最近，外媒carscoops發(fā)了一篇報(bào)道。報(bào)道指出，逆變器的設(shè)計(jì)缺陷可能導(dǎo)致Model 3(參數(shù)|詢價(jià))出現(xiàn)意外、突然的加速。

我概況了一下，文章的核心觀點(diǎn)有這幾個(gè)：

1、 逆變器設(shè)計(jì)缺陷會(huì)讓車輛把12伏電池隨機(jī)出現(xiàn)的電壓峰值，誤當(dāng)作加速踏板踩下的信號(hào)，進(jìn)而導(dǎo)致車輛意外、突然的加速。但實(shí)際上，駕駛員并沒有踩加速踏板。

(相關(guān)資料圖)

2、這種誤操作不會(huì)被車輛當(dāng)作錯(cuò)誤記錄下來(lái)。導(dǎo)致的結(jié)果是：車輛記載的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，當(dāng)時(shí)駕駛員踩下了加速踏板，而駕駛員稱自己沒有踩加速踏板。（車輛后臺(tái)數(shù)據(jù)和駕駛員各執(zhí)一詞的原因就在這里嗎？）

3、這種設(shè)計(jì)缺陷具有偽裝性。它導(dǎo)致車輛在出現(xiàn)突然意外加速時(shí)，從表面看上去，是駕駛員踩下了加速踏板，但駕駛員并沒有踩加速踏板。

4、 一些汽車發(fā)燒友拆解特斯拉，發(fā)現(xiàn)了逆變器的這個(gè)問題，然后把信息提供給研究者。研究者據(jù)此得出了結(jié)論。（不得不贊嘆，這些汽車發(fā)燒友很厲害）

5、 針對(duì)特斯拉的投訴案例顯示，在低速行駛或打方向盤轉(zhuǎn)彎時(shí)，會(huì)偶爾出現(xiàn)這種意外突然加速。

6、目前NATHSA正在重新調(diào)查這個(gè)新發(fā)現(xiàn)，目前沒有定論。也沒有讓特斯拉采取召回或其它措施。

點(diǎn)評(píng)：這的確是一個(gè)非常嶄新和重要的發(fā)現(xiàn)，為某些特斯拉突然加速事故的原因提供了新的思路和視角。

這個(gè)結(jié)論是不是正確，還有待NTHSA調(diào)查結(jié)果。如果這個(gè)結(jié)論坐實(shí)。那么，特斯拉可能面臨大事。之前全球范圍內(nèi)包括中國(guó)市場(chǎng)，出現(xiàn)的那些特斯拉車輛失控案例，那些駕駛員和特斯拉各執(zhí)一詞的爭(zhēng)論和官司，可能就有了新的證據(jù)，新的解讀，甚至新的判決。

總之，特斯拉車輛失控案例，是駕駛員的問題還是車的問題，可能會(huì)有新的答案。

附：carscoops外文翻譯及原文：僅供參考

聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局評(píng)估請(qǐng)?jiān)笗禾厮估璏odel3的設(shè)計(jì)缺陷可能導(dǎo)致意外加速。

NHTSA正在調(diào)查一項(xiàng)請(qǐng)?jiān)笗何挥谔厮估璵odel 3控制系統(tǒng)深處的電壓峰值，可能引發(fā)車輛錯(cuò)誤地讀到加速信號(hào)，即使駕駛員沒有踩加速踏板。

一位研究者BELT博士稱，自己已經(jīng)找到了新證據(jù)，證據(jù)指明model 3的逆變器設(shè)計(jì)，是引發(fā)突然、意外加速的原因。

作為向NHTSA提交的請(qǐng)?jiān)笗囊徊糠郑麄冞M(jìn)一步指出：這個(gè)缺陷還會(huì)導(dǎo)致表面看上去，駕駛員已經(jīng)踩了加速踏板，即使當(dāng)時(shí)駕駛員并沒有踩加速踏板。

聯(lián)邦管理者第一次調(diào)查這個(gè)事件是2019年，當(dāng)時(shí)，他們收到Brian Sparks的請(qǐng)?jiān)笗?，他要求?qiáng)制特斯拉召回2013-2019年期間生產(chǎn)的所有Model S(參數(shù)|詢價(jià)),X和3。

但是，評(píng)估請(qǐng)?jiān)笗?，ODI（政府缺陷調(diào)查辦公室）最終支持了特斯拉的結(jié)論。即請(qǐng)?jiān)笗岬降?32個(gè)案例中，根據(jù)當(dāng)時(shí)事故車輛收集的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，駕駛員都踩了加速踏板。因此，2021年，ODI辦公室否定了請(qǐng)?jiān)笗?/p>

但這個(gè)結(jié)論并不適用所有人。尤其是在至少一個(gè)案例中，據(jù)駕駛員稱，當(dāng)時(shí)他們還在車外，車輛就加速了?，F(xiàn)在，BELT博士基于新發(fā)現(xiàn)的信息，已經(jīng)提交了一個(gè)新的申請(qǐng)，要求ODI重新審查這項(xiàng)請(qǐng)?jiān)笗?/p>

汽車發(fā)燒友收集的信息為BELT博士的指控提供了支持。這些發(fā)燒友拆解了特斯拉車型，想用它的電動(dòng)總成做電動(dòng)汽車轉(zhuǎn)換或其他用途。在拆解中，他們對(duì)電動(dòng)車廠的逆變器和電路板設(shè)計(jì)積累了新的見解。

