2022 Tesla Model S problems

WHEELS

This vehicle has a recurring suspension defect causing a chassis or suspension component to make physical contact with the inner shoulder of the rear tires during normal operation, producing a sharp linear cut progressing to full cord exposure and fraying of internal steel and aramid belts. This has occurred on at least three sets of rear tires between July 2025 and June 2026. Tesla's own service records document the damage pattern on multiple occasions. No root cause has ever been identified or corrected by Tesla's service department. A tire with exposed and fraying cords on a vehicle producing over 1,000 horsepower presents a serious risk of catastrophic blowout at speed.

NHTSA complaint #11750106 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

UNKNOWN OR OTHER

Turn signal inaccessible.

NHTSA complaint #11748845 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

See attached document for complaint.

NHTSA complaint #11747689 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:ADAS:AUTONOMOUS/SELF DRIVING

See attached document for complaint.

NHTSA complaint #11747689 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

UNKNOWN OR OTHER

The vehicle was being driven northbound in the regular (non-HOV) lanes of Route I-95 under the control of Version 12 of FSD software. I believe that the vehicle would have crashed into the lowered gates preventing vehicles from entering the HOV lanes, which operate in only one direction at a time. Beyond the gates, the HOV lanes contained high-speed oncoming traffic. The problems occurred south of the Dale City exit from northbound I-95. The car’s navigation system gave an audio instruction to keep left to bear onto northbound I-95 and the car did exactly that. Twice. I believe that both crashing into the lowered gates or crashing head-on into oncoming vehicles would likely have resulted in multiple deaths, including my own. I saw the developing problem and took control of the vehicle before it could bear left onto the closed ramp to the HOV lanes.

NHTSA complaint #11747523 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

UNKNOWN OR OTHER

This car does not have reliable horn system. I have the steering wheel version (not the “yoke” version) but I believe it’s a similar problem on both. The steering wheel center (airbag) does NOT operate as a horn. Instead there is only a extremely small horn sensor on one side of the wheel that cannot be reliably accessed in an emergency situation b/c of its tiny size and b/c its position depends on where the steering wheel has been turned. This is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. On a recent drive a car pulled into our lane from a side street and I was unable to locate the horn in a timely manner. Fortunately the car braked and I was able to pull around but it was very close and could have resulted in a head on crash. I contacted Tesla about this issue. The service rep acknowledged the problem and said it was an “issue” that had gotten numerous complaints but that all he could offer was a Tesla aftermarket replacement that would cost nearly $1,000 to install. I presume NTSB has gotten many complaints about this incredibly dangerous and egregious latent safety defect in the car’s design. Tesla (at least for the 2024 and on Model 3 - which I also own) has corrected this design defect such that the center area does operate as a horn (as I am sure 99% of cars do). The NTSB should investigate and require Tesla to retrofit any of its cars which have this safety defect. I have no doubt that people will (or likely have been) seriously injured (or even killed) in car crashes that could have been avoided had Tesla retrofitted its vehicles built with this dangerous safety design defect. Please, please open an investigation and require Tesla to correct this inherent safety design defect. Tesla already has the fix (and have implicitly recognized the defect by correcting it on its current models). NTSB’s failure to require Tesla to act will result in many avoidable accidents/injuries. Owners should not have to pay nearly $1k to correct Tesla’s latent/non-obvious safety defect.

NHTSA complaint #11746306 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL

2022 Tesla Model S Plaid purchased CPO from Tesla Florida Inc. Jacksonville on 8/29/2025 for $75,533.19. Multiple unresolved safety defects. (1) Trunk closure obstacle-detection failure 10/15/2025: key fob fell in gap between liftgate and roof; powered liftgate continued upward opening cycle and compressed fob against fixed roof glass until rear glass shattered. $4,100 repair. Same cycle on a child hand or finger would cause crush injury or amputation. Tesla Model X tailgate and falcon doors have obstacle detection; Plaid liftgate lacks it. (2) Passenger-side rear door handle requires extreme pressure to operate, raised 10/25/2025; iced over 1/19/2026 compounding egress hazard. (3) Center console haptic backup gear selector non-functional plus observed main touchscreen reset/blackout events: no manual gear control during foreseeable touchscreen failure event. (4) HV battery umbrella valves and flood port plunger required replacement 10/25/2025. (5) Rear spoiler bilaterally detached as of 5/13/2026 on 200mph-capable vehicle. (6) Front trunk latch unreliable; requires 2-3 commands to open; risk of hood opening at speed. (7) USB charging circuit melted a portable battery bank 11/2/2025; fire-risk overcurrent indicator. (8) Tire sidewall damage Tesla circled "OK" at CPO delivery; refused replacement 5 times; Tesla SMS 1/13/2026: "sidewall damage would need to be replaced." (9) Multiple unauthorized digital-access events: Track Mode created post-service; Charge Current set to 5A; Dog Mode disabled; pre-delivery key card 8/28/2025; phone key 3/14/2026; both front door reflectors found loosened 11/8/2025. Warranty defect notice sent certified 4/20/2026; Tesla declined 5/7/2026 without addressing any item. Full documentation, SMS thread, photographs attached.

