News
Tesla’s damage monitoring patent hints at cars driving to repair centers autonomously
Despite being cutting-edge machines that could be described as “the most fun thing” that anyone can possibly buy, Tesla’s electric cars are still subjected to a great deal of stress during operation. Electric cars have fewer moving parts than their fossil fuel-powered counterparts, but nevertheless, the components that move, such as their electric motors and suspension, are still subject to different types of stress.
One of Tesla’s recently published patent applications, titled “System and Method for Monitoring Stress Cycles,” discusses this particular issue. As noted by the electric car maker, machines may heat up or cool down, or speed up and slow down at different times during operation, resulting in thermal and mechanical stress. Over time, such stress could result in decreased performance, which is referred to as damage.
Damages are costly and hazardous. Stress-related damage results in equipment downtime, performance degradation, safety hazards, and maintenance expenses, to name a few. In the case of Tesla’s electric cars, these damages can cause breakdowns, or worse, accidents. To prevent this, strategies are usually employed to detect and address stress-related damage, such as repairing damaged parts or replacing components at set intervals. Tesla notes in its patent application that both practices are time-consuming and costly.
“Even regular inspections may not provide adequate protection against stress-related damage. For example, the inspections may not provide sufficient insight into the characteristics of the stresses imposed on a given component to accurately assess its condition. Moreover, the inspections themselves may be burdensome and costly,” the company wrote.
With this in mind, there is a need for a system that can detect and address stress-related damage in a more efficient and cost-effective manner.
Tesla’s recently published patent application outlines a system involving a processor configured to monitor stress imposed on subsystems while determining the cumulative damage to a vehicle’s systems. Tesla notes that a stress monitoring system would work optimally if the processor is configured to monitor stress cycles in real-time, allowing the system to avoid using too much memory in the process. Tesla describes the concept in the following discussion.
“To address these challenges, processor 140 may be configured to monitor stress cycles in real-time. For example, processor 140 may identify and record stress cycles concurrently while receiving the series of stress values from stress sensors 131-139. In some embodiments, for each received stress value in the series of stress values, processor 140 may perform one or more operations to determine whether a stress cycle has been completed. When processor 140 detects the end of a stress cycle, processor 140 may record the stress cycle immediately, such that the cumulative damage model can be continuously updated to reflect the latest recorded stress cycle.
“In some examples, real-time monitoring of stress cycles may be performed without storing the series of stress values in memory 150. For example, rather than storing a complete series of stress values for later data processing, a comparatively small number of stress values may be stored temporarily to track in-progress stress cycles, but other stress values may be discarded as soon as they are received. Accordingly, the amount of memory used during real-time monitoring of stress cycles may be reduced in comparison to alternative approaches.”
Adopting such a system gives notable benefits to electric car owners. By using a real-time monitoring model, for one, drivers would be notified by their vehicles once a component needs maintenance. In some instances, the car could immediately send stress and damage data to the company. Taking the concept even further, Tesla notes that a vehicle equipped with autonomous driving features would be able to drive itself to a service center when it needs repairs.
“In some embodiments, an operator of vehicle 110 may be notified when damage to subsystems 121-129 is detected. For example, the operator may be alerted when the level of damage reaches a predetermined threshold, such that the operator may take an appropriate remedial action (e.g., bringing vehicle 110 in for maintenance). In one illustrative example, when the level of damage is represented as a damage fraction, the operator may be alerted when the fractional damage to a given subsystem reaches 70%. In some examples, the alert may be communicated to the operator via a dashboard 160 (and/or another suitable control/monitoring interface) of vehicle 110.
“In some examples, processor 140 may be coupled to one or more external entities over a network 170. Accordingly, processor 140 may be configured to send stress cycle and/or damage data over network 170 to various recipients. For example, processor 140 may send stress cycle and/or damage data to a service center, such that service center may contact the operator to schedule a maintenance appointment when a damaged subsystem is identified. Additionally or alternately, when vehicle 1 10 is an autonomous vehicle, vehicle 110 may be instructed to drive autonomously to service center for repairs.”
Tesla is arguably one of the most proactive companies in the auto industry. For example, automotive teardown expert Sandy Munro has already dubbed the company’s batteries as the best in the market today, but Tesla’s Automotive President Jerome Guillen has stated that the company is still constantly making its batteries even better. In an interview with CNBC, Guillen pointed out that the design of Tesla’s battery cells is “not frozen.” With this in mind, it is not very surprising to see Tesla exploring proactive new ways to figure out more effective ways to monitor damages on its electric vehicles.
Tesla’s constant initiative to improve is teased somewhat in the patent applications from the company that has been published over the past few months. Among these include an automatic tire inflation system that teases off-road capabilities for the company’s vehicles, a system that addresses panel gaps during vehicle assembly, a way to create colored solar roof tiles, and even a system that uses electric cars as a way to improve vehicle positioning.
