11 ms·

I am generally mildly negative on many Tesla decisions, but this has happened to the big manufacturers as well. Stock floor mats that caused stuck accelerator.

I am generally mildly negative on many Tesla decisions, but this has happened to the big manufacturers as well. Stock floor mats that caused stuck accelerator. Toyotas infamous stuck accelerator code that actually hurt people. Their code was reputedly a giant mess.

chollida1 2y ago
If Telsa and the article are telling the truth then these aren't anywhere near the same. The mat was a design flaw from the beginning that missed QA, that happens in any large scale manufacturing as you can't just get everything right from the start. If the article is telling the truth, this was a change made on the build line that wasnt' approved, that's a huge f$ck up if true and an incredible show of incompetence if someone can just start making design changes without approval on the build line.
- bitexploder 2y ago
  It’s better that a mat was designed in a dangerous way vs a production line mistake? That is similar to saying a simple bug is worse than an architectural flaw that no one caught at design time. Far more eyes are on the design flaw vs a production bug.
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    >vs a production line mistake? I think the point they are getting at, if I understand the commenter correctly (and assuming the wording of the article is accurate), is that someone on the line had the ability to make a change to the production process without authorization. That would not just be a "production line mistake", instead it is indicative of a serious policy and procedure failure. No single person on the production line should have the ability to make unauthorized changes to the procedures being used in production. I hate analogies, but to use yours, it is a rogue employee that was able to change critical code with no approval process -- and no one else noticed that code was being changed and went ahead with shipping it out.
    - taeric 2y ago
      This is basically how all construction and manufacturing jobs work out, though? It isn't an isolated "single person" that can make arbitrary changes. They can propose something and it should be reviewed. So, I don't think it is quite as simple as an isolated bug, per se. But it is very common for changes to get introduced at build time of physical things. Depending on where and what the change is, the level of review for it will be very different.
      - ziddoap 2y ago
        >This is basically how all construction and manufacturing jobs work out, though? Not really. Any place with a decent QA department would sample a part, compare it to the specification, and raise an alarm because the part differs from the specification. There also should be occasional audits on the build process itself, which should have identified this, as it would differ from the specified process. This type of issue (again, assuming the articles wording is true -- I have no idea) can only occur if there is either bad/missing QA, or bad/missing specifications. >But it is very common for changes to get introduced at build time of physical things Even in construction you need to have changes approved (i.e. a "change order" approved by the architect, engineer, and owner). Even extremely minor changes (which this would not be) must be documented on the "as-built" drawings.
        DiggyJohnson 2y ago
        > Even in construction you need to have changes approved (i.e. a "change order" approved by the architect, engineer, and owner). Even extremely minor changes (which this would not be) must be documented on the "as-built" drawings. Do you really think this is what happens on job sites? Does this match your personal experience? Because my initial reaction was to laugh to myself at how rarely contractors, subcontractors, and crewmembers would actually engage a process like the one you are describing here. Non-spec stuff happens all the time without record, even in firms with solid QA.
        ziddoap 2y ago
  - chollida1 2y ago
    > It’s better that a mat was designed in a dangerous way vs a production line mistake? That is similar to saying a simple bug is worse than an architectural flaw that no one caught at design time. Far more eyes are on the design flaw vs a production bug. :) I think you're missing my point, or I 've failed to explain it clearly. A design flaw is bad, but we can't eliminate those. According to this article an assembly line employee went rouge and introduced a change without telling anyone. If the article is correct then clearly these two things aren't even near comparable. We expect design flaws and adapt, we don't expect employees to go rouge and change the design without telling anyone. Now the article or Tesla could be lying here but this is the facts as we know them. Does that help clear things up for you? I also dont' think you deserved the downvotes I saw you got for just misunderstanding. Sorry that happend to you!
    - bitexploder 2y ago
      I don't believe I misunderstand anything. This would be an interesting case study. It is very convenient to blame an employee "going rogue" for a dangerous issue like this. The design wasn't even changed. They just used a lubricant (soap?) to slide it on. This overall points out the immaturity in Tesla's manufacturing process if changes like this can happen and then occur or affect every vehicle of a particular type produced, does it not? Overall, it still seems like a "below the line" change. These can still be quite impactful (see: memory corruption bugs leading to compromise and functional exploits). But it is still more akin to a bug or production flaw than a design flaw.
  - toast0 2y ago
    A design error leaves a papertrail for future study and redress. An unapproved/undocumented production change may leave only the misproduced items. Mistakes happen, but this sounds more like changing the process without review.
