News
Opinion: Tesla FSD Beta critics’ pearl-clutching and outrage are getting ridiculous
Tesla’s “Request Full Self-Driving Beta” button is here, and so is the Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD). Over the weekend, Tesla owners with qualified vehicles and who purchased the company’s Full Self-Drivings suite were able to press a button that would allow them to apply for a slot in the company’s soon-to-be-expanded FSD Beta program. The company also launched its Safety Score system as a way to help determine which of its customers are safe drivers.
True to form, it did not take long before Tesla critics pounced on the “Request FSD Beta” button and the company’s “Safety Score” system. Pretty soon, even a US Senator joined the fray in condemning the FSD Beta program. While this is not a surprise and almost expected considering Tesla’s history, it must be said that this time, the pearl-clutching and outrage from the company’s critics are getting quite ridiculous.
Tesla’s Strategy
To get proper context on the FSD Beta expansion, one must know how Tesla started the program in the first place. The FSD Beta program was launched in October 2020, and for nearly a year, it was limited to just about 2,000 drivers. These drivers have accumulated valuable real-world data over the past 11 months, and none were involved in an accident. This effectively did two things: one; it proved that the FSD Beta program is feasible, and two; it set a very high bar for the rest of the FSD Beta rollout.
Expanding the FSD Beta program requires tons of caution. Thus, it was no surprise that the company launched a Safety Rating system designed to evaluate the driving behavior of Tesla owners. This effectively gave the company a rather objective way to evaluate which drivers could participate in the FSD Beta program expansion. It should also be noted that owners who qualify for the program would not be using a consumer release version of the Full Self-Driving suite. They would simply be part of the FSD Beta test program.
Clutching Pearls
This fact seems to have escaped some of the media coverage about the FSD Beta program expansion. Bloomberg, for one, ran with a headline that read “Tesla Starts Judging Owners It Charged $10,000 for Self-Driving.” This premise is quite incorrect as the $10,000 Full Self Driving suite being sold by Tesla is a consumer release product, not the advanced driver-assist system that would be used by owners who qualify for the FSD Beta program. Despite this, sentiments opposing the program, as well as the Safety Score system, have been quite evident among the company’s critics.
Such a misinformed take was evident in a Twitter post shared by US Senator Richard Blumenthal, who noted that Tesla was “putting untrained drivers on public roads as testers for their misleadingly-named, unproven system.” The Senator added that the FSD Beta strategy is a “seeming recipe for disaster” as the company is playing “Russian Roulette for unsuspecting drivers & the public.” Interestingly enough, the politician also cited a tweet from CNBC, which included an article that is, in many ways, slanted against the EV maker.
Outdated Information
Wrong takes on hot topics are typically due to outdated information, and in the case of US Senator Blumenthal, this might be the case. Back in 2018, the politician rode in a Model 3 with Consumer Reports Head of Auto Testing Jake Fisher, who was operating a version of Tesla’s Autopilot that is now incredibly outdated. During the drive, Fisher was quick to point out what capabilities Autopilot was lacking, all while operating the system without his hands on the wheel.
Consumer Reports is hardly a Tesla authority considering that the magazine, which prides itself on consumer advocacy, quite literally featured a thorough walkthrough on how to abuse Tesla’s Autopilot system back in April using defeat devices and a variety of tricks. If Blumenthal is basing his take on Tesla on CNBC‘s recent reporting — which was slanted negatively against the EV maker — and his past experiences with Consumer Reports — which operates Autopilot irresponsibly — then it is no wonder that he is skeptical about the FSD Beta test expansion.
The Irony of it All
The most ironic thing about the pearl-clutching and outrage among Tesla critics today is the fact that the “Request FSD Beta” button essentially does nothing for now. It does not make owners who press the button automatic FSD Beta testers. They’d have to have great Safety Scores for that. And due to the presence of Safety Scores, Tesla owners who wish to participate in the FSD Beta program are now driving safer than ever before. The company effectively incentivized safe driving this weekend, and somehow, it was still met with a ton of negativity.
Also ironic is the fact that statistics are on Tesla’s side. Take the well-publicized NHTSA investigation on Autopilot crashing into stationary emergency vehicles, for example. When the probe was launched, the news was extensively covered with headlines like CNN‘s “Tesla is under investigation because its cars can’t stop hitting emergency vehicles.” But while such headlines are compelling, the fact is that the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report notes that there are about 8,000 stationary emergency vehicle crash injuries per year. Tesla had nine crash injuries with stationary first responder vehicles in the last 12 months, and some of those involved drivers who were not paying attention to the road.
