News
Tesla’s long road to maturity teaches a hard lesson for electric vehicle startups
Elon Musk may be prone to incredibly optimistic release estimates for Tesla’s products, but there is one aspect of the company that the CEO has been very realistic on — the challenges involved in mass production. Over the years, Elon Musk has highlighted this point. In the Q2 2021 earnings call alone, Musk reiterated these challenges when describing just how difficult it was to ramp the production of Tesla’s custom 4680 cells. “Limited production is easy, prototype production is easy but high-volume production is hard. There are a number of challenges in transitioning from sort of small-scale production to large volume production,” Musk said.
Tesla is now a mature electric vehicle company, but it has not always been that way. Before its eight consecutive profitable quarters, Tesla was fighting an uphill battle, coming close to ruin more than once. Today, Tesla is a strong automaker, weathering the issues brought about by the chip crisis admirably and securing $1 billion quarterly profit for the first time in Q2 2021. That’s not bad at all for an 18-year-old company competing in one of the most unforgiving segments in the market.
One thing that may be forgotten today is just how long the road was for Tesla before it was able to secure the stable ground that it stands on today. This long, arduous road, paved with several trips through “production hell,” would likely be faced by other electric car makers as well. This would likely be especially true for companies like Lucid, which entered the stock market even before it delivered its first car to consumers.
There is a trend now among electric vehicle makers. Unlike Tesla, which went public after delivering the original Roadster to customers, other EV makers have gone public through special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs). This was the case for controversial hydrogen truck maker Nikola, which saw its stock climb rapidly before plummeting down as issues about its founder Trevor Milton emerged. Nikola is not alone in the SPAC trend, with companies like Lucid and Fisker also going public through SPACs.
As noted in a Bloomberg report, a good number of these EV makers have seen quite a bit of volatility. Nikola’s rapid rise and fall aside, companies like Faraday Future have exhibited volatility not long after they debuted on the Nasdaq. Faraday saw gains in its inaugural day of trading, for example, but the company saw a 23% drop over the next two sessions.
It’s almost expected now that new EV makers that enter the stock market through a SPAC would likely see notable gains and some steep losses. And now that they are publicly traded, management decisions and strategies would likely result in their respective stocks seeing some movement.
This was experienced by Lucid Motors. The SPAC that took Lucid public earlier this year saw dips in its stock after the EV maker postponed the initial production of its Air sedan, which CEO Peter Rawlinson explained was due to the pandemic. What is quite interesting is that Lucid is already one of the more prepared EV makers that are looking to follow Tesla into the mainstream auto segment, since it has a ready product and management that seems to have things in order.
Other EV makers that have gone public through SPACs, such as Nikola, Canoo, and Lordstown Motors, ended up experiencing management turmoil even before they went public. This means that many electric car companies, particularly those who may be entering the stock market through a SPAC, may very well have to learn a hard lesson about how difficult it is to transition from being a maker of EV prototypes to a mass manufacturer of electric cars that can stand beside Tesla in the mainstream auto market.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
News
Tesla FSD (Supervised) fleet passes 8.4 billion cumulative miles
The figure appears on Tesla’s official safety page, which tracks performance data for FSD (Supervised) and other safety technologies.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) system has now surpassed 8.4 billion cumulative miles.
The figure appears on Tesla’s official safety page, which tracks performance data for FSD (Supervised) and other safety technologies.
Tesla has long emphasized that large-scale real-world data is central to improving its neural network-based approach to autonomy. Each mile driven with FSD (Supervised) engaged contributes additional edge cases and scenario training for the system.
The milestone also brings Tesla closer to a benchmark previously outlined by CEO Elon Musk. Musk has stated that roughly 10 billion miles of training data may be needed to achieve safe unsupervised self-driving at scale, citing the “long tail” of rare but complex driving situations that must be learned through experience.
The growth curve of FSD Supervised’s cumulative miles over the past five years has been notable.
As noted in data shared by Tesla watcher Sawyer Merritt, annual FSD (Supervised) miles have increased from roughly 6 million in 2021 to 80 million in 2022, 670 million in 2023, 2.25 billion in 2024, and 4.25 billion in 2025. In just the first 50 days of 2026, Tesla owners logged another 1 billion miles.
At the current pace, the fleet is trending towards hitting about 10 billion FSD Supervised miles this year. The increase has been driven by Tesla’s growing vehicle fleet, periodic free trials, and expanding Robotaxi operations, among others.
