News
Tesla’s damage monitoring patent hints at cars driving to repair centers autonomously
Despite being cutting-edge machines that could be described as “the most fun thing” that anyone can possibly buy, Tesla’s electric cars are still subjected to a great deal of stress during operation. Electric cars have fewer moving parts than their fossil fuel-powered counterparts, but nevertheless, the components that move, such as their electric motors and suspension, are still subject to different types of stress.
One of Tesla’s recently published patent applications, titled “System and Method for Monitoring Stress Cycles,” discusses this particular issue. As noted by the electric car maker, machines may heat up or cool down, or speed up and slow down at different times during operation, resulting in thermal and mechanical stress. Over time, such stress could result in decreased performance, which is referred to as damage.
Damages are costly and hazardous. Stress-related damage results in equipment downtime, performance degradation, safety hazards, and maintenance expenses, to name a few. In the case of Tesla’s electric cars, these damages can cause breakdowns, or worse, accidents. To prevent this, strategies are usually employed to detect and address stress-related damage, such as repairing damaged parts or replacing components at set intervals. Tesla notes in its patent application that both practices are time-consuming and costly.
“Even regular inspections may not provide adequate protection against stress-related damage. For example, the inspections may not provide sufficient insight into the characteristics of the stresses imposed on a given component to accurately assess its condition. Moreover, the inspections themselves may be burdensome and costly,” the company wrote.
With this in mind, there is a need for a system that can detect and address stress-related damage in a more efficient and cost-effective manner.
Tesla’s recently published patent application outlines a system involving a processor configured to monitor stress imposed on subsystems while determining the cumulative damage to a vehicle’s systems. Tesla notes that a stress monitoring system would work optimally if the processor is configured to monitor stress cycles in real-time, allowing the system to avoid using too much memory in the process. Tesla describes the concept in the following discussion.
“To address these challenges, processor 140 may be configured to monitor stress cycles in real-time. For example, processor 140 may identify and record stress cycles concurrently while receiving the series of stress values from stress sensors 131-139. In some embodiments, for each received stress value in the series of stress values, processor 140 may perform one or more operations to determine whether a stress cycle has been completed. When processor 140 detects the end of a stress cycle, processor 140 may record the stress cycle immediately, such that the cumulative damage model can be continuously updated to reflect the latest recorded stress cycle.
“In some examples, real-time monitoring of stress cycles may be performed without storing the series of stress values in memory 150. For example, rather than storing a complete series of stress values for later data processing, a comparatively small number of stress values may be stored temporarily to track in-progress stress cycles, but other stress values may be discarded as soon as they are received. Accordingly, the amount of memory used during real-time monitoring of stress cycles may be reduced in comparison to alternative approaches.”
Adopting such a system gives notable benefits to electric car owners. By using a real-time monitoring model, for one, drivers would be notified by their vehicles once a component needs maintenance. In some instances, the car could immediately send stress and damage data to the company. Taking the concept even further, Tesla notes that a vehicle equipped with autonomous driving features would be able to drive itself to a service center when it needs repairs.
“In some embodiments, an operator of vehicle 110 may be notified when damage to subsystems 121-129 is detected. For example, the operator may be alerted when the level of damage reaches a predetermined threshold, such that the operator may take an appropriate remedial action (e.g., bringing vehicle 110 in for maintenance). In one illustrative example, when the level of damage is represented as a damage fraction, the operator may be alerted when the fractional damage to a given subsystem reaches 70%. In some examples, the alert may be communicated to the operator via a dashboard 160 (and/or another suitable control/monitoring interface) of vehicle 110.
“In some examples, processor 140 may be coupled to one or more external entities over a network 170. Accordingly, processor 140 may be configured to send stress cycle and/or damage data over network 170 to various recipients. For example, processor 140 may send stress cycle and/or damage data to a service center, such that service center may contact the operator to schedule a maintenance appointment when a damaged subsystem is identified. Additionally or alternately, when vehicle 1 10 is an autonomous vehicle, vehicle 110 may be instructed to drive autonomously to service center for repairs.”
Tesla is arguably one of the most proactive companies in the auto industry. For example, automotive teardown expert Sandy Munro has already dubbed the company’s batteries as the best in the market today, but Tesla’s Automotive President Jerome Guillen has stated that the company is still constantly making its batteries even better. In an interview with CNBC, Guillen pointed out that the design of Tesla’s battery cells is “not frozen.” With this in mind, it is not very surprising to see Tesla exploring proactive new ways to figure out more effective ways to monitor damages on its electric vehicles.
Tesla’s constant initiative to improve is teased somewhat in the patent applications from the company that has been published over the past few months. Among these include an automatic tire inflation system that teases off-road capabilities for the company’s vehicles, a system that addresses panel gaps during vehicle assembly, a way to create colored solar roof tiles, and even a system that uses electric cars as a way to improve vehicle positioning.
The full text of Tesla’s recently published patent application 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
