Connect with us
tesla-fsd-beta-10-69-2-3-reviews tesla-fsd-beta-10-69-2-3-reviews

News

Tesla FSD Beta 10.69.2.3 observations from testers

(Credit: Tesla)

Published

on

Tesla FSD version 10.69.2.3 rolled out shortly after AI Day. The latest update of Tesla’s Full Self Driving software delivers minor bug fixes. Some testers have received v10.69.2.3 and shared their observations with Teslarati. 

As previously noted, 10.69.2.3 is a relatively small update that addresses some minor bugs in FSD Beta. As it sometimes goes with software bug fixes, some Beta testers mentioned a new issue in the latest version that appeared to be a step or two backward. 

Road Obstacle Detection Issues

A few testers in Tesla’s FSD Beta Program reported experiencing road obstacle detection issues when their vehicles would not register particular objects in their path or directly ahead. 

For instance, beta tester Jonathan shared that his vehicle did not recognize or avoid dead animals on the road. Another beta tester experienced similar issues with gates in his community.

“One day coming back from work I decided to see if it can get me close to the proximity of my house. I live in a gated community. The vehicle made the turn into the drive entry of the community which has two swing gates. Vehicle was almost going to go through the closed gates,” FSD Beta user Sean shared with Teslarati. “I had to tap the breaks and override the system to make it stop. It didn’t see the gates as obstacles or road blocks. I have tried this a couple of times during daylight and night time and result is the same.”

After Tesla released v10.69.2.2, a few beta testers observed that their vehicles recognized and avoided construction work sites and similar obstacles on the road. 

Advertisement
-

Left and Right Turns

A couple of beta testers mentioned issues with left and right turns, specifically during intersections. The most prominent issue FSD Tesla drivers raised about turns was their cars’ hesitation during intersections. Testers highlighted that their cars’ hesitation during intersections isn’t really a big issue until they consider the other drivers on the road. 

“Hesitates too long at intersections presumably trying to determine if/when it’s safe to proceed. This only matters to me when there are cars behind me. I feel intense pressure to push the car through (and I do). Humans do not have patience to wait on its time-table,” noted Terry, another FSD Beta tester.

FSD Beta user Dr. Rahaman made similar observations. He noted that his Tesla would creep forward after stopping at an intersection on a red light and would take a left or right turn too slowly, sometimes irritating the drivers behind him. Dr. Rahaman specifically observed that his car entered left turn lanes late without a signal. In the past, the Tesla owner has noted that the car’s turn signals sporadically turn off and on at some intersections or turns. 

Lane Selection Issues

Tesla FSD v.10.69.2.3 doesn’t appear to address the largest issue multiple testers have pointed out over the past few weeks: lane selection. One beta tester seemed to sum up the sentiments most drivers in the Tesla FSD program have regarding lane selection. 

“Lane selection sometimes just plain wrong and dumb. Causes driving task to be harder for itself than it needs to be because it realizes (eventually, usually) it’s in the wrong lane too late and then has to get over which is harder with traffic and unlike a human who can gesture, the car can give no such signals as to its self-made predicament,” the tester commented.  

“Also, it sometimes gets into turn lane just late enough that cars behind me assume I’m continuing straight and swoop in behind me and get over immediately causing it to be even harder for my car to get over into that lane now because all slots are occupied and the road is about to end at a light,” he added. 

Advertisement
-

Other Issues

Some other less prominent issues that a few FSD Beta testers have noted are listed below. 

1. Lane Positioning – The car hugs the double yellow lines too closely on narrow roads or sticks to the middle of the road when no lines are present. 

2. Wide turns – The Tesla car takes wide turns, far from the curb. One tester observed that his car risked hitting the guard rails and other obstacles with its wide turn. 

3. Turn Lane Issues – The car still mistakes turn lanes for driving lanes

Some testers still report experiencing phantom braking and jerkiness while taking turns. However, the one observation that seems to stick out among others came from beta tester Neeraj. 

“Drives as if everyone is going to follow the rules 100% and is not accommodating or accounting for those who may not be going 100% as they should,” he said about FSD Beta. 

