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.
Elon Musk has publicly questioned Moody’s credit assessments following the rating agency’s decision to assign SpaceX a Baa1 investment-grade rating, two notches above Tesla’s Baa3. The comments came amid discussions comparing the two companies’ financial profiles.
SpaceX earned its first-time Baa1 rating with a stable outlook from Moody’s. The agency highlighted the company’s leadership in orbital launches, the growing recurring revenue from its Starlink satellite network, strong vertical integration, U.S. government contracts, and emerging opportunities in AI infrastructure.
These factors were cited as supporting robust cash flows, margin expansion, and financial flexibility.
Musk responded directly: “Tesla’s credit rating is ridiculously low tbh,” and added, “Yeah, makes no sense. Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt, and is consistently profitable!” His remarks underscored Tesla’s balance sheet strength and profitability at a time when many traditional automakers continue to report losses in the shift to electric vehicles.
Yeah, makes no sense.
Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt and is consistently profitable!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 19, 2026
Tesla maintains a leading position in the global EV market, with diversification into energy and storage, battery technology, and robotics through projects like Optimus. Recent financial updates show the company generated positive free cash flow of $1.4 billion in Q1 2026, supported by operating cash flow of $3.9 billion. Cash and short-term investments stood at approximately $44.7 billion.
Moody’s has affirmed Tesla’s Baa3 issuer rating with a stable outlook in periodic reviews, acknowledging the company’s EV leadership, technology strengths, including AI for autonomous vehicles, solid profitability, and strong liquidity.
Tesla (TSLA) scores Baa3 Moody’s rating for ‘stable’ outlook
However, the agency has also noted challenges in the automotive segment and expectations for margin pressures.
Musk’s critique highlights a common debate about how traditional rating methodologies apply to high-growth, capital-intensive technology companies. SpaceX benefits from long-term government-backed contracts and diversified, recurring revenue streams, while Tesla’s valuation reflects heavy investment in future technologies such as autonomy and robotics.
Both ratings remain investment-grade, yet the one-notch difference has fueled online discussion about potential inconsistencies in evaluating innovative firms.
The exchange comes as SpaceX explores financing options following its recent valuation milestones, while Tesla continues executing on its multi-year roadmap. Musk’s pointed response serves as a reminder that credit ratings, though influential for borrowing costs, represent one lens through which markets assess corporate strength—and that company leaders often view their financial positions through the lens of long-term innovation and cash generation rather than short-term risk metrics alone.
A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.
The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.
TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.
Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.
Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.
TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.
This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.
This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.
However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.
Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Tesla is going to let you guide Full Self-Driving with Grok in 3 months, CEO Elon Musk confirmed on X.
The response from Musk, which revealed Tesla plans to allow drivers to effectively control the car and its navigation more explicitly using Grok, puts the feature for about September.
A Tesla owner said that Full Self-Driving is great, but owners should be able to “converse with Grok like we can with an Uber driver.” She then used examples like, “Grok, turn right here,” and “Drop us off right here, we’ll walk due to traffic,” and finally,” Drop at entrance first, then park far away.”
Coincidentally, the final piece of dialogue would also mean features like Banish are potentially on the way soon.
This functionality will be there in about 3 months or so
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 18, 2026
Banish is also referred to as “Reverse Summon,” and would enable the car to self-park while dropping occupants off at their destination.
This would be a great way to improve the overall experience while supervising FSD. Navigation is already a major painpoint that many owners complain about. Manual overrides when a maneuver is requested or canceled (like using the turn signal stalk to override a navigation route), do not always work.
The feature could be especially useful in street parking scenarios in a city, where spots are sometimes tough to come by. Many of us who grab dinner in a more populated area will park a street or two over from wherever we’re going, because sometimes you know that’s the best you will get. If a driver using FSD could say, “Hey Grok, turn right here on Queen St. and park in that open spot on the right,” it could save a lot of confusion FSD might have on its own.
Musk teased that a similar feature was “coming” back in February:
Tesla Full Self-Driving set to get an awesome new feature, Elon Musk says
It is certainly surprising that Tesla is doing it at this point. The company’s more recent moves have been more evident of taking control and inputs away from humans and putting them in the AI’s hands more frequently. The biggest example of this was taking away Max Speed in AI4 cars, giving us Speed Profiles, and not having any input on the fastest speed the car will travel.
Of course, giving navigation preferences to Grok is availble already in Teslas, but not at the drop of a hat. Instead, you can suggest a certain route at the beginning of your drive.
Here’s an example of that from December:
🚨🏈 I am taking my parents and Fiancee to the @Ravens game next weekend and asked @Grok to help me route my @Tesla through a specific neighborhood to reach the correct Lot we will park in.
This is a great example of the new @grok nav integration with the Tesla Holiday Update: pic.twitter.com/rPp4I7q8Yv
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 13, 2025
Finally, the original post that Musk responded to mentioned a parking preference after dropping off the occupants, which describes the Banish feature that Tesla has teased for years.
We’re not sure if Musk was responding more to the ability to guide the car with Grok, or whether he also was including Banish in the three-month prediction timeframe.
Elon Musk challenges Tesla credit rating from Moody’s after SpaceX gets a higher one
Tesla faces Full Self-Driving pushback in EU over ‘speeding’
