-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Why do they call an OTA update a recall? (24V051000)
- Thread starter airborne spoon
- Start date
People who are saying why wasn't this detected before are overlooking the possibility that Tesla has met the font size for years, but in a recent software update, they messed up, the font size got changed, and was no longer compliant.
It's not like Tesla has never played with size/position/location of various items on the dash or main display over the years and changed those in a subsequent software update. And given this likely was in base code that got incorporated into prior model years across all products, and you suddenly find yourself having to include all of the vehicle population. That is the most likely scenario in my opinion.
So in my view, the most shocking aspect of this for me is how incompetent Tesla continues to demonstrate itself in the abiiity to understand and ensure they are complying with the multitude of automotive regulatory requirements, including the FMVSS requirements.
Just my two cents worth from someone that has lived part of their professional life in both the automotive software/calibration development space and also the regulatory compliance domains.
It wouldn’t be hard, but why add confusion?
A “recall” is in no way qualified by how difficult the process is.
I’ve had recalls that required I leave the car with the dealer for the day, and others that required a 2 minute check. We don’t have subcategories for that.
The important thing is, OTA “recalls” are easier on the owner, on Tesla service, and on Tesla’s account ledger. These are all great talking points and yet more examples of advantages to doing business the way Tesla does.
This wasn't a safety defect though (as reported by NHTSA), it was a compliance issue. NHTSA also only called out FMVSS 135, Tesla appears to have found the FMVSS 105 issue during their investigation.
Still a recall, but for a different reason.
zoomer0056
Active Member
Speculating in this manner is only possible without concrete knowledge of whether this change has occurred.
zoomer0056
Active Member
Exactly!
Qualify it as OTA. Not confusing at all unless one doesn't know what OTA stands for.
The media and the vast majority of non Tesla owners pick up on the word "recall". It's much more dramatic to lead people to think two million cars have to be brought into the shop for work rather than saying a simple "OTA Recall" is in process.
Last edited:
While you may term it to be just a compliance issue, in the regulatory framework and legal terminology used by NHTSA the official terminology is a defect.
legendsk
Member
It is always difficult for me to determine other's motives who do peculiar things. When someone chooses to use the wrong word to speak of something, it is very difficult for me to determine their motive, if any.
It could be just that they are just stupid, which is probably the most likely cause.
It could be they are deliberately making their statement more scary, interesting, threatening, etc., to try to generate undue interest in the matter - which could certainly be a motive for media bidding for more readers, clicks, views, etc.
It could be just a way of belittling their target. (Very popular with politicians.)
It could be a deliberate effort to exaggerate their message in a way that they likely won't be sued for false advertising, libel or slander. (Popular with brands, like vacuum cleaners that claim to have V-6 engines and digital motors, or oxygen concentrators who claim to "make" oxygen.)
On the good side, this does allow the message receiver to ascribe any motive they wish to the speaker and give the message the proper amount of attention and respect that it deserves.
The dictionary definition of "recall" is to summon to return to, from whence it came. So in this case, clearly an over-the-air-update has nothing to do with "recall". But since the speaker has chosen that word to speak of something entirely different, the receiver is equally free to ascribe whatever motive they wish.
It could be just that they are just stupid, which is probably the most likely cause.
It could be they are deliberately making their statement more scary, interesting, threatening, etc., to try to generate undue interest in the matter - which could certainly be a motive for media bidding for more readers, clicks, views, etc.
It could be just a way of belittling their target. (Very popular with politicians.)
It could be a deliberate effort to exaggerate their message in a way that they likely won't be sued for false advertising, libel or slander. (Popular with brands, like vacuum cleaners that claim to have V-6 engines and digital motors, or oxygen concentrators who claim to "make" oxygen.)
On the good side, this does allow the message receiver to ascribe any motive they wish to the speaker and give the message the proper amount of attention and respect that it deserves.
The dictionary definition of "recall" is to summon to return to, from whence it came. So in this case, clearly an over-the-air-update has nothing to do with "recall". But since the speaker has chosen that word to speak of something entirely different, the receiver is equally free to ascribe whatever motive they wish.
Just as speculating "why wasn't this detected before". I simply am putting forward a reasonable hypothesis for why an issue of this type might just now be found yet apply to vehicles which have been produced for the past 10-12 years.
