News
Opinion: Consumer Reports’ Tesla Autopilot stunt crossed a line in an already-heated EV climate
Just recently, Consumer Reports published the results of a test it conducted at its private track to demonstrate just how “easy” it was to fool Tesla’s Autopilot system into operating without a driver behind the wheel. The magazine was successful in its aim, but it also demonstrated that it takes a very determined driver and an elaborate set of procedures to bypass Tesla’s driver-monitoring systems.
Bypassing Tesla’s Active Safety Features: A Walkthrough
To accomplish its goals, Consumer Reports performed a series of blatantly illegal driving behaviors. The magazine’s team seemed to have buckled in the driver’s seatbelt without a person sitting in the seat. The driver, who was not actively belted in, then engaged Autopilot and reduced the system’s speed to zero. When the vehicle stopped, a weighted defeat device was placed on the Tesla’s steering wheel to simulate pressure from the driver’s hand. The driver then went over to the passenger seat and increased Autopilot’s speed, which enabled the vehicle to start moving again. Consumer Reports also made it a point to point out that the driver in its test did not open the vehicle’s doors, as that would disengage Autopilot.
Overall, Consumer Reports tried to demonstrate that it was easy to fool Autopilot. Only it didn’t. The magazine instead provided a reasonably comprehensive guide on how to bypass several layers of Tesla Autopilot’s driver-monitoring systems. In its piece, Consumer Reports argued that this was proof that Tesla’s driver monitoring is inadequate since it does not use eye-tracking technology like those employed in GM’s Super Cruise (or Ford’s BlueCruise). While a valid argument, this does not excuse the magazine’s demonstration. Had Tesla employed eye-tracking technology, it would have been easy for Consumer Reports to use another creative trick to fool the system just the same. If the driver’s seat in the Tesla used sensitive weight sensors, it would have been “easy” to cheat the system with a weighted object as well (a literal sack of potatoes would do).
Inasmuch as Autopilot’s driver monitoring systems are not foolproof, the contingencies in Super Cruise are likely not foolproof either, especially against a driver who’s deliberately bypassing a vehicle’s safety systems. Simply put, if a person is intentionally putting themselves in danger by participating in illegal driving behaviors, no driver-monitoring system would be enough. Nevertheless, the magazine suggested that when it comes to Tesla, the fact that Autopilot could be fooled by a defeat device and an elaborate set of procedures means that the EV maker is at fault.
The Allure of Tribalism
Humans are tribal creatures by nature, as concluded in a 2019 study from the Association for Psychological Science. It is then no surprise that tribalism is prevalent everywhere. These tribes exist in numerous segments, from politics to consumer products. A look at the current political climate in countries such as the United States and the Philippines would show this. The years-long arguments against fans of iPhones and Android smartphones, or console and PC gamers, also hint at the notion that groups among similarly-minded individuals are bound to be formed.
The auto sector is no stranger to tribes, as seen in the rivalry between enthusiasts of Ford and Chevrolet vehicles. The Mustang vs. Camaro debate is still ongoing today, as is the pickup rivalry between the Ford F-150 and the Chevy Silverado. Tribes also exist in the racing segment, with groups forming among enthusiasts of classic, big-engined American muscle cars and highly modified Japanese imports. Such is simply the nature of the car industry. There are rivalries among companies and those that support them.
Congratulations on the Mach E! Sustainable/electric cars are the future!! Excited to see this announcement from Ford, as it will encourage other carmakers to go electric too.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 18, 2019
And for the most part, this is okay, especially if members of certain tribes are willing to coexist with the other. Tesla, however, has been caught in the crossfire more often than not. This has spawned a narrative that has become quite popular among the company’s critics and the mainstream media—that Tesla has a cult of followers that blindly worship Elon Musk, and actively attack anyone supporting any other vehicle that is not a Tesla.
While fringe groups of aggressive Tesla fans exist, they certainly do not comprise the majority of the company’s supporters. During the Mach-E’s announcement, CEO Elon Musk actively supported the vehicle, even as classic Mustang fans threw up their hands and bashed the electric car in frustration at the notion of a crossover being given the classic sports car’s iconic name. Even today, when tempers in the EV community online are flared, numerous strong voices remain supportive of the Mach-E.
