Tesla owners are no stranger to aftermarket modifications. Whether they are performance-based or cosmetic, owners of the electric vehicles are always looking for ways to set their cars apart from the others. While the cosmetic modifications are usually pretty simple because they only change the appearance of a vehicle, the performance adjustments are a bit more complicated because they completely revise the way the system operates. Tesla decided to put a stop to the performance revisions altogether by releasing a software update that would inhibit the simple plug-in systems from functioning correctly.
Thinking about it, it reminded me of a previous newsletter that I wrote a few months ago. I talked about how Tesla was blocking salvaged vehicles from Supercharging in an attempt to make them less appealing to those who were interested in buying them and fixing them up for a discounted price. While it was a great project for some people, Tesla had to realize that salvaged vehicles are rarely fixed “perfectly” and that they usually have some small issues even after they are deemed to be functional. Tesla had to think about themselves first, and for a good reason. If someone were to crash a salvaged Tesla that was not wholly “fixed,” it would be blamed on them and not on the person who attempted to repair the vehicle. The headlines would blame the company, and it would add to a long list of misunderstandings with Tesla’s cars. It was merely smarter for them to try and make the vehicles less appealing through no Supercharging.
Tesla, when you think about it, really had to do the same thing with these aftermarket upgrades. While the company released a $2,000 Acceleration Boost for the Model 3 a few months back, they have ultimate control over what the vehicle’s new capabilities are. They decide how much extra horsepower to give the car, and how much speed the car should be capable of. This puts the risk into the company’s hands as much as the driver’s hands.
If a third-party company comes along and decides to manufacture a simple plug-in that will take the performance of a Tesla to new heights, it is sure to attract some buyers. Owners of the Performance variants of the car are surely going to be more interested in upping the already lightning-fast speeds the vehicle is capable of. While this is all good and fun for the owners, Tesla, as a company, assumes a lot of risks, and it is only reasonable to think that stopping it is the best strategy.
Think about a scenario here: Imagine a Tesla Model 3 Performance owner deciding that what their car is capable of is not enough anymore. They decide to go online and purchase a plug-in for their Model 3 that will increase acceleration and top speed, and they choose to put it to the test one evening. While traveling at speeds over 130 MPH, the driver loses control of the car and crashes into another vehicle, hurting someone in the car.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
The first thing that is synonymous with Teslas and car accidents is the overwhelming flood of people who immediately think the car was on Autopilot. Mainstream media outlets will talk about how the car could have been traveling on Autopilot and TSLAQ will immediately eat it up without any confirmation. The NHTSA would be the only agency that would be able to tell if the car was traveling on Autopilot through an investigation. However, that could take days, weeks, or even months to happen.
Then, you’d have some people complaining about Tesla’s performance standards, and why some of their cars equip unnecessary amounts of speed and acceleration. Not that it is anyone’s business, but when someone buys a car because it is fast, they more than likely know that they are putting themselves at risk, especially if they chose to drive it quickly. This argument would more than likely be small and not based off of much logic, to begin with, because fast cars exist everywhere and every car company makes them in some form or another.
However, Tesla would have to deal with the issues and speculation that would suggest that their cars are too fast for the owner’s good. The company is already under a microscope because every time a Tesla is in an accident, it seems like someone somewhere is talking about it.
These aftermarket plug-ins are also tricky because while the company that makes them probably knows what they are capable of, they are not entirely “compatible” with a Tesla powertrain to begin with. Only Tesla knows everything that goes into their cars and the software that helps them function. There really isn’t much of a reason to gamble on ruining the powertrain of a Tesla all for a few extra miles per hour, but that is just me. I would think that it is too much of a risk, and I wouldn’t want my hard-earned money going to waste, especially if a plug-in can compromise the way my vehicle works.
I think the update to keep these plug-ins from functioning is entirely understandable. Tesla is playing damage control. Ultimately, anything that happens to malfunction on the plug-in, or if the driver were to make an error and it would result in an accident, the blame would go onto Tesla.
Please consider Subscribing and joining me next week as I go ‘Beyond the News’
News
Waymo scrutinized after self-driving taxis cause traffic jams during SF blackout
It’s not farfetched to speculate that it would have been a doomsday scenario for Tesla had FSD behaved this way.
A power outage across San Francisco over the weekend forced numerous Waymo self-driving taxis to stop at darkened intersections and cause traffic blockages in multiple locations across the city. The disruption left riders stranded, frustrated drivers blocked, and city officials stepping in as the Alphabet-owned company temporarily suspended service amid the widespread gridlock.
Needless to say, it would likely have been a doomsday scenario for Tesla had FSD behaved in a similar way, especially if fleets of its robotaxis blocked traffic for numerous drivers.
Power outage halts Waymo fleet
The outage knocked out electricity for tens of thousands of customers, leaving traffic signals dark across large parts of the city, as noted in a report from the New York Times. Waymo vehicles began stopping at intersections and remained stationary for extended periods, seemingly unable to operate. Tow truck operators worked through the night removing immobilized vehicles, while videos circulated online showing Waymos with hazard lights flashing as traffic backed up around them.
Waymo later confirmed that it had paused its Bay Area ride-hailing service after the San Francisco mayor’s office contacted the company about the congestion its vehicles were contributing to. Service began coming back online shortly after 3:30 p.m. local time, though some users still reported being unable to request rides. Waymo maintained that no injuries or accidents were reported during the outage.
