Tesla has filed a new patent for “Parallel Processing System Runtime State Reload,” comprising of a system of three or more processors working in conjunction to effectively eliminate the possibility of hardware failure during the use of Autopilot or Full Self-Driving. The patent outlines a robust system of parallel processors that can operate in the event that one of them fails or experiences a runtime state error. “Should one of the parallel processors fail, at least one other processor would be available to continue performing autonomous driving functions,” the patent shows.
The patent was filed and published on August 26th and comes just a week after the company’s Artificial Intelligence Day event that was held last Thursday. Outlining a system of at least three processors operating in parallel, it is monitored by circuitry and can locate and identify if one of the three parallel-operating processors is having a runtime state error. The circuitry will then identify a second processor to switch to in the event of a runtime error, access the runtime state of the second processor, and load the runtime state of the second, operational processor into the first processor, which is experiencing a runtime error.
(Credit: Tesla)
Tesla describes the patent in detail:
“A system on a Chip (SoC) includes a plurality of processing systems arranged on a single integrated circuit. Each of these separate processing systems typically performs a corresponding set of processing functions. The separate processing systems typically interconnect via one or more communication bus structures that include an N-bit wide data bus (N, an integer greater than one). Some SoCs are deployed within systems that require high availability, e.g., financial processing systems, autonomous driving systems, medical processing systems, and air traffic control systems, among others. These parallel processing systems typically operate upon the same input data and include substantially identical processing components, e.g., pipeline structure, so that each of the parallel processing systems, when correctly operating, produces substantially the same output. Thus, should one of the parallel processors fail, at least one other processor would be available to continue performing autonomous driving functions.”
Technically speaking, the autonomous vehicle needs only one processor to function as described in an accurate fashion. However, these processors can be overloaded with data when loading into the Neural Network and could experience short-term and non-permanent operational errors. When this occurs, the system would then switch to one of the other processors for normal operation, with at least two backup processors in this patent, as it repeatedly mentions a series of three.
Tesla details its self-driving Supercomputer that will bring in the Dojo era
The second processor would then activate and load the runtime state into the first processor to make the primary processor chip operational once again:
“Thus, in order to overcome the above-described shortcomings, among other shortcomings, a parallel processing system of an embodiment of the present disclosure includes at least three processors operating in parallel, state monitoring circuitry, and state reload circuitry. The state monitoring circuitry couples to the at least three parallel processors and is configured to monitor runtime states of the at least three parallel processors and identify a first processor of the at least three parallel processors having at least one runtime state error. The state reload circuitry couples to the at least three parallel processors and is configured to select a second processor of the at least three parallel processors for state reload, access a runtime state of the second processor, and load the runtime state of the second processor into the first processor.”
The purpose of this patent is to continue system availability, even when the primary processor is experiencing functionality issues due to overuse. The two additional processors essentially act as “backup” and can determine whether autonomous driving systems are meant to be enabled if the first processor experiences an error. “With one particular example of this aspect, the parallel processing system supports autonomous driving and the respective sub-systems of the at least three parallel processors are safety sub-systems that determine whether autonomous driving is to be enabled.”
FIG. 13 is a timing diagram illustrating clocks of the circuits of FIGS. 8 and 10 according to one or more other described embodiments. As shown, the runtime state (data1) of first processor/first sub-system is determined to have at least one error. In response to this determination by the state monitoring/state reload circuitry, the signal st_reload1 is asserted to initiate the loading of runtime state (data2) from second processor/second sub-system into the first processor/first sub-system. With the embodiment of FIG. 13, a first clock (clk1) is used for the first processor/first sub-system and a second clock (clk1) is used for the second processor/second sub-system. There exists a positive skew between the first clock (clk1) and the second clock (clk2), resulting in a late cycle of the loading of the runtime state (data2) of the second processor/second sub-system into the first processor/sub-system, potentially resulting in errors in the runtime state reload process. (Credit: U.S. Patent Office)
It also appears that this patent aligns with Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s previous description of the Dojo self-driving Supercomputer, which was detailed at AI Day. To increase the accuracy and encourage the parallel operation of the processors, the system will utilize a clock input to calibrate the two processors, increasing the accuracy of the system.
Tesla has focused on accurate FSD operation and has revised its strategy on several occasions. After moving to a camera-only approach earlier this year for the Model 3 and Model Y, the company is experiencing more accurate FSD operation through the harmonized processing of its eight exterior cameras. The operation of internal processors, which are responsible for compiling, compressing, and sending data to the Neural Network, can fail temporarily, so the presence of backup processors to continue comprehending self-driving data is a positive idea.
The full patent is available below:
Tesla Patent Parallel Processing System Runtime State Reload by Joey Klender on Scribd
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
