If it's become as formal as a recall, it's worth at least noting. Sure, the fix is simple (and most folks won't even notice), but Tesla was still forced into making the fix.
It seems to be a mandated requirement, as opposed to some subjective UI decision. The bigger deal is that it may indicate they don't have a good enough process to check/track these federal requirements.
Omg, they forced Tesla. Presumably they also forced all other manufacturers to make the text the right size, whether they shipped that incorrectly or not. I don't think anyone had a choice.
The difference is that if the standards were in place before the manufacturing process, they shouldn't need to be recalled in the first place. "Forcing" means something different when standards aren't met vs. recalls related to fixes due to some non-standardized issue.
By the way, Tesla wasn't actually being forced. In the past, other automakers like Ford, GM, Porsche and Kia/Hyundai ran into the exact same problem. They just filed an inconsequential non-compliance petition to NHTSA because this issue is so minor and it would have been too expensive to fix --- for them.
Can you explain? So by not "actually being forced" do you mean they found the issue themselves and brought it to Nitsa, or that they aren't making the change even though it would be easily done by an OTA update?
In terms of inconsequential non-compliance, that's a risk-based approach. And that's the correct approach IMO. The difference is that risk-based decisions should ideally be made before manufacturing because it shows you understood the requirement and risk before making the design decision. An "easy fix" after the fact isn't a good explanation for not understanding the requirements in the first place. I agree this should also apply to other manufacturers, but the video is 1) looking at other cars nearly a decade old and 2) using a digital cluster and not a touchscreen. From that standpoint, it muddles the comparison just to pat Tesla on the back. It's like comparing a 1980s carburetor non-compliance to a modern EFI that can be fixed with reprogrammed fuel mapping; the principle is there, but it just makes for a bad analogy.
Also: don't spam the thread with the same comment. You left this same copy/paste at least 7x. At best, it waters down the conversation and at worst, it comes across as shilling for Tesla and sets your otherwise decent point as fodder for shallow dismissal
Which one managed to fix the icon problem? The Model S.
What did Porsche do about this "safety problem"? Nothing.
What did the media suggest? That Teslas are unsafe.
Why did I spam the comment section? Because I want more people to see an objective comparison instead of just the sensationalism of these articles.
Why am I shilling for Tesla? Because I think it is a good company.
Explain not being forced -- I think you understand. They could have filed that petition like all the others. Conclude that it doesn't pose risk and just not fix it. (Btw I think the old icons were better.)
Regarding the old vs. new tech analogy -- exactly! Tesla can (and does) remotely make their cars safer. And not just icons but crash safety as well (see the linked video). This is a huge safety benefit.
I think only Tesla and BYD have the level of vertical integration that makes it possible to improve the drive/crash characteristics over the air. Others rely too much on suppliers. Car manufacturers usually don't have access to the proprietary firmware running on parts that they get from suppliers.
Regarding the media: this update is not newsworthy. Just like how you didn't know about Porsche's petition, you shouldn't know about this software update either.
If they wanted to write an article about it anyway, it should be about how Tesla managed to fix an issue no other automaker could fix.
That's a different argument. I agree the news is sensationalist. The point is about process control, not "TSLA vs. Whomever" or sensationalist media. You're hijacking the discussion to shoehorn in your pet peeve rants. Please don't.
1. You said this icon problem suggests bad process control. Turns out Tesla's process control isn't worse than Porsche's process control, and Porsche produces the highest quality cars. In fact, it is better because Tesla fixed the problem and Porsche couldn't.
2. You said Tesla was forced. Turns out no manufacturer was forced to fix this.
This isn’t Reddit and this isn’t the way to have a HN conversation.
Your first point is only valid if you frame it as “Tesla vs Everybody”. I’ve explained multiple times why that’s not the point I’m making. Other manufacturers can be wrong too, and that doesn’t mean Tesla has good process control. They can be the skinniest kid at fat camp, but that doesn’t mean they’re fit.
Tesla was forced. You constrained this to mean “forced to fix it.” I did not. “Forced to address it” can take many forms, including redesign, waiver etc. People who know quality control understand this.
It’s pretty obvious you aren’t being intellectually curious but trying to “win” a debate. This probably isn’t the best forum for you. Please stop making the discussion worse by refusing to have good-faith arguments.
Here's what I replied to: 'Tesla was still forced into making the fix.'
Tesla is clearly better here than the others, but the media portrays it as if it was worse.
The media is so biased against Tesla it is not even funny. This is a problem. This is why the "Tesla vs. others" frame is worth discussing. The fact that others had the same problem but couldn't fix it is indeed a very important detail.
Also, instead of discussing the processes at Tesla, don't you think we should be discussing the processes in the media? Because this article is so misleading, it makes people believe the opposite of the truth. What about the quality of the other articles about other things? Are they any better?
>Here's what I replied to: 'Tesla was still forced into making the fix.'
And waaay back to the top comment in this discussion, I explained that "forced" is a nuanced term. And yet you plowed ahead with your preformed narrative, ignoring that original point. If that's the phrase you're hung up on, you've been debating the wrong person.
The media is fickle. 5ish years ago, they couldn't write enough about how great Tesla was, even though a lot of it was hype. Just like now they like to deride them, even though it's probably unfair. It's a NY Post article and not exactly considered the pinnacle of objective journalism. A savvy reader will take the narrative with a grain of salt.
>the media portrays it as if it was worse.
The only comparison I saw in the article was to BYD, which isn't even a competitor in the US. It seems like you're reading into your own pre-conceived narrative here. You aren't wrong for wailing about how sensationalist the media is, but I'm left wondering if you were doing the same when Tesla was portrayed as darling a few years back? Regardless, you are proving that this type of reporting gets attention just as it's intended, and you play into it by getting outraged, so that makes you part of the problem. It's better to focus on the actual issues, like process control, than sensationalism.
