Slashdot Mirror


Coding Error Sends 2019 Subaru Ascents To the Car Crusher (ieee.org)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from IEEE Spectrum: [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.

183 comments

  1. I guess that's the downside of a robot workforce by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Human workforce: One welder misses a spot weld on one car, car has to be scrapped.

    Robot workforce: Every robot purposefully ignores spot welds, hundreds of cars destroyed.

    Extrapolating to Future:

    Human burger flipper: Messes up cooking a burger or two, some people get sick.

    Robot burger flipper: Every robot across the country cooks meat at too low a temp, hundreds die.

    I guess the bright side of the robot firmware-update disaster prone future is that mistakes are more noticeable (would one or two cars missing this spot weld have ever been noticed?), and can be fixed in bulk - until the next flaw...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  2. I always mess up some mundane detail by JoeyRox · · Score: 3, Funny
  3. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Right, because humans never make a process mistake that applies to more than one unit on the production line?

  4. Good. by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The world doesn't need another lumbering bovine of a full-sized SUV anyway. And Subarus have, in general been porking up over the years such that even the Outback and Forester are too damn big now as well. WRX or BRZ, or GTFO.

    --
    Imagine all the people...
    1. Re:Good. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      My daughter replaced her 2006 Subaru Legacy with a 2017 Legacy, bought over the net in Carvana sight unseen going just by brand name.

      Was very surprised and annoyed by the size of the car. How did this grow this big?

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    2. Re:Good. by Known+Nutter · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's what she said.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    3. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She was supposed to be fatter, like almost everyone else in the country. That's why cars are bigger: to the fatty to fit in it.

    4. Re:Good. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      People want bigass SUVs because they're more macho than minivans. So all the SUV makers have to pork up[*] to avoid losing sales. The majority of SUVs are not bought for either the S or the U part. They're bought becase of how they look.

      What always gets me is how little space many of them have inside compared to a minivan. I'd pick the latter any day. With the good ones, the seats either come out completely or fold neatly out of the way, giving pretty decent cargo space.

      [*]I love that! Thanks GP!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:Good. by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Outback big? Try wedging a rear facing car seat in it.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    6. Re:Good. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Amen. May more of them go to the crusher. Give me an Impreza or a European Levorg, not the porky-pig Outback or Ford-Taurus-clone Legacy sad-dan.

    7. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outback big? Try wedging a rear facing car seat in it.

      I think he's speaking relatively. Compare the current outback with the one before 2007.

    8. Re:Good. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      They've been using rear-facing car seats in Europe for longer than in the US, and generally, cars aren't as big as the barges driven in the US. (Northern Europeans are also taller than Americans, on average.)

    9. Re:Good. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 0

      Not only that. There's...
      (1) The obesity crisis in the US.
      (2) The fact that Americans are generally 'fraidycats who feel "safe" in a big landbarge
      (3) Cheap gas

      Hope gas shoots up to $5 per gallon to get some of the mastodons off the roads and restore some rationality to the US auto market.

    10. Re:Good. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      SUVs are bought because people have actual families to fit in their car. An economy sedan won't work. A minivan would probably be better and even safer, but people want a 'car' to drive.

      What pisses me off more is the bloat of the 'pickup truck.' They're hardly a pickup anymore, with four doors, two rows of seats and a tiny little symbolic box.

    11. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My 2014 outback is barely big enough to get 2 of us camping. Can't imagine how to get 4 like in the ads.

    12. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some companies don't even make pickups with a standard cab anymore

    13. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to dismiss your point about SUV/CUV being the fashionable version of a minivan or station wagon, but I think there's another funny thing going on at the same time.

      The manufacturers seem to have identified a market feature where many consumers want larger (or some other kind of upgrade such as luxury) but are emotionally tied to a specific model or tier. People seem reluctant to just by the next model up when they go shopping, even when that model was originally defined as the upgrade over their previous purchase. The manufacturers also want the "new and improved" model years to be different enough to encourage people to replace vehicles more rapidly, rather than holding onto a commodity item for its full service life.

      Size and comfort are the easiest ways to signal an improvement. So, they sell more cars by having the models/tiers slowly grow larger and eventually vacate a space where they introduce a new entry-level model. When this goes on long enough, they eventually retire some of the largest models that become poor sellers or do some other sort of consolidation/reorganization of the model line.

    14. Re: Good. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Sheesh. Either take less stuff or get a small trailer to pull when you need it. With a trailer, you can normally leave the extra size/weight/inefficiency at home except when you need it.

    15. Re: Good. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A pig of an SUV isn't a "car." A station wagon is a car and generally has more interior room than an SUV of the same size. It's just not lifted and dolled up to look like a truck. Look at the old Legacy wagons, Passat wagon, or Volvo V series.

    16. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've been using rear-facing car seats in Europe for longer than in the US, and generally, cars aren't as big as the barges driven in the US. (Northern Europeans are also taller than Americans, on average.)

      Rear facing seats? Most cars here have exactly one person on board. Sometimes, and that's rare, two. Cars with all seats occupied is pretty rare. For the rare rare case of large families (for small values of large) there's 7/8 seaters and minivans. I don't think there's any current production model with rear-facing seats.

