Tesla

[costas EAR]

Θα πληρώσεις μπριζόλες και θα μάθεις.
Μη στεναχωριέσαι καθόλου!

 

[Dimifoot]

Για να δούμε….

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/teslas-german-car-sales-continue-104456956.html

 

[spylab]

Και εγω πλεον το νημα το διαβαζω για να δω τι θα γινει με τις !!

 

[Dimifoot]

Μπορούν να μπουν και εξωτερικά στοιχήματα, για το ποιος θα κερδίσει.
πχ βάζεις εσύ με τον @alexis μια μπριζόλα για το αν θα κερδίσω εγώ ή ο @costas EAR και την τρώτε στην Αθήνα.
Εγώ θέλω το 5% από κάθε κερδισμένη μπριζόλα.

 

[JOHN MARKOU]

Ελα ρε ! λίγα ζητάς.
Κάντο τουλάχιστον 10 .

 

[Dimifoot]

Ελα ρε ! λίγα ζητάς.
Κάντο τουλάχιστον 10 .

Τι με πέρασες; Κανέναν φαταούλα;

 

[costas EAR]

Εγώ θέλω το 5% από κάθε κερδισμένη μπριζόλα.

Ένα κομμάτι από ένα σουβλάκι δηλαδή;

 

[JOHN MARKOU]

Αυτό με το λίπος .

 

[costas EAR]

Tesla reported its Q1 production, delivery, and deployment figures for the first quarter of the year, and while many were less-than-excited about the automotive side, the Energy division performed well with 10.4 GWh of energy storage products deployed during the first quarter.

This was a 156 percent increase year-over-year and the company’s second-best quarter in terms of energy deployments to date. Only Q4 2024 was better, as 11 GWh was recorded.

Tesla Energy is frequently forgotten and not talked about enough. The company has continued to deploy massive energy storage projects across the globe, and as it recorded 31.5 GWh of deployments last year, 2025 is already looking as if it will be a record-setting year if it continues at this pace.

https://x.com/CernBasher/status/1907433946704416900?t=gydlHZQKruQQz6pDglURtg&s=19

 

[wizzy]

Μπορούν να μπουν και εξωτερικά στοιχήματα, για το ποιος θα κερδίσει.
πχ βάζεις εσύ με τον @alexis μια μπριζόλα για το αν θα κερδίσω εγώ ή ο @costas EAR και την τρώτε στην Αθήνα.
Εγώ θέλω το 5% από κάθε κερδισμένη μπριζόλα.

Γίνεται να παίξω κι εγώ; Θα βάλω στοίχημα με τον @Gebreselassie ότι θα χάσει ο @costas EAR και θα τρώμε τις μπριζόλες δύο δύο!

 

[Dimifoot]

Γίνεται να παίξω κι εγώ; Θα βάλω στοίχημα με τον @Gebreselassie ότι θα χάσει ο @costas EAR και θα τρώμε τις μπριζόλες δύο δύο!

Ποιος θα στοιχηματίσει υπέρ του Κώστα; Που να βρείτε θύματα εκεί κάτω;

 

[alexis]

 

[alexis]

Θεούλης.

 

[Dimifoot]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/teslas-software-engineering-head-step-193513164.html

Όπου φύγει φύγει;

 

[spylab]

Retard Finder

 

[alexis]

Στην Αμερική η Tesla ακυρώνει τις παραγγελίες των Model Y Launch Series σε όσους τις έκαναν προς το τέλος, επειδή ξεκίνησε το κανονικό μοντέλο.

Not so happy customers, από ότι διαβάζω.

 

[alexis]

Για να ανεβάζει ο VP (Tesla AI) τέτοια μάλλον κάτι πλησιάζει. Εδώ βλέπουμε Tesla με supervised FSD στο Amsterdam.

https://x.com/aelluswamy/status/1908578530973405471?t=C17-Q4rDlgC0pUhCyEG7aQ&s=09

 

[symos]

Είδα χθες ένα Juniper στον δρόμο. Όπως περίμενα, από κοντά δεν είναι τόσο ωραίο όσο στις φωτογραφίες.

Το highland παραμένει το πιο ωραίο/ισορροπημένο design της Tesla (χωρίς να το λέω πολύ ωραίο κι αυτό, αλλά σχετικά αδιάφορο, που για Tesla είναι καλό).