Honestly, I can't remember that darling phase because I have only been following Tesla since 2019. When was it? I remember reading about Tesla fires (which are in fact rarer than ICE fires), I remember my coworkers telling me Tesla's going bankrupt because Elon Musk smoked weed, etc.
By the way, by portraying Tesla as worse than the others, I didn't mean it explicitly in the article. More like the fact that Porsche, Hyundai, etc. didn't get the same treatment from the media for facing the exact same problem which then they couldn't even fix. (And also not mentioning this tiny detail that the icon-problem is not unique to Tesla.)
I know this is only one piece of news. However, I see this as an overarching pattern. I saw so many low-quality articles about Tesla that I even stopped reading the news completely for a while! I can show you many. If you are interested, here's a recent one: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-07/tesla-sol.... This, again, while technically true, is awfully misleading. Tesla had one car sale in South Korea in January 2022, 2023 and now 2024. This is because there are no incentives for EVs in January, which is why people wait until February to buy in the country. It is paywalled, but I am sure the truth, which invalidates the article's very reason for existence, is buried deep somewhere at the end. Or is it?
Why does this so often get highlighted so strongly as a "tesla vs. everybody" frame? It makes it look like you're tilting at windmills and missing the point.
I'm sorry, the first car brought up was the 2016 CTS-V. I didn't sit through the entire 20 min video. I don't think the Cadillac is a good comparison; I don't know enough about the others to comment.
Just because they decided to change the design rather than submit an non-compliance does not mean they weren't "forced." It means they were caught by a regulator, and did not fix the issue of their own accord. By your logic, I'm not "forced" to pay a speeding ticket because I pay the fine rather than fight it out in court. It could easily be that the fix is just easier than the process of risk-based compliance.
Again, please stop spanning comments. It makes the discussion worse and your point easier to dismiss as being the rantings of someone with an axe to grind instead of a rational argument.
Because people’s psychological gets hijacked by sensationalist media while simultaneously lamenting about sensationalist media. Ironic that your railing against it proves that it works. It’s a distraction from more important issues.
Tesla wasn't actually being forced. In the past, other automakers like Ford, GM, Porsche and Kia/Hyundai ran into the exact same problem. They just filed an inconsequential non-compliance petition to NHTSA because this issue is so minor and it would have been too expensive for them to fix. They also concluded in their petition that this issue doesn't pose any risk on the driver.
I don't know what requirements they are referencing, but the SAE standards are defined after well after touchscreens. (I believe touchscreens date back to the 1980s).
But I think that is a somewhat unimportant point because the requirement intent is to make sure the warning is conspicuous. I'm not sure that touchscreens would be inherently different in that regard. Or are you thinking there's something unique to the touchscreens that makes them meet that intent in some other way?
It only matters to shareholders in how much it costs. Considering it's going to be an incredibly minor software update, I'm guessing the cost is negligible.
>Do these articles by journalists actually educate the public on the facts or are they profit driven clickbait to push a preconceived narrative?
Both can be true. I, for one, don't often peruse online sources to look for recalls, but am more likely alerted to them by news articles or mail. If a discerning public can parse the usefulness from the narrative, then it can still be a net positive.
They replaced a brake icon with a "P" inside it with the word "PARK". To me those indicate two different things. The first is obviously the parking brake. Most would think that "PARK" refers to an automatic transmission, which a Tesla doesn't have...
To me this is an example of red tape making things worse.
Tesla wasn't actually being forced. In the past, other automakers like Ford, GM, Porsche and Kia/Hyundai ran into the exact same problem. They just filed an inconsequential non-compliance petition to NHTSA because this issue is so minor and it would have been too expensive to fix --- for them.
Source: https://youtu.be/480yxR_kmIg?si=dThdJD2_QceCyF_E&t=161
Ahhh, so the company is required to put all the juice in the headline, to save you a click, so they don't get your view. The current headline provides factual information and is in no way clickbait. As far as NYT Post headlines go... this has got the be the least egregious. If you want to be informed, RTFA. Why should we reorganize society for the laziest individual? That is the path to Idiocracy.
I'm glad our regulators have teeth. I'm just annoyed with these headlines "Largest auto recall of 2.2 million cars" which gives images of piles of teslas being sent to service centers to be retrofitted when you can pay a single software engineer a few weeks of salary to solve the problem.
Tesla wasn't actually being forced. In the past, other automakers like Ford, GM, Porsche and Kia/Hyundai ran into the exact same problem. They just filed an inconsequential non-compliance petition to NHTSA because this issue is so minor and it would have been too expensive to fix --- for them.
Source: https://youtu.be/480yxR_kmIg?si=dThdJD2_QceCyF_E&t=161
People assume the absolute worst when they see the word "recall".
There's a huge gulf between people that keep up with tech news and people that don't. Millions of people are likely unaware that Tesla cars get software updates at all, let alone over the air.
So when they see an article with a headline of "Latest recall at Elon Musk’s Tesla affecting 2.2M vehicles", they assume Tesla owners all over the country are having to take their cars to a service center to get fixed. Many will probably assume the cars are fundamentally broken or unsafe until the car gets taken in.
The cars are fundamentally unsafe until fixed. That is what a recall means: there is a safety defect requiring prompt removal of unfixed cars.
The manufacturer can avoid refunds by fixing their defective product by creating a new, safe, fixed version and upgrading all owners for free. Whether that can be done remotely is independent of the presence of a safety defect demanding removal of all cars still containing that defect.
So some icons on the display are a little too small. I would not label that "fundamentally unsafe".
I think of "fundamentally unsafe" and I think of something that has a high likelihood of causing a crash. Icons being just a smaller than they should be do not fit that description.
> At this point I swear publishing stories on Tesla "recalls" are hit pieces
Normally I would agree, but this is the NYPost which is pretty friendly to conservatives(1). Maybe they attack Tesla because it's "green" tech but defend Elon in the context of Tesla/SpaceX? Just a guess as I'm not a regular reader.