A Fallacy of Composition
Consumer Reports’ Autopilot workaround test garnered a ton of attention, and it did not take long before Ford CEO Jim Farley retweeted the magazine’s findings, noting that Teslas will drive with no one in the driver’s seat. This is quite disingenuous, as vehicles have always been capable of operating without anyone in the driver’s seat, provided that drivers actively participate in illegal behaviors (such as putting a stone or a brick on the accelerator). Consumer Reports’ own staff also engaged queries from numerous Tesla supporters online to mixed results. Head of Connected and Automated Vehicles at Consumer Reports Kelly Frunkhouser, for one, stood her ground against critical comments against the magazine’s test to such a degree that she opted to mock a Tesla supporter for having only four followers on Twitter. The tweet was later deleted.
Tesla Will Drive With No One in the Driver's Seat – Consumer Reports https://t.co/HGGYoAOHv6
— Jim Farley (@jimfarley98) April 22, 2021
The unfortunate thing in this whole scenario is the fact that some Tesla supporters actually had valid points against Consumer Reports’ Autopilot conclusions. Why was Autopilot not benchmarked against comparable systems like Super Cruise and regular cruise control? What are the safety stats of systems like Super Cruise? Why not cite data that shows how many accidents occur every year due to improper cruise control use? These are but a few of the questions that were brought to the magazine’s attention, but most were dismissed because Tesla fans are just a “cult” (queue in the Simpsons meme showing “weird nerds” shielding Elon Musk from “valid criticism”).
In later tweets, Consumer Reports Head of Auto Testing Jake Fisher called back to the magazine’s interaction with Tesla back in the Model 3’s early days, when the vehicle initially missed the agency’s “Recommended” rating because of its brakes. In that instance, Tesla acknowledged the issue and rolled out a software update to address it, which resulted in the Model 3 later getting a “Recommended” rating. CR’s Autopilot demo is not the same, however, as this time around, the alleged faults of Tesla’s driver monitoring systems were intentionally being bypassed. This is not a “we observed something wrong that Tesla needs to fix” situation. This is an “Autopilot can be fooled if we try really hard and thus Tesla is at fault” situation. The Model 3 brakes were indeed valid criticism, and Tesla reacted as such. A series of procedures that bypass active safety features, maybe not so much.
When CR first tested the Tesla Model 3, we complained about the ride, seat comfort, wind noise, controls, and brakes. Boy were the Tesla fans pissed. Tesla OTOH improved all those things. No regrets.
— Jake Fisher (@CRcarsJake) April 23, 2021
Skeletons in the Closet and a Familiar Game Plan
While Consumer Reports prides itself in its analysis of consumer products, the magazine has shown bias in the past. Consumer Reports may not want to talk about it much today, but back in the 80s and the 90s, the magazine ended up costing the United States one of its most affordable, fun, and popular off-roaders ever — the Suzuki Samurai. Better known in other territories as the Suzuki Jimny, the Samurai was introduced in the United States in 1985.
By 1987, Suzuki was selling roughly two Samurais for every Jeep Wrangler sold. Consumer Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, then came out with a devastating report on the Samurai in June 1988, giving the small SUV a damning “Not Acceptable” rating due to its alleged rollover risk. Consumer Reports’ conclusions were serious, and it called for a recall of the 150,000 Samurais that were already sold in the United States. Consumer Reports also urged Suzuki to refund the vehicles’ purchase price to their owners since, as per statements from then-Consumers Union assistant director David C. Berliner, “The design is inherently flawed in the Samurai. It’s not something where they can make an adjustment, or put on some hardware in order to make a difference. As designed, the only solution is to take it off the market.”
Suzuki fought Consumer Reports’ findings, and even safety watchdog group Center for Auto Safety noted that the Samurai’s rollover incidents were not unusual for such a popular vehicle. By then, the Samurai received 44 reports of rollovers with 16 deaths and 53 injuries, but Ron De Fore, director of public and consumer affairs for the safety agency, noted that such numbers were not too high considering that there are 150,000 of the SUVs on the road. De Fore also stated that of the fatal incidents surrounding the vehicle, 63% were alcohol-related, and only 24% were wearing seat belts. But despite these, Consumer Union doubled down, eventually showing a video of its tests featuring two of the Samurai’s wheels coming off the ground in a swerve test. Addressing reporters, Consumer Union technical director R. David Pittle remarked that the vehicle “literally trips over its own feet.”
Needless to say, Consumer Reports’ attacks against the Samurai tanked the SUV’s sales in the United States. By 1989, the Samurai was selling just about 5,000 units per year. Suzuki pulled out the Samurai in 1995 due to dismal sales, but in 1996, Consumer Reports added salt to the wound by highlighting its Samurai findings in its anniversary edition. This prompted a lawsuit from the Japanese carmaker, which ultimately resulted in footage of Consumer Reports’ tests on the small SUV from 1988. The video was shocking. As could be seen in the videos from Consumer Reports’ own tests, the Samurai actually performed very well, resisting rollovers so much that Technical Director David Pittle opted to change the test course to make it more challenging. Footage of the tests showed some Consumer Union staff audibly cheering when the Samurai’s wheels finally left the ground.