 

[alexis]

Όπως είχα πει ήθελα να γράψω τι συμβαίνει με το FSD στην Ευρώπη, αλλά εδώ ο Ολλανδός (που είναι και μέσα στην πηγή) τα λέει καλύτερα και πολύ (πάρα πολύ) αναλυτικά. Θα μπορούσε να είναι πολύ μικρότερο, ίσως και το μισό, αλλά οκ. Αν βαριέστε βάλτε το σε κάποιο ΑΙ για summary.

Το έσπασα σε 4 κομμάτια επειδή δεν το δέχεται αλλιώς. Είναι μεγάλο.

Spoiler: The path to FSD in Europe 1/4

The path to FSD in Europe: Bypassing UNECE and using Article 39 vs Article 40 (EU) 2018/858​

Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised is getting closer to a European launch but regulatory approval remains a hurdle. By now we've seen that UNECE trying to amend an existing framework originating from 1958 is not the quickest and arguably not the best route to take. Unlike in the U.S. where Tesla can roll out software updates with fewer restrictions, the EU type-approval process requires compliance with strict UNECE vehicle regulations. Rules that have traditionally lagged behind rapid advancements in automation.

However, Tesla appears to be pursuing a regulatory workaround: an Article 39 exemption under Regulation (EU) 2018/858. This mechanism allows innovative technologies, such as FSD, that don’t fully comply with existing regulations to be approved on an exceptional basis. If successful, Tesla could deploy FSD Supervised before UNECE updates its autonomous driving regulations and thus giving Tesla a head start in the European market.

But there’s a catch. Article 39 approvals are provisional, requiring a Member State’s approval authority. Most likely the Dutch RDW, which handles Tesla’s EU certifications, to validate FSD’s safety. The European Commission must then authorize it for full EU-wide approval. Once granted, Article 40 ensures that European and UNECE regulations will be updated to incorporate FSD-like automation permanently, paving the way for long-term legal adoption.

So, what are the differences between Article 39 and Article 40? How does this compare to UNECE’s standard type-approval process? And what role does the RDW and other EU regulators play in deciding Tesla’s fate?

This article breaks it all down, exploring:

The legal pathway Tesla must navigate for FSD in Europe.

The role of RDW in approving Tesla’s exemption request.

How Tesla’s FSD could accelerate regulatory changes for all automated driving systems.

If Tesla succeeds, this could be the first real test of an automated driving system exemption in the EU, one that will set the stage for broader acceptance of autonomy in Europe and define the new dynamics. TLDR; If all goes well in May we could see an immediate roll-out of FSD in The Netherlands between May and June. Then the rest of Europe will follow in Q3 and Q4 of 2025!

Sadly I cannot build a center but for those kids who can't read good (kudos for those getting this reference) I'll first provide a synopsis of article 39 & 40 to later on dive deeper into the matter. Enjoy!

Article 39 vs. Article 40 of Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 39 – New Technology Exemptions

Article 39 allows manufacturers to introduce new technologies that may not yet fit existing regulations, provided they prove equivalent safety and environmental performance. A type-approval authority in an EU member state (e.g., RDW in the Netherlands) can grant a provisional approval for the technology but this approval is only valid within that country unless the European Commission formally authorizes it for EU-wide use.

The exemption is subject to strict safety assessments and if the Commission denies approval, the provisional type-approval must be revoked after six months. However, if accepted, the vehicle gains an EU-wide type-approval with exemptions valid for at least 36 months to allow for regulatory adjustments.

Article 40 – Adapting regulations

Once an exemption is granted under Article 39 then Article 40 mandates that regulators update the formal rules to reflect technological advancements. If the exemption relates to UNECE regulations, the European Commission works to propose amendments within the UNECE 1958 Agreement framework. This ensures that once the new technology proves its viability, it becomes fully integrated into standard type-approval regulations, making future approvals more seamless.

Tesla’s FSD Supervised and the EU Exemption shortcut

The challenge with FSD in Europe

Tesla’s FSD Supervised faces regulatory barriers under UNECE rules, which remain conservative in allowing higher levels of automation. UNECE Regulation 157 (Automated Lane Keeping Systems) restricts lane changes and requires continuous driver intervention and therefore poses limits to the full potential of Tesla’s autonomous capabilities and actually making it unsafe to use. Similarly, Regulation 79 places constraints on automated steering functions making it difficult for Tesla to introduce FSD in its intended form.