We need a term other than "recall" for minor software changes. The headline makes it sound like 2.2mm vehicles are going to be scheduling service appointments to fix this.
Good thing we are capable of reading beyond the headline. Recall once again is the correct word here. Every single time Tesla gets a recall (kinda often aint it?) there are people in HN comments who just want to fight over a word. There are federal safety standards and Tesla is not implementing them correctly, NHTSA issues a recall, full stop.
Regardless of what recall means today, in the past it meant a physical visit to the dealership. I believe there are many people (for example my mother) who would see the headline, not actually read the article, arrive at a mistaken conclusion that Tesla's must spend most of their time in the shop, and then spread that misinformation. So I agree, there should be a distinction between "Tesla owners required to visit a dealership" and "Tesla owners' cars receive updates while parked in their garage".
Tesla owners will receive information (as required by law) about the issue and resolution. I am sorry that your mom decides to spread misinformation about articles that she did not read. That doesn't sound like an issue that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should take into account.
Perhaps it's time to fight over words. The definition of recall no longer works, and I believe it is constantly used specifically negatively against Tesla. It has an effect on most people, who aren't savvy, who don't read beyond the headline. (i've not participated in these alleged battles before)
>The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) states that a safety recall is issued if either the manufacturer or the NHTSA determines that a vehicle or its equipment pose a safety risk or do not meet motor vehicle safety standards
The NHTSA issues a recall. It is up to the car manufactures to implement a fix in whichever ways they want.
Tesla even has their own page where they list these Recalls. Tesla has no problem with the word. Elon Musk, a noted individual that likes to say it like is, has not come out against the word either.
https://www.tesla.com/support/annual-and-recall-service
How about instead of fighting the words, you fight the car companies that refuse to use their profits to correctly follow the established safety protocols.
You are right. People seem to think a recall means “taking it in to get fixed”.
But, a recall actually means the product has a dangerous defect that requires the manufacturer to promptly fix it for free otherwise the vehicle must be removed from the road.
To better explain this we should use the term “dangerous defect” instead of “recall”.
“Teslas contain another dangerous defect - affecting 2.2 million vehicles” does sound more accurate.
Many Ford, GM, Kia/Hyundai and Porsche cars on the road today have this exact same "dangerous" issue. Instead of recalling the cars, they filed an inconsequential non-compliance petition so that they don't have to fix it.
Only Tesla could fix it. GM, Porsche, Kia/Hyundai and Ford couldn't. Their cars remain "dAngErOUs".
As to the definition they are agreeing on, from the NHTSA website [1]:
“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.”
Creating a unreasonable safety risk or failing to meet minimum safety standards is kind of the definition of dangerous. And there is a defect causing it. So, yes, Tesla claims it is a “dangerous defect” and I think Tesla knows more about their products being dangerous than you do.
> Good thing we are capable of reading beyond the headline
People don't read articles on tech forums like this so frequently that RTFA is a common meme.
> Every single time Tesla gets a recall (kinda often aint it?) there are people in HN comments who just want to fight over a word
You only think it's often because the other ones don't get reported on HN, creating the false impression.
> According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Ford issued 55 safety recalls in 2023, down from 67 last year. The repair campaigns affected 5.9 million vehicles, down from 8.6 million in 2022, which put the automaker in second place for the total number of vehicles recalled. Honda’s 19 recalls affected 6.3 million cars.
> Chrysler issued the second-highest number of recalls, at 45. Kia came in third for the total number of recalled cars, with more than 3 million affected by its 20 repair campaigns.
> You only think it's often because the other ones don't get reported on HN, creating the false impression.
Tesla & Other car companies have way too many recalls. Someone else also failing does not negate the amount of recalls Tesla is doing or change the frequency at which they occur. I do agree that Tesla recalls gain wider internet spotlight. I believe that is largely due to Musk himself is attracted to the spotlight. I couldn’t name you the name of ceo of another car company, and tbh I think that is a good thing. It is widely known that scrutiny increases the more you of a public figure you are. Especially so if you are a divisive one.
Perhaps, but it's still important to draw attention to mistakes, for transparency and accountability.
Additionally, other "recalls" for other car companies may similarly be minor software changes. The only distinguishing factor with Tesla is OTA deployment.
When was the last time that a software mistake for Windows or Mac OSX or their Phone made people think they had to take their computer to the computer shop for a session with a technician?
I don't think this is the right way to think about the problem. Recalls could probably be improved by classification based on risk, but not on "inconvenience to the consumer."
Strangely the number of Tesla recalls is lower than a dozen other famous brands and reported all the time. So it seems like the number of defects has little influence on the reporting.
They aren’t allowed to change the font size without issuing a formal recall. Even if they initiate the change on their own, if it’s safety related, they have to file for a recall.
Tesla wasn't actually being forced. In the past, other automakers like Ford, GM, Porsche and Kia/Hyundai ran into the exact same problem. They just filed an inconsequential non-compliance petition to NHTSA because this issue is so minor and it would have been too expensive to fix --- for them.
Source: https://youtu.be/480yxR_kmIg?si=dThdJD2_QceCyF_E&t=161
Yeah the word "recall" means "a public call by a manufacturer for the return of a product that may be defective or contaminated" or more plainly "a call to return". If you don't have to return the item somewhere then it isn't a "recall" by definition. An over-the-air software update is not a "recall".
The terminology has to change. A "recall" is a typically an inconvenient event for the owners of a product -- this ain't that.
That is not what the word recall means. That is what you want it to mean. The governing body here is the NHTSA, here is their recall page where the term is defined. https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls
>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.
>Manufacturers are required to fix the problem by repairing it, replacing it, offering a refund, or in rare cases repurchasing the vehicle.
