"In 2023, 23% or 82 out of 356 vehicle recalls involved software fixes, up one percent from 2022."
https://news.dealershipguy.com/p/software-related-vehicle-re...
[dead]
I don't understand this 'recall' language. Isn't it just a software update?
"The company has released an over-the-air software update to fix the issue, it said."
1. Once upon a time, cars had no software and no OTA updates. If there was a serious defect it had to be returned to a dealership for the defect to be rectified. This was a recall, i.e. an official order to return to a place. The NHTSA has the authority to require and coordinate recalls.
2. Then cars got software, but had no OTA updates. If there was a serious software defect, the car had to be returned to a dealership for them to install a software update. This was still called a recall - you still have to take the car back to the dealership, after all, and the NHTSA is still involved.
3. Then cars started receiving OTA software updates. As 2. established that a software update for a serious defect is called a 'recall', and the NHTSA is still involved through their recall-coordination authority, this is still called a recall even though the car doesn't have to be returned to a place.
The term recall has specific legal meaning that differentiates it from other notices like TSBs. A recall must be issued when an issue brings a vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS (the regulations determining what's road legal). Manufacturers and dealerships are not allowed to sell vehicles with outstanding recalls, and they're usually required to fix recalls regardless of warranty status for affected consumers. It doesn't say anything about the actual solution (which might be as trivial as a new manual), only the legal responsibilities that come with the notice.
You are missing:
4. Then cars started receiving OTA software updates, but a significant percentage of the cars already suffer irreparable damage to their computers before they installed the update, and therefore still have to be taken to the Tesla service center for repairs.
It's a "recall" because frankly there is still a good chance you are going to have to go into a service center, even if the OTA update works.
I don't have expertise in why the language is used, but I'd imagine:
* this is the language traditionally used in automobiles
* the term probably has a specific meaning with regulatory and culturally established implications throughout organizations that touch maintenance and safety
* it may get more meaningful for whatever subset of autos that didn't/can't receive the OTA update
> it may get more meaningful for whatever subset of autos that didn't/can't receive the OTA update
I know that for my old ICE car, they keep track of what recalls I apply. I'm usually notified multiple times, when there's recalls.
I suspect that lawyers are why they do it. If your brakes don't work, and you run over a kid, whether or not it was a known recall, and, whether or not you applied it, will likely have a lot to do with how the legal process works out.
Or it's just a misleading headline
The headline is correctly using the term according to the NHTSA definition as a requirement for the manufacturer to fix an unreasonable safety issue. Whether it is OTA does not change the fact that it is a recall any more than if a manufacturer sent someone onsite to fix a mechanical issue instead of having the vehicle owner bring it in.
If only a 5 second Google search could tell you: https://autocrypt.io/transformation-of-vehicle-recall/
The fact that this thread is full of people who envisioned a physical recall is evidence enough the word is misleading. If reuters was an industry journal, sure.
Uhh the point is for people to take it seriously. Which works.
It’s the law. OTA updates are not instant nor are they 100% guaranteed, so consumers must be notified.
So just to be clear:
- they knew the assist was dangerously broken - while people drove around with this dangerous code running they worked on improving the code so they could say it is now "fixed" - released the update
I see how this is the most... efficient... way to handle the situation, from a monetary perspective. But this is not how I, or anyone I know, would handle life-critical code. Not to bring politics into yet another thread, but this is not a smart or human way to handle things.
First, you disable the damn road assist. It's an optional feature, FFS!
I think "power steering assist" here is another technical term that misleads people who aren't car nerds. It's not some kind of lane assist feature, it's the system that makes the steering wheel easy to turn at low speeds. Anyone who's used to driving cars built after 1950 or so would not consider it an optional feature.
Sounds efficient.
It's not meant to be efficient; it's meant to be thorough, and auditable, and if required, able to be litigated in court.
It's also used in warranty claims in the private market.
To notify consumers of safety issues using the existing rails that are used to notify consumers of safety issues?
The economy of thought that you brought to that comment could be seen as impressively efficient, depending on the outcome you want to optimize for given inputs.
- "Recall" statistics are a factor in new car purchases. I don't particularly care if the fix is OTA, but I do care about a brand's propensity for releasing safety-critical garbage. Skirting around those aggregations and consumer reports by skirting around the language is good for Tesla and not for purchasers.
- If it's not a "recall," there isn't much of a government paper trail for consumers when the OTA update goes awry. You don't even know if you should have such and such version of the software, and if the patches are non-linear then it's non-obvious even to experts examining your car's current status whether it's been applied or not.
- OTA updates for cars seem fraught with peril. Have you ever seen a bricked Tesla driving down the road? It's terrifying. Have you ever been the driver of such a Tesla while not in cell range? It's more terrifying because you don't know if the charge will last till you have cell service or what will happen if you're stuck in the middle of nowhere. Did they ensure the update would only apply after you've turned the car off and on again? Even if they did, if you drove your car and the steering/brakes/gas suddenly behaved differently, do you think you'd be more or less likely to crash? Whether they can technically solve the thing with an OTA update or not, it seems prudent (not that it's happening yet) to force people to make a proactive decision to opt in to the change.
