2024 Tesla Cybertruck
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
Vehicles › Tesla › Cybertruck › 2024
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
These records cover every 2024 Tesla Cybertruck. To see whether one car still needs a recall repair, decode its VIN or check it with NHTSA.
11 recalls name the 2024 Tesla Cybertruck. Newest first.
Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) is recalling certain 2024-2026 Cybertruck vehicles equipped with 18-inch steel wheels. The brake rotor stud holes may crack and allow the stud to separate from the wheel hub.
Wheel stud separation can cause a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of a crash.
Tesla Service will replace the front and rear brake rotors, hubs, and lug nuts, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed June 20, 2026. Owners may contact Tesla customer service at 1-877-798-3752. Tesla's number for this recall is SB-26-33-003.
Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) is recalling certain 2024 Cybertruck vehicles equipped with a service-installed off-road light bar accessory. An incorrect surface primer may have been used to attach the lightbar to the windshield, causing the light bar to loosen and detach.
A detached light bar may fall, creating a road hazard for other vehicles and increasing the risk of a crash.
Tesla Service will inspect the light bar and install an additional mechanical attachment or replace the light bar using tape to adhere the light bar to the windshield as well as an additional mechanical attachment as necessary, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed April 9, 2026. Owners may contact Tesla customer service at 1-877-798-3752. Tesla's number for this recall is SB-25-90-001.
Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) is recalling certain 2024-2026 Cybertruck vehicles operating software prior to 2025.38.3. The vehicle controller software may cause the front parking lights to be too bright and exceed the maximum light output, adversely affecting the vision of other drivers. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor…
Parking lights that are too bright can reduce visibility of oncoming drivers, increasing the risk of a crash.
Tesla released an over-the-air (OTA) software update, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed December 12, 2025. Owners may contact Tesla customer service at 1-877-798-3752. Tesla's number for this recall is SB-25-00-008.
Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) is recalling certain 2024-2025 Cybertruck vehicles. The light bar can delaminate and detach from the vehicle.
A detached light bar can become a road hazard, increasing the risk of a crash.
Tesla service will replace the cant rail assembly, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed September 19, 2025. Owners may contact Tesla customer service at 1-877-798-3752. Tesla's number for this recall is SB-25-10-001.
Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) is recalling certain 2024 Cybertruck, 2017-2025 Model 3, and 2020-2025 Model Y vehicles. The tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) warning light may not remain illuminated between drive cycles, failing to warn the driver of low tire pressure. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety…
Driving with improperly inflated tires increases the risk of a crash.
Tesla released an over-the-air (OTA) software update, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed February 15, 2025. Owners may contact Tesla customer service at 1-877-798-3752. Tesla's number for this recall is SB-24-00-018.
Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) is recalling certain 2024 Cybertruck vehicles. A fault in the drive inverter may cause a loss of drive power to the wheels.
A loss of drive power can increase the risk of a crash.
Tesla service will replace the drive inverter, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed January 4, 2025. Owners may contact Tesla customer service at 1-877-798-3752. Tesla's number for this recall is SB-24-40-009.
Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) is recalling certain 2024 Cybertruck vehicles. The rearview camera image may be delayed after shifting into reverse. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) number 111, "Rear Visibility."
A delayed rearview image reduces the driver's view of what is behind the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.
Tesla released an over-the-air (OTA) software update, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed November 25, 2024. Owners may contact Tesla customer service at 1-877-798-3752. Tesla's number for this recall is SB-24-00-016.
Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) is recalling certain 2024 Cybertruck vehicles. Excessive electrical current can cause the front windshield wiper motor controller to fail.
Windshield wiper failure can reduce visibility, increasing the risk of a crash.
Tesla service will replace the wiper motor, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed October 1, 2024. Owners may contact Tesla customer service at 1-877-798-3752. Tesla's number for this recall is SB-24-17-006.
Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) is recalling certain 2024 Cybertruck vehicles. The trunk bed trim sail applique could have been improperly adhered and can loosen.
A loose applique can detach from the vehicle, creating a road hazard for following motorists and increasing the risk of a crash.
Tesla service will apply adhesion promoter and pressure sensitive tape or replace missing applique as necessary, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed August 18, 2024. Owners may contact Tesla customer service at 1-877-798-3752. Tesla's number for this recall is SB-24-12-006.
Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) is recalling certain 2024 Cybertruck vehicles. The accelerator pedal pad may dislodge and cause the pedal to become trapped by the interior trim.
A trapped accelerator pedal can cause the vehicle to accelerate unintentionally, increasing the risk of a crash.
