News
Tesla’s Gigafactory formula rose from a humble “tent” at the Fremont Factory
Back in 2018, Tesla was in a very different place. The company was struggling to release the Model 3, and it was behind on Elon Musk’s aggressive self-imposed vehicle production targets. The Fremont Factory’s assembly lines were not producing enough Model 3s, and it seemed like the company was poised to fail. Critics and shorts circled Tesla like sharks smelling blood in the water. But something unexpected happened, and things were never the same after.
Throwing convention out the window, Tesla built another Model 3 line inside a massive sprung structure at the Fremont Factory grounds, which CEO Elon Musk fondly called a “tent” online. The structure, dubbed as GA4, was mocked to the highest degree, used as a joke by critics, and dismissed outright by skeptics. However, what was almost unknown at the time was that Tesla might have actually stumbled into something special with its sprung structure-based line. By building a simple, straight, Model 3 line inside a “tent,” Tesla seems to have effectively created a solid Gigafactory formula.
No standard automotive solution could be built in time, so we created a new solution. It is working & has slightly higher quality than the more traditional general assembly line. Perhaps most surprising is that the total cost of production in the Sprung tent is lower.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 27, 2018
A Practical Concept
The sprung structure-based Model 3 line was the brainchild of Automotive President Jerome Guillen, widely known as Elon Musk’s “problem solver” back in the Model S’ early days. The “tent”-based line followed a relatively simple system, with vehicles being assembled progressively the further they moved into the tent. Even GA4’s loading bays were placed on the sides of the structure, allowing Tesla to take deliveries into the line efficiently. Musk was enthusiastic about the sprung structure on Twitter, noting not long after the “tent” was built that the vehicles produced in the site had “slightly higher quality” than cars made elsewhere.
These humble but creative beginnings appear to have become the heart of Tesla’s Gigafactory formula, one used in Giga Shanghai and Giga Berlin, and seemingly improved further with Gigafactory Texas. This could be seen in the design and processes that Tesla has adopted so far in its Shanghai and Berlin plants, both of which invoke the image of a scaled-up, refined, and optimized version of Fremont’s “tent.”
A Gigafactory Formula
Tesla critics typically overlook the fact that the Fremont Factory is a legacy car plant at its core. It’s an expansive facility, and it is impressive in its own right, but it’s not a site developed specifically to produce all-electric cars. Thus, for the Model S, Model X, and the Model 3’s early days, Tesla was essentially developing a system that makes EVs at scale using a facility designed initially to manufacture cars equipped with the internal combustion engine.
Of course, Tesla has made numerous adjustments to make the Fremont Factory into one of the most advanced electric vehicle plants in the market. However, it is difficult not to be impressed with Tesla’s quick production ramp and flexibility in Gigafactory Shanghai, arguably the first EV factory that the company built using its GA4 formula, with its simple production lines to its numerous loading bays at its side. This concept seems to have been carried over to Gigafactory Berlin, which is expected to ramp its operations at a rate that rivals even that of Giga Shanghai.
A Matter of Scale
Ultimately, it appears that GA4 was Tesla’s “eureka” moment of sorts, at least for its electric vehicle factories. By scaling up and refining the sprung structure-based concept, Tesla was able to create monster factories like Giga Shanghai, and later this year, Gigafactory Berlin as well. However, this is not all as Tesla seems to be adopting an updated design for Gigafactory Texas, with its three main buildings built parallel with each other. Little is known about the reasons behind Giga Texas’ design, but there’s little doubt that the expansive facility will be very impressive when completed nonetheless.
Prior to the Model 3’s “production hell,” Elon Musk spoke about Tesla’s “Alien Dreadnought” factories, which are supposed to be so automated and advanced that they would resemble alien facilities featured in sci-fi fiction. Tesla seems to have shelved this idea following the Model 3’s challenges in its initial production ramp. With an established Gigafactory formula of sorts in its repertoire, however, and coupled with innovations such as the Model Y’s megacasts, Elon Musk’s dreadnoughts may not be too far into the future at all.
Don’t hesitate to contact us for news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.
The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.
TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.
Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.
Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.
TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.
This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.
This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.
However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.
Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Tesla is going to let you guide Full Self-Driving with Grok in 3 months, CEO Elon Musk confirmed on X.
The response from Musk, which revealed Tesla plans to allow drivers to effectively control the car and its navigation more explicitly using Grok, puts the feature for about September.
A Tesla owner said that Full Self-Driving is great, but owners should be able to “converse with Grok like we can with an Uber driver.” She then used examples like, “Grok, turn right here,” and “Drop us off right here, we’ll walk due to traffic,” and finally,” Drop at entrance first, then park far away.”
Coincidentally, the final piece of dialogue would also mean features like Banish are potentially on the way soon.
This functionality will be there in about 3 months or so
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 18, 2026
Banish is also referred to as “Reverse Summon,” and would enable the car to self-park while dropping occupants off at their destination.
