You’ll never know how far the Tesla Semi, the Volvo VNR, or other electric semi-trucks will go according to EPA testing standards. The answer is incredibly complex, but simply put, the EPA does not test or evaluate heavy-duty trucks for range ratings. Don’t expect the agency to tell you how far the Tesla Semi or other EV trucks will go because testing simply does not happen.
This allows manufacturers of heavy-duty electric vehicles and semi-trucks to have a profoundly unique ability to control the narrative that surrounds how far their product can go on a full charge. As crazy as it sounds, customers leaping into the all-electric Class 8 sector are putting trust in the companies they buy from when weighing what is arguably the most important metric of the EV ownership experience: range.
Following the certification of the Tesla Semi by the EPA in late October, which Teslarati exclusively reported on, we were bombarded with questions surrounding the vehicle’s EPA-rated range. Light-duty passenger electric vehicles and their success can almost always be gauged by how customers react to range ratings during unveiling events. When Lucid announced it had successfully reached an EPA-rated 520 miles of range on a single charge in the Air Dream Edition, the EV world was astounded. While the vehicle has felt heavy demand on order logs, Lucid still fulfills them to this day.
Meanwhile, other manufacturers bring vehicles to the market with relatively “light” range projections or ratings. It is always disappointing to see a vehicle with so much potential offer so little of what EV owners want: driving range. People do not want to stop at EV chargers. They want to continue their journey on the roads.
Polestar’s recently-unveiled Polestar 3 comes to mind when I (and some others) think of an astounding vehicle with not-so-astounding range and efficiency. Despite its 111 kWh battery pack, the Polestar 3 only offers 379 miles of WLTP-rated range. WLTP ratings are usually much more generous than EPA ratings, so I am anticipating the vehicle to reach around 300 miles of range when the U.S. agency gets its hands on it.
When light-duty vehicles are assessed, approved, and granted Certificates of Conformity from the EPA, they are available for the public to read and include results on efficiency and range testing. This is where heavy-duty vehicles and the testing process differ vastly from light-duty ones.
While these are both vehicle classes that are purchased and used by consumers on public roads, only light-duty vehicles are assessed for range ratings, while heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers do not have their products’ range “evaluated, reported, or included” in an application for certification, the EPA said in an emailed statement.
The EPA has numerous documents relating to this idea, as well as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). However, the documents never directly specified why heavy-duty vehicles are not required to be tested by federal agencies. That does not mean that reasoning is not available.
The fact of the matter is the agency may not have been prepared to test heavy-duty electric vehicles for range ratings, especially this soon. A document found in the Federal Register that was submitted by the EPA and Department of Transportation (USDOT) in 2016 titled, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles— Phase 2,” which established rules to reduce greenhouse gases, includes an interesting tidbit regarding electric vehicles:
“Given the high up-front costs and the developing nature of this technology, the agencies do not project fully electric vocational vehicles to be widely commercially available in the time frame of the final rules. For this reason, the agencies have not based the Phase 2 standards on adoption of full-electric vocational vehicles. We received many comments on electric trucks and buses. Specifically, EEI provided information on the total cost of ownership for electric trucks, and some applications may see attractive long-term cost.”
The time frame of the final rules is set to end in 2027 and apply to model year 2027 vehicles, according to the document.
The agency recognized in 2016 that these technologies may be in development, and we all know they are. As the EPA and NHTSA may not have been able to predict how quickly all-electric heavy-duty trucks would become a prevalent piece of American logistics, the agencies were aware that this technology was coming in the future:
“Phase 2 will include technology advancing standards that will phase in over the long-term (through model year 2027) to result in an ambitious, yet achievable program that will allow manufacturers to meet standards through a mix of different technologies at reasonable cost. The terminal requirements go into effect in 2027, and would apply to MY 2027 and subsequent model year vehicles, unless modified by future rulemaking. The Phase 2 standards will maintain the underlying regulatory structure developed in the Phase 1 program, such as the general categorization of MDVs and HDVs and the separate standards for vehicles and engines. However, the Phase 2 program will build on and advance Phase 1 in a number of important ways including the following: basing standards not only on currently available technologies but also on utilization of technologies now under development or not yet widely deployed while providing significant lead time to assure adequate time to develop, test, and phase in these controls.”
So, how do manufacturers determine range?
This is where things get very tricky because if the EPA is not testing the range itself as an unbiased government organization, it means manufacturers are required to test the vehicles themselves, leaving consumers to trust the companies that they are buying from.
Technically, manufacturers could say whatever they want regarding their electric trucks. Tesla has maintained significant range ratings for the Semi throughout its development, with Elon Musk recently stating the vehicle will have 500 miles of range per charge, with a sizeable payload. Of course, Tesla has been testing its vehicle internally and with the help of verified customers, like Frito Lay, who will take delivery of the first Semi on December 1.
It really comes down to independent testing. Volvo, for example, tested the range of its all-electric VNR Class 8 heavy-duty truck through a pilot program with third-party companies. Through its LIGHTS (Low Impact Green Heavy Transport Solutions) project, Volvo had companies like NFI Industries test the VNR through its commercial operations to prove and demonstrate the truck’s ability.
“By participating in the Volvo LIGHTS project, NFI is helping to prove that Volvo’s VNR Electric trucks can handle the daily rigors of freight movement. NFI continues to be a leader in sustainability, and it comes across in everything they do,” Peter Voorhoeve, president of Volvo Trucks North America, said. “NFI is realizing the immediate value the electric VNR provides—not just by eliminating emissions but creating an enthusiastic workforce complimenting the experience of driving these electric truck models.”
The LIGHTS project ran through 2021 and provided Volvo with “real-world operational data critical to the successful commercial scaling of these vehicles.”
So how do you know how far an all-electric Class 8 heavy-duty vehicle goes? You might literally have to find out for yourself, or you can trust the manufacturer’s word for it.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
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.
A Tesla Cybertruck driver in the United Kingdom had their all-electric pickup seized by local police in the Greater Manchester area after the department cited “legitimate concerns.”
Last Thursday, police saw the pickup on the roads and decided to pull the driver over. Greater Manchester Police said:
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a collision with the Cybertruck.”
🚨 A Tesla Cybertruck, which is illegal to drive in the UK due to safety concerns, has been seized by police in Greater Manchester
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a… pic.twitter.com/cqhdPok3DM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
The Cybertruck in question was, according to the BBC, registered and insured abroad and was confiscated. The driver, who is a UK resident, was reported.
The Greater Manchester Police Department then added:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is not road-legal in the UK and does not hold a certificate of conformity.”
The Cybertruck cannot be legally driven in the UK because it has no UK Type Approval for operation in the country. This is due to some safety concerns, which are related to its angular shape and design. The stainless steel exoskeleton has sharp edges and projections that violate UK/EU rules on pedestrian protection.
Tesla has considered creating what it referred to as an “international version” that would be approved for operation in Europe. However, there has been no real movement on that front by the company, as it has been focused on the Robotaxi rollout primarily.
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
