News
Tesla Cybertruck accelerator pedal issue listed as NHTSA recall for unintended acceleration
The Tesla Cybertruck’s acceleration pedal issue, which caused a temporary halt in the customer deliveries of the all-electric pickup truck, has been listed as a recall by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As per the NHTSA’s official website, the recall was initiated to address risks for unintended acceleration from a trapped accelerator pedal on affected vehicles.
The NHTSA’s Safety Recall Report revealed that a total of 3,878 units of the 2024 Tesla Cybertruck are affected by the accelerator pedal issue. Affected vehicles were produced from November 13, 2023 to April 4, 2024. Similar to observations from Tesla Cybertruck owners, the NHTSA Safety Recall Report noted that the accelerator pedal might get dislodged and trapped in the interior trim when high force is applied to the pad.
The Tesla Cybertruck’s accelerator pedal issue is described as follows in the NHTSA Safety Recall Report:
“If the pad on the accelerator pedal becomes trapped in the interior trim above the pedal, the performance and operation of the pedal will be affected, which may increase the risk of a collision. Note that application of the brake pedal will cut drive torque, including when both brake and accelerator pedals are pressed, and continued application of the brake pedal will bring the vehicle to a stop as quickly as if the accelerator pedal was not pressed,” the report read.
Aș per the NHTSA’s report, the cause of the Cybertruck’s accelerator pedal issue was an unapproved change that introduced a lubricant, soap, to aid in the component assembly of the pad onto the accelerator pedal. Residual lubricant ended up reducing the retention of the pad to the pedal.
The Safety Recall Report’s chronology section showed Tesla’s quick response to the issue. As per the document, Tesla was initially made aware of the accelerator pedal issue on March 31, 2024, through a customer claim. On April 2, Tesla Engineering reviewed the vehicle’s data logs, which confirmed that the driver did press the brakes and accelerator at the same time to bring the affected Cybertruck to a stop.
Another customer claim was received by Tesla on April 3, and through the week of April 8, Tesla Engineering conducted additional tests to determine the scope and behavior of the issue. A decision to recall the affected Cybertrucks was made on April 12, 2024. No crashes or accidents are believed to have been caused by the issue as of April 15, 2024.
There were no injuries or accidents because of this. We are just being very cautious.— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 18, 2024
Unlike most Tesla recalls, the Cybertruck’s accelerator pedal issue is hardware related. Thus, it would not be fixed through an over-the-air software update. To address the issue, Tesla will be replacing the faulty accelerator pedal assembly in affected Cybertrucks with a setup that meets specifications. All Cybertrucks produced from April 17, 2024 are already equipped with a new accelerator pedal component, and units that are at delivery centers or in transit will receive the remedy prior to their customer handovers.
Recent posts on social media and Elon Musk’s comments have suggested that Cybertruck deliveries have resumed. As per Musk, the temporary halt in Cybertruck deliveries was also done over an abundance of caution. “There were no injuries or accidents because of this. We are just being very cautious,” Musk wrote in a post on X.
The NHTSA’s Safety Recall Report on the Cybertruck’s accelerator pedal issue can be viewed below.
RCLRPT-24V276-7026 by Simon Alvarez on Scribd
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
