If there were any complaints about Tesla’s “We, Robot” event, it was the fact that the occasion was very light on details surrounding the Cybercab. Fortunately, a good number of Tesla staff and even some executives were reportedly willing to provide some details about the upcoming vehicle.
In a post on social media platform X, longtime Tesla shareholder and owner-enthusiast Matthew Donegan-Ryan noted he was able to speak with Tesla Design Chief Franz von Holzhausen and Vice President of Vehicle Engineering Lars Moravy following the “We, Robot” event. The executives reportedly provided some insights about the upcoming vehicle, some of which were not mentioned in Elon Musk’s presentation at the occasion.
For one, there are reportedly no plans to make a Cybercab with a steering wheel and pedals. This is not surprising as such a vehicle would likely adversely affect the sales of the Model 3, Tesla’s second best-selling vehicle. It does, however, highlight the idea that Tesla is betting a notable part of its future on the Robotaxi and its potential to change the way people commute.
?Big Tesla Cybercab photo dump thread ?
PLUS more details from @larsmoravy and @woodhaus2:
– There are no plans to make a Cybercab with a steering wheel and pedals (demand for the Robotsxi version will essentially be unlimited). pic.twitter.com/RGdf6NgovJ— Matthew Donegan-Ryan (@MatthewDR) October 11, 2024
The Cybercab’s production will reportedly start in Giga Texas, before moving to other factories. The vehicle will reportedly share parts with the Model 3 and the Model Y, making it easier to produce and ramp. Even the Robovan will reportedly share a surprising number of parts from the company’s other vehicles. As for cameras, the Cybercab will reportedly feature the same layout as the Model 3 and Model Y, with the addition of a front bumper camera similar to the one fitted in the Cybertruck.
– All Teslas on the road running hardware 3 or 4 will be able to function as robotaxis without needing any hardware retrofitting. pic.twitter.com/QRHCfWUvy4— Matthew Donegan-Ryan (@MatthewDR) October 11, 2024
Quite interestingly, Donegan-Ryan mentioned in his posts that all Teslas on the road running Hardware 3 or Hardware 4 would be able to function as Robotaxis without needing any hardware retrofits. These exact claims were echoed in a video posted by Tesla owner Kim Java, who was able to conduct a brief interview with von Holzhausen and Moravy following Musk’s keynote. In her interview, Java asked if her 2018 Model 3 with Hardware 3 could run as a Robotaxi. The executives confirmed that yes, such a vehicle could operate as an autonomous car.
– Cybercabs will not have Tesla logos (like Cybertruck). Everyone will know it’s a Tesla by the design. pic.twitter.com/J9HgWXpFcs— Matthew Donegan-Ryan (@MatthewDR) October 11, 2024
Interestingly enough, the Cybercab will reportedly follow in the Cybertruck’s footsteps when it comes to branding, with the vehicle not having a single Tesla badge. This is quite a bold decision, though considering that Tesla plans to mass produce the Cybercab in very large quantities, a badge for the vehicle may not be needed at all. Just like the Cybertruck, people will know it’s a Tesla just by looking at it.
– I have never seen Franz and Lars as excited and positive as they were tonight. They both displayed a great sense of accomplishment. pic.twitter.com/OdVw6Qs2TG— Matthew Donegan-Ryan (@MatthewDR) October 11, 2024
The Cybercab will reportedly feature just three interior buttons, comprised of two window switches and a dome light switch. Every other feature that commuters wish to access or activate would be done through the touchscreen. Finally, the Cybercab will reportedly not be made with steel like the Cybertruck to keep costs low, and the vehicle’s inductive charging system might actually prove cost-effective because it would require fewer materials and cabling.
Watch Kim Java’s video of Tesla’s “We, Robot” event below.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
