The problem is Tesla owners repeatedly see "recall" to mean "software update", so this might lead to a lot of confusion if a physical recall is actually required in the future.
The scenario in this article is an over-the-air update.
Normally, it happens with an oil change.
If it's possible to buy a software license online and then return it online after deciding you no longer want it (i.e., a non-physical return), then it stands to reason that Tesla can request that you return the defective software OTA and receive replacement software OTA, and that would be a recall. The fact that you are forced into returning the defective software by virtue of not having the opportunity to block the return request is a fairly minor detail.
Teslas are basically digitally tethered to the dealer, so they can be "recalled" anytime (without your approval, fwiw), but it doesn't make the word not apply.
I'm looking at a piece of mail right now that's an official recall notice for a different make/model of car I own. The issue? Improperly adjusted steering components. The company is offering to make the correct adjustments for free. Nothing is being replaced.
Whether the recall is to replace a poorly designed physical component, or to make an adjustment, or to apply a software update doesn't make a difference to regulators.
A recall is a legal process that's designed to encourage manufacturers to fix safety issues while also limiting their liability. Companies avoid recalls if they can because it's costly, time consuming, and isn't good PR. But it's worth it if the issue is bad enough that it risks a class action lawsuit, or individual lawsuits, and most desirable when someone like the US government is demanding a recall or risk legal consequences.
When a company issues a recall, they make their best effort to notify consumers of the issue, provide with clear descriptions of how consumers can have the issue fixed, and make it clear that it will be paid for by the manufacturer. In return, the manufacturer is granted legal protections that drop their risk of being sued to nearly zero.
Yeah, it requires physically taking the car to a mechanic or dealer who does this. Very different from using the software update button on the car touchscreen.
> Improperly adjusted steering components. The company is offering to make the correct adjustments for free. Nothing is being replaced.
This is clearly a recall, because it requires taking the vehicle to a mechanic or dealer.
Nope.
If you insist on believing this, I'd recommend reading the document found here:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/14218-...
Again, the nature of the issue a recall addresses is wholly independent of how that issue is remedied. Why? Because a recall is a legal process that, by design, is meant to accomplish one thing: motivating a company to correct an issue that the governing authority considered important enough to correct.
If you choose to believe otherwise, I doubt it matters in the grand scheme of things.
I don't think "Use words that put a more positive spin for Tesla PR" is something regulators should be working faster on.
If Tesla had willingly walked this back, it'd be a software update, or a beta delay, or whatever they wanted to call it.
What laypeople don't realize is that this is being called a recall because the NHTSA pushed them into it: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/RCLRPT-23V085-3451.PDF
-
FSD has been a cartoonish display for the better part of a year now, it wasn't until last month that the NHTSA actually pushed on them to do a recall, and from there they "disagreed with the NHTSA but submitted a recall"... which is code for "submitted the recall NHTSA forced on them to submit"
Elon knows better, but he knows he can weaponize people's lack of familiarity with this space and inspire outrage at the "big bad overreaching government"
The problem here lies in having a manufacturer shipping an unfinished product then relying on an endless stream of recalls to finish developing your vehicle.
These are supposed to be exceptional events. If they've become so frequent you're ignoring them, don't shoot the messenger.
Whether it's a "good" word or "bad" word is irrelevant. It describes a very rigid and official legal process.
If I had chosen not to actually apply it, the dealer would have been expected to do so the next time my car was in for service.
The remedy OTA software update will improve how FSD Beta negotiates certain driving maneuvers during the conditions described above, whereas a software release without the remedy does not contain the improvements.
Other cars get "recalls" all the time that amount to updating the software in the ECU or TCU. Tesla is simply being treated like everyone else.
Hell, even in food, a "recall" usually means "throw it away" not return it.
I had a VW car that was "recalled" shortly following the emissions scandal. The dealership asked me to come in for a free software update related to emissions. So you can say it's a "recall" to the lawmakers but call it a "free software update" to the user.
