Connect with us
tesla roadster tesla roadster

News

Tesla’s next-gen Roadster is ushering in the automotive industry’s ‘Megacar’ era

Published

on

Elon Musk is a man driven by his limits. The man behind electric car maker Tesla, Musk has led the company from its small Silicon Valley startup days to its current status as a $50 billion automaker with a market cap that rivals that of Ford and GM. With each vehicle that Musk releases, Tesla disrupts an industry, and with the next-generation Roadster, the CEO is aiming to create a true halo car.

Christian von Koenigsegg is a man driven by his passion. The man behind the small, exclusive supercar company Koenigsegg, Christian is known for pushing the limits of the vehicles he releases. Koenigsegg might be far smaller than supercar makers like Ferrari and Lamborghini, but the few cars that it makes shake the automotive world. The Koenigsegg Agera RS, for one, currently holds the title as one of the fastest cars in the world after it reached speeds of 278 mph. The Koenigsegg One:1, named for its equal power-to-weight ratio, also packs 1,341 horsepower, or the equivalent of one megawatt of power. Koenigsegg’s cars are so powerful that some of them actually qualify as a hypercar instead of a supercar.

When Christian von Koenigsegg heard the specs of Tesla’s next-generation Roadster, his entire company’s roadmap for the coming years was shaken. In a recent statement to Top Gear, Koenigsegg admitted that his company was completely thrown off course by the listed specs of the all-electric supercar, even admitting that the experience itself was “frustrating.”

“We kind of had our future mapped out, and then we heard about the new Tesla Roadster and its insane acceleration numbers, and we thought ‘damn that’s put the gauntlet down.’ Sure, it must be really heavy, but that kind of acceleration? That’s frustrating!” he said.

Advertisement

https://www.instagram.com/p/BnDT8v1hKJH/?tagged=teslaroadster

Christian noted that one of the biggest revelations by the arrival of the next-generation Tesla Roadster was that Elon Musk’s quoted specs for the vehicle were actually possible. In order to respond to the arrival of an electric car designed to deliver a “hardcore smackdown” to gas-powered vehicles, Koenigsegg and his engineers came up with a strategy that would allow one of its cars to give the Roadster some good competition.

“We thought, ‘this is not OK.’ We wondered whether it was possible, and yeah, it’s possible. Then we thought, ‘OK how do we deal with it? This is embarrassing.’ In two days we’d thought of a few things. The simplest way of putting it is like this: it’s combining direct drive, with the hybridization we have in a different format with free-valve engine technology, in a peculiar layout,” he said.

The concept that Koenigsegg and his team came up with is pretty much the fossil fuel-powered counterpart of the next-generation Tesla Roadster — one that is beyond a hypercar, perhaps even a “megacar” of sorts. Christian noted that he was partly annoyed at himself, for “needing a kick in the head to start thinking” about improving his vehicles’ acceleration.

Advertisement

“We’re talking 0-250 mph in 14 seconds, or something like this. It’s like, black marks all the way up to 250 mph (400 kph), pushing the combustion engine into the wall to try to make it more power dense than an EV for as long as possible. What we see with our engines, we’ve noticed that we’re just scratching the surface of what we can achieve,” he said. 

https://www.instagram.com/p/BnHiOO4FYQv/?taken-by=koenigseggnewportbeach

Elon Musk threw the gauntlet at legacy automakers when he unveiled the next-generation Tesla Roadster last year, and if Christian von Koenigsegg’s reaction to the vehicle is any indication, it appears that the all-electric supercar is doing precisely what it was intended for — it is forcing automakers to see electric cars as a formidable force, and it is driving them to adapt and come up with ways to make their vehicles even better and faster.

Interestingly, such a sentiment has been echoed by Tesla’s test driver for the next-generation Roadster, Emile Bouret, earlier this year. In a segment with YouTube’s VINwiki channel, Bouret, who drove the all-electric car the whole night during its unveiling, encouraged the auto community to support projects and vehicles like the next-generation Roadster, stating that the existence of such vehicles would affect the auto industry in a positive way as a whole.

Advertisement

“I love that I live in a world where all these cars exist. You have Koenigseggs and Paganis and Ferraris and Lamborghinis and McLarens and Porsches and Rimacs and Teslas. So, I know there’s a lot of hate out there, but I just don’t understand it. If you’re a car person, wouldn’t you root for everybody? I’m definitely rooting for them because the world will be a better place if that car does get built and it gets on the road because other people are gonna build cars to beat it — and we’re gonna win,” he said.

Considering that Koenigsegg appears to have come up with a solution to match the next-gen Roadster, it seems that Buoret’s words are coming true. As the Tesla Roadster and Koenigsegg’s upcoming vehicle are released to the market, the era of megacars could very well begin. 

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:

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

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

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

“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:

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement
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:

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement
Continue Reading