News
Volkswagen, a rocky $50B EV bet, and the bid to chase Tesla’s software prowess
Among the old guard of the automotive industry, very few could hold a candle to Volkswagen, which has initiated a $50 billion bet on electric vehicles. The plan, it seemed, was aimed at ensuring that the veteran automaker could catch up to Tesla, a dedicated EV maker that has made a name for itself by releasing vehicles that receive over-the-air updates on a regular basis.
Yet as the first result of Volkswagen’s dedicated EV efforts, the ID.3, rolled off the assembly line, it became clear that releasing software-driven electric cars was not as simple as building the next iteration of the Golf. When the ID.3 was released, the vehicle was incomplete. It could drive, turn corners, and basically do anything that regular cars are expected to do. Software-wise, however, it was nowhere near done. Features that were promised were absent, and promised capabilities such as over-the-air updates were unavailable.
Even the ID.3’s heads-up display, a feature that is not present in rivals like the Model 3, didn’t function. Early users of the vehicle also reported hundreds of software bugs. By June last year, Volkswagen decided to delay the ID.3’s launch and sell the first batch of the cars without full software. The vehicles are expected to receive an update that would provide the ID.3 with its full feature set, but the initiative will require a service visit around February 2021.
As noted in a report from The Wall Street Journal, Volkswagen’s issues with the ID.3 were the result of the veteran automaker not being proficient in software. For years, industry analysts and leaders alike have suggested and peddled the “Tesla Killer” narrative, suggesting that once the big players of the auto industry get serious about electric vehicles, Elon Musk’s EV startup would be completely overrun. As it turned out, building electric cars was not as simple. Just because a company can produce good gas and diesel-powered cars does not mean that they can produce good EVs.
Karsten Michels, a senior engineer for Continental AG, one of the firms which Volkswagen tapped to develop the ID.3’s software, noted that the gravity of the task surrounding the development of custom vehicle software was underestimated. “Maybe we underestimated how much work is involved and how little we could actually rely on existing legacy software,” Michels said.
Peter Rawlinson, CEO of Lucid Motors, expressed his thoughts on the situation. “(Ever since Tesla launched its first car in 2008) there was this feeling that the really serious players are going to come. Now, the Germans have finally come, and they’re not as good as Tesla,” he remarked.
Volkswagen, for its part, seems to be taking the lessons it learned during the ID.3 rollout and is applying it for the release of the ID.4, a crossover SUV that could rival the Tesla Model Y. Herbert Diess, the Chairman of the Board of Management of Volkswagen Group and an executive who has struck a friendship of sorts with Tesla CEO Elon Musk, initiated efforts to overhaul the company’s software strategies. If successful, the ID.4, which will be produced in Europe, China, and the United States, would deliver on the promises set forth by the ID.3.
Ultimately, Volkswagen has learned a notable yet painful lesson during the ramp of the ID.3, the most notable of which is that software is something that legacy automakers still need to work on. Granted, software has been running in gas-powered cars for years, with average vehicles including dozens of parts with chips that are designed to perform specific tasks. EVs, however, require a different type of software, one that is more akin to those used by smartphones today. With electric cars, in-vehicle software becomes the heart of the vehicle, with updates becoming the equivalent of service visits in a gas-powered car. In-vehicle software today is never complete as well, as they must always be open to improvements.
Danny Shapiro, senior director of automotive at Nvidia, related his thoughts on the complexity of in-vehicle software. “The key here is taking this distributed system in the car, dozens if not hundreds of applications, and centralizing everything. This is very complex, especially with a car where the safety level is critical. You can’t just flip a switch and be a software company,” he noted.
Don’t hesitate to contact us for news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up
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
