Tesla recalls 380k vehicles in US over power steering assist issue
reuters.com
reuters.com
"The company has released an over-the-air software update to fix the issue, it said."
- 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!
* 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.
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.
Simply qualifying the overloaded term as "software recall" would suffice.
Never happens though.
Should we have a separate term for "a recall that isn't related to losing control of the vehicle and crashing"?
It sounds bad to associate my car needing a zip tie to minimize wear with your car needing a software patch to not crash.
that way you know whether to make sure you got the update or know to take the car in physically.
severity for both can differ, that's what the details are for.
A software recall can require bringing the vehicle in physically. That happened with Rivian's update recall in 2023. Likewise, there are hardware recalls that don't involve taking the vehicle in physically, like the Kia immobilizer recall that involved them mailing a lock bar to certain customers.
if you can't fix it via a software update, it's hardware.
not a hard concept to grasp.
you aren't overloading those words as "recall" is in the phrase.
And the Kia recall was an example of a hardware recall that didn't require the owner to visit a shop. Both are possible, so trying using software and hardware to differentiate between shop visits is overloading the terms.
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.
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.
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.
The recall will mention how to get it fixed, regardless of a OTA update or service visit.
The lack of a mere download could mean the difference between life and death.
- 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.
How often has this happened?
I'm not sure why you mention cell coverage, given that it is entirely unrelated.
> why mention cell coverage
When the culprit is a borked OTA, it's very non-obvious that it'll behave correctly without another remote signal, and the fact that you're allowed to drive your car might only be because you haven't shut it off yet (immediate safety outweighing the danger of driving a partially functioning vehicle).
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).
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.)
https://news.dealershipguy.com/p/software-related-vehicle-re...
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.
There is no such thing as zero bugs. You will have to rollback sometimes.
But I'm sure you're perfect.
…just like those pagers.
In contrast, no iPhone teardown has shown any explosives, and Apple still has a reputation for saving weight wherever possible.
If you have an iPhone that mysteriously has only a fraction of the battery capacity of a normal iPhone it might be time to worry if you have the Mossad version with inbuilt explosives. But otherwise I wouldn't worry too much. A battery explosion would be inconvenient but much less effective
There was negligible weight increase, as the battery was significantly shrunk to allow hiding the explosive inside [1].
> At some point, Hezbollah noticed the battery was draining faster than expected, the Lebanese source said. However, the issue did not appear to raise major security concerns - the group was still handing its members the pagers hours before the attack.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/graphics/ISRAEL-PALESTINIANS/HEZBOLL...
Obviously this is different, now, because of some cards and models for the car ECU.
I'd argue the opposite. As cars are largely and increasingly controlled by software, these issues have as much if not more effect than a lot of mechanical recalls.
It's honestly a bit forward-thinking that given this software fixes are also classified as recalls.
NHTSA can order a "recall" for a safety defect, would people prefer they say that car makers can't satisfy a "recall" order except by returning the car to the location it was built?
Usually by the time the NHTSA has them send a second notice the parts magically appear in stock. The same has been true for the NEMA 14-50 plug recall (Running 40A over 10AWG wire - setting walls on fire, melting outlets, melting plugs) and a few others.
Porsche has been reasonably good about software fixes, presumably since they don’t cost as much money. They are not great at applying them and not much is done OTA.
Until they do a nicer job here we hopefully will see the NHTSA continue to broadcast these recalls and embarrass these companies into action. When you have issues getting things fixed you can complain to the NHTSA and they do follow up.
Maybe if you're only familiar with high profile recalls that have been covered in the news. Automakers have issued fixes that are DIY or fixed in the field for basically the entire history of automotive recalls. For example: misprinted owners manuals shipped to vehicle owners.
For the Tesla fan, the colloquial definition of "recall" is what we should go by because the car doesn't actually have to return anywhere. Meanwhile, when it comes to "autopilot", they want us to use the technical definition of a system that is not entirely autonomous to the point that a pilot isn't needed.
