Connect with us

News

Tesla’s software fixes, the NHTSA’s status quo, and an impending need for updated recall terminologies

Credit: Tesla Motors/Instagram

Published

4 years ago

on

It is no secret that Tesla is a popular topic, so much so that the coverage around the company is immense. Couple this with CEO Elon Musk’s rockstar persona and you get a company whose vehicles are looked at under a microscope constantly. It might feel unfair for some, but it’s just the way it is. Tesla — by simply being Tesla — is newsworthy. 

Tesla’s newsworthiness is a double-edged sword. A look at the coverage for the company’s vehicle recalls from the NHTSA would prove this point. So notable is Tesla’s news coverage that a mainstream newsreader would likely get the impression that Teslas get recalls frequently. The opposite is true. As evidenced by Reuters in the graphic below, data from January 1, 2020, through February 17, 2022, shows that Tesla actually recalls its vehicles less frequently than some of the market’s leading automakers. Tesla is also the only carmaker performing a large share of its vehicle recalls through over-the-air software updates. 

Credit: Reuters Graphics

Tesla currently handles the majority of the industry’s remote software recalls, but it would soon not be the only one. New electric vehicle makers have used the idea of software updates as a means to promote their EVs’ capabilities. Rivian has performed OTA updates to its R1 vehicles, and those cars are only starting customer deliveries. Lucid is the same with its Air sedan, with the company rolling out features like Automatic Emergency Braking, Cross-Traffic Protection, Lane Departure Protection, Traffic Drive-Off Alert, and other features earlier this month through a software update. Ford has been rolling out updates called “Power-Ups” to the Mustang Mach-E as well. 

Considering that software-based fixes are only bound to get more widespread over the coming years, one must then ask the question: Should software-based over-the-air fixes be dubbed and classified with the same terminologies as physical recalls, which typically involve the replacement of vehicle hardware? 

A Vastly Different “Recall” Experience

Any car owner has likely experienced a recall for their vehicle at some point in their driving life. And more likely than not, one’s experience is probably not that pleasant. I certainly count myself among drivers who look at vehicle recalls with trepidation. My current vehicle, a Japanese-made van, was part of a minor fuel pump recall a couple of years ago, and even addressing that took a whole day out of my weekend. The dealer was overwhelmed with the number of cars it was fixing that day, and tempers among owners were flaring by the hour — all for a simple fuel pump replacement. I’ve been told that my experiences with vehicle recalls are not that unique. 

In comparison, a software-based fix, such as the disabling of FSD Beta’s “rolling stops” feature, only required affected vehicles to be connected to the internet. There was no dealer visit, no forms to fill out, and no staff to argue with. The car was connected to the internet, a software fix was implemented, and the issue was resolved. One can argue that Tesla’s software fix to disable FSD Beta’s “rolling stops” feature was safety-related, and that’s true. But one could also argue that at least from a driver’s point of view, the experience related to software and hardware-based recalls is vastly different. 

Advertisement
Tesla to recall over 53k FSD Beta cars over “rolling stop” feature, fix to be released through over-the-air update

The Status Quo

Despite the different experiences involved when software and hardware-based vehicle recalls are addressed, it appears that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will, at least for now, keep the status quo. Teslarati reached out to the NHTSA to inquire if it was considering the adoption of updated terminologies for cars whose fixes are completed through OTA software updates, but the agency suggested that this would likely not be the case, at least for now. According to the NHTSA, vehicle manufacturers must initiate a recall for any repair that remedies a safety risk, regardless of whether the issue is fixed by software update or by hardware replacement. 

“The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is committed to ensuring the highest safety standards on the nation’s roadways. NHTSA is empowered with robust tools and authorities to protect the public, to investigate potential safety issues, and to compel recalls when it finds evidence of noncompliance or an unreasonable risk to safety. Manufacturers are required to initiate a recall for any repair, including a software update, that remedies an unreasonable risk to safety. NHTSA recalls can include any required repair, which includes a software update, to remedy a potential safety risk. Manufacturers are also required to submit any communications to owners, dealers, and others about any software updates that address a defect, whether it is safety-related or not,” the NHTSA stated. 

Product recall specialist and associate professor at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business Professor George Ball told Teslarati that while the NHTSA’s use of similar terminologies for software and hardware-based recalls is “definitely an example of regulators and industry moving at a different pace on technology,” the agency’s hesitation in adopting new terminologies for OTA fixes is understandable. Professor Ball further explained that using terms such as “soft recall” to refer to software-based vehicle fixes might imply a reduced level of risk, and this is something that the NHTSA would likely be unwilling to do. 

