Why didn't Tesla issue a recall?

I’m not a big fan but wondering if they are being punished for leaving California?

That’s funny @Bing. I’m sure you’re joking because it doesn’t make sense at all. Tesla is moving their HQ to Austin, TX, not out of the country.

Also, it sure looks like Tesla is not following the rules set up to protect citizens from predatory manufacturers. Tesla isn’t the only one to do that, but they should know that companies that do thumb their noses at these rules end up paying a lot of money for the mistake. Toyota paid more than $66 million eight years ago for delayed reporting of unintended acceleration problems. Other manufacturers have met a similar fate when they didn’t provide due diligence on safety issues.

2 Likes

I guess I’d be interested in the connections of the people that made the decision to pursue the issue. Seems though a recall for an over the air software update for a system that is still supposed to have a live person monitoring is somewhat suspicious. Strange things are happening though.

Why does everything that involves the government have to also involve some sort of conspiracy?

2 Likes

Now you’re catching on. It’s called experience. It doesn’t have to involve that, but don’t ever think that it might not. Sometimes the hoof beats are in fact from Zebras.

So Tesla updates their software over the air, and the government wants them to recall the vehicles so people can drive to the dealers and be told that their car has already been fixed? Punishing a company for fixing something seems to be a very bad way to regulate safety.

Being able to correct a safety issue by sleight of hand does not excuse the manufacture of recall procedures. When a safety issue is known, the manufacture is required to notify NHTSA and vehicle owners of the problem within a certain time period, usually 30 to 60 days. manufacture are then required to file recall completion data to NHTSA.

There have been some recalls resolve via the postal system, not all recalls require a visit to a dealer. Read the instruction on the recall notice.

1 Like

There’s another name for it…but I’ll be polite. So far your conspiracies you keep promoting have been total bogus.

3 Likes

In other words, calling something a safety issue and then making it in to a safety defect when it really doesn’t qualify for a safety defect that should traditionally require a recall.

Imagine a car company selling or offering a steering wheel upgrade where you can get a new steering wheel that is less slippery and easier to grip. Then the government comes along and declares this a safety defect and forces a recall and a free upgrade. The car company is just going say it’s fine and not offer that upgrade.

If something that isn’t mandated for safety or doesn’t do something that it was never advertised to do in the first place is classified as a safety issue it means that almost everything on a car would be a safety issue. Broken horn - safety issue. Window won’t go down - safety issue. Power steering starts slipping - safety issue. Engine stall - safety issue. Burned out headlight - safety issue. Broken turn signal - safety issue. Stuck parking brake linkage - safety issue. Broken speedometer - safety issue.

All these things are just normal things that break and are repaired normally. The government shouldn’t be allowed to arbitrarily declare these things to be safety defects. With the GM ignition switch failures, the only reason why it got classified as a safety defect is it turned off the airbag, even though the engine stalling combined with an improperly trained driver is what caused most of the accidents and deaths. I agree that it is suspicious for any improvements on the auto pilot to require recalls. Maybe the existing auto industry is using the NHTSA to pick on Tesla since they don’t have an auto pilot system of their own?

I think the autopilot tech is kind of a safety hazard in and of itself, personally.

1 Like

2 recals on the Toyota, spare tire may not be inflated to correct pressure, and a new sticker for maximum weight, certainly not as dangerous as autopilot,

1 Like

They don’t do that. The NHTSA is a professional organization that has a predefined process used to evaluate issues and determine if they are worthy of a recall. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with it.

Tesla circumvented that process and may have to pay a large fine for doing so.

4 Likes

Must be a conspiracy.

I expect the answer is related to how the 737 Max was allowed to continue flying.

Yup!
Anything and everything with which we disagree (or simply don’t understand) just HAS to be a conspiracy.
:smirk:

3 Likes

I made no claim. I only asked the question given the unusual timing and current events. Some questions must not be asked.

image

1 Like

Actually I believe the 737 MAX disaster was at least partially due to huge amounts of bureaucracy, regulation, and working with conflicting goals of the new airplane modification within Boeing, while trying to prevent any changes from being seen as safety issues. Changing out the engines would require certifying the airplane. So they wanted to patch it to make it fly like the original version. They probably couldn’t modify the flight controls in the proper way because it’s not a fly by wire airplane, and / or modifying the flight controls would require lengthy testing due to regulations. So they decided to make an automatic trim adjustment system with limited authority, just enough to correct the different handling from the new engines. With such small authority, there was no danger of the system adjusting the trim to the point that the airplane would be unable to fly, so only one sensor was needed as an input to this system. At some point it needed to have greater authority, perhaps to be able to act as an additional stall recovery system as well. It was then given enough trim adjustment authority to crash the airplane if it malfunctioned. Perhaps the thought was that adding an additional redundant sensor to the system would make this look like a safety system that would require much testing before it could be approved. So they used a single sensor to control the system. The sensor failed at least 3 times causing the stall recovery system to activate when there was no stall. One flight crew was able to shut the system off in time. The two others didn’t know what was going on until it was too late.

My point here is that there is a possible parallel between a car company and Boeing. The car company may not want to improve a possible safety issue for fear that it will be noticed by regulators and result in a recall and cost a lot of money. Then there is Boeing who may have tried to modify their airplane in such a way that it would not be seen as a safety issue by regulators and cost them a bunch more money. Perhaps there is more to the story about why Boeing didn’t even require pilots to even be aware of the new system?

Many years ago, I was flying to Seattle for vacation, and seated behind me was a guy who claimed to be a Boeing engineer. For most of the flight, he regaled the young guy sitting next to him with tales of how many bits of bad engineering shortcuts had gone into the 727, 737, and 747.

It was obvious that his tongue had been loosened by copious amounts of alcohol, so much of what he blathered about may have been exaggerated, but–needless to say–I never again felt fully confident when flying in a Boeing plane.

But you didn’t post the OTHER stages.

It’s tested, verified and pier reviewed.