News
Tesla Effect: Expert dives into EV adoption and the internal combustion engine’s death
When Elon Musk took the helm as CEO of Tesla, he aimed to disrupt the transportation industry to such a degree that electric mobility becomes the preferred, primary form of transportation. It was a lofty goal, near-impossible at the time. Yet, more than a decade and several all-electric vehicles later, Musk’s dream and his all-too-familiar Master Plan are actually happening.
Spurred by the success and the demand generated by vehicles like the Tesla Model S and Model 3, the auto industry is shifting towards electric transportation. Coupled with the ongoing climate emergency, several regions across the globe are also looking to drastically reduce their emissions, and one of the ways they are doing that is by phasing out the internal combustion engine. Paul Eichenberg, managing director of Paul Eichenberg Strategic Consulting and a longtime veteran in the auto industry, discussed these shifts in a recent appearance at Autoline After Hours.
During his discussions, Eichenberg noted that the auto industry, including the companies comprising its large supply chain, is already undergoing a steady departure from ICE technology. Aggressive emissions targets in regions such as Europe and China will eventually make it impossible for gas and diesel-powered vehicles to comply unless they become electric. Technological advancements such as autonomous driving solutions are also becoming a priority. This could be seen in how massive companies such as Volkswagen and Ford are currently partnering in a push towards EVs and full self-driving technology. Eichenberg noted that there would likely be more high-profile collaborations in the near future.
It is at this point that Tesla’s disruption, the “Tesla Effect,” if you may, becomes incredibly evident. Tesla might still be learning the ropes when it comes to running a car business, but it is becoming undeniable that the company has created an objectively superior product. Sandy Munro, who has torn down the Tesla Model 3 and other EVs like the Chevy Bolt and the BMW i3, remarked that Tesla’s electric sedan is at least a generation ahead of what other companies have put on the road in terms of the architecture, the electronic systems, and the software surrounding the vehicle. Tesla still needs to figure out a consistent way to make money, but in terms of the electric cars themselves, the company seems to have everything figured out.
With traditional auto catching up to upstart companies like Tesla, large carmakers are now looking to leverage the innovations from younger, smaller companies. This could be seen in how Ford willingly invested in Rivian, which has developed its own skateboard platform that features much of the same concepts as Tesla’s skateboard chassis. Eichenberg, citing an OEM he spoke with prior to the announcement of Ford’s Rivian investment, stated that building a skateboard similar to Rivian’s and Tesla’s will likely result in a seven-year lead in the marketplace.
With electric cars being far more straightforward in terms of parts and components, a significant number of companies whose businesses rely on the internal combustion engine are currently being faced with a dilemma. Eichenberg gave an example of this in a brief discussion about forgings. “If you look at the forgings, a typical vehicle like the Pacifica — you know, V6, 8-speed — that has 107 forgings in it, in just that traditional ICE engine ecosystem. When you go to an electric vehicle, whether it’s the (BMW) i3, the Teslas, the (Chevy) Bolt, whatever it is, there’s eight or nine. So you have a 90% over-capacitation of an industry. And here’s an industry that’s only 90 billion globally, and half of everything it does is in the engine-transmission ecosystem,” he said.
Elaborating further, Eichenberg mentioned that big-tier corporations such as Honeywell and Delphi, whose businesses are tied to the internal combustion engine, are now positioning themselves through spinoffs as a way to shed their ICE-centered assets. Unfortunately, smaller companies don’t have it as easy, particularly as private equities and investors do not seem interested in ICE innovations anymore. Eichenberg shared the story of Dayco, a private equity-owned business which experienced multiple failed sale processes. Eventually, the company ended up taking the deal to China, where it failed to receive a single bid. Among the key reasons behind these failures was Dayco’s line of business.
“Why is Dayco an indication of what private equities are going to do? It’s because Dayco makes pulley systems that go in front of the internal combustion engine. And of course, what’s been the first element to be electrified? All the pumps and all these systems that run off this pulley system. So, the market has already recognized, ‘Hey you know what, we’re not interested in these types of assets,’” he said.
Overall, it appears that traditional automakers’ decision to “wait and see” if Tesla survives and succeeds was a miscalculation at best. As it turned out, well-designed, long-range electric cars caught on, and with the advent of the Tesla Model 3 Standard Plus, which currently starts below $40,000 with Autopilot as standard, it is now becoming quite evident just how much catching up is needed for traditional auto to thrive (or even survive) in the age of the electric car. Yet, as more large automakers collaborate on technology that companies like Tesla have developed on their own, and as investments flow into young, innovative companies like Rivian, it is becoming a certainty that the internal combustion engine is indeed on its twilight years.
Watch Paul Eichenberg’s segment in Autoline After Hours in the video below.
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
