[1] "In conducting their report, NASA engineers evaluated the electronic circuitry in Toyota vehicles and analyzed more than 280,000 lines of software code for any potential flaws that could initiate an unintended acceleration incident. "
"NASA engineers found no electronic flaws in Toyota vehicles capable of producing the large throttle openings required to create dangerous high-speed unintended acceleration incidents."
"The two mechanical safety defects identified by NHTSA more than a year ago – “sticking” accelerator pedals and a design flaw that enabled accelerator pedals to become trapped by floor mats – remain the only known causes for these kinds of unsafe unintended acceleration incidents."
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-department-t...
[2] https://www.licarco.com/news/how-many-tesla-cars-have-been-s...
The mat was a design flaw from the beginning that missed QA, that happens in any large scale manufacturing as you can't just get everything right from the start.
If the article is telling the truth, this was a change made on the build line that wasnt' approved, that's a huge f$ck up if true and an incredible show of incompetence if someone can just start making design changes without approval on the build line.
I think the point they are getting at, if I understand the commenter correctly (and assuming the wording of the article is accurate), is that someone on the line had the ability to make a change to the production process without authorization.
That would not just be a "production line mistake", instead it is indicative of a serious policy and procedure failure. No single person on the production line should have the ability to make unauthorized changes to the procedures being used in production.
I hate analogies, but to use yours, it is a rogue employee that was able to change critical code with no approval process -- and no one else noticed that code was being changed and went ahead with shipping it out.
So, I don't think it is quite as simple as an isolated bug, per se. But it is very common for changes to get introduced at build time of physical things. Depending on where and what the change is, the level of review for it will be very different.
Not really. Any place with a decent QA department would sample a part, compare it to the specification, and raise an alarm because the part differs from the specification. There also should be occasional audits on the build process itself, which should have identified this, as it would differ from the specified process.
This type of issue (again, assuming the articles wording is true -- I have no idea) can only occur if there is either bad/missing QA, or bad/missing specifications.
>But it is very common for changes to get introduced at build time of physical things
Even in construction you need to have changes approved (i.e. a "change order" approved by the architect, engineer, and owner). Even extremely minor changes (which this would not be) must be documented on the "as-built" drawings.
Do you really think this is what happens on job sites? Does this match your personal experience? Because my initial reaction was to laugh to myself at how rarely contractors, subcontractors, and crewmembers would actually engage a process like the one you are describing here. Non-spec stuff happens all the time without record, even in firms with solid QA.
I worked in ICI (Industrial, Commercial, Institutional) construction for ~10 years. Yes, this matches my experience. Perhaps it is different where you are from.
I also experienced this while doing utility locating for oil & gas pipelines (~2 years). As-built drawings were very accurate, and detailed any deviation from the initial drawings.
I was doing large transmission pipelines (i.e. NPS 24 to NPS 56), so I can't speak to residential, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was less attention paid to as-built drawings when the cost of damage/replacement wasn't in the millions of dollars.
The single most commonly synced entity is Commitment Change Order items.
Yes, it does. I’m a construction project manager, I’m not having my crew do any work that isn’t represented in the current revision of the plans and specs without approval because that’s the only way you get paid for the extras. Also if it’s an unapproved and unwanted change, you have to pay to remove it. Anyone managing a project who cares about managing their risk is going to submit RFIs and RFCs for every change.
It’s possible that the (tiny and insignificant) residential market is different, but that’s how commercial and industrial construction works.
It’s possible some tiny and insignificant changes like moving a receptacle or data opening a couple inches aren’t properly documented on the as-builts, but major changes almost always are.
> Because my initial reaction was to laugh to myself at how rarely contractors, subcontractors, and crewmembers would actually engage a process like the one you are describing here.
The firms you hire to work on your house aren’t representative of the firms who manage or work on commercial and industrial projects.
Based on these responses I should have been more clear. These small and inconsequential things are what I'm referring to. Yes, the projects I'm familiar with track the medium and big stuff, and most of the small stuff.
No one with any brains wants to be "that" guy.
That's why we have "cookie cutter" houses and even office buildings. All the kinks have been legitimately worked out and they can just crank them out. Bespoke construction? Cost overrun city. Now you know why.
That is to say, just because it was on the assembly line doesn't mean it wasn't reviewed. And just because it was reviewed doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake. Part of the sign off was almost certainly "does not need retesting" for implementation. Which, was clearly a mistake. But isn't a sign of a broken QA system.
>“[a]n unapproved change [...]
Unapproved, to me, implies that it was not reviewed or signed-off.
>Part of the sign off was almost certainly "does not need retesting" for implementation
If you are not assuring your quality, you have a QA failure. Regardless, I initially said "serious policy and procedure failure". Which, if you change a safety-critical component in your product and don't do testing on it, that is a serious policy failure.
I think I largely biased to the next message, which did indicate reviews would happen, but that they have some freedom at the line. And that still sounds right to me.
:) I think you're missing my point, or I 've failed to explain it clearly.
A design flaw is bad, but we can't eliminate those. According to this article an assembly line employee went rouge and introduced a change without telling anyone.
If the article is correct then clearly these two things aren't even near comparable. We expect design flaws and adapt, we don't expect employees to go rouge and change the design without telling anyone.
Now the article or Tesla could be lying here but this is the facts as we know them.
Does that help clear things up for you?
I also dont' think you deserved the downvotes I saw you got for just misunderstanding. Sorry that happend to you!
This overall points out the immaturity in Tesla's manufacturing process if changes like this can happen and then occur or affect every vehicle of a particular type produced, does it not? Overall, it still seems like a "below the line" change. These can still be quite impactful (see: memory corruption bugs leading to compromise and functional exploits). But it is still more akin to a bug or production flaw than a design flaw.
An unapproved/undocumented production change may leave only the misproduced items. Mistakes happen, but this sounds more like changing the process without review.
Never encountered the issue.
They replaced my floor mats and installed a new pedal assembly and updated to the ECU with "brake override" ability - meaning if I pressed the brake pedal it would ignore input from the throttle.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takata_Corporation#Defective_a...
This is just the f'n rubber pad on the accelerator can come off which isn't great, but harms nothing.
What is wrong with the people here?
You can void your warranty by driving them through car washes. What exactly is the point of a bulletproof truck that can't get wet?
This whole story was essentially made up by mischaracterizing some guy's tiktok. :facepalm
I had a hard time getting my dealer to replace what was clearly warranty work (engine issues) due to them pretending the factory warranty extension didn't apply.
And here you have dealers replacing things that are explicitly excluded? Weird.