NHTSA complaint #11737697 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

STRUCTURE:BODY

2022 Tesla Model S Plaid purchased CPO from Tesla Florida Inc. Jacksonville on 8/29/2025 for $75,533.19. Multiple unresolved safety defects. (1) Trunk closure obstacle-detection failure 10/15/2025: key fob fell in gap between liftgate and roof; powered liftgate continued upward opening cycle and compressed fob against fixed roof glass until rear glass shattered. $4,100 repair. Same cycle on a child hand or finger would cause crush injury or amputation. Tesla Model X tailgate and falcon doors have obstacle detection; Plaid liftgate lacks it. (2) Passenger-side rear door handle requires extreme pressure to operate, raised 10/25/2025; iced over 1/19/2026 compounding egress hazard. (3) Center console haptic backup gear selector non-functional plus observed main touchscreen reset/blackout events: no manual gear control during foreseeable touchscreen failure event. (4) HV battery umbrella valves and flood port plunger required replacement 10/25/2025. (5) Rear spoiler bilaterally detached as of 5/13/2026 on 200mph-capable vehicle. (6) Front trunk latch unreliable; requires 2-3 commands to open; risk of hood opening at speed. (7) USB charging circuit melted a portable battery bank 11/2/2025; fire-risk overcurrent indicator. (8) Tire sidewall damage Tesla circled "OK" at CPO delivery; refused replacement 5 times; Tesla SMS 1/13/2026: "sidewall damage would need to be replaced." (9) Multiple unauthorized digital-access events: Track Mode created post-service; Charge Current set to 5A; Dog Mode disabled; pre-delivery key card 8/28/2025; phone key 3/14/2026; both front door reflectors found loosened 11/8/2025. Warranty defect notice sent certified 4/20/2026; Tesla declined 5/7/2026 without addressing any item. Full documentation, SMS thread, photographs attached.

NHTSA complaint #11737697 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

2022 Tesla Model S Plaid purchased CPO from Tesla Florida Inc. Jacksonville on 8/29/2025 for $75,533.19. Multiple unresolved safety defects. (1) Trunk closure obstacle-detection failure 10/15/2025: key fob fell in gap between liftgate and roof; powered liftgate continued upward opening cycle and compressed fob against fixed roof glass until rear glass shattered. $4,100 repair. Same cycle on a child hand or finger would cause crush injury or amputation. Tesla Model X tailgate and falcon doors have obstacle detection; Plaid liftgate lacks it. (2) Passenger-side rear door handle requires extreme pressure to operate, raised 10/25/2025; iced over 1/19/2026 compounding egress hazard. (3) Center console haptic backup gear selector non-functional plus observed main touchscreen reset/blackout events: no manual gear control during foreseeable touchscreen failure event. (4) HV battery umbrella valves and flood port plunger required replacement 10/25/2025. (5) Rear spoiler bilaterally detached as of 5/13/2026 on 200mph-capable vehicle. (6) Front trunk latch unreliable; requires 2-3 commands to open; risk of hood opening at speed. (7) USB charging circuit melted a portable battery bank 11/2/2025; fire-risk overcurrent indicator. (8) Tire sidewall damage Tesla circled "OK" at CPO delivery; refused replacement 5 times; Tesla SMS 1/13/2026: "sidewall damage would need to be replaced." (9) Multiple unauthorized digital-access events: Track Mode created post-service; Charge Current set to 5A; Dog Mode disabled; pre-delivery key card 8/28/2025; phone key 3/14/2026; both front door reflectors found loosened 11/8/2025. Warranty defect notice sent certified 4/20/2026; Tesla declined 5/7/2026 without addressing any item. Full documentation, SMS thread, photographs attached.

