Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cybertruck's Many Recalls

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 463 posts

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#61

Post by Veserv »

pbreit wrote: post #8

Are these "recalls" just simple over the air software updates? Just because car people are not used to this doesn't make it necessarily bad. Obviously no bugs are better than some bugs. But people here tend to know how software development works.

This always comes up. A “recall” is not a description of the remediation, it is a description of the problem.

A recall is a public dangerous defect notice. The dangerous product version can no longer be deployed, existing systems suffering from the dangerous defect are identified, and then the version with those dangerous defects is removed from the market with all due speed by either refunding, replacing, or remediating at the manufacturer’s expense. The defective version is thus no longer present, i.e “recalled”.

The term has a precise meaning as I laid out. Unfortunately, it has been so thoroughly intentionally poisoned by bad actors in recent years that the term should be retired. We should use the descriptive term: “Public Dangerous Defect Notice” to avoid such bad faith misrepresentation going forward.

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#62

Post by qwerpy »

lttlrck wrote: post #53
gibolt wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The panels will not rust, which is the reason to avoiding scratches on other vehicles. You can beat the hell out of it and not have to care.

Oh did they fix the rusting issue from the beginning of the year?

I think that story turned out to be media sensationalism. I’ve owned one for over half a year, in the distinctly not dry PNW. No rust at all.

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#64

Post by stackghost »

pbreit wrote: post #8

Are these "recalls" just simple over the air software updates? Just because car people are not used to this doesn't make it necessarily bad. Obviously no bugs are better than some bugs. But people here tend to know how software development works.

>But people here tend to know how software development works.

Yes and the way software development tends to work is absolutely unacceptable in safety-critical systems in a 7000 lb vehicle.

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#66

Post by stackghost »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #4

The article notes that the most recent recall was a physical one, not a software update, and implies that that was unusual. I wonder if you exclude "recalls" resolved by software updates, for all cars, where it would rank then?

>I wonder if you exclude "recalls" resolved by software updates, for all cars, where it would rank then?

Why have you put "recalls" in quotes? It gives the impression you think this makes it somehow lesser. The cybertruck, for example, was subject to a recall because the rearview camera wouldn't come up, but the mirrors are insufficient to back the vehicle up safely without the camera.

That's a safety issue, irrespective of whether or not the fix was in software.

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#67

Post by BeefWellington »

pbreit wrote: post #8

Are these "recalls" just simple over the air software updates? Just because car people are not used to this doesn't make it necessarily bad. Obviously no bugs are better than some bugs. But people here tend to know how software development works.

It's not the only one.

There's been been a number of physical recalls for the Cybertruck, including:

- Accelerator pedal sticking[1]

- Trunk bed trim detaching[2]

- Front windshield wiper failures[3]

- This latest drive problem[4]

From what I could find via the NHTSA there's only been six this year for Cybertrucks, so it seems like the majority are physical problems.

Edit: Forgot HN's formatting for lists.

[1]: https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=24V276000

[2]: https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=24V457000

[3]: https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=24V456000

[4]: https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=24V832000

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#68

Post by fastball »

serf wrote: post #59
gibolt wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The panels will not rust, which is the reason to avoiding scratches on other vehicles. You can beat the hell out of it and not have to care.

most people care about scratches because they look like shit. paint is a bit more than just corrosion protection at this point, otherwise mfgs would just slap on the thickest toughest machine-tool grade enamel and call it a day. why don't they? because it looks terrible.

And most cars end up scratched anyway, and most owners do not take their car in for detailing every time this happens (if at all).

Re: Cybertruck's Many Recalls

#69

Post by riffraff »

YZF wrote: post #7

I saw my first Cybertruck the other day. It looked less weird in person than I expected it. It's a very different and new design. How many of the 91% we're comparing to are completely new designs. What's the correct benchmark? Let's rewrite the headline. "A radical new EV design from Tesla, the Cybertruck, is already ahead of 9% of all 2024 vehicles in quality as it just ramps up production". I'll likely never own th…

> is already ahead of 9% of all 2024 vehicles in quality

but 90% of those 2024 vehicles are much cheaper, so you would expect a lower quality. Also remember the cybertruck was presented five years ago.

Post reply on HN