News
How Tesla’s Elon Musk dunks on the competition just as their momentum builds
It’s an emotion-filled, intense game. When you’re down the court. In the zone. Elon Musk goes up for the slam and WHAM!
Just when you least expected it.
Oh, that’s gotta hurt.
The script plays out time and time again. Tesla and SpaceX CEO Musk bursts into action. Like a runaway freight train. But with intent. Strategy. Musk charges in with a timely announcement to derail the momentum of his competition, just as they’re about to gain traction. Cheers for the competition become silence.
We were reminded of Musk’s mastery of the game this past week when a timely leaked email would inform the world that Tesla was preparing for volume production of its highly-anticipated Semi truck. Shares of Tesla shot up past $1,000 to raise the bar on its all-time high, while any trace of attention on a competing rival – Nikola – would be lost.
Electric-hydrogen commercial truck maker Nikola had just come off of a momentous week after going public in its Initial Public Offering.
While Musk’s announcement was surely a positive one for Tesla, there may have been some intent behind it. Just as Nikola’s stock began to climb, Musk derailed their momentum by announcing Tesla’s plan to prioritize the Semi truck production. It’s a classic page out of Musk’s successful playbook to leverage a competitor’s momentum, as media centers the conversation around a particular industry, before ripping the ball away from the competition and go in for the slam dunk. It has happened throughout his storied career. And it will continue to do so.
————————————
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future. Please consider subscribing. It’s FREE!
————————————
Porsche Taycan. We drove it. We appreciated it and we were on the bandwagon that the Porsche Taycan and its “repeatable performance” was destined for the famed Nürburgring. It was one of the first stories I covered as a writer for Teslarati and I can remember it pretty vividly. The Taycan hit the Green Hell in Germany in August and reportedly set a track record for a four-door production vehicle. However, that story wouldn’t last long.
Not more than a couple of weeks later, on September 5, Musk announced the Model S would be arriving at the Nürburgring to test its performance at the notoriously difficult racetrack. But it surely didn’t stop there. Musk then stated that Tesla had been developing an entirely new version of the Model S behind the scenes and that the wide-body design was a brand new tri-motor setup of the company’s flagship sedan. It was called “the Plaid Powertrain,” and it ripped through the Ring in record time.
Just as Porsche was starting to gain some momentum as an EV competitor to Tesla, Musk ripped their title right out from under them. Within a few weeks, everyone was done talking about the Taycan and wanted to know more about the Plaid Model S. As of right now, it is still a car that has is relatively face-value details available, but we all know it is going to be fast.
Next, Rivian’s momentum was surely derailed by Musk when the company decided to unveil the Cybertruck. Rivian’s R1T was going to be “the next big thing” in the consumer pickup truck segment. Personally, I was pretty impressed with how many people knew about Rivian, because many friends who have little interest in the automotive sector as a whole knew who Rivian was. In California, this wouldn’t be as impressive. But I live in Pennsylvania, and it was pretty cool to hear people talk about Rivian in such a mainstream manner.
In November, Rivian had been holding more reservation events, developing its production facilities, filing patents, and really establishing itself as a real leader in the EV pickup market. Then came along the Cybertruck.
The Cybertruck’s design and its dystopian-like unveiling event were enough to derail Rivian’s momentum. Nobody was talking about Rivian, and even to this day nearly eight months later, the Cybertruck is still the hot topic. While Rivian remains a relevant character in the electric pickup truck community, the casual electric car fan is sharing articles about the Cybertruck, and not the R1T.
I’ll be honest, the space race rivalry between Musk and Bezos isn’t something I’ve followed as closely as the automotive stuff. But I remember when Bezos was on CNN in 2015 talking about his Blue Origin rockets being the first fully reusable rockets in the world. But SpaceX had successfully landed a reusable rocket in 2012. Not to mention, Musk’s words were often times reused by Bezos, who would pawn them off as his own idea. A video of that is available here.
https://youtu.be/Qe_TTI64fJA
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. Musk has used other companies to time his announcements for groundbreaking products. He did it with the Plaid Model S, he did it with the Cybertruck, and he did it with the Semi. Momentum building is especially difficult in automotive manufacturing simply because most companies all share the same features and commonalities. It takes something truly special for people to get excited.
Elon has developed an interesting way to spread the word about his new products, and he’s basically used other companies to do it. Some might call it timely, some might call it rude. I call it smart.
—————————————————–
Please consider Subscribing and joining me next week as I go ‘Beyond the News’
—————————————————-
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