NHTSA complaint #11737697 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

WHEELS

My 2022 Tesla Model S is equipped with 21" Arachnid cast alloy wheels. The wheel on the front driver side developed a structural crack under normal driving conditions with no road hazard impact or unusual driving events. The crack has caused a significant air leak, with tire pressure dropping from 44 PSI to 34 PSI over approximately 10 miles of normal driving. At 34 PSI on a 265/35ZR21 low-profile tire, there is meaningful risk of rim-to-road contact. The vehicle shakes noticeably during normal driving as a direct result of the pressure loss. The tires have approximately 13,000 miles on them. We are aware of multiple other Tesla Model S Arachnid wheel owners reporting identical cracking under normal use on [XXX] , suggesting a pattern consistent with a manufacturing defect in the cast alloy wheel design. This is a safety concern as the leak rate is significant and the condition could deteriorate without warning. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA complaint #11737473 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

EXTERIOR LIGHTING

The center high-mounted stop lamp (CHMSL / third brake light) fails on 2021 and newer Tesla Model S vehicles (including Plaid). This is a common issue reported by many owners, particularly as vehicles exit the warranty period. No redesigned or corrected replacement part has been made available by Tesla. Pre-2021 CHMSL units are incompatible and will not fit. Repair requires removal and replacement of the entire rear liftgate glass assembly, which is extremely expensive and labor-intensive for owners. Prior model years did not experience this problem. A non-functional CHMSL reduces the vehicle's visibility to following traffic and increases the risk of rear-end collisions, especially at night or in poor weather. This appears to be a design or manufacturing defect affecting safety. Discussions [XXX] Repair process [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA complaint #11736496 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

SERVICE BRAKES

The center high-mounted stop lamp (CHMSL / third brake light) fails on 2021 and newer Tesla Model S vehicles (including Plaid). This is a common issue reported by many owners, particularly as vehicles exit the warranty period. No redesigned or corrected replacement part has been made available by Tesla. Pre-2021 CHMSL units are incompatible and will not fit. Repair requires removal and replacement of the entire rear liftgate glass assembly, which is extremely expensive and labor-intensive for owners. Prior model years did not experience this problem. A non-functional CHMSL reduces the vehicle's visibility to following traffic and increases the risk of rear-end collisions, especially at night or in poor weather. This appears to be a design or manufacturing defect affecting safety. Discussions [XXX] Repair process [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA complaint #11736496 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

AIR BAGS

The vehicle developed a leak in the AC condensate drain. The leak is directly above the safety restraint control module. The module got wet deactivating the vehicle and causing havoc with the airbag system. Many electrical systems turned off such as the power to the steering wheel buttons( the left blinker, the right blinker, and the horn). Luckily this happened while my vehicle was parked but if this happened while someone was accelerating or driving on the highway they would lose control of the vehicle. I spoke to a Tesla Service Tech about the concern and he informed me that this AC leak happens very often in the 2021 and newer Tesla Model S vehicles and that Tesla is aware that the AC drain leaks onto the Restraint Contol Module but has not created a technical service bulletin or a recall for the safety issue.

NHTSA complaint #11726866 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

The vehicle developed a leak in the AC condensate drain. The leak is directly above the safety restraint control module. The module got wet deactivating the vehicle and causing havoc with the airbag system. Many electrical systems turned off such as the power to the steering wheel buttons( the left blinker, the right blinker, and the horn). Luckily this happened while my vehicle was parked but if this happened while someone was accelerating or driving on the highway they would lose control of the vehicle. I spoke to a Tesla Service Tech about the concern and he informed me that this AC leak happens very often in the 2021 and newer Tesla Model S vehicles and that Tesla is aware that the AC drain leaks onto the Restraint Contol Module but has not created a technical service bulletin or a recall for the safety issue.

