Connect with us

News

Volkswagen, a rocky $50B EV bet, and the bid to chase Tesla’s software prowess

The Volkswagen ID.3. (Credit: John Foulkes/Twitter)

Published

on

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. 

(Credit: Herbert Diess/LinkedIn)

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. 

Advertisement
(Credit: Volkswagen)

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

Advertisement

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

SpaceX Board has set a Mars bonus for Elon Musk

SpaceX has given Elon Musk the goal to put one million people on Mars.

Published

on

By

Rendering of a colonized Mars by way of SpaceX

SpaceX’s board approved a compensation plan for Elon Musk that ties his pay directly to colonizing Mars and building data centers in outer space. The details surfaced this week after Reuters reviewed SpaceX’s confidential registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, making it one of the first concrete looks inside the company’s financials ahead of a public offering.

The pay package will reportedly award Musk 200 million super-voting restricted shares if the company hits a market valuation milestone, with the most ambitious targets going further. To unlock the full award, SpaceX would need to reach a $7.5 trillion valuation and help establish a permanent human settlement on Mars with at least one million residents. Additional incentives are tied to developing space-based computing infrastructure capable of delivering at least 100 terawatts of processing power.

SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch

Long before SpaceX filed anything with the SEC, Elon Musk had already spent years framing Mars colonization as an insurance policy against human extinction. The philosophy traces back to at least 2001, when Musk first began researching Mars missions independently, before SpaceX even existed. By 2002 he had founded the company with Mars as the stated long-term goal.

In a 2017 presentation at the International Astronautical Congress, Musk outlined the specific vision that still underpins SpaceX’s architecture today. He described a self-sustaining city on Mars requiring roughly one million people to become viable, the same number now written into his compensation package.

SpaceX’s Starship, still in active development, was designed from the ground up to support the eventual colonization of Mars. Musk has stated publicly that getting the cost per ton to Mars below $100,000 is necessary to make mass migration economically feasible. Everything from Starship’s payload capacity to its full reusability targets flows from that single constraint. One can say that Musk’s latest compensation package has put a formal valuation on Mars for the first time.

SpaceX is targeting an IPO around June 28, Musk’s birthday, at a valuation of approximately $1.75 trillion. Between the Mars rover contract, the Golden Dome software group, Space Force satellite launches, and now a pay structure built around interplanetary colonization, SpaceX has become the single most consequential contractor in American space and defense. The IPO will put a public price tag on all of it for the first time.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s biggest rivals fights charging wait times with a modern approach

Published

on

Tesla V4 Supercharger installation ramping in Europe

Earlier this week, we wrote a story on how Tesla is launching a new Supercharging Queue system to mitigate problems between drivers when there is a wait to charge.

Rather than potentially having people end up in a physical conflict, Tesla’s approach is to determine who is next to charge based on geographic data.

Tesla launches solution to end Supercharger fights once and for all

But some companies, notably Tesla’s biggest rival in China, BYD, are taking a different approach, focusing on charging speeds rather than how they will manage delays.

BYD’s approach, especially with its tests of ultra-fast “Flash Charging” technology, is to eliminate the length of a charging session. At the heart of this strategy is BYD’s second-generation Blade Battery paired with 1,500-kW Flash Chargers.

Unveiled earlier this year, the system charges compatible vehicles from 10 percent to 70 percent state of charge in just five minutes and from 10 percent to 97 percent in nine minutes.

Real-world demonstrations on models like the Yangwang U7 and Denza Z9 GT have shown the tech delivering roughly 250 miles (400 kilometers) of range in just five minutes. This would essentially match or beat the time it takes to fill a gas tank.

Sometimes, gas pumps get congested, and there are lines. You rarely see conflicts at pumps because filling up a tank rarely takes more than five minutes.

Tesla’s fastest Supercharger build currently is the v4, which can deliver up to 325 kW for Cybertruck and 250 kW for other models, but there are “true” sites that are capable of up to 500 kW. This enables speeds of up to 1,000 miles per hour, or 1,400 miles for 350 kW-capable vehicles.

