| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Tesla Roadster battery bricking incident has happened again within the same organization. Tesla confirmed that fewer than 10 Roadsters might be "susceptible" to the problem of total battery failure, which renders the car effectively useless [10547]. This incident sparked controversy and debate about the responsibility of owners to keep the battery charged and the need for fail-safe systems to prevent such total failures.
(b) The software failure incident related to the Tesla Roadster battery bricking incident has also happened at other organizations or with their products and services. The article mentions that the incident gave fodder to critics questioning the viability of battery-powered cars, especially in light of other incidents like fires in Chevrolet Volt lithium-ion packs resulting from federal crash tests under laboratory conditions [10547]. This suggests that similar concerns and incidents have been observed in the electric vehicle industry beyond just Tesla. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
unknown |
The articles do not provide information specifically related to a software failure incident occurring due to the development phases (design) or operation phases. Therefore, the specific details about failures related to system development, system updates, procedures to operate or maintain the system, or misuse of the system are not mentioned in the provided articles. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system, outside_system |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Tesla Roadster battery bricking is primarily within the system. The incident was caused by the battery being discharged for an extended period, leading to chemical changes that made recharging impossible [10547]. Additionally, the lack of a 12-volt backup battery and a wake-up function in the Roadster contributed to the inability to recover the drained battery, highlighting internal system design flaws [10547].
(b) However, external factors such as the owner's responsibility to keep the car plugged in when parked and the lack of fail-safe systems in place to prevent total battery depletion also played a role in the software failure incident [10547]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions:
- The incident involving the Tesla Roadster battery failure was primarily attributed to the battery being discharged for an extended period of time, leading to chemical changes that made recharging impossible [10547].
- The failure was exacerbated by the lack of a 12-volt backup battery and a wake-up function in the Roadster, which would have allowed technicians to regain access to the depleted battery [10547].
- Tesla mentioned that the fail-safe system in their new Model S sedan would prevent the battery from falling below about 5 percent charge, thus avoiding total discharge even if the car is left parked for an extended period [10547].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions:
- Tesla emphasized customer education as a primary strategy to prevent bricking, requiring owners to acknowledge the need to plug in the car when parked for extended periods and providing warnings when the battery reaches a low state of charge [10547].
- The incident began with a Tesla Roadster owner not following the specified instructions in the owner's manual to plug in the car while parked, leading to the total failure of the battery [10547].
- Tesla stated that the issue of bricking was avoidable and not covered under warranty, likening it to the owner's responsibility in ensuring regular oil changes for combustion vehicles to prevent engine damage [10547]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to hardware:
- The incident involving the Tesla Roadster battery failure was not directly caused by hardware issues but rather by the battery being discharged for an extended period, leading to irreversible chemical changes that made recharging impossible [10547].
- The lack of a 12-volt backup battery and a wake-up function in the Tesla Roadster contributed to the inability to recover the drained battery, as these hardware components were necessary for accessing the depleted battery [10547].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to software:
- The term "bricking" used in the context of the Tesla Roadster battery failure incident is typically associated with electronic devices rendered useless by corrupted software, indicating a software-related aspect to the failure [10547].
- While the primary cause of the incident was the battery being discharged for an extended period, the lack of certain software functionalities like a wake-up function in the Tesla Roadster contributed to the inability to recover the drained battery, highlighting a software-related aspect of the failure [10547]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) In the provided articles, there is no mention of a software failure incident related to a malicious intent to harm the system. Therefore, there is no information available to support a malicious software failure incident.
(b) The software failure incident discussed in the articles is non-malicious in nature. The incident involved the failure of Tesla Roadster batteries due to being left unplugged for an extended period, leading to total irreversible failure. This failure was attributed to the battery being discharged for an extended amount of time, causing chemical changes that made recharging impossible [10547]. The incident was not intentional but rather a result of the owner not following the recommended charging procedures for the electric vehicle. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions, accidental_decisions |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident related to poor_decisions:
- The incident involving the Tesla Roadster battery failure was primarily attributed to poor decisions made by the owner in not following the specified guidelines for charging the car. Tesla denied warranty coverage due to the owner not plugging in the car as instructed in the owner's manual and other materials [10547].
- Tesla emphasized that the issue of bricking the battery was avoidable and not covered under warranty, likening it to the responsibility of regular oil changes in combustion vehicles, indicating a clear stance on the consequences of neglecting proper charging procedures [10547].
(b) The intent of the software failure incident related to accidental_decisions:
- The incident of the Tesla Roadster battery failure also involved accidental decisions or unintended actions by the owner, such as leaving the car parked with a low charge for an extended period without realizing the potential consequences [10547].
- The article mentions that the failure to plug in the car or the power being interrupted, leading to the battery depletion, could be considered accidental decisions that contributed to the irreversible failure of the battery [10547]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
accidental |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to development incompetence:
- The incident involving the Tesla Roadster battery failure was not directly related to development incompetence but rather to the design and functionality of the vehicle's battery management system [10547].
(b) The software failure incident occurring accidentally:
- The incident with the Tesla Roadster battery failure was more of an accidental occurrence due to the owner leaving the car parked and unplugged for an extended period, leading to the total depletion of the battery [10547]. |
| Duration |
permanent |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Tesla Roadster batteries being irreversibly depleted leading to a "bricking" situation is considered permanent. The incident resulted in the battery pack becoming effectively useless and unable to be revived, requiring a complete replacement [10547].
(b) In contrast, the fail-safe systems and features implemented in newer electric vehicles like the Tesla Model S are designed to prevent total irreversible battery failure. These systems disconnect the battery from draining systems, isolate the battery when the charge gets low, and have a separate "wake-up" function to restart the vehicle's systems if needed, ensuring that even if the battery reaches a very low charge level, it can be recovered and recharged back to health [10547]. |
| Behaviour |
crash, omission, other |
(a) crash: The incident involving the Tesla Roadster's battery failure can be categorized as a crash. The battery suffered a total failure and could not be revived, rendering the car effectively unusable [10547].
(b) omission: The software failure incident can also be linked to omission. The failure occurred because the owner did not follow the specified instructions in the owner's manual to plug in the car while it was parked, leading to the battery's total failure [10547].
(c) timing: The timing of the failure can be considered a factor in this incident. The battery failure occurred after the car was parked for an extended period without being plugged in, leading to irreversible depletion over 36 days [10547].
(d) value: The software failure incident does not align with a value-related failure.
(e) byzantine: The byzantine behavior is not applicable to this software failure incident.
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident can be described as a failure due to a lack of fail-safe systems to prevent total battery depletion in the Tesla Roadster, leading to the car becoming inoperable [10547]. |