Tesla recalls 239,382 vehicles over rearview camera problems Days after the US's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) began an investigation into the company's Actually Smart Summon technology, Tesla is is now recalling almost a quarter of a million vehicles over a separate issue – glitches with rearview cameras on some models. 239,382 Teslas are affected from the 2023 – 2024 Model 3 …
The fact that they have a PCB that can short itself out because of software settings tells you that it's not been designed properly or safely at all.
If a fuse popped (or even better a resettable fuse), fair enough. But the board shouldn't SHORT OUT and cause circuit board damage.
This is the kind of thing that starts fires. But it's far more indicative of a complete lack of quality control AND engineering in the first place.
"Slap in a generic board and hope for the best, we can always patch the software later" is no basis for a vehicle design.
> just thrown together.
But it is good practice to have consistency of methodology across all your R&D groups, so everyone can work together as s seamless unit.
Now, the big cost centre is the "throw it all into a big bucket" approach of their AI for FSD etc, following current AI industry best practices, so it only makes sense for that group to take the lead and make all the hardware and non-AI software follow suit.
May I introduce to you the Infineon Profet, a MOSFET with current sensing. Use an MCU to monitor the per-circuit current, and optionally make it cut out above a certain level to act as a configurable, resettable fuse. Very handy, works extremely well and automotive rated, but - of course - if you cock up your MCU firmware precisely this situation can happen. I've no idea if this is what Tesla have done, but it's not necessarily your granddad's fuseboard out there.
I've a feeling you badly misunderstood the post.
The Pro FET along with other similar parts are specifically designed for high reliability load switching applications and are automotive qualified.
They've been around for a couple of decades at least (I can't remember which variant I specced and designed in, it was a long time ago and the semiconductor business changed a lot in the intervening years) and if you drive a vehicle with electronics then there's a damn good chance you have some manufacturer's version of them.
They're not used as or even intended to be fuses but it's not a terrible analogy when the current monitoring capability of the devices does mean you can safely shut down malfunctioning or overloaded circuits safely and flag errors like "low resistance", "short circuit" or even "open circuit" without having to rely on a last line of defence fuse which will have a rupture current several times the nominal rating and may well only fail after lots of expensive electronics has sacrificed itself in a valiant effort to save the fuse.
>> May I introduce to you the Infineon Profe ... it's not necessarily your granddad's fuseboard out there.
The implication in the original post was quite clear.
> I've a feeling you badly misunderstood the post.
Or a more humble person might have a feeling that the original post was not saying what the author hoped to say.
“a Software-controlled fuse is something only a madman would ever think of”.
I imagine someone uttered the same sentence about valves and transistors at one time - “what do you mean there’s no hardware switch! Only a madman wouldn’t physically isolate the current!” And yet here we are.
There’s probably a long conversation we could have about fuse placement, board design, what sorts of currents are involved etc, but frankly I can’t be arsed and this isn’t the forum anyway. So I will leave you to huff in righteous indignation. “humble”, my sainted arse.
" if you cock up your MCU firmware precisely this situation can happen."
A problem I've seen with complex code and an ever shifting set of programmers is that things that should be left in wind up getting chucked out or circumvented because the new programmer doesn't know why it's there, there's no documentation, but there is pressure to 'fix' something right 'ing now being communicated by a boss that is a known screamer. The issue de jour is solved and something more severe happens when another set of circumstances converge. Lather, rinse and repeat a few times and the code is a Charlie Foxtrot.
When I worked on rocket landers, the inside joke was "we'll fix it in software". Unfortunately, the blame for things was usually put on the electronics (me) although very rarely was that the case, I'm proud to say. In practice, we all worked in a way that our efforts overlapped. I wasn't handing GN&C a stack of electronics and telling them to write software to work with it and vice versa. Coding is not my strong suit, but I did have to knuckle down and learn a bit so I could interact with that person better.
> I world second the above post - why isn't there a fuse?
