US orders safety recall of Tesla Cyberquad-for-kids ATV Tesla's Cyberquad for Kids – a $1,900 mini-ATV that's the closest most people will get to a Cybertruck – has been recalled by US watchdogs over numerous safety issues. The hazardous ride was unveiled during Tesla's Cyber Week in cyber 2021, and cyber sold out within cyber hours of being cyber available. 5,000 of the vehicles …
" it's either disable the vehicle for a refund – or don't, honestly."
I clicked that link out of curiosity..... Are they serious?
Why do I suddenly detect a load of RPi's and/or Arduinos and some big MOSFETS becoming popular....
And if you did return the controller for a refund, what the heck are you supposed to do with and dispose of the rest of the bike and it's battery?
Making these will probably be a small cottage industry before too long.
Followed immediately by another cottage industry suing the makers of the replacement units for contributing to the delinquency of minors, and putting kids into harm's way.
Followed by yet another, this time suing Radio Flyer and Tesla for not making sure the thing stayed dead.
Followed by Tesla and Radio Flyer suing each other to deflect the blame (and financial losses).
A couple of good law firms could probably pay their overhead stringing this thing out for decades.
During the meanwhile, I'll bet there is a battery pack and charger assembly out there somewhere that'll slide right in, after minor adjustments. Caveat emptor.
I doubt the disabling of the vehicle will involve only the electronics. Good chance they'll require photographic evidence of something far more drastic (like a removed section of frame tube) to prove the disabling. Potentially even proof that it was dismantled and anything metal crushed beyond repair.
Huh, apparently I was wrong, the only requirement to receive a refund is to send them the motor controller*. Indeed in that case it would be a very simple matter to retrofit any of dozens of 3rd party motor controllers
(*See the recall FAQ)
What kind of traction engine are you running? I doubt most of them if designed for anthracite are going to run too well on wood (though they might if you don't run them very hard. Grate area will probably be a little small for good performance burning wood in a firebox designed for coal)
ABC News article that includes an embedded video on the subject, showing some testing of rollovers and examples of the rollover bars, and that major quad-bike manufacturers (Suzuki, Honda, Yamaha) pulled out of Australia rather than conform to the new requirements - which opened the door for China's CFMoto, who was willing to comply with the regulations.
Basically, the research showed that 60% of quad-bike deaths were not caused by direct injuries during a rollover - boken bones, blood-loss due to lacerations, etc. - but by people being pinned beneath a bike and suffocating from the weight of the bike on top of them. This is why the majority of deaths are of children/teens and of people over 60, as they are typically not strong enough to push the bike off themselves or crawl out from under a pike pinning them, whereas 20, 30 year-old (mostly males) typically can. The roll-bar reduces the risks of that happening, enabling the person to crawl out from under the bike because it is less likley to be pinning them under its full weight.
They claim that research in other countries points to the rollbar being a bigger hazard (snagging on trees, or causing injury to the rider because they prevent the rider from coming off the bike. The UK's/Northern Irelands HSENI for instance recommends against ROPS) Australian research seems to point to people coming off the bike being rare and it being nearly impossible for roll-bars to cause injuries greater than would be sustained in the accident if the rollbar wasn't there.). Mostly it seems like it was a heavy handed attempt at coercing AUS into not implementing the rules because they fear they won't sell enough of them after making the chances to recoup cost (because there's too many people being very vocal and buying into the repeating talking points against the devices about how it would impede work or how it would be dangerous)
It does seem odd. I'd have thought that any ATV manufacturer, to cover all type of customers, would at least have OEM rollbars as an option such that switching to a ruling where they are required, all they do is start fitting them as standard and up the base price to match. That report seems to be from 2020. I wonder if the other manufactures have caved now and gone back into the AUS market with regulation approved ATVs yet? Or are they still sulking?
The Tesla thing should be called "Suburban Yuppie Lawn Toy Vehicle", because that's where it was designed to be driven. Just like the plastic "Barbie Convertible" and "GI Joe Jeep" and etc.
Sounds like yet another group of the typical hand-wringing, childless "think of the children" set whining about nothing, and taking all the fun out of childhood.
Remember back when kids were allowed to actually climb trees, outdoors, without supervision? Somehow our generation survived, and did some pretty useful shit. The current and last couple generations? Nothing but a bunch of stay-at-home crybaby whiners who will never amount to much of anything. Poor bastards.
We still have lots of kids driving quads. See a lot of them at the beach. We just prefer that they are not crushed to death if they roll the vehicle. The rollover protection does not take away any of the fun.
The main reason they were introduced though was nothing to do with kids. More to do with trying to stop fatalities on farms. Cattle stations are so vast, that farmers will take ATVs out and if they roll them and get crushed may not be found for some time.
The "motor controller removal instructions" sheet shows (page 2) a pretty appalling wiring harness - looks like a prototype lash-up.
Given such standards, it's quite possible that the frame isn't strong enough to support roll bars. This would seem to be a "promo" vehicle - a bit if PR hardware, not a practical ATV.
Considering the target "customers", range and max speed, I don't think it's should even be called "ATV" since that implies something quite rugged and powerful. This is little more than a childs toy, not an All Terrain Vehicle. Using ATV in the marketing and actual name of the product implies it is more than it actually is. A bit like putting an advanced cruise control in a car and calling it AutoPilottm and letting the public think it's more than a marketing stunt (And no, the "small print" doesn't absolve you from blame when it goes wrong!!)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