Except in this case there is a specific definition of the term recall used in the legal regulatory compliance space, which in this case is perfectly accurate. It this context both of the terms recall and defect are regulatory compliance terms, not simply literary terms.
zoomer0056
Active Member
Why is neither side looking for the evidence instead of conjecturing? Because it's easier.
Is it? NHTSA phrasology uses "safety defect" and "noncompliance" both of which trigger recalls. I only find "compliance defect" used in derivative documents.
Not that I am opposed to defect instead of issue, but the linkage to safety in the regulations makes me tend to alter word selection to reduce ambiguity.
Federal Register :: Request Access
§ 573.6 Defect and noncompliance information report. (a) Each manufacturer shall furnish a report to the NHTSA for each defect in his vehicles or in his items of original or replacement equipment that he or the Administrator determines to be related to motor vehicle safety, and for each noncompliance with a motor vehicle safety standard in such vehicles or items of equipment which either he or the Administrator determines to exist.
Which sides are you talking about?
NHTSA and Tesla both agreed.
I don't have a Tesla to measure, but my non-Teslas have text 1/8 high, along with additional symbols.
This all boils down to the stigma associated with Recalls. Prior to the rise in software use/dependency in cars, recalls were almost exclusively tied to mechanical safety defects. So when the headlines now only say “Tesla recalls every car ever made”, folks are alarmed until they read further. Like others have stated, the means by which the recall is addressed is irrelevant. OTA updates just make it painless for owners. Look at the Mach-E. Whatever early recalls due to the software had folks needing to go to the dealer.
Wasn’t there a recall in recent years (Porsche?) to replace the door jamb sticker due to incorrect information printed?
As usual, lots of fun options here.
Wasn’t there a recall in recent years (Porsche?) to replace the door jamb sticker due to incorrect information printed?
As usual, lots of fun options here.
Mostly, but media using 'safety defect' in a headline when the root issue is a font size (which was really a non-issue in terms of functionality since the indicator itself is larger than the text height requirement and thus perceivable which was the original intent. Which is not to say Tesla was in-spec, because they weren't and both parties delt with the issue appropriately)This all boils down to the stigma associated with Recalls. Prior to the rise in software use/dependency in cars, recalls were almost exclusively tied to mechanical safety defects. So when the headlines now only say “Tesla recalls every car ever made”, folks are alarmed until they read further. Like others have stated, the means by which the recall is addressed is irrelevant. OTA updates just make it painless for owners. Look at the Mach-E. Whatever early recalls due to the software had folks needing to go to the dealer.
Wasn’t there a recall in recent years (Porsche?) to replace the door jamb sticker due to incorrect information printed?
As usual, lots of fun options here.
zoomer0056
Active Member
Gotta keep up. Its dualling posters. One poster asking why NHTSA never caught the non compliance in all of Tesla history. The other saying they were at one time compliant but speculating they became uncompliant with a recent change.
However, this specific very narrow speculative narrative really is a waste of time.
Biggest issue seems to be the click bait Recall headlines. Misleading and makes things sound much worse than they are. If journalists published an article that Tesla is updating everyones software OTA to bring their displays into compliance, then that would be much more informative than shouting RECALL!
Many posts have an agenda to put Tesla in a bad light. Perhaps trying to slow down their amazingly successful march to convert smelly and poisonous gassers with cleaner running EVs.
Another example might be why they post (with glee) a Tesla catching fire, while ignoring a gas car doing the same thing.
Personal agendas are doing great damage to the reputation of legitimate Journalists. They are losing credibility.
Many posts have an agenda to put Tesla in a bad light. Perhaps trying to slow down their amazingly successful march to convert smelly and poisonous gassers with cleaner running EVs.
Another example might be why they post (with glee) a Tesla catching fire, while ignoring a gas car doing the same thing.
Personal agendas are doing great damage to the reputation of legitimate Journalists. They are losing credibility.
Oh I'm caught up, but didn't see the posters as sides, versus Tesla v NHTSA. Anyone can go measure (if they have a Tesla). However, getting older generation graphics is more difficult unless @verygreen has archived copies. He posted the image assets, so even measuring the updated icons would allow back calculating text size.
Original kick off:
zoomer0056
Active Member
Yup
Except for the alarming perception.
Yup, so qualify them as "OTA Recall" and remove the click bait alarmist headlines.
Similar threads
