News
I tried Tesla’s FSD Supervised on a demo drive—Here’s what I learned
Tesla’s Supervised Full Self-Driving (FSD) has been at the center of the company’s long-term strategy for years, and seeing as I’ve been covering the company and its competitors since 2020, I decided it was finally time to try it out myself.
The process of scheduling a demo drive was simple: I scheduled it online through Tesla’s test drive page, and because I was hoping to focus on FSD, I shot an email over to the Loveland team letting them know that I was coming and was planning to try the software out. I got a quick response, in which one of the advisors offered to schedule me for an extended demo drive, effectively giving me a three-hour window to try out FSD Supervised.
On Monday, I headed out from my house in Fort Collins, Colorado, to the next town over, Loveland, to try Tesla’s latest FSD Supervised version available. While I initially scheduled a demo drive for a Model Y with FSD Supervised v13.2.2, one of the Tesla advisors informed me that there was also a Model S on-site with version v13.2.2.1, so I elected to test that one instead.
After getting a quick rundown from the advisor on the Model S, my demo drive officially began. I typed my first destination into the navigation system, pressed and held the blue “Start FSD (Supervised)” button, and off I went.


Tesla’s FSD Supervised: autonomy is definitely on the way
Perhaps many people have this experience when trying FSD out for the first time, but right off the bat, I found myself laughing at how it worked and a little scared that it would make a mistake. This Model S was now driving me out of the Loveland Tesla parking lot to a nearby Target, through busy parking lots, turns and lane changes, and it was pretty uncomfortable at first not to be the one making the maneuvers—let alone the fact that no person was making these maneuvers, but rather it was the vehicle doing it on its own.
I felt like an anxious passenger—my feet pressed firmly on the floor in distrust and disbelief—only I was sitting in the driver’s seat. I really couldn’t do much but laugh at how strange the experience had felt so far.
Then, not long after my first trip, something interesting happened.
My mindset slowly shifted from fear to trust with each correct maneuver, and I managed my first few drives without disengaging at all, offering a true testament to how well FSD Supervised performed on this test. Granted, I went in without too much of a plan and wasn’t targeting fringe cases or particularly tough maneuvers; I just wanted to see if this car could drive me around for a few hours, and to feel what it was like to demo FSD Supervised as a newcomer.
It’s worth noting that I did most of my driving in FSD’s Chill mode, though I also tested a few drives in both Standard and Hurry. Personally, I think I would probably keep it in Chill mode most of the time, as it’s the most similar to how I drive of the three.
Below are a few moments from the drive that show some of the system’s capabilities, even turning onto busy roads that would be difficult for a human driver.
Tesla’s FSD Supervised reverses out of a parking spot… and we’re off
A simple reverse out of a parking spot, a good start! pic.twitter.com/TIx2yDmSxT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 15, 2025
Tesla’s FSD Supervised takes a few left turns onto busy roads
Another busy left turn – “FSD handled this busy turn with ease.” pic.twitter.com/SncR0Kh7ar
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 15, 2025
Another left turn during a somewhat busy time of day – “I was a little scared, not going to lie, but FSD handled it well.” pic.twitter.com/WNunR05C3h
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 15, 2025
Tesla’s FSD Supervised tackles a two-lane roundabout and parking lot
Roundabout? No problem! – “A two-lane roundabout that FSD handled pretty comfortably.” pic.twitter.com/X9QJIVXb6z
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 15, 2025
Left-hand turn out of a parking lot – “It was pretty busy in there but it was well handled, the car navigated easily through the intersection just as I would have.” pic.twitter.com/Kzxb0aYtFN
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 15, 2025
READ MORE ON TESLA’S FSD SUPERVISED: Tesla Cybertruck receives FSD (Supervised) v13.2.4 update
The temptation not to pay attention, and my most critical disengagement
Elon Musk and others have talked up FSD Supervised v13 since its release, as well as claiming that unsupervised driving is just around the corner. While it does feel closer than ever after years of reporting on small tweaks, improvements and developments, I think it’s also worth emphasizing again that the system still requires the driver to pay attention, even though it’s tempting to believe that it can handle all the driving by itself.
As I drove more and more, or rather as the car drove me, I became more comfortable trusting that FSD Supervised was going to make the right decisions, which it did about 99 percent of the time. I was lulled into somewhat of a false sense of safety that almost had me believing the vehicle didn’t need to be supervised, but that 1 percent of the time (maybe even less) that it did get confused still required my input.
I only had a few interventions for the whole experience, but one in particular had me a little scared after having become a little complacent and too trusting. As you can see in the video below, FSD Supervised was looking to merge into the right lane, when two vehicles slowed down. The Model S attempted to change lanes anyway, requiring me to overtake the wheel and keep driving straight.
Our first bit of adversity – “This was the most dangerous intervention I faced (I only had about three the whole time). FSD was trying to merge right, but the vehicles in that lane slowed down, and the car didn’t seem to understand what was going on. It started merging into the… pic.twitter.com/hJUBnCAjd2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 15, 2025
Besides the quick moment of fear in deciding I needed to take the wheel, it really was not a big deal once I regained control. It was actually a good wake-up call: this system still needs to be supervised, even if it makes fewer and fewer mistakes with each new version and feels like a solid human driver for the vast majority of the time.
I had a few other disengagements on my drive, mostly when the vehicle seemed to get confused about uncommon traffic circumstances or in confusing parking lot scenarios without clear signage. However, these moments made up a very small portion of my experience, and I can only imagine what another couple of years of development will do.
Tesla’s FSD Supervised: still needs supervision, but I got a good glimpse into a future of autonomy
All in all, I really enjoyed trying out FSD Supervised and I hope to do it again sometime. Additionally, I’d recommend trying it out to anyone, especially if you’re interested in seeing where driving tech is headed.
While I definitely got a glimpse into the future potential for fully autonomous driving, I also think it still requires supervision, even if just for those very seldom moments where the system gets confused. The margin for error with driving safety is obviously extremely low, though I do believe Tesla will eventually make good on its aim to make this system better than human drivers in time—and it already feels pretty close the majority of the time.
I hope to do this again sometime soon, and a major shout out to the Tesla Loveland team for making the experience smooth and for answering all my questions along the way.
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.
Tesla employees are performing autonomous FSD trials, CEO Elon Musk says
Need accessories for your Tesla? Check out the Teslarati Marketplace:
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.