“I believe NHTSA would resist ‘soft recall’ terminology because it implies a reduced level of customer hazard and allows the firm to be under less scrutiny by the press and public for quality corrections. While some updates are minor, some of the Tesla software upgrades are actually quite serious, and if not done, can allow a harmful defect to persist,” the recall specialist said. 

Tesla to release over-the-air software update to fix seat belt chime malfunction on 817k cars

But while the NHTSA’s stance on recall terminologies is completely understandable, one cannot deny the fact that the issues covered by vehicle recalls have a very wide range of risks. Take Tesla’s recall for 817,143 vehicles, which was announced earlier this month, for example. The recall was initiated since a software error may prevent a warning chime from activating even if drivers do not have their seat belts on. From a layman’s perspective, this recall seems grave as it affects over 800,000 Teslas on the road today. However, the issue was simply addressed through firmware release 2021.43.101.1 and later, which included a remedy for the seat belt chime error. 

Compare this with General Motors’ recall last year of 400,000 pickup trucks in the US. Granted, it only affected about half as many vehicles as Tesla’s seat belt chime recall, but its hardware-based nature suggested that the risk presented by the issue was great. The recall covered certain 2015 and 2016 Chevrolet and GMC Sierra 1500, 2500, and 3500 trucks, and it involved a faulty airbag inflator that may rupture without warning. To fix the issue, owners of the affected trucks were required to head to a dealer so that they could get their airbag modules replaced. Since parts were in short supply last year, however, owners were notified with a letter to inform them when their trucks’ replacement parts were available. 

What Can Be Done

While the NHTSA will likely continue to maintain the status quo with its recall terminologies for the foreseeable future, Professor Ball told Teslarati that the agency can actually implement some adjustments now that can make distinguishing safety fixes and issues clearer. This would likely be extremely important in the near future as more connected cars are rolled out and software updates become the norm. 

Advertisement

“If I were to provide advice to the NHTSA, I would recommend that they get out ahead of this issue before every car maker starts updating cars like Tesla. One way to do it is to require the automaker to send all auto updates to NHTSA when pushed out, and to classify updates as ‘minor’ or ‘major.’ Any major update that impacts customer safety would be classified as a recall. Automakers won’t like this, but it will help keep the safety fixes transparent for all, especially consumers. By sending all updates to NHSTA, the agency could assign qualified people to audit the classifications assigned by the manufacturer, to ensure they are making good decisions there.

“I think any language that de-emphasizes the importance of a safety recall is not likely to be supported by NHTSA, and it doesn’t likely help customer safety. A clear distinction needs to be made between minor updates and major updates that influence safety. Those major updates should be classified as a recall, and NHTSA needs to get their arms around these updates and keep on top of them soon, or they will fall way behind the industry,” the recall specialist said. 

Recalls can affect the perception of a company to the public. Software fixes should be one of the factors that are considered an edge for automakers like Tesla, not the other way around. Gary Black, Managing Partner of The Future Fund LLC, explained this from the point of view of a Tesla investor. “Since every NHTSA recall so far has been quickly solvable via Tesla OTA updates, ‘recalls’ are noise to most investors. Tesla’s huge software edge highlights one of the key advantages of owning Tesla over every other EV manufacturer,” the Wall Street veteran told Teslarati. 

OTA updates, including those related to vehicle safety, are coming. With automakers like Ford joining the group of carmakers embracing OTA updates, software-based fixes are inevitable. Ultimately, I am inclined to agree with the recall specialist. By refusing to adapt to the advent of software-based vehicle fixes, the NHTSA may risk being left behind by the automotive industry. And that’s a scenario that I believe no automaker — or government agency for that matter — would prefer. 

Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.

Advertisement
Related Topics:

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.1 first impressions: Robotaxi-like features arrive

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.1 is here, and we got to experience it for ourselves.

Published

13 minutes ago

on

October 8, 2025

By

Tesla rolled out its Full Self-Driving v14.1 yesterday, its first public launch of its most robust and accurate FSD iteration yet. Luckily, I was able to get my hands on it through the Early Access Program.

The major changes in FSD v14.1 were revealed in the release notes, which outline several notable improvements in areas such as driving styles, parking, and overall navigation. Here’s what Tesla outlined fully in its release notes:

  • Added Arrival Options for you to select where FSD should park: in a Parking Lot, on the Street, in a Driveway, in a Parking Garage, or at the Curbside.
  • Added handling to pull over or yield for emergency vehicles (e.g. police cars, fire trucks, ambulances).
  • Added navigation and routing into the vision-based neural network for real-time handling of blocked roads and detours.
  • Added additional Speed Profile to further customize driving style preference.
  • Improved handling for static and dynamic gates.
  • Improved offsetting for road debris (e.g. tires, tree branches, boxes).
  • Improve handling of several scenarios including: unprotected turns, lane changes, vehicle cut-ins, and school busses.
  • Improved FSD’s ability to manage system faults and recover smoothly from degraded operation for enhanced reliability.
  • Added alerting for residue build-up on interior windshield that may impact front camera visibility. If affected, visit Service for cleaning!

