News
The Model Y and Gigafactory 3 heralds a faster, more profitable Tesla
Tesla’s second-quarter report and its succeeding earnings call provided updates on what could very well be two of the electric car maker’s most pertinent projects to date: the Model Y ramp and Gigafactory 3 in Shanghai, China. Based on Tesla’s recent reports, it appears that both initiatives are moving along at an impressive pace, perhaps even faster than initially expected.
Model Y
When Elon Musk unveiled the Model Y last March, he provided a rough timeline for the upcoming vehicle. During his presentation, Musk mentioned that the all-electric midsize SUV would start deliveries starting Fall 2020 for the Long Range, Dual Motor AWD, and Performance versions, and Spring 2021 for the Standard variant. This was quite conservative, considering that Musk has a reputation for setting extremely aggressive targets for the production of the company’s vehicles.
Since then, several reports have emerged which hinted at Model Y production being far less volatile and challenging than the Model 3’s manufacturing ramp, a task so difficult that Elon Musk candidly called the period as “production hell.” In the Q2 Update Letter, Tesla confirmed that preparations for Model Y production have begun in the Fremont factory. The company also mentioned that due to the overlap in the components of the Model Y and the Model 3, the company was able to “leverage existing manufacturing designs in the development of the Model Y production facilities.” This bodes well for the midsize SUV, considering that Tesla had rolled out several improvements to Model 3 production process over the years.
Several other hints have also emerged suggesting that Tesla will be ramping the Model Y with its best technologies available. Recent patent applications, for example, have revealed that Tesla is working on a new wiring architecture that will reduce the wires used in the Model Y to just 100 m per vehicle, a significant reduction from the 1.5 km currently being used for the Model 3. Another patent has also emerged showing the design for a mammoth casting machine, which was hinted at by Elon Musk during an appearance at the Ride the Lightning podcast last month. “When we get the big casting machine, it’ll go from 70 parts to 1 with a significant reduction in capital expenditure on all the robots to put those parts together,” Musk said.
Considering all the innovation that is being implemented for the Model Y, it appears that Tesla is doing all it can to ensure that the vehicle does not encounter delays with its rollout. In fact, with Fremont already being prepared for the Model Y, and with giant casting machines being designed specifically for the vehicle, it almost seems like Tesla is trying to start the manufacturing of the SUV earlier than expected. There’s a long time between today and Fall 2020, and that seems to be more than enough to work out the manufacturing of a vehicle that is, in essence, a taller, more spacious Model 3.
Gigafactory 3
Over in China, another understated Tesla project is taking shape. When Elon Musk attended Gigafactory 3’s groundbreaking ceremony back in January, he stated that initial production of the Model 3 in the facility would begin by the end of the year. This target timeframe was met with disdain and skepticism from critics, many of whom have noted that no car factory has ever been built in the speed that Musk wanted. Six months later, Gigafactory 3’s general assembly building is practically complete, and its interior is already being tooled. Footage from drone flyovers showed the rise of the factory, and images from Tesla’s Q2 Update Letter showed that some sections of the facility already have robots installed in them.
Quite interestingly, it is not Elon Musk that is providing ambitious timeframes for Gigafactory 3 anymore. Instead, it is Chinese government officials. Local reports, for example, have suggested that China is looking to start initial Model 3 production as early as September, with the facility ramping to an output of 150,000 vehicles per year early next year. Compared to Wall Street’s estimates, which currently suggest that Gigafactory 3 will produce around 35,000 to 40,000 vehicles in 2020, China’s goals for the facility are far more optimistic.
Gigafactory 3 has pretty much exceeded expectations since work in the facility entered overdrive. Just like the Model Y ramp, the key to Gigafactory 3 lies in the company’s innovations with Model 3 production. Tesla mentioned this in its Q2 Update Letter. “Gigafactory Shanghai continues to take shape, and in Q2 we started to move machinery into the facility for the first phase of production there. This will be a simplified, more cost-effective version of our Model 3 line with capacity of 150,000 units per year – the second generation of the Model 3 production process,” Tesla wrote.
There is no doubt that 2019 is turning out to be an incredibly challenging year for Tesla. Following the first quarter, which saw lower-than-expected vehicle deliveries, Tesla set new delivery records in the second quarter, only to end once more at a loss. Yet, together with this, the company also ended the quarter in more stable footing, as shown by its $5 billion in cash, the largest in its history. This was recently addressed by Baird analyst Ben Kallo, who noted that “back to the cash flow they generated during the quarter, there’s a couple of hundred million dollars, so this idea that they don’t make money is completely wrong, and the headline needs to change. There’s $5 billion in the balance sheet. They’re not going out of business.” Ultimately, the Model Y and Gigafactory 3 seem to be two projects that are heralding a new era for Tesla: one that is more mature, precise, and poised to disrupt at a scale that’s never seen before.
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
