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.
Tesla Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, Lars Moravy, recently revealed the company has thought about introducing a Plaid powertrain on the Model 3, but there could be some challenges involved.
On the Ride the Lightning podcast, Moravy revealed that he thinks about a Plaid Model 3 “all the time,” and it certainly has a place in Tesla’s potential lineup of future vehicles.
Now that the Plaid powertrain is technically defunct due to the newfound absence of the Model S and Model X, Tesla could find a way to reintroduce the lightning-quick trim level to its mass-market vehicles.
But there are going to be some challenges with it. Moravy said that the Model 3 Plaid would likely adopt the carbon-sleeved motors that the Model S Plaid had. However, packaging would be a major challenge, as Moravy said on the podcast, it would be a “tight engineering squeeze.”
It’s important to note that there are no active production plans for the Model 3 Plaid at this point, but it’s also worth noting that with the Model S and Model X Plaid no longer available, Tesla would likely be willing to introduce something that is even more white-knuckle than the Model 3 Performance, which already boasts a 2.9-second 0-60 MPH acceleration rate and a top speed of 163 MPH.
Of course, there is the Roadster, but we don’t know when that will exactly make it to market, and we know that, for sure, it will not be accessible to many.
Tesla unveils juicy new detail on the Roadster and hints at new unveil timeline
Tesla has prided itself in building some of the best cars out there, but they’re also interested in building cars that are simply fun to be in.
A Plaid Model 3 could truly push the limits and could end up being one of the best cars Tesla will ever build, especially if it can shave off at least half of a second from its 0-60 MPH time and increase its top speed slightly.
More than anything, the real changes will be in the ride and aerodynamics. Tesla improving things like the suspension, handling, and downforce will be the true trademarks of its Plaid powertrain; putting it in the Model 3 could be a great move for the company and for customers interested in high-end performance.
Elon Musk
NASA’s first human outpost on the Moon starts now – SpaceX on deck
NASA named the rovers, landers, and vendors that will build America’s first Moon Base.
NASA has laid out its most detailed Moon Base plan to date, describing a permanent outpost near the Moon’s south pole that the agency intends to build over the coming decade as a direct stepping stone to Mars. “The Moon Base will be America’s and humanity’s first outpost on another celestial world,” NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said, adding that every mission crewed and uncrewed “will be a learning opportunity as we return to the lunar surface, build the infrastructure to stay, and master the skills required to live and operate in one of the most demanding and dangerous environments imaginable.”
The plan is structured in three phases involving both uncrewed and crewed missions to deliver equipment, vehicles, and infrastructure to the surface, with the first three moon base missions targeted to launch before the end of 2026.
Moon Base I, targeting fall 2026, will use Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Mark 1 lander to deliver scientific instruments to the Shackleton Connecting Ridge, the same region where Artemis astronauts will land. Moon Base II will send Astrobotic’s Griffin lander carrying more than 1,100 pounds of cargo including Astrolab’s FLIP rover to begin developing mobility systems on the surface. Moon Base III will carry the Lunar Vertex science mission on Intuitive Machines’ Nova-C Trinity lander to study lunar swirls near the south pole, with ESA and Korean science payloads aboard.
On the rover side, NASA awarded Astrolab $219 million and Lunar Outpost $220 million to build the first phase of Lunar Terrain Vehicles, with both rovers targeted for deployment to the lunar surface by 2028. Astrolab’s crewed rover weighs roughly 2,000 pounds and can reach over 6 mph. Lunar Outpost’s Pegasus rover can operate autonomously or via remote control at over 9 mph. Blue Origin separately received $188 million with an option worth $280.4 million to deliver cargo landers for rover transport.
NASA also confirmed that MoonFall, a mission deploying four survey drones to scout Artemis landing sites, has selected Firefly Aerospace to build the transport spacecraft, with a 2028 launch target.
SpaceX sits at the center of that commercial layer. SpaceX holds the NASA Human Landing System contract for the Starship-derived lander that will put astronauts on the surface under Artemis IV, currently targeting 2028. Before that can happen, SpaceX must demonstrate in-orbit propellant transfer at scale, a process requiring multiple Starship tanker launches to fuel a single mission. Water ice at the lunar south pole is central to the base’s long-term viability, as it can be converted into drinking water, breathable oxygen, and rocket fuel, directly reducing dependence on Earth resupply. That resource loop becomes far more practical if Starship can land and be refueled on or near the Moon itself.
Elon Musk has publicly stated that Starship V3, which recently completed its first flight, should be capable enough for initial Mars missions. The Moon Base plan announced Tuesday is the infrastructure layer that connects everything between those two ambitions, and SpaceX is the only American company currently contracted to build the rocket that gets humans to either destination.
A new Tesla patent that has been granted to the company this week has revealed a potential strategy for solving a major issue that could impact both the Full Self-Driving suite and Optimus.
The patent, which is No. 12,636,684, describes a “Lens Cleaning System,” and was submitted by Tesla in May 2025.
The language in the patent details a lens cleaning system that can dispense fluid and wipe it away with a wiper assembly.
Optimus can see you now… 🤖👁️
The patent for @Tesla_Optimus‘s eye structure just dropped. $TSLA pic.twitter.com/Jac4VhDmKH
— SETI Park (@seti_park) May 26, 2026
This would effectively clean any debris that would potentially impact the visibility of the cameras on Tesla automobiles or Optimus’s camera eyes. Perhaps the most pertinent example is through the Full Self-Driving suite, as debris that can accumulate on the vehicle’s exterior cameras can impact the suite’s ability to operate effectively.
This requires a remedy through manual cleaning, but this patent hints that Tesla could be planning to implement this new technology on its upcoming vehicles.
Interestingly, we have started to see it on some Robotaxi vehicles, and it will likely be included in the Cybercab, especially as that vehicle will enable full autonomy.
Back in January, the first Model Y Robotaxi units were spotted with camera washers on the side repeaters, as the video below shows fluid squirting and rinsing off any debris that is limiting visibility.
🚨 Tesla looks to have installed Camera Washers on the side repeater cameras on Robotaxis in Austin
pic.twitter.com/xemRtDtlRR— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 23, 2026
This hardware patent does bring up an interesting question for those of us who own Teslas with AI4 and have been told that our cars will one day be capable of full autonomy: Will this washer be available as a retrofit on already-built cars?
Perhaps the “Lens Cleaning System” patent is a good look at one way Tesla plans to combat one of the most obvious issues of autonomy that utilizes a camera-based system. For Optimus, it could be less needed as it could be manually cleaned by owners. For cars, it seems like a bigger necessity, especially as autonomy nears and Tesla gets close to launching a feature-complete FSD suite.
Tesla teases going Plaid Mode with the Model 3
NASA’s first human outpost on the Moon starts now – SpaceX on deck