I wanted to try it for myself. My big must-dos were my complaints with v13.2.9, which included parking when arriving at a destination, Navigation when leaving a destination, and definitely a general improvement in the car traveling at an acceptable rate of speed, even when using the “Hurry” driving style.

Here’s what I noticed with the new Full Self-Driving v14.1:

Speed Profiles are More Realistic

I am driving on “Hurry” about 95% of the time when utilizing Full Self-Driving. In past versions, most notably v13.2.9, my Tesla would slowly reach the speed limit, and it would tend to hang out at about 1-2 MPH either above or below it.

My first observation with v14.1 was the vehicle’s tendency to get right up to speed and, since I was still on Hurry, drive slightly above the speed limit. It never got out of line; it traveled at speeds I would typically drive at manually.

I think this is a big improvement on its own, because I felt that I was pressing the accelerator too frequently in past FSD versions. Oftentimes, it just wasn’t going fast enough to justify the “Hurry” label; it felt more conservative and more like a student driver than anything.

Check it out:

This was among my favorite improvements, and it was the first thing I noticed as the car navigated me to the Supercharger, where my next positive is.

Navigating into parking lots, self-parking at Supercharger

One of the changes noted in the Release Notes was the addition of Arrival Options, which allows the car to select the appropriate parking situation. Since I was going to charge, the car had already chosen “Charger” as the parking option.

Pulling into a gas station or convenience store, especially during work days, can be stressful, as they are usually congested and full of foot and vehicle traffic. In past FSD versions, I have noticed the car being slightly “jumpy” and even hesitant to proceed through the lot.

Driving through parking lots was a noticeable improvement. It seems as if the car is much more confident in making its way through, while still being aware and cautious enough to safely navigate to the Supercharger.

It then backed straight into a Supercharger stall, which was recently repaired and is once again active. I was actually upset it chose this specific stall because it had been inactive for a while. However, Tesla got this stall back up and running, the car chose it, and backed into the spot flawlessly:

This was super cool to experience, and I think it is a testament to how hard the Tesla AI team has worked. CEO Elon Musk recently stated that FSD would enable automatic parking at Superchargers, which was really awesome to experience firsthand.

I decided to leave the Supercharger and go to an auto parts store to pick up some interior cleaner and some microfiber towels. I love keeping my Tesla clean!

I also thought it would be a great opportunity to see how it would react to another parking lot, how it would navigate it, and let it choose a parking spot. It did it all flawlessly:

I had zero complaints about everything here. All of it was done really well.

Making a choice after being caught in the middle of an intersection

I arrived at a tight intersection in Dallastown, PA, and what my car did next has catalyzed quite a conversation on X.

It proceeded out into the middle of the intersection as the light was green. It had to yield to oncoming traffic, and while waiting, the light turned yellow, then red.

Most people, including myself, would have turned right and proceeded through the intersection since the car was already past the line. However, FSD chose to back up and wait for the next light cycle, which I felt was also a more than acceptable option:

There are some conflicting perspectives on what it chose to do here. Some said they would have proceeded and would want FSD to also proceed. I can agree with that perspective, but I also think it is not the worst thing in the world to back up. In Pennsylvania, I couldn’t find the exact law that says what is right or wrong. Instead, I did see that a left turn on red is only feasible when you’re going from a One-Way street to another One-Way.

I’m not totally sure what is “correct” here, but I think either option is fine. I have personally done both, and I’ve seen other drivers do both. I was more than fine with the car doing this, and I was honestly impressed that it did.

Navigated a busy grocery store lot, found suitable parking

This is not the busiest my local grocery store gets, but it was still congested enough for me to be impressed.

FSD decided to do one loop in the parking lot before it found a spot that it felt was good enough for me. I was perfectly fine with where it chose to park, and I thought it did a really great job. I was impressed with how stress-free I felt, as I have noted in the past that parking lots are definitely an area where Tesla needs to improve.

I was happy with its performance:

Strange right turn signal as if it saw an emergency vehicle

This was the first bug I noticed with FSD v14.1. While traveling on a local road, it put the right turn signal on and approached the curb as if it was pulling over for an emergency vehicle or as if it was going to park on the street.

It then realized its mistake and proceeded:

I’m not super sure what caused this, but I was a tad bit confused. There were no police cars, ambulances, or anyone with flashing lights to my rear. There was a dump truck on the other side of the road, and I almost felt like the way it navigated “around” that was probably what triggered it.