The breakthrough stems from BYD’s vertically integrated ecosystem: a new 1,000-volt architecture, 10C charging rates, and proprietary silicon-carbide chips that minimize internal resistance while protecting battery health.

The company plans to install 20,000 Flash Charging stations across China by the end of 2026, with thousands already operational and global expansion eyed for Europe and beyond later this year.

Early rollout targets popular models, including upgrades to high-volume sellers like the Seal and Sealion series, bringing five-minute charging to mainstream prices around 100,000 yuan (about $14,000).

This approach contrasts sharply with Tesla’s software solution. Tesla’s Virtual Queue uses geofencing and the app to assign turns at crowded sites, addressing driver disputes and idle time. It’s a clever fix for today’s network realities.

Yet, BYD’s philosophy is simpler: make charging so fast that waits barely exist. A five-minute stop becomes as convenient as a gas-station visit, reducing station dwell time, easing grid strain, and lowering range anxiety for long trips.

For consumers, the difference is potentially tangible. They’ll spend more time driving and less time parked. It is just another way Tesla and BYD are pushing one another to improve the overall experience of EV ownership.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla wins big as NHTSA drops three-year, 120k unit probe against Model Y

In all, 120,089 Model Ys were impacted, but in two cases, drivers reported the complete detachment of the steering wheel from the steering column while the vehicle was in motion. NHTSA’s initial review revealed that the vehicles had been delivered without the critical retaining bolt that secures the steering wheel to the splined steering column.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Asia | X

A probe into over 120,000 2023 Tesla Model Y units has been closed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The probe ends without the agency requiring any action from Tesla.

The probe, designated PE23-003, opened in March 2023 and stemmed from just two consumer complaints involving low-mileage Model Y SUVs.

In all, 120,089 Model Ys were impacted, but in two cases, drivers reported the complete detachment of the steering wheel from the steering column while the vehicle was in motion. NHTSA’s initial review revealed that the vehicles had been delivered without the critical retaining bolt that secures the steering wheel to the splined steering column.

Factory records showed each car had undergone an “end-of-line” repair at Tesla’s facility, during which the steering wheel was removed and reinstalled. The bolt was apparently omitted after the repair, leaving only a friction fit between the wheel and column to hold it in place temporarily.

According to NHTSA documents, this friction fit maintained the connection during initial low-mileage driving until forces during normal operation caused the wheel to detach. Both vehicles that were impacted were repaired under warranty with no injuries reported, and no additional incidents surfaced during the agency’s three-year review.

Tesla Model Y steering wheel detachments prompt NHTSA probe

After analyzing manufacturing processes, complaint data, and field reports, NHTSA concluded the issue was isolated to those two post-repair vehicles rather than indicative of a systemic defect in Tesla’s production or quality control.

The closure means the agency has determined no recall or further enforcement is warranted for this specific missing-bolt condition.

This outcome marks the second NHTSA investigation into Tesla closed without action this month, as a recent probe into the company’s “Actually Smart Summon” feature was also resolved in April.

Tesla Full Self-Driving feature probe closed by NHTSA

The two resolutions provide some relief for Tesla amid the continuous and somewhat unfair regulatory scrutiny of its vehicles, including open inquiries into driver assistance systems.

Importantly, the closed probe does not involve or affect Tesla’s separate May 2023 voluntary recall of certain 2022-2023 Model Y vehicles. That recall addressed a different issue—steering-wheel fasteners that were installed but not torqued to specification—prompted by a service technician’s observation of a loose wheel during unrelated repairs.

Tesla identified a small number of related warranty claims and proactively addressed the matter without NHTSA mandate.

The Model Y remains one of the world’s best-selling vehicles, and Tesla continues to refine its lineup, including the recent “Juniper” refresh. While federal oversight of the electric vehicle pioneer remains intense, this decision underscores that isolated manufacturing anomalies do not always translate into broader safety defects requiring recalls.

Continue Reading