this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
508 points (92.6% liked)

Technology

71665 readers
3212 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] intothesky@lemmy.ml 85 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

They really should disaggregate recalls fixed with OTA updates from recalls that need a physical intervention. Obviously Teslas almost always need an OTA update

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

They shouldn't, because a LOT of those software updates were safety related.

[–] golli@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Agreed. Although we would still need a measure the severity of these issues. An OTA update is more convenient than a physical recall, but it doesn't change that the car drove with those issues until the problem was discovered and fixed.

So the more important question is whether the underlying problem was something trivial like a minor comfort feature not working as intended or something affecting the safety of the car.

[–] variaatio@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

No they shouldn't. since not every OTA update gets a recall. Only safety related issues cause recalls. What OTA recall means is software or algorhitm related to the drive train, driving or related systems had a safety related issue.

It is normal, that now that there is more software control, there is more software related recalls. The point isn't to track how many times the car went to shop to be worked on. The point is to track how many times and how severe safety related issues there is. Just because the solution was simple to end user OTA update doesn't mean the underlying safety issue wasn't severe.

Before you had to go to garage to fix sticking accelerator cable. Now you have to update the power delivery mapping algorhitm, since it had a bug qnd didn't properly cut the torque from the motor on accelerator lift. Both are uncommanded acceleration application issues. Equally severe and very serious safety issues. One just needs physical work, other software fixing.

That they have to update the software so often regarding safety says to me their safety verification procedure isn't robust.

Also not like Tesla is the only one. Others also have had to update their software for bugs or ill behavior. Just not as often. I would hazard due to more conservative software updating.

Bunch of the recalls for Tesla have been caused by them updating software, introducing a bug and then having to pretty soon after safety recall for the update fixing that bug. If they had scrutineered the software more closely, they would have avoided the safety recall. Since the deployed software would be bug free on the first deployment.

Remember on modern EV, single bug in control software can send front and rear tires spinning in opposite directions. On 4 motor torque vectoring the software can send the car into uncontrolled tank spin with one side pulling forward and other backward.

The simple truth is the driveline control software is safety critical component of modern car and thus should absolutely earn safety notices on having problems. Mind you recall is archaic name for safety notice, but that is the name in legislations and use. On many other fields also there is archaic legacy terms in use and people learn to deal with it.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Doesn't OTA fixes by definition mean no recall?

[–] variaatio@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Recall, an official recall, is a safety issue notice really. Its a legally defined thing in motor vehicle code. If manufacturer finds a defect, issue or feature affecting driving safety they have to notify safety authorities and get a recall issued. It doesn't have to have anything to do with, whether the product goes back to service garage or not.

Important point: Not every Tesla OTA update triggers a NHTSA (or other national road safety agency) official recall. Tesla has updated their cars plenty without recall notice. Only safety related issues get recall issued along with the OTA update.

Thus it is meaningfully, that they have so many software related (and thus OTA fixed) safety recalls. Each of those times is Hey, NHTSA, gonna have to admit, our software has a safety oopsie on it. Here is the paperwork, could you please issue us the official recall campaign number. Yeah software team already developed fix for it, it's all in the paperwork. We issue recall notice for drivers to check for the OTA to have gone through properly, that is all they need to do.

No maker wants to have safety recalls. It's bad PR. Makers have been fined plenty times for failing to properly inform agencies. One of the most famous is the Takata airbags. Where Takata got fined millions by first knowing and not telling their airbags had extra spicy unstable propellant exploding way too violently. Plus after firstly admitting to it lying to for example NHTSA about the vast extend of the problem.

So it matters, that even on "just a software issue" recalls are issued. The main point is public is properly informed. Lot of time it's resolved without great calamity. However this was exactly the lesson learned. Don't let makers hide issued, make them admit immediately so public knows and can take appropriate mitigation, before someone gets hurt. Also makes makers fix things quickly. Otherwise other priorities might override, since What they don't know can't hurt our reputation, like this is marginal issue. We can take little more time with this. Oh it takes 6 months to design fix with that small team. No worries. After all, no one knows. We have time. Except during that slow roll someone bumps into that "marginal issue" and gets hurt. Having to publicly admit immediately puts fire under their hind quarters. "Whole design department, stop what you are doing. We have safety recall issue. It went just public. Everyday company sits without being able to say No worries, we have solution we take flack. This is now priority number 1. This must be resolved yesterday, says the company board. Whatever parts or equipment you need, order it. Whomever you need to call, call them."

[–] Z4rK@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No, they are for some reasons called recalls. Didn’t Tesla recall their entire fleet this spring? It was solved by OTA updates.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why recall them if the issue can be taken care of over the air? That IS what OTA stands for, right?

[–] Z4rK@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don’t know if it’s maybe a judicial thing or something or if they are technically required to do an official recall registered in some system, even if they can actually solve it OTA.

I would suspect the rules around required recalls are not really updated to reflect the extended amount of issues that a vertical system integrator like Tesla can solve OTA.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ah, it's one of those cases where de jure isn't the same reality as de facto and the hack journalist pretends otherwise? Gotcha.

I'm officially joining team "fuck Musk and his shoddily built rolling ipads, but that's bullshit bordering on journalistic malpractice", I guess 🤷

[–] Z4rK@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I don’t have any agenda, I just tried answering your question.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I'm not complaining about you, I appreciate your answer and am sorry about the confusion lol

I was complaining about the law and whomever made the statistics and wrote the article pretending that completely different things are the same, didn't mean to shoot the messenger!