Connect with us

News

Tesla’s next ‘big unveil’ after Model Y will be its battery growth story

The Tesla Semi visits Yandell Truckaway. (Photo: Arash Malek)

Published

on

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.

Advertisement
The Cybertruck in off-road conditions. (Photo: humdinger_3d/Instagram)

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.

Tesla’s design team with the next-generation Roadster. (Credit: Tesla)

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.

Advertisement

This sounds like another disruption in the making.

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much

There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.

Published

on

(Photo: Hector Perez/YouTube)

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 began rolling out to some owners earlier this week, and there are some notable improvements that came with this update.

There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.

Overall operation saw a handful of slight improvements, especially with parking performance, which has been the most notable difference with the arrival of FSD v14.3. However, there are still some very notable shortcomings, most notably with region-specific signage and navigation.

Tesla Assisted Smart Summon (ASS) improvements

There are noticeable improvements to ASS operation, which has definitely been inconsistent in terms of performance. Tesla wrote in the release notes for v14.3.2:

“Unified the model between Actually Smart Summon, FSD, and Robotaxi for more capable and reliable behavior.”
As recently as this month, I used Summon with no success. It had pulled around the parking lot I was in incorrectly, leaving the range at which Summon can be operated and losing a signal while moving in the middle of the lot.

This caused me to sprint across the lot to retrieve the vehicle:

Unfortunately, Summon was not dependable or accurate enough to use regularly. It appears Tesla might have bridged the gap needed to make it an effective feature, as two tests in parking lots proved that Summon was more responsive and faster to navigate to the location chosen.

It also did so without hesitation, confidently, and at a comfortable speed. I was able to test it twice at different distances:

I plan to test this more thoroughly and regularly through the next few weeks, and I avoided using it in a congested parking lot initially because I have not had overwhelming success with Summon in the past. I wanted to set a low baseline for it to see if it could simply pull up to the place I pinned in the Tesla app.

It was two for two, which is a big improvement because I don’t think I ever had successful Summon attempts back-to-back. It just seems more confident than ever before.

New Disengagement Categories

This is a really good idea from Tesla, but there are some issues with it. The categories you can select are Critical, Comfort, Preference, and Other.

I think the reasons why people choose to take over would be a better way to prompt drivers, like, “Traveling Too Fast,” “Incorrect Maneuver,” “Navigation Error,” would be more beneficial.

I say this because it seems that how we each categorize things might be different. For example, I shared a video of an intervention because the car had navigated to an exit to a parking lot and put its left blinker on, despite left turns not being allowed there.

I disengaged and chose Critical as the reason; it’s not a comfort issue, it’s not a preference, it’s quite literally an illegal turn, and it’s also dangerous because it cuts across several lanes of traffic and is 180 degrees.

Some said I should not have labeled this as Critical, but that’s the description I best characterized the disengagement as.

Categorizing interventions is a good thing, but it’s kind of hard to determine how to label them correctly.

Inconsistency with Regional Traffic Patterns

Tesla Full Self-Driving is pretty inconsistent with how it handles regional or local traffic patterns and road rules. The most frequent example I like to use is that of the “Except Right Turn” stop sign, which has become a notorious sighting on our social media platforms.

In the initial rollout of v14.3, my Model Y successfully navigated through one of these stop signs with no issues. However, testing at two of these stop signs yesterday proved it is still not sure how to read signs and navigate through them properly.

Off camera, I approached another one of these signs and felt the car coming to a stop, so I nudged it forward with the accelerator pedal pressed.

This helped the car go through the sign without stopping, but I could feel the bucking of the vehicle as the car really wanted to stop.

Musk said on the earnings call earlier this week that unsupervised FSD would probably be available in some regions before others, including a state-to-state basis in the U.S.

“It’s difficult to release this like to everyone everywhere all at once because we do want to make sure that they’re not unique situations in a city that particularly complex intersection or — actually, they tend to be places where people get into accidents a lot because they’re just — perhaps there’s — and like I said, an unsafe intersection or bad road markings or a lot of weather challenges. So I think we would release unsupervised gradually to the customer fleet as we feel like a particular geography is confirmed to be safe.”
This could be one of those examples that Tesla just has to figure out.

Highway Operation

Full Self-Driving is already pretty good at routine roadway navigation, so I don’t have too much to report here.

However, I was happy with FSD’s decision-making at several points, including its choice not to pass a slightly slower car and remain in the right lane as we approached the off-ramp:

Better Maneuvering at Stop Signs

Many FSD users report some strange operations at stop signs, especially four-way intersections where there is a stop sign and a line on the road, and they’re not even with one another.

I experienced this quite frequently and found that FSD would actually double stop: once at the stop sign and again at the line.

This created some interesting scenarios for me and I had many cars honk at me when the second stop would happen. Other vehicles that had waved me on to proceed through the intersection would become frustrated at the second stop.

