The walls are closing on Tesla’s claim that millions of its vehicles with Hardware 3 (HW3) computers will be capable of unsupervised self-driving.
Tesla needs to come clean before the word “fraud” comes out.
Making a mistake is not a fraud. If Tesla really thought that it could deliver unsupervised self-driving to vehicles equipped with HW3 and, at one point, it figured out that it couldn’t, it’s not fraud even though it used that as a selling point for millions of vehicles for years.
However, the moment Tesla figures out that it can’t, it needs to stop selling its Full Self-Driving package to HW3 vehicle owners and come clean to owners about what their vehicle will and will not be able to do, like a robotaxi service.
Has the moment come?
Delivering self-driving on Tesla HW3/self-driving computer
In 2016, Elon Musk announced that all future Tesla vehicles would come equipped with the necessary hardware for self-driving capabilities, even specifying “level 5 self-driving,” which implies the ability to operate autonomously under any conditions. However, shortly after, Musk acknowledged that Tesla might require more onboard computing power than initially thought, leading to the introduction of Hardware 3 (HW3), which Tesla also called its “self-driving computer”.
Musk assured that HW3 would enable full self-driving (FSD) capabilities, promising retrofits for earlier models that had purchased the FSD package. When I bought my own Tesla Model 3 in 2018, it was equipped with the original computer, but since I had purchased the FSD package, Tesla upgraded my car with the new “self-driving computer” in 2019.
Following this, Tesla introduced Hardware 4 (HW4), a more advanced onboard computer system, but did not offer retrofits for older models with HW3, maintaining that HW3 was sufficient for achieving self-driving through software updates.
Musk said that it wouldn’t be “economically feasible” to retrofit HW3 vehicles with HW4, which not only includes a more powerful computer but also better cameras.
This has raised a significant red flag hinting at the limitations of HW3 in handling the latest software advancements towards unsupervised self-driving, a capability Tesla promised to HW3 owners since 2016.
The concern is especially significant within the context that Tesla still has a lot of work to do to deliver its unsupervised self-driving capabilities.
Tesla has always gone out of its way not to release any data regarding its FSD program. Therefore, we have to rely on crowdsourced data, which shows Tesla is currently at about 122 miles between critical disengagement:
According to most experts, Tesla needs a ~1,000x increase in miles between disengagement to deliver on its unsupervised self-driving promises. As you can see, this data shows that Tesla achieved a ~2x improvement over the last 3 years.
On top of this situation, CEO Elon Musk got people even more worried during the launch of the Robotaxi last week.
While discussing his claim that “all Tesla vehicles will be capable of self-driving,” someone in the crowd asked him about the Cybertruck, which Musk quickly answered with a “yes.”
However, when someone asked him about HW3 vehicles, instead of simply responding “yes”, Musk said “Let’s not get nuanced here” and then quickly asked for the next slide:
Now, still at the Robotaxi event last week, some have been pointing to this interaction with Tesla executives Franz von Holzhausen and Lars Moravy saying again that robotaxi-level self-driving is coming to “all cars” after being asked more specifically about HW3 as evidence that Tesla believes it’s still possible to deliver FSD unsupervised on HW3:
With all due respect to von Holzhausen and Moravy, they wouldn’t be the best people to ask. The former is in charge of design and the latter of vehicle engineering, which you would think the FSD program would fall under, but no.
Ashok Elluswamy leads the program at Tesla and reports directly to CEO Elon Musk.
That’s evidenced by some mistakes made even in this short interaction like Moravy saying that Tesla announced its self-driving effort in 2014 when it was in 2016 and him asking if a 2018 Model 3 has HW4, which has never been available on early Model 3 vehicles.
Speaking of the Robotaxi event, Musk said that the new Robotaxi is equipped with a new hardware suite, especially a new on board computer called AI5. He didn’t elaborate on the capacity of the new computer. The vehicle also has a bumper camera, which only the Cybertruck has and no other Tesla vehicle on the road today. The onboard compute power is one thing, but it’s also not the only potential bottleneck for Tesla with older hardware.