Right because historically all of those things required you returning the vehicle somewhere to have that work done. That's why the NHTSA called it a "recall" in the first place.
The idea that the manufacturer can fix a minor safety issue without the owner of the vehicle having to do anything is relatively new.
The terminology is too broad now. It wasn't before, but it is now, because technology has changed.
Then put your head in the sand. It’s not changing. The is and will continue to be called a Recall. No amount of chest beating or saber rattling is going to change that. Of all the inane concerns that I see appear on HN, this is the most ricidulous.
Where did you find that definition? The NHTSA definition doesn't have any mention of "returning" a product.
They define it as "when a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a vehicle, piece of equipment, car seat, or tire poses an unreasonable safety risk."
It's entirely based on risk and a duty to the consumer. It's possible that you're leaning too heavily on the etymology of the word rather than the industry definition.
It's the remedy: "Manufacturers are required to fix the problem by repairing it, replacing it, offering a refund, or in rare cases repurchasing the vehicle."
This required the manufacturer to "recall" the vehicle physically to be repaired, replaced, or returned. That's why they used that word. But clearly that isn't needed for all "recalls" anymore. For an over-the-air software update, the NHTSA should find a better word that doesn't imply the need to recall the vehicle somewhere.
I definitely get it, but I just think it's being overly pedantic to try and make the point. The meanings of words change with the culture and I don't think this is an exception. English if rife with examples of colloquial uses that depart from their original meanings.
The word "awful" derives from "inspiring awe."
"Fathom" used to mean "to encircle with one's arms."
"Myriad" used to mean, very specifically, 10,000 instances of an item.
"Hussy" used to mean housewife.
Etc. etc.
In this era, I think most people assume "recall" to mean "a required fix" not necessarily "a trip to the car dealership."
I think this entire topic proves your point wrong. The very top comment is exclaiming how insignificant this is compared to the headline.
All the conversation here is a debate of this very issue in one way or another. We wouldn't even be talking about this at all if the word "recall" wasn't used. If it was just a called "a required over-the-air fix" it wouldn't have made it on to HN.
How do you know that interpretation isn't biased by the HN audience? I would be careful overgeneralizing from the opinions on this forum.
I read that initial comment as "Meh, the fix isn't a big deal," which is different than "the recall is a non-issue." Just because it's an easy fix doesn't negate the need for the fix.
It a half-a-point font-size difference is a big issue to you then we have very different ideas of what a big issue is. I'm not arguing that it isn't incorrect or that it doesn't require a fix but I would argue that the moment either one of us decided to comment it already has taken far more of our consideration and attention than it should. And it's all because of the word "Recall".
> How do you know that interpretation isn't biased by the HN audience?
It is objectively a small issue and the fact that the HN audience is likely better able to sniff that out due to their technical background only strengthens my argument.
If you’ve ever worked in human factors engineering, seemingly small things can make a big difference. But your comment is missing the forest for the trees IMO. The “big issue” is that Tesla missed well-established and regulated standards. It brings into question what other standardized issues fall through process gaps.
Major car manufacturers have dozens to hundreds of recalls a year. Some serious and some as minor is a missing some pages in the manual. Tesla is by-far not the highest on the list of recalls.
Sometimes minor mistakes happen because they're minor. The assumption that this minor issue points to major issues is just not supported by the evidence.
Now that I've looked into the hundreds of recalls other manufacturers have ever yeary it makes me wonder even more why this particularly minor one is such a big issue that we are discussing it here.
Again, this misses the point. A better statement would speak to how many of those recalls pertain to well-established regulations that were not implemented by the manufacturer. I drew that distinction earlier when I wrote of recalls that relate to non-standardized issues. This was a recall about a highly standardized requirement that was not implemented. So the question is why wasn’t it implemented? Lack of competence/ignorance of the requirements? Lack of quality control? A designer unilaterally deciding the requirements didn’t matter?
The vast majority of safety-related recalls across all automobiles involve seat belts, brakes, electrical components or wiring, tires, door latches, fuel pumps, and ignition switches.
The fact that you think the font-size of an indicator somehow is indicative of a larger problem makes no sense to me. We can look at actual data -- this minor thing being a "test" that they failed is just something you want be significant but isn't supported by anything.
I honestly don't know how many automobiles recalls are related to non-standardized issues in other car manufactures so what are you comparing this to? How do you know that Tesla is better or worse than other manufacturers in this way?
I’ve made no claim that Tesla is any better or worse than other manufacturers. Rather, I’ve simply used this data point as a potential red flag. I have worked in auto manufacturing so I at least have some experience here. I’ve been equally critical of other manufacturers when there is evidence of process gaps that miss requirements. But Tesla has a not-so-great record when it comes to quality, so there’s more than this single data point. I haven’t t framed this as “Tesla vs. E’rybody” but it’s telling that how you think of it.
I haven't framed it that way either but if you're going to be biased based on this single data point, it would make sense to compare it other similar data points across all auto manufacturers. My personal feeling is that the existence of this article itself is bias as there are literally hundreds of auto recalls every year and we are spending on awful lot of time on this particularly minor one.
What makes you think I'm biased? In case you missed it, I said I'm also critical of other manufacturers. Pointing out a potential problem does not make someone biased. It seems like you interpret any criticism of Tesla as inherently biased which, ironically, is it's own biased worldview.
I think where we differ is that I don't think everything hinges on the word "recall." The article could be titled "2MM Teslas to be fixed OTA to correct non-conformance to legal design standards" It's still true, carries the same connotations, and is completely void of the loaded term you're hung up on.
I'm pointing out that this particular article's existence and discussion is biased. The headline is obvious click bait. The issue is so minor as to not require our interest at all.
"All Teslas everywhere to get marginally larger indicator icons to match standards" is not an interesting article. And this article isn't interesting. It's only interesting in contrast to it's headline and that's why we are discussing it.
