Tesla has issued a recall of just over 24,000 Model 3 vehicles over a seat belt problem. It’s a rare real “physical” recall for the automaker after many “recalls” that were just software updates.
What was less reported, though, is that almost all of those recalls were fairly simple software issues that Tesla has been able to fix through over-the-air software updates.
Whenever there’s a safety-related issue, NHTSA has to issue a “safety recall,” even if the automaker doesn’t have to physically recall any vehicle, which leads to some confusion.
Again last month, a Tesla recall of “1 million vehicles” made many headlines when the recall simply consisted of Tesla changing how its software handled window operations.
These instances have led Tesla CEO Elon Musk to complain about the term “recall” and how it is being used against Tesla by the media.
But to be fair, Tesla still sometimes has “real recalls” where the vehicles need to be physically recalled to a service center.
We have a new example today as Tesla started sending emails to Model 3 customers about a new recall:
Tesla has decided to proactively recall certain Model 3 vehicles manufactured between 2017–2022 to inspect the assembly of the second-row left-hand seat belt buckle and the center seat belt anchor to ensure components are fastened to specification. Our records indicate that your vehicle(s), 5YJ3E1EA8JF0XXXXX, may be affected by this recall.
According to NHTSA documents, the recall affects 24,064 Model 3 vehicles built since 2017.
In the defect notice, NHTSA describes the problem, which appears to have been caused by a service issue rather than manufacturing:
Servicing certain components in Model 3 vehicles requires disassembly of the second-row left seat belt buckle and center seat belt anchor, both of which are fastened with the same bolt. Both components may have been incorrectly reassembled after disassembly during a service action.
Tesla described the chronology of the events that led to the voluntary recall:
In August 2022, Tesla investigated incidents in which customers or service technicians identified the second-row center seat belt anchor not being secured after service repairs that required disassembly and reassembly of the component.
From August 15 through September 30, 2022, Tesla investigated repair orders and correction codes specific to service procedures that required the joint in question to be disassembled and reassembled. Based on this review, 105 occurrences of incorrect reassembly in the United States were confirmed.
From October 3 through October 13, 2022, Tesla Service and Engineering jointly analyzed the acquired data set, impacted services centers, and related correction codes.
On October 14, 2022, Tesla completed its investigation and confirmed the suspected root cause, risk assessment, and affected vehicle population. A recall determination was made on the same day.
As of October 19, 2022, Tesla identified 105 service repairs, including warranty claims, and no field reports for US vehicles that are related to or may be related to this condition.Tesla is not aware of any crashes, injuries, or deaths related to this condition.
The good news is that the fix is fairly simple as described in the notice:
Tesla will inspect the reassembly of second-row left seat belt buckle and center seat belt anchor and, where necessary, fasten the components to correct specifications. The remedy will be provided free of charge.
Also, some customers might have already paid to fix this issue, and now that it has been determined to be a manufacturer defect, those Tesla owners are entitled to a refund.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
In what couldn’t have been more on-the-nose timing, a group of local California newspapers published an editorial on Christmas Eve calling for the end of a generous $2,000 voucher program intended to help low-income Californians afford electric bicycles for transportation.
The editorial was provided by the Southern California News Group, a collection of California newspapers owned by the hedge fund Alden Global Capital.
In it, the writers air a number of grievances against the program, which recently closed its first round of applications intended to provide around 1,500 e-bike vouchers of between US $1,750 to $2,000 each. The vouchers can be used to offset the price of electric bicycles and associated gear such as protective equipment, locks, etc.
The first complaint in the op-ed is that the total number of vouchers provided in the first round was relatively small compared to the large size of the California e-bike market. However, instead of suggesting that the budget be increased to help more Californians achieve transportation independence, as we called for recently, the editorial takes the opposite position of suggesting that the program simply be canceled.
Next, the writers bemoan an increase in electric bicycle and electric scooter accidents in recent years, suggesting that this should be weighed against the benefits of helping more Californians afford such vehicles.
However, the argument seems to conveniently overlook the fact that the vast majority of such accidents aren’t caused by e-bike riders, but rather those riders are in fact usually the victims. The actual danger to safety on roads is vehicular traffic, i.e. cars and trucks.
Furthermore, many studies have shown that in crashes caused by e-bike riders, such as when an e-bike rider hits another cyclist or pedestrian, the injuries are on average considerably lighter and more recoverable than in car-related crashes.
If the goal was to protect Californians, then instead of firmly clutching their pearls, perhaps the editorial writers should have urged a reduction in the use of cars and trucks, not a reduction in e-bike vouchers.
