Just days after failing to receive a Recommended score in Consumer Reports, the Tesla Model 3 received the Recommended label after improving its braking performance via an over-the-air software update that scrubbed 19 feet from its braking distance. The move was prompted by a harsh review by the consumer product testing organization, which knocked the Model 3 for inconsistent braking performance in instrumented tests. The initial review also criticized the Model 3 for relying on too many screen submenus to achieve simple tasks, as well as a stiff ride, excessive wind noise and an unsupportive rear seat.

"The Tesla’s stopping distance of 152 feet from 60 mph was far worse than any contemporary car we’ve tested and about 7 feet longer than the stopping distance of a Ford F-150 full-sized pickup," Consumer Reports said.

"In our testing of the Model 3, the first stop we recorded was significantly shorter (around 130 feet, similar to Tesla’s findings), but that distance was not repeated, even after we let the brakes cool overnight," the magazine added. "Consumer Reports publishes a distance based on all the stops we record in our test, not just the shortest individual stop."

Tesla immediately promised to address the issue through a software update and apparently was able to do so, scrubbing almost 20 feet from the braking distances of all Model 3s.

"I’ve been at CR for 19 years and tested more than 1,000 cars, and I’ve never seen a car that could improve its track performance with an over-the-air update," Jake Fisher, director of auto testing at Consumer Reports, said in response to the update.

"The improved braking distances raised the Model 3’s Overall Score enough for the car to be recommended by CR, but our testers had other areas of concern as well," Consumer Reports wrote. "They found issues with the Model 3’s wind noise, stiff ride, and uncomfortable rear seat."

In regards to the other criticisms of the Model 3, Elon Musk said other changes were already being implemented following Consumer Reports' initial test.

"Really appreciate the high-quality critical feedback from Consumer Reports,” Musk tweeted this week. "Road noise and ride comfort already addressed too."

The major issue with this "update" is that it simultaneously highlights gaps in the Model 3's market readiness, while also casting doubt on other systems that have avoided Consumer Reports' scorn.

First, if the disparity in braking distance was so obvious to Consumer Reports and other publications, why didn't Tesla detect it in its own testing and calibrate the ABS braking system and other systems to compensate for it? Unfavorable braking distance performance seems like something that should have popped up earlier, not 10 months into production.

Second, the type of braking performance that was corrected was likely done for dry surfaces alone so it could have come at the expense of braking performance on all other types of surfaces, such as those covered with snow, ice, gravel, or different pavement types. 19 feet is a lot of distance to be able to cut from a car's braking distance in a matter of days via some code, and it suggests that something may not have been right to begin with, or that something significant may have been traded to make this happen, such as brake pad life or exceeding tire performance parameters by some amount. The fact that Tesla can swing braking distance either way in just a matter of days with some software code after being shamed by a critical article suggests engineering decisions that are too hasty for their own good and may not have been properly tested by Tesla prior to their rollout.

"The fact that Tesla engineers were able to slash nearly 20 feet of stopping distance in a couple of days is a sign that there was something fundamentally broken in what they were doing," Sam Abuelsamid, senior analyst at Navigant Research, noted in Forbes magazine this week.

Third, this raises questions about just how much testing and validation Tesla actually did before shipping the first cars to consumers. Surely engineers would have noticed, had they done extensive braking tests on various surfaces and with various hardware, that braking performance was inconsistent and also too long. This is not something that should have been discovered by a magazine almost a year after production began.

Finally, even if the issue of braking distance was addressed by an over-the-air update, what other critical systems could be underperforming? Thankfully, Tesla did not introduce significant changes to other driving functions in response to Consumer Reports' article, such as steering response -- this sort of thing could surprise owners. But it did indicate that it was still sorting out ride quality settings.

Overall, Tesla's response to this mini-crisis raises more questions than it answers, and even though Tesla was able to dramatically improve braking performance, the timeline and circumstances of this action, as well as what prompted it, raise several troubling questions about the Model 3's engineering process and preproduction testing. If one publication, one which Tesla views as favorable (or at least neutral) can get Tesla to make significant performance changes to a car's braking distance in a matter of days after discovering significant underperformance, this says more about the Model 3's initial readiness for the market than for Tesla's savvy crisis response tactics.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io