"Have you ever seen a bricked Tesla driving down the road?..."
I'm having trouble making any sense whatsoever out of this paragraph. It does not appear to bear any relationship whatsoever to Tesla OTAs. They don't apply while you're driving. The vehicle must be in park and is inaccessible until the OTA has successfully completed. If for whatever reason the update can't complete successfully, the vehicle rolls back to its previous software version.
Driving a "bricked" Tesla isn't a thing. Worrying about not being in cell range isn't a thing. Installing an OTA does not involve any kind of act of "turning the car on and off again".
(Owner of multiple Teslas for 6+ years).
> Have you ever seen a bricked Tesla driving down the road? It's terrifying.
How often has this happened?
At least once to every one of my friends with a Tesla. Apparently it's safe enough (your fly-by-wire brakes and whatnot still work), but not even having a speedometer available while you're driving doesn't give a lot of confidence in the machine you're in (and it might not be obvious till you test them that brakes will work or that you'll be able to start the car if you stop it somewhere without cell coverage).
You're talking about the MCU (media control unit), which is completely isolated from the critical driving functions of the vehicle. As its name implies, this unit mostly drives the vehicle's entertainment functions. It's actually incredibly confidence-inspiring to me to know that the MCU can go entirely offline and the vehicle continues to function at 100%. This seems like it must be table-stakes for all vehicles, but I've seen more surprising things.
I'm not sure why you mention cell coverage, given that it is entirely unrelated.
Good to know the legally mandated speedometer is just media (I jest a little).
> why mention cell coverage
When the culprit is a borked OTA, it's very non-obvious that it'll behave correctly without another remote signal, and the fact that you're allowed to drive your car might only be because you haven't shut it off yet (immediate safety outweighing the danger of driving a partially functioning vehicle).
"It's just an OTA software update"
The way the fix is applied is irrelevant. The important thing is that their vehicles have a safety issue and it needs to be fixed and documented for each vehicle.
It's completely relevant.
The term shouldn't be overloaded.
When you see a recall you shouldn't have to wonder if it's a download or if you need to take the car in.
A recall means “PAY ATTENTION! Something may still be broken!”
The recall will mention how to get it fixed, regardless of a OTA update or service visit.
The lack of a mere download could mean the difference between life and death.
I can't speak for the auto industry but I used to work in durable medical equipment and anything that involved fixing devices that are already in the field is a recall for legal purposes. Adding new functionality wasn't a recall, but if we claimed a device did a thing and then realized that we have to change the hardware or software in order to actually make the device do the thing, then that was a recall (technically a CAPA, "corrective or preventive action").
it's an outdated legalese and the media capitalizes on it for clicks.
They could have clarified that it was a software update in the title. But they never do.
Because the media is doing its job and using the correct term.
It's not going to be an OTA software update for everyone.
Do we have to go over this every time?
Recall has a specific legal meaning for calls. That’s why it’s used. The law authorizes the government to demand “recalls”.
It does not specify how that’s done. Software update, dealership visit, roaming packs of mechanics.
This isn’t a conspiracy to make Tesla look bad, it’s the correct term.
Is it time for a new term? It may be correct but it also seems to be profoundly misunderstood by many.
You're welcome to go lobby congress to change it. But it is a legal requirement to say "recall", because that is the explicitly named power that they have been given by congress.
Is it a legal requirement to be ambiguous in the article title?
Simply qualifying the overloaded term as "software recall" would suffice.
Never happens though.
The last physical recall I had to take a car in was to have a zip tie affixed to some line or wire to minimize the chance of wear over time.
Should we have a separate term for "a recall that isn't related to losing control of the vehicle and crashing"?
It sounds bad to associate my car needing a zip tie to minimize wear with your car needing a software patch to not crash.
nope, just "software recall" and "hardware recall" terms.
that way you know whether to make sure you got the update or know to take the car in physically.
severity for both can differ, that's what the details are for.
Those aren't good alternatives unless the point is to also overload "hardware" and "software".
A software recall can require bringing the vehicle in physically. That happened with Rivian's update recall in 2023. Likewise, there are hardware recalls that don't involve taking the vehicle in physically, like the Kia immobilizer recall that involved them mailing a lock bar to certain customers.
those are still hardware issues.
if you can't fix it via a software update, it's hardware.
not a hard concept to grasp.
you aren't overloading those words as "recall" is in the phrase.
The Rivian recall (and ones I've been a part of myself) have been software updates. Not all software updates can be applied remotely in automotive, particularly when things go wrong. Sometimes you'll need to unseal casings to access a recovery port, for example.
And the Kia recall was an example of a hardware recall that didn't require the owner to visit a shop. Both are possible, so trying using software and hardware to differentiate between shop visits is overloading the terms.
Nah, the term is correct. That Musk and his fan boys can't handle the exact same word being used for their car as is used for anything else is their issue.
Perhaps this FAQ will help you https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2024-11/MVSDefec...
They release software updates too. This is different.
A "recall" is a legal term of art referring to a (voluntary or government-mandated) fix for a safety-related issue affecting a motor vehicle.