We can agree that the article is sensationalist and not particularly interesting. I personally don't get hung up on that because it's what I expect. Just like I'm not shocked when a used car dealer describes a vehicle in unscrupulous terms. It's what I expect because it aligns with their incentive structure.
But note that you did your own editorializing by using the word "marginally." You've staked a claim that the recall is insignificant. But that view is in direct conflict with the regulators, and it's their opinion that matters.
It is marginally; they indicators are very tiny bit too small. Regulators operate in a binary -- either something is compliant or not. Those ideas are not in conflict.
The size can be marginally different, while the impact may not be. Just like when material specs are only “marginally” lower and cause a part failure. While measurements are always continuous, failures often are not.
Right, which is why there has to be a definite threshold in the standard. Otherwise, you can just keep making it "marginally" smaller, on down until it's a single pixel, and still claim it's okay. That would mean there's no standard, and every/any UI design is equally valid. Standards exist, in part, to avoid such rules-lawyering by having a consensus on what determines a valid design.
Of course no one is talking about making it continuously smaller. It was just one-time marginally smaller. Literally a tiny mistake. If it had been mistakenly rendered as a single pixel, someone probably would have noticed the issue internally.
That misses the point (again). The point is you need some threshold if you’re going to have a standard, or else it’s all subjective and there is no standard. So the standard is 1/8”, and you claim 15/128” is only “marginally” different so it should be allowed. There’s nothing to stop someone from claiming 7/64”, or 15/128” are also only “marginally” non-compliant. You either is or you ain’t compliant, there’s no “kinda pregnant”.
So if you think they should be safety standards, there has to be hard thresholds for compliance. And (again) the bigger issue isn’t this particular incident, it’s that it brings into question how they are managing all hard safety requirements if some apparently slip through the cracks.
I never said it should be allowed. Please quote me where I said anything like that. I just said it's so minor, the fix so easy, that it doesn't demand any attention from us. The regulators told Tesla to fix it. Tesla fixed it. Most people wouldn't even notice. End of non-story.
> it’s that it brings into question how they are managing all hard safety requirements if some apparently slip through the cracks.
Again there is no evidence for that. The fact that all automakers have dozens to hundreds of recalls every year means that this one instance from Tesla is entirely meaningless.
Recall is a legal process that protects companies like Tesla.
It has nothing to do with how the product is put together, how it functions, how it's used, whether it's software or hardware.
Whether a company voluntarily issues a recall, or a recall is issued through a regulatory body, it's a process that ultimately attempts to fix safety problems with products sold to consumers, but does so in a way that protects the company from being sued for the problem.
No, the term recall has long been used for cases where the defect could be addressed without returning the product. For example recalls of major appliances are usually handled by the manufacturer paying to have a repairperson come and repair the appliance in the consumer's home.
We've had a century or so of "vehicle recall" meaning a hardware problem. And there is no precedent in the software industry for calling OTA updates "recalls" rather than "updates." I, frankly, dislike Musk and Tesla. But this reeks of yellow journalism. Calling this something like a "[critical|federally-mandated|regulatory] safety update" would better describe what's happening to consumers, and also prevent them from taking future hardware recalls less seriously.
If the NHTSA simply chose and adopted such a term officially, the US's existing executive structures like the FCC and FTC, and/or libel/defamation court cases, could solve this problem. As it stands, not differentiating and calling everything a "recall" really makes the NHTSA seem to be "in the way" rather than "making things safer," at least to me, so the agency stands to benefit by making such a choice as well as consumers and the industry.
A recall protects a company like Tesla from lawsuits.
In this case, someone could have determined that the reason their car crashed was because an icon wasn't big enough, discovered that Tesla wasn't adhering to safety standards, and filed a pretty solid lawsuit.
The recall says "look, we found a problem, we'll fix it, and now that we made a reasonable effort to let everyone know, we're off the hook and protected by the government for having done so officially."
No, those aren’t the same thing. Tesla had to be forced to make their product safe by the regulator. If these updates are so easy and trivial in your mind, why doesn’t Tesla do them without being forced to?
That's how it works. There are incentives to voluntarily issuing a recall. The most important: no one can sue you for not having been up to the correct standard.
It's not a "blow" to a company when they issue a recall, it's a legal shield that, though they'd rather never have needed to put up in the first place, are very happy to have when need arises.
Tesla wasn't actually being forced. In the past, other automakers like Ford, GM, Porsche and Kia/Hyundai ran into the exact same problem. They just filed an inconsequential non-compliance petition to NHTSA because this issue is so minor and it would have been too expensive to fix --- for them.
Source: https://youtu.be/480yxR_kmIg?si=dThdJD2_QceCyF_E&t=161
The WSJ frames this software update on the frontpage as:
"Millions of Teslas Recalled Over Latest Safety Fix
The affected vehicles will receive an over-the-air software remedy, Tesla said, the latest in a series of setbacks to hit the automaker."
I wonder if the journalists writing that know how much they're "stretching the truth". I imagine a spectrum of truth, a movable gauge. I'd be curious to see where people would place a title such as that given the reality of the "recall". The people writing the titles, owners of teslas, liberals, conservatives, etc.
Maybe there's just a lot of bad news, but so many of the articles and blogs about Tesla almost seem giddy when there's a mistake or problem. I think electric vehicles are a good thing, and I want Tesla to succeed, but maybe animosity towards Musk is fueling schadenfreude towards the company.
137 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 215 ms ] threadto increase the font size on some icons on their UI.
That's it. That's all there is to the recall.
I’m just as much of a Tesla critic as anyone I’d say but this is really a reach.
Source: https://youtu.be/480yxR_kmIg?si=dThdJD2_QceCyF_E&t=161
Can you explain? So by not "actually being forced" do you mean they found the issue themselves and brought it to Nitsa, or that they aren't making the change even though it would be easily done by an OTA update?