FSD Beta still has a ways to go before 100% autonomous version rolls out to the general public. Observations and tests from beta testers help Tesla improve FSD. Elon Musk teased more significant improvements in the next update, 10.69.3. Tesla hopes to release a ‘supervised’ FSD version by the end of the year. 

Advertisement
-

Have you tried out FSD Beta 10.69.2.3 yet? I’d like to hear from you! Contact me at maria@teslarati.com or via Twitter @Writer_01001101.

Maria--aka "M"-- is an experienced writer and book editor. She's written about several topics including health, tech, and politics. As a book editor, she's worked with authors who write Sci-Fi, Romance, and Dark Fantasy. M loves hearing from TESLARATI readers. If you have any tips or article ideas, contact her at maria@teslarati.com or via X, @Writer_01001101.

Advertisement
Comments

Investor's Corner

Tesla has a Cybercab problem nobody saw coming

Tesla’s Cybercab line now builds robotaxis faster than Tesla can deploy them, Lars Moravy says.

Published

on

By

Tesla’s Cybercab line in Texas can now build the two seat robotaxi faster than the company can put it into service, according to Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering. “We don’t run every day because the line can run so fast. It’s currently outpacing our deployments,” Moravy said in a new Cybercab deep dive from Munro Live. “So, it’s a bit of a race right now. Who’s going to go faster? Right now the manufacturing line’s ahead.”

Tesla’s official Robotaxi account shared a Cybercab analysis video on X on Monday, calling it a “Cybercab engineering deep dive.” Moravy’s comments go further than what he told analysts on the Q3 earnings call last week, when he said the Cybercab line’s listed capacity of more than 125,000 units a year undersells what it can actually run.

The tour shows where that speed comes from. Tesla’s unboxed process splits the Cybercab into front, rear, side and center modules that are built and tested on their own before they meet on a short final line. That final line has just 25 fully automated stations, which Tesla’s team estimated is a fifth to a tenth of what a Model Y needs. The full line is about 78% automated, the framing line is already at 100%, and the layout uses roughly 50% less floor space per vehicle. The stated goal is “100% automation in 10 second cycle time,” or one finished Cybercab every 10 seconds.

Tesla also deleted the paint shop. Only the side modules are coated, and the exterior panels get their color inside the molding machine. Engineers said the car is designed to run at least 500,000 miles, which matters for a vehicle that will spend most of its day carrying riders.

The battery got the same treatment. The Cybercab uses an 88S6P pack of 4680 cells in a steel enclosure, a first for Tesla, with each module potted separately so a single failed module can be swapped instead of the whole pack. Wireless battery management boards replace a wiring harness, and new contactors are fast enough to drop the pyro fuse entirely. Tesla’s battery director graded the pack an A minus, compared with a D for the Model Y structural pack and a B minus for Cybertruck. Up front, the drive unit runs an 11:1 gear ratio versus roughly 9:1 on most Teslas, since the Cybercab does not need a high top speed.

Advertisement
-

The deployment side is now the bottleneck Moravy described. Tesla had more than 50 Cybercabs working the Formula 1 weekend in Austin, and Texas records show 463 Cybercabs registered. Tesla said on its earnings call that Cybercab service will launch in Dallas next month, and Moravy said the company is aiming to get Cybercabs to customers by the end of 2026. Every unit built so far has gone into Tesla’s own fleet since the line moved into volume production in April.

Munro Live also asked when it could get a Cybercab to tear down. Tesla’s answer: “Not yet.”

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

How SpaceX Is raising Raptor’s sea-level thrust while holding engine mass steady

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX

SpaceX’s Raptor engine family has steadily increased sea-level thrust while simultaneously reducing mass, turning iterative engineering gains into substantially higher performance for the Super Heavy booster. CEO Elon Musk shed more light on how powerful Raptor 4 will be, and it’s pretty crazy.

Raptor 1 delivered 185 metric tons of thrust at roughly 2,080 kilograms, while Raptor 2 raised that to 230 tons while cutting mass to about 1,630 kilograms. SpaceX data for Raptor 3 lists a target of 280 tons at 1,525 kilograms (with further reductions in associated vehicle hardware), while operational flight ratings have been cited near 250 tons.

