3 ms·

I'm not sure I agree. From the perspective of a customer, not being able to drive the car due to it being unsafe is the part that matters, not where and how the

by saghm 2y ago

I'm not sure I agree. From the perspective of a customer, not being able to drive the car due to it being unsafe is the part that matters, not where and how the manufacturer has to fix it. If you're opposed to it based on the assumption that it wouldn't take as long, I agree that might be true, but by that logic we should be categorizing _all_ recalls based on length (regardless of whether it's a software update or otherwise), since I'm not convinced that the average length of time until a problem is fixed will always be perfectly split with the software ones being super quick and the ones that would need to happen in person being super slow. What if the mechanics are already aware of how to fix the issue and can do it the same day, or if the software issue turns out to take a long time due to the developers needing a lot of time to fix the bug? If you're opposed to it purely from the perspective of linguistics and "recall" sounds like "return to the manufacturer", I think I'd disagree due to the word "recall" not being super commonly used for that in other circumstances. If anything, the other usage of the word that springs to mind most readily to me is recalling someone or something "from service", which I think fits perfectly here.

mewpmewp2 2y ago
It still doesn't sound right to me. Sure we can get adapted to the new meaning of the term as time goes on, but to me the term has strong implications to physically bring it back, and it is weird that people are claiming that it doesn't. Surely this causes a lot of confusion at the very least people thinking those vehicles actually have to be brought back.
- Topfi 2y ago
  But it isn’t a new meaning. Rather, those arguing that recall should now exclude OTA want to change a long established definition.
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    Google "definition of product recall" First 2 answers in asq.org and wikipedia Recall is the act of officially summoning someone or something back to its place of origin. A product recall is defined as a request to return, exchange, or replace a product after a manufacturer or consumer watch group discovers defects that could hinder performance, harm consumers, or produce legal issues for the producers. and A product recall is a request from a manufacturer to return a product after the discovery of safety issues or product defects that might endanger the consumer or put the maker or seller at risk of legal action. Product recalls are one of a number of corrective actions that can be taken for products that are deemed to be unsafe. It specifically says "request to return." It's very important because the word "recall" to me is rather about the cost to the business and consumer rather than severity of an issue or it being specifically safety issue. Recall could be something that is done as a response to a safety issue, but recall could be done for some other reasons as well. E.g. the product could not just be performing as well, but not be a safety issue. There's a defect that means product lifetime will be limited, etc.
    - Topfi 2y ago
      > Google "definition of product recall" I did, just to be safe, once again look up the legal definition of recall (both in regard to cars and other products) and continue to find that it was never written in a way that would make OTA not fit the term. It isn't limited to vehicles, but extends even to perishables for which a physical return directly to the manufacturer is not expected even using a more liberal interpretation of the word. Here, this is what recall, in this context means: > 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. Source: https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#recalls-7746 https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#recalls-7746 OTA falls under that. Can you perhaps find some source saying the contrary somewhere on the internet (just like one can find numerous sources proclaiming the earth to be flat)? Yes. Does that change the legal definition as it has been in place for decades? No. And if you want to fully ho by whatever some random person may believe recall to mean, then does that mean that product recalls for produce, milk, etc. do not exist according to you, because the item isn’t necessarily interfacing with the manufacturer again, but may just get disposed? That was my point. If people feel this definition should be changed, more power to them, but arguing that OTA have as of yet not been covered by the definition is just dishonest. I'd be partial to calling these recalls something akin to "Mitigating unreasonable safety issue", but I feel that for some reason, some people may feel compeled to argue that this wouldn't be fair to Tesla either, no matter how dangerous or forseeable a fault might be.
      - mewpmewp2 2y ago