Recall has multiple meanings; in this context the meaning intended was "to summon back" to a location specified by the manufacturer so that the fix could be implemented.
In modern times, "recall" for vehicles has been conflated with the term-of-art "recall" that is used with respect to consumer products, for which the intended meaning was "to return or revoke."
(For those who don't see the difference: the first meaning is temporary, the second is permanent.)
[flagged]
Now the media is making Tesla's code bad and features unsafe. Is there any low the media won't reach for?
> Tesla on Friday said it was recalling 376,000 of its electric vehicles in the U.S., due to a failure of the power steering assist feature that could make the vehicles harder to steer, particularly at low speeds, raising the risk of a crash.
I'm curious what happens if this fails and you try to use FSD. Is it:
• Power steering assist only applies to manual steering so FSD notices nothing different,
• Power steering assist does assist FSD's steering, but FSD uses feedback from what the car actually does to decide how to steer and so it will compensate for the change in steering characteristics,
• It will notice something is off with the steering and tell the human to take over, or
• Something else.
As a service to the many people who still think of recalls as being physical in nature, they could call it a soft recall (as opposed to a hard recall).
Or the insignificant minority of people who deeply care could simply learn what the word means.
It is about so much more than how the fix gets delivered.
A recall on a car means that the manufacturer has identified a safety-related defect in the vehicle and is taking some action to correct it. It doesn't matter if it's OTA or the customer has to bring it in. Can we please stop pissing about the language every single time?
I guess DOGE will set its sights on NHTSA next.
That actually happened already... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/02/21/musk-doge... (paywall)
I don’t get why we have these here on HN all the time. Lots of cars have recalls https://www.caranddriver.com/recalls/
Cause it's Tesla which is own by someone who wants to deregulate a lot of things
[flagged]
Funny enough, Honda is recalling 1.7 million cars for a similar issue except it's a much larger recall and the parts have to be physically replaced: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a62570036/honda-steering-r...
Because Tesla falls in the "startup" category in most people's minds (whether it _should_ fall in that category is irrelevant). And this is a forum run by startup investors, and frequented by startup investors. QED.
People rightly or wrongly revel in the fact that while Tesla has a reputation for being good at software, in reality they're somewhat shit at it.
This gives no insight of being "bad" or "good" at software.
There is no such thing as zero bugs. You will have to rollback sometimes.
But I'm sure you're perfect.
Anytime they have a software update for a "recall", I imagine what the headlines would look like if Apple had to "recall 2 billions iPhones for a security fix"
My iphone can't kill someone else moving 70 mph down the highway during the normal course of its operation.
Not if the Mossad has anything to say about it.
WTF, dude. The iPhone wasn’t designed to be an explosive device.
Samsung Note 7: hold my battery.
> The iPhone wasn’t designed to be an explosive device.
…just like those pagers.
The pagers were designed as explosive devices and specifically marketed to Hisbollah leaders, with fake justifications for the added weight from the explosives.
In contrast, no iPhone teardown has shown any explosives, and Apple still has a reputation for saving weight wherever possible.
If you have an iPhone that mysteriously has only a fraction of the battery capacity of a normal iPhone it might be time to worry if you have the Mossad version with inbuilt explosives. But otherwise I wouldn't worry too much. A battery explosion would be inconvenient but much less effective
> with fake justifications for the added weight from the explosives.
There was negligible weight increase, as the battery was significantly shrunk to allow hiding the explosive inside [1].
> At some point, Hezbollah noticed the battery was draining faster than expected, the Lebanese source said. However, the issue did not appear to raise major security concerns - the group was still handing its members the pagers hours before the attack.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/graphics/ISRAEL-PALESTINIANS/HEZBOLL...
The pagers actually were designed to be explosive devices. I'm guessing you didn't dig into the details of that story and just saw the headlines?
This has nothing to do with his point, which is that its a software update, not a typical 'recall'
A recall is a formal process for addressing a safety issue. It doesn't matter whether the safety issue is caused by hardware, software, or literally even a single line of text in an owners manual.
Unlike Tesla, all other manufacturers ask car owners to bring their cars to local dealerships to update firmware or even do any mechanical changes. That's what "recall" is in the auto industry: schedule an appointment; take a day off; drop off a car; come back home (either uber/lyft or dealer provided cab); wait for a call from the dealership; then, pick up your car after everything is fixed according to recall.
Compare the above with Tesla's "over-the-air" software updates for recall. So much better, even if one doesn't like Tesla vehicles or Musk.
That is not true. Other automakers also have OTA updates, even e.g. Chevy trucks [0]. And some safety fixes can be mailed to customers to DIY. I did one on my Honda -- there was a typo in the owners manual on a safety critical statement. Honda mailed me a sticker and told me where to place it.
0: https://www.gm-trucks.com/gm-recall-brake-warning-light-fail...
Every time there is yet another "recall" that turns out to be an automatic software update, I shudder at the idea of putting my life directly in the hands of "move fast and break everything" web culture.