This morning, Elon Musk stated that Raptor 4 is expected to reach 300 tons of sea-level thrust at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3. Across these versions, thrust has risen by more than 60 percent from the first engines while engine mass has fallen, producing a sharp improvement in thrust-to-weight ratio. This is a true testament to how great SpaceX engineering has been:

With 33 engines on SuperHeavy, the jump from earlier versions to a 300-ton Raptor 4 would produce roughly 9,900 metric tons of total liftoff thrust, nearly three times the Saturn V’s approximately 3,400 metric tons from its five F-1 engines.

This is not just a larger number on a data sheet, either, as sea-level thrust is the force available the moment the vehicle leaves the pad. This is when it is heaviest and still deep in Earth’s gravity well and dense atmosphere.

Higher levels of sea-level thrust directly improves the initial thrust-to-weight ratio of the full stack. A higher ratio produces faster acceleration off the pad, which shortens the time the rocket has to spend fighting gravity, and gravity losses during the first minute or two of the flight are a major drain on total available delta-v. Every second shaved off of that early climb preserves more propellant energy for reaching orbital velocity or for carrying extra payload.

Because Super Heavy’s engine count is constrained by vehicle diameter and packing density, increasing thrust per engine is the most straightforward way to raise total liftoff performance without redesigning the booster structure or design.

The same-mass target for Raptor 4 is equally important. Holding engine mass roughly constant while raising thrust improves the engine’s own thrust-to-weight ratio and reduces the structural and propellant mass fraction that must be carried solely to support the engines.

Earlier Raptor iterations also simplified or eliminated extensive vehicle-side hardware such as heat shields. These gains compound: more force for less installed mass leaves additional capacity for propellant, payload, or operational margins such as engine-out capability.

For Starship’s architecture, the practical effects are large. Greater liftoff thrust supports heavier vehicles, larger propellant loads, and higher payloads to low Earth orbit, figures SpaceX has targeted in the 100-plus-ton reusable range. That capacity underpins orbital refueling, lunar missions, and eventual Mars cargo and crew flights.

Continued growth in sea-level thrust therefore tightens the gap between theoretical rocket performance and the high flight rates and reusability needed to make large-scale space transport practical.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Assisted Driving expands to tenth EU country

Published

on

Tesla has expanded its Tesla Assisted Driving (TAD) suite to its tenth European country, as Latvia joined a growing list of European Union member states authorizing the company’s advanced driver assistance technology.

Tesla Europe announced this morning that the system is now approved in Latvia, with a software rollout to begin soon.

The approval and rollout follow recognition of a provisional European type approval originally granted by the Netherlands’ RDW authority on April 10.

Latvia’s Road Traffic Safety Directorate (CSDD) evaluated the Dutch documentation, coordinated with the other national authorities, and reviewed updates from Tesla. These included tightened limits on speed offsets, automatic resets of any manual speed adjustments after each trip, and stronger driver monitoring.

In Europe, the feature is marketed as Tesla Assisted Driving after a recent rule change that labeled the name “Full Self-Driving” as misleading.

Tesla starts showing how FSD will change lives in Europe

The system remains an SAE Level 2 driver assistance tool, not unsupervised autonomy. It can control speed, steering, braking, lane changes, and intersections while following a navigation route. Drivers need not keep their hands on the wheel at all times, yet they must continuously monitor the road and be prepared to intervene immediately.

The sequence of EU recognitions began with the Netherlands in April and continued through Lithuania, Estonia, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia, Czechia, Croatia, and Slovakia. Most have relied on mutual recognition of the single Dutch provisional approval rather than independent national testing.

These national clearances do not yet constitute bloc-wide authorization. An EU-wide decision requires a qualified majority in the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles: at least 15 of 27 member states representing 65 percent of the EU population. Larger markets, like Germany, France, and Italy, remain under review, and a vote is expected this December.

However, for Latvian Tesla owners with compatible vehicles and software, the imminent rollout expands access to the supervised system while underscoring that attentive human oversight remains essential.

Continue Reading