In terms of inconsequential non-compliance, that's a risk-based approach. And that's the correct approach IMO. The difference is that risk-based decisions should ideally be made before manufacturing because it shows you understood the requirement and risk before making the design decision. An "easy fix" after the fact isn't a good explanation for not understanding the requirements in the first place. I agree this should also apply to other manufacturers, but the video is 1) looking at other cars nearly a decade old and 2) using a digital cluster and not a touchscreen. From that standpoint, it muddles the comparison just to pat Tesla on the back. It's like comparing a 1980s carburetor non-compliance to a modern EFI that can be fixed with reprogrammed fuel mapping; the principle is there, but it just makes for a bad analogy.
Also: don't spam the thread with the same comment. You left this same copy/paste at least 7x. At best, it waters down the conversation and at worst, it comes across as shilling for Tesla and sets your otherwise decent point as fodder for shallow dismissal
How old is the Model S? More than a decade.
Which one managed to fix the icon problem? The Model S.
What did Porsche do about this "safety problem"? Nothing.
What did the media suggest? That Teslas are unsafe.
Why did I spam the comment section? Because I want more people to see an objective comparison instead of just the sensationalism of these articles.
Why am I shilling for Tesla? Because I think it is a good company.
Explain not being forced -- I think you understand. They could have filed that petition like all the others. Conclude that it doesn't pose risk and just not fix it. (Btw I think the old icons were better.)
Regarding the old vs. new tech analogy -- exactly! Tesla can (and does) remotely make their cars safer. And not just icons but crash safety as well (see the linked video). This is a huge safety benefit.
I think only Tesla and BYD have the level of vertical integration that makes it possible to improve the drive/crash characteristics over the air. Others rely too much on suppliers. Car manufacturers usually don't have access to the proprietary firmware running on parts that they get from suppliers.
If they wanted to write an article about it anyway, it should be about how Tesla managed to fix an issue no other automaker could fix.
1. You said this icon problem suggests bad process control. Turns out Tesla's process control isn't worse than Porsche's process control, and Porsche produces the highest quality cars. In fact, it is better because Tesla fixed the problem and Porsche couldn't.
2. You said Tesla was forced. Turns out no manufacturer was forced to fix this.
End of debate.
Your first point is only valid if you frame it as “Tesla vs Everybody”. I’ve explained multiple times why that’s not the point I’m making. Other manufacturers can be wrong too, and that doesn’t mean Tesla has good process control. They can be the skinniest kid at fat camp, but that doesn’t mean they’re fit.
Tesla was forced. You constrained this to mean “forced to fix it.” I did not. “Forced to address it” can take many forms, including redesign, waiver etc. People who know quality control understand this.
It’s pretty obvious you aren’t being intellectually curious but trying to “win” a debate. This probably isn’t the best forum for you. Please stop making the discussion worse by refusing to have good-faith arguments.
End of “debate.”
Tesla is clearly better here than the others, but the media portrays it as if it was worse.
The media is so biased against Tesla it is not even funny. This is a problem. This is why the "Tesla vs. others" frame is worth discussing. The fact that others had the same problem but couldn't fix it is indeed a very important detail.
Also, instead of discussing the processes at Tesla, don't you think we should be discussing the processes in the media? Because this article is so misleading, it makes people believe the opposite of the truth. What about the quality of the other articles about other things? Are they any better?
And waaay back to the top comment in this discussion, I explained that "forced" is a nuanced term. And yet you plowed ahead with your preformed narrative, ignoring that original point. If that's the phrase you're hung up on, you've been debating the wrong person.
The media is fickle. 5ish years ago, they couldn't write enough about how great Tesla was, even though a lot of it was hype. Just like now they like to deride them, even though it's probably unfair. It's a NY Post article and not exactly considered the pinnacle of objective journalism. A savvy reader will take the narrative with a grain of salt.
>the media portrays it as if it was worse.
The only comparison I saw in the article was to BYD, which isn't even a competitor in the US. It seems like you're reading into your own pre-conceived narrative here. You aren't wrong for wailing about how sensationalist the media is, but I'm left wondering if you were doing the same when Tesla was portrayed as darling a few years back? Regardless, you are proving that this type of reporting gets attention just as it's intended, and you play into it by getting outraged, so that makes you part of the problem. It's better to focus on the actual issues, like process control, than sensationalism.
By the way, by portraying Tesla as worse than the others, I didn't mean it explicitly in the article. More like the fact that Porsche, Hyundai, etc. didn't get the same treatment from the media for facing the exact same problem which then they couldn't even fix. (And also not mentioning this tiny detail that the icon-problem is not unique to Tesla.)
I know this is only one piece of news. However, I see this as an overarching pattern. I saw so many low-quality articles about Tesla that I even stopped reading the news completely for a while! I can show you many. If you are interested, here's a recent one: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-07/tesla-sol.... This, again, while technically true, is awfully misleading. Tesla had one car sale in South Korea in January 2022, 2023 and now 2024. This is because there are no incentives for EVs in January, which is why people wait until February to buy in the country. It is paywalled, but I am sure the truth, which invalidates the article's very reason for existence, is buried deep somewhere at the end. Or is it?
I'm sorry, the first car brought up was the 2016 CTS-V. I didn't sit through the entire 20 min video. I don't think the Cadillac is a good comparison; I don't know enough about the others to comment.
Just because they decided to change the design rather than submit an non-compliance does not mean they weren't "forced." It means they were caught by a regulator, and did not fix the issue of their own accord. By your logic, I'm not "forced" to pay a speeding ticket because I pay the fine rather than fight it out in court. It could easily be that the fix is just easier than the process of risk-based compliance.
Again, please stop spanning comments. It makes the discussion worse and your point easier to dismiss as being the rantings of someone with an axe to grind instead of a rational argument.