Because the car represents science fiction future. And we all know what science fiction future looks like: whenever there's a phaser attack by aliens or an overload in the engine room, a shower of sparks explodes from the console in the bridge, usually into the face of a red jersey wearing crewman. Clearly the future has forgotten about fuses and Tesla are simply ahead of the curve.
a shower of sparks explodes from the console in the bridge
Sparks???? FFS! This is where SF programmes fail hard these days. Everyone knows an overload would release the magic smoke from the console. Bloody sparks? Away with you!
> why isn't there a fuse? Software settings leading to burning out hardware is terrible design.
But the electronics are the fastest acting fuse known to mankind and will fail first - only if they fail short circuit will the fuse then blow
I wouldn't bet on that. As others have commented, there could well have been a "we'll sort that out later" decision.
As someone who spent the last 40 years in quality assurance (across a broad industry spectrum) a Tesla is one of the last cars I would consider buying. Not the absolute last, I admit, but it's near enough to the bottom of the list to never come into any purchase considerations. They are designed on the basis of a commodity and built down to a price. The result is something that makes more money for the manufacturer.
There's a reason Toyota vehicles (and several other Japanese brands) are consistently at, or near, the top of any automotive survey on customer satisfaction - they are designed and built in order to please the customers, not the shareholders. Satisfied customers will lead to happy shareholders (not always immediately, but it works in the long run if all the stakeholders work together).
And don't get me started on the mere idea that Tesla can remotely update the vehicles control systems...
The older I get the more technophobic I become.
Has no-one heard of mirrors? Simple,cheap and easy to replace. They do the job and never short out.
It strikes me that this sort of thing is becoming another answer looking for a problem.
If you must have rear view cameras then for safety's sake fit mirrors as well.
You know redundant safety systems.
Can I suggest a compromise? If you're unwilling to accept an electronic system - how about an arrangement of a rear turret and rear-gunner to replace both systems? Give them a powerful enough weapon and you'll have less need for mirrors, as they can reduce the flow of approaching traffic.
When, back around 2010, I was buying myself a Toyota Hilux (I needed a vehicle that could get me around farms and country estates without grounding every few yards) I asked the dealer if they could provide the traffic management accessories I’d seen on the TV news. They weren’t sure which accessories I meant: the ones on the news that helped clear vehicles blocking the way, I explained. No, they replied, rocket launchers weren’t in the Toyota catalogue - I’d need to go to a specialist aftermarket dealer for those…
I ended up foregoing the rocket launchers but the Hilux was probably the best road vehicle I’ve owned and driven. It could go anywhere I needed to take it and, even on long motorway journeys, it was as relaxing a drive as anything else I’ve had. I was loathe to move back to a more “normal” car when I no longer needed its off-road abilities, but was persuaded otherwise. I still have a Toyota, but it’s a hybrid Rav4 (and also a delight to drive)…
"The saving in fuel is significant!"
No, not really. Not even if you drive full speed 8 hours/day 300 days a year. It really goes pear shaped if the cameras stop working for any reason and will be significantly more to diagnose and repair. Broken mirror, pretty easy to suss and replace.
My friend sitting next to me with a degree in aerodynamics is laughing. IF you are replacing poorly designed wing mirrors with cameras, you "might" be able to see a savings. With better designed wing mirrors, not so much. We both agree that having cameras can be a good thing, but deleting physical mirrors is not wise. Cameras are also good for blind spots such as directly in front of a HGV when stupid gits cut over to soon and plaster themselves on the front bumper where they might not be seen. See youtube for examples.
"So what do we think the motivation was for replacing the mirrors? Marketing?"
Money. Most "why" questions come down to money.
The cost of electronics in quantity is microscopic. Even video sensors are very cheap these days. Glass and a housing to put it in is likely more now so the accountants are smelling blood in the water.
The Polestar 4 has a rear view camera, not mirror. I think it is a reckless and insane design choice since a camera doesn't give 3d cues like a mirror would and also messes with distance and night time view. And it's not like a transit van or something where there is no way to see out the back and where a camera would be better than nothing - Polestar deliberately made it this way.
"Rearview cameras are a driving aid that more and more people rely on"
My dinky little toy car has a camera. I don't use it, I use the mirrors.