The full text of Tesla’s recently published patent application could be accessed here.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss
A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s legal team has filed a motion demanding that Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick disqualify herself from an ongoing high-stakes Tesla shareholder lawsuit.
The filing, submitted March 25, cites an apparent LinkedIn “support” reaction from McCormick’s account to a post celebrating a $2 billion jury verdict against Musk in a separate California securities-fraud case.
The move escalates long-simmering tensions between Musk, Tesla, and the Delaware judiciary, where McCormick previously presided over the landmark challenge to Musk’s record $56 billion 2018 compensation package.
Delaware Supreme Court reinstates Elon Musk’s 2018 Tesla CEO pay package
The LinkedIn post was written by Harry Plotkin, a Southern California jury consultant who assisted the plaintiffs who sued Musk over 2022 tweets about his Twitter acquisition. Plotkin praised the trial team for “standing up for the little guy against the richest man in the world.”
The New York Post initially reported the story.
A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.
This appears to be unequivocal proof she denied the pay package because of her own personal beliefs and not the law.
Corruption. https://t.co/8dvgcfYuvh
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 25, 2026
McCormick swiftly denied intentional endorsement. In a letter to attorneys, she stated she was unaware of the interaction until LinkedIn notified her. She wrote:
“I either did not click the ‘support’ icon at all, or I did so accidentally. I do not believe that I did it accidentally.”
The chancellor maintains the reaction was inadvertent, but critics, including Musk allies, call the explanation implausible given the platform’s deliberate interface.
McCormick’s central role in the Tesla pay-package litigation underscores the stakes. In Tornetta v. Musk, in January 2024, she ruled the 2018 performance-based stock-option grant, potentially worth $56 billion at the time and now valued far higher, was invalid.
The package consisted of 12 tranches of options, each vesting only after Tesla achieved ambitious market-cap and operational milestones. McCormick found Musk exercised “transaction-specific control” over Tesla as a controlling stockholder, the board lacked sufficient independence, and proxy disclosures to shareholders were materially deficient.
Applying the entire-fairness standard, she concluded defendants failed to prove the deal was fair in process or price and ordered full rescission, an “unfathomable” remedy she described as necessary to deter fiduciary breaches.
After the ruling, Tesla shareholders ratified the package a second time in June 2024. McCormick rejected that ratification in December 2024, holding that post-trial votes could not cure defects.
Tesla appealed. On December 19 of last year, the Delaware Supreme Court unanimously reversed the rescission remedy while largely leaving McCormick’s liability findings intact. The high court deemed total unwinding inequitable and impractical, restoring the package but awarding the plaintiff only nominal $1 damages plus reduced attorneys’ fees. Musk ultimately received the full award.
The current recusal motion arises in yet another Tesla derivative suit before McCormick. Legal observers say granting it could signal heightened scrutiny of judicial social-media activity; denial might reinforce perceptions of an insular Delaware bench.
Broader fallout includes accelerated corporate migration out of Delaware, Musk himself moved Tesla’s incorporation to Texas after the first ruling, and renewed debate over whether the state’s specialized courts remain the gold standard for corporate governance disputes.
A decision is expected soon; whichever way it lands, the episode highlights the fragile balance between judicial independence and public confidence in high-profile litigation.
News
Tesla Cybercab spotted next to Model Y shows size comparison
The Model Y is Tesla’s most-popular vehicle and has been atop the world’s best-selling rankings for the last three years. The Cybercab, while yet to be released, could potentially surpass the Model Y due to its planned accessible price, potential for passive income for owners, and focus on autonomy.
The Tesla Cybercab and Tesla Model Y are perhaps two of the company’s most-discussed vehicles, and although they are geared toward different things, a recent image of the two shows a side-by-side size comparison and how they stack up dimensionally.
The Model Y is Tesla’s most-popular vehicle and has been atop the world’s best-selling rankings for the last three years. The Cybercab, while yet to be released, could potentially surpass the Model Y due to its planned accessible price, potential for passive income for owners, and focus on autonomy.
Geared as a ride-sharing vehicle, it only has two seats. However, the car will be responsible for hauling two people around to various destinations completely autonomously. How they differ in terms of size is striking.
In a new aerial image shared by drone operator and Gigafactory Texas observer Joe Tegtmeyer, the two vehicles were seen side by side, offering perhaps the first clear look at how they differ in size.
Tesla Model Y vs. Tesla Cybercab:
✅ Overall Length:⁰Model Y: 188.7 inches (4,794 mm)⁰Cybercab: ~175 inches (≈4,445 mm)⁰→ Cybercab is about 13–14 inches shorter (roughly the length of a large suitcase).