This would be a great way to improve the overall experience while supervising FSD. Navigation is already a major painpoint that many owners complain about. Manual overrides when a maneuver is requested or canceled (like using the turn signal stalk to override a navigation route), do not always work.
The feature could be especially useful in street parking scenarios in a city, where spots are sometimes tough to come by. Many of us who grab dinner in a more populated area will park a street or two over from wherever we’re going, because sometimes you know that’s the best you will get. If a driver using FSD could say, “Hey Grok, turn right here on Queen St. and park in that open spot on the right,” it could save a lot of confusion FSD might have on its own.
Musk teased that a similar feature was “coming” back in February:
Tesla Full Self-Driving set to get an awesome new feature, Elon Musk says
It is certainly surprising that Tesla is doing it at this point. The company’s more recent moves have been more evident of taking control and inputs away from humans and putting them in the AI’s hands more frequently. The biggest example of this was taking away Max Speed in AI4 cars, giving us Speed Profiles, and not having any input on the fastest speed the car will travel.
Of course, giving navigation preferences to Grok is availble already in Teslas, but not at the drop of a hat. Instead, you can suggest a certain route at the beginning of your drive.
Here’s an example of that from December:
🚨🏈 I am taking my parents and Fiancee to the @Ravens game next weekend and asked @Grok to help me route my @Tesla through a specific neighborhood to reach the correct Lot we will park in.
This is a great example of the new @grok nav integration with the Tesla Holiday Update: pic.twitter.com/rPp4I7q8Yv
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 13, 2025
Finally, the original post that Musk responded to mentioned a parking preference after dropping off the occupants, which describes the Banish feature that Tesla has teased for years.
We’re not sure if Musk was responding more to the ability to guide the car with Grok, or whether he also was including Banish in the three-month prediction timeframe.
A close-up image of a Cybercab engineering vehicle in Peabody, Massachusetts, reveals a compact triangular side repeater camera housing equipped with an integrated washer mechanism.
This seemingly small hardware addition could prove to be one of the most critical components for achieving reliable, unsupervised Full Self-Driving (FSD) — not just for the dedicated Robotaxi but potentially for existing AI4-equipped vehicles as well.
The washer system’s importance cannot be overstated in Tesla’s vision-only autonomy approach. Cameras are the sole sensory input for the neural networks powering FSD, constantly interpreting the environment for safe navigation. In real-world conditions, however, lenses quickly accumulate rain, snow, mud, dust, or road spray.
Many of us Tesla owners, especially those who deal with any sort of winter weather at all, know the all-too-common alert that pops up when cameras are obstructed:
Even brief obstructions can drop perception confidence, trigger safety disengagements, or force the vehicle to pull over, although these are relatively rare. Instead, most of the time, the camera will need a wipe from the owner next time they stop the car.
But unlike human drivers who can manually clear their view, a Robotaxi operating 24/7 without a steering wheel or mirrors must maintain pristine vision autonomously. The Cybercab’s side repeater washer delivers targeted cleaning bursts precisely where needed for merging, lane changes, and blind-spot monitoring — functions that demand uninterrupted visibility from the external cameras:
And this is how the side camera and washer look like on a Cybercab. This is from an Engineering vehicle in Peabody MA. pic.twitter.com/Re8VknpmLM
— Tobias Goebel (Unsupervised) (@tpgoebel) June 17, 2026
This hardware directly tackles a known pain point in current FSD deployments. Owners frequently report camera-related alerts during inclement weather, which is understandable, but needs to be solved for a true autonomous experience.
For a production Robotaxi fleet aiming for high utilization and minimal downtime, robust washer systems represent a foundational reliability upgrade; essentially, they’re a must-have. Early sightings suggest the design may extend to rear cameras as well, creating a comprehensive cleaning architecture that keeps the entire vision suite operational in harsh environments.
Without it, even the most advanced neural nets struggle when their “eyes” are compromised.
What Does This Mean for AI4 Cars?
This Cybercab detail raises timely questions for AI4 cars already on the road. While Hardware 4 delivers superior compute and camera resolution compared to earlier versions, production models typically lack dedicated side and rear washers. Tesla has included them on Model Y robotaxis that it is using in the fleet:
Tesla Robotaxi has a highly-requested hardware feature not available on typical Model Ys
As Tesla refines unsupervised FSD for broader release, the gap in environmental resilience becomes evident. Software improvements can help mitigate issues, but they cannot fully replace physical cleaning in heavy rain or muddy conditions. Analysts and owners increasingly speculate that AI4 vehicles may eventually require similar washer retrofits — or a future AI4.5 variant — to match the Cybercab’s all-weather readiness and support the same level of autonomy.
As testing progresses, the Cybercab’s washer mechanism highlights Tesla’s pragmatic focus on real-world robustness. It may well become the hardware piece that determines how quickly and reliably FSD scales from prototypes to everyday vehicles.
Tesla faces Full Self-Driving pushback in EU over ‘speeding’
Tesla teases greater Grok FSD integration and ‘Banish’ feature ‘in about 3 months’