    17. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You raised a moron for a daughter. Good job. You never buy a car sight unseen.

    18. Re:Good. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      A minivan would probably be better and even safer, but people want a 'car' to drive.

      Quite. People think they look cool and badass in an SUV or want to race off the lights or something. A minivan has as many seate with more space, more luggage and better economy. And can be converted to hold tons of stuff in about 3 minutes.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    19. Re:Good. by Known+Nutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hope gas shoots up to $5 per gallon to get some of the mastodons off the roads and restore some rationality to the US auto market.

      That's a fucked up thing to say. It's happened in recent years and the people fucked the most by $5 gas are not limp-dicked asshole Hummer drivers. It's the wage earners -- you know, the working class -- who take the hit.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    20. Re:Good. by dk20 · · Score: 2

      As someone who has 2 compact cars and a giant SUV i can tell you why some people buy them.

      False sense of safety. the thing weights a ton, almost takes the full lane.. but the significant other things it is "safer" even thought the cars all have 5 star crash ratings.

    21. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but does a minivan have 19 cup holders? Or 6 USB ports?

      You gotta have those 2.7 cup holders per passenger.

    22. Re:Good. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      The "working class" is also responsible for the sorry state of US carbon emissions. They needn't be exempt from being forced to change.

    23. Re:Good. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Child seats, not built-in seats.

    24. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, if any car does, a minivan definitely does.

    25. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The ratings are given in relation to other cars in the class...a five star compact car may be less safe than a four star suv.

    26. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I drive an Audi Q5 and a vw golf and backward car seats only fit in the middle, and just barely, with either.

    27. Re:Good. by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Blame the way laws on things like fuel economy and emissions (in the US and probably elsewhere) are written to favor big-ass SUVs over more sensible options like station wagons.

      The #1 reason the piece of garbage known as the Chrysler PT Cruiser exists is because it takes advantage of loopholes in the law allowing it to be classified as a "light truck".

    28. Re:Good. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Do what I did when I had a small Datsun Kingcab PU, put the baby seat in the front and cram the wife in the back.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    29. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, depends on model year and mfr. The 2004 Honda Pilot is ostensibly an SUV (I have one with a transmission cooler and a tow package up to 3500 lbs. - small boat) with seats that fold neatly away for voluminous cargo capacity but it was built on the minivan platform. Maybe that explains why it serves both functions.

    30. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you're right, but as a lifelong member of this "working class" you refer to so derisively, I can tell you, I've never even had a choice in the car I own. Most of us drive whatever we can afford to buy when our previous car breaks down to the point its not worth the repair cost. Ever been to America? Its kinda big, and spread out. And most of us had no input on the design of the city we live in. Public transportation is a joke, pretty much nonexistent in my city. Walking 20+ miles to work everyday is not an option. So yes, we may all electrify eventually, but only once electric vehicles, used or new, are in the "working class" price range, under $5000. Your genius "forced change" idea would literally force a large percent of our population out of a job, out of a home, and eventually dead. Congrats. You fail at civilization.

    31. Re:Good. by beanpoppa · · Score: 1

      Tesla Model S has rear-facing seats as an option.

    32. Re: Good. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      No choice? Even if you're not buying new, you can buy a Corolla or Civic that makes 40 mpg instead of an SUV barge that makes 20.

    33. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fair you bought the car you bought sight unseen - but how have you not seen others on the road ? They have become tanks.

    34. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thatâ(TM)s what he said

    35. Re:Good. by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      There is this season called winter that makes features like all-wheel drive and higher ground clearance make a lot of sense. Combine that with five kids and car seat laws requiring everyone up to 10 years old be in one, and you have the perfect sales storm for larger SUVs.

      --
      -- $G
    36. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You canâ(TM)t buy something that isnâ(TM)t for sale retard.

    37. Re:Good. by flink · · Score: 1

      Depending on your state that may be illegal, and if your vehicle is equipped with an airbag, potentially deadly.

    38. Re:Good. by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      SUVs are minivans for insecure people.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    39. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why aren't you ManBearPig acolytes working to wipe out the true threat: excess billions of humanity? Put up or shut up.

    40. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a 2014 Impreza, and was looking into an Outback for a bit more refinement, but man, the Levorg looks nice. Kind of reminds me of the Saabaru.

    41. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      19 cup holders.

      For 38 girls.

    42. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except of course NO Subaru is big and/or lumbering compared to its competition. Whether you like Subarus or not is a moot point; they are extremely RELIABLE.

    43. Re:Good. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Refinement is boring. I envy the En Vee Aitch! Give me more NVH, not a fucking sofa on wheels.

    44. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a Datsun kingcab... meaning it didnt have airbags.it was built in the 1980s most likely.

    45. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet those "working class" are obsessed with buying vehicles so massive that even a modest rise in gas prices becomes a financial emergency. Why does the rest of the world need to pay the environmental cost for their bad choices?

    46. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is actually a movement of late 20's early 30's guys buying up minivans because they realized they can haul all their buddies, carry tons of stuff like a pickup, and vans often have great sound systems. I know the one I have is like driving a cushy recliner down the road.