Tesla service will replace or repair the accelerator pedal assembly, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed June 18, 2024. Owners may contact Tesla customer service at 1-877-798-3752. Tesla's number for this recall is SB-24-33-003.
Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) is recalling certain 2012-2023 Model S, 2016-2024 Model X, 2017-2023 Model 3, 2019-2024 Model Y, and 2024 Cybertruck vehicles. An incorrect font size is displayed on the instrument panel for the Brake, Park, and Antilock Brake System (ABS) warning lights. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor…
Warning lights with a smaller font size can make critical safety information on the instrument panel difficult to read, increasing the risk of a crash.
Tesla began releasing an over-the-air (OTA) software update, free of charge. Owners may contact Tesla customer service at 1-877-798-3752. Tesla's number for this recall is SB-24-00-003.
purchased a pre-owned 2024 Tesla Cybertruck directly from Tesla and took delivery on October 1st, 2026. Before delivery, I noticed the tailgate would not latch properly. A Tesla employee forced it closed, but the truck was delivered with the problem unresolved. After delivery, the tailgate unexpectedly opened multiple times while I was driving, including on the highway. I had to pull over to close it. This endangered me and other motorists. I requested service on October 2nd, 2026, and brought the truck to Tesla on October 14th. Tesla subsequently repaired the tailgate, but the problem was apparent before delivery. The rear camera was scratched or damaged at delivery and later replaced by Tesla. I have also experienced interruptions to Tesla’s self-driving or driver-assistance features when camera functions were unavailable, raising concerns about camera-dependent safety systems. The truck also shakes and makes unusual noises above about 70 miles per hour. The cause has not been identified, and the vibration remains unresolved. I do not feel safe driving it at highway speeds until it’s inspected. Shortly after delivery, I found numerous cockroaches and ants, particularly around the bed and tailgate. My daughter has a documented cockroach allergy, which makes exposure a serious concern for my family. Tesla service described the infestation as a hazard and said service could not proceed until professional cleaning was completed. I no longer feel this vehicle is safe. I have service records, photos, and messages documenting my reports. I ask NHTSA to review the potential safety defects, especially the tailgate opening while driving, the camera-related driver assistance interruptions, and the unresolved highway vibration.
All tires have upper side wall and tread cracks and tears. This is causing the tread to fall off in pieces and chunks of tire tread with a size of 1 inch diameter or more are going is missing and the tire wire mesh underneath the tread is exposed. All tires have similar issues and several tread areas have signs of tread peeling and about to fall off. Tire issue was reported to Tesla at around 6,000 miles when a tire rotation was refused from local tire shop. I took vehicle in for service and Tesla did nothing about it. I took truck back again at around 7,000 miles and the issue again was ignored and they told me to deal with manufacturer. I called manufacturer and they only offered a partial credit but I am responsible for full tax, disposal and labor. The tires currently have about 7,500 miles and my truck in only 15 months old. Looked online for researched and there are many other cybertruck owners experiencing the same exact issue with tire tread separation. Internet sources state the problem is due to Dry Rot which causes tire tread separation, cracking and separation of internal foam sound insulation. Several owners have experienced tire blowouts and most also are unaware of tire issue and only become aware when in process of tire rotation which is recommended at about 6,250 miles
The PCS2 (Power Conversion System) is an integrated power module that handles AC home charging, DC-DC conversion for the 48V low-voltage systems, and PowerShare (V2L/V2H). • The Defect: Early units (mostly pre-2026 and Foundation Series models) suffer from thermal fatigue in the AC charging MOSFETs. • Symptoms: AC charging speeds drop from 48 amps to 24 amps, error codes like PCS2_a136_cycloAMosfetHealthCheckFailed appear, and AC/home charging eventually fails completely.
Today, I nearly ran someone over, and felt the need to send this feedback, as I never saw a person in my A-pillar blindspot. I was driving manually, making a left-hand turn, and never saw the man pictured below. He walked perfectly as to be obscured by my A-Pillar the entire time. I caught a flash of him sprinting out of the way in my driver’s side window as I nearly ran him over. (I am working on a road-capture mobile application that happened to be running on my phone in the center of my windshield at the time, resulting in this image. This mount was not obscuring my vision, nor that of FSD. FSD was inactive, I was driving manually.) Obviously I accept fault here, but I can’t help but feel that Tesla has an opportunity to make the Cybertruck safer here, likely through software. I have FSD, I believe the cameras saw him fine, but I did not see him for even a second. There has to be something Tesla can implement here that would alert me of his presence, stop me, apply the brakes, something. Something that didn’t activate today.