Recalling the hardware is a drastically more difficult request to impose on customers and financially/logistically for the car maker.
That's a disporportate response just to highlight importance of an OTA update.
you can, in fact, 'recall' software. this is semantically accurate description of what is happening.
What do you think “FSD recall” or “software recall” means
Tesla released software that can kill people. It must do a FSD recall
This is not the same as Apple doing an OS update, not mandated by a regulatory body because it could kill someone
I was hit by a driver not paying attention. I had to get two surgeries, was not allowed to stand for 9 months, spent another year just rehabbing my nervous system and learning to walk. I still can’t jump or run
Tesla released software it’s marketing as “full self driving” that is not even Level 2 Alpha! Full Self Driving implies a level 5 system.
Tesla’s software has disclaimers like “may not behave as expected in sunlight”. Even its AutoPilot has these disclaimers.
It constantly claims FSD makes drivers safer. Yet it’s non transparent with its data, the data & comparisons it does release is completely misleading to the point of fraud, comparing apples to oranges. The cars it’s released on public roads to untrained drivers runs through intersections (it’s all over YouTube) and fails all kinds of basic driving tests. Tesla accepts ZERO responsibility if someone is killed while FSD is activated… that’s how little confidence it has in its own product
This is a product that can maim and kill humans, ruin people’s entire lives… and your response is incoherent mumbling about adjectives ?
Any person who is majorly confused by what a “software recall” is… or can’t figure out what this FSD recall means for them, shouldn’t be beta testing a 2-ton machine on public roads. They shouldn’t be driving period.
And the distinction matters to consumers because...?
A component is faulty. It needs to be fixed. Whether or not you have to drive to a dealership, if it's OTA, if someone at a dealership needs to plug a specialized device to your car's OBD port, or the car is unfixable and needs to be melted to slag and you get a new one doesn't really matter. There's an issue, it is a safety issue, and it needs to be fixed.
How efficient the process can be it's another matter entirely. That's up to the manufacturers.
As a car owner, those scenarios are drastically different to me. I have a hard time imagining anyone saying "It doesn't really matter to me if my car receives an OTA update or if I need to drive 2 hours to a dealership or if my car is melted to slag."
A recall should unambiguously mean that some action from the owner is required to resolve the issue (e.g. taking it to a dealer to get a software update installed.)
If no action is required (other than caution / not using the product feature), we should use some other term such as "safety advisory" to avoid ambiguity around critical safety information.
Should, perhaps. But recall has a meaning with legal implications, so it matters. A recall requires the fix status to be tracked and reported for example, whereas a random OTA updated does not.
Because in one I have to book a time with a dealer and take half a day off of work and in the other I have to do... nothing and it will just fix itself.
With a Recall in the normal sense, isn't there a record that the car has been updated? How is this done if the car is kept fully available to the user?
"Critical safety defect" would be better.
A recall is a legal process only. Whether the recall repairs, replaces, adjusts something doesn't matter. Whether a fix is applied as software, or labor, or replacement parts doesn't matter. Whether a customer needs to do something or not doesn't matter.
A recall simply says: as a manufacturer, working with government authorities, while taking specific prescribed steps to communicate and correct an issue at the cost of the manufacturer, the manufacturer is then immune from lawsuits that could arise were they to ignore the issue.
And that "bugs" involve accidents.
> At a computer expo, Bill Gates compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, 'If Ford had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon.'
> In response to Bill's comments, Ford issued a press release stating:
> “Sure, but would you want to drive a car that for no reason whatsoever would crash twice a day?”
https://www.chevyhhr.net/forums/lounge-10/microsoft-vs-ford-...
Your argument seems to be about protecting Tesla's reputation
I get it - I'm not the biggest fan of the way Tesla has traded. It's moral hazard and abuse of the options market... that said, they are a good company for this exact reason.
https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2023/Samsung-Recalls-Top-Load-W...