How Article 39 will help Tesla

To bypass these limitations, Tesla can apply for an Article 39 exemption via RDW in the Netherlands, which has historically handled Tesla’s EU certifications. If RDW grants a provisional national type-approval, it notifies the European Commission and all EU regulators. Other national authorities may accept the approval voluntarily before full EU authorization.

For EU-wide approval, the European Commission must authorize the exemption following a review by the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), where member states will vote on whether to allow the technology throughout the EU.

Commission Authorization & Potential Approval

If the Commission approves the exemption, Tesla will be able to deploy FSD Supervised across all EU markets under the exemption for at least 36 months, allowing time for regulatory alignment under Article 40. If rejected, RDW must revoke its approval, limiting FSD deployment only to countries that had already accepted it independently. Okay, this must have given enough information to get the main gist of it. But for those who want a little bit more in-depth insight here comes the nitty gritty!

Article 39 vs. Article 40 of Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 39 – New Technology Exemptions: establishes a pathway to grant type-approvals for vehicles incorporating new technologies or concepts that do not fully comply with existing regulations. In essence, if a vehicle feature is “incompatible with one or more regulatory acts” (such as UNECE regulations listed in Annex II of the EU framework), the manufacturer can apply for an exemption-based EU type-approval. To qualify, the application must justify why the new technology conflicts with current rules and demonstrate that safety and environmental protection are at least equivalent to the standards of the regulations it would otherwise violate.

The manufacturer must provide test descriptions and results proving this equivalence in safety/environmental performance. Crucially, any approval under Article 39 requires authorization by the European Commission before it becomes a full EU type-approval. In practice, the national authority (type-approval authority of an EU Member State) conducts a thorough ad-hoc safety assessment of the new technology and may issue a provisional type-approval valid only in its territory. This provisional approval is essentially a stop-gap measure pending the Commission’s decision on the exemption. The limited territorial validity and provisional nature must be stated on the approval certificate. Other Member States’ authorities may choose to accept this provisional approval in their own territories but are not obliged to, unless and until the Commission grants an EU-wide authorization.

By law, the Commission’s decision (through an implementing act via the comitology procedure) is what converts the provisional national approval into an EU-wide type-approval. The Commission can attach certain restrictions to such an approval, such as limiting the number of vehicles or the duration, but if approved it must be valid for at least 36 months to give manufacturers and regulators time to adapt. If the Commission refuses to authorize the exemption, the issuing authority must revoke the provisional approval after a grace period (six months from the refusal decision). Although vehicles already produced under that provisional approval can remain on the market in any country that accepted them prior to revocation. In summary, Article 39 provides a controlled mechanism to approve innovative vehicles on a limited basis, even if they don’t meet every letter of current EU/UNECE rules, provided an equivalent level of safety and environmental performance is assured.

Article 40 – Adapting the Rules: addresses what happens after an Article 39 exemption is granted. It requires regulators to update the formal regulations to catch up with the new technology. Specifically, once the Commission authorizes a type-approval via Article 39, it “shall immediately take the necessary steps to adapt the regulatory acts concerned to the latest technological developments”. In other words, Article 40 triggers a process to amend EU law (and even international UNECE regulations) so that the innovative features become explicitly allowed under standard requirements.

If the exemption involves a UNECE Regulation, the European Commission is tasked with proposing amendments to that UN Regulation through the 1958 Agreement framework (UNECE process). The goal is to incorporate the new technology into the regular regulatory landscape, eliminating the need for a special exemption in the future. Once the relevant regulations are amended at EU and/or UN level, any restrictions that were placed on the Article 39 approval (such as time limits or production volume limits set by the Commission’s decision) are lifted.

Article 40 thus ensures that temporary exemptions lead to permanent regulatory change. It also provides for the possibility that if regulatory amendments take longer than expected, the Commission can extend the validity of the provisional approval to cover the gap (upon request of the Member State that issued it). In summary, Article 39 is about granting a temporary, case-by-case approval for an innovative vehicle, while Article 40 is about the follow-up regulatory action – updating the rules so that the innovation can be integrated into standard type-approval requirements going forward.