    47. Re:Good. by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      I owned an 09 Outback, similar in cabin size to the Legacy of the same vintage. I personally found it just a bit too cramped, and I'm not a huge person, 5'10" 200lbs. Not to the point where I couldn't/didn't occasionally drive it (was the wife's car). I much preferred my 11 Legacy. I don't know if it was the increase in size, or the fit of the car, but it just felt better. (My main complaint of the 09 is my legs felt cramped, no matter how the seats were adjusted.) But my wife, about 6" shorter than me, loved the car. So I guess there's that.

    48. Re:Good. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      As the AC said, it was a 1983 and that was the only legal way to do it. My current truck has a switch (actually uses the key) to turn off the passenger air-bag for similar situations.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    49. Re:Good. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The reason for the SUV explosion was the CAFE standards on car fleets which effectively outlawed big station wagons. Trucks like SUV's were not subject so everybody got trucks even though they wanted cars really.

      Blame the EPA for the direct results of their actions, not average families who just want a car that doesn't make the kids crazy.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    50. Re:Good. by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      too damn big now as well. WRX or BRZ, or GTFO.

      Meanwhile I'm still disappointed that the WRX no longer has a wagon form. I was interested in the BRZ years ago, but now a small RWD coupe wouldn't be as useful. Not to mention I like having AWD and a bit more power. (which I recall the rumors originally said the BRZ was going to be AWD and turbo, while the Toyota version was to be the lightweight naturally aspirated one.

      I always wondered if they were just rumors, or if Subaru decided that was too much effort.

  5. Not that affects everything everywhere by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Right, because humans never make a process mistake that applies to more than one unit on the production line?

    Yep, it's Slashdot, there's always gotta be that one guy that makes you explain a joke in GREAT DETAIL. Ok then.

    Humans making a process mistake do not generally do so in a way that instantly applies to EVERY production line across multiple facilities, in places where the process was working just fine previously. Also P.S. the joke was about workers, not people defining the process. A process mistake would affect workers and robots the same way so is irrelevant to the joke.

    I'm not saying it's impossible for humans at the topmost level to make mistakes on this scale where human workers all do the wrong thing. But with robots it is tons easier for mistakes to be distributed instantly everywhere to "workers" on the line and affect many more units more quickly.

    I don't even think It negates the advantages of having robot production lines, it's just an interesting and (to me) kind of funny aspect of production automation. There are a whole host of interesting consequences and probably behavior that follow from this if you think forward instead of being pedantic about a joke.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You claim it was a joke, then go on to explain in detail why the claim in your purported joke has merit. I'm confused.

    2. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be clear, this was not a mistake the robots made. This was a human (i.e. coding) mistake. What would be interesting is to know where the mistake came from - an engineer in the factory, or an offshored or contract position in India.

    3. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you fail

    4. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its much less common because it is checked by a human all the way down the chain with multiple humans assessing the product, wake me up when AI can do the same inference

    5. Re: Not that affects everything everywhere by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Explaining a joke is a bit like dissecting a frog. You might learn a lot from doing it, but it kills the frog in the process.

    6. Re: Not that affects everything everywhere by sodul · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Joke aside the impact of the robot mistake is much greater but it is worth it for several reasons.
      First the probability of mistakes is much lower with the robots than with humans, so for a million cars manufactured, the total number of mistakes by human vs robots will be higher for humans. So thatâ(TM)s the first win.
      Second if humans make mistakes this will be much more random and less likely to be detected, even with quality check sampling. Which mean that more end users will receive the faulty product.
      On the other hand, with robots since the mistake is consistent it is very likely that it will be noticed on one of the end products so it will be easier correct the issue and to track all of the defective units. Which is what happened here.

      Cars manufactured before the advent of robots were much more temperamental and failing in various inconsistent ways from one car to the other even when coming from the same factory, the same week.

    7. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when it's discovered that it was an Indian, that would be racist.

    8. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You claim it was a joke, then go on to explain in detail why the claim in your purported joke has merit. I'm confused.

      The best jokes have some degree of truth to them.

    9. Re: Not that affects everything everywhere by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I basically agree, that's why I mentioned the mistakes being more able to be detected because they are in every unit...

      I totally agree with your point about consistency. Even if the consistency a flaw.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    10. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why this joke was dumb.

    11. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *yawn*

    12. Re: Not that affects everything everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they were first. That's why it is called Indiana.

    13. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that in this situation, the robots didn't make a mistake. They did *exactly* what they were told to do. They were not told to weld those spots, so they didn't.

      If you want to compare to human welders, it's like the welders being giving plans and instructions to weld every other spot, but not the ones the robot missed. Do you think the humans would magically 'know' where to weld to put in those spots not in the plans?

      While it is possible that an experienced welder, who was also familiar with what everyone else did, might be smart enough to ask the engineers if they really intended to skip those welds... but I doubt it.

    14. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by anegg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are not all mistakes "made" by robots actually human mistakes? Any sense of agency placed onto robots as entities is misplaced. Robots are tools, and they can fail to be instructed properly, or they can be used in circumstances where their efficacy is questionable, but they cannot "make mistakes."

