News
Tesla’s software fixes, the NHTSA’s status quo, and an impending need for updated recall terminologies
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Tesla has added a notable improvement to its Dashcam feature after complaints from owners have pushed the company to make a drastic change.
Perhaps one of the biggest frustrations that Tesla owners have communicated regarding the Dashcam feature is the lack of ability to retain any more than 60 minutes of driving footage before it is overwritten.
It does not matter what size USB jump drive is plugged into the vehicle. 60 minutes is all it will hold until new footage takes over the old. This can cause some issues, especially if you were saving an impressive clip of Full Self-Driving or an incident on the road, which could be lost if new footage was recorded.
This has now been changed, as Tesla has shown in the Release Notes for an upcoming Software Update in China. It will likely expand to the U.S. market in the coming weeks, and was first noticed by NotaTeslaApp.
The release notes state:
“Dashcam Dynamic Recording Duration – The dashcam dynamically adjusts the recording duration based on the available storage capacity of the connected USB drive. For example, with a 128 GB USB drive, the maximum recording duration is approximately 3 hours; with a 1 TB or larger USB drive, it can reach up to 24 hours. This ensures that as much video as possible is retained for review before it gets overwritten.”
Tesla Adds Dynamic Recording
Instead of having a 60-minute cap, the new system will now go off the memory in the USB drive. This means with:
- 128 GB Jump Drive – Up to Three Hours of Rolling Footage
- 1TB Jump Drive – Up to 24 Hours of Rolling Footage
This is dependent on the amount of storage available on the jump drive, meaning that if there are other things saved on it, it will take away from the amount of footage that can be retained.
While the feature is just now making its way to employees in China, it will likely be at least several weeks before it makes its way to the U.S., but owners should definitely expect it in the coming months.
It will be a welcome feature, especially as there will now be more customization to the number of clips and their duration that can be stored.
With the news of a merger between SpaceX and xAI being confirmed earlier this week by CEO Elon Musk directly, the first moves of an umbrella company that combines all of the serial tech entrepreneur’s companies have been established.
The move aims to combine SpaceX’s prowess in launches with xAI’s expanding vision in artificial intelligence, as Musk has detailed the need for space-based data centers that will require massive amounts of energy to operate.
It has always been in the plans to bring Musk’s companies together under one umbrella.
“My companies are, surprisingly in some ways, trending toward convergence,” Musk said in November. With SpaceX and xAI moving together, many are questioning when Tesla will be next. Analysts believe it is a no-brainer.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
Dan Ives of Wedbush wrote in a note earlier this week that there is a “growing chance” Tesla could be merged in some form with the new conglomeration over the next 12 to 18 months.
“In our view, there is a growing chance that Tesla will eventually be merged in some form into SpaceX/xAI over time. The viewis this growing AI ecosystem will focus on Space and Earth together… and Musk will look to combine forces,” Ives said.
Let’s take a look at the potential.
The Case for Synergies – Building the Ultimate AI Ecosystem
A triple merger would create a unified “Musk Trinity,” blending Tesla’s physical AI with Robotaxi, Optimus, and Full Self-Driving, SpaceX’s orbital infrastructure through Starlink and potential space-based computer, and xAI’s advanced models, including Grok.
This could accelerate real-world AI applications, more specifically, ones like using satellite networks for global autonomy, or even powering massive training through solar-optimized orbital data centers.
The FCC welcomes and now seeks comment on the SpaceX application for Orbital Data Centers.
The proposed system would serve as a first step towards becoming a Kardashev II-level civilization and serve other purposes, according to the applicant. pic.twitter.com/TDnUPuz9w7
— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) February 4, 2026
This would position the entity, which could ultimately be labeled “X,” as a leader in multiplanetary AI-native tech.
It would impact every level of Musk’s AI-based vision for the future, from passenger use to complex AI training models.
Financial and Structural Incentives — and Risks
xAI’s high cash burn rate is now backed by SpaceX’s massive valuation boost, and Tesla joining the merger would help the company gain access to private funding channels, avoiding dilution in a public-heavy structure.
The deal makes sense from a capital standpoint, as it is an advantage for each company in its own specific way, addressing specific needs.
Because xAI is spending money at an accelerating rate due to its massive compute needs, SpaceX provides a bit of a “lifeline” by redirecting its growing cash flows toward AI ambitions without the need for constant external fundraising.
Additionally, Tesla’s recent $2 billion investment in xAI also ties in, as its own heavy CapEx for Dojo supercomputers, Robotaxis, and Optimus could potentially be streamlined.
Musk’s stake in Tesla and SpaceX, after the xAI merger, is also uneven. His ownership in Tesla equates to about 13 percent, only increasing as he achieves each tranche of his most recent compensation package. Meanwhile, he owns about 43 percent of the private SpaceX.