diydsp 2y ago
wrt to the code: Although NASA found many aesthetic issues with the Toyota code, it did not find a smoking gun. [1] Presumably many other of their other products are running successfully with similar code. To put the comparison bt Toyota and Tesla in perspective: Toyota is an 85 year old company which ships about 10 million vehicles per year. Tesla has shipped almost 5 million vehicles total as of July 2023.[2] [1] "In conducting their report, NASA engineers evaluated the electronic circuitry in Toyota vehicles and analyzed more than 280,000 lines of software code for any potential flaws that could initiate an unintended acceleration incident. " "NASA engineers found no electronic flaws in Toyota vehicles capable of producing the large throttle openings required to create dangerous high-speed unintended acceleration incidents." "The two mechanical safety defects identified by NHTSA more than a year ago – “sticking” accelerator pedals and a design flaw that enabled accelerator pedals to become trapped by floor mats – remain the only known causes for these kinds of unsafe unintended acceleration incidents." https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-department-transportation-releases-results-nhtsa-nasa-study-unintended-acceleration https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-department-t... [2] https://www.licarco.com/news/how-many-tesla-cars-have-been-sold https://www.licarco.com/news/how-many-tesla-cars-have-been-s...
- donkers 2y ago
  That Toyota code was a total mess and NASA missed a few things. Take a look at this report from a CMU prof. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31236303 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31236303
  - SilasX 2y ago
    Correct, but, to bring it back to the original point, there's a difference between "sloppy code" and "sloppy code that cascades into unintended acceleration". The fact that it didn't actually cascade isn't a reason to keep writing sloppy code, of course. But such sloppiness also remains a red herring until they can actually find a concrete way that code could have contributed.
    - warcher 2y ago
mschuster91 2y ago
Or the Takata airbag scandal [1]. A decade worth of airbags that were compromised, over 100 million vehicles that had to have all airbags replaced, likely 100+ injured and dozens of deaths. The sheer scale of that is absolutely mind-blowing, there is virtually no car manufacturer (except Tesla, ironically - I think they manufacture in-house?) that did not get hit. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takata_Corporation#Defective_airbag_recalls_(2013%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takata_Corporation#Defective_a...
- delfinom 2y ago
  It just means Tesla bought air bags from the other manufacturers for airbags. Takata just happened to be the biggest supplier. My old v6 Honda was unaffected by airbag recalls because they used airbags from Autoliv. There is also Daicel and Nippon Kayaku and ZF.
danielfoster 2y ago
That's what I thought until I saw the video. The top metal panel that covers the accelerator literally falls off, wedging itself between the accelerator and the car. It's not a fabric cover.
tibbydudeza 2y ago
My Corolla was also recalled - code was a mess as with most embedded projects but no obvious bugs related to unintended acceleration - think the cases reported were less than a 300. Never encountered the issue. They replaced my floor mats and installed a new pedal assembly and updated to the ECU with "brake override" ability - meaning if I pressed the brake pedal it would ignore input from the throttle.
- delfinom 2y ago
  Yea many things point to it having been mass hysteria and people too stupid to shift their cars in neutral if the throttle really did fail.
skellington 2y ago
Except this has nothing to do with those things. This is just the f'n rubber pad on the accelerator can come off which isn't great, but harms nothing. What is wrong with the people here?
- MisterBastahrd 2y ago
  That's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to those vehicles. You can void your warranty by driving them through car washes. What exactly is the point of a bulletproof truck that can't get wet?
  - _ea1k 2y ago
    No, you can't void your warranty that way. That was hyperbole.
    - bsagdiyev 2y ago
      "Damage caused by car washes is not covered by the warranty." in the owners manual seems to contradict that statement.
      - _ea1k 2y ago
        The preceding sentence explained why. Car wash damage is surprisingly common. I've known people who have had side mirrors damaged (not Teslas) and seeing damage to rear wipers is common enough that I've seen the results of it. This whole story was essentially made up by mischaracterizing some guy's tiktok. :facepalm
        Freedom2 2y ago
        Except everyone I've spoken to has had car wash damage covered by their dealer, except Teslas.
        _ea1k 2y ago
itsoktocry 2y ago
I imagine some of the schadenfreude comes from the Tesla bulls proudly proclaiming "and unlike the other OEMs, Tesla has never had a recall" for years, when it was just a matter of time.
m463 2y ago
tesla also has floor mat issues (that it has tried to cover up)

chollida1 2y ago

If Telsa and the article are telling the truth then these aren't anywhere near the same. The mat was a design flaw from the beginning that missed QA, that happens in any large scale manufacturing as you can't just get everything right from the start. If the article is telling the truth, this was a change made on the build line that wasnt' approved, that's a huge f$ck up if true and an incredible show of incompetence if someone can just start making design changes without approval on the build line.

