In a notable deviation from its typical media strategy, Tesla has issued a pointed rebuttal to a recent Washington Post article criticizing Autopilot. This response is rare for Tesla, which generally remains silent in the face of media critique. The company's statement begins emphatically: "While there are many articles that do not accurately convey the nature of our safety systems, the recent Washington Post article is particularly egregious in its misstatements and lack of relevant context."
According to Tesla, the misrepresentation starts in the story's second paragraph. The Post states the driver of a Tesla who caused a crash in Key Largo in 2019 said he was “driving on cruise,” but that wasn’t the end of his statement. He continued, “I expect to be the driver and be responsible for this.” The Post had the driver's statements to police, reports, and statements made in litigation supporting that claim.
The company points out that the Tesla driver in this 2019 incident settled with the crash victims, acknowledging individual responsibility. Tesla also highlights that Autopilot restricted the vehicle's speed to 45 mph, but the driver manually maintained a higher speed, which requires pressing the accelerator pedal. This was a critical factor in the crash.
Refuting Misleading Allegations
Tesla refutes several allegations in the Washington Post article, clarifying that the lawsuit regarding the Key Largo crash does not mention driver complacency or the so-called "Operational Design Domain." The company also notes that the driver involved in the collision admitted to his responsibility, countering claims of over-reliance on the Autopilot system.
The company emphasizes the role of driver responsibility, even when Autopilot is active. The company states that while Autopilot is a Level 2 driver-assist system, it requires the driver to always be in control and attentive. Tesla also mentions advanced safety measures like torque-based (the nag) and camera-based monitoring systems to ensure driver engagement.
Challenging Media Bias
Tesla's statement challenges what it perceives as biased and incompetent media reporting. The company argues for the necessity of balanced reporting that acknowledges both the potential and limitations of advanced driver-assistance systems.
Addressing the safety concerns, Tesla provides compelling statistics: In the 4th quarter of 2022, there was one crash for every 4.85 million miles driven with Autopilot engaged, compared to one crash every 1.40 million miles without Autopilot. This data, Tesla argues, demonstrates that Autopilot significantly enhances safety, contradicting the narrative presented in the Washington Post article.
Concluding its response, Tesla reaffirms its commitment to road safety and technological innovation. The company expresses its willingness to collaborate with global regulators to enhance safety on the road further.
This detailed response from Tesla underscores the importance of comprehensive and balanced media coverage, especially when discussing advanced technologies like Autopilot. However, does Tesla have the time, patience, or resources to combat all the adverse, biased reporting against it? It may have no choice but to correct misconceptions and highlight its dedication to improving automotive safety.
Subscribe
Subscribe to our newsletter to stay up to date on the latest Tesla news, upcoming features and software updates.
Back in 2023, Tesla put together a rather unique Supercharger site idea - one with a CyberCanopy. This canopy is intended to provide solar power for Supercharging, helping to reduce the impact on the local grid while also providing a futuristic and Cybertruck-themed location that would set it apart.
Unfortunately, the plans never moved beyond the filing stage. Instead, Tesla opened a standard-looking Supercharger at the same Canton, Massachusetts location. However, the site is still well-situated just off the highway and benefits from natural tree cover in the parking area.
However, Tesla is at it again with a concept for another CyberCanopy with RGB lighting. Thanks to MarkoRP for spotting this. No April Fool’s this time.
We want to build a few Superchargers cool enough to be worthy of the trip itself. - Max de Zegher
CyberCanopy 2
This second Supercharger with CyberCanopy is set for Roswell, New Mexico, at the Whataburger in town. Featuring just eight stalls, this will be one of Tesla’s smaller Supercharger sites, but for what it lacks in size, it makes up for it in uniqueness. The charging stalls are covered from the rain by a futuristic, Cybertruck-themed canopy, which will have solar panels installed on the top of it.
According to the plans, the CyberCanopy boasts 20.88kW of solar panels on its roof, providing shelter from the elements while also providing some power back to the grid.
RGB Lighting
At nighttime, the Supercharger will make a big statement. Tesla intends to light the long edges of the canopy, which will not only look amazing, but it’ll actually make finding the Supercharger easier in a large parking lot.
