Coding Error Sends 2019 Subaru Ascents to the Car Crusher:
Usually, news of an automotive-related software issue involves an error like last week's GM recall of 1 million SUVs and pickups because of a steering defect in their electric power-steering module. GM stated that the defect can cause a momentary loss of power steering followed by its sudden return, which can lead to an accident, and already has in about 30 known cases. GM says a software update to the module available from its dealers will fix the problem.
But a software remedy can't solve Subaru's issue with 293 of its 2019 Ascent SUVs. All 293 of the SUVs that were built in July will be scrapped because they are missing critical spot welds.
According to Subaru's recall notice [PDF] filed with the U.S. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, the welding robots at the Subaru Indiana Automotive plant in Lafayette, Ind., were improperly coded, which meant the robots omitted the spot welds required on the Ascents' B-pillar. Consumer Reports states that the B-pillar holds the second-row door hinges. As a result, the strength of the affected Ascents' bodies may be reduced, increasing the possibility of passenger injuries in a crash.
Subaru indicated in the recall that "there is no physical remedy available; therefore, any vehicles found with missing welds will be destroyed." Luckily, only nine Ascents had been sold, and those customers are going to receive new vehicles. The rest were on dealer lots or in transit.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @03:10PM (6 children)
Not that the location of the missing spot welds may be inaccessible in the completed product or that a hack repair would require extensive (and costly) retesting for safety?
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday September 23 2018, @03:16PM
I'm thinking this is mostly likely the root of the issue. It's a legal ass covering exercise.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday September 23 2018, @03:43PM (4 children)
A problem any number of amateur car enthusiasts have solved over and over again.
"a hack repair would require extensive (and costly) retesting for safety?"
I suspect that's more to the point. We live in a society where it's much safer to throw man-years worth of work into the crusher rather than take the slightest risk that someone who doesn't understand how things work might come along later and place blame on you.
Lack of competence, if it's in play, would be a not-entirely-separate thing; years of operating in such a constrictive environment results in those competencies atrophying as they are never used.
That frame IS a pretty piece of engineering, and I could easily see them going to some lengths to make it clear these were not precisely standard and might not be absolutely 100% of what they should be. Just so there's no room to claim misrepresentation, though, not because there's really a safety concern. Even if we assume the repair would represent a significant reduction in strength versus the standard product it would still be more than strong enough for market, stronger than most vehicles have.
Even if they removed all the branding and sold them cheap to employees, that would be better than a total loss. Crushing them is just such a senseless waste.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @04:28PM (3 children)
As I stated elsewhere, these techniques will not scale to 250 vehicles.
Many commenters are bagging on Subaru but they're making the correct choice from a consumer safety perspective. That deserves some level of praise, not condemnation. Yes, it's wasteful and we'd all like to see the parts from the existing vehicles repurposed. This may not be viable due to prohibitive rework, testing and insurance costs.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Sunday September 23 2018, @05:31PM (2 children)
As car makers go, these guys are among the best. I've been a fan of theirs since the 70s and I still am.
My point is not against them, but against the larger system in which they have to exist, which is why they're doing this.
"This may not be viable due to prohibitive rework, testing and insurance costs."
And this may be because those costs are artificially, and unnecessarily, elevated.
In fact may is probably too weak there, it seems well beyond doubt.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 23 2018, @06:26PM (1 child)
A general point about the overall tone of the comments, by no means was it specifically targeted at you.
Owned a 2nd gen Forrester and it was awesome. The only Subaru I would have been seen dead in, also quite the realistic prospect considering the speed I could take corners in it. The 2019 model OTH - remove the turbo and add creepy facial recognition? [youtube.com]
I hear you, just do not think regulatory compliance as it pertains to planes, trains and automobiles is necessarily evil in the grand scheme of things. It's one area where both government and free market constraints conspire to make us all safer.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday September 25 2018, @05:43AM
But they don't, actually, because no free market exists there.
You're simply not permitted to offer anything that does not comply with the regulations. Ergo the market is not free. It's really as simple as that.
In an actual free market, though it might seem similar on the surface, the nuts and bolts would be quite different.
There would be no regulation outright prohibiting you from offering goods and services that do not comply with any particular standard. That is what the 'free' part means.
Some people will read that and quickly go insane - they'll read this as NOTHING STOPS YOU from offering unsafe or otherwise undesirable and subpar services as if they were the real thing, bad drives out good, race to bottom, it's all shit now you fool!
But that's not what I'm saying at all. There are still many things discouraging you from doing this - perhaps even more effectively than a flat prohibition would have, at least in the cases where we REALLY wanted those prohibitions enforced. For example, safety. We live, in this century, in the west, under what's called a regulatory safety system. There are safety regulations, and any product offered in commerce MUST meet them, period. That's supposed to protect consumers. And the other side - as long as you meet those regulations, you have a strong presumption against liability - that's to protect the manufacturers.
Well, the fact is, the latter are well protected, the former much less well served. You've no doubt been brainwashed to believe otherwise, you may have to consciously observe for some time to fully see that you've been deceived - but it's fact. This system is built to serve the manufacturer - to shield him from what he fears most - the common law of liability. It is essentially a sort of sleight of hand, or one might aptly even call it a con game; it is designed to give the consumer an illusion that inspires confidence, while protecting the manufacturer in fact.
A free market eliminates your regulatory regime, and in doing so it re-activates the common law of liability that the regulatory regime was created to suppress. This system, on balance, was far more advantageous to the consumer, and would be again. So your concern is not just misplaced it is truly reversed.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?