Continuously updating software is a terrible dynamic, especially for things that you want to be tools that just work. It discourages companies from doing QA/reliability engineering in lieu of a culture where could-have-been-foreseen bugs can just be discovered and fixed later. It makes it so that "owners" cannot trust their machines/systems to just keep working predictably, and have to accept whatever third party whims may dictate at a moment's notice. And generally such schemes result in hostile software that works against users - eg surveillance that serves the interests of the manufacturer.
For most software-related recalls, the most hassle I ever had was a service tech telling me that they updated my firmware during an oil change. So, in practice, it really was never that much of a hassle.
That's admittedly not much of an option for Teslas...
You're ignoring the difference in the Tesla update being pushed out to cars immediately, while the other manufacturer's update waited until you happened to bring your car in for servicing. How many miles did you continue to drive a car after it was deemed in some way unsafe enough for a recall?
From what I remember, I don't recall a software update recall being deemed unsafe enough to stop my from using a car. I don't recall any physical recalls being deemed unsafe enough to stop me from using a car. Taking care of small recalls during a quarterly or semi-annual check up was perfectly fine. I think I only ever had one recall that required an immediate appointment to get fixed, and I think that had something to do with wiring.
The media tends to make more of an issue with Tesla recalls than other car companies -- especially for these relatively minor updates. I think the original article here is one of those articles.
Tesla doesn't even push out recall updates immediately to all cars. There's a controlled and orderly distribution. The fact that it's OTA is nice, but it's honestly not that different from a practical point of view. (Again, for software updates).
What I can't stand are Tesla OTA updates that break functionality. A year or so ago, they pushed an update for the auto windshield wipers that made mine operate worse. That was a safety hazard, but they have gotten better (but still not "good"). But every time my Model 3 updates, I'm scared of what's going to get changed. Sometimes the updates are good (I'm happy to have SiriusXM streaming), sometimes frivolous.
OTA updates are now widespread in the automotive industry.
The specific example that other user gave clearly did not have OTA updates.
But like EVs in general, the industry wide move to more OTA updates was in large part due to the competition that Tesla presented forcing the rest of the industry to keep up.
I don't think people are buying vehicles based on the recall procedures. But Tesla did prove that recall costs could be reduced by doing OTA updates.
Maybe not recalls specifically, but the continued improvement of Tesla's software even after purchase is absolutely a selling point of their cars, especially in the era before widespread Android Auto and CarPlay when the software in cars was almost universally awful.
At least, as long as they actually are improvements. Not every OTA has been well received by owners. I don't have a problem with OTAs for bug fixes, but I'm personally weary about OTAs that change features. Tesla's tendency to treat their OTAs like their cars are an agile software project is not to my personal taste.
CarPlay has been around long enough, does get OTA updates, and I personally prefer that model because it is strictly scoped to the infotainment, and won't change the way my windshield wipers work.
It does if you look at what 'recall' means legally.
It is funny how Tesla fans' and critics' philosophy on which definitions to use depends entirely on the topic being discussed.
For the Tesla fan, the colloquial definition of "recall" is what we should go by because the car doesn't actually have to return anywhere. Meanwhile, when it comes to "autopilot", they want us to use the technical definition of a system that is not entirely autonomous to the point that a pilot isn't needed.
Tesla critics on the other hand will reverse those two, claiming it is the technical definition of "recall" and the colloquial definition of "autopilot" that matter the most.
Except recall has a specific regulatory definition in the US. Whether or not a physical recall is required is completely irrelevant to something being labelled a recall. A recall is simply a defect that has a safety impact and the manufacture is required to notify owners and provide a fix. Problems that can be resolved via OTA updates can still qualify as recalls.
Autopilot has no such formal definition (at least not in the context of cars). Musk/Tesla have continually over-sold what their various iterations of autopilot (Autopilot, FSD, etc) can do AND also fall back to "it's an autopilot just like a boat or plane" which completely ignores that boats or planes aren't typically operated on busy highways by untrained pilots.
Yes, this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
A Tesla fan could also give you an equally logical explanation about how the "regulatory definition" of "recall" is outdated because it is from an era in which all recalls were physical or that the general public's misconceptions about autopilots for boats and planes are not Tesla's fault.
My point was not that either side of these debates is right or wrong. It is that people are transparently starting with a conclusion and working backwards to justify it rather than having any consistent principle underlying their belief on this issue. It is pointless to debate whether definitions are or are not important when the actual issue being debated here is whether Tesla is good or bad.
Sure, the term might be outdated. But from my perspective, it's almost exclusively Tesla apologists playing weasel words...
"Autopilot doesn't mean what we promised; only what wikipedia says. GOTCHA!"
"Recall should only apply to physical fixes THIS IS SOFTWARE. GOTCHA!"
You mentioned "both side" in your first post and I really don't see it.
It is funny that I ended my last comment with the following: "It is pointless to debate whether definitions are or are not important when the actual issue being debated here is whether Tesla is good or bad." and you're seemingly still trying to engage me in a debate on the definitions of these words. Just say you don't like Tesla and move on.
