News
Electric trucks from large to small vital to Tesla’s Master Plan
It all goes back to Elon Musk’s original secret Master Plan from 2006, when the billionaire entrepreneur issued his famous vision of the future: “[T]he overarching purpose of Tesla Motors (and the reason I am funding the company) is to help expedite the move from a mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar electric economy, which I believe to be the primary, but not exclusive, sustainable solution.”
Musk made an executive decision right from the beginning to target customers whose opinions influence others by building premium electric cars that would make people sit up and take notice. Until Tesla came along, electric cars were little more than glorified golf carts. But if Tesla is going to make significant progress toward its ultimate goal, it is going to have to make electric trucks as well as passenger cars. Trucks are responsible for about 50% of all emissions created by the transportation sector according to the EPA. It’s no wonder Musk’s follow up plan calls for a zero emissions Tesla targeted at the mid to heavy duty truck segment.
The Tesla Plan
“In addition to consumer vehicles, there are two other types of electric vehicle needed: heavy-duty trucks and high passenger-density urban transport. Both are in the early stages of development at Tesla and should be ready for unveiling next year,” outlines Musk in his Master Plan Part Deux.
Aaron Turpen previously gave us an excellent analysis of what characteristics a Tesla pickup would need to have in order to be successful. He set out in detail what Tesla would need to do to build such a truck.
- V8-like performance including roughly 400 hp and 380 lb-ft
- Extended and four-door cab offerings
- Cargo bed size of 5.5 feet with option for 7 feet
- Towing capacity of about 10,000 pounds
- Payload capacity of 1/2 ton to 3,000 pounds
- 4×4 capability
- Driving range, under load, of at least 150 miles
- Conventional styling and appeal
How is Tesla going to make batteries with the energy and power needed to move such heavy vehicles? The Powerwall may offer clues. Just one year after it was introduced, Tesla brought its second generation version to market with roughly double the capacity of the original. Tesla doesn’t reveal very much about its ongoing battery research programs, other than to say that improvements of between 5 and 7 percent a year are anticipated as it ramps up production at the Gigafactory.
One assumption is that batteries for trucks will be significantly different from those used on its passenger cars, with more focus on energy and less focus on power. While a Tesla pickup that breaks the 3 second 0-60 barrier would be very cool, that sort of acceleration would have little relevance to how a truck gets used in daily driving.
When it comes to trucks that haul freight, it’s possible that the company has some sort of battery swapping plan in mind at truck stops along major transportation routes. Another approach would be to simply swap tractors at designated service areas much the way Formula E drivers swap cars during a race. Tesla could own the trucks and lease them to freight companies. The idea is as old as the Pony Express.
What About The Competition?
While Tesla is busy planning its truck strategy, other companies are chasing the same low emissions dream. Most of them rely on some form of range extender engine to build a truck that has low emissions but is cost competitive. The most promising of those ventures may be from Workhorse, which claims it will have a full size plug-in hybrid pickup truck with dual motors on the market by 2018. It uses the two cylinder range extender engine from the BMW i3 REx to provide electricity to the battery when needed. A rendering of the truck by Australia’s Motoring shows a truck that is purposeful rather than svelte in its design.
Delivery and cargo vans are another target market. Four large cities — Mexico City, Paris, Madrid, and Athens — announced their intention to ban all diesel powered vehicles from their streets by 2025. Many of the medium duty trucks used to deliver food and consumer goods to city dwellers are powered by diesel engines, especially in Europe.
Deutsche Post, known globally as DHL, is one of the largest parcel delivery companies in the world. It is working hard to reduce its carbon footprint but could not find an all electric van suitable for its needs. So it built its own. “We designed it as a tool. So the fit and finish does not need to be as good as in a passenger car,” Win Neidlinger, director of business development at Deutsche Post tells Fortune. “It did not cost billions to develop and produce. You will not believe how cheap it is to make.” The company now plans to become a manufacturer and start selling the vans, which it calls StreetScooters, to customers in 2017.
