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 patent aims to make massive change to common automotive part
Detailed in US 2026/0110320 A1 and published on April 23, the patent re-engineers the humble trim clip—the small plastic fastener that secures interior panels to the vehicle’s body structure. Traditional clips are single-piece plastic parts designed for one-time installation.
A new Tesla patent aims to fix a common automotive item for a more peaceful ride, revolutionizing its design to remove vibrations and noise during normal operation.
Detailed in US 2026/0110320 A1 and published on April 23, the patent re-engineers the humble trim clip—the small plastic fastener that secures interior panels to the vehicle’s body structure. Traditional clips are single-piece plastic parts designed for one-time installation.
Over time, they loosen, rattle, and transmit road noise, suspension vibrations, and minor panel buzz directly into the passenger compartment. Tesla’s new design turns that ordinary item into a reusable, two-material vibration-damping system built for long-term silence.
A TESLA PATENT DETAILS THE TWO MATERIALS AND FOUR FORCES THAT MAKE A TRIM CLIP REUSABLE
Tesla published a single patent application on April 23 that describes how to make an interior trim clip reusable across multiple service cycles.
US 2026/0110320 A1 was filed in October 2024… https://t.co/02yOUKkar2 pic.twitter.com/pEJUCw46yc
— SETI Park (@seti_park) May 3, 2026
The clip consists of four components drawn from just two material families. The pin and grommet are molded from rigid glass-fiber-reinforced nylon, giving them the strength needed to hold panels firmly in place.
Not a Tesla App reported on the patent.
A soft thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) is then overmolded onto the assembly in a distinctive mushroom shape that flares outward beyond the pin shaft. This soft layer does the heavy lifting for comfort: it spreads mechanical loads over a wider area and actively damps oscillations before they can reach the interior trim.
The result is a measurable reduction in noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH)—the very factors that separate a merely quiet electric vehicle from one that feels genuinely serene.
Engineers used finite-element analysis to dial in four precise forces that make the system both secure and serviceable. It takes 31 newtons to insert the grommet into the body panel and 243 newtons to pull it back out, ensuring it stays anchored during normal driving. The pin, however, slides in with only 7 newtons and releases at 152 newtons, the patent says.
Because the grommet grips the sheet metal far more tightly than the pin grips the grommet, technicians can pop the trim panel off, service wiring or components behind it, and snap everything back together without disturbing the grommet or degrading the soft overmold.
The clip survives repeated service cycles with no measurable loss of damping performance.
For drivers, the payoff is a noticeably more peaceful ride. Road rumble, panel flutter, and high-frequency buzz that often sneak into luxury cabins are absorbed at the source rather than conducted through rigid plastic. Over the life of the vehicle, the reusable design also prevents the gradual loosening that causes rattles in conventional clips. Fewer replacements mean less cabin noise from degraded parts and lower long-term maintenance costs.
Tesla’s patent shows how even the smallest hardware decisions affect the overall driving experience. By giving a mundane trim clip two distinct personalities—rigid where strength is needed, soft where silence matters—the company is quietly engineering away one more source of distraction.
If the design reaches production, future Tesla owners could enjoy an even calmer, more refined interior without ever noticing the clever little clips holding it all together.
News
SpaceX and Google mull massive partnership on Musk’s orbital data dream: report
The two companies are currently in talks for a rocket launch deal to support the placement of data centers in orbit as part of their push into space-based computing.
SpaceX and Google are in the process of ironing out the details of a potential partnership, a new report from the Wall Street Journal says. The two companies are currently in talks for a rocket launch deal to support the placement of data centers in orbit as part of their push into space-based computing.
In a move that blends cutting-edge AI demands with the final frontier of space exploration, Google is in exclusive talks with Elon Musk’s SpaceX for a rocket launch deal to deploy data centers in orbit. The Wall Street Journal is now reporting today, May 12, that the discussions mark Google’s aggressive expansion into space-based computing, addressing the exploding energy needs of artificial intelligence that terrestrial infrastructure can no longer sustain.
Exclusive: Google is in talks with SpaceX for a rocket launch deal as the search giant expands its own efforts to put orbital data centers in space https://t.co/QUCD3cPjxi
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) May 12, 2026
SpaceX, nor Google, have commented on the report.
