News
Tesla Giga Berlin’s 4680 supply won’t start in Germany, and it was never supposed to
Tesla’s plans for the initial battery needs and efforts at Giga Berlin were answered in late 2020 by the automaker during the Q3 Earnings Call. While things tend to change on a somewhat regular basis as far as plans for something as large as a vehicle manufacturing plant, Tesla knew that its initial battery fulfillment plans likely wouldn’t come from the planned Giga Berlin 4680 cell production lines. Instead, Tesla will rely on its Kato Road facility in Northern California, where the development and manufacturing of a new, revolutionary electric vehicle battery is taking place. Tesla also plans to utilize strong relationships with its battery cell manufacturers to solve supply concerns during Giga Berlin’s early production dates.
Concerns regarding Tesla’s planned timeline for Giga Berlin have arisen over the past several days, especially after a German media outlet said that CEO Elon Musk was extending the beginning of the German plant’s EV production efforts to January 2022. While the Giga Berlin timeline remains uncertain as far as the exact starting date, those close to the situation, including Brandenburg Economic Minister Jörg Steinbach, told Teslarati yesterday that production should begin in late Summer or early Fall 2021.
EXCLUSIVE: Tesla Giga Berlin isn’t facing a 6-month delay: German Minister
The concerns about Tesla Giga Berlin’s initial production date started to appear around the same time that reports began to surface about Tesla adding the 4680 battery manufacturing unit plans to its application. German regulators take a deliberate and somewhat extended time for large projects, as so many different factors are considered before anything is given ultimate approval. Some indicated that this extensive regulatory process would delay the production efforts altogether. Still, local sources in Germany have clarified that this only prolongs the project altogether and doesn’t have much of an effect on the start of production. The project will just take longer to complete considering Tesla added another element to the Giga Berlin offensive.
As previously mentioned, the addition of the 4680 line to the application likely caused confusion over whether the Tesla Giga Berlin production lines would activate on time. 4680 production at Berlin will not begin before or at the same time as Tesla’s vehicle production at the German plant. However, Tesla’s plans were never to have the Berlin 4680 lines handle the initial vehicle production at the plant. Tesla originally planned for the Kato Road 4680 lines to supply Giga Berlin with cells when they are available.
Drew Baglino, Tesla’s Senior Vice President of Powertrain and Energy Engineering, said during the Q3 2020 Earnings Call:
“We will incorporate 4680 design solutions into many applications in time across both energy and vehicle, and we can use our pilot production facility in Fremont to support the new factory in Berlin as it ramps.”
Additionally, Tesla’s battery suppliers are being called upon to assist in the initial efforts at Giga Berlin.
Musk announced during the most recent Q1 2021 Earnings Call that Tesla is about 12-18 months away from volume production of 4680 cells. While Tesla may be slightly behind schedule regarding the production of the new 4680 battery, there is no indication that it will delay Giga Berlin’s production altogether. In fact, Musk also acknowledged that its suppliers, who Tesla shares “very strong partnerships” with would be called upon to supply cells “as much as they possibly can.”
Musk said:
“…It appears as though we’re about 12 — probably not more than 18 months away from volume production of the 4680. Now at the same time, we are actually trying to have our cell supply of partners ramp up their supply as much as possible. So this is not something that is to the exclusion of suppliers. It is in conjunction with suppliers. So we want to be super clear about that. This is not about replacing suppliers. It is about supplementing the suppliers. So…and we have a very strong partnership with CATL, with Panasonic and LG. And we would…our request to our strategic partners for cell supply is, please make us…please supply us with as much as you possibly can. Provided the price is affordable, we will buy everything that they can make.”
This includes CATL, a Chinese battery producer who manufactures LFP cells for the Standard Range+ Model 3 at Giga Shanghai. CATL began the construction of a cell manufacturing facility in Germany in 2019. LG Chem also started the construction of an EV battery cell manufacturing facility in Poland in 2017, which could be used to supplement Tesla’s battery efforts in Germany. These suppliers have both assisted Tesla with cells in the past, and these companies will likely supplement Tesla’s needs at Giga Berlin, as Musk requested during the Q1 2021 Earnings Call.
Tesla has been aware that the 4680 lines in Berlin will not take care of the initial production phases at the factory. Instead, it will rely on suppliers and its Kato Road 4680 lines in the United States to take care of the first months of production at Giga Berlin.
News
Tesla wins FCC approval for wireless Cybercab charging system
The decision grants Tesla a waiver that allows the Cybercab’s wireless charging system to be installed on fixed outdoor equipment.
Tesla has received approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to use Ultra-Wideband (UWB) radio technology in its wireless EV charging system.
The decision grants Tesla a waiver that allows the Cybercab’s wireless charging system to be installed on fixed outdoor equipment. This effectively clears a regulatory hurdle for the company’s planned wireless charging pad for the autonomous two-seater.
Tesla’s wireless charging system is described as follows in the document: “The Tesla positioning system is an impulse UWB radio system that enables peer-to-peer communications between a UWB transceiver installed on an electric vehicle (EV) and a second UWB transceiver installed on a ground-level pad, which could be located outdoors, to achieve optimal positioning for the EV to charge wirelessly.”
The company explained that Bluetooth is first used to locate the charging pad. “Prior to the UWB operation, the vehicular system uses Bluetooth technology for the vehicle to discover the location of the ground pad and engage in data exchange activities (which is not subject to the waiver).”
