2023 Tesla Model 3 Standard Sedan 4d on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Tesla working to eliminate side mirrors

Of all the concept car technologies, one of our favorites has been the deletion of side-view mirrors in favor of video cameras. Besides improving the look of the car, it'd lower drag and improve fuel economy. However, cost, available technology, and most importantly, the government, stand in the way of this tech making it onto a production model.
It's that last facet that Tesla is seeking to change. As Automotive News explains, when the Model X debuted in concept form, it was without wing mirrors. But when the production car was revealed, it had the conventional mirrors, largely because the camera'd car violated the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety code (Standard 111, to be precise).
Now comes word that Tesla has actively been lobbying the NHTSA to do away with the standard. It's got breathing room at the moment. We reported a few months ago that the federal mandate regarding backup cameras had been pushed back to 2015. That gives Tesla plenty of time to work the safety administration over regarding the mirror replacement, getting the new tech approved in the next mandate.

Tesla wants Massachusetts direct sales ruling to mean more

The approximately 8,300 square miles of Massachusetts may be a relative speck on the US map, but Tesla Motors is hoping a recent court decision there could have a big impact on potential sales and the legality of Tesla's distribution system throughout the rest of the country. Tesla, writes Automotive News, says that the reasoning behind a judge's decision to throw out a lawsuit against the company is broadly applicable. Now, the California-based automaker has New Jersey in its sights. Because Tesla doesn't have any existing distribution set-up in Massachusetts involving a third-party franchisee, the company isn't violating any statutes by opening a factory-owned dealership, the Massachusetts judge ruled. Tesla is saying that the judge's interpretation is applicable to other states such as New Jersey, which has outlawed Tesla's direct-to-consumer sales of its electric vehicles. And for that reason, the decision that forced Tesla to convert its New Jersey sales stores to Tesla galleries where sales are prohibited should be reversed. Of course, dealer representatives in New Jersey said the Massachusetts decision has no bearing in their state. Meanwhile, Texas, Arizona and Maryland are among other states where Tesla has been prohibited from selling vehicles direct because of existing dealership laws. This should get interesting.

Dealers' suit against Tesla dismissed in MA court

Tesla has been facing resistance from dealer associations with its factory-owned dealerships since the start-up automaker first started selling cars, but it won another big case in Massachusetts when a judge dismissed a lawsuit brought on by the Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association (MSADA). According to Automotive News, the case was dismissed after the judge said the association "lacked standing to sue" despite the fact that MSADA executive vice president quotes the state law as saying, "A factory cannot own a store."
The latest lawsuit follows a similar suit from back in October where the MSADA attempted to prevent Tesla from opening a store in a suburban Boston mall; the electric car maker received approval to open another store in Natick, MA, which brought on this second lawsuit. It's unlikely this is the last we've heard about this issue in Massachusetts and in other states, but Tesla seems to be coming out victorious in each case so far. While laws pertaining to dealerships vary state to state, factory-owned dealers are usually noncompliant with state law - a lesson Chrysler learned back in 2011.