| Recurring |
unknown |
The articles do not mention any specific software failure incident happening again at the same organization or at multiple organizations. Therefore, the information related to the software failure incident happening again at a specific organization or multiple organizations is unknown. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase can be seen in the article where it mentions the issue with Tesla Roadster's battery. The article highlights that fully discharging the Roadster's battery can effectively kill the battery, rendering the car inoperable. This issue was attributed to the design of the system where the parasitic load from the car’s always-on subsystems continually drains the battery, leading to potential damage if the battery's charge is totally depleted [9993].
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase is evident in the article where it discusses how leaving the Tesla Roadster unplugged for an extended period led to the battery being fully discharged, resulting in the car becoming inoperable. This failure was due to the operation or misuse of the system, as owners like Max Drucker unintentionally left their cars unplugged, leading to the battery issues [9993]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system, outside_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident related to the Tesla Roadster's battery issue is primarily within the system. The failure occurred due to the design and functioning of the car's battery management system, which led to the battery being fully discharged and rendered inoperable, even when the car was not being driven. This issue was exacerbated by the continuous drain on the battery from the car's always-on subsystems, ultimately resulting in the battery being "bricked" [9993].
(b) outside_system: The failure was also influenced by factors outside the system, such as the lack of explicit warnings or clear communication from Tesla Motors regarding the risks associated with leaving the car unplugged for extended periods. The owner, Max Drucker, mentioned that he was not adequately informed about the potential consequences of not maintaining a minimum charge or leaving the vehicle unplugged during storage. He argued that if he had been explicitly warned about the risk of damaging the battery, he would have taken appropriate measures to prevent the failure [9993]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions:
- The incident reported in the article is related to a potential software failure in Tesla's electric sports car, specifically the Roadster's battery system.
- The issue arises from the car's always-on subsystems continually draining the battery when the car is parked without being plugged in, leading to the battery being fully discharged and potentially destroyed [9993].
- This failure is not directly caused by human actions but rather by the design and operation of the car's systems, which can lead to the battery becoming inoperable if left unplugged for extended periods.
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions:
- While the primary cause of the software failure incident is related to non-human actions (the car's subsystems draining the battery), human actions such as leaving the car unplugged for an extended period contribute to the failure.
- The incident involves cases where owners left their Roadsters unplugged for weeks, leading to the battery being fully discharged and ultimately requiring replacement at a significant cost [9993].
- Human actions such as not following the recommended maintenance guidelines, like keeping the car plugged in when not in use, can exacerbate the risk of the software failure incident occurring. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware |
(a) The software failure incident related to hardware:
- The incident reported in the article is primarily related to a hardware issue where fully discharging the Tesla Roadster's battery can render the car inoperable, effectively killing the battery [9993].
- The issue is described as the battery being destroyed if its charge is ever totally depleted, even if the car isn't being driven, due to the parasitic load from the car's always-on subsystems continually draining the battery [9993].
- One owner experienced the problem after leaving the unplugged car in storage for six weeks, resulting in the battery being rendered "dead and unrecoverable" [9993].
(b) The software failure incident related to software:
- The incident is not directly related to a software failure originating in the software itself but rather due to the software's always-on subsystems draining the battery when the car is not plugged in, leading to the hardware issue of the battery being destroyed [9993].
- The article does not mention any specific software bugs, faults, or errors as the root cause of the incident. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident reported in the articles is non-malicious. The incident involving Tesla Motors and the potential "bricking" of their electric sports car due to fully discharging the battery is not a result of malicious intent but rather a design flaw or oversight in the battery management system [9993]. The issue is related to the continuous drain on the battery from the car's always-on subsystems, which can lead to the battery being rendered inoperable if fully depleted, even when the car is not being driven. This incident highlights the importance of proper maintenance and charging practices for electric vehicles to prevent such failures. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
accidental_decisions |
The software failure incident related to the Tesla Roadster battery issue can be categorized under the intent of accidental_decisions. The incident occurred due to mistakes or unintended decisions made by owners who left their cars unplugged for extended periods, leading to the battery being fully discharged and potentially damaged [9993]. The failure was not a result of poor decisions by the software developers or Tesla Motors but rather stemmed from the lack of awareness or understanding among owners regarding the maintenance requirements of electric vehicles. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
accidental |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is not mentioned in the provided article [9993].
(b) The software failure incident related to an accidental factor is highlighted in the article. The incident of fully discharging the Tesla Roadster's battery leading to it being rendered inoperable was described as an accidental problem that could occur even if the car isn't being driven. Owners like Max Drucker experienced the issue unintentionally by leaving the unplugged car in storage for an extended period, resulting in the battery being "dead and unrecoverable" [9993]. |
| Duration |
permanent |
The software failure incident described in the articles is more aligned with a permanent failure. The incident of fully discharging the Tesla Roadster's battery leading to it being rendered inoperable is a permanent failure as it effectively kills the battery, making the car unusable [9993]. The article mentions that the only solution to this issue is replacing the battery pack, which can cost more than $30,000, indicating a permanent impact on the vehicle [9993].
Additionally, the article highlights that the battery management system in the Nissan Leaf includes a failsafe wall that stops the battery from reaching zero state of charge, even after a period of unplugged storage, preventing the kind of permanent failure seen in the Tesla Roadster incident [9993]. This comparison further emphasizes the permanent nature of the software failure incident in the Tesla Roadster case. |
| Behaviour |
crash, omission, timing, other |
(a) crash: The incident described in the article can be categorized as a crash. The software failure resulted in the electric sports car's battery being completely drained, rendering the vehicle inoperable. This can happen even when the car is not being driven, leading to a state where the car essentially becomes a "brick" due to the battery being destroyed [9993].
(b) omission: The software failure incident can also be categorized as an omission. Owners of the Tesla Roadster were not adequately warned about the risk of leaving the car unplugged, which could lead to the battery being ruined. One of the affected owners, Max Drucker, mentioned that he was not explicitly informed that failing to leave the car plugged in could result in the battery being dead and costly repairs [9993].
(c) timing: The timing of the software failure incident can be considered in the context of the system performing its intended functions correctly but at the wrong time. The article mentions that the Tesla Roadster warns owners as the state of charge approaches critical levels, providing ample notice of the need to plug in the vehicle. However, the risk of the battery depleting over time is an issue only if the car is left idle for extended periods, indicating a timing issue in terms of when the warning is given [9993].
(d) value: The software failure incident does not align with a failure due to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly.
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not exhibit behavior characteristic of a byzantine failure.
(f) other: The other behavior exhibited in this software failure incident is related to the lack of explicit warnings and communication from Tesla Motors regarding the maintenance requirements of the electric vehicle's battery. Owners like Max Drucker felt that the warnings provided were vague and did not adequately convey the risks associated with leaving the car unplugged, leading to unexpected and costly consequences [9993]. |