The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued an alert for all 2017 to 2019 Chevrolet Bolt owners, following the recent fire in Vermont State Representative Timothy Briglin’s car and another noted in the missive. This is, of course, after two safety recalls for potential fire hazard due to a manufacturing defect in the LG Chem battery packs.
On Wednesday afternoon, the NHTSA officially told used Bolt owners to park their vehicles outside and away from buildings whenever possible, and also recommended that Bolts not be left charging overnight. Both of these recommendations make Bolt ownership annoying at best and impossible at worst. If you drive to work every day and charge every night, a government safety admin is telling you to, um, stop doing that.
An original recall was issued in November of 2020 for potential fire hazard in the high-voltage battery pack. The cells had a small possibility of heating up and igniting internally. It’s possible that the fire inside the battery could spread to the rest of the car, and potentially beyond the car if it is parked near a building, you know, where chargers generally are. That recall affected 50,932 Bolts, and every single one of them is again affected.
NHTSA says it has been made aware of two Bolt EV fires in vehicles that have already received GM’s recall “fix”. It would seem that the fix is potentially not actually a fix.
I’m about the biggest homer for electric cars as there is, but if my EV had a potential fire issue that was supposed to have been fixed with a recall but wasn’t, I’d be a little bit miffed about it. It’s a damn shame that this issue is happening, and I hope that it doesn’t impact anyone else. Fire isn’t something to fuck around with, so if you have a Bolt, please follow these instructions and find another method of getting yourself where you need to go. I know that is much easier said than done, but it’s not worth the risk.
A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carrying the company’s Crew Dragon spacecraft is launched on NASAs SpaceX Crew-2 mission to the International Space Station.Photo: Joel Kowsky/NASA (Getty Images)
One motorist in California was ticketed for attaching a satellite dish bolted to the hood of his Toyota Prius that was designed to look like one of SpaceX’s Starlink antennas. This is a good reminder that, no, you cannot do that.
The California Highway Patrol of Antelope Valley posted two images on Facebook that were credited to have been captured by Officer T. Caton. It read:
“Sir I stopped you today for that visual obstruction on your hood. Does it not block your view while driving? Motorist: Only when I make right turns….”
Yes, it is in fact illegal to mount a satellite dish to the hood of your vehicle, obstructing your view under section 26708(a)(2) of the California Vehicle Code. You also may not hang things from your rear view mirror, mount a GPS or cell phone in an unapproved location on your windshield, or display a handicap placard while the vehicle is in motion under this section. It’s about safety folks. These are the real stories of the Highway Patrol. Safe travels everyone.
As a little reminder, Starlink is one of SpaceX’s many projects. This one is designed to build a network of thousands of satellites that will ideally bring high-speed internet to consumers around the world. The Starlink Kit has four components: the user terminal or antenna, a tripod mount, WiFi router, and a power supply; the beta program costs $99 per month. If you want rooftop mounting, you can nab that for a little extra.
G/O Media may get a commission
But you cannot actually mount it to your car. I know, it would be nice to have access to high-speed internet no matter where you go. But obstructing your vision? Not the way to go.
Dealers still exist not because anyone is asking for them, really, but because of state franchise laws, which largely prevent automakers from selling directly to consumers. Which means that any threat to those laws gets dealers very, very hot under the collar. The latest evidence of that is a new lawsuit against Illinois, Rivian and Lucid.
The suit was filed Thursday on behalf of a dealer group, the Illinois Automobile Dealers Association, and scores of other plaintiffs, primarily individual dealerships located across the state.
The suit is seeking to stop Rivian and Lucid from selling directly to consumers in Illinois, as the dealers contend doing so is against the law. Tesla currently operates locations in Illinois under an agreement it made in 2019, which the dealers agreed to because they thought the Illinois franchise law would be applied more strictly going forward. Thursday’s suit is an attempt to stop any possibility of Lucid and Rivian, which is based in Normal, Illinois, from playing by Tesla rules.
“We welcome new manufacturers to Illinois, especially those who are building innovative vehicles,” said David Sloan, President of the Chicago Automobile Trade Association, another party in the suit. “Our franchised members already sell dozens of electric and hybrid vehicles. We ask that manufacturers sell them in Illinois according to state law. We’re not demanding they cease operations in the state, just that they franchise a dealer.”
