News
Tesla to allow service requests with ‘1 or 2 taps’ in mobile app, says Elon Musk
Earlier this year, Elon Musk noted that Tesla owners would be able to request service for their vehicles through their smartphones. During his announcements then, Musk stated that the higher operating costs of the smartphone-based service requests would be “worth doing” for the company, considering that it would result in better “owner happiness.”
A recent set of tweets from Elon Musk provided a number of additional details for the company’s upcoming mobile app-based service request system. For one, Musk stated that the company is “adding functionality to the Tesla phone app allowing owners to request service for top issues” with just one or two taps. With such a system in place, owners of Tesla’s electric cars would soon be able to request service in a manner that is convenient and quick.
Adding functionality to Tesla phone app allowing owners to request service for top issues with 1 or 2 taps https://t.co/zb7A6fMROe
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 19, 2018
Musk further noted that in the event of a breakdown or accident (assuming that there are no injuries, of course), Tesla Service would arrive at the scene with a top-of-the-line loaner vehicle that’s ready for use. While a vehicle is being repaired, Tesla could also push data to the mobile app that would allow owners to view updates on the progress of their electric cars’ diagnosis.
Yeah, good idea. We have that state internally, so can push data to phone app.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 19, 2018
With the ongoing production ramp of the Model 3, Tesla is now at a point where the size of its fleet is bound to get larger over the coming quarters and years. The release of high-volume vehicles like the Model Y, and possibly even the Tesla pickup truck, as well as the arrival of other vehicles like the Tesla Roadster and the Tesla Semi, would all but increase the number of the company’s electric cars on the road.
The increasing number of Tesla electric cars highlight the need to deploy a service system that can handle the needs and demands of a large fleet. Tesla is already preparing for such a scenario by improving its service capabilities, such as the launch of in-house body shops that are capable of conducting minor bodywork repair, as well as the ramp of its mobile service vehicles. Tesla mentioned these improvements specifically in the company’s Q3 2018 Update Letter.
“We expect our Services and Other business to continue to grow mainly due to used car sales volumes. We will increase investment in our service infrastructure in North America through (the) deployment of new service locations and additional mobile service vehicles.”
Tesla’s Support Page notes that Roadside Assistance services are offered to owners as a way to “minimize inconvenience” in the event that a vehicle becomes inoperable. The service, which is available 24/7, is provided for the first four years of ownership, or 50,000 miles. Depending on the car, additional coverage for the battery and drive unit are also offered with a separate policy for 8 years or 125,000 miles, or 8 years and unlimited miles.
Tesla Roadside Assistance currently offers transportation services of up to 500 miles to the nearest Service Center in the event of a warrantable breakdown that renders the vehicle undrivable. Flat tire services, aid in the event that an owner is locked outside the car, and assistance in the event that an electric car runs out of range, are also offered as part of Tesla’s Roadside Assistance services.
Tesla stands as one of the carmakers in the market today with a high Net Promoter Score. IndexNPS, which tracks the NPS scores of companies, notes that Tesla’s score of 96 is higher than legacy carmakers like Porsche, Audi, Toyota, Subaru, Honda, Hyundai and GMC, whose scores range between 73 and 84. One of the reasons behind these is the company’s proactive approach to improving its services, as evidenced by the expansion of its mobile service fleet, as well as its mobile app’s upcoming capability to conduct service requests.
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