That's where the word came from, that's true. But a legal framework has built up around the concept over the decades which isn't dependent on you having to drive the car to the dealer, all of which still applies, so the word is still used.
A defect that is subject to a recall, for example, is tracked as part of the car history. When considering buying a used car, you can see whether that repair has been made yet or not. The means of how that repair is delivered is inconsequential.
True, but by announcing things in this fashion it is making Tesla look bad. Regulations really need to be updated so that car makers can hide this type of problem from customers as easily as possible. Especially when it comes to Tesla, regulators really need to bend over backwards to prevent articles from being written that could be interpreted in a negative way.
Or are people concerned about the word "recall" for a different reason?
They rolled out software with critical safety issues. They have to be called out.
Are you saying it's a critical safety issue to depend on a human driver? The same as in every vehicle on the road?
Maybe Tesla should stop doing things that result in it receiving poor publicity? just a thought
Why should a companies actions be dictated by PR and media news cycles?
What. No! At an absolute minimum, I want to be aware of any changes to the thing in my life most likely to kill me. Maybe we could use a better term like "Software Fuckup Remediation" or "Holy Shit How Did We Not Get The Brakes Right".
I almost didn't catch the sarcasm of this comment, but there are other comments in this thread that are saying basically the same thing, but actually meaning it. It defies logic.
People seem to think that the government is being mean, and singling out Tesla, and being nasty using the word "recall." A recall is a legal process. The word means something very specific, and when a company issues a recall, they do so because they don't want to be sued.
It's almost like complaining about the word "divorce" or "audit" or "deposition" or other similar words that describe a legal process. The words used mean something specific. Tesla is conducting a legal process, and there's a very specific word for that process, and it means something. It's a recall.
Some things are absolutely safety relevant. But no one cares.
It should absolutely be tracked and publicized. But it's fundamentally different than "this car is fundamentally broken and you have to take it back to the manufacturer"
"Recall" with cars is a legal term that means something specific.
> But it's fundamentally different than "this car is fundamentally broken and you have to take it back to the manufacturer"
That's not a criteria for a recall. A recall can be for a small thing completely unrelated to driving safety. Someone else mentioned having a recall to replace a sticker. My most recent recall was to replace the trunk lifts.
"Recall" for a car just means a specific procedure now has to be followed, tracked and reported. It says nothing about the safety criticality of the fix.
>> "...The FSD Beta system may cause crashes by allowing the affected vehicles to: “Act unsafe around intersections, such as traveling straight through an intersection while in a turn-only lane, entering a stop sign-controlled intersection without coming to a complete stop, or proceeding into an intersection during a steady yellow traffic signal without due caution,” according to the notice on the website of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration..."
No, that's not correct. Whether it can kill people or not is orthogonal to whether it's a true physical recall of the car or a software update.
There are really two issues here. The FSD and the OTA updates. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater and blame OTA updates just because Tesla's FSD software is bad. The OTA updates do provide an avenue to make cars much safer by reducing the friction for these type of safety fixes.
True, but let us also acknowledge the immense systems safety downsides of OTA updates given the lack of effective automotive regulation in the US (and to varying degrees globally).
OTA updates can also be utilized to hide safety-critical system defects that did exist on a fleet for a time.
Also, the availability of OTA update machinery might cause internal validation processes to be watered down (for cost and time-to-market reasons) because there is an understanding that defects can also be fixed relatively seamlessly after the vehicle has been delivered.
These are serious issues and are entirely flying under the radar.
And this is why US automotive regulators need to start robustly scrutinizing internal processes at automakers, instead of arbitrary endpoints.
The US automotive regulatory system largely revolved around an "Honor Code" with automakers - and that is clearly problematic when dealing with opaque, "software-defined" vehicles that leave no physical evidence of a prior defect that may have caused death or injury in some impacted vehicles before an OTA update was pushed to the fleet.