NHTSA complaint #11726866 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

WHEELS

Complaint Category: Tires / Suspension Summary of Issue: I am reporting a recurring and deceptive safety defect involving extreme inner-edge tire wear on my Tesla Model S. On three separate occasions, my rear tires have worn down to the metal structural cords exclusively on the innermost shoulder, while the remaining 90% of the tread appeared in excellent, near-new condition. Safety Hazard: This defect creates a high risk of catastrophic blowout at highway speeds. Because the wear is hidden on the far interior edge of the tire, it is invisible to the driver during standard daily visual inspections. The vehicle’s non-adjustable rear suspension geometry (aggressive negative camber) places extreme stress on the inner shoulder, causing it to fail structurally while the rest of the tire looks safe. Tesla’s Response: Tesla Service has been unable to provide a permanent remedy, stating the vehicle is "within spec," despite the recurring nature of the failure. I am filing this to urge the NHTSA to investigate whether this suspension geometry constitutes a design defect that requires a mandatory recall or corrective hardware.

NHTSA complaint #11710217 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL

Incident Description: While driving through a parking lot at 20 mi/hr, my vehicle's AEB system activated in response to another vehicle approaching from a perpendicular direction. However, the system's response was dangerously delayed and inappropriate stopping the car right in front of the other car: The system failed to provide any advance warning or alert before applying the brakes The braking occurred too late to create adequate separation from the approaching vehicle The vehicle stopped directly in the path of the oncoming car, increasing rather than decreasing collision risk The abrupt stop left my vehicle in a position where I was at greater risk of being T-boned Only the other driver's quick reaction prevented a collision. Had that driver not stopped in time, the AEB system would have contributed to, rather than prevented, a serious accident.

NHTSA complaint #11707047 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

SERVICE BRAKES

Incident Description: While driving through a parking lot at 20 mi/hr, my vehicle's AEB system activated in response to another vehicle approaching from a perpendicular direction. However, the system's response was dangerously delayed and inappropriate stopping the car right in front of the other car: The system failed to provide any advance warning or alert before applying the brakes The braking occurred too late to create adequate separation from the approaching vehicle The vehicle stopped directly in the path of the oncoming car, increasing rather than decreasing collision risk The abrupt stop left my vehicle in a position where I was at greater risk of being T-boned Only the other driver's quick reaction prevented a collision. Had that driver not stopped in time, the AEB system would have contributed to, rather than prevented, a serious accident.

NHTSA complaint #11707047 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

FORWARD COLLISION AVOIDANCE: AUTOMATIC EMERGENCY BRAKING

Incident Description: While driving through a parking lot at 20 mi/hr, my vehicle's AEB system activated in response to another vehicle approaching from a perpendicular direction. However, the system's response was dangerously delayed and inappropriate stopping the car right in front of the other car: The system failed to provide any advance warning or alert before applying the brakes The braking occurred too late to create adequate separation from the approaching vehicle The vehicle stopped directly in the path of the oncoming car, increasing rather than decreasing collision risk The abrupt stop left my vehicle in a position where I was at greater risk of being T-boned Only the other driver's quick reaction prevented a collision. Had that driver not stopped in time, the AEB system would have contributed to, rather than prevented, a serious accident.

NHTSA complaint #11707047 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

FORWARD COLLISION AVOIDANCE: WARNINGS

Vehicle: 2022 Tesla Model S (HW 3.0) System in Question: Full Self-Driving (FSD) Capability, initially purchased (Level 1 equivalent) for $6,000, and then upgraded (Level 2 equivalent) for an additional $3,000 (Total $9,000). I. Initial FSD Purchase and Unsafe Performance (Level 1) Upon initial purchase of the FSD package, the system (what Tesla later called FSD Beta, or its precursor) consistently demonstrated unsafe and aggressive behavior that necessitated immediate driver intervention to prevent a crash. Specific Safety Concern: The system would often execute turns, both in city and highway off-ramp scenarios, with excessive speed and aggressive lateral acceleration. This erratic behavior felt uncontrolled and risky, frequently causing the driver to feel unsafe and to rapidly override the system by taking manual control of the steering wheel. Resulting Risk: The system was virtually unusable for anything beyond basic highway cruising (a feature standard on many vehicles), yet its aggressive behavior posed a safety risk on the highway when attempting lane changes or taking exits. II. Upgrade and Deterioration of Practical Safety (Level 2) I upgraded to the top-tier FSD package with the hope of receiving a safer, more functional system that matched the "Full Self-Driving" name. Instead, the system introduced new safety and usability defects: Forced Disengagement/Driver Monitoring Defect: The system's driver monitoring is overly aggressive and interferes with safe, necessary driving actions. It delivers constant "nag" warnings and requires disengagement when the driver performs a brief but necessary safety check, such as looking at a side mirror, checking over the shoulder for a lane change, or briefly glancing at the car's screen to adjust climate/radio. Safety Implication: This defect forces the driver to prematurely disengage FSD in complex traffic situations to avoid a warning/lockout, which is counter-productive to safety. I am effectively penalized for