FSD seems to have worked through this particular maneuver:

FSD should know to go to the more appropriate location (whichever provides better visibility), and proceed when it is the car’s turn to move. The double stop really ruined the flow of traffic at times and generally caused some frustration from other drivers.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how

Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.

Published

on

tesla-asia-model-3
Credit: Tesla Asia/Twitter

Tesla has a plan to make Hardware 3 owners whole after CEO Elon Musk admitted that those with that self-driving chip in their cars will not have access to unsupervised Full Self-Driving.

The company’s strategy is so crazy that it is sort of hard to believe.

Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.

During the Tesla Q1 earnings call on Wednesday, Musk finally clarified what the company’s plans are for Hardware 3 owners, what they will be offered, and what Tesla will have to do internally to prepare for it.

The answer was somewhat mind-boggling.

Musk said:

“Unfortunately, Hardware 3 — I wish it were otherwise, but Hardware 3 simply does not have the capability to achieve unsupervised FSD. We did think at one point it would have that, but relative to Hardware 4, it has only 1/8 of the memory bandwidth of Hardware 4. And memory bandwidth is one of the key elements needed for unsupervised FSD.”
He continued, stating that HW3 owners would have the opportunity to trade their cars in at a discounted rate in order to get the AI4 chip:

“So for customers that have bought FSD, what we’re offering is essentially a trade-in — like a discounted trade-in for cars that have AI4 hardware, and we’ll also be offering the ability to upgrade the car, to replace the computer. And you also need to replace the cameras, unfortunately, to go to Hardware 4.”
Obviously, Tesla has a lot of people to work with and make this whole thing right. Musk was adamant that HW3 would be capable of FSD, and now that the company has finally admitted that it is not, there are some things that could come of this.

There has been open talk about some sort of class action lawsuit against Tesla. The promises that Tesla made previously could be considered a breach of contract or even false advertising, and that’s according to Grok, Musk’s own AI program.

Musk went on to say that Tesla would likely have to establish new microfactories to effectively and efficiently replace HW3 computers and cameras:

…So to do this efficiently, we’re going to have to set up, like kind of micro factories or small factories in major metropolitan areas in order to do it efficiently. Because if it’s done just at the service center, it is extremely slow to do so and inefficient. So we basically need like many production lines to make the change.”
This is going to be an extremely costly process, especially if Tesla has to buy real estate, properties, and equipment to complete this work. Additionally, there was no wording on pricing, but Musk never said it would be free. It will likely come with some kind of price tag, and HW3 owners, after being left hanging for so long, will have something to say about that.

Advertisement



Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX just got pulled into the biggest Weapons Program in U.S. history

SpaceX joins the Golden Dome software group, deepening its role in America’s most expensive defense program.

Published

on

By

US Golden Dome space defense system (Concept render by Grok)

SpaceX has joined a nine-company group developing the core operating software for the Golden Dome, America’s next-generation missile defense system. According to a Bloomberg report, SpaceX is focused on integrating satellite communications for military operations and is working alongside eight other defense and artificial intelligence companies, including Anduril Industries, Palantir Technologies, and Aalyria Technologies, to build software connecting missile defense capabilities.

The Golden Dome concept dates back to President Trump’s 2024 campaign, and on January 27, 2025, he signed an executive order directing the U.S. Armed Forces to construct the system before the end of his term. The system is planned to employ a constellation of thousands of satellites equipped with interceptors, with data centers in space providing automated control through an AI network.

FCC accepts SpaceX filing for 1 million orbital data center plan

Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, director of the Golden Dome initiative, has described the software layer as a “glue layer” that would enable officers to manage and control radars, sensors, and missile batteries across services. The consortium is aiming to test the platform this summer.

Trump selected a design in May 2025 with a $175 billion price tag, expected to be operational by the end of his term in 2029, though the Congressional Budget Office projected the cost could reach $831 billion over two decades.

The Golden Dome role is only the latest in a string of military wins for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported, the U.S. Space Force awarded SpaceX a $178.5 million task order on April 1, 2026 to launch missile tracking satellites for the Space Development Agency, covering two Falcon 9 launches beginning in Q3 2027. That came on top of more than $22 billion in government contracts held by SpaceX as of 2024, per CEO Gwynne Shotwell, spanning NASA resupply missions, classified intelligence satellites through its Starshield program, and military broadband.

The accumulation of defense contracts, now including a seat at the table on the most expensive weapons program in U.S. history, positions SpaceX as the dominant infrastructure provider for American national security in space. With a SpaceX IPO still on the horizon, each new contract adds weight to what is already one of the most consequential companies in aerospace history, raising real questions about how much of America’s defense architecture will depend on a single private operator before it ever trades publicly.

Continue Reading