Tesla didn't choose the word "recall." The legal process known as "recall" chose the word. It's not like people at Tesla debated over whether or not to call it a "recall" instead of a "software update."
If Tesla had it their way, they'd have quietly slipped it into any other regular software update alongside updates to the stupid farting app, if they cared to fix it at all.
When a company issues a recall, it's because there's pressure from regulators, or investors, or both, and/or a risk of class action lawsuits and fines. Using the word "recall" isn't a preference or even a synonym. It's a legal move meant to protect them.
If Tesla gets sued over a flaw, "we issued a software update" isn't legally defensible. "We cooperated with official government bodies to conduct a recall," does because a recall describes an official process that requires manufacturers do very specific things in specific ways as prescribed by law. In exchange, manufacturers are legally protected (usually) from lawsuits related to that flaw.
A "recall" is just a public record that a safety-related defect existed, the products impacted and what the manufacturer performed in terms of a corrective action.
Additionally, I believe that the possibility exists that Tesla must update the vehicle software at a service center due to configuration issues. Only a small number of vehicles may require that type of corrective action, but the possibility exists.
Historically, there exist product recalls (especially outside of the automotive domain) where the product in question does not have to be returned (replacement parts are shipped to the impacted customers, for example).
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/14218-...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/573.6
(Except for tires.)
You (and the parent comment) are correct.
My comment was not intended to argue that a recall prescribed a particular corrective action.
This should be labeled "holy shit need to fix this now, people could die"
ah, a made up term in order to justify your point. how convenient.
I hope by participating in this thread you're aware by now but just to be clear there is no "physical" recall necessary. The recall is about documentation, customer awareness, and fixing the problem. "Physical recall" is meaningless and unimportant, it's not what "recall" means at all.
...and that's one reason why I would never purchase a Tesla.
I recall getting a recall notice from GM that included "until repaired, remove key from keychain".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_ignition_switch...
A recall means exactly what it means. The manufacturer is responsible for a fix. If for whatever reason they can't push an OTA update to your car, Tesla is still responsible for sending you a postcard in the mail and calling you every 6 months telling you to bring it in for service until they have reasonable evidence the car is no longer on the road.
The headline of that many cars being "recalled" is of course nice clickbait. Much better than "cars to receive minor software update that fixes an issue that isn't actually that much of an issue in the real world so far". One is outrage-ism fueled advertising and the other is a bit of a non event. It's like your laptop receiving some security related update. Happens a lot. Is that a recall of your laptop or just an annoying unscheduled coffee break?
The official meaning of a recall is providing a record of a defect, informing the public that the product is defective, and making the manufacturer financially liable for either remediating the defect or providing a refund. However, the colloquial definition of a “recall” now means a product must be physically returned.
To better represent the nature of a “recall” they should instead call it something like “notice of defect”. In the case of safety critical problems like here they should use a term like “notice of life-endangering defect” to properly inform the consumers that the defect is actively harmful instead of merely being a failure to perform as advertised.
tl;dr They should change the terminology from “recall” to “Notice of Life-Endangering Defect”
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/14218-...
"Voluntary recall" in this case means that Tesla did not choose to take the hard route where there's a court order for a mandatory recall. Few manufacturers fight that, because customers then get letters from the Government telling them their product is defective and that it should be returned for repair or replacement.
Somebody in the swallowable magnet toy business fought this all the way years ago.[1] They lost. It's still a problem.
[1] https://www.cpsc.gov/Safety-Education/Safety-Education-Cente...
A voluntary recall is easier and cheaper for all involved.
§ 30120(a)(1)(A)(iii) by refunding the purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation.
OTA updates are cool but they more complexity to the car. I like my cars to be simple and reliable instead.
Customers aren't dealing with inconvenience of having to bring their vehicle in / not having it for a while.
And Tesla is not incurring the cost of physically handling and fixing 360k cars.
So while it's technically a recall, the impact on the consumer and manufacturer is very different than what the word brings to mind.