News
Elon Musk says next FSD version to let drivers wear sunglasses
Tesla’s next version of Full Self-Driving (FSD) has been widely discussed in recent weeks, and a new update from CEO Elon Musk over the weekend highlights the fact that it won’t prevent drivers from wearing sunglasses anymore.
The FSD Supervised system uses a driver monitoring feature that makes sure drivers remain attentive and awake, though the system won’t allow the driver to wear sunglasses with the system engaged without nags. In response to one X user complaining about not being able to wear sunglasses while using FSD on Saturday, Musk wrote that the issue would be fixed in v12.5, to which many users in the thread expressed appreciation.
Should be fixed in 12.5
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 21, 2024
Tesla FSD v12.4.1 with no nag starts rolling out to select customers
It’s still not clear exactly when Tesla plans to start deploying FSD Supervised v12.5.
Musk originally said that FSD v12.5 would be out in late June, and many are especially waiting for the update as it’s expected to finally bring FSD Supervised to the Cybertruck. Despite missing the late June target for the release, Musk has highlighted a handful of the other improvements in the version, as well as noting on Thursday that the release was in fact ready to hit the Cybertruck upon its deployment.
He also said this month that FSD Supervised v12.5 will finally merge the city and highway software stacks, as was previously done with v11, though it was apparently rolled back at some point with the arrival of v12.
Tesla started rolling out FSD Supervised v12.4.3 to some customers earlier this month, after previous versions had been delayed due to an extremely low level of interventions—and after the company essentially halted the rollout of v12.4.2.
Musk highlighted the issue of low interventions earlier this month.
The amount of testing time it takes to figure out if the new AI is better than the existing AI as measured by miles between interventions is the limiting factor on progress.
The better FSD gets the longer it takes to find interventions.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 12, 2024
He also detailed the problem during Tesla’s Annual Shareholder Meeting last month, explaining that the fewer interventions there are, the more difficult it becomes to test versions and point versions against each other to see which ones are performing best.
“And then, like I was saying earlier, it actually gets, as the system gets better, it gets harder to figure out which AI model is better, because now you know, like, ‘Okay, it’s thousands of miles between interventions.’
“How do we, as quickly as possible, figure out which AI model is better. And when you make these different AI models, they’re obviously not like super deterministic, so we have a new model that eliminates one problem but creates another problem. So we’re trying to solve this by a combination of simulation, uploading models, having them run in Shadow Mode.
“It’s actually kind of helpful that not everyone has Full Self-Driving, because we can see, we can run it in Shadow Mode and see, ‘What would this new model have done compared to what the user did?’
“So since we’ve got, you know, millions of cars that we can do this with, that gives us a delta between what the AI model predicted would do and the user would do. And if you kind of sum up the errors between them, you can see ‘Oh, there was a bigger error stack from this model versus that model,’ when you uploaded them into, each uploaded them into 100,000 cars.
“But that’s the biggest limiter right now. It’s not training, it’s not data, it’s actually testing the AI models. And then figuring out clever ways to figure out if a new model is better or not. Like there were sort of particular intersections that are difficult.”
RELATED:
Tesla offers owners $1,000 off to upgrade from EAP to FSD in new car
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
