Volkswagen has a long and storied tradition of building world-class vehicles. While they have managed to make a legacy off of offering affordable, stylish, and effectively-performing models for 84 years, their next big challenge comes in the tall task of creating and engineering electric vehicles that are functional. While this sounds like an easy task for the legendary German car company, it has encountered several problems over the course of its MEB platform’s development. The narrative of the problem solving has changed several times in the past year.
The software issues for Volkswagen have been evident since the initial development of the ID. family of vehicles. Now, Volkswagen has been relatively transparent regarding the issues with its software in the past. Recently, there has been a trend, however, in how the company’s software project is being portrayed because for a while, Volkswagen was pawning off its software as “fixed.” It is obvious this isn’t the case.
Yesterday, a report came out that indicated CEO Herbert Diess was interested in keeping the software fixes in-house and that he wasn’t interested in having some other company, whether it be another automaker or a tech company, fix the issues they were encountering. It doesn’t seem like a great idea to push the software problems onto another company, especially if Volkswagen attempts to set the precedent that it is a leader in electric powertrains and EV manufacturing. The only real way to establish any sort of narrative that proves your worthiness in this sector is to solve things yourself, it seems. If Tesla had given its software issues early on to Apple or Microsoft, for example, to fix, you can bet they wouldn’t be looked at as some automotive marvel. They’d just be another company out there trying to establish a presence in a quickly growing field of EV competitors. The vertical integration that Tesla has been able to display, through not only its hardware but also through its development of software. The complete expertise in software especially is advantageous in the event of Software Updates being rolled out in an Over-the-Air fashion as Tesla does. When even the smallest bug or issue is revealed in the coding, engineers can quickly solve the problem and roll out a new update in a matter of minutes.
Diess is right, it is absolutely imperative that Volkswagen solves these issues in-house. However, there needs to be more consistency in the story that is being portrayed, in my opinion. For the past year, we’ve heard that Volkswagen has admitted Tesla has a 10-year advantage, then the ID.3 software issues were worse than initially reported, then that software was so bad it had moved onto other vehicles.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
Then, all of a sudden, Volkswagen suddenly made Markus Duesmann, the ICE-supportive CEO of Audi, the person responsible for solving the software issues. Finally, the company came out in December and claimed that it had overcome all of the issues it had with the ID. family’s software.
It all seems like a plan to save face, and it should be. Volkswagen has held this reputation for years for making quality gas cars. Apart from the Dieselgate scandal, which inevitably tarnished the reputation of the company, Volkswagen has done a reasonably good job of creating cars that are dependable. My first car was a Volkswagen with 198,000 miles on it. It was dependable, and I was sad to see it go when I finally had to say goodbye.
However, it is quite alarming to see that Volkswagen is still years away from solving these issues. For a year, there have been so many different narratives regarding the company’s software, and it seems like a cause that perhaps just needs more time. There is no doubt in the world that they can figure it out eventually, but is it worth keeping the faith for five or ten more years? Is it worth waiting until 2025, 2030, or even longer to have effective electric vehicle software just to say “We developed it ourselves!”
It seems like the big issue coming to fruition now is the fact that Volkswagen has set another narrative forward that it will be ready to deliver software updates this Summer. All I have to say is, the electric vehicle community has a great memory, they are very unforgiving, and they don’t want to hear excuses. If Volkswagen cannot figure out a way to develop effective software for its vehicles by the Summer, roll out OTA updates, and provide proof that its vehicles are worth a damn, it may be time to consider other options.
Diess has a great relationship with Elon Musk, and it may not be too late to consider seeking help from Tesla in this sense. I don’t think it would be the worst thing in the world to have a guy who is your friend and the CEO of the most successful EV company in the world help your company solve some issues. Volkswagen would gain plenty of credibility with Tesla’s software infrastructure if it chooses to go that way. I hope they can somehow solve the issues in-house, but I am more prone to believe that if things don’t come around this Summer like VW has promised with the OTA updates, it will be a bad look once again, and VW could remain the laughing stock of the EV industry.
“If we want to retain our independence, we have to be able to develop the software in the car ourselves. This is the only way for us to guarantee long-term success,” Diess said. Is that a hill VW is willing to die on?
On behalf of the entire Teslarati team, we’re working hard behind the scenes on bringing you more personalized members benefits, and can’t thank you enough for your continued support!
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla revealed plans to develop its own maps internally to fix Navigation issues and give owners more control over their routing.
On the company’s Q3 2026 Earnings Call, a question was asked about FSD Navigation issues, particularly speed limit recognition, parking, and routing. These are issues that surface from version to version and seem to be seriously challenging for Tesla’s AI team to resolve.
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said in response to the question:
“You’re totally right that we shouldn’t be depending on external people’s maps. So we are building our own maps, but not like the same way as OneMoreMap. We are building an entirely new architecture with essentially AI-based mapping and navigation.”
He continued:
“It’s going to be super awesome. It’s going to be integrated with voice. You can talk to it, ask for different routes. It’s going to learn your personalized preferences, plus the fleet preferences. The collective intelligence of all the cars is going to flow into making the maps and navigation super cool.”
Elluswamy said this issue should be confronted, and the mapping should be available for people by the time the v15 release starts deploying to customers.
“And over the next several months,” he added, “it’s just going to take over all of the navigation functions, parking, destination handling. And it will know you better than you know yourself in some regard for the driving task, and then handle it fully.”
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Navigation is perhaps the most notable complaint with FSD, and although it has gotten better, it is still flawed. Much of the time, FSD will take people on routes that are not preferred by the driver, but Tesla tried to combat this with a routing feature in the Summer 2026 Update.
Tesla currently relies on Google for map data, but it is sort of counterintuitive to believe the company would rely on a third party for this. These improvements will be welcome, as routing and navigation have been such a pain point for so many owners for so long.
Quotes via Motley Fool
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