Photo credit: Deutsche Post
UPS is also in the delivery business and is a world leader in testing alternative fuels and alternative powertrains in its trucks. It has invested more than $750 million in alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles since 2009. UPS now has 7,700 low emission vehicles in its “rolling laboratory” test fleet and is evaluating vehicles that run on natural gas, renewable natural gas, and propane according to Electric Cars Report.
It also is using electric powertrains in some of its vehicles. A version of the Workhorse plug-in hybrid range extender system is being tested in several of its delivery vans. It is also thinking small when it comes to what is known in the industry as the “last mile” conundrum. How do companies like UPS create nimble, zero emissions vehicles that can access congested urban areas? One solution being tried in Hamburg, Germany and Portland, Oregon is a hybrid electric tricycle called the eBike. It has a battery and electric motor and can move using pedal power, electric power, or a combination of both.
Photo credit: UPS
Some of the biggest polluters are garbage and trash hauling trucks. Because the stop and start hundreds of times a day, their diesel engines are constant spewing toxic pollutants into the atmosphere. While their total numbers are small, they discharge a disproportionate amount of emissions to the atmosphere. Taming the emissions from beasts would be an important step forward.
Ian Wright, a Tesla co-founder and former board member, thinks he has a solution. His company, Wrightspeed, builds heavy trucks powered solely by electricity but with a twist. Wright and his engineering staff have invented a small natural gas powered turbine that acts as a range extender engine. He claims his turbine operates so cleanly, it does not require a catalytic converter to meet California’s strict tailpipe emissions laws.
Salt Lake City start-up Nikola Motors recently revealed its idea for a 1000 HP low emissions electric truck called the Nikola One. Sleek and futuristic, it relies on battery power to turn its six electric motors but also has an onboard hydrogen fuel cell that is says will give the tractor a range of 800 to 1000 miles. The company says it has over a billion dollars worth of reservations in hand. While it did present a full size prototype at the reveal, many are taking a wait and see attitude toward Nikola Motors, which has no factory at the present time but claims it will begin production in 2018.
Summary
Trucks will play an important role in reducing global emissions from the transportation sector. A recent report from Navigant Research predicts annual sales of electric trucks — including hybrids and plug-in hybrids — will increase by a factor of ten over the next decade. From 31,000 worldwide today, Navigant says more than 332,000 electric trucks will be sold annually by 2026. That’s a big market for manufacturers to target.
Tesla has refused to consider any sort of range extender device for its cars, but solving the problems of building low emissions trucks for delivering freight and cargo across long distances may make such things a necessity. The need is great and the time is short. If hybrid trucks are what are needed, even as a stop gap measure while battery technology catches up with energy and cost constraints, that would be important for a world struggling to limit carbon emissions.
Elon Musk
The Boring Company just doubled its tunneling power in Nashville
The Boring Company’s Prufrock MB2 is commissioned and ready to mine beneath Nashville’s streets.
The Boring Company’s second tunnel boring machine, Prufrock MB2, is officially ready to dig in Nashville. The company confirmed the news on X, posting: “Prufrock-MB2 is ready to mine in Nashville! MB2 commissioning is complete, including the brief 11 rpm rotation shown here. Will MB2 catch up to MB1, who had quite the head start? And Prufrock-MB3 ships in August!”
MB2 arrives with meaningful improvements over its predecessor. Lessons learned from the launch and operation of MB1 have already been applied to MB2 to improve efficiency and prepare the machine for launch.
Traditional tunnel boring machines operate in a stop-and-go cycle, digging roughly five feet, halt, erect precast concrete segments to line the tunnel wall, then resume. That repeated interruption is one of the main reasons conventional tunneling is slow and expensive. Prufrock is designed to install the tunnel liner simultaneously with mining, eliminating the need to stop every five feet. The machine also skips the need for excavated launch pits. Prufrock arrives on a truck, tilts down, and launches into the ground within 24 hours. And when the tunnel is complete, it emerges from the ground and drives to its next launch site on a trailer, eliminating the need for expensive cranes or pit excavation. The machine is also fully electric and runs with zero people in the tunnel during normal operations, controlled remotely from a surface operations center.
Prufrock-MB2 is ready to mine in Nashville! MB2 commissioning is complete, including the brief 11 rpm rotation shown here.