Once the vehicle approaches the pad, the UWB system briefly activates. “When the vehicle approaches the ground pad, the UWB transceivers will operate to track the position of the vehicle to determine when the optimal position has been achieved over the pad before enabling wireless power charging.”
Tesla also emphasized that “the UWB signals occur only briefly when the vehicle approaches the ground pad; and mostly at ground level between the vehicle and the pad,” and that the signals are “significantly attenuated by the body of the vehicle positioned over the pad.”
As noted by Tesla watcher Sawyer Merritt, the FCC ultimately granted Tesla’s proposal since the Cybercab’s wireless charging system’s signal is very low power, it only turns on briefly while parking, it works only at very short range, and it won’t interfere with other systems.
While the approval clears the way for Tesla’s wireless charging plans, the Cybercab does not appear to depend solely on the new system.
Cybercab prototypes have frequently been spotted charging at standard Tesla Superchargers across the United States. This suggests the vehicle can easily operate within Tesla’s existing charging network even as the wireless system is developed and deployed. With this in mind, it would not be surprising if the first batches of the Cybercab that are deployed and delivered to consumers end up being charged by regular Superchargers.
Elon Musk
Tesla posts updated FSD safety stats as owners surpass 8 billion miles
Tesla shared the milestone as adoption of the system accelerates across several markets.
Tesla has posted updated safety stats for Full Self-Driving Supervised. The results were shared by the electric vehicle maker as FSD Supervised users passed more than 8 billion cumulative miles.
Tesla shared the milestone in a post on its official X account.
“Tesla owners have now driven >8 billion miles on FSD Supervised,” the company wrote in its post on X. Tesla also included a graphic showing FSD Supervised’s miles driven before a collision, which far exceeds that of the United States average.
The growth curve of FSD Supervised’s cumulative miles over the past five years has been notable. As noted in data shared by Tesla watcher Sawyer Merritt, annual FSD (Supervised) miles have increased from roughly 6 million in 2021 to 80 million in 2022, 670 million in 2023, 2.25 billion in 2024, and 4.25 billion in 2025. In just the first 50 days of 2026, Tesla owners logged another 1 billion miles.
At the current pace, the fleet is trending towards hitting about 10 billion FSD Supervised miles this year. The increase has been driven by Tesla’s growing vehicle fleet, periodic free trials, and expanding Robotaxi operations, among others.
Tesla also recently updated the safety data for FSD Supervised on its website, covering North America across all road types over the latest 12-month period.
As per Tesla’s figures, vehicles operating with FSD Supervised engaged recorded one major collision every 5,300,676 miles. In comparison, Teslas driven manually with Active Safety systems recorded one major collision every 2,175,763 miles, while Teslas driven manually without Active Safety recorded one major collision every 855,132 miles. The U.S. average during the same period was one major collision every 660,164 miles.
During the measured period, Tesla reported 830 total major collisions with FSD (Supervised) engaged, compared to 16,131 collisions for Teslas driven manually with Active Safety and 250 collisions for Teslas driven manually without Active Safety. Total miles logged exceeded 4.39 billion miles for FSD (Supervised) during the same timeframe.
Elon Musk
The Boring Company’s Music City Loop gains unanimous approval
After eight months of negotiations, MNAA board members voted unanimously on Feb. 18 to move forward with the project.
The Metro Nashville Airport Authority (MNAA) has approved a 40-year agreement with Elon Musk’s The Boring Company to build the Music City Loop, a tunnel system linking Nashville International Airport to downtown.
After eight months of negotiations, MNAA board members voted unanimously on Feb. 18 to move forward with the project. Under the terms, The Boring Company will pay the airport authority an annual $300,000 licensing fee for the use of roughly 933,000 square feet of airport property, with a 3% annual increase.
Over 40 years, that totals to approximately $34 million, with two optional five-year extensions that could extend the term to 50 years, as per a report from The Tennesean.
The Boring Company celebrated the Music City Loop’s approval in a post on its official X account. “The Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority has unanimously (7-0) approved a Music City Loop connection/station. Thanks so much to @Fly_Nashville for the great partnership,” the tunneling startup wrote in its post.
Once operational, the Music City Loop is expected to generate a $5 fee per airport pickup and drop-off, similar to rideshare charges. Airport officials estimate more than $300 million in operational revenue over the agreement’s duration, though this projection is deemed conservative.
“This is a significant benefit to the airport authority because we’re receiving a new way for our passengers to arrive downtown at zero capital investment from us. We don’t have to fund the operations and maintenance of that. TBC, The Boring Co., will do that for us,” MNAA President and CEO Doug Kreulen said.
The project has drawn both backing and criticism. Business leaders cited economic benefits and improved mobility between downtown and the airport. “Hospitality isn’t just an amenity. It’s an economic engine,” Strategic Hospitality’s Max Goldberg said.
Opponents, including state lawmakers, raised questions about environmental impacts, worker safety, and long-term risks. Sen. Heidi Campbell said, “Safety depends on rules applied evenly without exception… You’re not just evaluating a tunnel. You’re evaluating a risk, structural risk, legal risk, reputational risk and financial risk.”
Tesla wins FCC approval for wireless Cybercab charging system
Tesla posts updated FSD safety stats as owners surpass 8 billion miles