Some, but perhaps not all, car companies tend to be less than friendly with recalls. My Porsche has never had fewer than three recalls and they really turn the screws on owners. My Taycan has faulty brake lines that have been ordered but magically not found when I bring my car in for the recall repair. This has happened three times. The working theory from owners is the brake lines are ending up in Certified Preowned Cars since they can’t sell them without the parts.
Usually by the time the NHTSA has them send a second notice the parts magically appear in stock. The same has been true for the NEMA 14-50 plug recall (Running 40A over 10AWG wire - setting walls on fire, melting outlets, melting plugs) and a few others.
Porsche has been reasonably good about software fixes, presumably since they don’t cost as much money. They are not great at applying them and not much is done OTA.
Until they do a nicer job here we hopefully will see the NHTSA continue to broadcast these recalls and embarrass these companies into action. When you have issues getting things fixed you can complain to the NHTSA and they do follow up.
It doesn't if you look at the plain english meaning of recall, or the historical context of what a car recall was.
> the historical context of what a car recall was.
Maybe if you're only familiar with high profile recalls that have been covered in the news. Automakers have issued fixes that are DIY or fixed in the field for basically the entire history of automotive recalls. For example: misprinted owners manuals shipped to vehicle owners.
This is only because they still haven't bothered to update to the internet enabled world.
> This is only because they still haven't bothered to update
I'd argue the opposite. As cars are largely and increasingly controlled by software, these issues have as much if not more effect than a lot of mechanical recalls.
It's honestly a bit forward-thinking that given this software fixes are also classified as recalls.
They update by interpreting new situations with logical extensions of the existing rules.
NHTSA can order a "recall" for a safety defect, would people prefer they say that car makers can't satisfy a "recall" order except by returning the car to the location it was built?
Cars still kill people in the internet world, unfortunately.
It lends credence to how severe the language needs to be. A car recall is very serious and implies people need to take action. A software update is meh, I’ll look at that later. Seemingly a Tesla software update is more aligned aligned with “recall - update your stuff” rather than “update - do this whenever”
I've had several cars subject to recall and every one of them was "go ahead and bring it into the dealer whenever, show them this notice and they'll fix it". I imagine there could be some "drop everything and get this fixed right now" issues but I think the idea that every recall is a drop everything issue is more in alignment with your intuition than the reality on the ground.
A car with an active recall is in violation of FMVSS and can't legally be sold by dealerships (or the manufacturer) until the recall is fixed. It's very much a "drop everything" issue for regulated parties in the automotive space. It's only as a consumer that you get to take your time and deal with it whenever, which I think is a very reasonable tradeoff.
It's more if I own the car "pink slip" there is not really a way to compel me to get a recall repair.
Obviously this is different, now, because of some cards and models for the car ECU.
s/some/SIM/
That is what recall is.
> My iphone can't kill someone else moving 70 mph down the highway during the normal course of its operation.
How do you know if you haven't tried?
Maybe they have!?
Phones certainly have distracted plenty of people going 70mph... some of those distractions have been fatal. I would imagine scant few of those distractions had been due to security breaches, but probably not zero.
We could imagine a following scenario: a clever virus spreads via zero day exploit to every iphone. The virus uses accelerometer to detect velocity over 70mph and initiates a bedlam protocol a minute after that. Your phone starts blaring maximally offensive content at max volume, controls are locked. Particularly effective when connected to car speakers.
The scenario is highly improbable, but there is a vector for a phone security flaw to be extremely impactful.
An iPhone hitting someone in the head at 70mph could indeed kill them.
Welllll it can if you're looking at it instead of the road. But I get your point
Sure it can, if the overcharge protection built into the battery malfunctions for some reason. There is speculation that a battery overcharge bug was fixed in a recent update issued to old Pixels.
You'd be surprised how many phones are involved with car accidents though.
The issue here is with the word recall, which is slightly alarmist This is a bit of a non-event for owners and they'll get a completely routine over the air firmware upgrade soonish with some mandated changes. No dealers are involved. Just a simple update.
Somehow a lot of these recalls are limited to the US only. Which raises a few questions of course about the rest of the world and what Tesla is doing there. I think it's just the language and the processes of the NHTSA that result in this clickbaity reporting. Also a lot of cars ship without over the air update capabilities. What happens with recalls for those?
For example, when the wheels may come off in a Toyota (NHTSA 23V432000), it's somehow less news worthy than when it is about a Tesla. That one got a "do not drive" advice along with the recall BTW, as you'd hope. It only affected a few hundred cars fortunately. But I bet more care owners and mechanics did work to double check they weren't affected. That happened 2 years ago. Not all recalls are similarly scary, of course. Most are quite boring actually. Especially Tesla ones.
There's a helpful tool (https://datahub.transportation.gov/stories/s/NHTSA-Recalls-b...) that allows you to slice and dice recall data by manufacturer. There are a lot of recalls. The vast majority are real recalls involving component replacements from car manufacturers that are mostly not Tesla. Tesla seems to be able to address their issues via software mostly. By the numbers, maybe be careful with Ford, GM, or Toyota. Lots of recalls for those. Parts falling of causing crashes. Electrical failures resulting in drive train failure mid drive. You know, minor issues like that. Totally not worth reporting on hacker news because it doesn't involve Tesla or Elon Musk.
