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.
News
Tesla Semi is already winning over truck drivers
The consensus among participants is clear: the Semi feels quieter, quicker, and far less physically demanding than diesel rigs while delivering three times the power and dramatically lower operating costs.
Tesla’s all-electric Semi is proving more than just a flashy concept as it is winning converts among the professionals who know trucks best.
As fleets roll out Pilot Programs for Tesla across North America, drivers are raving about the Class 8 electric truck’s unique features, including a centered driver’s seat, massive touchscreen visibility, instant torque, and absence of gear-shifting fatigue.
These features are transforming long days behind the wheel into noticeably easier, less stressful shifts.
Tesla Semi pricing revealed after company uncovers trim levels
In a recent Wall Street Journal profile of early pilots, Dakota Shearer of IMC Logistics described backing out of a tight spot he had mistakenly entered:
“I backed right out of there, no problem. It’s like I’d never done it in the first place. That right there showed me that the technology the Tesla has makes a big difference.”
His colleague Angel Rodriguez of Hight Logistics, who switched from a 13-speed diesel, agreed:
“It’s just easier on your body. It’s less stressful because you’re not really having to engage the clutch and the stick shift.”
Veteran drivers in other tests echo the same enthusiasm. Tom Sterba, a Senior Driver at Saia, spent days testing the Semi and came away impressed with the navigation and overall feel:
“The navigation systems in these trucks are just unbelievable. That’s what I love about it.”
Sterba summed up the experience with a line that has since gone viral among trucking circles:
“I hope I retire in this truck.”
Pilot programs with ArcBest, thyssenkrupp Supply Chain Services, and Mone Transport delivered similar feedback. Drivers consistently praised the center-seat layout for eliminating blind spots, the smooth acceleration, and the overall comfort and safety.
Real-world data backed the hype, as ArcBest logged thousands of miles at efficient consumption rates, even over the challenging routes, like Donner Pass, while other fleets beat Tesla’s own efficiency targets.
The consensus among participants is clear: the Semi feels quieter, quicker, and far less physically demanding than diesel rigs while delivering three times the power and dramatically lower operating costs.
The latest chapter in the Semi’s story arrived just days ago on Jay Leno’s Garage, as Leno became the first outsider to drive the updated long-range production model, joined by Tesla Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen, and Semi Program Director Dan Priestley.
Tesla reveals various improvements to the Semi in new piece with Jay Leno
The episode revealed major upgrades heading to volume production this year: the truck sheds roughly 1,000 pounds, adopts a 48-volt architecture, switches to fully electric steering with Cybertruck-derived actuators, and uses 4680 battery cells engineered for an over-one-million-mile lifespan.
Aerodynamics improved, enabling a 500-mile range on the long-haul version, and about 325 miles on the shorter-wheelbase standard-range model. Megachargers can now deliver up to 1.2 megawatts, adding roughly 300 miles in about 30 minutes.
Leno hauled heavy loads and marveled at the turning radius and effortless power delivery. “I don’t feel like I’m pulling anything,” he said during the episode.
With hundreds of Semis already accumulating over 13.5 million fleet miles and high uptime, the future of heavy-duty trucking looks electric. Drivers are giving raving reviews, and they’re ready to climb aboard the electric trucking industry for good.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX to merge in 2027, Wall Street analyst predicts
The move, Ives argues, is no longer a distant possibility but a logical next step, fueled by deepening operational ties, shared AI ambitions, and Elon Musk’s vision for dominating the next era of technology.
Tesla and SpaceX are two of Elon Musk’s most popular and notable companies, but a new note from one Wall Street analyst claims the two companies will become one sometime next year, as 2027 could see the dawn of a new horizon.
In a bold new research note, Wedbush analyst Dan Ives has reaffirmed his long-standing prediction: Tesla and SpaceX will merge in 2027.
The move, Ives argues, is no longer a distant possibility but a logical next step, fueled by deepening operational ties, shared AI ambitions, and Elon Musk’s vision for dominating the next era of technology.
He writes:
“Still Expect Tesla and SpaceX to Merge in 2027. We continue to believe that SpaceX and Tesla will eventually merge into one company in 2027 with the groundwork already in place for both operations to become one organization. Tesla already owns a stake in SpaceX after the company’s $2 billion investment in xAI got converted to SpaceX shares following SpaceX’s acquisition of xAI earlier this year initially tying both of Musk’s ventures closer together but still represents <1% of SpaceX’s expected valuation. The recent announcement of a joint Terafab facility between SpaceX and Tesla further ties both operations together making it more feasible to merge operations given the now existing overlap being built out across the two with this the first step.”
The groundwork is already being laid. Earlier this year, SpaceX acquired xAI, converting Tesla’s $2 billion investment in the AI startup into a small equity stake, less than 1 percent, in SpaceX.
Regulatory filings cleared the transaction in March 2026, formally linking the two Musk-led companies financially for the first time. Then came the announcement of a joint TERAFAB facility in Austin, Texas: two advanced chip factories, one dedicated to Tesla’s AI needs for vehicles and Optimus robots, the other targeting space-based data centers.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
Ives calls Terafab the “first step” toward full operational integration.
SpaceX’s impending IPO, expected as soon as mid-June 2026, will turbocharge these plans. The company aims to raise approximately $75 billion at a roughly $1.75 trillion valuation, far exceeding earlier estimates.
Proceeds will fund Starship rocket flights, a NASA-contracted lunar base, expanded Starlink services across maritime, aviation, and direct-to-mobile applications, and crucially, orbital AI infrastructure
A major driver is the exploding demand for AI compute. U.S. data centers are projected to consume 470 TWh of electricity by 2030, constrained by power grids and land.
