Tesla Full Self-Driving (FSD) Beta applicants who own older car models are still patiently waiting for access to the FSD Beta program. Some applicants have shared their frustrations at camera upgrade issues which prevent them from becoming an FSD Beta user.
Camera Upgrade Issues
Tesla owners with older car models have reported their frustrations regarding camera upgrade requirements. Most of the owners are waiting to enter Tesla’s FSD Beta program.
The common issue is that owners receive camera upgrade notifications even after Tesla Service installed new cameras. It has caused great confusion among a number of Tesla community members waiting to become FSD Beta testers.
In correspondence with Teslarati, FSD Beta applicant Houman H. noted that his 2017 Model S with FSD had yet to receive access to Tesla’s Beta program. The Model S owner had upgraded his vehicle to Hardware 3. He also proactively contacted Tesla Service to get the necessary camera upgrade for his car.
Even after the upgrades, Houman H. did not receive FSD Beta access. Instead, he received another notice of his ineligibility for the program, stating that his Model S still needed camera upgrades. Confused, Houman H. contacted Tesla Service, thinking there must have been a mistake in their records as he had already upgraded his cameras.
Who is affected by the Camera Upgrade Issues?
A few Tesla owners who own older models talked to Teslarati about their challenges while patiently waiting for access to the FSD Beta program. Most—if not all—of the owners Teslarati spoke to have a Safety Score between 80 to 90 and purchased FSD at least a year ago.
Most owners with camera upgrade issues own vehicles from 2017 or older. A few other owners have posted about camera upgrade issues online.
“I have been patiently waiting since November 2021 for the FSD beta for my 2017 MS P100D when my cameras were upgraded and the MCU2 was installed. The vehicle was delivered with MCU1 and AP2.0. Safety score has always been 95 or above,” shared Powderkeg in the Tesla Motor Club (TMC) Forum.
“Recently the Tesla app version 4.14.2 allows the user to view if their vehicle is eligible for the FSD Beta. Much to my chagrin my vehicle shows that it is not eligible due to the cameras needing to be replaced. I know they were replaced at the time of the MCU2 upgrade because they are listed under the parts section,” the TMC member elaborated.
Tesla’s Response to the Camera Upgrade Issue
The TMC member and Houman H. worked with their local Tesla Service Center to solve their issues. They received different reasons for their camera upgrade issues.
In Houman H’s case, one of his upgraded cameras needed to be replaced. Tesla reportedly mentioned that some upgraded cameras in select cars needed to be replaced due to an unspecified issue.
“So apparently they didn’t have to replace all of them, they said that there was a problem with one of their replacement cameras that wasn’t working for many people, I think it was the front right side camera so for many of them they had to be replaced Even if they had already been upgraded. Therefore, doesn’t sound like it’s a true situation where all of them have to be replaced, but there are select cameras on select cars that have to be upgraded again due to some type of problem,” Houman H. told Teslarati.
Powderkeg also received information from his local Tesla Service Center. In his case, Tesla stated that all cameras need to be upgraded to run the final production FSD software.
Another Teslarati reader, Frank H., noted that he couldn’t upgrade his cameras, even after several requests to his Tesla Service Center. Frank H. paid for FSD, but has not been able to participate in Tesla’s beta program because of old cameras.
“I paid for FSD years ago but have been unable to participate in the beta program due to old cameras. Now FSD is in wide release and Tesla still has not upgraded my cameras after several requests. I am told: ‘We are currently experiencing a parts shortage on all parts necessary to perform FSD camera upgrade,’” Frank H. shared with Teslarati.
Are you having trouble getting into the FSD Beta program, too? I’d like to hear from you. Contact me at maria@teslarati.com or via Twitter @Writer_01001101.
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 once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