Why? Because the field of view is all wrong. It looks like I have l o a d s of space and the only thing saying otherwise is the proximity beeper having a nervous breakdown. So I trust what my eyeballs see, not what the camera sees.
It would also be nice if either it didn't have guide marks embedded into the picture, or the guide marks bore some sort of resemblance to the dimensions of the car.
In short, the camera shows me what is back there, so I don't run over a child cat. For just about anything else, it's kind of useless.
I disagree. The mirrors are fine for keeping track of traffic in back of one. But when backing up, a rear view camera mounted lower down and including much more of the area in back of and near the car is far more useful. Of course, if you never have to back up, you probably don't need a rear view camera.
A while ago Audi would sell you an e-tron with cameras instead of wing mirrors, but I haven't seen them recently.
Many HGVs on the roads in the UK have tiny wing cameras instead of mirrors.
Having done several trips to the tip (sorry, Household Waste Recycling Centre) last week with the rear view through the car blocked by a huge bag of brambles etc, it was slightly surprising how much I missed being able to see behind me.
Courtesy of a handy AI search... "In the United States, the National Highway Traffic Safety (NHTSA) mandated that all new vehicles under 10,000 pounds must be equipped with rearview cameras starting May 1, 2018."
I agree, an answer in search of a problem....which the government excels at creating. Note, not a "law" put in place by our elected officials. A "federal regulation" created by unelected bureaucrats.
"I agree, an answer in search of a problem....which the government excels at creating. Note, not a "law" put in place by our elected officials. A "federal regulation" created by unelected bureaucrats."
Ah, I see the problem now. Congress has created certain agencies to act for Congress in specialized areas. These agencies have been delegated the ability to create regulations with full authority subject to review by Congress if it's felt they have overstepped that authority. To make claims that those agencies have no power because their staff are "unelected" is not correct.
The idiots in Washington, DC can hardly dress themselves properly for the job so having them considering issues over automobile safety would be problematic.
The only electrically operated mirror malfunction I've had in the years that they've been a thing has been the one on SWMBO's car that was destroyed by the eejit who also left a lot of scrapes in the paintwork, door handles etc. When replacing it I was amazied at how many variations there are for what I'd consider one model of car, including the variations of electrical connection.
"Yes, mirrors are great +1! until the little motor in them seizes or a gear breaks a tooth"
As long as there isn't a DRM chip in the mirror so you can buy a replacement online or from a salvage yard, it's not too much of an issue. My car has manual joy sticks to adjust the mirrors from the inside and that's all I've needed. I'm the only one driving the car so it's very rare I adjust them. If they were motor driven, the motors should last forever as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not a fan of cars that have a motor/solenoid/actuator or touch control for every damn thing. They are all just points of failure and if they are connected to the CAN bus, they are also points that might make the entire car a brick on rubber in certain cases. See Samcrac on YT for several videos where he's bought fancy cars at auction where it turns out some $30 module that got wet "shorted out" the whole car and nobody had been able to fix it so it got written off as salvage.
"Has no-one heard of mirrors? Simple,cheap and easy to replace. They do the job and never short out."
I like both. Glass mirrors for everyday use and a rear view camera for backing up in addition to the mirrors. It makes it easier to see things directly behind the car and low, such as children, pets and metal bollards. In an pinch, I could duct tape a piece of glass over a broken wing mirror. With a camera as a side mirror, there's no way to do that.
This post has been deleted by its author
his Muskiness has to say about this. After all, isn't he still CEO of Tesla.
Oh wait. He's running DOGE in DC now and trying to topple at least three European Governments including here in the UK.
That does not leave him time to even wipe his ass when he does No2's.
The next 4, 8 or 12 years with Drumpf in charge will not be pretty for most of the world.
Isn't it fascinating that the Emperor of the Universe (so he believes), Elon Musk, demanded that Tesla vehicles should be equipped with cameras, which have already proven many times to be inaccurate, misleading and resulting in unpleasant deaths and injuries, when Lidar is far superior, more accurate and faster to react to even small obstacles.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
