A Tesla owner recently critiqued the performance of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving after the conclusion of a 6,400-mile trip across the United States. According to the driver, more than 99 percent of the trip was driven utilizing Tesla’s semi-autonomous driving functions, with the critiques showing the automaker’s strengths and weaknesses in terms of how both Autopilot and FSD can affect a drive of this substantial distance.
Tim Heckman took his Model S Plaid equipped with FSD Beta and Tesla Vision on the 6,392-mile trip from Los Angeles to Reading, Pennsylvania, and back, recording most of the (currently unreleased) footage on a GoPro mounted inside the vehicle. There were undoubtedly positives but also negatives, as Heckman describes the utilization of Autopilot and FSD on a trip of this length as an advantage in the “personal cost” of driving this many miles in a matter of two weeks.
On December 15th I left to drive from Los Angeles to near Philadelphia. Got back yesterday, after a total of 6,392 miles in the Model S Plaid with #FSDBeta.
Drove more than 99% autonomously, and I’ve some not great @Tesla Autopilot + FSD thoughts and experiences to share… ?
— Tim Heckman (@theckman) January 1, 2023
But where Tesla’s systems helped, it hurt elsewhere. Heckman describes frustration with the company’s recent transition to a camera-only approach, known as Tesla Vision, the suite’s lack of consistency outside of California, and where the company might have spent its focus over the past few years during the development.
No Radar, No Problem?
As Heckman took the drive in a Model S Plaid with camera-based Tesla Vision, the lack of radar was the first point of emphasis. Autopilot was more accurate and less stressful in a previous Tesla that equipped both cameras and radar for operation, Heckman said. “The removal of radar on the highway was a huge mistake,” he said in a Tweet. “Tesla Vision very often misidentified vehicles in front as being much closer than they are, trigging strong phantom braking. Sometimes losing 20mph of speed before I can react, which is a huge safety concern.”
During some points of the drive, the vehicle would recognize cars and adjust speeds that were not actually there. Additionally, Tesla Vision’s performance in low-visibility conditions like rain and fog was not ideal. Past iterations of the suites proved more effective, in Heckman’s opinion.
The automaker rolled out Tesla Vision in early 2021 in the Model 3 and Model Y, and the Model S and Model X received the update in 2022. When Tesla announced it would transition to a camera-only system, CEO Elon Musk explained that radar had helped solve the shortfalls that cameras couldn’t solve. However, it was never in the plan to rely on both radar and cameras.
“And when your vision works, it works better than the best human because it’s like having eight cameras, it’s like having eyes in the back of your head, beside[s] your head and has three eyes of different focal distances looking forward. This is — and processing it at a speed that is superhuman. There’s no question in my mind that with a pure vision solution, we can make a car that is dramatically safer than the average person,” Musk said during the Q1 2021 Earnings Call.
Speed Limit Changes
Another huge problem Heckman described was a slow decrease in speed after the reduction of speed limits in an area. This occurred on streets and not on the highway, but still raised some concern. Heckman noted it took “many seconds” to reach the legal speed when limits decreased by as much as 20 MPH.
In fact, someone I know was pulled over on New Years Eve (yesterday) by a Nevada state trooper because #FSD took too long to slow down in observance of the speed limit going from 55mph to 35mph.
Is that acceptable? Especially when we’ll have single stack on the highway?
— Tim Heckman (@theckman) January 1, 2023
Were Autopilot and FSD beneficial during this trip?
Yes.
“I love long road trips, and Autopilot makes them easier,” Heckman said. Despite the issues, it was still a pleasant experience and something he hopes to do again on his next trek from LA to PA.
At the end of the day, I think this stuff has tremendous potential. But at this point there needs to be focus and good execution, while not causing regressions in the experience especially on features that impact your safety and the safety of others on the road.
— Tim Heckman (@theckman) January 1, 2023
Heckman said he believes the lack of progress and improvements when speaking in terms of highway performance may be related to Tesla’s focus on solving self-driving on city streets.
“As a result of changing focus, Autopilot experience is worse than when we got our Model 3 in summer 2019,” he said.
Fun Fact: Tim told me his two longest days of driving were from Fort Worth, TX, to Burbank, CA, equating to roughly 1,404 miles, and from Burbank, CA, to Amarillo, TX, for 1,079 miles.
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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
