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 opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet

Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.

Published

on

By

Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.

The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.

Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.

Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.

There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.

The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.

The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Ukraine says Starlink is cutting out its military drones as Poland calls out Elon Musk

Ukrainian officials allege SpaceX limited military Starlink speeds, disrupting drone missions; SpaceX has not commented.

Published

on

By

Credit: Mykhailo Fedorov/Twitter

Ukrainian officials are accusing SpaceX of placing a speed limit on the military version of Starlink that their forces use to fly drones, but SpaceX has not confirmed that any change was made. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said in a Telegram post on Wednesday that Starshield terminals have begun losing service when they move faster than about 100 miles per hour, according to a Reuters report. “Our defense forces did not receive a warning about this limitation, and this led to the disruption of several missions,” he wrote.

Ukraine’s 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters that connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at just 68 to 75 mph, which made the drones harder to control. Volunteer Serhiy Sternenko, citing military reports, said the dropouts are now starting at 37 to 43 mph. These accounts come from Ukrainian officials and military sources and have not been independently verified. Regular civilian terminals were reportedly not affected, according to EUalive.


SpaceX has not publicly commented or explained what, if anything, changed. Beskrestnov and other Ukrainian officials believe the issue is intentional and point to the timing. Washington has been pressing Kyiv to stop long range strikes on Russian oil refineries after President Trump called for an “energy ceasefire,” and Musk posted on Saturday that “Zelensky has gone too far.” EUalive noted that neither Ukrainian nor Polish officials have presented evidence that the limit was ordered by Washington or by SpaceX, so the link to politics remains an allegation. Other explanations, such as a technical or policy change affecting fast moving terminals, have not been ruled out.

Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, responded on X by quote tweeting a Kyiv Independent report and writing: “Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again? As your European customers, we are watching you.” Poland is the largest funder of Ukraine’s Starlink service, having supplied more than 29,000 terminals and covering operating costs Sikorski has put at roughly $50 million a year. The wording echoes their 2025 clash, when Musk told Sikorski to “be quiet, small man.” At the time of writing, neither Musk nor SpaceX had responded to the claims.

The dispute sits on top of a long history. Musk confirmed in February 2022 that Starlink was active in Ukraine after a request from a Ukrainian minister. That October, SpaceX asked the Pentagon to share the bill and Musk said the cost was approaching $20 million a month, before he reversed course and said SpaceX would keep paying. In December 2024 the Pentagon moved some of those terminals onto the Starshield service, the government version now at the center of the complaints.

SpaceX has also changed how its network treats certain terminals in Ukraine before, and that time it was with Kyiv’s cooperation. In February, Ukrainian officials confirmed that terminals believed to be used by Russian troops were disabled after coordination with SpaceX, a step that Ukrainian commanders later said hurt Russian assaults. Whether anything similar is behind the latest reports is unclear, which is why Kyiv is asking for answers.

Ukraine is already looking at backups. Defense tech company Stetman is developing its own satellite system, UASAT-NANO, and officials in Europe have discussed alternatives to Starlink since early 2025, though none match its scale yet.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day

FAA is reviewing SpaceX’s plan for 456 Starship launches a year, up from 25 today.

Published

on

By

Rendering of Elon Musk overlooking a Starship fleet (Credit: Grok)

The FAA said Tuesday that it will prepare an environmental impact statement on SpaceX’s proposal to run as many as 456 Starship launches and 912 landings a year from Starbase, Texas. SpaceX is currently authorized for 25 launches and 50 landings annually, which makes the request roughly 18 times the existing ceiling. The notice of intent is set to publish in the Federal Register on Wednesday.

The plan comes in two phases. Phase 1 would allow up to 100 launches and 200 landings a year, on any day and at any hour. Phase 2, which the FAA says could arrive within several years, would raise the limit to the full 456 launches, still at any hour but only on weekdays. The agency noted that 912 landings is the upper limit for the Texas facility no matter where a given mission begins, and that Starship and Super Heavy could come down at the launch site or in the Gulf and open ocean.

A draft statement will be released for public comment at a later date, and the FAA has not said when. According to the Federal Registar, written comments are due November 30 on regulations.gov under docket FAA-2026-12808, with in person scoping meetings on November 17 in Brownsville and November 19 in Port Isabel, plus a virtual session on November 18. The review will weigh air quality, wildlife, coastal resources, water, noise, and aviation, and the FAA said any increase beyond this proposal would need its own separate review.

The numbers look large next to what Starbase has actually done. Starship has flown three times from Texas this year, including Flight 14 on September 28, the first orbital flight, which deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites. Bloomberg reported that Starbase has never launched more than five times in a calendar year. The current cap of 25 comes from an FAA approval in May 2025. In February, the agency also approved up to 44 Starship launches a year from Launch Complex 39A in Florida, so Phase 1 in Texas alone would more than double that allowance.

Musk has said Starship could eventually fly more than once per hour within less than a decade, per Bloomberg. The nearer term target is Flight 15. Musk said on October 10 that it is hopefully four to six weeks away and will try to catch the ship with the tower, as Teslarati covered. That flight still runs under the existing 25 launch limit, and so would every Starbase launch for as long as the new review takes.

As of mid morning Pacific time on Tuesday, SpaceX had not posted about the filing on its own account.

Continue Reading