7 ms·

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

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
        >Do you really think this is what happens on job sites? Does this match your personal experience? I worked in ICI (Industrial, Commercial, Institutional) construction for ~10 years. Yes, this matches my experience. Perhaps it is different where you are from. I also experienced this while doing utility locating for oil & gas pipelines (~2 years). As-built drawings were very accurate, and detailed any deviation from the initial drawings.
        kylecordes 2y ago
        In the 2000s I had a SaaS firm making software for underground utility locating companies so I learned a lot about the industry. In most parts of the country as built drawings are unusual for residential property anyway. Locating staff mostly shows up, looks at whatever drawings are available, and then has to figure out what was actually done from the clues and by using locating equipment. Many of these folks end up with a very subtle understanding of what common practice was by different utility companies in various specific areas in specific eras.
        ziddoap 2y ago
        >In most parts of the country as built drawings are unusual for residential property anyway. I was doing large transmission pipelines (i.e. NPS 24 to NPS 56), so I can't speak to residential, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was less attention paid to as-built drawings when the cost of damage/replacement wasn't in the millions of dollars.
- jon-wood 2y ago
  This sounds like standard corporate ass covering to me. "Oh, that was just an unauthorised rogue employee, they've been fired" sounds a lot better than "someone suggested lubing up the accelerator to speed up production, and no one thought to check it won't cause problems".
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    For sure, I have no idea if the wording is truthful or just standard corporate blame dilution. But if the wording is truthful, this would be a significant process & policy failure.
  - explaininjs 2y ago
    If you ask me the lube just accelerated the problem. The root cause remains that you have a part secured with only a friction fit, in a setting where if that friction fit fails you have a a critical failure of the system. Friction fits can be very strong when properly established between appropriate materials, but this was not that. This was a cheap plastic cover made to be a bit too small over the metal lever. Over time with heat, sand/dirt, cold, pressure, vibration, etc. cycles, this was going to fall off regardless.
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.

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
      >Do you really think this is what happens on job sites? Does this match your personal experience? I worked in ICI (Industrial, Commercial, Institutional) construction for ~10 years. Yes, this matches my experience. Perhaps it is different where you are from. I also experienced this while doing utility locating for oil & gas pipelines (~2 years). As-built drawings were very accurate, and detailed any deviation from the initial drawings.
      - kylecordes 2y ago
        In the 2000s I had a SaaS firm making software for underground utility locating companies so I learned a lot about the industry. In most parts of the country as built drawings are unusual for residential property anyway. Locating staff mostly shows up, looks at whatever drawings are available, and then has to figure out what was actually done from the clues and by using locating equipment. Many of these folks end up with a very subtle understanding of what common practice was by different utility companies in various specific areas in specific eras.
        ziddoap 2y ago
        >In most parts of the country as built drawings are unusual for residential property anyway. I was doing large transmission pipelines (i.e. NPS 24 to NPS 56), so I can't speak to residential, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was less attention paid to as-built drawings when the cost of damage/replacement wasn't in the millions of dollars.
jon-wood 2y ago
This sounds like standard corporate ass covering to me. "Oh, that was just an unauthorised rogue employee, they've been fired" sounds a lot better than "someone suggested lubing up the accelerator to speed up production, and no one thought to check it won't cause problems".
- ziddoap 2y ago
  For sure, I have no idea if the wording is truthful or just standard corporate blame dilution. But if the wording is truthful, this would be a significant process & policy failure.
- explaininjs 2y ago
  If you ask me the lube just accelerated the problem. The root cause remains that you have a part secured with only a friction fit, in a setting where if that friction fit fails you have a a critical failure of the system. Friction fits can be very strong when properly established between appropriate materials, but this was not that. This was a cheap plastic cover made to be a bit too small over the metal lever. Over time with heat, sand/dirt, cold, pressure, vibration, etc. cycles, this was going to fall off regardless.

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.