Tesla Full Self-Driving (FSD) Beta 10.69.3.1 has been out for some time now, and Teslarati talked to a few beta testers about the update.
Below are some notes and observations about v.10.69.3.1 from Tesla FSD Beta Testers.
FSD Beta 10.69.3.1 and Lanes
Lane selection has been one of the issues that most FSD Beta testers bring up when they talk to Teslarati. Before 10.69.3.1, FSD Beta reportedly had trouble understanding when to switch lanes, which one to switch to, or when to remain in a lane. FSD Beta testers are still experiencing lane selection issues.
“Not only has lane selection in anticipating a turn been a step back for me, lane selection whilst performing dual lane left-hand turns still suffer. The car doesn’t stay in its assigned lane but drifts. This does not happen on right turns,” said Les, a long-time FSD Beta tester.
“Lane selection still has issues. Most of the time it’s ok, but occasionally, it does strange things like changing into the right lane momentarily, then back to the left when there is an upcoming left-hand turn,” noted FSD Beta tester Sandy.
Turn Issues in FSD Beta 10.69.3.1
Les and fellow FSD Beta tester Sandy mentioned other lane issues related to turns. Les noted that one of the biggest step back with FSD Beta 10.69.3.1 occurs when the car faces an upcoming turn.
“On previous builds, the car would only occasionally move in the opposite lane direction of an upcoming turn. On this build, virtually every turn I had upcoming, when the car got within half a mile of said turn, it would signal and move into the lane of the opposite direction,” Les said.
“Virtually every right turn I’ve had upcoming, the car, inexplicably, signals and changes into the left-hand lane. Same for left-hand turns, within half a mile out the car signaled and changed into the right-hand lane. Confounding to say the least, to the point of comedy,” he added.
Sandy noticed that his car requires interventions or disconnects at stop signs sometimes. In the past, other FSD Beta testers have mentioned that their vehicle experiences jerky movements or their signal lights turn off and on during intersections, traffic lights, and stop signs. It’s as if the car is deciding whether the driver wants to turn or not.
“Following and lane changes seem smoother and more natural,” said Sandy. “However, it still has issues that require intervention/disconnects. When it creeps at stop signs, it can make jerky movements with steering wheel and, imo, it creeps to slowly and takes too long before proceeding.”
Mixed Reviews for 10.69.3.1
As with all of Tesla’s FSD Beta updates, there have been a few good reviews and bad ones. Beta testers tend to focus on the issues, as it is their responsibility to report them so Tesla can improve FSD. However, testers also report significant improvements they see during their drives.
In the case of 10.69.3.1, it seems like FSD Beta received mixed reviews. Some testers believed that the update significantly improved the advanced driver assist software while others thought it was a step back.
“I have tested the 10.69.3.1 build on my Model Y, and it’s a giant leap forward from builds prior to 10.69,” observed Tony, a Model Y owner and a member of the FSD Beta program.
Tony noted that the biggest changes were improvements to acceleration, smoother turns, and less necessary steering wheel input. Sandy also observed more improvements with Tesla FSD Beta 10.69.3.1 rather than issues.
On the other hand, Les believed that v.10.69.3.1 was a step back for FSD Beta.
“These 10.69.3.1 step backs are the biggest in my FSD Beta testing experience to date. Previous builds have been much better for me. But again, I understand the process; updates are sometimes “2 steps forward and 1 step back.” I still enjoy testing. The product isn’t finished yet,” he said.
Tesla FSD Beta Wide Release
Tesla started the wide release of FSD Beta v.10.69.3.1 in late November. A day after its release, Tesla rolled out FSD Beta to cars with less than 100 Autopilot miles and Safety Scores lower than 80.
The EV maker rolled out FSD Beta V11 to a few testers already. FSD Beta V11 is Tesla’s single-stack update. However, update 10.69.3.1 seems to be rolling out to more testers.
Tesla also made Full Self-Driving Beta available to anyone in North America who purchases it from their car screen. Now that Tesla has released FSD Beta to anyone in North America interested in trying it out, the company might want to streamline its performance. Based on Teslarati‘s interviews with FSD Beta Testers, the software performs differently based on location, driver, terrain, and other factors.
“Phantom braking on city streets (not highways) returned for me in one bizarre instance; it wasn’t the sudden hard kind of braking, rather this was a new braking behavior that was slow and gradual almost to a stop while I was going straight in the middle lane of a three-lane road. Not at a turn, wasn’t going through an intersection, and the road was clear,” described Les in one instance.
“There were no cars around me so I let the car do its thing to see what it was doing; it literally started slowing from 40mph to 5mph before I disengaged and accelerated back up to speed. Very weird. I went back to that spot a couple days later and the car didn’t do it. It acted normal,” he explained.
Tesla Full Self-Driving has not received regulatory approval yet. It still faces a lot of skepticism, especially in terms of safety. Delivering consistent, reliable performances in various driving situations might help it get regulatory approval.
Are you an FSD Beta tester? Have you tried out V11? If you have, I’d like to hear from you! Contact me at maria@teslarati.com or via Twitter @Writer_01001101.
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.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