      Any automated process, if automated incorrectly, will multiple the defective results the same as automated processes multiple effective results. Production line processes must have some form of quality control that checks to make sure that production is proceeded as expected. When a line is being started up, or changes have been made to the processes used on the line, the quality control checks should be frequent until the line is seen to be in control. Once the initial period has passed, statistical techniques to ensure that the line stays in control should be used. Without any more specific information about what went wrong in this case, it seems like either a new line went into production, or changes were made to an existing line, but the quality control checks on the output were not made soon enough to catch the production process mistake.

    15. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans making a process mistake do not generally do so in a way that instantly applies to EVERY production line across multiple facilities.

      The fun part is probably a lot of these robots that say flip burgers or in some way do important work will be internet connected with automatic updates, and the security probably won't be that great. Give the robots enough hardware, either directly or indirectly that it can estimate the ethnic origin of the customer and even more evil is possible.

      Of course there are probably easier ways to inflict terror than causing thousands of people to get sick from undercooked fast food, but having an attack be so widespread so not even McDonalds is safe, why even Mr. Trump might take notice then.

    16. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait your comment was a joke?

    17. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - an engineer in the factory, or an offshored or contract position in India.

      thankfully you already rulled out the american.. must have been an offshored indian right?

    18. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by fredrated · · Score: 1

      Twain discovered that the truth is the best joke.

    19. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure, that this is not a coding error.

      Neither the summary nor the article goes into details, both speak about code.
      However robots like that are usually "universal robots", they can do/weld everything that they can reach with their welding point.
      That means, an engineer/robot trainer, is training the robot by manually moving the welding tip to the
      spots where the robot has to weld.
      That is basically only a set of commands like: "move to there", "drop down welding tip", "weld now x seconds", "release tip" etc. If a place is not easy to reach, then it is a sequence of "move there" commands.
      It basically is just a 3D version of a pen plotter.

      The likelihood that indeed a "firmware" fault made the robot skip a trained spot to weld is extremely low.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    20. Re: Not that affects everything everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only dumb thing here is you.

    21. Re: Not that affects everything everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wtf? I know English isn't your first language, but you don't make sense.

      It's pretty straight forward. The operator enters in a list of weld joints and just forgot to enter one. Nothing to do with firmware code. It's basically an input error translating from blue prints/schematic into welding instructions.

    22. Re: Not that affects everything everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because I'm nice, I kept my frog alive as long as possible while dissecting.

    23. Re: Not that affects everything everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the old "it was a computer error" excuse.

    24. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Are not all mistakes "made" by robots actually human mistakes?

      Robots can make mistakes due to bad sensors or other faults. The robots used on car production lines tend to follow set movements and actions once the car chassis is known to be in the correct position, but some are able to make adaptations to things like position and orientation of objects, even things like sorting colours.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You miss the point of the joke, then get confused when you have the joke explained to you.

      Go away, troll.

    26. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by eth1 · · Score: 1

      A process mistake would affect workers and robots the same way so is irrelevant to the joke.

      Maybe not... an experienced human line worker might actually notice and flag a bad process. An industrial robot, not so much.

    27. Re: Not that affects everything everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get back to (re)(re)(re)work, Pajeet.

    28. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there's always someone who claims their initial post was a joke when there is zero indication it ever was.

    29. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno... My computer sometimes ignores commands I give it. I think Microsoft calls that an "undocumented feature".

    30. Re:Not that affects everything everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what this story was missing! Racism!

  6. Coding error - or was it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the robots are starting their rebellion.

    Not that I have a problem with it. I welcome our robotic overlords! Please, let me live!

  7. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right, because humans never make a process mistake that applies to more than one unit on the production line?

    Yeah... right. Garbage In = Garbage Out, whether your employees are humans or machines.

    Every employee, human or machine, only works on the best available data. Missing spot welds = missing data.

    If you have one of these cars, hold onto it. Verify that it is one of these cars, then save it someplace warm and dry. Automotive oddities, especially manufacturer recalls, are always important to collectors.

    If you have to drive it, remember that it's a modern car with modern safety systems. In the rare case of one specific kind of accident, it will be weaker than it should be.

    Thirty years ago, you could have had an open beer while you were waiting in line at the DMV. ("I spilled beer all over me, I could have been killed! / A car crashed into me and all you've got is light beer?" - Biff Tannen, Back To The Future, 1985). There were ashtrays in the lineup when I got my driver's license.

    Your Subaru is safe. They made a mistake. 10,000 moving parts, and if it's only 99.99% right, there are how many things still wrong with it?

    Save it, understand the fault, and don't make thousands of tons more greenhouse gas to scrap it.

    Don't drink and drive. Don't text and drive. Your Subaru is safe.

    --
    Fire and Meat. Yummy.
  8. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by Urinal+Pube · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, once it's discovered, it's easy to figure out everything affected. The alternative is to figure out which nights in the last 6 month Weldon decided to hit the bar then show up faded for work.

  9. That's not a coding error. by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

    That's not a coding error.

    1. Re:That's not a coding error. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't we need to hold the algorithm responsible here?

  10. Coding error? yeah sure blame the programmer. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Why was this missed in the QA?

    Who approved the spot welding schedule, who verified the robot did what the spec sheet demanded?