Source: https://youtu.be/480yxR_kmIg?si=dThdJD2_QceCyF_E&t=161
"The agency [NHTSA] says that the brake, park and anti-lock brake warning lights have a smaller font size than required by federal safety standards."
But I think that is a somewhat unimportant point because the requirement intent is to make sure the warning is conspicuous. I'm not sure that touchscreens would be inherently different in that regard. Or are you thinking there's something unique to the touchscreens that makes them meet that intent in some other way?
The solution to many recalls these days is a software update. Cars are becoming computers with wheels...
https://www.powernationtv.com/post/auto-brands-with-the-most...
Do these articles by journalists actually educate the public on the facts or are they profit driven clickbait to push a preconceived narrative?
Both can be true. I, for one, don't often peruse online sources to look for recalls, but am more likely alerted to them by news articles or mail. If a discerning public can parse the usefulness from the narrative, then it can still be a net positive.
They replaced a brake icon with a "P" inside it with the word "PARK". To me those indicate two different things. The first is obviously the parking brake. Most would think that "PARK" refers to an automatic transmission, which a Tesla doesn't have...
To me this is an example of red tape making things worse.
“Boss, it’s Friday… do we really want to recall our mobile version affecting all 10 million MAU?”
But I just asked if we can make the fonts bigger on mobile?
How is it a hit piece? Tesla did not implement the federal safety standards correctly.
That’s an editor or sub-editor’s domain.
Even people on HN are guilty of this.
No, what's notable is Tesla was forced to issue the update. This probably has consequences for Tesla beyond some bandwidth.
That other manufacturers force owners to bring their car to the dealer for.
There's a huge gulf between people that keep up with tech news and people that don't. Millions of people are likely unaware that Tesla cars get software updates at all, let alone over the air.
So when they see an article with a headline of "Latest recall at Elon Musk’s Tesla affecting 2.2M vehicles", they assume Tesla owners all over the country are having to take their cars to a service center to get fixed. Many will probably assume the cars are fundamentally broken or unsafe until the car gets taken in.
The manufacturer can avoid refunds by fixing their defective product by creating a new, safe, fixed version and upgrading all owners for free. Whether that can be done remotely is independent of the presence of a safety defect demanding removal of all cars still containing that defect.
Oh please, get real.
So some icons on the display are a little too small. I would not label that "fundamentally unsafe".
I think of "fundamentally unsafe" and I think of something that has a high likelihood of causing a crash. Icons being just a smaller than they should be do not fit that description.
https://twitter.com/DriveTeslaca/status/1753302155275157637
https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2024/RCLRPT-24V051-2023.PDF
It is a trivial change that will not impact safety
Normally I would agree, but this is the NYPost which is pretty friendly to conservatives(1). Maybe they attack Tesla because it's "green" tech but defend Elon in the context of Tesla/SpaceX? Just a guess as I'm not a regular reader.
1: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
I've had updates take damn near 2 hours. >.<
I make sure to only update at home and when I don't expect to be driving the rest of the day. If something came up, I could always take my wife's car.
The NHTSA issues a recall. It is up to the car manufactures to implement a fix in whichever ways they want.
Tesla even has their own page where they list these Recalls. Tesla has no problem with the word. Elon Musk, a noted individual that likes to say it like is, has not come out against the word either. https://www.tesla.com/support/annual-and-recall-service
How about instead of fighting the words, you fight the car companies that refuse to use their profits to correctly follow the established safety protocols.
But, a recall actually means the product has a dangerous defect that requires the manufacturer to promptly fix it for free otherwise the vehicle must be removed from the road.
To better explain this we should use the term “dangerous defect” instead of “recall”.
“Teslas contain another dangerous defect - affecting 2.2 million vehicles” does sound more accurate.
https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1753249463311691839
Only Tesla could fix it. GM, Porsche, Kia/Hyundai and Ford couldn't. Their cars remain "dAngErOUs".
Source: https://youtu.be/480yxR_kmIg?si=dThdJD2_QceCyF_E&t=161
As to the definition they are agreeing on, from the NHTSA website [1]:
“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.”
Creating a unreasonable safety risk or failing to meet minimum safety standards is kind of the definition of dangerous. And there is a defect causing it. So, yes, Tesla claims it is a “dangerous defect” and I think Tesla knows more about their products being dangerous than you do.
[1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls
Source: https://youtu.be/480yxR_kmIg?si=dThdJD2_QceCyF_E&t=161
Dangerous defect my ass...
People don't read articles on tech forums like this so frequently that RTFA is a common meme.
> Every single time Tesla gets a recall (kinda often aint it?) there are people in HN comments who just want to fight over a word
You only think it's often because the other ones don't get reported on HN, creating the false impression.
> According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Ford issued 55 safety recalls in 2023, down from 67 last year. The repair campaigns affected 5.9 million vehicles, down from 8.6 million in 2022, which put the automaker in second place for the total number of vehicles recalled. Honda’s 19 recalls affected 6.3 million cars.
> Chrysler issued the second-highest number of recalls, at 45. Kia came in third for the total number of recalled cars, with more than 3 million affected by its 20 repair campaigns.
https://www.kbb.com/car-news/in-2023-ford-again-led-nation-i...
Anti EV publications like the NYP should definitely be called out for writing misleading headlines.
Tesla & Other car companies have way too many recalls. Someone else also failing does not negate the amount of recalls Tesla is doing or change the frequency at which they occur. I do agree that Tesla recalls gain wider internet spotlight. I believe that is largely due to Musk himself is attracted to the spotlight. I couldn’t name you the name of ceo of another car company, and tbh I think that is a good thing. It is widely known that scrutiny increases the more you of a public figure you are. Especially so if you are a divisive one.
The headline is not misleading, it is accurate.
Additionally, other "recalls" for other car companies may similarly be minor software changes. The only distinguishing factor with Tesla is OTA deployment.