The NHTSA notes that there are about 2,740,000 crash injuries in the United States per year, and there’s hardly any outrage for the human lives included in this grim statistic. Tesla’s Full Self-Driving system, which generally drives very conservatively, could effectively reduce this number by a notable margin. It is then quite disappointing to see the narrative being formed around the expansion of the FSD Beta program, especially considering that the advanced driver-assist system would only be released for owners who generally drive safely.
Valid Tesla Criticism
Interestingly enough, there are actual valid angles of criticism for Tesla’s FSD Beta rollout. The program for now is vastly focused on the United States, but the company sells the FSD suite to owners worldwide. It would then be beneficial to Tesla owners if the program’s expansion is expedited to areas such as Canada and Europe, to name a few. FSD, after all, is intended to be a universal system that should be capable of operating anywhere. Following this logic, FSD Beta must be tested on a wider set of areas as well — as soon as possible.
There are also Tesla owners who purchased the Full Self-Driving suite years ago on vehicles that are still equipped with MCU1 units. Some of these vehicles are already coming out of warranty, and their owners are yet to enjoy any FSD features since most of the advanced driver-assist system’s functions today require an MCU2 unit. Considering that Tesla owners were promised that their cars would be equipped with the hardware necessary for Full Self-Driving with an FSD suite purchase, it would only be right for Tesla to expedite MCU1 to MCU2 retrofits for owners with vehicles that were produced from March 2018 or earlier.
But misrepresenting the FSD Beta program expansion and criticizing the Safety Score system, that’s a far harder sell.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk
SpaceX turned a heralding moment for Starship into its greatest moment
Starship reached orbit despite losing an engine, deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites on Flight 14.
SpaceX’s Starship reached orbit for the first time on Monday, and for a few nail-biting minutes it looked like it wouldn’t. During ascent on Flight 14, one of Ship 41’s six Raptor engines shut down early, and SpaceX’s livestream host Dan Huot told viewers the team had decided not to commit to orbit. Minutes later, after what Huot described as a lot of conversation in the control room, the final poll came back in favor, and a roughly 19 second burn of a single Raptor pushed the ship into orbit about 170 miles up.
The reversal matters because SpaceX had written the exit ramp into the mission plan. The company said it would only fire the orbital insertion burn if flight controllers confirmed enough backup hardware remained for the deorbit burn, a condition Teslarati laid out ahead of the flight. Losing an engine was exactly the scenario that rule was built for.
Pressing forward fits Elon Musk’s history. Falcon 1 failed three straight times before its fourth launch reached orbit in 2008, with SpaceX nearly out of money, and Starship was developed by flying prototypes until they broke. What changed this year SpaceX going public, and with $SPCX sliding below its IPO price in July when Flight 13 slipped, the short interest climbed significantly, as Teslarati reported at the time. A Starship potentially lost today with revenue generating next-gen Starlink satellites aboard would have landed directly on shareholders.
Splashdown confirmed. Congratulations to the entire SpaceX team on the first orbital flight of Starship! pic.twitter.com/urjmiwnvNl
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) September 28, 2026
That pressure showed up after orbit. SpaceX cut a flight planned to last nearly 10 hours to about three, moving splashdown from west of Chile to the North Pacific near Hawaii. SpaceX gave no reason, though Musk said this month the company was being extremely cautious about debris risk. The single Raptor for deorbit worked, and Ship 41 completed its flip and landing burn before breaking apart in the water, an outcome SpaceX expected. Musk has structured SpaceX’s governance to shield long term bets from market pressure.
The payload is the bigger business story. Musk posted that all 26 Starlink V3 satellites deployed and are “operating nominally.” Each V3 is rated for about 1 Tbps of downlink and 160 Gbps of uplink, so this single launch adds roughly 26 Tbps, about 10 times what a Falcon 9 load of V2 Mini satellites adds. The V3 is too large for Falcon 9, making Starship the only vehicle that can build out the planned 100,000 satellite constellation, at up to 60 per flight once it reaches routine service. Unlike the 20 V3 units on Flight 13, which reentered on a suborbital path, these will raise their orbits and could begin serving customers within weeks and bring in hundreds of millions of additional dollars in projected Starlink revenue.
SpaceX has already begun winding down Falcon 9 Starlink launches from Florida in favor of Starship. Reported targets put Flight 15 as early as October 19, leaving about three weeks to diagnose Monday’s engine shutdown before the next orbital attempt.