    It stopped with 293 cars right? So they noticed something was wrong and fixed it in the 294th car right? How many of these were still unsold at that point?

    They determined it is a serious flaw, right? How long did it take? How many cars were sold after that determination?

    Yeah, sure blame the code monkey.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Coding error? yeah sure blame the programmer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as coding goes; there is never time to do it right but always time to do it over.

    2. Re:Coding error? yeah sure blame the programmer. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I doubt that robots are directly coded anyway. Coders write the underlying control software, and a UI to train the robot.

    3. Re:Coding error? yeah sure blame the programmer. by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Please try reading TFA. Or even just the summary.

      Almost all of these cars were in transit. Only 9 were actually sold.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:Coding error? yeah sure blame the programmer. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Read the summary. Feeling very stupid now.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    5. Re:Coding error? yeah sure blame the programmer. by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 3, Insightful

      +1 whoever trained the robots made the mistake. It was human error not robotic error, the robot did exactly what it was trained to do. At this stage of the game training a robot is a very exact meticulous process. Something like welding a car involves a process with no variation. The real fun and games will begin when people begin attempting to train artificially intelligent robots to perform tasks which are less exact and more organic in nature.

  11. And that's how automation creates new jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Local junkyard had to hire more to help with crushing the cars

  12. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They surely don't call robots as force multipliers for nothing.

  13. Striped for spares by Going_Digital · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Surely they should go to a breakers where the engines should be dropped out of them and the faulty shell crushed. Seems like a massive waste to just crush the whole of a brand new vehicle.

    1. Re:Striped for spares by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Surely they should go to a breakers where the engines should be dropped out of them and the faulty shell crushed. Seems like a massive waste to just crush the whole of a brand new vehicle.

      Liability and tax concerns. While the parts are perfectly good, if they sent them elsewhere there's always the concern that a vehicle somehow get sold rather than stripped and leave Subaru liable; or simply a BS lawsuit because the part came from a defective vehicle. In addition, if they scrap the entire vehicle it's a loss write off, if they sell part of it then they have to account for the sale which is more trouble than it is worth.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:Striped for spares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It says they will be scrapped, not crushed. I expect a lot of the parts will be removed and used for warranty repairs of other vehicles, assuming it is cost efficient to do so.

    3. Re:Striped for spares by hankwang · · Score: 1

      They could use an angle grinder to damage/remove the faulty B pillar in a way that could not be covered up. The reason for fully scrapping (if that's really the plan) must be more complicated.

    4. Re:Striped for spares by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      They could use an angle grinder to damage/remove the faulty B pillar in a way that could not be covered up. The reason for fully scrapping (if that's really the plan) must be more complicated.

      The problem is a good body and fender person could easily "fix" it so it would look like new; leaving Subaru with liability for a known defective vehicle. In addition, there is the cost of storing, grinding and then giving away the vehicles to some school for use as a training tool. It's simply simpler to scrap them and take the write-off for the full cost. I think the reason for scraping is really that simple - it's a known cost and leaves no liability for the bad vehicles.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  14. The robot didn't make the mistake. by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

    The programmer did.

  15. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by SirMasterboy · · Score: 1

    How is this not a human error?

    It says it was coded improperly. I wonder who writes the code? A human did, so the human made the mistake of improper coding.

  16. Re:Striped for spares or for training by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    Or use as the classroom vehicle at Subaru training. I'm sure high school automotive shop classes would welcome them.

  17. What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by hackertourist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How is it not possible to run a welding torch over the weak seams? Sure, it's a couple hours to remove the seats and some trim, but that's still got to be a lot cheaper than scrapping the whole car.

    1. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by mhotchin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because it was engineered for spot welds, and certified as such. Your type of repair is neither tested nor certified. It would cost more to *certify* the fix for 290 cars than the cars are worth.

    2. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Certified"? Those are cars, not planes.

    3. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      So use a spot welder rather than a torch, and duplicate the intended welding pattern. Still not rocket science.

    4. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can't reach that space, it was designed so that only a robot could weld it in a jig, for you to fabricate that jig with spot welding equipment would cost alot more

    5. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For only 300 affected units, it makes no sense to validate that some welding workaround will perform the same way for crash worthiness nor reliability. A lot of testing and validation (including crash-tests) would have to be done over again for this miniature production run so they could sell them as new. There is also the potential damage to the brand, by making people think that these substandard vehicles are out there in circulation.

      It is certainly cheaper to just break them back down and return most parts to the supply chain to go into other vehicles with properly welded bodies. It's not like they have to shred the entire car full of brand new parts and recycle it all as scrap.

    6. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by quonset · · Score: 2

      Obviously it is or the people who designed the vehicles would have done what you suggested.

      There are times it's cheaper to tear an existing building down and build from scratch than it is to update/rehab what is already there. This is one of those cases. The hassle to tear down, spot weld, test, certify then put everything back is more costly than to simply get rid of the vehicles en masse.

    7. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by MikeDataLink · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So use a spot welder rather than a torch, and duplicate the intended welding pattern. Still not rocket science.

      I suspect there are two things at play:

      1) It's probably much more difficult to get to the spot than makes sense. Once 2nd and 3rd assemblies are put together it may simple be too complicated to bother with.

