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.
-
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