When was the last time that a software mistake for Windows or Mac OSX or their Phone made people think they had to take their computer to the computer shop for a session with a technician?
Yet that's the most important factor when calling it a "recall".
https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-firmware-prevent-autos...
If these software recalls are so easy to fix, why isn’t Tesla fixing them before being forced to?
The terminology has to change. A "recall" is a typically an inconvenient event for the owners of a product -- this ain't that.
>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.
>Manufacturers are required to fix the problem by repairing it, replacing it, offering a refund, or in rare cases repurchasing the vehicle.
The idea that the manufacturer can fix a minor safety issue without the owner of the vehicle having to do anything is relatively new.
The terminology is too broad now. It wasn't before, but it is now, because technology has changed.
No, it is the plain dictionary meaning of "recall"[1] (see sense #7, which states the "return of (a faulty product)".
Words in headlines should be the plain dictionary meaning, not a legal term of art for specialists.
[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/recall
They define it as "when a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a vehicle, piece of equipment, car seat, or tire poses an unreasonable safety risk."
It's entirely based on risk and a duty to the consumer. It's possible that you're leaning too heavily on the etymology of the word rather than the industry definition.
This required the manufacturer to "recall" the vehicle physically to be repaired, replaced, or returned. That's why they used that word. But clearly that isn't needed for all "recalls" anymore. For an over-the-air software update, the NHTSA should find a better word that doesn't imply the need to recall the vehicle somewhere.
The word "awful" derives from "inspiring awe."
"Fathom" used to mean "to encircle with one's arms."
"Myriad" used to mean, very specifically, 10,000 instances of an item.
"Hussy" used to mean housewife.
Etc. etc.
In this era, I think most people assume "recall" to mean "a required fix" not necessarily "a trip to the car dealership."
All the conversation here is a debate of this very issue in one way or another. We wouldn't even be talking about this at all if the word "recall" wasn't used. If it was just a called "a required over-the-air fix" it wouldn't have made it on to HN.
I read that initial comment as "Meh, the fix isn't a big deal," which is different than "the recall is a non-issue." Just because it's an easy fix doesn't negate the need for the fix.
> How do you know that interpretation isn't biased by the HN audience?
It is objectively a small issue and the fact that the HN audience is likely better able to sniff that out due to their technical background only strengthens my argument.
Sometimes minor mistakes happen because they're minor. The assumption that this minor issue points to major issues is just not supported by the evidence.
Now that I've looked into the hundreds of recalls other manufacturers have ever yeary it makes me wonder even more why this particularly minor one is such a big issue that we are discussing it here.
The fact that you think the font-size of an indicator somehow is indicative of a larger problem makes no sense to me. We can look at actual data -- this minor thing being a "test" that they failed is just something you want be significant but isn't supported by anything.
I honestly don't know how many automobiles recalls are related to non-standardized issues in other car manufactures so what are you comparing this to? How do you know that Tesla is better or worse than other manufacturers in this way?
I think where we differ is that I don't think everything hinges on the word "recall." The article could be titled "2MM Teslas to be fixed OTA to correct non-conformance to legal design standards" It's still true, carries the same connotations, and is completely void of the loaded term you're hung up on.
"All Teslas everywhere to get marginally larger indicator icons to match standards" is not an interesting article. And this article isn't interesting. It's only interesting in contrast to it's headline and that's why we are discussing it.
But note that you did your own editorializing by using the word "marginally." You've staked a claim that the recall is insignificant. But that view is in direct conflict with the regulators, and it's their opinion that matters.
So if you think they should be safety standards, there has to be hard thresholds for compliance. And (again) the bigger issue isn’t this particular incident, it’s that it brings into question how they are managing all hard safety requirements if some apparently slip through the cracks.
> it’s that it brings into question how they are managing all hard safety requirements if some apparently slip through the cracks.
Again there is no evidence for that. The fact that all automakers have dozens to hundreds of recalls every year means that this one instance from Tesla is entirely meaningless.
It has nothing to do with how the product is put together, how it functions, how it's used, whether it's software or hardware.
Whether a company voluntarily issues a recall, or a recall is issued through a regulatory body, it's a process that ultimately attempts to fix safety problems with products sold to consumers, but does so in a way that protects the company from being sued for the problem.
If the NHTSA simply chose and adopted such a term officially, the US's existing executive structures like the FCC and FTC, and/or libel/defamation court cases, could solve this problem. As it stands, not differentiating and calling everything a "recall" really makes the NHTSA seem to be "in the way" rather than "making things safer," at least to me, so the agency stands to benefit by making such a choice as well as consumers and the industry.
In this case, someone could have determined that the reason their car crashed was because an icon wasn't big enough, discovered that Tesla wasn't adhering to safety standards, and filed a pretty solid lawsuit.
The recall says "look, we found a problem, we'll fix it, and now that we made a reasonable effort to let everyone know, we're off the hook and protected by the government for having done so officially."
https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2024/RCLRPT-24V051-2023.PDF
"Tesla voluntarily made a recall determination."
It's not a "blow" to a company when they issue a recall, it's a legal shield that, though they'd rather never have needed to put up in the first place, are very happy to have when need arises.
"Millions of Teslas Recalled Over Latest Safety Fix The affected vehicles will receive an over-the-air software remedy, Tesla said, the latest in a series of setbacks to hit the automaker."
I wonder if the journalists writing that know how much they're "stretching the truth". I imagine a spectrum of truth, a movable gauge. I'd be curious to see where people would place a title such as that given the reality of the "recall". The people writing the titles, owners of teslas, liberals, conservatives, etc.
https://twitter.com/DriveTeslaca/status/1753302155275157637
Also, how would a regular manufacturer approach the same problem?
My Volvo regularly gets updates OTA, if they are a ‘regular’ enough manufacturer for your definition.