A Cautionary Tale
Suzuki and Consumer Union settled the lawsuit in 2004, and while the Consumer Reports publisher did not pay the Japanese carmaker any money or issue a retraction, it did issue a joint press statement clarifying that the magazine’s article about the Samurai in 1988 may have been misconstrued. It was a moral victory for Suzuki, but the damage had been done.
This is something that the EV community, the auto sector, and the media itself must keep in mind. Anyone with the least bit of comprehension understands that there is a need to transition the motoring sector to more sustainable vehicles. The auto sector could not really afford to have another Suzuki Samurai saga right now, especially considering the sustainability goals of numerous countries worldwide.
Tesla is leading the pack by a wide margin, and the company is only accelerating, with more vehicles poised to be built in Gigafactory Berlin, Giga Shanghai’s expansion, and in Gigafactory Texas. The motoring world cannot really be involved in unnecessary drama against Tesla today, as the mission to accelerate the advent of sustainability is far more important than tribal quarrels or prejudice against a group of EV enthusiasts. Does Tesla have to improve? Definitely, yes, especially when it comes to build consistency and after-sales service. Can Autopilot be safer? Absolutely, and Tesla definitely should. Was showing a walkthrough of how to illegally hack the driver-assist system using a defeat device (among many) helpful? Perhaps not.
Don’t hesitate to contact us for news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
SpaceX has revealed the date for the maiden voyage of Starship v3, its newest and most advanced version of the rocket yet.
Starship v3 represents a significant leap forward. At 124 meters tall when fully stacked, it stands taller than previous versions and boasts substantial upgrades.
The vehicle incorporates next-generation Raptor 3 engines, which deliver higher thrust, improved reliability, and simplified designs with fewer parts. Both the Super Heavy booster (Booster 19) and the Starship upper stage (Ship 39) feature these enhancements, along with structural improvements for greater payload capacity—exceeding 100 metric tons to low Earth orbit in reusable configuration.
SpaceX and its CEO Elon Musk have announced that the company aims to push the first launch of Starship v3 this Thursday. Musk included some clips of past Starship launches with the announcement.
Now targeting launch as early as Thursday, May 21 → https://t.co/2gZQUxS6mm
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) May 19, 2026
First Starship V3 launch later this week! pic.twitter.com/JFX4CrSfnY
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 19, 2026
There are a lot of improvements to Starship v3 from past builds. Key hardware changes include a more robust heat shield, upgraded avionics, and modifications optimized for orbital refueling, a critical technology for future missions to the Moon and Mars. This flight marks the first launch from Starbase’s second orbital pad, allowing parallel operations and accelerating the cadence of tests.
This will be the 12th Starship launch for SpaceX. Flight 12 objectives include a full ascent profile, hot-staging separation, in-space engine relights, and reentry testing. The booster is expected to perform a controlled splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico, while the ship will deploy 20 Starlink simulator satellites and a pair of modified Starlink V3 units before attempting reentry.
Success would validate V3’s design for operational use, paving the way for rapid reusability and higher flight rates.
The rapid evolution from V2 to V3 underscores SpaceX’s iterative approach. Previous flights demonstrated booster catches, ship landings, and heat shield advancements. V3 builds on these with nearly every component refined, supported by an expanding production line at Starbase that churns out vehicles at an unprecedented pace.
Starship V3 is here putting SpaceX closer to Mars than it has ever been
This launch comes amid growing momentum for SpaceX’s ambitious goals. Starship is central to NASA’s Artemis program for lunar landings and Elon Musk’s vision of making humanity multiplanetary. A successful V3 debut would boost confidence in achieving orbital refueling and crewed missions in the coming years.
As excitement builds, enthusiasts and engineers alike await liftoff. Weather and technical readiness will determine the exact timing, but the community is optimistic. Starship V3 is poised to push the boundaries of spaceflight once again, bringing reusable interplanetary transport closer to reality.
Elon Musk broke his silence regarding the jury decision to throw out the case against OpenAI and Sam Altman. The Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI frontman has already indicated that an appeal will be filed regarding the decision, which went against him yesterday.
A Federal jury dismissed this high-profile lawsuit after less than two hours of deliberation due to a statute-of-limitations issue.
In a strongly worded post on X on May 18, Musk addressed the federal jury’s dismissal of his high-profile lawsuit against OpenAI, vowing to appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision, according to Musk, was centered not on the substantive claims but on a statute-of-limitations technicality.
