehow less news worthy than when it is about a Tesla. That one got a "do not drive" advice along with the recall BTW, as you'd hope. It only affected a few hundred cars fortunately. But I bet more care owners and mechanics did work to double check they weren't affected. That happened 2 years ago. Not all recalls are similarly scary, of course. Most are quite boring actually. Especially Tesla ones.
There's a helpful tool (https://datahub.transportation.gov/stories/s/NHTSA-Recalls-b...) that allows you to slice and dice recall data by manufacturer. There are a lot of recalls. The vast majority are real recalls involving component replacements from car manufacturers that are mostly not Tesla. Tesla seems to be able to address their issues via software mostly. By the numbers, maybe be careful with Ford, GM, or Toyota. Lots of recalls for those. Parts falling of causing crashes. Electrical failures resulting in drive train failure mid drive. You know, minor issues like that. Totally not worth reporting on hacker news because it doesn't involve Tesla or Elon Musk.
This also raises a few interesting questions about the software quality of other manufacturers. Apparently they ship bug free software (try explaining that to VW owners) or their software is just not getting a lot of scrutiny. Is Ford really that good at software or updating it? Or maybe the NHTSA is a bit selective with their scrutiny here? On a positive note, really nice of them to do free QA for Tesla.
For example as this article clearly says: "some 2023 Model 3 sedans and Model Y crossovers running older software could face an overvoltage breakdown, potentially overstressing motor drive components on the printed circuit board." If you look it up there are "many such cases" lol.
Personally I'm on the second computer for my Tesla, and I'm sure it won't be the last time some terrible software bug burns out the computer or circuit board.
In contrast, I've had recalls from other manufacturers take so long (several years), that my vehicle died before I was able to get them applied. I've had a recall where the OEM is refusing to make it available to me, because it only occurs in "cold" weather.
Tesla's recalls are better than the rest of the entire industry.
From experience, to me the problem with Tesla cars is that the computer isn't that great in the first place, and build quality and ergonomics of the actual car are clearly an afterthought.
I'd much rather have a mid-tier computer in a Toyota-level car than the most expensive Acer laptop in a Kia.
“Initiated safety recalls require a manufacturer's action to announce and remedy the defects.
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. Most decisions to conduct a recall and remedy a safety defect are made voluntarily by manufacturers prior to any involvement by NHTSA.”[1]
Note how it only talks about the presence of a critical problem, not how it is solved. A “recall” is stating that the defective version of the product in the field must be “removed” and replaced/updated with a non-defective version at the manufacturer’s expense.
The only reason this is confusing is because Tesla has been actively and intentionally misusing the term and sowing confusion to downplay the number of critical safety defects in their cars.
But I agree, at this point Tesla has sufficiently poisoned the term that they and everybody else can convince customers that they do not have critical safety defects because they can fix them remotely.
As such, the term should be replaced with “public critical safety defect notice” which is clear, precise, accurate, and can not be misused.
[1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls
My Ford, with a cell connection, receives OTA updates for stuff like the entertainment system, but I've had to bring it in a couple of times for updates to safety systems.
Dead Comment
https://www.tesla.com/support/software-updates
Note that buffer overflow attacks have been known since the 1980s. If there is a problem with internet connected windows 3.1 courts should ignore it since microsoft didn't intend for that to be connected to the internet. But windows 95 was intended to connect to the internet and Microsoft probably should recall and patch all buffer overflow vulnerabilities in it. (but they can continue to not support modern AES encryption because that was not know in 1995)
I know the dangers are not as immediately obvious as the automobile industry, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
We live in a world where consumer technology interacts with medical equipment, heavy machinery, security systems, etc.
Still a recall.
Wouldn't be one of these threads without people complaining Tesla should be treated differently.
Every Tesla story on here sees the same "just a software update" thing, but this is a software update to fix a serious issue that hit thousands of vehicles.
"due to a failure of the power steering assist feature that could make the vehicles harder to steer, particularly at low speeds, raising the risk of a crash."
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
“Apple recalls 2 billion iPhones for security fix!”
So it's nice that we have these people called "journalists" who help us navigate this kind of jargon maze by explaining for the lay reader what the actual meaning of the complicated regulatory communication is.
Except that this particular journalist decided to bury that fact ("The company has released an over-the-air software update to fix the issue, it said.") in the seventh paragraph, just a dozen words from the end of the article. That's just straight up malpractice. Reuters is actively trying to harm their readers understanding of the issue.