      2) The liability. If this car is in an accident and that patchwork weld fails it will cost them a lot more than 293 cars cost.

      --
      Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    8. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And someone with a state Engineering license has to sign off on the design. If people die, they are the one who signed off on it and can be held accountable. Just because its on the ground and not in the sky, doesn't mean there are no regulations.

    9. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not a problem to make a repair that is stronger than the original plan. You just use more material - it get a bit heavier. So perhaps you sell the car with a slight discount. Still, much better than scrapping.

      Perhaps 2000 cars is 'too small' an amount for Subaru to fix? In that case, sell the lot cheap to some third party workshop. Better than scrapping, both economically and environmentally.

    10. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are likely insured against losses caused by production problems, so they have no financial incentive to repair them. Depending on how their insurance works, it might actually be more profitable to take the value of the insurance payout and destroy the vehicles than it would have been to have actually sell them.

      Just one more perverse incentive created by the financial industry...

    11. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      You assume the welds were missing from somewhere that could be access without cutting metal. I suspect this is not true, otherwise the cars would have been re-worked.

      You really think that they scrap $10M (guessing, but in the ballpark) worth of cars without considering the possibility of rework?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    12. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have not run a spot welding machine. You cannot spot weld the same spot twice.

    13. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it doesn't have to be that way. The production process is automated so it can create a car from "scratch" effectively, but that is all it can do. Repairing problems is not automated and probably costs a lot more (not to mention manufacturers aren't generally set up for repairs anyway, they just build cars). Dealers can repair, but they need to get paid for it.

      That's also why sometimes cars are "totaled" just based on the cost of repair alone and not because they aren't repairable.

    14. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by PPH · · Score: 2

      And someone with a state Engineering license has to sign off on the design.

      Nope. Industrial exemption.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    15. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you need to get to both sides of the workpiece to spot weld. Now it's assembled, access to one (The inner) side is probably impossible.

    16. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, your right. They probably didn't realize... You should drop them an email to let them know about their oversight.

    17. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by whit3 · · Score: 1
      The assembly sequence at the factory joins panel A to B, then welds AB to panel C.
      It was possible to get at both sides of the A and B parts at assembly time to spotweld, but
      not after you complete the joining to C, which occludes the places that electrodes had to touch.

      There's lots of processes (shrink fitting of steel parts, for example) that only operate forward in time, are not reversible.

    18. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by havana9 · · Score: 1

      I think it could be relate to VIN or body numer. It could be that they will take driverain, seats and interiors and scrap only the metal body, then will reuse the pieces to rebuild another car, toatally feasible for a new car, for the nine used cars, I suppose that the pieces could be still resold as refurbished. Probabily the cost of dismantle the car, stripe the paint and repaint, and remount the car was the same of starting with a new car body.

    19. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by Sqweegee · · Score: 1

      3) Most likely the entire body was dip primed/sealed after being welded together. Cleaning the primer/sealer off the inside of the seam to get a good spot weld would require breaking or cutting dozens of other spot welds.

      The areas could possibly be drilled through and fill welded with an arc welder, but that's not the tested standard. There's also a follow up problem of unpainted/sealed welds in the seams that will cause them to fail prematurely.

    20. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you but its better to destroy the liability. Pity they won't be exported to somewhere where US liability won't apply and reused.

    21. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by foghelmut · · Score: 2

      Subaru's B-pillar has multiple layers of different types of steel. There are welds under welds, building up the pillar in a multi-step process. You can't just weld on top of it. https://www.planetsubaru.com/s... https://www.firehouse.com/resc...

    22. Re:What do you mean, "can't be fixed"? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      You're assuming nothing else has been welded over the affected area. Which may not be true.

  18. Input error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm guessing the problem wasn't because of a missing semicolon but the user didn't input all the right info.

    If I use a candy vending machine and press the writing g numbers, that is not a coding error.

  19. Screw that. Should fix it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't that work?

  20. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by Gabest · · Score: 1

    That's exactly what happened, one person programmed the robots wrong.

  21. So, about same quality as American brands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the problem? Just put them on the road. The American manufacturers do that with the junk they produce.

  22. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure the side pillars are to protect you when a drunk driver t-bones you.

  23. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    Really, humans rarely forget or mistake how they're supposed to be doing their jobs and only make one-off mistakes instead?

  24. What actually is being destroyed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A team of competent people can strip a car down to the frame in minutes and sell the parts. If part of the frame is not welded properly, why not jeep the parts and dispose of the frame?

  25. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    yeah.. I'm gonna have to nope right the fuck out on this. I can control how I drive, but I cannot control everyone else on the road - hence, the chances of that accident happening are way too high for my liking.

  26. Recycle them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Into car bombs. Terrorists do not need safe vehicles, they only need to splat enough people and then detonate the car near or inside a large enough crowd.

  27. Re:Striped for spares or for training by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    Or use as the classroom vehicle at Subaru training. I'm sure high school automotive shop classes would welcome them.

    Yes, but if some dimwit takes one for a spin and gets in an accident then Subaru is looking at a lawsuit.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  28. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robot burger flipper: Every robot across the country cooks meat at too low a temp, hundreds die.