The contact owns a 2024 Tesla Cybertruck. The contact stated that while driving 25 MPH, the steering wheel became unresponsive, and the vehicle crash into eight vehicles parked along the side of the road. The contact attempted to turn the steering wheel away from the vehicles but was unable to regain control of the vehicle because the steering wheel was firm. Following the crash, the vehicle was towed to a dealer and then to a body shop. The contact instructed the body shop not to perform any repairs because until the vehicle was thoroughly diagnosed. However, the body shop was unable to perform a diagnostic test or retrieve the EDR information. The manufacturer was notified of the failure but refused to assist with the request to investigate why the steer-by-wire system failed. The vehicle was inspected by the body shop but not repaired. The failure mileage was 1,000.
While driving on a highway with Full Self-Driving engaged, I approached an exit and applied steering input to take control. I expected the system to disengage and the Cybertruck to follow my steering input. The vehicle did not respond in the manner I expected and left the paved roadway, entering a grass field. To my knowledge, it did not strike another vehicle, guardrail, tree, or structure. The airbags nevertheless deployed, and a collision event was indicated. I cannot determine from my observations what triggered the restraint system or whether contact with the ground or another condition played a role. After the vehicle came to rest, it lost power to the extent that it would not operate normally and I could not access parts of it by the usual means. Tesla personnel attempted to supply external power but could not restore normal operation. They ultimately had to force access to the trunk to retrieve belongings. The disabled vehicle was towed to Tesla’s Mechanicsburg Service Center and then to Sun Motors Collision Center. I notified Tesla and requested an explanation specific to this incident. Tesla has provided me with vehicle data through its privacy process. Unfortunately, Tesla stated most of the data was unavailable without explanation, such as video recordings and event data. In correspondence through September 17, Tesla referred to general driver responsibility and collision-related warranty coverage, but I have not received a technical explanation that resolves the steering behavior, the airbag deployment, or the power loss. I have followed up with Tesla multiple times. Their final response is "We don't comment on causes." They refuse to provide any other information or support the warranty. I do not know whether a vehicle system malfunction caused or contributed to the roadway departure or whether the later events were consequences of the departure.
The contact owns a 2024 Tesla Cybertruck. The contact stated that while driving 20 MPH with the autopilot feature engaged the vehicle failed to stop at a stop sign. The contact manually intervened and stopped the vehicle. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 11,818.
I am submitting a formal complaint regarding my recent experience with Tesla service, involving repeated failed repair attempts, inaccurate representations that the vehicle was ready for pickup, and unprofessional conduct by the service manager, Kris. I initially brought my vehicle in for service due to a critical error. After being notified that the vehicle was ready for pickup, I arrived and discovered a fluid leak underneath the vehicle. The vehicle had to be taken back in for further inspection, resulting in a wasted trip. I was later notified again that the vehicle was ready. I returned, and at that time the vehicle presented a new alert (“Trailer functionality may be unavailable”), which had never appeared prior to service. Due to this, I left the vehicle again for additional work. Following this, I had a phone conversation with the service manager regarding the ongoing issues. During that call, I explicitly asked that the call not be ended while I was addressing the situation. Despite that, the call was ended. This conduct is unacceptable, particularly given the repeated service failures and the time and inconvenience this situation has already caused. After that, I received another email directly from the service manager confirming that the vehicle was ready for pickup. I returned for a fourth time based on that representation. Upon arrival, I was told that I was “misunderstanding” and that when the vehicle is marked as ready for pickup, it does not necessarily mean that the issue has been resolved. This is completely unacceptable and contradicts any reasonable expectation of what “ready for pickup” represents—especially when that representation is being made directly by management. As a result of this, I ultimately left the service center with a vehicle that still had active issues and unresolved alerts present. Being placed in a position where I had to take possession of a vehicle that was not fully repaired is unacceptable and raises serious concerns
Component AffectedComponent Name: Electrical System / Engine Cooling / Climate ControlSpecific Part: Front grille/louver assembly and HVAC condenserComplaint The front grille and louver area of the Tesla Cybertruck features an inadequate design that fails to protect critical cooling components from ordinary road conditions. The wide openings allow predictable road debris to easily enter the front end, causing direct impact damage and structural failure to the HVAC condenser. Tesla corporate communications acknowledge this vulnerability occurs but classify the resulting damage strictly as an "outside influence" rather than a systemic design defect, thereby refusing warranty coverage. This structural failure occurred on my vehicle despite recently undergoing an extensive $14,691.92 front-end repair that addressed the HVAC system. The lack of protective screening or mesh in the factory grille exposes essential thermal management systems to immediate damage during standard highway driving, representing a widespread product defect.Safety Impact Statement. Failure of the HVAC condenser due to unprotected debris intrusion poses a direct safety risk. The condenser is critical to the vehicle's thermal management system. A sudden loss of cooling capability can cause rapid passenger cabin overheating, unexpected window fogging that obscures driver visibility, or thermal management failures in the high-voltage battery system, potentially leading to a sudden loss of propulsion while driving.
