This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
Tesla’s strong financial spreadsheet that has culminated in seven consecutive quarters of profitability has launched the electric car company into a more stable fiscal situation. For years, especially in my early days at Teslarati, I can remember the big narrative being Tesla’s Quarter-over-Quarter growth, but the fact that profitability wasn’t achieved very often made the company one of the more risky investments at the time.
Since then, Tesla has managed to work out a profitable quarter seven times in a row. Unbelievably, the company that has only been mass-producing vehicles since Summer 2017 is already a shoo-in for money-making quarters, at least that’s what it seems like. There never seems to be a glimmer of doubt when it comes to Tesla reporting strong financials. But, it became clear earlier this week that Tesla, despite having such strong financials quarter after quarter, isn’t willing to spend money on things that owners and customers don’t use. The company’s phase-out of the passenger lumbar support feature in the Model 3 and Model Y is a prime example of the way Tesla is simplifying its vehicles to improve profitability and margins, making their cars even more of a money-making machine than they were previously.
On May 31st, a tweet from @Ryanth3nerd showed his discontent for Tesla’s removal of the lumbar support option on the passenger’s seat. It was noticed by a Model Y owner on Reddit initially that the lumbar support option was removed from the side of the seat, only leaving the reclining option and seat adjustment levers for passenger adjustment.
“I really don’t like the direction @tesla is going raising prices of vehicles but removing features like lumbar for the Model Y. On top of rumors of FSD increase to $14k without any real added features to FSD unless you’re a beta tester,” the tweet said.
It is true that Model 3 and Model Y prices alike have increased in the past several months. This is likely due to the semiconductor or microcontroller shortage that has plagued much of the automotive industry for the past few quarters. Additionally, Musk said raw material costs are also affecting Tesla’s prices.
According to Musk, Tesla had a good reason for phasing out the lumbar support module, and it had to do with data usage logs that showed the lumbar support wasn’t utilized by passengers very often. In fact, it was used so infrequently that Tesla decided to scrap the module altogether in the 3 and Y.
“Moving lumbar was removed only in front passenger seat of 3/Y (obv not there in rear seats). Logs showed almost no usage. Not worth cost/mass for everyone when almost never used. Prices increasing due to major supply chain price pressure industry-wide. Raw materials especially.”
Moving lumbar was removed only in front passenger seat of 3/Y (obv not there in rear seats). Logs showed almost no usage. Not worth cost/mass for everyone when almost never used.
Prices increasing due to major supply chain price pressure industry-wide. Raw materials especially.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 31, 2021
Now, while this is a good point for Tesla to use as justification for their seat modification decisions, there are a few things that sort of confused me about the decision. First off, once a seat is adjusted, I think very few people want to change it. I know that when I get into a friend’s car, I rarely adjust the seat because that is probably the way their significant other prefers the seat to be set. As a driver in my own car, I know that I have only adjusted my seat on two or three occasions since I got it. Very rarely does it move, because the adjustments I made when I bought it were how I felt it was most comfortable, so I didn’t move it.
I think there could have been some confusion about whether the lumbar support is actually used, or whether it is a “set and forget” type of reasoning. I think many people find the way they like their seat, and it rarely changes over the course of the ownership experience.
While I doubt too many people will not buy a Tesla because they can’t adjust lumbar support, I think that there are some people who will look at it as a real disadvantage because there are plenty of people who need to utilize it for comfortability, especially if they have back problems. Nevertheless, it could be a temporary removal if enough people raise concerns to Musk via Twitter.
The biggest lesson here seems to be that Tesla’s use of data and analytics gives the company an extreme advantage when it comes to saving money on even the most trivial of parts. While Tesla will save some money from its recent decision to not equip Model 3 and Model Y cars with radar, the lumbar support removal also summarizes the company’s mission to take out what is not needed. Teslas are already so minimalistic as it is, and many people enjoy the lack of knobs and buttons on the interior. However, this is one knob that many owners may not be happy not having, but it remains to be seen if it saves Tesla’s enough money to justify keeping the feature left out from its two mass-market vehicles. -JK-
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
-Joey
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