And while the civil complaint the dealers filed offers plenty of legal reasons why they should win — Illinois’s agreement with Tesla does seem like a strange one — the dealers also claim that they are doing this on behalf of consumers, which is where they instantly lose me.
G/O Media may get a commission
Via their press release:
At issue are the benefits to consumers and the Illinois economy generated by more than 700 dealers operating 2,300 franchises across the state. Those benefits include:
Consumer protection: Dealers maintain service centers with trained staff to perform all recall and warranty repairs, where the dealers act as advocates for the consumers with the manufacturers.
Availability of parts and service: Dealers maintain an inventory of parts and provide timely service to consumers who depend on the daily use of their vehicles.
Price competition: Consumers have many choices, with the competition among dealers saving buyers money. Direct sales from manufacturers result in a monopoly that offers no price benefit.
Community benefits: The franchised dealers are long-established local businesses that generate millions of dollars of revenue and economic development, employ 42,000 people across the state and support many local causes and events.
All of these arguments are pretty silly, but my favorite is their claiming direct sales results in some kind of monopoly. No wonder Tesla is doing so well.
Anyway, for my money dealers would be better served admitting who they are: textbook middlemen. “We exist because for now we have the law on our side and we will fight to keep it that way,” they could say. It wouldn’t be the most attractive argument, but at least it would be honest.
Elon Musk poses for photos with buyers during the Tesla China-made Model 3 Delivery Ceremony in Shanghai.Photo: STR / AFP (Getty Images)
Members of the People’s Liberation Army desperate to drive to work with all the style and panache afforded by Elon Musk’s overhyped cars are apparently out of luck. Citing “national security” concerns, the Chinese government has reportedly banned the use of Tesla vehicles by state and military employees on certain government properties.
Per reports from the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg, the People’s Republic of China is allegedly concerned that Tesla’s high-tech cars could be a source of data leaks or foreign spying. Of particular concern is the high number of internal sensors and cameras installed in Tesla vehicles—the likes of which could be used to funnel sensitive data “back to the U.S.,” government officials worry.
The order related to the ban was allegedly issued by the Chinese military and restricts government officials from using the vehicles at certain government and military properties, as well as from “driving into housing compounds for families of personnel working in sensitive industries and state agencies.” The ban follows on the heels of a “government security review” of Tesla by the government, WSJ reports, the likes of which apparently didn’t go too well.
The review raised concerns about data collected by the vehicles and Tesla—including vehicle location data and the contact lists of mobile phones that are synched with the car’s internal systems.
G/O Media may get a commission
We recently covered how the modern day car is basically a treasure trove of personal data (the likes of which can be shared, sold or stolen), so China’s concerns are potentially not without merit.
On top of this, Tesla has had a handful of iffy security incidents over the years. In 2016, security researchers—in China, no less—demonstrated that they could remotely hack the company’s cars via its wifi; the hackers had the ability to pump the brakes, pop the trunk and turn the vehicle’s windshield wipers on and off. A recent episode in which a hacker was able to gain access to hundreds of the company’s internal security cameras via a third-party provider has also provoked concerns.
The ban is also indicative of the way in which the tech industry has become a domain of the political conflict between the U.S. and China. Under President Trump, the U.S. moved to aggressively crack down on any Chinese technology company it deemed a “national security” threat—effectively blacklisting dozens of companies and attempting to censure their access to U.S. audiences while also cutting them off from financial investment. That China would respond in kind seems about par for the course.
When a Boeing 777’s engine cover broke apart and rained parts on a Denver suburb on Feb. 20, the news rang familiar to Christopher Behnam. In February 2018, the 777 he was piloting as captain suffered a similar emergency with the same engine type.
His plane, United Airlines Flight 1175 to Honolulu, was over the ocean 120 miles from the runway carrying more than 370 passengers and crew when a violent blast rocked it.
The jet shook uncontrollably, rolled sharply, and the noise was deafening, said Capt. Behnam. An engine had suffered severe damage. Years of training kicked in, the pilots regained control and shut the engine down. Even so, the plane was hard to handle. A third pilot went into the cabin and looked out the window: The engine hadn’t just failed; its cover had ripped away.