Tesla critics on the other hand will reverse those two, claiming it is the technical definition of "recall" and the colloquial definition of "autopilot" that matter the most.
Autopilot has no such formal definition (at least not in the context of cars). Musk/Tesla have continually over-sold what their various iterations of autopilot (Autopilot, FSD, etc) can do AND also fall back to "it's an autopilot just like a boat or plane" which completely ignores that boats or planes aren't typically operated on busy highways by untrained pilots.
A Tesla fan could also give you an equally logical explanation about how the "regulatory definition" of "recall" is outdated because it is from an era in which all recalls were physical or that the general public's misconceptions about autopilots for boats and planes are not Tesla's fault.
My point was not that either side of these debates is right or wrong. It is that people are transparently starting with a conclusion and working backwards to justify it rather than having any consistent principle underlying their belief on this issue. It is pointless to debate whether definitions are or are not important when the actual issue being debated here is whether Tesla is good or bad.
"Autopilot doesn't mean what we promised; only what wikipedia says. GOTCHA!"
"Recall should only apply to physical fixes THIS IS SOFTWARE. GOTCHA!"
You mentioned "both side" in your first post and I really don't see it.
Compare the above with Tesla's "over-the-air" software updates for recall. So much better, even if one doesn't like Tesla vehicles or Musk.
That's admittedly not much of an option for Teslas...
But like EVs in general, the industry wide move to more OTA updates was in large part due to the competition that Tesla presented forcing the rest of the industry to keep up.
CarPlay has been around long enough, does get OTA updates, and I personally prefer that model because it is strictly scoped to the infotainment, and won't change the way my windshield wipers work.
The media tends to make more of an issue with Tesla recalls than other car companies -- especially for these relatively minor updates. I think the original article here is one of those articles.
Tesla doesn't even push out recall updates immediately to all cars. There's a controlled and orderly distribution. The fact that it's OTA is nice, but it's honestly not that different from a practical point of view. (Again, for software updates).
What I can't stand are Tesla OTA updates that break functionality. A year or so ago, they pushed an update for the auto windshield wipers that made mine operate worse. That was a safety hazard, but they have gotten better (but still not "good"). But every time my Model 3 updates, I'm scared of what's going to get changed. Sometimes the updates are good (I'm happy to have SiriusXM streaming), sometimes frivolous.
Continuously updating software is a terrible dynamic, especially for things that you want to be tools that just work. It discourages companies from doing QA/reliability engineering in lieu of a culture where could-have-been-foreseen bugs can just be discovered and fixed later. It makes it so that "owners" cannot trust their machines/systems to just keep working predictably, and have to accept whatever third party whims may dictate at a moment's notice. And generally such schemes result in hostile software that works against users - eg surveillance that serves the interests of the manufacturer.
0: https://www.gm-trucks.com/gm-recall-brake-warning-light-fail...
How do you know if you haven't tried?
We could imagine a following scenario: a clever virus spreads via zero day exploit to every iphone. The virus uses accelerometer to detect velocity over 70mph and initiates a bedlam protocol a minute after that. Your phone starts blaring maximally offensive content at max volume, controls are locked. Particularly effective when connected to car speakers.
The scenario is highly improbable, but there is a vector for a phone security flaw to be extremely impactful.
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.
There's no NHTSA conspiracy against Tesla. If anything, they're overly lenient on Tesla compared to other manufacturers.
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/safety-gate-alerts/screen/webReport/ale...
[1] https://www.tesla.com/support/recall-brake-fluid-level-senso...
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.
Personally I'm completely fine with that, anything with the ECU/lower level safety control-by-wire systems should not be accessible to the OTA system.
It's only a matter of time until hackers remotely shut down cars and cause chaos though.
It is, in fact, a matter of ten years ago that hackers were able to remotely shut down a moving vehicle
“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.
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.
“Apple recalls 2 billion iPhones for security fix!”