The catalyst for a potential deal is clear: AI’s voracious appetite for electricity. Global data centers consumed about 415 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity in 2024—roughly 1.5 percent of worldwide usage—according to the International Energy Agency. That figure is projected to more than double to around 945 TWh by 2030, with AI-focused servers growing at 30 percent annually, outpacing overall electricity demand growth by more than four times.
Some forecasts peg data center consumption exceeding 1,000 TWh by 2026, equivalent to Japan’s entire national electricity use. A single large AI training facility can draw as much power as 100,000 homes. On Earth, this translates to grid overloads, skyrocketing costs, land shortages, and massive water demands for cooling—constraints that threaten to throttle AI progress.
Orbital data centers promise a radical workaround. In space, satellites can harness constant, unobstructed sunlight for power—solar panels generate roughly five times more energy in orbit than on the ground, with no night cycle or atmospheric interference.
Excess heat radiates harmlessly into the vacuum of space, eliminating energy-intensive cooling systems and water usage. No terrestrial land or power grid is required, freeing operations from regulatory and environmental bottlenecks.
Musk has long championed the concept, framing it as inevitable. “Space-based AI is obviously the only way to scale,” he wrote on SpaceX’s site following the xAI merger. “Global electricity demand for AI simply cannot be met with terrestrial solutions… In the long term, space-based AI is obviously the only way to scale.”
He has repeatedly highlighted solar advantages: “Space has the advantage that it’s always sunny,” and “any given solar panel is going to give you about five times more power in space than on the ground.”
Musk predicted in early 2026 that “in 36 months but probably closer to 30 months, the most economically compelling place to put AI will be space,” adding that within five years, annual space-launched AI compute could surpass Earth’s cumulative total. “SpaceX will be doing this,” he declared when discussing scaled-up Starlink satellites with high-speed laser links for orbital data transfer.
Meanwhile, Google has been quietly advancing a similar vision under Project Suncatcher, its internal “moonshot” initiative. CEO Sundar Pichai has described plans to launch two prototype satellites equipped with Tensor Processing Units (TPUs) by early 2027 for testing thermal management and reliability in orbit. In interviews, Pichai has called orbital computing a potential “normal way to build data centers” within a decade, enabled by launch cost reductions.
SpaceX is uniquely positioned to make this reality. The company recently filed with the FCC to launch up to one million satellites dedicated to orbital data centers at altitudes between 500 and 2,000 kilometers, projecting capacity for 100 gigawatts of AI compute.
These talks align with SpaceX’s broader ambitions, including a potential IPO where orbital infrastructure features prominently in investor pitches.
FCC accepts SpaceX filing for 1 million orbital data center plan
Challenges remain formidable, as is expected with a project with expectations so lofty. Radiation-hardened hardware, laser-based inter-satellite and Earth-downlink communications, launch economics, and orbital debris management are key hurdles.
Yet early movers like Starcloud (which trained the first large language model in orbit in late 2025) and Google’s prototypes signal accelerating momentum. Rivals, including Amazon and Blue Origin, are exploring similar paths, but SpaceX’s Starship and Starlink heritage give it a launch cadence edge.
This partnership could redefine AI infrastructure, turning the skies into the next data center frontier. As Earth’s power limits loom, Musk’s vision, combined with Google’s ambition, could position space not as sci-fi, but as the scalable solution for humanity’s computational future.
Investor's Corner
Legendary investor Ron Baron says Tesla and SpaceX stock buys will continue
In a wide-ranging appearance on CNBC’s Squawk Box on May 12, legendary investor Ron Baron, founder, CEO, and portfolio manager of Baron Capital, reaffirmed his deep conviction in Elon Musk’s two flagship companies.
Legendary investor Ron Baron says he will continue buying stock of both Tesla and SpaceX, as he continues his support behind CEO Elon Musk, who he says is a special person and “brilliant.”
In a wide-ranging appearance on CNBC’s Squawk Box on May 12, legendary investor Ron Baron, founder, CEO, and portfolio manager of Baron Capital, reaffirmed his deep conviction in Elon Musk’s two flagship companies.