bitexploder 2y ago
It’s better that a mat was designed in a dangerous way vs a production line mistake? That is similar to saying a simple bug is worse than an architectural flaw that no one caught at design time. Far more eyes are on the design flaw vs a production bug.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  >vs a production line mistake? I think the point they are getting at, if I understand the commenter correctly (and assuming the wording of the article is accurate), is that someone on the line had the ability to make a change to the production process without authorization. That would not just be a "production line mistake", instead it is indicative of a serious policy and procedure failure. No single person on the production line should have the ability to make unauthorized changes to the procedures being used in production. I hate analogies, but to use yours, it is a rogue employee that was able to change critical code with no approval process -- and no one else noticed that code was being changed and went ahead with shipping it out.
  - taeric 2y ago
    This is basically how all construction and manufacturing jobs work out, though? It isn't an isolated "single person" that can make arbitrary changes. They can propose something and it should be reviewed. So, I don't think it is quite as simple as an isolated bug, per se. But it is very common for changes to get introduced at build time of physical things. Depending on where and what the change is, the level of review for it will be very different.
    - ziddoap 2y ago
      >This is basically how all construction and manufacturing jobs work out, though? Not really. Any place with a decent QA department would sample a part, compare it to the specification, and raise an alarm because the part differs from the specification. There also should be occasional audits on the build process itself, which should have identified this, as it would differ from the specified process. This type of issue (again, assuming the articles wording is true -- I have no idea) can only occur if there is either bad/missing QA, or bad/missing specifications. >But it is very common for changes to get introduced at build time of physical things Even in construction you need to have changes approved (i.e. a "change order" approved by the architect, engineer, and owner). Even extremely minor changes (which this would not be) must be documented on the "as-built" drawings.
      - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
        > Even in construction you need to have changes approved (i.e. a "change order" approved by the architect, engineer, and owner). Even extremely minor changes (which this would not be) must be documented on the "as-built" drawings. Do you really think this is what happens on job sites? Does this match your personal experience? Because my initial reaction was to laugh to myself at how rarely contractors, subcontractors, and crewmembers would actually engage a process like the one you are describing here. Non-spec stuff happens all the time without record, even in firms with solid QA.
        ziddoap 2y ago
- chollida1 2y ago
  > It’s better that a mat was designed in a dangerous way vs a production line mistake? That is similar to saying a simple bug is worse than an architectural flaw that no one caught at design time. Far more eyes are on the design flaw vs a production bug. :) I think you're missing my point, or I 've failed to explain it clearly. A design flaw is bad, but we can't eliminate those. According to this article an assembly line employee went rouge and introduced a change without telling anyone. If the article is correct then clearly these two things aren't even near comparable. We expect design flaws and adapt, we don't expect employees to go rouge and change the design without telling anyone. Now the article or Tesla could be lying here but this is the facts as we know them. Does that help clear things up for you? I also dont' think you deserved the downvotes I saw you got for just misunderstanding. Sorry that happend to you!
  - bitexploder 2y ago
    I don't believe I misunderstand anything. This would be an interesting case study. It is very convenient to blame an employee "going rogue" for a dangerous issue like this. The design wasn't even changed. They just used a lubricant (soap?) to slide it on. This overall points out the immaturity in Tesla's manufacturing process if changes like this can happen and then occur or affect every vehicle of a particular type produced, does it not? Overall, it still seems like a "below the line" change. These can still be quite impactful (see: memory corruption bugs leading to compromise and functional exploits). But it is still more akin to a bug or production flaw than a design flaw.
- toast0 2y ago
  A design error leaves a papertrail for future study and redress. An unapproved/undocumented production change may leave only the misproduced items. Mistakes happen, but this sounds more like changing the process without review.