Autonomous cars during emergencies
The incident surprised industry observers since autonomous vehicles are designed to function during signal outages and temporary connectivity losses. Waymo stated that its vehicles treat nonfunctional signals as four-way stops, but “the sheer scale of the outage led to instances where vehicles remained stationary longer than usual to confirm the state of the affected intersections. This contributed to traffic friction during the height of the congestion.” Experts suggested the problem may have been linked to the vehicles’ reliance on remote assistance teams, which help resolve complex situations the cars cannot handle independently.
“Yesterday’s power outage was a widespread event that caused gridlock across San Francisco, with non-functioning traffic signals and transit disruptions. While the failure of the utility infrastructure was significant, we are committed to ensuring our technology adjusts to traffic flow during such events,” the Waymo spokesperson stated, adding that it is “focused on rapidly integrating the lessons learned from this event, and are committed to earning and maintaining the trust of the communities we serve every day.”
News
Tesla aims to combat common Full Self-Driving problem with new patent
Tesla writes in the patent that its autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles are heavily reliant on camera systems to navigate and interact with their environment.
Tesla is aiming to combat a common Full Self-Driving problem with a new patent.
One issue with Tesla’s vision-based approach is that sunlight glare can become a troublesome element of everyday travel. Full Self-Driving is certainly an amazing technology, but there are still things Tesla is aiming to figure out with its development.
Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to get around this issue, and even humans need ways to combat it when they’re driving, as we commonly use sunglasses or sun visors to give us better visibility.
Cameras obviously do not have these ways to fight sunglare, but a new patent Tesla recently had published aims to fight this through a “glare shield.”
Tesla writes in the patent that its autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles are heavily reliant on camera systems to navigate and interact with their environment.
The ability to see surroundings is crucial for accurate performance, and glare is one element of interference that has yet to be confronted.
Tesla described the patent, which will utilize “a textured surface composed of an array of micro-cones, or cone-shaped formations, which serve to scatter incident light in various directions, thereby reducing glare and improving camera vision.”
The patent was first spotted by Not a Tesla App.
The design of the micro-cones is the first element of the puzzle to fight the excess glare. The patent says they are “optimized in size, angle, and orientation to minimize Total Hemispherical Reflectance (THR) and reflection penalty, enhancing the camera’s ability to accurately interpret visual data.”
Additionally, there is an electromechanical system for dynamic orientation adjustment, which will allow the micro-cones to move based on the angle of external light sources.
This is not the only thing Tesla is mulling to resolve issues with sunlight glare, as it has also worked on two other ways to combat the problem. One thing the company has discussed is a direct photon count.
CEO Elon Musk said during the Q2 Earnings Call:
“We use an approach which is direct photon count. When you see a processed image, so the image that goes from the sort of photon counter — the silicon photon counter — that then goes through a digital signal processor or image signal processor, that’s normally what happens. And then the image that you see looks all washed out, because if you point the camera at the sun, the post-processing of the photon counting washes things out.”
Future Hardware iterations, like Hardware 5 and Hardware 6, could also integrate better solutions for the sunglare issue, such as neutral density filters or heated lenses, aiming to solve glare more effectively.
Elon Musk
Delaware Supreme Court reinstates Elon Musk’s 2018 Tesla CEO pay package
The unanimous decision criticized the prior total rescission as “improper and inequitable,” arguing that it left Musk uncompensated for six years of transformative leadership at Tesla.
The Delaware Supreme Court has overturned a lower court ruling, reinstating Elon Musk’s 2018 compensation package originally valued at $56 billion but now worth approximately $139 billion due to Tesla’s soaring stock price.
The unanimous decision criticized the prior total rescission as “improper and inequitable,” arguing that it left Musk uncompensated for six years of transformative leadership at Tesla. Musk quickly celebrated the outcome on X, stating that he felt “vindicated.” He also shared his gratitude to TSLA shareholders.
Delaware Supreme Court makes a decision
In a 49-page ruling Friday, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick’s 2024 decision that voided the 2018 package over alleged board conflicts and inadequate shareholder disclosures. The high court acknowledged varying views on liability but agreed rescission was excessive, stating it “leaves Musk uncompensated for his time and efforts over a period of six years.”
The 2018 plan granted Musk options on about 304 million shares upon hitting aggressive milestones, all of which were achieved ahead of time. Shareholders overwhelmingly approved it initially in 2018 and ratified it once again in 2024 after the Delaware lower court struck it down. The case against Musk’s 2018 pay package was filed by plaintiff Richard Tornetta, who held just nine shares when the compensation plan was approved.
A hard-fought victory
As noted in a Reuters report, Tesla’s win avoids a potential $26 billion earnings hit from replacing the award at current prices. Tesla, now Texas-incorporated, had hedged with interim plans, including a November 2025 shareholder-approved package potentially worth $878 billion tied to Robotaxi and Optimus goals and other extremely aggressive operational milestones.
The saga surrounding Elon Musk’s 2018 pay package ultimately damaged Delaware’s corporate appeal, prompting a number of high-profile firms, such as Dropbox, Roblox, Trade Desk, and Coinbase, to follow Tesla’s exodus out of the state. What added more fuel to the issue was the fact that Tornetta’s legal team, following the lower court’s 2024 decision, demanded a fee request of more than $5.1 billion worth of TSLA stock, which was equal to an hourly rate of over $200,000.
Delaware Supreme Court Elon Musk 2018 Pay Package by Simon Alvarez
Waymo scrutinized after self-driving taxis cause traffic jams during SF blackout
Tesla aims to combat common Full Self-Driving problem with new patent
