Tesla has filed a recently-published patent application titled “High-Speed Wiring System Architecture” that addresses an important aspect of its Full Self-Driving (FSD) suite: redundancy.
Traditional computer wiring systems often have no redundancy in their communications. Individual devices are connected to a central point (such as a processor), and each device receives communications separately from that point via some sort of cable. If one of the connections fails, communications to the device fails, and in a self-driving situation, that could mean complete system failure.
Simply adding more backup cables isn’t really a great solution, either. More wires mean more connection points, and if you’ve ever worked with microcontrollers or circuit boards professionally or as a hobby, you can already see the downside to this. More connection points mean bigger boards, and bigger boards mean higher manufacturing costs.
This is where Tesla’s new wiring system comes in, which was published on August 15, 2019 as US Patent Publication No. 2019/0248310.
The wiring architecture, as described, comprises a bi-directional backbone cable that forms a loop to and from a processor; along that backbone are connected devices (i.e., segments) with hubs inside associated with one or more cameras and/or radars. The backbone can function as two separate loops, meaning if one portion of the backbone fails, data from all the devices and hubs can still be sent to and from the processor thanks to the dual-loop capacity.
Perhaps a good way to visualize this is to imagine bumper cars or a marble traveling in a loop unimpeded. If a barrier were to suddenly be erected, the car and marble would bump the barrier and travel in the opposite direction. Or, instead of a barrier to bump, imagine a sharp U-turn came up, forcing the travel back in the other direction. The U-turn would happen on either side of the barrier, meaning motion (communication) would still continue back and forth to the processor despite a break in the larger loop (backbone).
The specific advantage of this new architecture over traditional systems, other than less cables connected to the processor, is that each hub within the devices is also connected in serial or in parallel to the other hubs via the backbone. If one hub within a device fails, the other hubs can still transmit to the backbone and thus to the processor. In a traditional system, if one cable to/from a device fails, all communications to/from radars and cameras inside the device fails.
Essentially, what Tesla’s done here is mitigate the damage of one thing failing in an FSD system to just that one thing. Here’s how the application sums up that concept: “In embodiments, when backbone is formed using a bi-directional cable…then the wiring system architecture can tolerate one fault in the backbone while still maintaining communication pathways for all hubs and devices.”
Notably, Tesla’s patent application also specifies that its technology could be used in a variety of vehicles, including semi-trucks, indicating the company may intend to use the architecture as a standard setup for all its FSD programs in the future. Additionally, language is included to broaden the architecture’s application to farming, nautical, and other industrial applications.
A few of Tesla’s recent patent applications have demonstrated numerous efforts being made to improve the safety of FSD systems wherever opportunities for improvement are found. For example, an application published in May titled “System and Method for Handling Errors in a Vehicle Neural Network Processor” describes a way to safely handle errors encountered in self-driving software. Another application titled “Autonomous Driving System Emergency Signaling” describes a method of quickly communicating emergency information from vehicle sensors feeding into autonomous driving software. While Full Self-Driving may take a significant amount of time to be fully implemented for a variety of reasons, there’s no question that Tesla is working hard to make it a reality.
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