The left sail applique was nearly disconnected from the vehicle, so I removed it the rest of the way manually before it could fly off while driving at speed. The right one is still a little loose, but doesn't seem to be in danger of flying off. The model number stamped into the piece that came off indicates that it was replaced during recall work in Nov 2024 as part of Safety recall 24V-457, however because work had been done on the tonneau cover by Tesla in Jun 2026, I believe it exacerbated the problem causing the part to detach enough to be dangerous. They did not mention the problem to me at the time even though the vehicle was specifically brought into the service center prior to warranty expiration to check for covered issues. Tesla is now quoting $1190 and refusing free repair because the mileage is 53,500. I asked for, but did not receive a copy of the final estimate with the updated parts listed for $1190. I did upload a preliminary estimate where they showed the parts that would have been needed if the vehicle had the new rails installed.
On XXX at approximately 5:15 AM, I was driving my 2024 Tesla Cybertruck (VIN [XXX], ~47,300 miles) on an interstate trip to [XXX] with Full Self-Driving (Supervised) engaged. I heard a loud pop from the front of the vehicle, immediately followed by an alert stating the left front turn signal was malfunctioning and that I needed to take over control. FSD disengaged and I was forced to manually drive in pre-dawn darkness with a failed turn signal until the next charging stop. The fault then behaved intermittently: it cleared on its own, returned, cleared again, and I resumed FSD for much of the trip. Then, with roughly 100 miles remaining, the left turn signal malfunction warning returned while the vehicle was actively driving itself, again forcing manual takeover and leaving me without a functioning left turn signal in traffic. This is a serious safety defect on multiple levels: (1) A failed turn signal prevents me from lawfully and safely signaling lane changes and turns to other drivers. (2) The failure occurred WHILE the automated driving system was operating and depends on functional signaling to execute its own lane changes — yet the system had been driving with a component that failed audibly and without warning. (3) The intermittent nature means the vehicle can re-enter a hazardous state at any time, without warning, at highway speed. (4) I cannot get a service appointment immediately, so I must continue operating a vehicle with an unrepairable intermittent signal failure, exposing me to citations and collision risk. This vehicle has an extensive repair history including body panel adhesion defects related to Tesla’s 2025 cant rail recall, and this electrical failure continues a pattern of defects across multiple systems. No warning preceded the pop. The failure is reproducible in the sense that it has recurred three times in one day. Service records and buyback correspondence with Tesla are available on request. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
The PCS (Power Conversion System) failed on my Cybertruck as it has on thousands of other trucks. It's an issue for me because the nearest supercharger station where I can charge is 45 miles away. I have to budget my daily driving so I don't run out of charge before reaching the supercharger. If I run out of charge, the truck will be inoperable until the service center can fix the vehicle. Right now the service appointment is 24 days from now.
PCS2 Failure alerts on the screen left the vehicle unable to charge at any level except supercharge. The vehicle can be stranded due to unavailibility of supercharges and inability to charge at any Level 1 or level 2 chrgers.
My 2024 cybertruck has a PCS2 onboard error. It has failed but Tesla has told me it’s under warranty however if I was past the warranty it wouldn’t be covered. This is a widespread issue known on 2024/2025 cybertruck. Nearly all VINs are affected.
The vehicle has experienced an issue with its power conversion system (PCS2) that leaves AC charging unavailable. Based upon online forums and social media, this issue is clearly widespread amongst early VIN model Cybertrucks. The scope of the issue has lead to delays with repair. My vehicle has experienced this issue since early June 2026, and I am still awaiting repair. This is a safety concern because it could plausibly leave the vehicle stranded due to lack of ability to charge the vehicle. While Tesla and third party superchargers are widespread, they are not everywhere and cannot allow a vehicle to travel to most roads in the United States. There have been circumstances where, if AC charging was not an option, I would have been stranded in a desert and surely would have died of excessive heat exposure. With the PCS2 failure, this issue a plausible risk.
I paid Tesla to perform a safety inspection of my Tesla Cybertruck after I purchased it. During that inspection, Tesla determined that the vehicle's as built configuration was **not safe** and required me to purchase a newer revision of the Power Conversion System (PCS). The required PCS revision did not exist when my vehicle was originally manufactured, meaning the vehicle could not have been built with that revision. The original PCS installed in my vehicle has a widespread failure rate among Cybertrucks. When the PCS fails, the vehicle is unable to charge, leaving it stranded. I believe this is a safety defect that warrants investigation by the NHTSA. Tesla's own words on their invoice state that the as-built configuration was determined to be unsafe, and required me to purchase a newer revision of the PCS (1777777-T2-G) to address the safety issue.
