Tesla has filed a new patent for “Parallel Processing System Runtime State Reload,” comprising of a system of three or more processors working in conjunction to effectively eliminate the possibility of hardware failure during the use of Autopilot or Full Self-Driving. The patent outlines a robust system of parallel processors that can operate in the event that one of them fails or experiences a runtime state error. “Should one of the parallel processors fail, at least one other processor would be available to continue performing autonomous driving functions,” the patent shows.
The patent was filed and published on August 26th and comes just a week after the company’s Artificial Intelligence Day event that was held last Thursday. Outlining a system of at least three processors operating in parallel, it is monitored by circuitry and can locate and identify if one of the three parallel-operating processors is having a runtime state error. The circuitry will then identify a second processor to switch to in the event of a runtime error, access the runtime state of the second processor, and load the runtime state of the second, operational processor into the first processor, which is experiencing a runtime error.
(Credit: Tesla)
Tesla describes the patent in detail:
“A system on a Chip (SoC) includes a plurality of processing systems arranged on a single integrated circuit. Each of these separate processing systems typically performs a corresponding set of processing functions. The separate processing systems typically interconnect via one or more communication bus structures that include an N-bit wide data bus (N, an integer greater than one). Some SoCs are deployed within systems that require high availability, e.g., financial processing systems, autonomous driving systems, medical processing systems, and air traffic control systems, among others. These parallel processing systems typically operate upon the same input data and include substantially identical processing components, e.g., pipeline structure, so that each of the parallel processing systems, when correctly operating, produces substantially the same output. Thus, should one of the parallel processors fail, at least one other processor would be available to continue performing autonomous driving functions.”
Technically speaking, the autonomous vehicle needs only one processor to function as described in an accurate fashion. However, these processors can be overloaded with data when loading into the Neural Network and could experience short-term and non-permanent operational errors. When this occurs, the system would then switch to one of the other processors for normal operation, with at least two backup processors in this patent, as it repeatedly mentions a series of three.
Tesla details its self-driving Supercomputer that will bring in the Dojo era
The second processor would then activate and load the runtime state into the first processor to make the primary processor chip operational once again:
“Thus, in order to overcome the above-described shortcomings, among other shortcomings, a parallel processing system of an embodiment of the present disclosure includes at least three processors operating in parallel, state monitoring circuitry, and state reload circuitry. The state monitoring circuitry couples to the at least three parallel processors and is configured to monitor runtime states of the at least three parallel processors and identify a first processor of the at least three parallel processors having at least one runtime state error. The state reload circuitry couples to the at least three parallel processors and is configured to select a second processor of the at least three parallel processors for state reload, access a runtime state of the second processor, and load the runtime state of the second processor into the first processor.”
The purpose of this patent is to continue system availability, even when the primary processor is experiencing functionality issues due to overuse. The two additional processors essentially act as “backup” and can determine whether autonomous driving systems are meant to be enabled if the first processor experiences an error. “With one particular example of this aspect, the parallel processing system supports autonomous driving and the respective sub-systems of the at least three parallel processors are safety sub-systems that determine whether autonomous driving is to be enabled.”
FIG. 13 is a timing diagram illustrating clocks of the circuits of FIGS. 8 and 10 according to one or more other described embodiments. As shown, the runtime state (data1) of first processor/first sub-system is determined to have at least one error. In response to this determination by the state monitoring/state reload circuitry, the signal st_reload1 is asserted to initiate the loading of runtime state (data2) from second processor/second sub-system into the first processor/first sub-system. With the embodiment of FIG. 13, a first clock (clk1) is used for the first processor/first sub-system and a second clock (clk1) is used for the second processor/second sub-system. There exists a positive skew between the first clock (clk1) and the second clock (clk2), resulting in a late cycle of the loading of the runtime state (data2) of the second processor/second sub-system into the first processor/sub-system, potentially resulting in errors in the runtime state reload process. (Credit: U.S. Patent Office)
It also appears that this patent aligns with Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s previous description of the Dojo self-driving Supercomputer, which was detailed at AI Day. To increase the accuracy and encourage the parallel operation of the processors, the system will utilize a clock input to calibrate the two processors, increasing the accuracy of the system.
Tesla has focused on accurate FSD operation and has revised its strategy on several occasions. After moving to a camera-only approach earlier this year for the Model 3 and Model Y, the company is experiencing more accurate FSD operation through the harmonized processing of its eight exterior cameras. The operation of internal processors, which are responsible for compiling, compressing, and sending data to the Neural Network, can fail temporarily, so the presence of backup processors to continue comprehending self-driving data is a positive idea.
The full patent is available below:
Tesla Patent Parallel Processing System Runtime State Reload by Joey Klender on Scribd
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