This also raises a few interesting questions about the software quality of other manufacturers. Apparently they ship bug free software (try explaining that to VW owners) or their software is just not getting a lot of scrutiny. Is Ford really that good at software or updating it? Or maybe the NHTSA is a bit selective with their scrutiny here? On a positive note, really nice of them to do free QA for Tesla.
Recall is a specific legal notification that's required for non-compliance with US laws. Other countries have different processes, different terms, and different laws. Even when they are issued with the same terms for the same problem, they're generally less covered by news media. NHTSA doesn't require that manufacturers issue recall notices for other countries for obvious reasons. Some countries pay attention to US recalls and issue their own, like this recall issued by Germany [0] following the publication of a US recall [1].
There's no NHTSA conspiracy against Tesla. If anything, they're overly lenient on Tesla compared to other manufacturers.
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/safety-gate-alerts/screen/webReport/ale...
[1] https://www.tesla.com/support/recall-brake-fluid-level-senso...
As a Tesla owner who was the recipient of one of these famous "OTA" updates I can assure you that many of these recalls also involve needing to take your Tesla into the service center because the horrible software managed to actually damage the hardware.
For example as this article clearly says: "some 2023 Model 3 sedans and Model Y crossovers running older software could face an overvoltage breakdown, potentially overstressing motor drive components on the printed circuit board." If you look it up there are "many such cases" lol.
Personally I'm on the second computer for my Tesla, and I'm sure it won't be the last time some terrible software bug burns out the computer or circuit board.
While we're swapping anecdotes, I own several Teslas, starting over six years ago, and have never experienced this. I've also never met a person in my life who has experienced this.
In contrast, I've had recalls from other manufacturers take so long (several years), that my vehicle died before I was able to get them applied. I've had a recall where the OEM is refusing to make it available to me, because it only occurs in "cold" weather.
Tesla's recalls are better than the rest of the entire industry.
I often hear Tesla supporters say that Tesla builds a car around a computer while other manufacturers are just stuffing a computer in their car.
From experience, to me the problem with Tesla cars is that the computer isn't that great in the first place, and build quality and ergonomics of the actual car are clearly an afterthought.
I'd much rather have a mid-tier computer in a Toyota-level car than the most expensive Acer laptop in a Kia.
> From experience, to me the problem with Tesla cars is that the computer isn't that great in the first place, and build quality and ergonomics of the actual car are clearly an afterthought.
Ah, so it's a TV company!
(SmartTV software tends to be _terrible_, both from a doing-what-it's-supposed-to point of view, and a security point of view. But the TVs are essentially built around it, nonetheless.)
Sounds like their software team applies the "move fast and break things" motto even to cars.
Yes, I find the language misleading. Recall to me is synonymous with call-back. Which means I have to bring back, return it. On your PC, when you do a software update, you are not returning your operating system, you are rebooting your PC. Return vs. reboot. Quite a difference.
“Recall” is and has always meant that a version of the product has a public critical safety defect, not the remedy.
“Initiated safety recalls require a manufacturer's action to announce and remedy the defects.
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.”[1]
Note how it only talks about the presence of a critical problem, not how it is solved. A “recall” is stating that the defective version of the product in the field must be “removed” and replaced/updated with a non-defective version at the manufacturer’s expense.
The only reason this is confusing is because Tesla has been actively and intentionally misusing the term and sowing confusion to downplay the number of critical safety defects in their cars.
But I agree, at this point Tesla has sufficiently poisoned the term that they and everybody else can convince customers that they do not have critical safety defects because they can fix them remotely.
As such, the term should be replaced with “public critical safety defect notice” which is clear, precise, accurate, and can not be misused.
With many (most?) car companies, a software update is a call-back.
My Ford, with a cell connection, receives OTA updates for stuff like the entertainment system, but I've had to bring it in a couple of times for updates to safety systems.
>but I've had to bring it in a couple of times for updates to safety systems.
Personally I'm completely fine with that, anything with the ECU/lower level safety control-by-wire systems should not be accessible to the OTA system.
It's only a matter of time until hackers remotely shut down cars and cause chaos though.
https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-hig...
It is, in fact, a matter of ten years ago that hackers were able to remotely shut down a moving vehicle
[dead]
Tesla release software updates too. This is different.
It would be nice if we started treating security defects like hardware defects
Note in particular there is no statue of limitations on some issues. All that protects Ford from having to recall (as in government forced recall) every model T to install seat belts, airbags, crumple zones, TPMS, backup cameras and the like is the courts generally will agree that those things were now known back then and so we shouldn't hold old systems to new standards.
Note that buffer overflow attacks have been known since the 1980s. If there is a problem with internet connected windows 3.1 courts should ignore it since microsoft didn't intend for that to be connected to the internet. But windows 95 was intended to connect to the internet and Microsoft probably should recall and patch all buffer overflow vulnerabilities in it. (but they can continue to not support modern AES encryption because that was not know in 1995)
In my experience, hardware defects are usually ignored. If you're lucky, an "errata" will be published somewhere and you won't get a fix unless you buy a new one.