Not every Tesla update is a recall, for example.
It's a good separation when an update addresses a bug - which can lead to drivability/safety issues - is classified differently than one that doesn't. And a recall makes sense, though the issue seems to be that some people associate that with deadly mechanical issues alone.
Of course, mechanical recalls happen all of the time, too, but are very often minor and/or ignorable.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2025/02/12/ios-...
- But mom, it is not a recall, it is not fair
others explain that recall has a meaning and if you read the article you will understand it is an software update for a significant issue
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)
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.
Someone in my family is the type who features quite frequently in the news. I don't mean tabloid-style stuff, or anything related to criminal activity. It was always about fairly serious topics however.
As a result, I got to compare first hand information to what ends up in the news. And boy, there are no words.
The worst part is that there is no hope. The root cause is that the incentives -- engagement, like you said -- are rotten. Gell-man amnesia etc complicates things further.
I'm honestly of a mind that while the internet's attitude of making everything available for free was fun and exciting, it's time for us to start paying for things again or not using them. More often the latter than the former. It's baked into our ideological framework that there always has to be an exchange of value. No one will give up something worth something unless they also get something worth something. For a while investors who recognized potential subsidized losses in companies like Facebook and Amazon, but that was with the (evidently correct) expectation that they'd get all of that money back and then some. But that's correcting itself. Everyone either sells you something or sells you to someone, just like it was before the internet. So if someone is letting you use their app for free, they're likely selling you to someone else behind the scenes. If you pay for what you use, you at least have a potential deal that fulfills the rule of exchange without making you the product and you can shop that deal around to see if there are any takers.
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.
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.
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.
Ah, so it's a TV company!
(SmartTV software tends to be _terrible_, both from a doing-what-it's-supposed-to point of view, and a security point of view. But the TVs are essentially built around it, nonetheless.)
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.
Still a recall.
Wouldn't be one of these threads without people complaining Tesla should be treated differently.
"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."
It is there because whatever the issue is it can potentially affect safety. In this case a power steering issue is A SAFETY issue. Therefore, a RECALL is issued.
Why is this so hard to comprehend?
Which is to say, my understanding is that if Tesla had noticed the issue first, and fixed it immediately, then no recall would have been issued. And since it's an OTA update that Tesla can push whenever, it was totally within Tesla's power to fix it before someone at the NHTSA went through the trouble of issuing a recall.
Tesla owners should be pissed at Tesla for outsourcing software Q&A to the NHTSA, not at the NHTSA for issuing recalls when it finds bugs.
What drives me up the wall is the cognitive dissonance.
Toyota or Volvo or any other "good" brand recalls something and everyone is all "ooh, they're taking things back to fix them at great expense, look how much they care about their customers"
Tesla, Chrysler or any "bad" brand recalls something and it's all "hurr durr, steaming pile of crap is unfit for the road"
If Koji Sato of Toyota had access to everyone's SSN, EIN, all financial audits, a large part of or essentially all details on all federal government contracts, there would be outrage too.
Then what is it? I'm no fan of Musk and friends and what they're up to but Tesla making the same cars of about the same quality since before Musk became the bad guy and everything associated with him became tainted. The way Tesla turned on a dime from being lauded by every idiot with an internet connection like Toyota to being derided like the Stellantis brands despite no substantive change in their products and offerings really lays bare the degree to which people lack principals and let their assessment of what is good and bad, right and wrong, or serious and trivial, blow in the wind based on the parties involved.
In a filing with NHTSA, Tesla said 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.
They swiss-cheesed something elementary as EPAS and had to waste time and money pushing an update. That's an "L", as kids these days say.
IMO, this isn't a safety issue worthy of a recall then.
Any component failure that pops up a warning and allows the driver to safely pull over to be towed for a repair is not a safety concern.
Obviously, users might expect more of an expensive car - but that's what warranties and consumer protection laws are for, not safety recalls.