    That's not a bug. That's the beginning of the robots killing everyone. That said, I for one, welcome our new robotic, food-poisoning-inducing-due-to-inadaquate-burger-cooking overlords!

  29. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by toddestan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I kind of doubt this car with its manufacturing defect will ever hold any significant value. It's quite likely that even if you decide you're going to keep it, the VIN will be invalidated in the system meaning that you will not be able to license and insure it, so forget about driving it on public roads.

    As recalled vehicles go, a more interesting example would be the late 80's Nissan Van. After Nissan recalled the van several times and failed to correct the tendency of the vans to overheat and self-immolate, Nissan gave up trying to fix them and attempted to buy back every single example at above market value and sent them all to the crusher. However, Nissan couldn't actually force anyone to sell their van. So despite all of this, a handful of owners decided to keep their vans anyway, making surviving examples extremely rare today. However, rare doesn't mean valuable, and it seems that the van is considered more of an oddity or a curiosity rather than something collectable.

  30. The sdtar of the show. by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    So we can expect to see lots of Subarus appearing in the movies. Being blown up, totalled in crashes, shot to pieces or catching fire for no good reason.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  31. I'll buy them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll buy them for a dollar and use them exclusively offroad.

  32. Well if that isn't a misleading headline. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering all of the vehicles passed the inspection and did not have missing welds. Does anyone even research anything?

  33. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Humans wrote the code so it was a human fuckup, not the machine's.

  34. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by uncqual · · Score: 4, Insightful

    However in this case they knew that exactly 293 cars were affected and which ones they were. This made it easy to track down and remove the unsafe cars from the roads and the supply chain.

    If it was humans who occasionally missed welds because they were hung over or were distracted because they had just been dumped by their husband, many would probably make it through inspection and end up on the road never to be noticed until an accident years later causes serious injury or death to the passenger and, for some reason, investigators actually dig into it and discover missing welds. Then, every car of the model/vintage remaining on the roads needs to be inspected for missing welds - which would probably be more expensive and reputation busting, even if not another single missing weld was found, than junking these 293 cars.

    One of the advantages of automation is that it tends to make the same mistake over and over - humans are more random about their mistakes.

    (I do wonder if they pull some usable components out of them - drivetrain, wheels, ECUs etc before crushing them. Probably it's not worth it as they would have to pay for removal and storage and introduce them into the supply chain for warranty repairs or similar - the supply chain is probably too inflexible to make that work. although, maybe they could use them in mechanic training...)

    --
    Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  35. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by tsqr · · Score: 1

    Really, you can't understand that "one", and "a few, but nothing close to all" are not the same?

  36. becasue you are a moron... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cletus, not everything can be easily fixed with your welding torch and some coat hanger filler rod.
    This ain't Tesla, ya know.

  37. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Human mistake: mistake is never caught, car probably survives its whole life with compromised structure just fine.

  38. Does Elon sign off on Tesla designs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, he's not a a degreed engineer, nor is he a Professional Engineer. He just gave himself the title.

  39. Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They need to take a page from Tesla who cannot afford to waste 1 car.
    Break it down, repair, and build it back up.

  40. That's mass production for ya by KingAlanI · · Score: 2

    In general, a downside of mass production is that making new items is more efficient per unit than specialized repair jobs even though the wasted material seems sad.

    As a currency nerd, I'm reminded of some things about US paper money.

    Replacements for damaged bills are 'star notes', a separate serial number range ending in a star - since 1910 it's been easier to make those ahead of time rather than print new ones with the same serial numbers. Not replacing with something would make the print run a nonstandard size or serial number increment.

    If an error on one bill has been discovered after the bills have been cut and wrapped into packs of 100, it's quicker to destroy and replace the whole pack than to find and replace the damaged bill(s) or save the undamaged bills for later use. With the latest $100 bill redesign, there were so many errors (with paper creasing) that it was worthwhile, but it was still a very involved process. The initial printings through much of 2010 and 2011 couldn't be released until 2016 as they were sorted. A new printing was ready for release by late 2013. The first wave was 6% star notes, an abnormally high error rate. The second wave was about 1%, still slightly high. The current wave is about two thirds of a percent, closer to normal.

    *except for a few very small runs of high denomination bills decades ago

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  41. what a waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can appreciate that they don't want to risk the liability of someone getting in a wreck and suing, but destroying them? At worst maybe part them out and then recycle the frame, a more intelligent response would be to physically limit their speeds to around 35MPH and sell/donate them to some city/college/airport that needs low speed shuttles.

  42. Why can't this be fixed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... with self-sealing stem bolts?

  43. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Your Subaru is safe. They made a mistake. 10,000 moving parts, and if it's only 99.99% right, there are how many things still wrong with it?
    I you had read the linked article ...

    Power steering can fail any moment, and comes back a second or so later. (No idea what that has to do with a missing weld point, though)

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  44. Re: I guess that's the downside of a robot workfor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No get the refund and buy another car as this one wonâ(TM)t resell if itâ(TM)s dangerous.

  45. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by rkordmaa · · Score: 1

    No this is a process mistake, it's like line worker getting wrong instructions and nobody ever checking if the finished product meets the original specs.