The car would stop charging at home and an error showed up about two months ago. After reporting to Tesla, they did a diagnostic over the air and concluded that the battery (HVB) needs to be replaced. The car is at the shop for over a month, and they are still waiting on parts.
I am filing a safety defect complaint regarding my Tesla Cybertruck. Water entered the truck bed outlet area and caused corrosion to the mounting bolts and surrounding components, resulting in Tesla determining that the entire bed wall panel requires replacement. The bed outlet is designed for outdoor use and exposure to weather conditions. In my opinion, water intrusion into this area represents a design defect because moisture can enter the electrical outlet assembly and associated mounting hardware, leading to corrosion and component deterioration. My concern is that continued corrosion could potentially affect the integrity or functionality of the electrical outlet system and create an electrical safety hazard for owners using the bed power outlets in normal outdoor conditions, including rain or vehicle washing. Tesla inspected the vehicle and confirmed water ingress and corrosion were present and advised that replacement of the bed wall panel was necessary to correct the condition. I request that NHTSA review whether the design of the Cybertruck bed outlet and surrounding components adequately protects against water intrusion and corrosion during normal vehicle use.
The contact owns a 2024 Tesla Cybertruck. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the vehicle made an abnormal rattling sound, and the contact noticed that the metal quarter panel was loose. The contact was concerned that the quarter panel detachment could cause a crash. The vehicle was taken to the local dealer, where a replacement quote was provided. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was contacted and confirmed that there was no coverage. The failure mileage was approximately 3,000.
Approximately 10 minutes after my vehicle was serviced at a Tesla Service Center for a Full Self-Driving (FSD) concern, I entered the highway and engaged FSD. The service center had stated the system was operating correctly. While traveling approximately 75 mph through a highway curve, FSD suddenly changed to an "Unavailable" state. According to Tesla's own accident data, I did not disengage FSD. There was no audible warning, no effective visual warning, no takeover request, no controlled deceleration, and no safe handoff to the driver before the vehicle stopped controlling itself. Within about one second of FSD becoming unavailable, the vehicle left its intended path and struck a concrete highway divider. If the divider had not been present, the vehicle likely would have crossed into oncoming highway traffic, creating the risk of a catastrophic head-on collision with other vehicles, including a semi-truck. Tesla's accident report confirms I did not disengage FSD and shows no warning or takeover request before impact. I possess documentation supporting that FSD became unavailable without a safe transition to the driver. This failure occurred immediately after Tesla serviced the vehicle and represented that the FSD system was functioning properly. Despite the accident data, Tesla Customer Support and the Service Center have refused to acknowledge or investigate what appears to be a failure of the FSD system's fail-safe behavior. The failed component appears to be the FSD/Autopilot system and its driver handoff logic. The vehicle and electronic records are available for inspection. An automated driving system should not terminate operation at highway speed without providing adequate warning, a safe transfer of control, or controlled deceleration. I believe this presents a serious safety defect that could result in fatal crashes. The collision caused approximately $15,500 in vehicle damage.
PCS system has failed. This causes the vehicle to be unable to charge and can lead to loss of power if unable to get to a supercharger before the battery is depleted. It can now only be charged at full Tesla superchargers and not at other brands, hotel chargers, or home AC chargers. The vehicle did notify me of the PCS failure and recommended using a supercharger. Tesla proactively updated my account to allow for free supercharging, but this does not eliminate the risk when going to areas that do not have superchargers available. Parts are not currently available to repair the problem and my service requests are left in a "review" state. Vehicle is available for inspection if needed.
This is reporting an issue with v14.3.3 and v14.3.4 of Tesla Full Self Driving (FSD) Supervised. This month I have driven over 4,000 miles with FSD enabled, approximately 2/3rd on 14.3.3 and 1/3 on 14.3.4. FSD has regularly failed to respect speed limit changes, even though it seems to recognize / observe the speed limit signs. I am certain it’s observing the signs because it renders them on the in-car display, but it doesn’t actually adjust its speed in response to those signs. The most egregious of cases have been when driving through Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona where the speed limit is often 75 mph on Interstate highways (e.g., [XXX]). On multiple occasions the vehicle has ignored construction speed limit changes to 55 mph, and instead has tried to maintain 75-80 mph through the construction zone. Not only could that get me a nasty speeding ticket, but it could also put construction workers lives at risk. It has also happened in non-construction zones, like when on a non-interstate highway that passes through towns and reduces speed when doing so. It doesn’t fail 100% of the time, but it has been an issue more than 50% of the time I enter a construction zone. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
I was driving my Tesla Cybertruck on the highway when I experienced unexpected steering movements from side to side. I attempted to maintain control of the vehicle and slow down. The vehicle ultimately left its intended path and collided with the median. I do not know the cause of the incident. At the time of the accident, I believe a Tesla driver-assistance feature may have been engaged, but I am requesting that Tesla review the vehicle data and logs to determine exactly what systems were active and whether any vehicle malfunction contributed to the event. The accident resulted in significant vehicle damage. I am submitting this report because I am concerned that a potential steering, vehicle control, or driver-assistance system issue may have contributed to the incident and I believe the event should be investigated.