With the fleet now past 8.4 billion cumulative miles, Tesla’s supervised system is approaching that threshold, even as regulatory approval for fully unsupervised deployment remains subject to further validation and oversight.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk fires back after Wikipedia co-founder claims neutrality and dubs Grokipedia “ridiculous”
Musk’s response to Wales’ comments, which were posted on social media platform X, was short and direct: “Famous last words.”
Elon Musk fired back at Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales after the longtime online encyclopedia leader dismissed xAI’s new AI-powered alternative, Grokipedia, as a “ridiculous” idea that is bound to fail.
Musk’s response to Wales’ comments, which were posted on social media platform X, was short and direct: “Famous last words.”
Wales made the comments while answering questions about Wikipedia’s neutrality. According to Wales, Wikipedia prides itself on neutrality.
“One of our core values at Wikipedia is neutrality. A neutral point of view is non-negotiable. It’s in the community, unquestioned… The idea that we’ve become somehow ‘Wokepidea’ is just not true,” Wales said.
When asked about potential competition from Grokipedia, Wales downplayed the situation. “There is no competition. I don’t know if anyone uses Grokipedia. I think it is a ridiculous idea that will never work,” Wales wrote.
After Grokipedia went live, Larry Sanger, also a co-founder of Wikipedia, wrote on X that his initial impression of the AI-powered Wikipedia alternative was “very OK.”
“My initial impression, looking at my own article and poking around here and there, is that Grokipedia is very OK. The jury’s still out as to whether it’s actually better than Wikipedia. But at this point I would have to say ‘maybe!’” Sanger stated.
Musk responded to Sanger’s assessment by saying it was “accurate.” In a separate post, he added that even in its V0.1 form, Grokipedia was already better than Wikipedia.
During a past appearance on the Tucker Carlson Show, Sanger argued that Wikipedia has drifted from its original vision, citing concerns about how its “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” framework categorizes publications by perceived credibility. As per Sanger, Wikipedia’s “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” list leans heavily left, with conservative publications getting effectively blacklisted in favor of their more liberal counterparts.
As of writing, Grokipedia has reportedly surpassed 80% of English Wikipedia’s article count.
News
Tesla Sweden appeals after grid company refuses to restore existing Supercharger due to union strike
The charging site was previously functioning before it was temporarily disconnected in April last year for electrical safety reasons.
Tesla Sweden is seeking regulatory intervention after a Swedish power grid company refused to reconnect an already operational Supercharger station in Åre due to ongoing union sympathy actions.
The charging site was previously functioning before it was temporarily disconnected in April last year for electrical safety reasons. A temporary construction power cabinet supplying the station had fallen over, described by Tesla as occurring “under unclear circumstances.” The power was then cut at the request of Tesla’s installation contractor to allow safe repair work.
While the safety issue was resolved, the station has not been brought back online. Stefan Sedin, CEO of Jämtkraft elnät, told Dagens Arbete (DA) that power will not be restored to the existing Supercharger station as long as the electric vehicle maker’s union issues are ongoing.
“One of our installers noticed that the construction power had been backed up and was on the ground. We asked Tesla to fix the system, and their installation company in turn asked us to cut the power so that they could do the work safely.
“When everything was restored, the question arose: ‘Wait a minute, can we reconnect the station to the electricity grid? Or what does the notice actually say?’ We consulted with our employer organization, who were clear that as long as sympathy measures are in place, we cannot reconnect this facility,” Sedin said.
The union’s sympathy actions, which began in March 2024, apply to work involving “planning, preparation, new connections, grid expansion, service, maintenance and repairs” of Tesla’s charging infrastructure in Sweden.
Tesla Sweden has argued that reconnecting an existing facility is not equivalent to establishing a new grid connection. In a filing to the Swedish Energy Market Inspectorate, the company stated that reconnecting the installation “is therefore not covered by the sympathy measures and cannot therefore constitute a reason for not reconnecting the facility to the electricity grid.”
Sedin, for his part, noted that Tesla’s issue with the Supercharger is quite unique. And while Jämtkraft elnät itself has no issue with Tesla, its actions are based on the unions’ sympathy measures against the electric vehicle maker.
“This is absolutely the first time that I have been involved in matters relating to union conflicts or sympathy measures. That is why we have relied entirely on the assessment of our employer organization. This is not something that we have made any decisions about ourselves at all.
“It is not that Jämtkraft elnät has a conflict with Tesla, but our actions are based on these sympathy measures. Should it turn out that we have made an incorrect assessment, we will correct ourselves. It is no more difficult than that for us,” the executive said.
Tesla FSD (Supervised) fleet passes 8.4 billion cumulative miles
Elon Musk fires back after Wikipedia co-founder claims neutrality and dubs Grokipedia “ridiculous”