  46. Yes boss by cormandy · · Score: 1

    Robots: just doing what they were told to do. Canâ(TM)t think for themsleves.

  47. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Human workforce: every vehicle needs to be QA checked
    Robot workforce: the first vehicle needs a comprehensive QA check

  48. IAC gone bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sniff that the problem was that there was a certain amount of yolo, which occurs in software systems that adhere to an 'it's easy to roll back, so the risk is minimal.' Infrastructure as code.

    I'd be curious about the mindset used here.

  49. Where's QA in all of this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who decided not to test the software for critical functionality? Coders make mistakes. SDLC is supposed to be designed to minimize their impact. The process failed here.

  50. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's an assburger, like the man said.

  51. mass casualties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This already happens - Chipotle employees, following detailed instructions (i.e. robots), manufacture norovirus laden burritos, causing roughly 1000 illnesses in one day.

    Oddly, a burrito robot is less likely to have this problem - norovirus is spread by human contact - it's easy to hose down a burrito making robot with bleach and keep its operating parts cold or hot as needed. Not so easy for the human.

  52. Bring back station wagons if you want to fix it. by Spamalope · · Score: 1

    Station wagons were outlawed by the cafe gas mileage laws. Those don't apply to 'trucks' so auto makers build larger, heavier, even less fuel efficient replacements to make sure they are truck like enough that cafe doesn't apply to them.

  53. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by Shatrat · · Score: 1

    "...remove the unsafe cars..." Maybe we should say remove less safe cars? Somehow I feel like those 293 are still safer than anything made by Fiat Chrysler

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  54. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    Sure I understand. I also understand that people sometimes forget their training on how to build their part of a product and so make the same mistake for every unit they touch until they've been corrected.

  55. Somewhere out there by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    Somewhere in an autonomous driving car lab, a tech makes a mental note:
     
      Note to self: add one other possible destination, shopping mall, supermarket, movieplex, car crusher. The competition heats up in the self-driving car race.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  56. Hope they salvage what they can at least by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    I'd hope they'd dismantle them for all those new parts and drivetrain and just scrap the body.

  57. Get what you pay for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of all the money we will save outsourcing our coding to india

  58. not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While subordinates can do engineering work, ultimately the Engineer needs to sign off.

    1. Re:not exactly by PPH · · Score: 1

      ultimately the Engineer needs to sign off

      That's not what the industrial exemption means. It means (in states where it is in effect) that no professional engineering signature is needed for manufactured products.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  59. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

    More to the point,

    Human workforce: One human screws up writing the procedure, all cars have to be trashed because the human workers followed the procedure.

    Human burger flipper: One human screws up writing the procedure, hundreds die because the human fast-food workers followed the procedure.

    There's a procedure for everything. Programming human workers is not unlike programming robots. Seriously. An ambiguous assembly procedure leads to inconsistent product because Alice on first shift does it one way and Bob on second shift does it another. Not a lot is left up to worker discretion on a human-run assembly line, or in a fast-food kitchen.

    --
    Chelloveck
    I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  60. Re: I guess that's the downside of a robot workfor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thatâ(TM)s a bit dumb. Do you think a machine developed the robot who made the mistake. It still comes down to human error, ultimately.

  61. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by mjpaci · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they're being sent to the crusher as is, or if they're being stripped down and parts (seats, radio, stuff like that) are being reused?

  62. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by mjpaci · · Score: 1

    Well, their QA caught it -- but why did it take so long. One would think that once the line has been re-tooled and the units are going through assembly that each station is checked for spec.

  63. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

    Or, you know, get a mechanic to weld the required places and it will be good. Probably no different than patching a rust hole.

  64. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People[1] just aren't that consistent. Even a moron would occasionally make a different error (with or without the original one) or even get it right by pure chance.

    [1] I can only speak for neurotypical ones. YMMV.

  65. That subject by Daralantan · · Score: 1

    I thought at first that some kind of coding error caused tons to be scrapped for no reason. Wondered why they would crush perfectly fine brand new cars without noticing something fishy.

  66. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or, you know, get a mechanic to weld the required places and it will be good. Probably no different than patching a rust hole.

    Yup, you're absolutely right. And that "patching a rust hole" mentality is exactly why any car company's lawyers will find and scrap those cars. Just like Apple will brick unauthorized iPhone repairs.

    Just because you've scraped together enough beer money to buy a pickup truck and a hammer doesn't make you a plumber.

  67. Re:I guess that's the downside of a robot workforc by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

    I guess that's profit protection. I mean if I repair my iPhone, Apple doesn't get money from me. The company that makes the replacement parts gets some money, the person who repairs the phone (if I don't do it myself) gets some money, but not Apple.

    And when I get a welder to patch a rust hole in my car, the welder gets some money, the companies that make the welding materials, paint etc gets some money, but the car manufacturer doesn't. Since the welder lives locally and probably spends the money on food etc, the local companies get part of that money and not all of that money leaves my country.

    If I bought a new car, most of my money would leave my country and end up in the pockets of various managers and investors, with very little money going to the workers.

    I am such a horrible person in that I do not pay the manufacturer continuously for an item I bought and already paid for. Think of the profits and the investors!