News
Tesla’s no-side-mirror approach becomes feasible as NHTSA ponders camera-based systems
When Tesla unveiled the next-generation Roadster and the Cybertruck to the world, the two vehicles immediately shocked the automotive industry. The Roadster stunned because of its insane specs, and the Cybertruck shocked because of its unorthodox design that is unlike any other pickup truck on the market. However, the two vehicles also share something very unique: they both lack side mirrors.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, titled “Rear Visibility,” requires all vehicles to “be equipped with rearview mirrors to provide drivers with a view of objects that are to their side or their side and rear.” However, the NHTSA recently hinted that “light vehicles and heavy trucks” may eventually be equipped with camera systems instead of traditional side mirrors.
An edition of the United States government’s Federal Register from late 2019 shows the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration sought more information on the possibility of vehicles utilizing a “Camera Monitor System,” or CMS. The removal of mirrors instead of camera systems would eliminate the need for traditional side mirrors and possibly rearview mirrors, too.
Tesla’s absence of side mirrors started back in 2013 with the unveiling of the Model X. After wrestling with the idea of a side-mirrorless SUV to increase aerodynamic performance, CEO Elon Musk stated that manufacturers were required to install side mirrors on vehicles. A side mirror-less design actually benefits electric cars like Teslas, since side mirrors increase drag, reducing range. This was done by Audi with the e-tron, with the vehicle being offered with a side mirror-less trim that is slightly more efficient.
The Cybertruck’s side mirrors were absent during its unveiling event in November 2019. Instead of regular mirrors, Tesla had equipped the vehicle with Autopilot cameras that are in the truck’s front fender. Many enthusiasts of the electric carmaker speculated that this was a design that wouldn’t enter production as regulations still existed that required side mirrors.
To determine the effectiveness of camera systems instead of traditional mirrors, the NHTSA conducted its research and testing. The organization also examined testing performed by other parties. The CMS noted that during a trial period from 2006 to 2011, NHTSA research showed that several safety concerns arose from the use of cameras instead of mirrors. These stemmed from glares when sunlight touched the cameras. However, the German Federal Highway Research Institute published a separate study that showed the CMS meets “specific quality criteria” and can provide “sufficient” rear visibility for drivers.
So the question is: What has changed in the nine years since the study concluded? For one, cameras have gotten significantly better. What was once a quality piece of photography equipment can be found on the back of an iPhone. High-resolution pictures and videos are not uncommon, and it is not rare for even extremely affordable cameras to provide better quality images than what was available in 2011.
To determine an accurate and fair assessment of the CMS, a new study should be performed using the 2020 technology. The use of rearview backup cameras is a standard feature on most vehicles today. While such systems are used mostly when backing into a parking spot, it is still relevant, and it shows that the widely adopted technology can be used in an effective and safe manner. This feature could be expanded on, and mirrors could be removed from vehicles if the proper research was performed and quality cameras were placed on a vehicle’s exterior.
Tesla has hinted at mirrorless driving in the past, and the door is open now more than ever. It seems this system could be integrated into performance vehicles like the Roadster, or pickups like the Cybertruck in the future. The designs of these two all-electric vehicles have hinted towards a future that does not include traditional side mirrors, which could change the way other carmakers design vehicles as a whole. Tesla’s minimalistic interior and large centrally-located dash screen has been adopted by many other carmakers, showing the electric car company influences other automakers in the industry. A side-mirror-less theme may be the next big trend that Tesla starts.
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