✅ Overall Width (excluding mirrors):⁰Model Y: 75.6 inches (1,920 mm)… https://t.co/PsVwzhw1pe pic.twitter.com/58JQ5ssQIO
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 25, 2026
Dimensionally, the differences are striking. The Model Y stretches roughly 188 inches long, 75.6 inches wide, excluding its mirrors, and stands 64 inches tall on a 113.8-inch wheelbase. The Cybercab measures approximately 175 inches in length, about a foot shorter, and just 63 inches wide.
That narrower stance gives the Cybercab a dramatically more compact silhouette, making it easier to maneuver in tight urban environments and park in standard spaces that would feel cramped for the Model Y. Height is also lower on the Cybercab, contributing to its sleek, coupe-like profile versus the Model Y’s taller crossover shape.
Visually, the contrast is unmistakable. The Model Y presents as a family-friendly SUV with conventional doors, a prominent hood, and a spacious glass roof.
The Cybercab eliminates the steering wheel and pedals entirely, creating a clean, futuristic cabin that feels more lounge than cockpit.
Its doors open in a distinctive, wide-swinging motion, and the body features smoother, more aerodynamic lines optimized for autonomy. Parked beside a Model Y, the Cybercab appears almost toy-like in width and length, yet its low-slung stance and minimalist design emphasize agility over bulk.
🚨 We caught up with the Tesla Cybercab today in The Bay Area: pic.twitter.com/9awXiK26ue
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 24, 2026
Cargo capacity tells another part of the story. The Model Y offers generous real-world utility: 4.1 cubic feet in the front trunk and 30.2 cubic feet behind the rear seats, expanding to 72 cubic feet with the second row folded flat.
It comfortably swallows groceries, luggage, or sports equipment for five passengers. The Cybercab, designed for two riders, trades that volume for targeted efficiency.
It features a rear hatch with enough space for two carry-on suitcases and personal items, plenty for the typical robotaxi trip, while maintaining impressive legroom and headroom for its occupants.
In short, the Model Y prioritizes versatility and family hauling with its larger footprint and abundant storage. The Cybercab sacrifices size for simplicity, cost, and urban nimbleness.
At roughly 12 inches shorter and 12 inches narrower, it embodies Tesla’s vision for scalable, affordable autonomy: smaller on the outside, smarter inside, and ready to redefine how we move through cities.
The Cybercab and Model Y both will contribute to Tesla’s fully autonomous future. However, the size comparison gives a good look into how the vehicles are the same, and how they differ, and what riders should anticipate as the Cybercab enters production in the coming weeks.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk says Tesla is developing a new vehicle: ‘Way cooler than a minivan’
It sounds as if Tesla could be considering a new vehicle to fit the mold of what a larger family would need, and as fans have been demanding it for several years and the company is phasing out the Model X, its only family-geared vehicle, it sounds as if it could be the perfect time.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk said the company is developing a new vehicle, and it will be “way cooler than a minivan.”
It sounds as if Tesla could be considering a new vehicle to fit the mold of what a larger family would need, and as fans have been demanding it for several years and the company is phasing out the Model X, its only family-geared vehicle, it sounds as if it could be the perfect time.
There are a handful of things Musk could be talking about, and as many Tesla owners have wanted a vehicle along the lines of a minivan for hauling around their family, speculation has persisted about what the company would do in terms of developing something for that exact use case.
There were several options, and some of them seemed to be already available. Musk posted on X yesterday that the Cybertruck has three sets of isofix attachments and could fit three child seats or three adults, and it seemed to be a way to deflect plans for a new, larger vehicle as a Model Y L appeared to be present at Giga Texas.
There is also the Robovan, the large people mover that Tesla unveiled at the “We, Robot” back in 2024.
Something way cooler than a minivan is coming
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 25, 2026
However, it seems Tesla could be developing something like a CyberSUV, something that is going to be large enough to haul around a car full of kids, but could be developed with the company’s aesthetic of the company’s most recent releases: this would likely include a light bar and a more sleek, futuristic look.
We’ve mocked up some potential looks for Tesla’s speculative vehicle in the past:
Tesla has teased the potential of a CyberSUV in the past, showing off clay models that it developed back in September in a teaser video called “Sustainable Abundance.”
Fans and owners have been calling for this development for a very long time, and it seems like Tesla might be ready to finally answer the call on a large SUV. With the segment being dominated by combustion engine vehicles, Tesla could truly disrupt the large SUVs that have been mainstays.
The Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon would feel some additional pressure, and it would be possible for Tesla to infiltrate some of those sales and pull consumers to electric powertrains.
As the Model S and Model X sunset process is truly hitting full swing, it might be time to consider Tesla’s next option in terms of vehicle development.
Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss
Tesla Cybercab spotted next to Model Y shows size comparison
Elon Musk says Tesla is developing a new vehicle: ‘Way cooler than a minivan’
Elon Musk’s Boring Co. Tunnel Vision Challenge ends with a surprise for Louisiana, Maryland and Dallas
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
