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.

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)

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.

The correct term may just be "non-compliant design"

You think a font being a few tenths of a millimeter off spec is a "dangerous defect" ? Let me guess... not a fan of Elon.

Tesla and NHTSA both agree it is a recall.

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

Yes. Unreadable font/icon is dangerous during driving.

I'm not so sure it's a safety improvement, though. To make the text bigger, they got rid of the icon.

https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1753249463311691839

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".

Source: https://youtu.be/480yxR_kmIg?si=dThdJD2_QceCyF_E&t=161

Porsche Taycans still have this "danGeRouS dEfEct" today, and Porsche doesn't fix them. Where's the article?

Source: https://youtu.be/480yxR_kmIg?si=dThdJD2_QceCyF_E&t=161

Dangerous defect my ass...

>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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

The headline is not misleading, it is accurate.

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, 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.

Sure.

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?

When was the last time those things weighted over 2tons and were barreling down public roads? How is that even slightly relevant.

A Tesla is a car, not a piece of personal electronics. Different safety standards.

> The only distinguishing factor with Tesla is OTA deployment.

Yet that's the most important factor when calling it a "recall".

Tesla themselves calls defects which can be fixed via OTA updates recalls.

https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-firmware-prevent-autos...

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."

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.

The easiest way to stay out of the news for recalls is to not sell a defective product.

If these software recalls are so easy to fix, why isn’t Tesla fixing them before being forced to?

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

> That is not what the word recall means. That is what you want it to mean.

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

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.

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.

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.

That's true in general. But in this specific case the impact is also continuous because it's a visual indicator.

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.

This is since Elon told something nice about DeSantis