“After the explosion, it felt like she was going to fall apart,” Capt. Behnam said. “I knew I could fly the airplane. The issue was, can I fly it long enough to land it?” The pilots brought the plane to a safe landing in Hawaii.
The National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates U.S. aviation failures, concluded that a roughly 35-pound fan blade broke in the plane’s Pratt & Whitney PW4000 engine due to fatigue, spiraling forward and causing parts of the engine cover to drop into the sea.
Tesla, as usual, is very generous in providing us with lots to talk about, especially when it comes to their Level 2 driver assist system known, confusingly, as Autopilot and/or Full Self Driving (FSD). Yesterday there was a crash of a Tesla using Autopilot that hit a cop car, and now a video of a largely Autopilot-assisted drive through Oakland is making the rounds, generating a lot of attention due to the often confusing and/or just poor decisions the car makes. Strangely, though, it’s the crappiness of the system’s performance that may just help people to use it safely.
All of this comes on the heels of a letter from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) “advanced notice of proposed rulemaking” (ANPRM), where the NTSB is effectively saying what the fuck (WTF) should we be doing with regard to autonomous vehicle (AV) testing on public roads.
From that letter:
Because NHTSA has put in place no requirements, manufacturers can operate and test vehicles virtually anywhere, even if the location exceeds the AV control system’s limitations. For example, Tesla recently released a beta version of its Level 2 Autopilot system, described as having full self-driving capability. By releasing the system, Tesla is testing on public roads a highly automated AV technology but with limited oversight or reporting requirements.
Although Tesla includes a disclaimer that “currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous,” NHTSA’s hands-off approach to oversight of AV testing poses a potential risk to motorists and other road users.
At this point, the NTSB/NHTSA/USDOT letter isn’t proposing any solutions, just bringing up something that we’ve been seeing for years now: Tesla and other companies are beta-testing self-driving car software on public roads, surrounded by other drivers and pedestrians that have not consented to be part of any test, and, in this beta software test, the crashes have potential to be literal.
All of this gives some good context for the Autopilot in Oakland video, highlights of which can be seen in this tweet
G/O Media may get a commission
… and the full, 13-and-a-half minute video can be watched here:
There’s so much in this video worth watching, if you’re interested in Tesla’s Autopilot/ FSD system. This video is using what I believe is the most recent version of the FSD beta, version 8.2, of which there are many other driving videos available online.
There’s no question the system is technologically impressive; doing any of this is a colossal achievement, and Tesla engineers should be proud.
At the same time, though, it isn’t close to being as good as a human driver, at least in many context, and, yes, as a Level 2 semi-Autonomous system, it requires a driver to be alert and ready to take over at any moment, a task humans are notoriously bad at, and why I think any L2 system is inherently flawed.
While many FSD videos show the system in use on highways, where the overall driving environment is far more predictable and easier to navigate, this video is interesting precisely because city driving has such a higher level of difficulty.
It’s also interesting because the guy in the passenger seat is such a constant and unflappable apologist, to the point where if the Tesla attacked and mowed down a litter of kittens he’d praise it for its excellent ability to track a small target.
In the course of the Oakland drive there’s plenty of places where the Tesla performs just fine. There’s also places where it makes some really terrible decisions, driving in the incoming traffic lane or turning the wrong way down a one-way street or weaving around like a drunk robot or clipping curbs or just stopping, for no clear reason, right in the middle of the road.
In fact, the video is helpfully divided into chapters based on these, um, interesting events:
0:00 Introduction
0:42 Double Parked Cars (1)
1:15 Pedestrian in Crosswalk
1:47 Crosses Solid Lines
2:05 Disengagement
2:15 China Town
3:13 Driver Avoidance
3:48 Unprotected Left (1)
4:23 Right Turn In Wrong Lane
5:02 Near Head On Incident
5:37 Acting Drunk
6:08 Unprotected Left (2)
6:46 Disengagement
7:09 No Turn on Red
7:26 “Take Over Immediately”
8:09 Wrong Lane; Behind Parked Cars
8:41 Double Parked Truck
9:08 Bus Only Lane
9:39 Close Call (Curb)
10:04 Left Turn; Lane Blocked
10:39 Wrong Way!!!
