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.
Tesla recently released Full Self-Driving (FSD) v14.2.1, its latest version, but the tinkering with Speed Profiles has perhaps gone too far.
We try to keep it as real as possible with Full Self-Driving operation, and we are well aware that with the new versions, some things get better, but others get worse. It is all part of the process with FSD, and refinements are usually available within a week or so.
However, the latest v14.2.1 update has brought out some major complaints with Speed Profiles, at least on my end. It seems the adjustments have gone a tad too far, and there is a sizeable gap between Profiles that are next to one another.
Tesla FSD v14.2.1 first impressions:
✅ Smooth, stress-free highway operation
✅ Speed Profiles are refined — Hurry seems to be limited to 10 MPH over on highways. Switching from Mad Max to Hurry results in an abrupt braking pattern. Nothing of concern but do feel as if Speed…— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 29, 2025
The gap is so large that changing between them presents a bit of an unwelcome and drastic reduction in speed, which is perhaps a tad too fast for my liking. Additionally, Speed Profiles seem to have a set Speed Limit offset, which makes it less functional in live traffic situations.
Before I go any further, I’d like to remind everyone reading this that what I am about to write is purely my opinion; it is not right or wrong, or how everyone might feel. I am well aware that driving behaviors are widely subjective; what is acceptable to one might be unacceptable to another.
Speed Profiles are ‘Set’ to a Speed
From what I’ve experienced on v14.2.1, Tesla has chosen to go with somewhat of a preset max speed for each Speed Profile. With ‘Hurry,’ it appears to be 10 MPH over the speed limit, and it will not go even a single MPH faster than that. In a 55 MPH zone, it will only travel 65 MPH. Meanwhile, ‘Standard’ seems to be fixed at between 4-5 MPH over.
This is sort of a tough thing to have fixed, in my opinion. The speed at which the car travels should not be fixed; it should be more dependent on how traffic around it is traveling.
-->It almost seems as if the Speed Profile chosen should be more of a Behavior Profile. Standard should perform passes only to traffic that is slower than the traffic. If traffic is traveling at 75 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, the car should travel at 75 MPH. It should pass traffic that travels slower than this.
Hurry should be more willing to overtake cars, travel more than 10 MPH over the limit, and act as if someone is in a hurry to get somewhere, hence the name. Setting strict limits on how fast it will travel seems to be a real damper on its capabilities. It did much better in previous versions.
Some Speed Profiles are Too Distant from Others
This is specifically about Hurry and Mad Max, which are neighbors in the Speed Profiles menu. Hurry will only go 10 MPH over the limit, but Mad Max will travel similarly to traffic around it. I’ve seen some people say Mad Max is too slow, but I have not had that opinion when using it.
In a 55 MPH zone during Black Friday and Small Business Saturday, it is not unusual for traffic around me to travel in the low to mid-80s. Mad Max was very suitable for some traffic situations yesterday, especially as cars were traveling very fast. However, sometimes it required me to “gear down” into Hurry, especially as, at times, it would try to pass slower traffic in the right lane, a move I’m not super fond of.
We had some readers also mention this to us:
-->The abrupt speed reduction when switching to a slower speed profile is definitely an issue that should be improved upon.
— David Klem (@daklem) November 29, 2025
After switching from Mad Max to Hurry, there is a very abrupt drop in speed. It is not violent by any means, but it does shift your body forward, and it seems as if it is a tad drastic and could be refined further.
-->News
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
Tesla is preparing to introduce the Model 3 Standard to the Netherlands this December, as per information obtained by AutoWeek. The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
While Tesla has not formally confirmed the vehicle’s arrival, pricing reportedly comes from a reliable source, the publication noted.
Model 3 Standard lands in NL
The U.S. version of the Model 3 Standard provides a clear preview of what Dutch buyers can expect, such as a no-frills configuration that maintains the recognizable Model 3 look without stripping the car down to a bare interior. The panoramic glass roof is still there, the exterior design is unchanged, and Tesla’s central touchscreen-driven cabin layout stays intact.
Cost reductions come from targeted equipment cuts. The American variant uses fewer speakers, lacks ventilated front seats and heated rear seats, and swaps premium materials for cloth and textile-heavy surfaces. Performance is modest compared with the Premium models, with a 0–100 km/h sprint of about six seconds and an estimated WLTP range near 550 kilometers.
Despite the smaller battery and simpler suspension, the Standard maintains the long-distance capability drivers have come to expect in a Tesla.
-->Pricing strategy aligns with Dutch EV demand and taxation shifts
At €36,990, the Model 3 Standard fits neatly into Tesla’s ongoing lineup reshuffle. The current Model 3 RWD has crept toward €42,000, creating space for a more competitive entry-level option, and positioning the new Model 3 Standard comfortably below the €39,990 Model Y Standard.
The timing aligns with rising Dutch demand for affordable EVs as subsidies like SEPP fade and tax advantages for electric cars continue to wind down, EVUpdate noted. Buyers seeking a no-frills EV with solid range are then likely to see the new trim as a compelling alternative.
With the U.S. variant long established and the Model Y Standard already available in the Netherlands, the appearance of an entry-level Model 3 in the Dutch configurator seems like a logical next step.
News
Tesla Model Y is still China’s best-selling premium EV through October
The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.
The Tesla Model Y led China’s top-selling pure electric vehicles in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment through October 2025, as per Yiche data compiled from China Passenger Car Association (CPCA) figures.
The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.
The Model Y is still unrivaled
The Model Y’s dominance shines in Yiche’s October report, topping the chart for vehicles priced between 200,000 and 300,000 RMB. With 312,331 units retailed from January through October, the all-electric crossover was China’s best-selling EV in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment.
The Xiaomi SU7 is a strong challenger at No. 2 with 234,521 units, followed by the Tesla Model 3, which achieved 146,379 retail sales through October. The Model Y’s potentially biggest rival, the Xiaomi YU7, is currently at No. 4 with 80,855 retail units sold.
Efficiency kings
The Model 3 and Model Y recently claimed the top two spots in Autohome’s latest real-world energy-consumption test, outperforming a broad field of Chinese-market EVs under identical 120 km/h cruising conditions with 375 kg payload and fixed 24 °C cabin temperature. The Model 3 achieved 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y recorded 21.8 kWh/100 km, reaffirming Tesla’s efficiency lead.
The results drew immediate attention from Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun, who publicly recognized Tesla’s advantage while pledging continued refinement for his brand’s lineup.
-->“The Xiaomi SU7’s energy consumption performance is also very good; you can take a closer look. The fact that its test results are weaker than Tesla’s is partly due to objective reasons: the Xiaomi SU7 is a C-segment car, larger and with higher specifications, making it heavier and naturally increasing energy consumption. Of course, we will continue to learn from Tesla and further optimize its energy consumption performance!” Lei Jun wrote in a post on Weibo.
Tesla tinkering with Speed Profiles on FSD v14.2.1 has gone too far
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