As others pointed out, it is a legal requirement. I kind of think tech should be regulated the same way. At least if the product has >X amount of users.
I know the dangers are not as immediately obvious as the automobile industry, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
We live in a world where consumer technology interacts with medical equipment, heavy machinery, security systems, etc.
The difference is in the first paragraph of the article:
"due to a failure of the power steering assist feature that could make the vehicles harder to steer, particularly at low speeds, raising the risk of a crash."
That's how that kind of thing is handled in the automotive world shrug
And my cars have had "recalls" that consist of "insert this piece of paper between pages 219 and 220 of your owner's manual".
Still a recall.
Wouldn't be one of these threads without people complaining Tesla should be treated differently.
A part was failing due to overvoltage/overwork, leading to 3000 or so related warranty events being triggered in the field, so they have to do a fix to affected vehicles. Because it's a regulated field, though I'm sure soon enough they'll be able to just sweep it under the rug.
Every Tesla story on here sees the same "just a software update" thing, but this is a software update to fix a serious issue that hit thousands of vehicles.
Fortunately, iPhones don't weigh 2 tons or run the disk of hitting other drivers and pedestrians.
[dead]
Came for the top comment in defence of Tesla, and was not disappointed
Ok,whem do iphones kill their users or others. Do you live in. Cartoon world?
The use of regulatory jargon isn't that bad. I mean, the word "recall" has a specific meaning to the DOT and a specific set of requirements and this action is being taken under that regime. It's a "recall". That the etymology is confusing is unfortunate, but language just does that sometimes.
So it's nice that we have these people called "journalists" who help us navigate this kind of jargon maze by explaining for the lay reader what the actual meaning of the complicated regulatory communication is.
Except that this particular journalist decided to bury that fact ("The company has released an over-the-air software update to fix the issue, it said.") in the seventh paragraph, just a dozen words from the end of the article. That's just straight up malpractice. Reuters is actively trying to harm their readers understanding of the issue.
It's becoming increasingly important to abandon the idea that a journalist's job is to sell you an accurate picture of what's happening in the world. A journalist's job is to farm attention and customer data and then sell it to advertisers.
Yep.
Someone in my family is the type who features quite frequently in the news. I don't mean tabloid-style stuff, or anything related to criminal activity. It was always about fairly serious topics however.
As a result, I got to compare first hand information to what ends up in the news. And boy, there are no words.
The worst part is that there is no hope. The root cause is that the incentives -- engagement, like you said -- are rotten. Gell-man amnesia etc complicates things further.
The fix is to start paying for news again. This is capitalism. Everyone serves the one who pays them and sells everyone and everything else. If you want them to serve your interests, pay them.
I'm honestly of a mind that while the internet's attitude of making everything available for free was fun and exciting, it's time for us to start paying for things again or not using them. More often the latter than the former. It's baked into our ideological framework that there always has to be an exchange of value. No one will give up something worth something unless they also get something worth something. For a while investors who recognized potential subsidized losses in companies like Facebook and Amazon, but that was with the (evidently correct) expectation that they'd get all of that money back and then some. But that's correcting itself. Everyone either sells you something or sells you to someone, just like it was before the internet. So if someone is letting you use their app for free, they're likely selling you to someone else behind the scenes. If you pay for what you use, you at least have a potential deal that fulfills the rule of exchange without making you the product and you can shop that deal around to see if there are any takers.
What are you getting at? Didn’t you answer your own question?
“Apple recalls 2 billion iPhones for security fix!”
Point is that phones and computers are constantly getting software updates, in which many bugs are patched. We don't get headlines announcing that the phones are being recalled.
Phones do not have passengers travelling on them at 80mph. Car software is on a different league of risk.
Important distinction here is that not every software update for a vehicle is intended to fix bugs, much less those than contribute to driving error.
Not every Tesla update is a recall, for example.
It's a good separation when an update addresses a bug - which can lead to drivability/safety issues - is classified differently than one that doesn't. And a recall makes sense, though the issue seems to be that some people associate that with deadly mechanical issues alone.
Of course, mechanical recalls happen all of the time, too, but are very often minor and/or ignorable.
What if we use Google and we can see that we get media reporting on security issue updates (and maybe if is Apple the fanboys will also start defending similar as Tesla/Elon fanboys here)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2025/02/12/ios-...
- But mom, it is not a recall, it is not fair
others explain that recall has a meaning and if you read the article you will understand it is an software update for a significant issue
[flagged]
NHTSA uses recalls for all vehicle defects. I have two outstanding recalls for a Ford that will be a software only fix when they're ready.
There’s an interesting linguistic concept of a “retronym” meaning a term that is created because it needs distinction in the context of technological change.
An example is an “acoustic guitar”. There was no reason for that term prior to the invention of an electric guitar because everything was just a “guitar”. Maybe it’s time to differentiate based on user interaction with a recall, but as it currently stands, they are all “recalls” just like acoustic and electric variants are all still “guitars”.
I mean, the more we use the word, the more people will figure it out right?
Also, it seems like we should differentiate between a software update that puts new features in your music app and one that fixes power steering.