Starship’s 14th flight is set to launch on Monday, Sept 28. The 75-minute launch window opens at 7:15 a.m. CT. Live coverage of the mission starts ~35 minutes before launch → https://t.co/uQKQvgaTmJ
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) September 27, 2026
Tesla quietly doubled the size of its Cybercab fleet within the Robotaxi program in Austin, Texas, over the weekend to well over 100 units.
The move not only establishes more of the steering-wheel-less and pedal-less vehicles within the ride-sharing fleet Tesla has been operating for a year, but it also solidifies a more robust Robotaxi fleet as a whole.
Riders started receiving notifications from the Robotaxi app that stated: “Cybercab fleet has doubled: more rides available.”
I got this notification on the robotaxi app. They are saying the Cybercab fleet has doubled. Glad that they are advertising this pic.twitter.com/FFrnw4FRCF
— Abhimanyu Yadav (@WorldlyReviewer) September 26, 2026
Tesla first launched rides in the Cybercab in early September, although the Robotaxi fleet has been active for over a year, as rides began last Summer. Cybercab is truly Tesla’s most crucial vehicle release yet, as it is the first car any company has built that is geared toward full-fledged and end-to-end autonomy, never needing human intervention for anything.
Only available in Austin at the current time, Cybercab has two seats and has been spotted testing around various U.S. states and regions; Tesla plans to deploy the Cybercab in various U.S. cities in the coming months as a best-case scenario.
Tesla Cybercab gets initial tie-in to localized, in-house cathode plant
The availability of the Cybercab has doubled from just 58 units last Monday to 125 the following Friday. Marking a substantial increase in Cybercab availability, the additional ride-sharing units are more than welcome, as wait times for Cybercabs, especially, were quite high.
The dramatic increase is a sign that demand for Robotaxi is growing and Tesla is feeling more confident that its driverless ride-hailing suite, especially its Full Self-Driving software, is able to handle any traffic situation without explicit direction or supervision from a human being.
Tesla is advancing a fully automated pipeline for the 4680 battery cells used in its all-electric Semi, spanning production from Giga Texas through shipment and direct consumption on the line at the new dedicated Semi Factory in Sparks, Nevada.
The approach was outlined by Tesla at its September 24 Semi Handover event, which launched high-volume production at its new 1.8-million-square-foot plant in Nevada, which sits adjacent to Gigafactory Nevada and is designed for an annual production rate of 50,000 trucks per year.
After years of pilot builds and what was a four-year-long redesign of the truck, Tesla moved the Semi from 2170 batteries to its in-house 4680 cells, which are made in Austin. The change cuts battery mass and total energy while holding range, a key step in making volume production a realistic possibility.
Cells will leave Giga Texas in trailers, and at the Nevada Semi plant, Tesla intends for a dedicated line to unload those trailers automatically, station the cells, and feed them straight into pack and vehicle assembly.
🚨 Tesla plans to use a completely automated unloading process for cells coming from Giga Texas arriving at the Semi factory in Nevada
A line will “consume” cells from the trailer
The goal is to have zero human touch point throughout the entire process. Insane! pic.twitter.com/wdBFM8LC3F
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) September 25, 2026
Both Lars Moravy, Tesla’s VP of Vehicle Engineering, and Dan Priestley, the Head of Tesla’s Semi program, described the goal as a “zero human touch point” from the moment the trailer arrives in Texas until a finished Semi drives off the production line in Nevada.
The unloading system that Moravy and Priestley described is just one piece of a much broader automation push. The plant uses what Tesla calls the highest-capacity electric monorail conveyance in vehicle manufacturing, carrying frames-in-white simultaneously. Powder-coating replaces conventional paint, and many processes that would normally require operators have been designed out.
Tesla has repeatedly said that “the best part is no part,” and the cell-handling plan extends that philosophy from the cell factory floor in Texas all the way to final assembly in Nevada.
If executed as described, the closed-loop flow would reduce labor, handling damage, and inventory buffers while tightening quality control on a component that represents a large share of the truck’s cost and weight. It also shortens the physical and organizational distance between two factories separated by more than 1,200 miles. The Semi itself now shares a bar-wound stator and other components with the Cybertruck, further linking Tesla’s passenger and commercial production systems.
High-volume output is expected to ramp gradually after the first trucks left the new line in April 2026. Early customers include PepsiCo, DHL, and U.S. Foods. Whether the automated trailer-to-line process reaches the promised zero-touch standard will be visible in the coming months as production scales. For Tesla, the Semi factory is another test of how far it can push “the machine that builds the machine” across sites.
SpaceX turned a heralding moment for Starship into its greatest moment
Tesla Cybercab fleet doubles to well over 100 units