A triple merger between the three companies could boost his ownership in the combined entity to around 26 percent. This would give Musk what he wants: stronger voting power and alignment across his ventures.
It could also be a potential facilitator in private-to-public transitions, as a reverse merger structure to take SpaceX public indirectly via Tesla could be used. This avoids any IPO scrutiny while accessing the public markets’ liquidity.
Timeline and Triggers for a Public Announcement
As previously mentioned, Ives believes a 12-18 month timeline is realistic, fueled by Musk’s repeated hints at convergence between his three companies. Additionally, the recent xAI investment by Tesla only points toward the increased potential for a conglomeration.
Of course, there is speculation that the merger could happen in the shorter term, before June 30 of this year, which is a legitimate possibility. While this possibility exists but remains at low probability, especially when driven by rapid AI/space momentum, longer horizons, like 2027 or later, allow for key milestones like Tesla’s Robotaxi rollout and Cybercab ramp-up, Optimus scaling, or regulatory clarity under a favorable administration.
Credit: Grok Imagine
The sequencing matters: SpaceX-xAI merger as “step one” toward a unified stack, with a potential SpaceX IPO setting a valuation benchmark before any Tesla tie-up.
Full triple convergence could follow if synergies prove out.
Prediction markets are also a reasonable thing to look at, just to get an idea of where people are putting their money. Polymarket, for example, sits at between a 12 and 24 percent chance that a Tesla-SpaceX merger is officially announced before June 30, 2026.
Looking Ahead
The SpaceX-xAI merger is not your typical corporate shuffle. Instead, it’s the clearest signal yet that Musk is architecting a unified “Muskonomy” where AI, space infrastructure, and real-world robotics converge to solve humanity’s biggest challenges.
Yet the path is fraught with execution risks that could turn this visionary upside into a major value trap. Valuation mismatches remain at the forefront of this skepticism: Tesla’s public multiples are unlike any company ever, with many believing they are “stretched.” On the other hand, SpaceX-xAI’s private “marked-to-muth” pricing hinges on unproven synergies and lofty projects, especially orbital data centers and all of the things Musk and Co. will have to figure out along the way.
Ultimately, the entire thing relies on a high-conviction bet on Musk’s ability to execute at scale. The bullish case is transformative: a vertically integrated AI-space-robotics giant accelerates humanity toward abundance and multi-planetary civilization faster than any siloed company could.
News
IM Motors co-CEO apologizes to Tesla China over FUD comments
Liu said later investigations showed the accident was not caused by a brake failure on the Tesla’s part, contrary to his initial comments.
Liu Tao, co-CEO of IM Motors, has publicly apologized to Tesla China for comments he made in 2022 suggesting a Tesla vehicle was defective following a fatal traffic accident in Chaozhou, China.
Liu said later investigations showed the accident was not caused by a brake failure on the Tesla’s part, contrary to his initial comments.
IM Motors co-CEO issues apology
Liu Tao posted a statement addressing remarks he made following a serious traffic accident in Chaozhou, Guangdong province, in November 2022, as noted in a Sina News report. Liu stated that based on limited public information at the time, he published a Weibo post suggesting a safety issue with the Tesla involved in the crash. The executive clarified that his initial comments were incorrect.
“On November 17, 2022, based on limited publicly available information, I posted a Weibo post regarding a major traffic accident that occurred in Chaozhou, suggesting that the Tesla product involved in the accident posed a safety hazard. Four hours later, I deleted the post. In May 2023, according to the traffic police’s accident liability determination and relevant forensic opinions, the Chaozhou accident was not caused by Tesla brake failure.
“The aforementioned findings and opinions regarding the investigation conclusions of the Chaozhou accident corrected the erroneous statements I made in my previous Weibo post, and I hereby clarify and correct them. I apologize for the negative impact my inappropriate remarks made before the facts were ascertained, which caused Tesla,” Liu said.
Investigation and court findings
The Chaozhou accident occurred in Raoping County in November 2022 and resulted in two deaths and three injuries. Video footage circulated online at the time showed a Tesla vehicle accelerating at high speed and colliding with multiple motorcycles and bicycles. Reports indicated the vehicle reached a speed of 198 kilometers per hour.
The incident drew widespread attention as the parties involved provided conflicting accounts and investigation details were released gradually. Media reports in early 2023 said investigation results had been completed, though the vehicle owner requested a re-investigation, delaying the issuance of a final liability determination.
The case resurfaced later in 2023 following a defamation lawsuit filed by Tesla China against a media outlet. According to a court judgment cited by Shanghai Securities News, forensic analysis determined that the fatal accident was unrelated to any malfunction on the Tesla’s braking or steering systems. The court also ruled that the media outlet must publish an apology, address the negative impact on Tesla China’s reputation, and pay a penalty of 30,000 yuan.
Tesla adds notable improvement to Dashcam feature
Will Tesla join the fold? Predicting a triple merger with SpaceX and xAI