Will MB2 catch up to MB1, who had quite the head start?
And Prufrock-MB3 ships in August! pic.twitter.com/TTrMql2aRg
— The Boring Company (@boringcompany) June 17, 2026
It won’t be long before we hear of another major update on The Boring Company’s Music City Loop project – a planned underground transit network beneath Nashville that would move passengers in electric vehicles through a series of tunnels at highway speeds, and bypassing surface traffic entirely. Nashville was selected in part because of its strong rock conditions that suits the Prufrock machines well, and relatively less regulatory hurdles.
Progress has been steady on multiple fronts. All 37 permits and approvals required ahead of tunneling have been obtained, out of 45 total. Key wins include a fully executed TDOT tunnel permit authorizing 25 miles of tunnel, unanimous airport authority approval for a Nashville International Airport station, and the city’s first residential station agreement serving downtown tower residents.
With MB1 already tunneling, MB2 now commissioned, and MB3 shipping in August, Nashville is becoming something of a live proving ground for scaled tunnel boring. The broader ambition is not limited to one city. The Boring Company’s stated goal is to make underground transportation a practical alternative to surface roads across major metro areas. Nashville is one of many cities, including a successful Las Vegas tunnel system, where that idea is being put to the test at real speed.
Tesla has launched a direct campaign targeting its customers in New Jersey, sending emails that warn of pending legislation that could effectively block true driverless technology in the state.
The email focuses on Senate Bill S.1677 and Assembly Bill A.3968, measures intended to create a three-year autonomous vehicle pilot program but laden with requirements that Tesla argues make unsupervised Robotaxis impossible.
Tesla is sending out this email to New Jersey Tesla owners, warning them that NJ could block autonomous vehicles, and to take action.
“Proposed legislation moving through Trenton right now would impose restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.… pic.twitter.com/2bmY646AUL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 16, 2026
According to the email, the bills impose “restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.” Specific hurdles include mandates for human safety drivers during operations, multimillion-dollar insurance minimums, reportedly $5 million, and thresholds like 100,000 miles of demonstrated safe autonomous driving before any driverless approval.
Tesla contends these are arbitrary barriers that ignore real-world performance data and favor entrenched competitors over innovative technologies like its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The push comes as Tesla has started expanding Robotaxi operations in states like Texas, where unsupervised vehicles are already providing rides in several cities. New Jersey, by contrast, risks falling behind. The company highlights in the email communication that more than 94 percent of serious crashes result from human error, meaning impairment, distraction, or fatigue. These are all problems that Robotaxis eliminate entirely.
In 2025, New Jersey recorded 582 traffic deaths, underscoring the human cost of delayed adoption.
Tesla’s outreach stresses the transformative potential of robotaxis. For families, they could offer safer school runs without drowsy or distracted drivers. For seniors and people with disabilities, robotaxis promise independence and reliable mobility.
In areas with limited public transit, they could deliver affordable, on-demand transportation, reducing congestion, emissions, and overall transportation costs. Economically, the company warns that restrictive rules could cost New Jersey jobs, innovation investment, and billions in potential growth as autonomous ride-hailing scales elsewhere.
Supporters of the legislation, including Sen. Andrew Zwicker, describe the pilot as a cautious framework with strong safety oversight, including incident reporting, expert task forces, and restrictions in sensitive zones like school areas. They view it as balancing innovation with public protection.
Tesla and pro-AV advocates counter that the bill lacks technology neutrality, creates insurmountable entry barriers for commercial deployment, and prioritizes process over outcomes — effectively functioning as a de facto ban on services like Robotaxi.
This latest clash echoes Tesla’s past battles in New Jersey over direct vehicle sales. The email directs owners to Tesla’s advocacy platform, where they can send customized messages to legislators calling for amendments: outcome-based safety standards, open competition, and clear pathways for fully driverless commercial operations.
As hearings approach, Tesla’s campaign frames the issue as a choice between protecting the status quo and embracing life-saving progress. With robotaxi technology already proving itself in permissive states, New Jersey owners are being asked to ensure their state doesn’t lock out the future of transportation.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
The Boring Company just doubled its tunneling power in Nashville
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