10:49 Double Parked Cars (2)
11:13 Stop Sign Delay
11:36 Hesitant Left
11:59 Near Collision (1)
12:20 Near Collision (2)
12:42 Close Call (Wall / Fence)
12:59 Verbal Review of Drive / Beta
That reads like the track list of a very weird concept album.
Nothing in this video, impressive as it is objectively, says this machine drives better than a human. If a human did the things seen here you’d be loudly inquiring what the hell was wrong with them, over and over.
Some situations are clearly things where the software hasn’t been programmed to understand, like how parked cars with hazard lights on are obstacles that should be carefully driven around. Other situations are the result of the system poorly interpreting camera data, or overcompensating, or just having difficulties processing its environment.
Some of the defenses of the video help to bring up the bigger issues involved:
The argument that there are many, many more human accidents in a given day is very deceptive. Sure, there are many more, but there’s vastly more humans driving cars, too, and even if the numbers there were equal, no carmaker is trying to sell shitty human drivers.
Plus, the reminders that FSB is a beta only serves to remind us of that NTSB letter with all the acronyms: should we be letting companies beta test self-driving car software in public with no oversight?
Tesla’s FSB is not yet safer than a normal human driver, which is why videos like this one, showing many troubling FSD driving events, are so important, and could save lives. These videos erode some trust in FSD, which is exactly what needs to happen if this beta software is going to be safely tested.
Blind faith in any L2 system is how you end up crashed and maybe dead. Because L2 systems give little to no warning when they need humans to take over, and untrusting person behind the wheel is far more likely to be ready to take control.
I’m not the only one suggesting this, either:
The paradox here is that the better a Level 2 system gets, the more likely it is to make the people behind the wheel trust it, which means the less attention they will pay, which leads to them being less able to take control when the system actually needs them to.
That’s why most crasheswithAutopilot happen on highways, where a combination of generally good Autopilot performance and high speeds leads to poor driver attention and less reaction time, which can lead to disaster.
All Level 2 systems — not just autopilot — suffer from this, and hence all are garbage.
While this video clearly shows that FSD’s basic driving skills still need work, Tesla’s focus should be not on that, but on figuring out safe and manageable failover procedures, so immediate driver attention is not required.
Until then, the best case for safe use of Autopilot, FSD, SuperCruise, or any other Level 2 system is to watch all these videos of the systems screwing up, lose some trust in them, and remain kind of tense and alert when the machine is driving.
I know that’s not what anyone wants from autonomous vehicles, but the truth is they are still very much not done yet. Time to accept that and treat them this way if we ever want to make real progress.
Getting defensive and trying to sugarcoat crappy machine driving helps nobody.
So, if you love your Tesla and love Autopilot and FSD, watch that video carefully. Appreciate the good parts, but really, really accept the bad parts. Don’t try and make excuses. Watch, learn, and keep these fuckups in the back of your mind when you sit behind a wheel you’re not really steering.
It’s no fun, but this stage of any technology like this always takes work, and work isn’t always fun.
’s authority to inspect and sign off on several newly produced 787 Dreamliners, part of heightened scrutiny of production problems that have halted deliveries of the popular wide-body jets.
The Federal Aviation Administration said its inspectors, rather than the plane maker’s, would perform routine pre-delivery safety checks of four Dreamliners that Boeing has been unable for months to hand over to its airline customers while it grapples with various quality lapses.
The agency has long empowered Boeing to perform the final safety signoffs on the FAA’s behalf, allowing it to issue what are known as airworthiness certificates needed to hand over new jets to airlines. The FAA said it has withheld the same authority on some of the planes in previous years to keep inspectors’ skills current.
Now, the FAA said its move to withhold final-approval authority was part of a broader set of actions directed at Boeing’s 787 production issues. A spokesman said the agency could decide to have its own inspectors sign off on more Dreamliners. “We can extend the retention to other 787 aircraft if we see the need,” he said.
A Boeing spokesman said Wednesday that the company has engaged the FAA throughout its efforts to resume Dreamliner deliveries and would follow the agency’s direction on final approvals as it has in the past. The spokesman said Boeing was “encouraged by the progress our team is making” on restarting the deliveries.
After halting deliveries in October, Boeing has built up an inventory of more than 80 newly produced, undelivered Dreamliners, according to aviation consulting firm Ascend by Cirium. Boeing has said it expects to resume deliveries by the end of March.