Navigation is still making strange decisions

I’ve written about navigation and my discontent with some of its decisions. It seems v14.1 didn’t resolve much of anything with navigation, and it did a couple of things wrong.

The first was that it tried to take the illogical and pointless path out of the Supercharger. I wrote about this a few days ago, as FSD tried to take my car the wrong way.

It did it again, but I overrode the decision, and it was all okay:

This is a minor issue, but it is still pretty frustrating. Hopefully, the navigation will learn after performing this adjustment after enough times.

The next navigation issue was more frustrating than the Supercharger one, especially considering it completely ignored the route. The navigation had the vehicle very clearly heading straight, but out of nowhere, the right turn signal went on. I overrode it, but the car still turned right, ignoring the navigation completely:

I ended up taking over here and driving until I could get to a stop sign.

Final Thoughts

I am really impressed with all of the changes Tesla made with FSD v14.1, and while there were a handful of bugs, things were tremendously better than v13.2.9.

Continue Reading

News

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang regrets not investing more in Elon Musk’s xAI

The CEO stated that Nvidia is already an investor in xAI, but he wished he had given the artificial intelligence startup more money.

Published

3 hours ago

on

October 8, 2025

By

Credit: Elon Musk/X

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang revealed that one of his investment regrets is not putting more money into Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence startup, xAI. 

Speaking in a CNBC interview, Huang said Nvidia is already an investor in xAI but wished he had given the artificial intelligence startup more money. This was due to Musk’s record of building transformative companies such as Tesla and SpaceX.

A new wave of transformative AI firms

Huang said he’s very excited about xAI’s latest financing round. He described Musk’s company as part of a powerful new generation of AI developers, alongside OpenAI and Anthropic. that are reshaping the computing landscape.

“I’m super excited about the financing opportunity they’re doing. The only regret I have about xAI, we’re an investor already, is that I didn’t give him more money. You know almost everything that Elon’s pat of, you really want to be part of as well,” the Nvidia CEO stated.

The CEO also clarified Nvidia’s investment in xAI, revealing that Elon Musk had offered the investment opportunity to the chipmaker. “He (Musk) gave us the opportunity to invest in xAI. I’m just delighted by that,” Huang stated.

Advertisement

AI investment boom

Huang contrasted today’s AI-driven economy with the early days of the internet. “Back then, all the internet companies combined were maybe $30 or $40 billion in size,” he said. “If you look at the hyperscalers now, that’s about $2.5 trillion of business already operating today.”

He also stated that the ongoing shift from CPU-based computing to GPU-powered generative AI represents a “multi-trillion-dollar buildout” that Nvidia is looking to support. Huang added that every Nvidia engineer now works with AI coding assistants such as Cursor, which he called his “favorite enterprise AI service,” and it has led to a major productivity boost across the company.

Watch Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s CNBC interview in the video below.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Stifel raises Tesla price target by 9.8% over FSD, Robotaxi advancements

Stifel also maintained a “Buy” rating for the electric vehicle maker.

Published

4 hours ago

on

October 8, 2025

By

Credit: Tesla China

Investment firm Stifel has raised its price target for Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) shares to $483 from $440 over increased confidence in the company’s self-driving and Robotaxi programs. The new price target suggests an 11.5% upside from Tesla’s closing price on Tuesday.

Stifel also maintained a “Buy” rating despite acknowledging that Tesla’s timeline for fully unsupervised driving may be ambitious.

Building confidence

In a note to clients, Stifel stated that it believes “Tesla is making progress with modest advancements in its Robotaxi network and FSD,” as noted in a report from Investing.com. The firm expects unsupervised FSD to become available for personal use in the U.S. by the end of 2025, with a wider ride-hailing rollout potentially covering half of the U.S. population by year-end.

Stifel also noted that Tesla’s Robotaxi fleet could expand from “tiny to gigantic” within a short time frame, possibly making a material financial impact to the company by late 2026. The firm views Tesla’s vision-based approach to autonomy as central to this long-term growth, suggesting that continued advancements could unlock new revenue streams across both consumer and mobility sectors.

https://twitter.com/AIStockSavvy/status/1975893527344345556

Tesla’s FSD goals still ambitious

While Stifel’s tone remains optimistic, the firm’s analysts acknowledged that Tesla’s aggressive autonomy timeline may face execution challenges. The note described the 2025 unsupervised FSD target as “a stretch,” though still achievable in the medium term.

Advertisement

“We believe Tesla is making progress with modest advancements in its Robotaxi network and FSD. The company has high expectations for its camera-based approach including; 1) Unsupervised FSD to be available for personal use in the United States by year-end 2025, which appears to be a stretch but seems more likely in the medium term; 2) that it will ‘probably have ride hailing in probably half of the populations of the U.S. by the end of the year’,” the firm noted.

Continue Reading

Trending