Musk’s lawsuit, filed in 2024, accused OpenAI co-founders Sam Altman and Greg Brockman of breaching the organization’s original nonprofit mission. OpenAI was established in 2015 as a non-profit dedicated to developing artificial intelligence for the benefit of all humanity, with Musk as a key early donor and co-founder before departing in 2018.
Musk alleged that Altman and Brockman improperly shifted the company toward a for-profit model, enriched themselves through massive valuations and partnerships (including with Microsoft), and betrayed founding agreements.
In his post, Musk emphasized that the judge and jury “never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality.” He stated unequivocally: “There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question is WHEN they did it!”
Regarding the OpenAI case, the judge & jury never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality.
There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 18, 2026
Musk argued that allowing such actions to stand without review sets a dangerous precedent. “I will be filing an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, because creating a precedent to loot charities is incredibly destructive to charitable giving in America,” he wrote. He reiterated OpenAI’s founding purpose: “OpenAI was founded to benefit all of humanity.”
The jury’s unanimous advisory verdict found that Musk’s claims of breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment were filed outside California’s three-year statute of limitations. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers adopted the finding and dismissed the case. OpenAI hailed the outcome as vindication, while Musk’s legal team immediately signaled plans to appeal.
The trial, which featured testimony from Musk, Altman, Brockman, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and others, exposed deep rifts in Silicon Valley over AI’s direction.
Musk has long warned that profit-driven AI development, especially with closed models and powerful corporate ties, risks endangering humanity—contrasting it with OpenAI’s original open, safety-focused charter. OpenAI countered that the suit stemmed from business rivalry and that Musk himself had explored for-profit paths earlier.
Musk’s appeal could prolong the saga, potentially affecting OpenAI’s valuation (reportedly over $800 billion) and IPO ambitions. Supporters view his stance as defending nonprofit integrity, while critics see it as sour grapes from a competitor whose own xAI is racing in the AI arena.
Regardless of the legal outcome, the case has spotlighted critical questions about trust, governance, and mission drift in the rapidly evolving AI industry. Musk’s willingness to fight on suggests this chapter is far from closed, with broader implications for how charitable organizations—and the tech giants born from them—operate in the future.
Elon Musk
NASA updated Artemis III and SpaceX’s role just got more complicated
SpaceX’s Starship is the key to NASA’s Moon plan and the timeline is already slipping.
SpaceX has been at the center of NASA’s Moon ambitions for five years, and the updated Artemis III plan recently released by NASA makes that relationship more visible than ever. In April 2021, NASA awarded SpaceX a $2.89 billion contract to develop the Starship Human Landing System, selecting it as the sole provider to land astronauts on the Moon under Artemis III. Blue Origin filed legal protests, lost, and eventually received its own contract, but SpaceX was always the program’s primary lander contractor.
The original plan called for Starship to land two astronauts on the lunar south pole. That mission slipped as Starship development ran behind schedule, and in February 2026, NASA officially revised the Artemis III architecture entirely. The mission will now remain in low Earth orbit and serve as a crewed rendezvous and docking test between the Orion spacecraft and both the SpaceX Starship HLS pathfinder and Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Mark 2 pathfinder, with the actual Moon landing pushed to Artemis IV in 2028.
What makes SpaceX’s position particularly significant is the direct line between this week’s Starship V3 launch and the Artemis timeline. The Starship HLS is essentially a modified version of the V3 upper stage, meaning SpaceX cannot realistically prepare a lander for a 2027 docking test until it has demonstrated that the base vehicle flies reliably at scale. Flight 12, targeting this week, is the first data point in that sequence.
NASA has spent nearly $7 billion on Human Landing System development since awarding contracts to SpaceX and Blue Origin in 2021 and 2023, and NASA administrator Jared Isaacman has indicated a desire to drive down costs going forward. As Teslarati reported, before Starship HLS can put anyone on the Moon it has to solve a problem no rocket has demonstrated at scale, which is refueling in orbit, requiring approximately ten tanker launches worth of propellant loaded into a depot before the lander has enough fuel to reach the lunar surface.
The Artemis III mission described by NASA is essentially a stress test for every system that needs to work before any of that happens.
SpaceX has gone from a launch contractor to the single most critical hardware provider in America’s return-to-the-Moon program. With an IPO targeting a $1.75 trillion valuation and Elon Musk’s compensation tied directly to Mars colonization, the pressure on every Starship milestone between now and 2028 has never been higher.
SpaceX reveals date for maiden Starship v3 launch
Elon Musk breaks silence on OpenAI trial decision
