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 plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has awarded the 2025-2026 Tesla Cybertruck crew cab pickup its highest honor: Top Safety Pick+. This marks the Cybertruck as the only full-size pickup to achieve this distinction in recent evaluations.
The award applies specifically to vehicles built after April 2025, following structural upgrades including front underbody reinforcements and footwell modifications.
These changes enabled strong performance in updated crash tests. The Cybertruck earned “Good” ratings in the small overlap front (driver and passenger sides), updated moderate overlap front, and updated side tests—core requirements for the Top Safety Pick+ designation.
It also secured acceptable or good headlights across trims and a “Good” rating for its standard front crash prevention system in pedestrian scenarios, along with acceptable or good performance in vehicle-to-vehicle testing.
The Cybertruck avoided every single pedestrian collision, including:
- Daytime child crossing
- Nightitime adult crossing
- Night parallel adult
In IIHS pedestrian front crash prevention tests, @Cybertruck avoided every single collision – daytime, nighttime & different angles
It was also the only pickup to earn Top Safety Pick+ (highest award) in 2026https://t.co/BNPqT9TbsW pic.twitter.com/M6nwDisBFK
— Tesla (@Tesla) June 24, 2026
In the large pickup category, competitors such as the Toyota Tundra received only a standard Top Safety Pick, while the Ford F-150 and Ram 1500 did not qualify for either award. This positions the Cybertruck as a standout in occupant protection and crash avoidance among its peers.
Credit: IIHS
Ironically, the same vehicle celebrated for superior U.S. safety performance remains banned from public roads in the United Kingdom and much of Europe. Regulators there cite the Cybertruck’s sharp external edges and highly rigid stainless-steel construction as failing pedestrian-protection standards. European and UK rules require rounded surfaces on protruding parts to minimize injury risk in collisions with vulnerable road users.
Critics also point to the truck’s substantial weight and unyielding body structure, which some argue could transfer more force to other vehicles or pedestrians rather than absorbing it.
Tesla’s engineering philosophy underpins the Cybertruck’s strong IIHS results. The vehicle features a distinctive stainless-steel exoskeleton made from ultra-hard 30X cold-rolled stainless steel. This provides exceptional structural rigidity and a robust safety cage that resists deformation in side impacts and rollovers.
Engineers designed integrated load paths to channel crash forces away from the occupant compartment while allowing controlled energy absorption in key zones. Post-April 2025 refinements to the front underbody further optimized performance in overlap crashes.
Complementing the passive structure is Tesla’s advanced active safety suite, including the standard Collision Avoidance Assist system with automatic emergency braking. This contributed directly to the vehicle’s strong front crash prevention scores. The skateboard platform and low center of gravity also enhance stability and handling, reducing the likelihood of certain crashes.
The IIHS recognition highlights how Tesla’s combination of high-strength materials, structural innovation, and software-driven safety systems can deliver top-tier protection in rigorous testing. While global regulatory differences on design and pedestrian interaction continue to limit the Cybertruck’s availability outside North America, its U.S. safety credentials set a new benchmark for full-size pickups.
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
Tesla and driver sued by family of woman killed in Texas crash: what we know
