I don't understand this 'recall' language. Isn't it just a software update?
"The company has released an over-the-air software update to fix the issue, it said."
"The company has released an over-the-air software update to fix the issue, it said."
2. Then cars got software, but had no OTA updates. If there was a serious software defect, the car had to be returned to a dealership for them to install a software update. This was still called a recall - you still have to take the car back to the dealership, after all, and the NHTSA is still involved.
3. Then cars started receiving OTA software updates. As 2. established that a software update for a serious defect is called a 'recall', and the NHTSA is still involved through their recall-coordination authority, this is still called a recall even though the car doesn't have to be returned to a place.
4. Then cars started receiving OTA software updates, but a significant percentage of the cars already suffer irreparable damage to their computers before they installed the update, and therefore still have to be taken to the Tesla service center for repairs.
It's a "recall" because frankly there is still a good chance you are going to have to go into a service center, even if the OTA update works.
* this is the language traditionally used in automobiles
* the term probably has a specific meaning with regulatory and culturally established implications throughout organizations that touch maintenance and safety
* it may get more meaningful for whatever subset of autos that didn't/can't receive the OTA update
I know that for my old ICE car, they keep track of what recalls I apply. I'm usually notified multiple times, when there's recalls.
I suspect that lawyers are why they do it. If your brakes don't work, and you run over a kid, whether or not it was a known recall, and, whether or not you applied it, will likely have a lot to do with how the legal process works out.
- If it's not a "recall," there isn't much of a government paper trail for consumers when the OTA update goes awry. You don't even know if you should have such and such version of the software, and if the patches are non-linear then it's non-obvious even to experts examining your car's current status whether it's been applied or not.
- OTA updates for cars seem fraught with peril. Have you ever seen a bricked Tesla driving down the road? It's terrifying. Have you ever been the driver of such a Tesla while not in cell range? It's more terrifying because you don't know if the charge will last till you have cell service or what will happen if you're stuck in the middle of nowhere. Did they ensure the update would only apply after you've turned the car off and on again? Even if they did, if you drove your car and the steering/brakes/gas suddenly behaved differently, do you think you'd be more or less likely to crash? Whether they can technically solve the thing with an OTA update or not, it seems prudent (not that it's happening yet) to force people to make a proactive decision to opt in to the change.
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).
- they knew the assist was dangerously broken - while people drove around with this dangerous code running they worked on improving the code so they could say it is now "fixed" - released the update
I see how this is the most... efficient... way to handle the situation, from a monetary perspective. But this is not how I, or anyone I know, would handle life-critical code. Not to bring politics into yet another thread, but this is not a smart or human way to handle things.
First, you disable the damn road assist. It's an optional feature, FFS!
The way the fix is applied is irrelevant. The important thing is that their vehicles have a safety issue and it needs to be fixed and documented for each vehicle.
The term shouldn't be overloaded.
When you see a recall you shouldn't have to wonder if it's a download or if you need to take the car in.
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.
They could have clarified that it was a software update in the title. But they never do.
It's not going to be an OTA software update for everyone.
Recall has multiple meanings; in this context the meaning intended was "to summon back" to a location specified by the manufacturer so that the fix could be implemented.
In modern times, "recall" for vehicles has been conflated with the term-of-art "recall" that is used with respect to consumer products, for which the intended meaning was "to return or revoke."
(For those who don't see the difference: the first meaning is temporary, the second is permanent.)
Recall has a specific legal meaning for calls. That’s why it’s used. The law authorizes the government to demand “recalls”.
It does not specify how that’s done. Software update, dealership visit, roaming packs of mechanics.
This isn’t a conspiracy to make Tesla look bad, it’s the correct term.
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.