Implications for Approvals The Article 39/40 mechanism has significant implications. It allows manufacturers to bring advanced technologies to market sooner by obtaining an interim approval for innovations that current rules don’t yet contemplate. This fosters innovation but with safeguards: manufacturers must prove their new tech is as safe and eco-friendly as what the law requires, even if done in a novel way. The national authority (e.g. RDW in the Netherlands, KBA in Germany, etc.) plays a gatekeeping role by vetting the technology and granting the initial approval. The European Commission’s oversight ensures a harmonized EU approach. No exemption becomes EU-wide without collective agreement (via the Technical Committee for Motor Vehicles vote). Once an exemption is authorized and the rules are later adapted under Article 40, the previously “exceptional” technology becomes part of the standard regulatory framework and future vehicles can be approved under normal procedures. Thus, Article 39 approvals are intended to be temporary bridges to eventual regulatory acceptance. The key difference in practical terms: Article 39 approvals allow a vehicle that deviates from current rules to be sold (initially in limited scope), whereas Article 40 actions ensure that future vehicles won’t need that deviation because the rules will evolve.

 

[alexis]

Spoiler: The path to FSD in Europe 2/4

Tesla’s FSD Supervised and the EU Exemption Path

The Challenge with FSD in Europe: Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) “supervised” system is a prime example of a technology that faces hurdles under existing regulations. In Europe, vehicle (autonomy) rules are largely shaped by UNECE regulations and these have been conservative in allowing higher levels of automated driving. Elon Musk recently noted that FSD is ready for Europe but is “waiting on regulatory approval”, since approval in the EU is tied to UNECE rules that govern all member states. UNECE’s approach to automation has indeed been cautious – for instance, UNECE Regulation 157 (the Automated Lane Keeping System regulation) severely limits autonomous functionality. It caps the operational speed and requires frequent driver input: under current UN Reg 157, the driver must confirm or authorize every lane change or maneuver and remain available to take over, which is a far from FSD’s design intent: full hands-off operation. Moreover, UN Reg 157 (in its initial versions) only allowed Level 3 autonomy in specific conditions (e.g. on highways with physical separation from pedestrians). It prohibited autonomous driving on many roads where pedestrians or cross-traffic are present and even many open highways without hard barriers would be off-limits.

Other relevant UNECE rules, such as Regulation 79 on steering equipment, historically placed strict limits on automated steering corrections, lane changes, and cornering g-forces, effectively banning higher-level automated driving beyond very narrow use-cases (like the low-speed traffic jam pilot). In short, Tesla’s FSD Beta (even in a supervised Level 2+/Level 3 mode) cannot be deployed under the letter of current UNECE regulations, which demand continuous driver engagement and do not permit a car to handle all driving tasks across a wide range of scenarios. This regulatory lag is why Europe has not seen the same FSD features that Tesla offers in the US. The regulations simply have not caught up to allow it.

How Article 39 Provides Solution Regulation (EU) 2018/858’s Article 39 exemption procedure is designed to handle exactly this kind of situation. The European Commission explicitly recognized that “technologies not foreseen by EU vehicle rules such as automated driving” can be approved via an EU exemption procedure, pending the adoption of harmonized requirements. Instead of waiting years for the UNECE to amend its regulations (a process which, as noted, can be slow and deliberate), Tesla can apply for an EU type-approval under Article 39 for its FSD Supervised system. In doing so, Tesla would submit a dossier to a Member State approval authority explaining which specific regulatory provisions (UNECE or EU) the FSD system cannot meet and why. For example, Tesla might document that FSD’s automated lane changes and self-driving decisions conflict with UN Reg 79/157 requirements, but then provide evidence (through safety analyses and real-world test data) that the system is as safe as (or safer than) a human driver operating under the existing rules.

They must demonstrate “at least an equivalent level of safety and environmental protection” compared to the requirements they seek to bypass. This likely includes showing robust driver monitoring (to ensure the human is supervising when required), fail-safe mechanisms and performance data from millions of miles of FSD Beta testing. According to the EU’s exemption guidelines, the national authority’s assessment will cover all safety implications of the automated driving function and ensure that any risks are mitigated to an equivalent level as current regulations intend. In essence, Tesla has to convince regulators that even though FSD operates differently from what current law anticipates, it is not less safe than a compliant system and possibly brings safety benefits far outweighing a human driver.

