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.
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.
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.
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.
- "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".
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).
- 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.
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.
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.
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").
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.)
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.
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.
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.
"The company has released an over-the-air software update to fix the issue, it said."