🚨 Wedbush’s Dan Ives says that Tesla and SpaceX will merge in 2027. SpaceX will IPO soon, his new note says:
“According to media reports, SpaceX could file a prospectus for an IPO imminently with the goal of raising ~$75 billion above the prior expectation of ~$50 billion…
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 27, 2026
SpaceX’s strategy, launching millions of solar-powered satellites to host data centers in orbit, bypasses Earth’s energy bottlenecks. Solar energy captured in space avoids atmospheric losses and day-night cycles, offering a scalable solution for AI training and inference.
The xAI acquisition ties directly into this vision, positioning the combined entity as a leader in extraterrestrial computing.
The merger would create a formidable conglomerate spanning electric vehicles, robotics, satellite communications, human spaceflight, and defense.
Ives highlights SpaceX’s role in the Trump administration’s “Golden Dome” missile defense shield, which would leverage Starlink satellites for tracking.
For Tesla, access to SpaceX’s launch cadence and orbital assets could accelerate autonomous driving, Robotaxi fleets, and Optimus deployment.
Musk, who has signaled his desire to own roughly 25 percent of Tesla to steer its AI future, views the combination as essential to overcoming fragmented regulatory scrutiny from the FTC and DOJ.
Challenges remain. Antitrust hurdles could delay or reshape the deal, and shareholder approvals on both sides would be required. Yet Ives remains bullish, maintaining an Outperform rating on Tesla with a $600 price target, implying substantial upside from current levels. The analyst sees the merger as the “holy grail” for consolidating Musk’s disruptive tech empire.
If realized, a 2027 Tesla-SpaceX union would not only reshape corporate boundaries but redefine humanity’s trajectory in AI and space exploration. It would mark the moment two pioneering companies become one unstoppable force, pushing the limits of what’s possible on Earth and beyond.
News
Tesla ‘Killer’ heads to the graveyard as AFEELA taps out
SHM has officially discontinued development of its highly anticipated AFEELA electric vehicles. On March 25, the joint venture between Sony and Honda announced it would halt the AFEELA 1 luxury sedan and a planned SUV model.
There have been many Tesla “Killers” over the years, all of which have either failed to dethrone the automaker from its dominance in the United States, or even make it to the market altogether.
The Sony Honda Mobility (SHM) project, known as AFEELA, is the latest to make it to the grave, as the company announced its intentions to abandon the project earlier this week, Bloomberg reported.
SHM has officially discontinued development of its highly anticipated AFEELA electric vehicles. On March 25, the joint venture between Sony and Honda announced it would halt the AFEELA 1 luxury sedan and a planned SUV model.
🚗 Tesla Killers Graveyard:
Sony-Honda AFEELA
The sleek, AI-packed luxury sedan with PlayStation integration. Officially cancelled in March 2026 after Honda scaled back its EV plans.Fisker Ocean
Stylish SUV with solar roof promises. Company filed for bankruptcy in 2024 amid… https://t.co/Om14UhISOy— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 26, 2026
The decision follows Honda’s March 12 reassessment of its electrification strategy, which scrapped several upcoming EV programs amid slowing demand, high costs, and shifting market conditions.
SHM stated that it could no longer rely on key Honda technologies and manufacturing assets, leaving “no viable path forward.” Reservation fees for early buyers in California are being fully refunded, and the joint venture’s future is now under review.
Launched with fanfare in 2022, the AFEELA was positioned as a tech-forward premium EV blending Honda’s engineering reliability with Sony’s entertainment and AI expertise.
Prototypes featured advanced autonomous driving systems, immersive in-cabin displays, and even PlayStation integration, earning it early media labels as a potential “Tesla Killer.”
Priced around $90,000, the sedan was slated for limited production at Honda’s Ohio plant with deliveries targeted for late 2026. Industry watchers saw it as a serious challenger to Tesla’s dominance in software, connectivity, and premium appeal.
Yet, like many ambitious EV projects, it fell victim to broader industry headwinds: softening consumer demand, persistent high interest rates, and intense competition from established players.
The AFEELA joins a long list of vehicles once hyped as “Tesla Killers” that failed to deliver. In the late 2010s, Fisker’s second act, the Ocean SUV, promised stylish design and solid-state battery tech but collapsed into bankruptcy in 2024 after production delays, quality issues, and financial shortfalls.
Faraday Future poured billions into the FF 91 luxury sedan, touting it as a hyper-tech rival with unmatched performance and features; the company delivered fewer than 100 vehicles before fading into obscurity.
Lordstown Motors’ Endurance electric pickup generated massive pre-order buzz and Wall Street excitement but imploded after exaggerated range claims, a factory sale, and eventual bankruptcy.
Even Lucid Motors’ Air sedan, frequently called a Tesla slayer for its superior range and luxury, has struggled with sluggish sales and missed growth targets despite strong reviews.
Rivian’s R1T and R1S trucks enjoyed similar early acclaim and a blockbuster IPO, yet production ramp-up challenges and profitability woes have prevented it from dethroning Tesla.
The AFEELA’s quiet demise underscores a harsh reality in the EV sector. While Tesla’s first-mover advantage in software, charging infrastructure, and brand loyalty remains formidable, legacy automakers and tech newcomers alike continue to underestimate the complexities of scaling affordable, desirable electric vehicles.
As market realities force tough choices, the graveyard of “Tesla Killers” grows longer, another reminder that innovation alone is rarely enough to topple an established leader.
Tesla Semi is already winning over truck drivers
Tesla and SpaceX to merge in 2027, Wall Street analyst predicts
Tesla lands on Fortune’s 2026 Most Innovative Companies and the Cybercab is why
Elon Musk says Tesla is developing a new vehicle: ‘Way cooler than a minivan’
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