Tesla does a warning if it can not detect your eyes on the road when using FSD (Full Self Driving). After few warnings on a trip it becomes a strike. After 5 strikes, they remove FSD and AutoPilot for a week. It becomes dangerous now since I have been driving on FSD for several years to drive the big CyberTruck without FSD. The removing FSD for a week behavior needs to be stopped. Without FSD chances of accident are 10000% increased.
The rear passenger side sail applique flew off the truck while I was driving on the freeway.
NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened these reviews into vehicles including this one.
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is opening this Engineering Analysis to evaluate Tesla’s Full Self Driving Beta and Full Self Driving (Supervised) (collectively, FSD) degradation detection system. The focus of this investigation will be to assess the system’s ability, when encountering reduced roadway visibility conditions, to detect degradation and alert the driver with sufficient time to respond. ODI will evaluate the performance of FSD in degraded roadway conditions and the updates or modifications by Tesla to the degradation detection system, including the timing, purpose, and capabilities of the updates, and Tesla’s assessment of their safety impact. Tesla’s FSD is an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) that relies exclusively on vision-based cameras and the related FSD software to detect and respond to the roadway ahead, projecting a path forward based on traffic control devices, vehicles, pedestrians, and the roadway itself. When Tesla began transitioning away from using both cameras and radars to an exclusively camera-based approach, known as Tesla Vision, in mid-2021, it developed and implemented a degradation detection system that it deployed by a software update to existing and new Tesla vehicles. On June 28, 2024, the day after Tesla submitted the SGO report of the November 28, 2023 fatal crash listed in this document, Tesla began developing an update to the degradation detection system. At this time, ODI does not have information on when the update was deployed and which vehicles have the updated system. ODI discussed individual incidents and its initial findings during the PE phase of its investigation with Tesla. As part of those discussions, Tesla’s post-incident analysis indicated that the update to the degradation detection system, had it been installed on the vehicles at the time, may have affected 3 of the 9 incidents identified by ODI. Tesla also described internal data and labeling limitations that prevented a uniform identification and analysis of crash events with the subject system engaged. ODI believes this limitation could have led to under-reporting of subject crashes over portions of the defined time-period. Available incident data raise concerns that Tesla’s degradation detection system, both as originally deployed and later updated, fails to detect and/or warn the driver appropriately under degraded visibility conditions such as glare and airborne obscurants. In the crashes that ODI has reviewed, the system did not detect common roadway conditions that impaired camera visibility and/or provide alerts when camera performance had deteriorated until immediately before the crash occurred. Review of Tesla’s responses revealed additional crashes that occurred in similar environments and where the system either did not detect a degraded state, and/or it did not present the driver with an alert with adequate time for the driver to react. In each of these crashes, FSD also lost track of or never detected a lead vehicle in its path. In upgrading PE24031 to an Engineering Analysis (EA), ODI will gather further information on the updated degradation detection system, including the status of updating vehicles and scope of compatible vehicles, the system’s visibility degradation detection capability, and alerts or warnings to the driver. Lastly, ODI will conduct analysis on six recent potentially related incidents. These incidents can be found at NHTSA.gov under the following SGO report identification numbers: 13781-11937, 13781-13211, 13781-13569, 13781-13633, 13781-13693, 13781-13788. The crashes included in the failure report summary can be found at NHTSA.gov under the following SGO report identification numbers: 13781-8004, 13781-7181, 13781-7381, 13781-7767, 13781-7964, 13781-8977, 13781-9267.