        Yeah, the argument is about the legal definition being misleading and confusing and what should be changed, because of the bias and meaning of the word "recall". The fact that most google results will imply physical return of the product is evidence of popular definition and legal definition diverging. In addition the word inherently implies bring it back because of the "re". It doesn't imply "there's a safety issue that needs to be addressed". > some people may feel compeled to argue that this wouldn't be fair to Tesla either, no matter how dangerous or forseeable a fault might be. Also the point isn't about whether it's fair to Tesla or not. I don't care about Tesla here. It could be any manufacturer, point is that it makes it seem like it's a financial and logistical nightmare to come, but clicking on headline, it's just a software update. Of course by now, I've personally seen this in headlines many times and grown indifferent, but it occurs to me still every time. In my native language the term "recall" has even stronger implications of physical return, it means "call to bring it back". It sounds even more bizarre than in English for a software update.
- DonHopkins 2y ago
  And the word "Email" has strong implications to actually putting a piece of paper in an envelope with stamp, and physically delivering it to their mailbox. But the world adapted and survived the change in the strong implications of the word "mail", somehow, and continues to turn on its axis.
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    How does e-mail have that implication when it specifically has e in front of it?
    - DonHopkins 2y ago
      Because lots of words start with "e", like "envelope". If I'd said "Electronic Mail" then maybe you would have a point, but I didn't.
quonn 2y ago
> not being able to drive the car I had plenty of recalls and it never happened even once that I could not drive the car before the recall.
- croes 2y ago
  Maybe better, shouldn’t drive the car because of safety issues
  - infecto 2y ago
    This is hyperbole. Most of the Tesla recalls that I can remember did not impact the safety of the vehicle.
    - thunky 2y ago
      Is there no difference between a software "recall" and a software update? I'm imagining (uneducated guess) that the software is updated more often than it is recalled, and so a "recall" is an update that addresses a safety issue.
      - infecto 2y ago
        Specifically speaking on software and tesla most/all recalls are for items that no longer comply with a government rule. No argument, the rules should be followed but I do believe there is a shade of gray as a number of them are imo tail events. They should be fixed but I would not classify them as the car cannot be used because safety is an issue. "The Boombox function allows sounds to be played through an external speaker while the vehicle is in motion, which may obscure the Pedestrian Warning System (PWS) sounds. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 141, "Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles" "A software error may cause a valve in the heat pump to open unintentionally and trap the refrigerant inside the evaporator, resulting in decreased defrosting performance. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 103, "Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems." " A factory reset muted the Pedestrian Warning System (PWS) sounds. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 141, "Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles." "An incorrect font size is displayed on the instrument panel for the Brake, Park, and Antilock Brake System (ABS) warning lights. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 105, "Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems" and 135, "Light Vehicle Brake Systems." Outside of these there are a handful of FSD recalls and a couple that are more critical, like rear-view cameras not working due to software. Stating again for the eventual naysayers, all of these absolutely should be fixed but I believe they are shades of gray in terms of how critical they are to safety.
infecto 2y ago
My model y has had a number of recalls and I never knew about it. From things to the UI not meeting government requirements to other software issues. It was never unsafe to drive.
- Aeolun 2y ago
  Just because you didn’t crash doesn’t mean it was safe to drive.
  - infecto 2y ago
    Have you even looked at the recall list or are you just spewing the usual Tesla hyperbole? Recalls should be fixed regardless but the vast majority of Tesla recalls are not base case safety fixes. Sure they comply with a government rule for some tail case but hardly the earth shattering situation where the car sits unable to drive because it’s unsafe. Font sizes, boom box drowning out the pedestrian noise…all kinds of things. Hence why I said every recall that I have gotten was not a true safety item. Unless you have experience or facts stop with the hyperbole.