在model 3上，BELT博士聲稱，在極少數(shù)案例中，逆變器的設(shè)計(jì)缺陷可能導(dǎo)致車輛把隨機(jī)出現(xiàn)的電壓峰值誤認(rèn)為踩下了加速踏板。因?yàn)閙odel 3的逆變器采用了單個(gè)1.65伏的校準(zhǔn)信號(hào)來(lái)檢查4個(gè)ADC（模擬信號(hào)-數(shù)字信號(hào)轉(zhuǎn)換器，也就是把加速踏板位置的信息轉(zhuǎn)換為電子信號(hào)，然后給車輛讀取的零部件）。

在一些案例中，尤其是當(dāng)車輛慢速行駛，或者，例如方向盤需要更多電力時(shí)，車載12伏電池的電耗會(huì)在系統(tǒng)中引發(fā)一個(gè)相對(duì)較高的（電壓）峰值，導(dǎo)致逆變器誤認(rèn)為加速踏板已經(jīng)被踩下，進(jìn)而導(dǎo)致車輛突然、意外的加速。

至少，這是belt的理論。他說，一個(gè)電壓峰值（持續(xù)幾微秒）和車輛進(jìn)行ADC檢查時(shí)（也持續(xù)幾微秒）必須同時(shí)出現(xiàn)，才會(huì)出現(xiàn)這種情況，這是極其罕見的。但是，根據(jù)他的評(píng)估，這種罕見數(shù)量和2013-2019年期間發(fā)生的特斯拉突然加速案例數(shù)量是一致的。

BELT博士還稱，因?yàn)槿毕莸男再|(zhì)---逆變器把電壓峰值誤解釋為加速踏板信號(hào)輸入---這個(gè)行為并不會(huì)被當(dāng)作錯(cuò)誤記錄下來(lái)。結(jié)果，盡管駕駛員說他們沒有踩加速踏板，但車輛數(shù)據(jù)并不認(rèn)同駕駛員說法。這也解釋了為什么2019年ODI辦公室否認(rèn)了車主的請(qǐng)?jiān)浮Ｄ壳?，BELT博士的指控是針對(duì) model 3的，它的逆變器設(shè)計(jì)和model S和X不同。但是，他明確補(bǔ)充說，這些車型也會(huì)產(chǎn)生類似問題。

現(xiàn)在，ODI缺陷調(diào)查辦公室將調(diào)查這份報(bào)告，看看是否同意這些發(fā)現(xiàn)。近期發(fā)給NHESA的指控，要求NHTSA調(diào)查特斯拉的意外加速。另外有人認(rèn)為，某些車輛缺少剎車聯(lián)鎖系統(tǒng)，是特斯拉意外加速的原因之一。在現(xiàn)階段，特斯拉還沒有被要求采取措施。

附：外媒報(bào)道原文:

Feds Assess Allegations That Design Flaw In Tesla Model 3 Can Lead To Unintended Acceleration.

NHTSA is looking into allegations that a voltage spike deep within the Tesla Model 3"s control systems could cause the car to mistakenly read an accelerator input, even when none has occurred.

by Sebastien Bell

July 4, 2023 at 16:40

A researcher claims to have found new evidence pointing to the design of the Tesla Model 3’s inverter as the cause of a fault that could lead to sudden, unintended acceleration. As part of a petition filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, they further allege that the fault could make it look like the driver has pressed the accelerator pedal, even if they did not.

The federal regulator first looked into the merits of this issue in 2019, after receiving a petition from one Brian Sparks, who requested that it compel Tesla to recall every Model S, X, and 3 made between 2013 and that year.

However, upon evaluating the claims, the administration’s Office of Defect Investigations (ODI) agreed with Tesla that in almost all of the 232 instances referred to in the original petition, the driver had pressed the accelerator, based on data collected by the vehicles in question. In 2021, it denied the petition.

That did not sit right with everyone, since in at least one case, the driver claimed they were outside the vehicle when it accelerated. Now, a new request has been filed by Dr. Ronald A. Belt based on new information, asking the ODI to reexamine the petition.Read: Tesla Might Have An Unintended Acceleration Issue As Regulators Investigate Over 120 Claims.

Belt bases his new allegations on information gathered by enthusiasts who are tearing down Teslas in order to use their powertrains for EV conversions and other purposes. These have garnered new insights into the design of the automaker’s inverters and circuit boards.

In the Tesla Model 3, Belt alleges that a fault in the design can lead to the vehicle mistaking a random voltage spike for a pedal application in extremely rare cases. That’s because the Model 3’s inverter uses a single 1.65-volt calibration signal to check in on four ADCs (analog-to-digital converters, or the part that converts pedal position into an electric signal for the car to read, in this case).

In some instances, especially when the vehicle is driving slowly and, for example, the power steering requires more power, the draw on the 12-volt battery can cause a relatively enormous spike in the system, leading the inverter to infer that the accelerator pedal has been pressed, and leading to sudden unintended acceleration.

At least, that’s the theory proposed by Belt, who says that a spike (which lasts microseconds) must occur while the car is performing an ADC check (which also lasts microseconds), making it exceedingly rare. However, by his estimates, the rarity of the event aligns with the 200-or-so incidents reported between 2013 and 2019.He also claims that due to the nature of the fault – the inverter misinterpreting a voltage spike as a throttle input – it doesn’t get logged as an error. As a result, despite owners reporting that their foot wasn’t on the pedal, the vehicle data disagrees with them, which may explain why the ODI first denied the petition.

So far, Belt’s allegations are directed at the Model 3, whose inverter design is different than the one found on the?Model S and X. However, he is clear to add that these vehicles may also be subject to similar errors.

Now, the ODI will look into this report to see whether or not it agrees with its findings. Just the latest petition sent to NHTSA asking it to look into unintended acceleration in Teslas, others have proposed the lack of a brake interlock system in certain vehicles as a cause of the phenomenon. At this moment, no action is required from the automaker.