6 ms·

If it's become as formal as a recall, it's worth at least noting. Sure, the fix is simple (and most folks won't even notice), but Tesla was still forced into ma

If it's become as formal as a recall, it's worth at least noting. Sure, the fix is simple (and most folks won't even notice), but Tesla was still forced into making the fix.

peterisza 3y ago
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 for them to fix. They also concluded in their petition that this issue doesn't pose any risk on the driver. Source: https://youtu.be/480yxR_kmIg?si=dThdJD2_QceCyF_E&t=161 https://youtu.be/480yxR_kmIg?si=dThdJD2_QceCyF_E&t=161
forgot-im-old 3y ago
"remotecall"?
bumby 3y ago
It seems to be a mandated requirement, as opposed to some subjective UI decision. The bigger deal is that it may indicate they don't have a good enough process to check/track these federal requirements.
quonn 3y ago
Omg, they forced Tesla. Presumably they also forced all other manufacturers to make the text the right size, whether they shipped that incorrectly or not. I don't think anyone had a choice.
- bumby 3y ago
  The difference is that if the standards were in place before the manufacturing process, they shouldn't need to be recalled in the first place. "Forcing" means something different when standards aren't met vs. recalls related to fixes due to some non-standardized issue.
  - peterisza 3y ago
    software manufacturing?
    - bumby 3y ago
      I’m not sure what you’re asking. Is software prevalent in manufactured products? Certainly. Are there standards that govern their designs? Of course.
      - peterisza 3y ago
        By the way, 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 https://youtu.be/480yxR_kmIg?si=dThdJD2_QceCyF_E&t=161
        bumby 3y ago
        >Tesla wasn't actually being forced. Can you explain? So by not "actually being forced" do you mean they found the issue themselves and brought it to Nitsa, or that they aren't making the change even though it would be easily done by an OTA update? In terms of inconsequential non-compliance, that's a risk-based approach. And that's the correct approach IMO. The difference is that risk-based decisions should ideally be made before manufacturing because it shows you understood the requirement and risk before making the design decision. An "easy fix" after the fact isn't a good explanation for not understanding the requirements in the first place. I agree this should also apply to other manufacturers, but the video is 1) looking at other cars nearly a decade old and 2) using a digital cluster and not a touchscreen. From that standpoint, it muddles the comparison just to pat Tesla on the back. It's like comparing a 1980s carburetor non-compliance to a modern EFI that can be fixed with reprogrammed fuel mapping; the principle is there, but it just makes for a bad analogy. Also: don't spam the thread with the same comment. You left this same copy/paste at least 7x. At best, it waters down the conversation and at worst, it comes across as shilling for Tesla and sets your otherwise decent point as fodder for shallow dismissal
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
It’s a formal recall by government regulation, in our world it’s a software update.

If it's become as formal as a recall, it's worth at least noting. Sure, the fix is simple (and most folks won't even notice), but Tesla was still forced into making the fix.

peterisza 3y ago

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 for them to fix. They also concluded in their petition that this issue doesn't pose any risk on the driver. Source: https://youtu.be/480yxR_kmIg?si=dThdJD2_QceCyF_E&t=161 https://youtu.be/480yxR_kmIg?si=dThdJD2_QceCyF_E&t=161

forgot-im-old 3y ago

"remotecall"?

bumby 3y ago

It seems to be a mandated requirement, as opposed to some subjective UI decision. The bigger deal is that it may indicate they don't have a good enough process to check/track these federal requirements.

quonn 3y ago

Omg, they forced Tesla. Presumably they also forced all other manufacturers to make the text the right size, whether they shipped that incorrectly or not. I don't think anyone had a choice.

bumby 3y ago
The difference is that if the standards were in place before the manufacturing process, they shouldn't need to be recalled in the first place. "Forcing" means something different when standards aren't met vs. recalls related to fixes due to some non-standardized issue.
- peterisza 3y ago
  software manufacturing?
  - bumby 3y ago
    I’m not sure what you’re asking. Is software prevalent in manufactured products? Certainly. Are there standards that govern their designs? Of course.
    - peterisza 3y ago
      By the way, 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 https://youtu.be/480yxR_kmIg?si=dThdJD2_QceCyF_E&t=161
      - bumby 3y ago
        >Tesla wasn't actually being forced. Can you explain? So by not "actually being forced" do you mean they found the issue themselves and brought it to Nitsa, or that they aren't making the change even though it would be easily done by an OTA update? In terms of inconsequential non-compliance, that's a risk-based approach. And that's the correct approach IMO. The difference is that risk-based decisions should ideally be made before manufacturing because it shows you understood the requirement and risk before making the design decision. An "easy fix" after the fact isn't a good explanation for not understanding the requirements in the first place. I agree this should also apply to other manufacturers, but the video is 1) looking at other cars nearly a decade old and 2) using a digital cluster and not a touchscreen. From that standpoint, it muddles the comparison just to pat Tesla on the back. It's like comparing a 1980s carburetor non-compliance to a modern EFI that can be fixed with reprogrammed fuel mapping; the principle is there, but it just makes for a bad analogy. Also: don't spam the thread with the same comment. You left this same copy/paste at least 7x. At best, it waters down the conversation and at worst, it comes across as shilling for Tesla and sets your otherwise decent point as fodder for shallow dismissal

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

It’s a formal recall by government regulation, in our world it’s a software update.