4 ms·

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

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
- peterisza 3y ago
  How old is the Taycan? Less than a decade. How old is the Model S? More than a decade. Which one managed to fix the icon problem? The Model S. What did Porsche do about this "safety problem"? Nothing. What did the media suggest? That Teslas are unsafe. Why did I spam the comment section? Because I want more people to see an objective comparison instead of just the sensationalism of these articles. Why am I shilling for Tesla? Because I think it is a good company. Explain not being forced -- I think you understand. They could have filed that petition like all the others. Conclude that it doesn't pose risk and just not fix it. (Btw I think the old icons were better.) Regarding the old vs. new tech analogy -- exactly! Tesla can (and does) remotely make their cars safer. And not just icons but crash safety as well (see the linked video). This is a huge safety benefit. I think only Tesla and BYD have the level of vertical integration that makes it possible to improve the drive/crash characteristics over the air. Others rely too much on suppliers. Car manufacturers usually don't have access to the proprietary firmware running on parts that they get from suppliers.
  - peterisza 3y ago
    Regarding the media: this update is not newsworthy. Just like how you didn't know about Porsche's petition, you shouldn't know about this software update either. If they wanted to write an article about it anyway, it should be about how Tesla managed to fix an issue no other automaker could fix.
    - bumby 3y ago
      That's a different argument. I agree the news is sensationalist. The point is about process control, not "TSLA vs. Whomever" or sensationalist media. You're hijacking the discussion to shoehorn in your pet peeve rants. Please don't.
      - peterisza 3y ago
        All your points have been defeated. 1. You said this icon problem suggests bad process control. Turns out Tesla's process control isn't worse than Porsche's process control, and Porsche produces the highest quality cars. In fact, it is better because Tesla fixed the problem and Porsche couldn't. 2. You said Tesla was forced. Turns out no manufacturer was forced to fix this. End of debate.
        bumby 3y ago
        This isn’t Reddit and this isn’t the way to have a HN conversation. Your first point is only valid if you frame it as “Tesla vs Everybody”. I’ve explained multiple times why that’s not the point I’m making. Other manufacturers can be wrong too, and that doesn’t mean Tesla has good process control. They can be the skinniest kid at fat camp, but that doesn’t mean they’re fit. Tesla was forced. You constrained this to mean “forced to fix it.” I did not. “Forced to address it” can take many forms, including redesign, waiver etc. People who know quality control understand this. It’s pretty obvious you aren’t being intellectually curious but trying to “win” a debate. This probably isn’t the best forum for you. Please stop making the discussion worse by refusing to have good-faith arguments. End of “debate.”

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

peterisza 3y ago
How old is the Taycan? Less than a decade. How old is the Model S? More than a decade. Which one managed to fix the icon problem? The Model S. What did Porsche do about this "safety problem"? Nothing. What did the media suggest? That Teslas are unsafe. Why did I spam the comment section? Because I want more people to see an objective comparison instead of just the sensationalism of these articles. Why am I shilling for Tesla? Because I think it is a good company. Explain not being forced -- I think you understand. They could have filed that petition like all the others. Conclude that it doesn't pose risk and just not fix it. (Btw I think the old icons were better.) Regarding the old vs. new tech analogy -- exactly! Tesla can (and does) remotely make their cars safer. And not just icons but crash safety as well (see the linked video). This is a huge safety benefit. I think only Tesla and BYD have the level of vertical integration that makes it possible to improve the drive/crash characteristics over the air. Others rely too much on suppliers. Car manufacturers usually don't have access to the proprietary firmware running on parts that they get from suppliers.
- peterisza 3y ago
  Regarding the media: this update is not newsworthy. Just like how you didn't know about Porsche's petition, you shouldn't know about this software update either. If they wanted to write an article about it anyway, it should be about how Tesla managed to fix an issue no other automaker could fix.
  - bumby 3y ago
    That's a different argument. I agree the news is sensationalist. The point is about process control, not "TSLA vs. Whomever" or sensationalist media. You're hijacking the discussion to shoehorn in your pet peeve rants. Please don't.
    - peterisza 3y ago
      All your points have been defeated. 1. You said this icon problem suggests bad process control. Turns out Tesla's process control isn't worse than Porsche's process control, and Porsche produces the highest quality cars. In fact, it is better because Tesla fixed the problem and Porsche couldn't. 2. You said Tesla was forced. Turns out no manufacturer was forced to fix this. End of debate.
      - bumby 3y ago
        This isn’t Reddit and this isn’t the way to have a HN conversation. Your first point is only valid if you frame it as “Tesla vs Everybody”. I’ve explained multiple times why that’s not the point I’m making. Other manufacturers can be wrong too, and that doesn’t mean Tesla has good process control. They can be the skinniest kid at fat camp, but that doesn’t mean they’re fit. Tesla was forced. You constrained this to mean “forced to fix it.” I did not. “Forced to address it” can take many forms, including redesign, waiver etc. People who know quality control understand this. It’s pretty obvious you aren’t being intellectually curious but trying to “win” a debate. This probably isn’t the best forum for you. Please stop making the discussion worse by refusing to have good-faith arguments. End of “debate.”