News
Tesla points to better range and efficiency with compact power steering patent
Tesla’s electric cars are already among the most efficient vehicles on the market, and this is shown by the immense gap between the range and efficiency of the company’s vehicles compared to their competitors from veteran automakers. Part of the reason behind this is Tesla’s continued improvements in its vehicles, which are rolled out and adopted as soon as they are refined and ready.
One of these improvements appears to have been teased in a recently-published patent application. Simply titled “Steering System for a Vehicle,” the document describes a smart, novel way of designing a power steering system that is more compact and less power-hungry. In the patent’s background, Tesla remarked that conventional power steering systems, which are usually hydraulically operated, are mostly bulky and space-consuming.
This is due to power steering systems utilizing a number of components that include cylinders, pumps, hoses, and control valves, to name a few. Hydraulic power steering systems also have complex designs, which add cost to a vehicle. Lastly, conventional power steering systems generally require a large amount of power to function. With this in mind, Tesla argues that there is a need for a new power steering system that is simpler, smaller, and more power-efficient.
Tesla’s novel power steering design involves fewer parts than the conventional system used in most vehicles. The electric car maker describes the design in its patent in the description below.
“The steering system includes a drive motor having a motor shaft. The steering system also includes a first gear reduction stage for receiving a first rotational input from the motor shaft and providing a first rotational output. A first gear meshes with a second gear of the first gear reduction stage via a helical gear mesh. The steering system further includes a second gear reduction stage for receiving the first rotational output from the first gear reduction stage and providing a second rotational output.
“The second gear reduction stage may include at least one of a strain wave gearing, a worm drive, and a planetary gearing. In case the second reduction stage is a strain wave gearing, the second gear reduction stage includes an ovular coupler, a flexible coupling, an outer spline, and a plurality of bearing members disposed between the ovular coupler and the flexible coupling. The steering system includes an output shaft for receiving the second rotational output from the second gear reduction stage.”
Tesla notes that its smaller, power-saving steering system, apart from being more power-efficient and compact, also includes several failsafes, which could, in turn, increase a vehicle’s safety. The company’s patent mentions “sacrificial or failsafe components,” which are designed to safeguard a vehicle’s sensitive components during the event of a breakdown. Such a design will likely contribute to Tesla’s electric cars and their already-stellar safety ratings.
“In some embodiments, steering system 102 has been shown to provide a 10% improvement over a hydrolytic steering system. Additionally, steering system 102 is a compact unit that consumes lesser space as compared to other steering systems that are commercially available in markets. Further, steering system 102 does not require large amount of additional power for operation. FIG. 6 illustrates a failure mode of steering system 102 in which one or more bearing members 244 of steering system 102 fail. Bearing members 244 of steering system 102 are designed to withstand high loads so that they do not fail during normal vehicle operation. However, bearing members 244 may be designed to withstand only a predetermined threshold of load. As a result, bearing members 244 fail when they are loaded beyond the predetermined threshold.
“For example, a bearing member 258 may eventually fail along a shear plane 260 when loaded beyond the predetermined threshold. Alternatively, bearing members 244 may undergo a bending failure, or any other type of failure. In such a situation, one bearing member 244 is a sacrificial or failsafe components, thereby safeguarding other components of vehicle, for example, drive motor 204 or an engine, against breakdown or seizing. More particularly, the one bearing members 244 fails, ovular coupler 238 locks and rotates with flexible coupling 240. Thus, steering system 102 can still be operated to allow vehicle to be driven for a certain distance and parked at an appropriate location. Bearing member 244 fails according to a sheer mechanism or another failure mechanism. Further, failed bearing member 258 can be replaced and vehicle can be reinstated without incurring any additional losses.”
It remains to be seen if Tesla’s compact power steering system will be adopted for the company’s upcoming vehicles. That being said, such a system is a perfect match for EVs such as the Tesla Semi, the Tesla Pickup Truck, and the Model S and X Plaid Powertrain variants. These are all large vehicles, and their success in the market will likely be determined in no small part by their range and efficiency. In this light, every single innovation that could optimize these vehicles’ efficiency will most definitely be appreciated. After all, the less power is consumed by subsystems such as a vehicle’s power steering unit, the more power there is to turn an electric car’s wheels.
The full text of Tesla’s compact, efficient power steering system could be accessed here.
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