Another important piece of evidence pointing to Tesla not being able to deliver unsupervised self-driving on HW3 vehicles is the fact that it doesn’t have any compute redundancy anymore.
Electrek spoke with a well-known Tesla hacker called ‘green‘ who often reveals information about Tesla through his deep dives into the automaker’s software. He actually released the first HW3 images back in 2019.
Green reports that starting in late 2023, Tesla started to use both nodes for its FSD program on HW3 – running some new neural nets on the extra node. Originally, the idea was to have one for redundancy, which is necessary for higher levels of autonomy like levels 4 and 5, but arguably also level 3.
Now, green says that if one of the nodes fails, FSD doesn’t drive anymore. It can still produce FSD visualizations, but that’s about it. That alone basically kisses goodbye to robotaxi-level self-driving on HW3.
It’s also worth noting that shortly after green noticed this change happened, Tesla started to shift its priority from releasing new software on HW4 first rather than HW3.
Tesla is reducing its liability
Tesla has been trying to actively reduce its legal liability regarding HW3 by encouraging people who bought FSD to upgrade to newer vehicles.
For years Tesla owners have been asking Tesla to allow them to freely transfer their FSD package to a new vehicle. It makes sense. Tesla hasn’t delivered the product they have paid for. It’s the bare minimum to allow them to transfer it to a new car.
After years of refusing, Musk eventually agreed to FSD transfer last year, but he called it a “one-time amnesty” and said to take advantage of it.
That turned out not to be true. Tesla brought back the FSD transfer twice more since – with last quarter Musk saying “one more time”. And then, sure enough, Tesla brought it back for a fourth time this quarter.
This fake incentive to upgrade your older car with FSD to a newer one now because it’s the “last time” has a positive effect on Tesla’s liability regarding HW3.
When Tesla resales those used HW3 vehicles with FSD, they use their new language called “(Supervised) Full Self-Driving”, which opens the door for Tesla to say that they are only selling you self-driving that needs to be “supervised” by a driver.
But interestingly, for HW2 vehicle owners who never purchased FSD, Tesla is still selling them a $1,000 HW3 computer upgrade and $2,000 FSD software package ($2,000 if you have Enhanced Autopilot) with still the old language in the upgrade page:
That’s where Tesla would be adding liability as it would be “upgrading” a car to a 5-year-old computer that is already lagging behind on updates to its newer 2-year-old computer (HW4).
Electrek’s Take
Let’s be honest. Tech is rarely supported with software updates after 5-7 years. Tesla Hardware 3 is entering that zone. It is becoming obsolete and normally, it wouldn’t be a problem, but Tesla sold a Full Self-Driving capability package for up to $15,000 based on this hardware that it never delivered.
At the minimum, it will have to reimburse that, but owners can even argue that they bought the car because Elon Musk told them it would become self-driving over time and become an “appreciating asset.”
This could quickly become a very large liability for Tesla, and the way it handles it is also important.
Musk said that retrofits are not economically feasible from HW3 to HW4. It’s true that it would be quite expensive and also likely create an insurmountable amount of work for Tesla’s already overworked service teams. The HW4 computer doesn’t have the same power harness or camera harnesses as the HW3, and it doesn’t share a form factor that fits in the exact same spot.
Also, the cameras have been upgraded with HW4, which raises the question, “Is the computing power the only problem, or does the camera also need to improve?”
If it’s just the computing power, Tesla could potentially design a new computer that could be more easily retrofitted in HW3 cars, but even then, that’s something that needs to be disclosed.
As I said, if Tesla knows that it can’t deliver unsupervised self-driving on HW3, it needs to let owners know right now and stop selling the software package to HW3 owners without a clear plan to make things right. Otherwise, this quickly becomes fraudulent.
