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

News

Tesla Semi shows strong results in ArcBest’s real-world freight trial

The truck handled varied terrain, including a 7,200-foot climb over Donner Pass.

Published

on

Credit: ArcBest/X

ArcBest has successfully wrapped up a three-week pilot program testing a Class 8 Tesla Semi in over-the-road applications. The trial was conducted through ArcBest’s ABF Freight division, and it covered routes between Reno and Sacramento and regional operations around the Bay Area.

Tesla Semi pilot sees strong performance and positive driver feedback

The Tesla Semi logged 4,494 miles during the pilot, averaging 321 miles per day with an energy efficiency of 1.55 kWh per mile. The Tesla Semi handled varied terrain, including a 7,200-foot climb over Donner Pass, and delivered performance comparable to diesel counterparts. 

Drivers who participated in the pilot also gave positive feedback to the Tesla Semi, citing the Class 8 all-electric truck’s comfort, safety, and visibility thanks to features like a center seating position and intuitive controls. Matt Godfrey, president of ABF Freight, shared his thoughts on the pilot in a press release

“We’re not looking for a truck that performs well ‘for an EV.’ It must meet or exceed the performance and total cost of ownership targets of our most efficient diesel units. This pilot gives us great insight into the potential of EV semis in our operations,” he said. 

ArcBest highlights need for more charging infrastructure

While the pilot met expectations, ArcBest noted that broader deployment of Class 8 all-electric trucks like the Tesla Semi will still depend on improvements in charging infrastructure. This way, longer-haul operations become more than feasible.

Advertisement

The pilot marks another step in ArcBest’s investment in sustainable logistics technologies. In addition to testing the Tesla Semi, the company operates a small fleet of EVs, including nine electric yard tractors, two electric forklifts, and two Class 6 electric straight trucks. Dennis Anderson, ArcBest chief innovation officer, noted that vehicles like the Tesla Semi are notable developments in the transportation sector.

“Freight transportation is a vital part of the global economy, and we know it also plays a significant role in overall greenhouse gas emissions. While the path to decarbonization presents complex challenges — such as infrastructure needs and alternative fuel development — it also opens the door to innovation. Vehicles like the Tesla Semi highlight the progress being made and expand the boundaries of what’s possible as we work toward a more sustainable future for freight,” he stated.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla could save $2.5B by replacing 10% of staff with Optimus: Morgan Stanley

Jonas assigned each robot a net present value (NPV) of $200,000.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Optimus/X

Tesla’s (NASDAQ:TSLA) near-term outlook may be clouded by political controversies and regulatory headwinds, but Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas sees a glimmer of opportunity for the electric vehicle maker. 

In a new note, the Morgan Stanley analyst estimated that Tesla could save $2.5 billion by replacing just 10% of its workforce with its Optimus robots, assigning each robot a net present value (NPV) of $200,000.

Morgan Stanley highlights Optimus’ savings potential

Jonas highlighted the potential savings on Tesla’s workforce of 125,665 employees in his note, suggesting that the utilization of Optimus robots could significantly reduce labor costs. The analyst’s note arrived shortly after Tesla reported Q2 2025 deliveries of 384,122 vehicles, which came close to Morgan Stanley’s estimate and slightly under the consensus of 385,086.

“Tesla has 125,665 employees worldwide (year-end 2024). On our calculations, a 10% substitution to humanoid at approximately ($200k NPV/humanoid) could be worth approximately $2.5bn,” Jonas wrote, as noted by Street Insider.

Jonas also issued some caution on Tesla Energy, whose battery storage deployments were flat year over year at 9.6 GWh. Morgan Stanley had expected Tesla Energy to post battery storage deployments of 14 GWh in the second quarter.

Advertisement

Musk’s political ambitions

The backdrop to Jonas’ note included Elon Musk’s involvement in U.S. politics. The Tesla CEO recently floated the idea of launching a new political party, following a poll on X that showed support for the idea. Though a widely circulated FEC filing was labeled false by Musk, the CEO does seem intent on establishing a third political party in the United States. 

Jonas cautioned that Musk’s political efforts could divert attention and resources from Tesla’s core operations, adding near-term pressure on TSLA stock. “We believe investors should be prepared for further devotion of resources (financial, time/attention) in the direction of Mr. Musk’s political priorities which may add further near-term pressure to TSLA shares,” Jonas stated.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Linda Yaccarino steps down as X CEO

Yaccarino highlighted the work that the X team has done over the past two years under her leadership.

Published

on

Credit: Linda Yaccarino/X

X CEO Linda Yaccarino has announced that she is stepping down as the social media platform’s chief executive. She shared her update in a post on X.

In her post, Yaccarino highlighted the work that the X team has done over the past two years under her leadership. As per the executive, the company has made significant strides towards its goal of becoming the Everything App. She also highlighted the company’s work in prioritizing the safety of its users, particularly children.

Following is Yaccarino’s statement:

After two incredible years, I’ve decided to step down as CEO of 𝕏. 

When @elonmusk and I first spoke of his vision for X, I knew it would be the opportunity of a lifetime to carry out the extraordinary mission of this company. I’m immensely grateful to him for entrusting me with the responsibility of protecting free speech, turning the company around, and transforming X into the Everything App. 

Advertisement

I’m incredibly proud of the X team – the historic business turn around we have accomplished together has been nothing short of remarkable. 

We started with the critical early work necessary to prioritize the safety of our users—especially children, and to restore advertiser confidence. This team has worked relentlessly from groundbreaking innovations like Community Notes, and, soon, X Money to bringing the most iconic voices and content to the platform. Now, the best is yet to come as X enters a new chapter with @xai

X is truly a digital town square for all voices and the world’s most powerful culture signal. We couldn’t have achieved that without the support of our users, business partners, and the most innovative team in the world. 

I’ll be cheering you all on as you continue to change the world. 

As always, I’ll see you on 𝕏.

Advertisement

Elon Musk has issued a response to Yaccarino’s decision to step down as X’s CEO. In a reply, Musk thanked the executive for her work on the social media platform for the past two years. 

“Thank you for your contributions,” Musk wrote.

Under Yaccarino’s leadership, X traversed rocky waters and reestablished itself as a town square where the world’s most notable people are within reach of everyday users across the globe. She also helped lead the company through its acquisition by Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence startup, xAI. At the time, the deal valued X at $33 billion, lower than the $44 billion paid by Elon Musk for Twitter but notably higher than estimates from firms like Fidelity, which valued the social media platform at below $10 billion in late 2024.

Continue Reading

Trending