With assets under management approaching $55–56 billion, Baron detailed his firm’s substantial holdings, outlined plans for the anticipated SpaceX IPO, and painted an exceptionally optimistic picture for both Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) and SpaceX, framing them as generational opportunities that will reshape industries and deliver extraordinary long-term returns.
Baron Capital’s position in SpaceX has grown dramatically since the firm began investing around 2017. What started as roughly $1.7 billion has ballooned to more than $15 billion, making it the firm’s largest holding.
Tesla ranks second, valued at approximately $5 billion in the portfolio. Together with stakes in xAI and related Musk-led ventures, these investments account for roughly one-third of Baron Capital’s $60 billion in lifetime profits since 1992. Baron emphasized that the growth stems from Musk’s singular ability to execute ambitious visions—from reusable rockets to global satellite internet and beyond.
The centerpiece of the discussion was SpaceX’s expected initial public offering, targeted for mid-2026 following a confidential S-1 filing. Baron announced plans to purchase an additional $1 billion in shares at the IPO.
Ron Baron said today that he plans on buying an additional $1 billion of SpaceX stock during the upcoming IPO:
“At the IPO price, I’ve got an order for $1 billion. I want to buy more stock at the IPO. I don’t know if we’re going to get filled, but we’re going to try. I believe… pic.twitter.com/KOv1HvYcZ0
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 12, 2026
He described the company’s trajectory in sweeping terms: “This is going to become the largest company on the planet.”
He highlighted Starlink’s expansion of high-speed internet to every corner of the globe, the revolutionary economics of reusable rockets, and Starship’s potential to enable massive space-based data centers and interplanetary infrastructure.
Baron sees SpaceX not merely as a rocket company but as a platform poised for exponential scaling once it goes public, with post-IPO appreciation potentially reaching 10- to 20- or even 30-times current levels over the next decade or more.
On Tesla, Baron struck an equally enthusiastic note, declaring that “now is Tesla’s moment.” He projected the stock could reach $2,000 to $2,500 per share within 10 years—implying a market capitalization near $8.3 trillion and roughly 5–6 times upside from recent levels. While Tesla remains a major holding, Baron’s optimism centers on its evolution beyond electric vehicles into an AI, robotics, autonomous-driving, and energy platform.
He pointed to robotaxis, Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology, Optimus humanoid robots, energy storage, and the vast real-world data advantage from Tesla’s global fleet as catalysts that will fundamentally alter the company’s revenue model and valuation multiples. Baron views these developments as transformative, shifting Tesla from a traditional automaker to a high-margin technology and infrastructure powerhouse.
Throughout the interview, Baron’s admiration for Musk was unmistakable. He has likened the entrepreneur to a modern Leonardo da Vinci for his artistic, multidisciplinary approach to solving humanity’s biggest challenges.
Baron’s personal commitment mirrors this confidence: he has repeatedly stated he does not expect to sell a single share of his own Tesla or SpaceX holdings in his lifetime, positioning himself as the “last one out” after his clients. This stance underscores a philosophy of patient, long-term ownership rather than short-term trading.
Baron’s comments arrive at a time of heightened anticipation around SpaceX’s public debut, which could rank among the largest IPOs in history and potentially value the company at $1.5–2 trillion or more at listing.
For investors, his message is clear: the Musk ecosystem—spanning electric vehicles, autonomy, robotics, satellite communications, and space exploration—represents one of the most compelling secular growth stories of the era. While short-term volatility in tech and EV stocks may persist, Baron sees these as buying opportunities for those who share his multi-decade horizon.
In summarizing his outlook, Baron reinforced that the combination of technological breakthroughs, massive addressable markets, and Musk’s leadership creates asymmetric upside that few other investments can match.
For Baron Capital’s clients and long-term Tesla and SpaceX shareholders alike, the investor’s latest CNBC remarks serve as both validation and a call to remain patient through the inevitable ups and downs. As Baron sees it, the best days for both companies—and the returns they can deliver—are still ahead.
Tesla patent aims to make massive change to common automotive part
SpaceX and Google mull massive partnership on Musk’s orbital data dream: report