The fact that Elon and Tesla have been wrong so many times about self-driving is already not a great confidence builder for them delivering on HW4 vehicles or even on the new AI5 (Robotaxi), but if they are also actively misleading owners, then Tesla becomes untrustworthy.
I am seriously concerned that Tesla is going to rely on the “corporate puffery” defense to frame Elon’s promises as “mere puff”.
After I first brought up the potential of Tesla reaching the limits of HW3 earlier this year, many Elon superfans started to make claims that Tesla and Elon never promised robotaxi-level self-driving capabilities on HW3 cars, which is plain ridiculous.
Tesla could also blame regulators as this is the new language that you have to agree with when buying what is now called “Full Self-Driving (Supervised)”:
The currently enabled Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (Supervised) features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. Full autonomy will be dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As Tesla’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (Supervised) features evolve, your vehicle will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates.
On the very same day that Tesla presented its new Robotaxi, Former President Donald Trump, who Tesla CEO Elon Musk is financially backing to become the next president and who he says he is “all-in” on, said that he would “ban autonomous vehicles on American roads.”
This situation is quite a mess to say the least.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Stand With Crypto’s bus tour through five battleground states kicked off last week in Phoenix and Las Vegas.
Logan Dobson/Stand With Crypto Alliance
LAS VEGAS — In Nevada’s 4th Congressional District, a crypto PAC spent nearly $2 million on ads this cycle to support the reelection of Steven Horsford, a Democratic congressman who’s voted in favor of some major pro-crypto bills.
But watching the ads, you’d learn nothing about that agenda.
“He’s leading on jobs, bringing good paying union jobs to Nevada and rebuilding our infrastructure,” one 30-second commercial says. “He capped insulin prices at $35 a month” and “worked multiple jobs to support his hard-working single mother and siblings.”
The ad wraps up with the disclosure, “Fairshake is responsible for the content of this ad.”
Fairshake was the largest crypto-aligned super PAC in the 2024 election cycle, spending piles of cash to support crypto allies and vote out antagonists across the country. The group brought in $170 million, accounting for a huge chunk of the amount raised by crypto-related PACs and other groups, which totaled more than $245 million, according to Federal Election Commission data.
Crypto has accounted for nearly half of all corporate money flowing into the election, according to a report from nonprofit watchdog Public Citizen. No other sector is close. That includes oil companies and banks, which have historically been big political contributors. Crypto even outpaced Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, who spent tens of millions of dollars to try to get Republican nominee former President Donald Trump back in the White House in his contest against Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.
A big part of the crypto industry’s strategy when it came to distributing cash was to identify key races and then flood the zone.
Horsford received an A grade based on his public comments and his voting history while in office. His campaign received money from Fairshake as well as individual donations from Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen, venture capitalist and longtime crypto investor Reid Hoffman, and billionaire twins Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss.
Nevada is home to two of the thirteen “critical elections” singled out by Stand with Crypto, a designation the group defines as races that are “critical to the future of crypto in America.” In addition to Horsford’s election, the other Nevada race is the Senate contest between Democratic incumbent Jackie Rosen and Republican challenger Sam Brown. Both candidates received an A grade.
According to data shared by Stand with Crypto, 385,000 Nevadans are crypto owners, and more than 16,000 people in the state have signed up to be advocates for the group, which made a stop in Las Vegas in September as part of a multi-state tour.
The other races deemed critical were for Senate in Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Massachusetts, Michigan, Wisconsin and Maryland, and for specific House contests in Colorado, Iowa and Oregon.
To reach potential voters, Fairshake isn’t talking a lot about crypto. Nor are its affiliate PACs, which have names like Defend American Jobs and Protect Progress. They’ve collectively spent more than $135 million this cycle, mostly on ads.
“Not mentioning crypto assets explicitly is probably a savvy move to avoid alienating voters who prefer traditional currencies and might be put off by connections to crypto,” said David Nickerson, an associate professor of political science at Temple University who worked in the analytics department for President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012.
