News
Tesla’s next ‘big unveil’ after Model Y will be its battery growth story
Tesla’s 2020 is bound to be a historic year, for more reasons than initially expected. Unlike 2017 and 2019, which were marked by impressive product unveiling events for the Semi, next-gen Roadster, Model Y, and Cybertruck, 2020 is poised to be a year where Tesla simply optimizes its operations to such a point that the company becomes sustainably profitable.
Save for 2018, Tesla has adopted the practice of unveiling new vehicles and energy products in a steady stream. This will not be the case this year, since Elon Musk himself has noted following the Cybertruck’s unveiling event that Tesla will not be holding formal vehicle launches for a while. The Model S Plaid is expected to be rolled out later this year, but the vehicle’s launch could be similar to that of the Raven Model S and X — subtle and simple.
Unlike previous years, Tesla will likely not be focusing too much on the rollout of an upcoming vehicle after initial Model Y deliveries are conducted. With the all-electric crossover being manufactured and delivered to customers, Tesla will likely end up focusing its resources on strengthening its core technology, particularly its batteries. This will partly be due to the arrival of three vehicles that are set to be released soon: the Tesla Semi, the next-gen Roadster, and the Cybertruck.
Part of the reason behind the Model Y’s quicker than expected production ramp is due to the vehicle’s similarity to the Model 3. The two midsize EVs share 75% of their parts, which meant that their production process is not too different from each other. Tesla learned a hard lesson with the Model X and the Model S by over-designing the SUV and making it far too different compared to its sedan sibling, which resulted in massive production delays. This lesson appears to have been learned and adopted for the Model Y ramp.
But Tesla’s next three vehicles are not quite as simple as the Model Y in terms of their battery tech and production processes. While the Model Y will likely use the same battery packs as its Model 3 sibling, the Semi, Cybertruck, and new Roadster do not. In fact, due to their specs and features, each of these new vehicles will likely be equipped with batteries that hold Tesla’s best and latest innovations, and they be built on platforms that are new and specifically designed for each vehicle.
The Semi, for example, is a Class 8 long-hauler that has a range of 300-500 miles per charge. Its capability to haul 80,000 pounds of weight on the road is no joke, and the vehicle’s near-sports car performance suggests that the Semi requires a very large battery pack. Tesla has not revealed the size of the batteries in the two Semi prototypes that are undergoing real-world testing today, but speculations from the EV community go as high as 1 MWh due to the truck’s weight. With better battery efficiency, optimized software, and higher energy density in its cells, Tesla may be able to achieve the Semi’s long-range targets without necessarily using as many batteries as a small fleet of Model 3s.
The Cybertruck is not as large as the Semi, but it seems to require some notable battery improvements as well due to its price and specs. A top-tier Cybertruck costs below $70,000, and for that price, Tesla is offering over 500 miles of range per charge. Considering that the all-electric pickup truck is not exactly as sleek as the Model S in terms of aerodynamics, achieving such a range will likely require the all-electric pickup to have a pretty hefty battery. Batteries are usually considered as one of the most expensive parts of an EV, so it would be interesting to see just how low Tesla can push its battery prices down to make a behemoth of an EV go over 500 miles at a sub-$70,000 price.
The next-gen Roadster may only be seeing a production rate of about 10,000 per year, according to Elon Musk, but the vehicle still requires improvements in its batteries to become a definitive “hardcore smackdown to gasoline cars.” This is because the Roadster was announced with a 200-kWh battery pack that provides 620 miles of range. Tesla was at a different place when it announced the next-gen Roadster’s specs. Hence, it would not be a stretch to speculate that the production version of the all-electric supercar will either have a slightly smaller but more energy-dense battery that still provides 620 miles of range, or a 200 kWh battery pack that offers far beyond 1,000 km in one charge.
Tesla’s growth story is usually tied to the company’s release of one best-selling electric vehicle after another. But this year, after the Model Y, Tesla’s growth story will become more of a battery-driven narrative. The company’s battery tech will ultimately determine whether or not the Semi, Cybertruck, and new Roadster will be a success. But if Tesla’s batteries are up for the task, the company’s disruption of the auto industry will likely end up accelerating even more.
