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

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

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. 

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

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

Elon Musk

Tesla preps for a harsh potential reality if Musk comp vote doesn’t go to plan

A successful vote for Tesla would see the compensation package get approved. But there is always the possibility of a rejection, which would likely see Musk leave the company.

Published

on

tesla cybertruck elon musk
Tesla CEO Elon Musk unveils futuristic Cybertruck in Los Angeles, Nov. 21, 2019 (Photo: Teslarati)

Tesla could be forced to look for a new CEO in the coming months, as a crucial November 6 Shareholder Meeting vote will determine whether Elon Musk will stick around.

A major vote is coming up at the 2025 Tesla Shareholder Meeting, as investors will determine whether Musk should be given a new compensation plan that would award him up to $1 trillion and more than one-fourth of the total voting power within the company.

Tesla board chair reiterates widely unmentioned point of Musk comp plan

A successful vote for Tesla would see the compensation package get approved. But there is always the possibility of a rejection, which would likely see Musk leave the company.

“My fundamental concern with regard to how much voting control I have at Tesla is if I go ahead and build this enormous robot army, can I just be ousted at some point in the future? That’s my biggest concern,” Musk said at last week’s Earnings Call. “That’s what it comes down to in a nutshell. I don’t feel comfortable wielding that robot army if I don’t have at least a strong influence.”

Tesla Board of Directors Head Robyn Denholm has been on somewhat of a PR tour over the past few days, answering questions about the compensation plan, which is among the biggest issues currently for the company.

Denholm told Bloomberg yesterday that Tesla investors need to be prepared for Musk to abandon ship if the package is not approved, which brings on a new question: Who would take over the CEO role?

That is a question Denholm also answered yesterday, bringing forth the conclusion that Tesla would not look for an outside hire if Musk were to leave the company. Instead, it would promote someone internally.

The way it was reported by Bloomberg and Reuters seems to make it seem as if Tesla is preparing for the worst, as it states the company “is looking at internal CEO candidates,” not preparing to do so.

Of the executives at Tesla who immediately come to mind as ideal candidates for a potential takeover should Musk leave, Tesla China President Tom Zhu and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy both come to mind. Zhu has monumental executive experience already, as he was appointed to the role of Senior VP of Automotive back in December 2022.

He then returned to China in 2024.

It seems Tesla wants to align its future, with or without Musk, on the same path that it is currently on, and internal candidates might have a better idea of what that looks like and truly means.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Full Self Driving (FSD) is nearing approval in a new country

As per the official, Tesla’s Full Self-Driving system could be enabled in Israel in the near future.

Published

on

Credit: @BLKMDL3/X

It appears that Tesla FSD (Supervised) is heading to a new country soon, at least based on comments from Israel’s Transport and Road Safety Minister Miri Regev.

As per the official, Tesla’s Full Self-Driving system could be enabled in Israel in the near future.

Israeli drivers are pushing for FSD rollout

While Tesla’s FSD is already operational in markets like the U.S., Canada, and Australia, Israeli owners have long been unable to use the feature due to regulatory barriers. Despite its premium price tag, however, numerous Tesla owners in Israel have noted that the technology’s safety benefits, at least when approved for real-world use in the country, justify its cost. 

It was then no surprise that nearly 1,000 Tesla owners in Israel have already petitioned the government to greenlight FSD’s domestic release in Israel. In a post on X, Regev seemed to confirm that FSD is indeed coming to Israel. “I’ve received the many referrals from Tesla drivers in Israel! Tesla drivers? Soon you won’t need to hold the steering wheel,” she wrote in her post.

FSD’s regulatory support in Israel

Regev stated that her Ministry views promoting innovative technologies as essential to improving both road safety and smart mobility. A working group led by Moshe Ben-Zaken, Director General of the Ministry of Transportation has reportedly been tasked to finalize the approval process, coordinating with regulatory and safety agencies to ensure compliance with international standards.

Advertisement

In a comment to Geektime, Israel’s Ministry of Transportation and Road Safety noted that Regev is indeed supporting the release of FSD in the country. “Minister Regev sees great importance in promoting innovative technologies, and in particular in the entry of advanced driving systems (FSD) into the Israeli market, as part of the ministry’s policy to encourage innovation, safety, and smart transportation,” the Ministry stated.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Bank of America raises Tesla PT to $471, citing Robotaxi and Optimus potential

The firm also kept a Neutral rating on the electric vehicle maker, citing strong progress in autonomy and robotics.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Bank of America has raised its Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) price target by 38% to $471, up from $341 per share.

The firm also kept a Neutral rating on the electric vehicle maker, citing strong progress in autonomy and robotics.

Robotaxi and Optimus momentum

Bank of America analyst Federico Merendi noted that the firm’s price target increase reflects Tesla’s growing potential in its Robotaxi and Optimus programs, among other factors. BofA’s updated valuation is based on a sum-of-the-parts (SOTP) model extending through 2040, which shows the Robotaxi platform accounting for 45% of total value. The model also shows Tesla’s humanoid robot Optimus contributing 19%, and Full Self-Driving (FSD) and the Energy segment adding 17% and 6% respectively.

“Overall, we find that TSLA’s core automotive business represents around 12% of the total value while robotaxi is 45%, FSD is 17%, Energy Generation & Storage is around 6% and Optimus is 19%,” the Bank of America analyst noted.

Still a Neutral rating

Despite recognizing long-term potential in AI-driven verticals, Merendi’s team maintained a Neutral rating, suggesting that much of the optimism is already priced into Tesla’s valuation. 

Advertisement

“Our PO revision is driven by a lower cost of equity capital, better Robotaxi progress, and a higher valuation for Optimus to account for the potential entrance into international markets,” the analyst stated.

Interestingly enough, Tesla’s core automotive business, which contributes the lion’s share of the company’s operations today, represents just 12% of total value in BofA’s model.

Continue Reading

Trending