The biggest single target of crypto money this cycle was Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, the Democratic chair of the Senate Banking Committee. Brown backed Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in holding hearings on whether digital tokens were tied to terrorism.
In December, Brown told journalists that he wasn’t concerned about the crypto industry’s rumblings against him.
“Bring ’em on,” Politico quoted Brown as saying to a crowd of reporters.
Some $40 million of crypto money has been directed at defeating Brown, and one PAC has paid for five ads designed to boost awareness of Republican rival Bernie Moreno, a blockchain entrepreneur. The race is crucial in determining which party will control the Senate.
Protect Progress, a PAC affiliated with Fairshake, has given more than $10 million apiece to Senate candidates in Arizona and Michigan. In Arizona, the group favors Democrat Ruben Gallego, who is vying for the seat being vacated by Kyrsten Sinema. In Michigan, the preferred choice is Elissa Slotkin, who is currently a Democratic House member.
Democratic Rep. Katie Porter of California lost in the primary for Senate after Fairshake spent over $10 million in ads against her. Defend American Jobs spent more than $3 million to support Republican Jim Justice in West Virginia, who has been declared the winner, replacing exiting Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin.
On today’s episode of Quick Charge, we find out what a one-ton Tesla Cybertruck looks like, check out some clever, off-road Kia overland EVs, witness the electric rebirth of Plymouth with a plugin street rod, and more!
We’ve also got a bunch of new, $300/mo. EV lease deals and talk up the rapid rise of the Ultium-based Honda Prologue, which is rocketing up the sales charts!
Today’s episode features our new title sponsor, BLUETTI – a leading provider of portable power stations, solar generators, and energy storage systems. For a limited time, save up to 50% during BLUETTI’s exclusive Black Friday pre-sale, now through November 11. Learn more by clicking here here.
New episodes of Quick Charge are recorded, usually, Monday through Thursday (and sometimes Sunday). We’ll be posting bonus audio content from time to time as well, so be sure to follow and subscribe so you don’t miss a minute of Electrek’s high-voltage daily news!
Got news? Let us know! Drop us a line at tips@electrek.co. You can also rate us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or recommend us in Overcast to help more people discover the show!
Tesla appears to be doubling down on its new “Oasis” Supercharger station concept, which consists of larger stations powered by solar and a microgrid battery system.
Although, this new one is a bit less ambitious.
Last month, Tesla announced its “project Oasis” (pictured above), which should become one of Tesla’s largest Supercharger stations with several pull-through stalls for trucks and trailers, but the real differentiating factor is a large solar array and battery system that enables the charging station to operate off-grid mostly.
CEO Elon Musk has been saying that the goal of the Supercharger network is to be powered by solar and batteries and mostly off-grid since 2016, but Tesla has yet to make this common.
The announcement of the Project Oasis gave us some hope that it might finally happen, and now it looks like Tesla is planning a mini Oasis.
Marco RP, who tracks Supercharger projects, reported on the new construction plans submitted for the Coalinga, California station:
The project is about 50 miles north of Project Oasis – also on Interstate 5 between Los Angeles and the Bay Area.
We call it a “mini Oasis” not because it has fewer charging stations than Oasis; it actually has the same number of planned stalls, 168 stalls, but because it doesn’t have as much solar and batteries to enable off-grid use.
Oasis has 11 MW of planned solar power and 39 MWh of energy storage.
This new project in Coalinga has less than 1 MW of solar and 15.5 MWh of energy storage. In the case of Oasis, the grid complements Tesla’s microgrid, and in this new project, it’s Tesla’s microgrid that complements the grid connection.
But Tesla could eventually expand its solar array and battery storage system at the new station.
This new station also includes restrooms, which Tesla has sometimes deployed at bigger stations.
Supercharging with solar is great, but the best solar to charge your car is the one you own. If you want to make sure you’re finding a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage. EnergySage is a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar – whether you’re a homeowner or renter. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, including some who install Tesla products like Powerwalls. They ensure you get high-quality solutions and save 20 to 30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.