News
Installing Solar Panels through SolarCity
Shortly after placing my order for my Tesla Model S I started looking into installing a solar panel system at home as a way to offset the soon-to-be increased electricity bill. My research turned me to a SolarCity system which I ended up signing up with in April of 2014.
After a number of scoping, design, and utility company challenges the day finally came for installation.
Sizing the Job
While I had originally hoped for a much larger system, the system that was installed was still large by most people’s standards. The final design called for 70 panels, each capable of generating 255W for a total of 17.8 kW and an annual expected output of 18,611 kWh.
To put that into perspective, my Model S uses an average of 775 kWh (as measured through a digital submeter) or approximately 2,400 miles. That usage will climb a bit for the winter months, but I still intend to use about 9,300 kWh per year for my Model S which equates to 50% of my expected solar generation capacity.
What this means is that I’ll be driving my Model S on 100% solar generated energy and still have solar energy to spare to offset my normal electric costs.
Many installations are half this size or smaller due to a number of constraints. Because of the size of this job, SolarCity booked 2 days for the install and sent a crew of about 8 to do the work.
Scheduling
It was a bit nerve wracking waiting for the project to begin 8 months after my April sign up date. This put us smack dab in the middle of winter for a December 8th install in New England. We’ve had snow and ice storms along the way which made me more skeptical that the install would ever take place.
I’m happy to report that the entire SolarCity team in charge of the project arrived on the scheduled date. They were late due to leftover work at a different site, but they turned up despite the wet weather, 30 degree temperature and got right to work. It was immediately evident that this crew knew what they were doing and it was just another day on the job despite the magnitude of the install.
Solar Panel Installation
The first order of business was to tape off and secure the area from foot traffic. Anchors are attached to the roof which the crew secured their safety harnesses to.
Once the precautionary safety measures were in place, the crew began setting up dozens of anchor points across the roof surfaces later to be used as mounting points for the solar panels. That part took most of the first day.
By the end of the first day they had managed to install solar panels on the smaller of the 2 roof lines and had most of the anchors ready on the larger roof line.
Weather Proof Guarantee
A Noreaster hit right in the middle of the week so installation was postponed. To make matter worse, all of the heavy rain and cold weather ended up icing over the roof. I crawled into both attics below each roof to ensure that all of the nails and anchors on the roof didn’t create a leak and was relieved to find that everything was totally dry.
SolarCity guarantees a leak-free installation so it was great to be able to validate that even after torrential rains.
The crew returned on the third day despite the rain and proceeded to work a full day in extremely cold weather and light rain.
Uh oh, Design Challenges
Two different design issues were uncovered during the solar panel installation. The first of which was related to a misjudgment on the number of solar panels that would fit. Designers back at corporate had mapped out 70 panels for the roof, but one of the panels would not fit behind the chimney. The crew offered to stick it somewhere else, but we declined as it would have been asymmetrical anywhere else and the aesthetics would not have been good. So we ended up with a total of 69 panels and a slight decrease in target generation capacity.
The second issue was identified on the third day. While the entire install was on the front of the house (thanks to National Grid), they had a pipe running in the middle of the roof on the rear of the house which looked stupid and unnecessary.
I spoke to them about it and they cheerfully redesigned and relocated the entire pipe. In the rain. In 30 degree weather. On top of the house. The install team took our concerns seriously and took care of the problem.
The Final Touches
After lugging the panels up all day (each panel weighs about 45 pounds) and mounting them, they took the time to level each of them so they were completely flat.
At one point a single panel in the middle of the lot was a bit out of place (not perfect) so one of the guys had to slide down the wet, cold, glass on his knees (getting soaked in the process), 30 feet above ground with just a line to keep him safe just to adjust the angle slightly. Those installers are hard core!
Electric Connection
I was surprised that SolarCity needed no access to the house (other than for bathroom breaks) to do the job. The entire connection for my house was on the outside. They needed to cut the power for about 45 minutes to connect into the mains but otherwise there was very little disruption.
The size of the installation required 3 inverters which they placed on the side of the house.
Next Steps
The process leading up to the install (3 part series) was frustrating and error-prone between the reluctant power company and the mistakes made by the out-of-touch engineers back at SolarCity corporate. But SolarCity’s installation team was nothing but first class, all the way. They knew their stuff, were very safety conscious and worked through some harsh conditions to get the job done, and done well. They restored my confidence in the decision I made and I’m confident again that things are going to work out well.
Now that the system is installed and ready to go we need to have the inspections done. SolarCity coordinates it all, but there’s a building inspection, an electrical inspection and then an inspection by the power company. Once all passes (in about 3-4 weeks) we’re given the green light to flip the switches and start putting that free energy from the sun to good use.
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