What’s pretty interesting to note is that all these potential battery-related breakthroughs also apply towards Tesla’s Energy business, which is rarely even considered by Wall Street when analysts evaluate the company. Every battery-related milestone that is rolled out to the company’s vehicles is also introduced to its energy storage devices. With this in mind, it is not too farfetched to speculate that this year may also end up becoming a renaissance of sorts for Tesla Energy. Part of this push could involve the introduction of slightly smaller but more energy-dense residential batteries and a line of cheaper energy storage units that are just as good as the company’s current products.
This sounds like another disruption in the making.
Tesla has launched a direct campaign targeting its customers in New Jersey, sending emails that warn of pending legislation that could effectively block true driverless technology in the state.
The email focuses on Senate Bill S.1677 and Assembly Bill A.3968, measures intended to create a three-year autonomous vehicle pilot program but laden with requirements that Tesla argues make unsupervised Robotaxis impossible.
Tesla is sending out this email to New Jersey Tesla owners, warning them that NJ could block autonomous vehicles, and to take action.
“Proposed legislation moving through Trenton right now would impose restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.… pic.twitter.com/2bmY646AUL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 16, 2026
According to the email, the bills impose “restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.” Specific hurdles include mandates for human safety drivers during operations, multimillion-dollar insurance minimums, reportedly $5 million, and thresholds like 100,000 miles of demonstrated safe autonomous driving before any driverless approval.
Tesla contends these are arbitrary barriers that ignore real-world performance data and favor entrenched competitors over innovative technologies like its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The push comes as Tesla has started expanding Robotaxi operations in states like Texas, where unsupervised vehicles are already providing rides in several cities. New Jersey, by contrast, risks falling behind. The company highlights in the email communication that more than 94 percent of serious crashes result from human error, meaning impairment, distraction, or fatigue. These are all problems that Robotaxis eliminate entirely.
In 2025, New Jersey recorded 582 traffic deaths, underscoring the human cost of delayed adoption.
Tesla’s outreach stresses the transformative potential of robotaxis. For families, they could offer safer school runs without drowsy or distracted drivers. For seniors and people with disabilities, robotaxis promise independence and reliable mobility.
In areas with limited public transit, they could deliver affordable, on-demand transportation, reducing congestion, emissions, and overall transportation costs. Economically, the company warns that restrictive rules could cost New Jersey jobs, innovation investment, and billions in potential growth as autonomous ride-hailing scales elsewhere.
Supporters of the legislation, including Sen. Andrew Zwicker, describe the pilot as a cautious framework with strong safety oversight, including incident reporting, expert task forces, and restrictions in sensitive zones like school areas. They view it as balancing innovation with public protection.
Tesla and pro-AV advocates counter that the bill lacks technology neutrality, creates insurmountable entry barriers for commercial deployment, and prioritizes process over outcomes — effectively functioning as a de facto ban on services like Robotaxi.
This latest clash echoes Tesla’s past battles in New Jersey over direct vehicle sales. The email directs owners to Tesla’s advocacy platform, where they can send customized messages to legislators calling for amendments: outcome-based safety standards, open competition, and clear pathways for fully driverless commercial operations.
As hearings approach, Tesla’s campaign frames the issue as a choice between protecting the status quo and embracing life-saving progress. With robotaxi technology already proving itself in permissive states, New Jersey owners are being asked to ensure their state doesn’t lock out the future of transportation.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
A Tesla Cybertruck driver in the United Kingdom had their all-electric pickup seized by local police in the Greater Manchester area after the department cited “legitimate concerns.”
Last Thursday, police saw the pickup on the roads and decided to pull the driver over. Greater Manchester Police said:
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a collision with the Cybertruck.”
🚨 A Tesla Cybertruck, which is illegal to drive in the UK due to safety concerns, has been seized by police in Greater Manchester
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a… pic.twitter.com/cqhdPok3DM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
The Cybertruck in question was, according to the BBC, registered and insured abroad and was confiscated. The driver, who is a UK resident, was reported.
The Greater Manchester Police Department then added:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is not road-legal in the UK and does not hold a certificate of conformity.”
The Cybertruck cannot be legally driven in the UK because it has no UK Type Approval for operation in the country. This is due to some safety concerns, which are related to its angular shape and design. The stainless steel exoskeleton has sharp edges and projections that violate UK/EU rules on pedestrian protection.
Tesla has considered creating what it referred to as an “international version” that would be approved for operation in Europe. However, there has been no real movement on that front by the company, as it has been focused on the Robotaxi rollout primarily.
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