The op-ed even goes on to lament the number of children riding electric bicycles in California, though admits further on that children aren’t eligible to receive vouchers as part of California’s e-bike incentive program.
Electrek’s Take
California’s e-bike incentive program is certainly far from perfect. We even discussed many of its shortcomings last week. But the program’s essence is to do a good thing—using public tax money to benefit the public. The solution should be to improve the program, not to remove it. And the simple fact of the matter is that most people who are vehemently against the program are those who don’t directly benefit from it, even if they fail to realize that they will ultimately indirectly benefit.
Electric bicycles are one of the most cost-effective ways to provide transportation independence to marginalized and low-income groups. But it’s more than just that. They’re also the best way to get people out of cars and reduce traffic for everyone. Even ignoring the long-term environmental effects related to reducing the impacts of climate change, e-bikes are uniquely capable of making a larger impact on air quality today by helping to remove sources of emissions from a vehicle’s production all the way through its lifetime use and even to its eventual disposal/recycling. When someone rides an e-bike instead of taking a car, taxi, or bus, everyone’s lungs benefit.
Sure, the California program isn’t perfect. But if a media group owned by a wealthy hedgefund and catering to a well-to-do readership doesn’t like it, then that means it’s probably doing something helpful to people who actually need it. That’s the kind of world I want to live in, at least for as long as it’s still liveable.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
On today’s high-powered episode of Quick Charge, we’ve got Honda fuel cell manager David Perzynski here to talk about Honda’s forty year history developing hydrogen powertrains, and the role Honda sees for HFCEVs in a battery dominated world.
In the course of the conversation we talk about several hydrogen articles posted in 2024, as well as some Honda projects related to CES. You’ll be able to read more about those, below. Enjoy!
New episodes of Quick Charge are recorded, usually, Monday through Thursday (and sometimes Sunday). We’ll be posting bonus audio content from time to time as well, so be sure to follow and subscribe so you don’t miss a minute of Electrek’s high-voltage daily news!
Got news? Let us know! Drop us a line at tips@electrek.co. You can also rate us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or recommend us in Overcast to help more people discover the show.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Sixthreezero’s wide range of electric bike models includes some fairly out-there models, but the company’s new four-wheeled electric bike really charts a new direction in the industry. Take a look at the new ANYterrain Stabilized 4-wheel Electric Bike.
It’s a mouthful of a name, but the ANYterrain Stabilized 4-wheel Electric Bike hauls more than just a bunch of extra words. The bike is rated to carry up to 350 lb (159 kg), and the 750W motor ensures it has the power to do so. With speeds of up to 20 mph (32 km/h), the quad bike is just as fast as most Class 1 and 2 e-bikes.
But the real game changer here is the design, offering four-wheeled stability that riders can’t get from a conventional three-wheeled trike.
Not only do four wheels provide better stability with a wider footprint, but the steering on the bike uses leaning geometry to take turns more naturally, helping riders feel even more stable.
With 20″ wheels in the rear and 16″ wheels in the front, the quad bike keeps a fairly low center of gravity. All four wheels use 4″ fat tires for better offroad riding and more comfortable shock absorption compared to narrow tires, and the rear wheels even feature a differential to better apply the motor’s power to the ground.
A twist throttle makes it easy to roll on that power, and a D/R switch on the bars lets riders put it in reverse for cases where they need a little help wiggling around in tight spaces. Pedaling backward from a stop can also engage the reverse. At 120 lbs (54 kg), this isn’t the type of bike you can just pick up and move around the garage without a little help so that reverse feature will likely come in handy.
A 48V and 20Ah battery offers 960Wh of capacity, which the company says translates into a range of up to 50 miles (80 km).
The battery is housed under a cargo basket in the rear, though a bench seat can be swapped for the basket, allowing riders to carry a passenger with them.
Electrek’s Take
This certainly won’t be a mass market type of e-bike, but I can see a real use case for neighborhood riding and local errands, especially for folks who don’t feel stable on a bicycle or even a trike.
Despite trikes offering great stability when going straight, some people can feel uncomfortable making turns on a trike, especially at higher speeds, because they can sometimes feel tippy under certain scenarios. This quad bike can still tip if you take a turn sharp enough, but the wider stance combined with the leaning steering means riders will even more stable than on a trike.
And since this will likely be used more by older riders, the reverse is an important feature for letting folks park the bike easily without dismounting and dragging it around.
There could be some legal hurdles in some areas that define “bicycles” as having either two or three wheels, but I’m guessing most cops aren’t jumping at the opportunity to ticket grandma for riding her quad bike on the local rails to trails network.
I love seeing more options like this, and I commend Sixthreezero for providing such interesting options to add to the market.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.