News
Tesla points to better range and efficiency with compact power steering patent
Tesla’s electric cars are already among the most efficient vehicles on the market, and this is shown by the immense gap between the range and efficiency of the company’s vehicles compared to their competitors from veteran automakers. Part of the reason behind this is Tesla’s continued improvements in its vehicles, which are rolled out and adopted as soon as they are refined and ready.
One of these improvements appears to have been teased in a recently-published patent application. Simply titled “Steering System for a Vehicle,” the document describes a smart, novel way of designing a power steering system that is more compact and less power-hungry. In the patent’s background, Tesla remarked that conventional power steering systems, which are usually hydraulically operated, are mostly bulky and space-consuming.
This is due to power steering systems utilizing a number of components that include cylinders, pumps, hoses, and control valves, to name a few. Hydraulic power steering systems also have complex designs, which add cost to a vehicle. Lastly, conventional power steering systems generally require a large amount of power to function. With this in mind, Tesla argues that there is a need for a new power steering system that is simpler, smaller, and more power-efficient.
Tesla’s novel power steering design involves fewer parts than the conventional system used in most vehicles. The electric car maker describes the design in its patent in the description below.
“The steering system includes a drive motor having a motor shaft. The steering system also includes a first gear reduction stage for receiving a first rotational input from the motor shaft and providing a first rotational output. A first gear meshes with a second gear of the first gear reduction stage via a helical gear mesh. The steering system further includes a second gear reduction stage for receiving the first rotational output from the first gear reduction stage and providing a second rotational output.
“The second gear reduction stage may include at least one of a strain wave gearing, a worm drive, and a planetary gearing. In case the second reduction stage is a strain wave gearing, the second gear reduction stage includes an ovular coupler, a flexible coupling, an outer spline, and a plurality of bearing members disposed between the ovular coupler and the flexible coupling. The steering system includes an output shaft for receiving the second rotational output from the second gear reduction stage.”
Tesla notes that its smaller, power-saving steering system, apart from being more power-efficient and compact, also includes several failsafes, which could, in turn, increase a vehicle’s safety. The company’s patent mentions “sacrificial or failsafe components,” which are designed to safeguard a vehicle’s sensitive components during the event of a breakdown. Such a design will likely contribute to Tesla’s electric cars and their already-stellar safety ratings.
“In some embodiments, steering system 102 has been shown to provide a 10% improvement over a hydrolytic steering system. Additionally, steering system 102 is a compact unit that consumes lesser space as compared to other steering systems that are commercially available in markets. Further, steering system 102 does not require large amount of additional power for operation. FIG. 6 illustrates a failure mode of steering system 102 in which one or more bearing members 244 of steering system 102 fail. Bearing members 244 of steering system 102 are designed to withstand high loads so that they do not fail during normal vehicle operation. However, bearing members 244 may be designed to withstand only a predetermined threshold of load. As a result, bearing members 244 fail when they are loaded beyond the predetermined threshold.
“For example, a bearing member 258 may eventually fail along a shear plane 260 when loaded beyond the predetermined threshold. Alternatively, bearing members 244 may undergo a bending failure, or any other type of failure. In such a situation, one bearing member 244 is a sacrificial or failsafe components, thereby safeguarding other components of vehicle, for example, drive motor 204 or an engine, against breakdown or seizing. More particularly, the one bearing members 244 fails, ovular coupler 238 locks and rotates with flexible coupling 240. Thus, steering system 102 can still be operated to allow vehicle to be driven for a certain distance and parked at an appropriate location. Bearing member 244 fails according to a sheer mechanism or another failure mechanism. Further, failed bearing member 258 can be replaced and vehicle can be reinstated without incurring any additional losses.”
It remains to be seen if Tesla’s compact power steering system will be adopted for the company’s upcoming vehicles. That being said, such a system is a perfect match for EVs such as the Tesla Semi, the Tesla Pickup Truck, and the Model S and X Plaid Powertrain variants. These are all large vehicles, and their success in the market will likely be determined in no small part by their range and efficiency. In this light, every single innovation that could optimize these vehicles’ efficiency will most definitely be appreciated. After all, the less power is consumed by subsystems such as a vehicle’s power steering unit, the more power there is to turn an electric car’s wheels.
The full text of Tesla’s compact, efficient power steering system could be accessed here.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