The Office of Defects Investigation (“ODI”) is opening this Preliminary Evaluation (PE) to assess the scope, frequency, and potential safety consequences of FSD executing driving maneuvers that constitute traffic safety violations. This investigation concerns versions of FSD that Tesla has labeled as "FSD (Supervised)" and "FSD (Beta)." Tesla characterizes FSD as an SAE Level 2 partial automation system requiring a fully attentive driver who is engaged in the driving task at all times. Level 2 partial automation systems are designed to support and assist the driver in performing certain aspects of the driving task, requiring a driver to supervise and intervene as necessary. The driver remains fully responsible at all times for driving the vehicle, including complying with applicable traffic laws. ODI’s investigation will therefore focus, in particular, on whether certain driving inputs within the control authority of FSD forestall the driver’s supervision when they are unexpectedly performed. ODI has identified a number of incidents in which the inputs to the dynamic driving task commanded by FSD induced vehicle behavior that violated traffic safety laws. Although reports of this nature span a variety of behaviors, the reports appear to most commonly involve two types of scenarios. The first type of scenario involves a vehicle operating with FSD proceeding into an intersection in violation of a red traffic signal. The second type of scenario involves FSD commanding a lane change into an opposing lane of traffic. With respect to the first type of scenario, ODI has identified 18 complaints and 1 media report alleging that a Tesla vehicle, operating at an intersection with FSD engaged, failed to remain stopped for the duration of a red traffic signal, failed to stop fully, or failed to accurately detect and display the correct traffic signal state in the vehicle interface. Some complainants also alleged that FSD did not provide warnings of the system's intended behavior as the vehicle was approaching a red traffic signal. ODI has identified six Standing General Order ("SGO") reports in which a Tesla vehicle, operating with FSD engaged, approached an intersection with a red traffic signal, continued to travel into the intersection against the red light and was subsequently involved in a crash with other motor vehicles in the intersection. Of these incidents, four crashes resulted in one or more reported injuries. At least some of the incidents appeared to involve FSD proceeding into the intersection after coming to a complete stop. ODI's pre-investigative work, including coordination with the Maryland Transportation Authority and State Police, indicated that the problem may be repeatable, given that multiple subject incidents occurred at the same intersection in Joppa, Maryland. NHTSA understands that Tesla has since taken action to address the issue at this intersection. With respect to the second type of scenario, ODI has identified 2 SGO reports, 18 complaints, and 2 media reports alleging that a Tesla vehicle, operating with FSD engaged, entered opposing lanes of travel during or following a turn, crossed double-yellow lane markings while proceeding straight, or attempted to turn onto a road in the wrong direction despite the presence of wrong-way road signs. Likewise, ODI has identified 4 SGO reports, 6 complaints, and 1 media report alleging that a Tesla vehicle, operating with FSD engaged, proceeded straight through an intersection in a turn-only lane or executed a turn at an intersection in a through lane despite the presence of lane markings or signals. Complaints also alleged that FSD did not provide warnings of the system's intended behavior. Some complaints alleged that more than one of these failures occurred and, as such, the numbers are not cumulative. Some of the reported incidents appeared to involve FSD executing a lane change into an opposing lane of travel with little notice to a driver or opportunity to intervene. ODI’s review will assess whether there was prior warning or adequate time for the driver to respond to the unexpected behavior or to safely supervise the automated driving task. This review will assess any warnings to the driver about the system's impending behavior; the time given to drivers to respond; the capability of FSD to detect, display to the driver, and respond appropriately to traffic signals; and the capability of FSD to detect and respond to lane markings and wrong-way signage. NHTSA's review will also consider any updates or modifications to the system(s) that may affect the performance of FSD with respect to obeying traffic safety laws and signals. This assessment will focus, in particular, on the types of traffic safety violations described above, as most reports identified thus far have centered around those behaviors. While the behaviors under investigation appear to occur most frequently at intersections, NHTSA’s investigation will encompass any other types of situations in which this behavior may arise, such as when traveling adjacent to a lane of opposing traffic or when approaching railroad crossings. If other evidence received during this investigation involve other types of traffic safety violations, those may be considered as part of this assessment as well. To review the ODI reports cited in the Opening Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov. The SGO reports cited in this Resume are listed below by report ID and are available for download at NHTSA.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting. 13781-8739-1, 13781-8995-1, 13781-9623-1, 13781-10333-1, 13781-10872-1, 13781-10930-1, 13781-10939-1, 13781-10941-1, 13781-11069-1, 13781-11305-1, 13781-11579-1 Media reported allegations included as a separate attachment.