The wide-body jets have an excellent safety record and are used frequently on international routes. Boeing learned of the FAA’s move in January and has already factored the FAA signoffs into its expected delivery schedule, a person familiar with Boeing’s planning said.
Among specific aircraft slated for final approvals by agency inspectors are two Dreamliners ordered by
United Airlines Holdings Inc.
United expects to receive the planes in late March or early April, a person familiar with the Chicago-based carrier’s plans said this week.
The Boeing spokesman said the manufacturer would adjust its delivery plans if needed so it can take the time to conduct comprehensive 787 inspections “to ensure each meets our rigorous engineering specifications.”
The suspension of deliveries has cut off a significant source of cash paid by customers as the plane maker navigates the Covid-19 pandemic and weak demand in global air travel. Bernstein analyst
Doug Harned
has estimated the Dreamliner delivery slowdown could cost Boeing as much as $8 billion in cash flow through 2020 and 2021. He expects half of that to be recovered next year as airlines take delivery and pay the rest of the cost.
Boeing said in January that it would likely continue burning cash this year but has adequate liquidity after raising billions of dollars in debt last year. Investor optimism about the broader travel recovery helped lift its shares by 21% last week. The stock gained another 3.3% on Wednesday, valuing Boeing at $149 billion.
While limited in scope, the FAA move on the Dreamliner is similar to a step the agency took after two crashes of Boeing 737 MAX jets killed 346 people in 2018 and 2019.
The FAA stripped Boeing of its authority to perform the pre-delivery safety checks on MAX jets in late 2019. At the time, a faulty flight-control system and production-related missteps with that aircraft were under congressional and regulatory scrutiny. The FAA approved the 737 MAX to resume passenger flights last year.
The Dreamliner lapses are among several quality problems Boeing has faced in recent years in its commercial, defense and space programs.
Many of the 787 quality lapses involve tiny gaps where sections of the jet’s fuselage, or body of the plane, join together. Problems have emerged in other places, too, including the vertical fin and horizontal stabilizer at the tail, according to a March 12 FAA summary of the agency’s regulatory actions viewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Boeing has previously disclosed problems with a factory process used to generate small shims—materials used to fill the small gaps where the aircraft sections are joined together. Such gaps could lead to eventual premature fatigue of certain portions of the aircraft, potentially requiring extensive repairs during routine, long-term maintenance.
In its summary, the agency said it would hold on to its Dreamliner approval authority “until it is confirmed all shimming issues are resolved and airplanes conform to the FAA-approved design.”
Metal fatigue in the fan blades may have been behind the engine failure of a Boeing jet in Denver at the weekend, the US National Transportation Safety Board has said.
The Pratt & Whitney engine caught fire shortly after take off on a United Airlines Boeing 777-200, during a flight from Denver to Honolulu, with 231 passengers and 10 crew onboard. Pilots issued a mayday call and returned to Denver.
The next day, dozens of 777 planes were grounded after Boeing said those with Pratt & Whitney PW4000 engines should not be used until full inspections could be carried out.
The chair of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Robert Sumwalt, said on Monday a preliminary assessment suggested the damage was consistent with metal fatigue and that the blade would be examined on Tuesday at a Pratt & Whitney laboratory under the supervision of NTSB investigators.
Sumwalt said it was not clear whether Saturday’s failure of the PW4000 engine was consistent with another engine failure on another Hawaii-bound United flight in February 2018 that was attributed to a fatigue fracture in a fan blade.
“What is important that we really truly understand the facts, circumstances and conditions around this particular event before we can compare it to any other event,” Sumwalt said.
In another incident on the same engine type on a Japan Airlines 777 in December 2020, Japan’s Transport Safety Board reported it found two damaged fan blades, one with a metal fatigue crack.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) planned to issue an emergency airworthiness directive soon that will require stepped-up inspections of the fan blades for fatigue.
After the February 2018 United engine failure was attributed to fan-blade fatigue, the FAA ordered inspections every 6,500 cycles.
Sumwalt said the United incident was not considered an uncontained engine failure because the containment ring contained the parts as they were flying out. There was minor damage to the aircraft body but no structural damage, he said.
The NTSB will look into why the engine cowling separated from the plane and also why there was a fire despite indications fuel to the engine had been turned off, Sumwalt added.