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.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
