News
Tesla’s top investor questions ahead of the Q1 2025 earnings call
Unsupervised FSD, Cybercab, and future models are just a few of the leading topics for the upcoming earnings call.
The next Tesla earnings call is a week away, and many investors have already started voting on which questions they want answered during the meeting.
Shareholders can submit and vote on questions for the upcoming call using the Say Technologies platform and at the time of writing, the page already has a total of 2.59 million Tesla shares represented in the polls across a total of 6,390 participants. The Q1 2025 Tesla earnings call is set for next Tuesday, April 22 at 2:30 p.m. Pacific, and will be hosted live on X.
Currently, the top questions for the call include those about Tesla’s highly anticipated launch of Full Self-Driving (FSD) Unsupervised and the Cybercab, plans for more affordable models, the uncertain global economic climate, the Optimus robot, and more. Shareholders can continue submitting questions on the platform until Monday, April 21 at 1:00 p.m. Pacific.
Tesla reported delivering 336,681 vehicles and producing 362,215 in the first quarter of the year, and the company noted that it lost several weeks of production as it transitioned to building the new Model Y. The company also reported deploying 10.4 GWh of energy storage products, compared to just 4,053 MWh in the first quarter of last year.
Interestingly, Tesla shifted its wording of the earnings call in this year’s Q1 production and delivery report, instead referring to the upcoming meeting as a “Q1 Company Update.”
READ MORE ON Q1 2025: Global EV sales climbed 29% in March, powered by China and Europe
Top 15 questions for Tesla’s Q1 2025 earnings call, by shares represented
- When will FSD unsupervised be available for personal use on personally-owned cars? (2,000 votes, 1.2 million shares)
- Is Tesla still on track for releasing “more affordable models” this year? Or will you be focusing on simplified versions to enhance affordability, similar to the RWD Cybertruck? (2,000 votes, 890,700 shares)
- How is Tesla positioning itself to flexibly adapt to global economic risks in the form of tariffs, political biases, etc.? (1,400 votes, 640,600 shares)
- Did Tesla experience any meaningful changes in order inflow rate in Q1 relating to all of the rumors of “brand damage”? (728 votes, 562,000 shares)
- Does Tesla still have a battery supply constraint (noted on Q4 ER call) and how does this change w/tariffs? (606 votes, 491,400 shares)
- Robotaxi still on track for this year? (1,300 votes, 426,700 shares)
- Regarding the Tesla Optimus pilot line, could you confirm if it is currently operational? If so, what is the current production rate of Optimus bots per week? Additionally, how might the recent tariffs impact the scalability of this production line moving forward? (744 votes, 405,400 shares)
- Can you provide more details on the plans for HW3 upgrade path for FSD? (411 votes, 376,500 shares)
- What is the plan to achieve the Whitehouse stated goal of doubling deliveries in 2 years based on specific market segments and regional factory contributions? (398 votes, 364,900 shares)
- When do you expect Robotaxi to expand to all major US cities? (809 votes, 318,900 shares)
- What is the Tesla solution for megapack battery cell supply in the US relating to tariffs and when does it come on line in production volume? Did Tesla import sufficient supply of LFP until US LFP Is ready? (307 votes, 315,200 shares)
- Has Tesla received any formal interest or entered into discussions with other automakers about licensing FSD technology, and if so, can you share any progress or obstacles you’ve encountered in those conversations? (334 votes, 288,900 shares)
- How is the AI for Optimus progressing? (319 votes, 286,700 shares)
- When is Grok coming to Tesla vehicles? And will it be able to control anything in the car? (372 votes, 241,000 shares)
- When will Tesla Insurance be available in all 50 states. I’m from Idaho, and I’m surrounded by states where it is available, but it isn’t available in my state. (195 votes, 224,200 shares)
Tesla reveals its Q1 Supercharger voting winners, opens next round
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