NHTSA complaint #11698829 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

FORWARD COLLISION AVOIDANCE: ADAPTIVE CRUISE CONTROL

Vehicle: 2022 Tesla Model S (HW 3.0) System in Question: Full Self-Driving (FSD) Capability, initially purchased (Level 1 equivalent) for $6,000, and then upgraded (Level 2 equivalent) for an additional $3,000 (Total $9,000). I. Initial FSD Purchase and Unsafe Performance (Level 1) Upon initial purchase of the FSD package, the system (what Tesla later called FSD Beta, or its precursor) consistently demonstrated unsafe and aggressive behavior that necessitated immediate driver intervention to prevent a crash. Specific Safety Concern: The system would often execute turns, both in city and highway off-ramp scenarios, with excessive speed and aggressive lateral acceleration. This erratic behavior felt uncontrolled and risky, frequently causing the driver to feel unsafe and to rapidly override the system by taking manual control of the steering wheel. Resulting Risk: The system was virtually unusable for anything beyond basic highway cruising (a feature standard on many vehicles), yet its aggressive behavior posed a safety risk on the highway when attempting lane changes or taking exits. II. Upgrade and Deterioration of Practical Safety (Level 2) I upgraded to the top-tier FSD package with the hope of receiving a safer, more functional system that matched the "Full Self-Driving" name. Instead, the system introduced new safety and usability defects: Forced Disengagement/Driver Monitoring Defect: The system's driver monitoring is overly aggressive and interferes with safe, necessary driving actions. It delivers constant "nag" warnings and requires disengagement when the driver performs a brief but necessary safety check, such as looking at a side mirror, checking over the shoulder for a lane change, or briefly glancing at the car's screen to adjust climate/radio. Safety Implication: This defect forces the driver to prematurely disengage FSD in complex traffic situations to avoid a warning/lockout, which is counter-productive to safety. I am effectively penalized for

NHTSA complaint #11698829 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

FORWARD COLLISION AVOIDANCE: AUTOMATIC EMERGENCY BRAKING

Vehicle: 2022 Tesla Model S (HW 3.0) System in Question: Full Self-Driving (FSD) Capability, initially purchased (Level 1 equivalent) for $6,000, and then upgraded (Level 2 equivalent) for an additional $3,000 (Total $9,000). I. Initial FSD Purchase and Unsafe Performance (Level 1) Upon initial purchase of the FSD package, the system (what Tesla later called FSD Beta, or its precursor) consistently demonstrated unsafe and aggressive behavior that necessitated immediate driver intervention to prevent a crash. Specific Safety Concern: The system would often execute turns, both in city and highway off-ramp scenarios, with excessive speed and aggressive lateral acceleration. This erratic behavior felt uncontrolled and risky, frequently causing the driver to feel unsafe and to rapidly override the system by taking manual control of the steering wheel. Resulting Risk: The system was virtually unusable for anything beyond basic highway cruising (a feature standard on many vehicles), yet its aggressive behavior posed a safety risk on the highway when attempting lane changes or taking exits. II. Upgrade and Deterioration of Practical Safety (Level 2) I upgraded to the top-tier FSD package with the hope of receiving a safer, more functional system that matched the "Full Self-Driving" name. Instead, the system introduced new safety and usability defects: Forced Disengagement/Driver Monitoring Defect: The system's driver monitoring is overly aggressive and interferes with safe, necessary driving actions. It delivers constant "nag" warnings and requires disengagement when the driver performs a brief but necessary safety check, such as looking at a side mirror, checking over the shoulder for a lane change, or briefly glancing at the car's screen to adjust climate/radio. Safety Implication: This defect forces the driver to prematurely disengage FSD in complex traffic situations to avoid a warning/lockout, which is counter-productive to safety. I am effectively penalized for