On October 17, 2024, NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Preliminary Evaluation (PE24031) of Tesla’s Full Self Driving Beta and Full Self Driving (Supervised) (collectively, FSD) to assess: the ability of the FSD system to detect and respond appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions; whether any other FSD crashes had occurred under degraded roadway visibility conditions that are similar in nature to the four SGO-reported crashes identified in the opening document, and if so, the contributing circumstances for each of those crashes; and any updates or modifications by Tesla to the FSD system that may affect the performance of FSD in degraded roadway visibility conditions, including the timing, purpose, and capabilities of any such updates, and Tesla’s assessment of their safety impact. Tesla’s FSD is an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) that relies exclusively on vision-based cameras and the related FSD software to detect and respond to the roadway ahead, projecting a path forward based on traffic control devices, vehicles, pedestrians, and the roadway itself. During this phase of the investigation, ODI reviewed the materials provided by Tesla detailing any actions taken, or changes, modifications, and updates made that may relate to the alleged defect. ODI reviewed information related to Tesla’s transition to a vision-only perception system, and its deployment of the strategy in vehicles. ODI’s findings include information on limitations of the vision-only perception system and updates made in response to known subject crashes. When Tesla began transitioning away from using both cameras and radars to an exclusively camera-based approach, known as Tesla Vision, in mid-2021, it developed and implemented a degradation detection system that it deployed by a software update to existing and new Tesla vehicles. On June 28, 2024, the day after Tesla submitted the SGO report of the November 28, 2023 fatal crash listed in this document, Tesla began developing an update to the degradation detection system. ODI reviewed certain public statements, including those made during an April 2025 earnings call, in which Tesla stated that it had developed a breakthrough “direct photon-counting” capability that eliminates the degradation that the camera-based system experiences when glare is encountered. At this time, ODI does not have information on when the update was deployed and which vehicles have the updated system. ODI has discussed individual incidents and its initial findings with Tesla. Based on Tesla’s post-incident analysis, the update to the degradation detection system, had it been installed on the vehicles at the time, may have affected 3 of the 9 incidents identified by ODI. Review of Tesla’s responses revealed additional crashes that occurred in similar environments and where the system either did not detect a degraded state, and/or it did not present the driver with an alert with adequate time for the driver to react. In each of these crashes, FSD also lost track of or never detected a lead vehicle in its path. Tesla also described internal data and labeling limitations that prevented a uniform identification and analysis of crash events with the subject system engaged. ODI believes this limitation could have led to under-reporting of subject crashes over portions of the defined time-period. Available incident data raise concerns that Tesla’s FSD system fails to detect and/or warn the driver appropriately under degraded visibility conditions such as glare and airborne obscurants where the camera-based system performance degrades significantly. In the crashes that ODI has reviewed, the FSD system did not detect common roadway conditions that impaired its visibility and/or provide alerts when camera performance had deteriorated until immediately before the crash occurred. ODI is upgrading this investigation (PE24031) to Engineering Analysis (EA) 26002 to further evaluate this matter. The crashes included in the failure report summary can be found at NHTSA.gov under the following SGO report identification numbers: 13781-8004, 13781-7181, 13781-7381, 13781-7767, 13781-7964, 13781-8977, 13781-9267.
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is opening a Recall Query to assess the remedy adequacy of Recall 23V838. On December 12, 2023, Tesla filed a Defect Information Report (Recall 23V838) applicable to all Tesla models produced and equipped with any version of its Autopilot system, which Tesla described as an SAE Level 2 (L2) Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS). Autopilot is the simultaneous engagement of Tesla’s Traffic-Aware Cruise Control (TACC) and Autosteer. In describing the safety defect, Tesla’s Defect Information Report (DIR) explained that “the prominence and scope of the system’s controls may be insufficient to prevent driver misuse,” and Tesla committed to the deployment of a multipart remedy aimed at improving system and engagement controls and reducing mode confusion. EA22002 (upgraded from PE21020) was opened to investigate whether Tesla’s Autopilot contained a defect that created an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety and involved extensive crash analysis, human factors analysis, vehicle evaluations, and assessment of vehicle control authority and driver engagement technologies. The work conducted in these investigations aligns with Tesla’s conclusion in its 23V838 recall filing. During EA22002, ODI identified at least 13 crashes involving one or more fatalities and many more involving serious injuries in which foreseeable driver misuse of the system played an apparent role. Tesla filed Recall 23V838 to address concerns regarding the Autopilot system investigated in EA22002. Following deployment of the remedy in Recall 23V838, ODI identified concerns due to post-remedy crash events and results from preliminary NHTSA tests of remedied vehicles. Also, Tesla has stated that a portion of the remedy both requires the owner to opt in and allows a driver to readily reverse it. Tesla has also deployed non-remedy updates to address issues that appear related to ODI’s concerns under EA22002. This investigation will consider why these updates were not a part of the recall or otherwise determined to remedy a defect that poses an unreasonable safety risk. ODI is therefore opening this Recall Query investigation to further evaluate the adequacy of the remedy for recall 23V838.
Technical service bulletins and other communications the manufacturer sent dealers about this vehicle. Ask a dealer for the full document by its number.
Bars are owner complaints, dots mark years with recalls. Select a year to open its report.