If the application is persuasive then the chosen approval authority can grant a provisional type-approval for Tesla’s vehicles with FSD Supervised (likely as a specific variant or version of Tesla’s Models equipped with that software). This provisional approval, under Article 39(4), would be valid only within that authority’s country at first. In Tesla’s case, the RDW in the Netherlands is a strong candidate for this role as Tesla has historically used RDW as its primary EU certification authority (Tesla’s EU type-approvals carry the code “e4,” indicating the Netherlands as the approving country). The RDW would review Tesla’s safety case for FSD. If RDW is satisfied and grants the provisional approval it would then notify the European Commission and all other EU type-approval authorities. Providing them with a file containing the details of the exemption request and the evidence on safety performance.

At that point, Tesla could technically begin deploying FSD Supervised in Dutch-market vehicles. Other national authorities across the EU could also accept this provisional approval for registrations in their own country if they wish, by informing RDW in writing of their acceptance. This means, for example, that regulators in Germany, France etc., could agree to let Tesla cars with the Dutch provisional FSD approval be sold or used in their territories even before formal EU-wide clearance, facilitating a broader pilot rollout. However, such acceptance is voluntary; some countries might wait for the formal EU authorization.

Commission Authorization: The key step is the Commission’s green light. Article 39(3) requires the European Commission to formally authorize the exemption via an implementing act (after consulting the Member States in the Technical Committee). In practical terms, the Commission will evaluate RDW’s assessment and the supporting data. If the Commission (and the Member States’ experts) concur that the FSD system meets the criteria (indeed providing an equivalent level of safety/environmental protection), they will adopt a Commission Implementing Decision authorizing the EU type-approval for Tesla’s FSD-equipped vehicle type. This effectively converts the RDW’s provisional, national type-approval into a full EU whole vehicle type-approval that is valid in all Member States. The approval will still be somewhat special. For instance, the type-approval certificate will explicitly note it’s an “EU type-approval with exemptions for new technologies or concepts (Article 39)” authorized by the Commission. The Commission’s decision may also set conditions such as an expiration date (the law says at minimum the approval should be valid for 36 months) or a cap on the number of vehicles that can be put on the road under this approval. These measures ensure that the deployment is controlled while broader regulatory work is underway.

Tesla’s FSD “supervised” would then be legal to offer on new vehicles across the EU during that period, essentially under a time-limited regulatory sandbox. In the event that the Commission were to deny authorization (if they felt the system wasn’t proven safe enough), Tesla’s provisional approval in the Netherlands would be short-lived. RDW would have to withdraw it, and Tesla couldn’t continue FSD operation in Europe beyond the allowed grace period. But assuming approval is granted, Tesla would finally be able to roll out FSD Supervised to European customers (likely with certain geofencing or feature limitations as agreed with regulators). Notably, Tesla appears optimistic about this path. Reports suggest Tesla is targeting a Europe-wide launch of FSD Supervised by Q1 2025, provided regulators give the green light. This is further strengthened by Elon's remarks during the most recent shareholder update/earnings call.

How FSD Supervised Fits Articles 39/40 If Tesla secures an Article 39 exemption approval it will invoke Article 40’s mandate to update the rules. The introduction of FSD via this route would prompt the EU (and UNECE) to accelerate work on permanent regulatory changes for higher-level automated driving. In fact, regulators have been moving in this direction since 2021: UNECE recently adopted DCAS UN Regulation 171 (on Automated Lane Keeping in more complex scenarios) and has ongoing revisions for UN Reg 79 to accommodate lane changes and higher speeds. Article 40 ensures that the Commission will push these changes forward. It will “take the necessary steps to adapt the regulatory acts… to the latest technological developments” as soon as the exemption is authorized. Because Tesla’s FSD functionality spans multiple aspects (lane keeping, lane changing, traffic light/stop sign response, etc.) this could mean updates to several UNECE regulations or EU standards. Per Article 40, for any UNECE Regulation that the exemption touched (say UN R157 ALKS or UN R79 steering), the Commission should table amendments in the UNECE forum so that those regulations expand to accommodate systems like FSD.