diydsp 2y ago

wrt to the code: Although NASA found many aesthetic issues with the Toyota code, it did not find a smoking gun. [1] Presumably many other of their other products are running successfully with similar code. To put the comparison bt Toyota and Tesla in perspective: Toyota is an 85 year old company which ships about 10 million vehicles per year. Tesla has shipped almost 5 million vehicles total as of July 2023.[2] [1] "In conducting their report, NASA engineers evaluated the electronic circuitry in Toyota vehicles and analyzed more than 280,000 lines of software code for any potential flaws that could initiate an unintended acceleration incident. " "NASA engineers found no electronic flaws in Toyota vehicles capable of producing the large throttle openings required to create dangerous high-speed unintended acceleration incidents." "The two mechanical safety defects identified by NHTSA more than a year ago – “sticking” accelerator pedals and a design flaw that enabled accelerator pedals to become trapped by floor mats – remain the only known causes for these kinds of unsafe unintended acceleration incidents." https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-department-transportation-releases-results-nhtsa-nasa-study-unintended-acceleration https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-department-t... [2] https://www.licarco.com/news/how-many-tesla-cars-have-been-sold https://www.licarco.com/news/how-many-tesla-cars-have-been-s...

donkers 2y ago
That Toyota code was a total mess and NASA missed a few things. Take a look at this report from a CMU prof. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31236303 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31236303
- SilasX 2y ago
  Correct, but, to bring it back to the original point, there's a difference between "sloppy code" and "sloppy code that cascades into unintended acceleration". The fact that it didn't actually cascade isn't a reason to keep writing sloppy code, of course. But such sloppiness also remains a red herring until they can actually find a concrete way that code could have contributed.
  - warcher 2y ago

mschuster91 2y ago

Or the Takata airbag scandal [1]. A decade worth of airbags that were compromised, over 100 million vehicles that had to have all airbags replaced, likely 100+ injured and dozens of deaths. The sheer scale of that is absolutely mind-blowing, there is virtually no car manufacturer (except Tesla, ironically - I think they manufacture in-house?) that did not get hit. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takata_Corporation#Defective_airbag_recalls_(2013%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takata_Corporation#Defective_a...

delfinom 2y ago
It just means Tesla bought air bags from the other manufacturers for airbags. Takata just happened to be the biggest supplier. My old v6 Honda was unaffected by airbag recalls because they used airbags from Autoliv. There is also Daicel and Nippon Kayaku and ZF.

danielfoster 2y ago

That's what I thought until I saw the video. The top metal panel that covers the accelerator literally falls off, wedging itself between the accelerator and the car. It's not a fabric cover.

tibbydudeza 2y ago

My Corolla was also recalled - code was a mess as with most embedded projects but no obvious bugs related to unintended acceleration - think the cases reported were less than a 300. Never encountered the issue. They replaced my floor mats and installed a new pedal assembly and updated to the ECU with "brake override" ability - meaning if I pressed the brake pedal it would ignore input from the throttle.

delfinom 2y ago
Yea many things point to it having been mass hysteria and people too stupid to shift their cars in neutral if the throttle really did fail.

skellington 2y ago

Except this has nothing to do with those things. This is just the f'n rubber pad on the accelerator can come off which isn't great, but harms nothing. What is wrong with the people here?

MisterBastahrd 2y ago
That's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to those vehicles. You can void your warranty by driving them through car washes. What exactly is the point of a bulletproof truck that can't get wet?
- _ea1k 2y ago
  No, you can't void your warranty that way. That was hyperbole.
  - bsagdiyev 2y ago
    "Damage caused by car washes is not covered by the warranty." in the owners manual seems to contradict that statement.
    - _ea1k 2y ago
      The preceding sentence explained why. Car wash damage is surprisingly common. I've known people who have had side mirrors damaged (not Teslas) and seeing damage to rear wipers is common enough that I've seen the results of it. This whole story was essentially made up by mischaracterizing some guy's tiktok. :facepalm
      - Freedom2 2y ago
        Except everyone I've spoken to has had car wash damage covered by their dealer, except Teslas.
        _ea1k 2y ago

itsoktocry 2y ago

I imagine some of the schadenfreude comes from the Tesla bulls proudly proclaiming "and unlike the other OEMs, Tesla has never had a recall" for years, when it was just a matter of time.

m463 2y ago

tesla also has floor mat issues (that it has tried to cover up)