NHTSA complaint #11698829 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

SEAT BELTS

VIN: [XXX] 2022 Tesla Model S Delivery: 10/27/2025 Passenger seatbelt was cut/frayed — FMVSS 209 + 208 violation. Tesla replaced belt but **ignored 8 other defects** (paint, body, sand, maintenance). Closed ticket early, **refused FSD goodwill**. Car still unsafe — **airbag system not recalibrated**. Loaner required. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA complaint #11696322 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

WHEELS

Since purchase, I have experienced nine tire-related failures, including four separate blowouts at highway speed, leaving the vehicle disabled on major roads multiple times. The most recent occurred on [Insert Date], when the car suffered another blowout and is now disabled at my residence. This pattern of failure has occurred despite tire replacements and service visits by Tesla. The issue began on the day of delivery, when a tire failed within 70 miles, and service staff admitted the car had not been safety inspected prior to delivery. Tesla has replaced nearly all tires, reimbursed a third-party shop once, and confirmed on a recorded call that the level of tire failure is abnormal. Still, no root cause has been identified. The failures have occurred under normal driving conditions and pose a serious safety hazard to me, my family (including children), and others on the road. My family now refuses to ride in the car. This issue is ongoing, unresolved, and I believe there is a systemic defect involving the vehicle’s suspension, alignment, or structural components that is contributing to abnormal tire wear and catastrophic blowouts. I am requesting that NHTSA investigate this vehicle and Tesla’s CPO inspection process, and that appropriate safety action be taken before someone is seriously injured or killed.

NHTSA complaint #11694520 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

SUSPENSION

Since purchase, I have experienced nine tire-related failures, including four separate blowouts at highway speed, leaving the vehicle disabled on major roads multiple times. The most recent occurred on [Insert Date], when the car suffered another blowout and is now disabled at my residence. This pattern of failure has occurred despite tire replacements and service visits by Tesla. The issue began on the day of delivery, when a tire failed within 70 miles, and service staff admitted the car had not been safety inspected prior to delivery. Tesla has replaced nearly all tires, reimbursed a third-party shop once, and confirmed on a recorded call that the level of tire failure is abnormal. Still, no root cause has been identified. The failures have occurred under normal driving conditions and pose a serious safety hazard to me, my family (including children), and others on the road. My family now refuses to ride in the car. This issue is ongoing, unresolved, and I believe there is a systemic defect involving the vehicle’s suspension, alignment, or structural components that is contributing to abnormal tire wear and catastrophic blowouts. I am requesting that NHTSA investigate this vehicle and Tesla’s CPO inspection process, and that appropriate safety action be taken before someone is seriously injured or killed.

NHTSA complaint #11694520 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

TIRES

Vehicle: 2022 Tesla Model S Tire: Goodyear ElectricDrive 2 255/45R19 104W XL Date of incident: October 15, 2025 Location: Chambers Rd., approximately 1.7 miles from Cosmopolitan Rd., Colorado Speed: Approximately 35 mph (speed limit 40 mph) Mileage on tire: Installed October 31, 2024 — approximately 10,000 miles of light local driving Description of the Problem At approximately 1:30 PM on October 15, 2025, while driving my Tesla Model S southbound on Chambers Road at around 35 mph, the driver-side front tire suddenly exploded and detached completely from the vehicle. I heard a loud thump, then saw a tire rolling ahead of me on the road. The car’s display immediately showed “tire pressure 0.” When I stopped and exited the vehicle, I found that the tire had either blown apart or peeled off the rim and separated entirely from the car. Weather was clear and around 70°F, road conditions were normal, and traffic was light. My tire pressures had been checked earlier that day and were all around 42 PSI. I was unable to retrieve the tire because I have limited mobility and use a scooter. My daughter arrived soon after but could not locate the missing tire either. The vehicle was towed by AAA to a tire shop. The technician stated that the tire appeared to have peeled off the wheel, but could not explain why. The tire was less than one year old and had very low mileage. I drive short local trips daily (around 10–15 miles) and had only taken one 700-mile trip earlier this year. Goodyear was contacted, but they declined to investigate because the tire could not be recovered. This incident could have caused a serious crash had it occurred minutes later on I-25, where I planned to drive at 75 mph. I am reporting this because I believe the tire may have suffered a manufacturing defect, and I am concerned other drivers could experience the same failure.

NHTSA complaint #11694322 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.