The lighting coming off the edge of the canopy reminds us a lot of the lightbar on the Cybertruck and now the new Model Y. It’s definitely the direction Tesla is moving for all their models, so expect all future models to have it, including the new Roadster and the next-gen model.
Tesla’s Max de Zegher also took to X after the plans for the new Supercharger were found and shared the image above. He stated that Tesla wants to build a few cool Superchargers that will be worth stopping at, even if they’re out of the way a little bit. So it seems like this isn’t just a concept, but an idea that Tesla wants to expand to several areas around the country or world.
We want to build a few Superchargers cool enough to be worthy of the trip itself. Wish we could have kept it under wraps for longer, but submittal was needed for Planning Approval. We can't hide anything from @MarcoRPi1! 🙂 pic.twitter.com/X2WaKDd408
This particular site doesn't have a Megapack or other form of energy storage, unlike the upcoming Harris Ranch Supercharger site in California. That means that Tesla won’t be storing the solar energy gained from this site, but instead will be either offsetting the immediate grid impact or serving energy back to the grid when the site isn’t actively charging.
Tesla will likely be incorporating V4 Superchargers, including both V4 posts and the new, more powerful V4 Cabinets, as the permit states that Tesla will be redesigning the site internally before beginning construction. For Cybertruck owners, 500kW charging may be around the corner.
We’re hoping Tesla continues to deploy these kinds of Supercharger sites around the world - they make a stylistic statement about Tesla’s futurism, like the Shell gas station that was upcycled into a Supercharger site earlier this year in Spain.
They also make a big impact for ownership because it is a far more comfortable charging experience when you stop at a site that’s shaded from the elements - and one that’s better for the environment with offset emissions.
It was a rainy April 1st when a news-searching author went on a delve into the depths of April Fools to find fact from falsehood. And while we found a lot of fantastic jokes, we also found some good ideas.
So, with a shoutout to MarcoRP on X, whose April Fool’s Joke gave us a good run for our money for a couple of minutes, we thought to ourselves - what would a Cybercab Charging Station / Cleaning Hub really look like?
Cybercab Wireless Charging Sites
Now, before continuing, we’d like to point out that the image up top is a joke from Marco - it isn’t an accurate or real site map submission from Tesla. However, it gave us the impetus to think critically about what is required for a Robotaxi fleet, based primarily on the Cybercab, to be able to service a city.
Requirements
Tesla will likely need to charge a small fleet of Cybercabs at a single time and in a single place. That means that the site needs to be large enough to cover a major metro area while also still being compact enough to not cost too much money to build out.
In addition, we need to factor in charge times. The Cybercab is likely to launch with a battery around 50 kWh, which will result in a range of approximately 300 miles. With that much range, the average Cybercab may not need to charge more than once or at all during daytime shifts, so instead, most of the vehicles will charge overnight.
MarcoRP
Math and Charge Times
The overnight charging means that most of these vehicles could be charged slowly. When we did some back-of-the-napkin math last year, we determined that Tesla’s wireless charger will likely peak around 17 kW (for comparison, Tesla’s Wall Connector at 32 amps charges at about 7 kW). If we scale Tesla’s wireless charger down slightly to 10 kW, accounting for some energy loss and the potential size of the site, that means a Cybercab will be able to charge in about 5 hours.
Tesla’s upcoming V4 Supercharger unit can currently handle 1.5MW per cabinet, but this slower-speed charging is A/C, not DC, which means there is a step-down loss of about 3-5%. Let’s make that a comfortable 10% for any other overages, but we can estimate around 1.35MW of power. That 1.3MW will easily handle charging up to 100 Cybercabs at once - all wirelessly, using Tesla’s unique beam-forming and beam-steering technology to keep efficiency high at every single stall.
Within about 5 hours, a whole fleet of 100 Cybercabs could be charged overnight when electricity rates are cheaper and still be out in time for the morning commute.
While this is all just hypothetical, it really does make sense that Tesla will be establishing these sites that won’t require much space or a ton of energy.
Tesla recently curtained off a large section of the parking garage at Giga Texas, as well as some of their chargers on the eastern end of the facility, leading us to believe they may just be testing this at scale internally.
There’s a lot to look forward to with Tesla’s V4 Supercharger deployment coming this year and with Robotaxi launching in just a couple of months.