by saghm 2y ago

mewpmewp2 2y ago

It still doesn't sound right to me. Sure we can get adapted to the new meaning of the term as time goes on, but to me the term has strong implications to physically bring it back, and it is weird that people are claiming that it doesn't. Surely this causes a lot of confusion at the very least people thinking those vehicles actually have to be brought back.

Topfi 2y ago
But it isn’t a new meaning. Rather, those arguing that recall should now exclude OTA want to change a long established definition.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  Google "definition of product recall" First 2 answers in asq.org and wikipedia Recall is the act of officially summoning someone or something back to its place of origin. A product recall is defined as a request to return, exchange, or replace a product after a manufacturer or consumer watch group discovers defects that could hinder performance, harm consumers, or produce legal issues for the producers. and A product recall is a request from a manufacturer to return a product after the discovery of safety issues or product defects that might endanger the consumer or put the maker or seller at risk of legal action. Product recalls are one of a number of corrective actions that can be taken for products that are deemed to be unsafe. It specifically says "request to return." It's very important because the word "recall" to me is rather about the cost to the business and consumer rather than severity of an issue or it being specifically safety issue. Recall could be something that is done as a response to a safety issue, but recall could be done for some other reasons as well. E.g. the product could not just be performing as well, but not be a safety issue. There's a defect that means product lifetime will be limited, etc.
  - Topfi 2y ago
    > Google "definition of product recall" I did, just to be safe, once again look up the legal definition of recall (both in regard to cars and other products) and continue to find that it was never written in a way that would make OTA not fit the term. It isn't limited to vehicles, but extends even to perishables for which a physical return directly to the manufacturer is not expected even using a more liberal interpretation of the word. Here, this is what recall, in this context means: > 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. Source: https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#recalls-7746 https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#recalls-7746 OTA falls under that. Can you perhaps find some source saying the contrary somewhere on the internet (just like one can find numerous sources proclaiming the earth to be flat)? Yes. Does that change the legal definition as it has been in place for decades? No. And if you want to fully ho by whatever some random person may believe recall to mean, then does that mean that product recalls for produce, milk, etc. do not exist according to you, because the item isn’t necessarily interfacing with the manufacturer again, but may just get disposed? That was my point. If people feel this definition should be changed, more power to them, but arguing that OTA have as of yet not been covered by the definition is just dishonest. I'd be partial to calling these recalls something akin to "Mitigating unreasonable safety issue", but I feel that for some reason, some people may feel compeled to argue that this wouldn't be fair to Tesla either, no matter how dangerous or forseeable a fault might be.
    - mewpmewp2 2y ago
      Yeah, the argument is about the legal definition being misleading and confusing and what should be changed, because of the bias and meaning of the word "recall". The fact that most google results will imply physical return of the product is evidence of popular definition and legal definition diverging. In addition the word inherently implies bring it back because of the "re". It doesn't imply "there's a safety issue that needs to be addressed". > some people may feel compeled to argue that this wouldn't be fair to Tesla either, no matter how dangerous or forseeable a fault might be. Also the point isn't about whether it's fair to Tesla or not. I don't care about Tesla here. It could be any manufacturer, point is that it makes it seem like it's a financial and logistical nightmare to come, but clicking on headline, it's just a software update. Of course by now, I've personally seen this in headlines many times and grown indifferent, but it occurs to me still every time. In my native language the term "recall" has even stronger implications of physical return, it means "call to bring it back". It sounds even more bizarre than in English for a software update.
DonHopkins 2y ago
And the word "Email" has strong implications to actually putting a piece of paper in an envelope with stamp, and physically delivering it to their mailbox. But the world adapted and survived the change in the strong implications of the word "mail", somehow, and continues to turn on its axis.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  How does e-mail have that implication when it specifically has e in front of it?
  - DonHopkins 2y ago
    Because lots of words start with "e", like "envelope". If I'd said "Electronic Mail" then maybe you would have a point, but I didn't.

quonn 2y ago

> not being able to drive the car I had plenty of recalls and it never happened even once that I could not drive the car before the recall.

croes 2y ago
Maybe better, shouldn’t drive the car because of safety issues
- infecto 2y ago
  This is hyperbole. Most of the Tesla recalls that I can remember did not impact the safety of the vehicle.
  - thunky 2y ago
    Is there no difference between a software "recall" and a software update? I'm imagining (uneducated guess) that the software is updated more often than it is recalled, and so a "recall" is an update that addresses a safety issue.
    - infecto 2y ago
      Specifically speaking on software and tesla most/all recalls are for items that no longer comply with a government rule. No argument, the rules should be followed but I do believe there is a shade of gray as a number of them are imo tail events. They should be fixed but I would not classify them as the car cannot be used because safety is an issue. "The Boombox function allows sounds to be played through an external speaker while the vehicle is in motion, which may obscure the Pedestrian Warning System (PWS) sounds. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 141, "Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles" "A software error may cause a valve in the heat pump to open unintentionally and trap the refrigerant inside the evaporator, resulting in decreased defrosting performance. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 103, "Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems." " A factory reset muted the Pedestrian Warning System (PWS) sounds. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 141, "Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles." "An incorrect font size is displayed on the instrument panel for the Brake, Park, and Antilock Brake System (ABS) warning lights. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 105, "Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems" and 135, "Light Vehicle Brake Systems." Outside of these there are a handful of FSD recalls and a couple that are more critical, like rear-view cameras not working due to software. Stating again for the eventual naysayers, all of these absolutely should be fixed but I believe they are shades of gray in terms of how critical they are to safety.

infecto 2y ago

My model y has had a number of recalls and I never knew about it. From things to the UI not meeting government requirements to other software issues. It was never unsafe to drive.

Aeolun 2y ago
Just because you didn’t crash doesn’t mean it was safe to drive.
- infecto 2y ago
  Have you even looked at the recall list or are you just spewing the usual Tesla hyperbole? Recalls should be fixed regardless but the vast majority of Tesla recalls are not base case safety fixes. Sure they comply with a government rule for some tail case but hardly the earth shattering situation where the car sits unable to drive because it’s unsafe. Font sizes, boom box drowning out the pedestrian noise…all kinds of things. Hence why I said every recall that I have gotten was not a true safety item. Unless you have experience or facts stop with the hyperbole.