Here we go again with Tesla cultist trying to change what the word "recall" means.
Does that mean the people defending the misuse of the word "recall" are regulation cultists?
It’s not misuse. It’s misunderstanding.
Google "term of art".
[flagged]
Who said I am ignoring all the great things software does? What is this comment even.
A recall is a recall. Every time Tesla has one these recalls apologist come out and try to change what the word means. It is a RECALL. It isn't a big deal.
Fair. I don't think it needs a recall if it doesn't change the way the car operates. Perhaps there is a new class of change notification between "release notes" and "recall" that needs to be established.
'I don't trust those with the knowledge, expertise, and experience in the industry that created the system' is a heck of a take after your 'pro progress' previous post.
This needs a broader context. On some fronts, software is amazing from a reliability perspective. It doesn’t wear out and can be updated easier. On the other hand, it creates new failure modes and interaction effects that are much harder to define, test, and mitigate thoroughly. Anyone who pretends software is wholly good or bad is probably wrong.
Shouldn't a recall imply that this software update is so critical that a real danger was possible?
I don't think they are ignoring anything. One of those amazing things is cars. This is what it's called when the gov't mandates a software update for cars because of a safety issue...
I'm not sure why that's controversial
As a Tesla owner it is relevant to me whether I have to drive to a service center, or ignore it and do nothing.
And as a person who trusts mass market automobiles with my own safety and that of my family I could not care less if Tesla owners experience some kind of weird insecurity (?) when their OTA updates are described using a term of art with a specific contextual meaning, whose existence arguably makes us all safer. Software issues with automobiles are just as capable of injuring or killing people as mechanical issues, so regardless of the remedy, they should be treated with equal severity from a regulatory perspective. We do not need a new word for OTA recalls just to safeguard the feelings of Tesla owners and others who benefit from their convenience.
It's quite literally not recalling anything. Think about what the word actually means.
Irrelevant. Google "term of art".
The recall will clearly state what the remedy is?
It is there because whatever the issue is it can potentially affect safety. In this case a power steering issue is A SAFETY issue. Therefore, a RECALL is issued.
Why is this so hard to comprehend?
My vague understanding is that it also exists because the NHTSA notices a problem and demands the manufacturer to fix it.
Which is to say, my understanding is that if Tesla had noticed the issue first, and fixed it immediately, then no recall would have been issued. And since it's an OTA update that Tesla can push whenever, it was totally within Tesla's power to fix it before someone at the NHTSA went through the trouble of issuing a recall.
Tesla owners should be pissed at Tesla for outsourcing software Q&A to the NHTSA, not at the NHTSA for issuing recalls when it finds bugs.
Is this a physical recall or a software "recall?"
A recall is a recall in automotive safety language, regardless of the method the remedy is delivered by. It means there was a safety issue with the vehicle severe enough that it needs to be publicly announced and added to the statistics and databases
[flagged]
Meta rant:
What drives me up the wall is the cognitive dissonance.
Toyota or Volvo or any other "good" brand recalls something and everyone is all "ooh, they're taking things back to fix them at great expense, look how much they care about their customers"
Tesla, Chrysler or any "bad" brand recalls something and it's all "hurr durr, steaming pile of crap is unfit for the road"
It's not cognitive dissonance. The head of Tesla is not a legitimate business person. That is the difference. He is now deep in the most sensitive parts of government. And this is only the beginning.
If Koji Sato of Toyota had access to everyone's SSN, EIN, all financial audits, a large part of or essentially all details on all federal government contracts, there would be outrage too.
>It's not cognitive dissonance.
Then what is it? I'm no fan of Musk and friends and what they're up to but Tesla making the same cars of about the same quality since before Musk became the bad guy and everything associated with him became tainted. The way Tesla turned on a dime from being lauded by every idiot with an internet connection like Toyota to being derided like the Stellantis brands despite no substantive change in their products and offerings really lays bare the degree to which people lack principals and let their assessment of what is good and bad, right and wrong, or serious and trivial, blow in the wind based on the parties involved.
Which ones have an active CEO running the business, and which one has a completely absent narcissist ketamine addict bent on destroying things he doesn't understand when he's not ignoring his children?
In a filing with NHTSA, Tesla said some 2023 Model 3 sedans and Model Y crossovers running older software could face an overvoltage breakdown, potentially overstressing motor drive components on the printed circuit board.
They swiss-cheesed something elementary as EPAS and had to waste time and money pushing an update. That's an "L", as kids these days say.
> Tesla said that if this overstress condition occurs while the vehicle is in motion, the steering remains unaffected, and a visual alert is triggered. But once the vehicle stops, the steering assist may fail and remain disabled when it moves again.
IMO, this isn't a safety issue worthy of a recall then.
Any component failure that pops up a warning and allows the driver to safely pull over to be towed for a repair is not a safety concern.
Obviously, users might expect more of an expensive car - but that's what warranties and consumer protection laws are for, not safety recalls.
It's not clear to me if the light stays on, a PR department is likely to not be vague about something positive. Anyone used to past vehicles of similar size may expect less risk driving a car with no power steering to a shop (or just away from a risky place to be stopped).