Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) is stagnating with no real improvement in miles between disengagement in months just as CEO Elon Musk said it is going exponential.
The stagnation of FSD could be explained by Tesla making a pivot and focusing on its geo-fenced ride-hailing service instead of its long-standing promises.
Since 2016, Tesla has claimed that all it vehicles produced onward have all the hardware capable of self-driving at a level enabling a robotaxi service and that a software update would eventually enable it.
For the past six years, CEO Elon Musk has claimed that Tesla would achieve that goal by the end of the year, and he has been wrong every time.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Lately, Musk has been focused on hyping Tesla’s latest Supervised Full Self-Driving (FSD) updates.
FSD is technically a level 2 advanced driver assist system (ADAS). It requires driver supervision at all times, and Tesla takes no responsibility in the case of a crash.
Miles between critical disengagement is the primary metric used to track progress with each FSD update. Tesla and Musk have both used the metric in the past.
In January, we reported on Musk sharing a crowdsourced FSD dataset, claiming that it showed Tesla had now reached “exponential improvement” with FSD v13. We noted that this was both false since exponential improvement would require an extra data point that he didn’t have and misleading since he focused only on highway miles between disengagement and Tesla had just introduced its long-used city driving neural network stack to highway driving.
FSD v13 has now been out for 3 months, and it received several point updates, but the same data praised by Musk a few months ago shows that it is stagnating – not going exponential:
Musk had previously claimed that v13 would enable “a 5 to 6x increase in miles between disengagement compared to v12.5.”
The data now shows that v13 barely brought a 2x improvement, going from ~200 miles to ~400 miles.
After over 33,000 miles reported through all versions of FSD v13, the datasets now point to 495 miles between critical disengagement on average:
Ashok Elluswamy, the head of FSD at Tesla, has previously stated that for Tesla to enable unsupervised self-driving, Tesla needs to achieve the average in miles per critical intervention “equivalent of human miles between collision,” which stands at 700,000 miles, according to NHTSA.
Musk is moving the goal post on Tesla Full Self-Driving
The current stagnation is disappointing for Tesla fans and surprising even to critics. Even those who don’t believe Musk’s ambitious timelines for Tesla to achieve self-driving believed that the system would improve faster.
It needs to improve faster if Tesla wants to go from ~500 miles between critical disengagement to 700,000 miles – the company’s own goal of being safer than humans.
We believe that a possible reason for the current stagnation is that Tesla is focusing on a new strategy for self-driving.
That’s why instead of delivering on its long-stated promise of consumer vehicles achieving unsupervised self-driving, Tesla is shifting to releasing a ride-hailing service in a geo-fenced area around Austin, Texas in June.
Using an internal fleet of vehicles helped by teleoperation in a limited area is a complete change of plan for Tesla self-driving, and it is a service similar to what Waymo has been offering for years. Musk has even thrown colder water on Waymo’s approach, calling it “too difficult to scale.”
We believe that part of the reason why Tesla FSD is stagnating is that the automaker is currently using its engineering power as well as its training compute toward this new program rather than its broader FSD product.
Electrek’s Take
You know my take on FSD. I think that if it was developed in a vacuum without Tesla selling it as “Full Self-Driving” and Musk promising that it would be unsupervised by the end of every year for the last 6 years, I think it would simply be praised as the best level 2 ADAS system out there.
Unfortunately, it’s not the case.
Instead, Musk has tainted the product with lies and false promises and we are not even getting into HW3 in this post.
I think Musk has been really successful at misleading people with FSD, and now he thinks that this pivot to a Waymo-style product will enable Tesla to claim a win on self-driving without most people realizing that it’s actually a loss for millions of Tesla owners.
He might be able to pull it through, but we are going to keep reporting it for what it is on Electrek.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Tesla has settled another wrongful death lawsuit, and it has significant implications based on Tesla’s legal strategy of not settling unless it is at fault.
Admitting a mistake is difficult. We humans are not good at it, which is why I respected Elon Musk when he said that Tesla wouldn’t seek victory in “just” legal cases against it and would “never settle an unjust case” against the company:
We will never seek victory in a just case against us, even if we will probably win. – We will never surrender/settle an unjust case against us, even if we will probably lose..
This strategy also means that if Tesla ever settles a case, it is admitting that it was in the wrong, even if settlements often come with no admission of wrongdoing.
Tesla has very rarely settled cases and Musk made this comment back in 2022. A lot has changed since then.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
In fact, around the same time Musk made that comment, he announced that he was building a team of “hardcore lawyers” at Tesla to pursue legal cases aggressively.
But it started to happen over the last few years.
In the UK, a Tesla owner challenged Tesla over its failure to deliver on its full self-driving claims and won a settlement that represented a refund of his purchase cost for FSD, with interest, after filing a claim in small claims court in 2023.
Now, Tesla has settled a second wrongful death lawsuit.
The estate of Clyde Leach, a Tesla Model Y owner, sued Tesla for wrongful death after his Model Y “suddenly accelerated, went off the road, and slammed into a pillar at an Ohio gas station.” Leach, 72, died from “blunt force trauma, burns, and other injuries” after the vehicle burned down following the impact.
Unlike Huang’s case, the lawsuit didn’t focus specifically on Tesla’s Autopilot or other ADAS features, but it claimed that a defect led to a “sudden acceleration” that contributed to the crash.
This makes it particularly interesting that Tesla, which claims never to settle unjust claims against the company, has confirmed that it settled the case with Leach’s estate in a filing on Monday in federal court in San Francisco.
The terms of the settlement have not been released.
Electrek’s Take
In Tesla’s early days, there were numerous claims of “sudden unintended acceleration” regarding Tesla vehicles. I would often look into them, and we even had third parties review the telemetric logs; you could almost always prove pedal misplacement.
I assumed some of it also had to do with people not being used to vehicles that accelerate as quickly as Teslas, leading to less forgiving situations when pressing the wrong pedal.
However, considering Tesla settled this case and Musk’s claim that Tesla would not settle an “unjust” claim, there could be a case that sudden acceleration could occur with Tesla vehicles.
This could complicate a lot of other cases against Tesla.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Despite the will-they, won’t-they uncertainty surrounding the future of tariffs and union jobs and – let’s face it – just about everything else in every industry these days, GM says it has no plans to move production of its Ultium-based EVs from Mexico to the US.
The General seems to know a good thing when it sees one, so it should come as no surprise to learn that GM has no plans to scuttle its assembly lines out of the country.
“At this time, GM has no plans to halt or relocate production of any of our EV models made in Mexico,” the director of GM de México’s EV operations, Adrián Enciso, told the Spanish-language newspaper, Milenio. “It’s possible that additional models, such as (the new 2026 Chevy Spark) could be built here, too.”
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Market Watch is reporting that the proposed tariffs, if they take effect, could raise GM’s cost to make electric cars in Mexico by up to $4,300 per vehicle. But while that could put a significant per-unit dent in GM’s profits, it’s worth noting that the EVs might continue to be built in Mexico and sold in Canada and other markets – the new Spark, especially, is targeted towards Central and South America, anyway.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
The mining equipment experts at Epiroc will supply a fleet of autonomous, zero-emission electric Pit Viper 271E and SmartROC D65 BE drill rigs at a number of Australian mines operated by multinational metals firm, Fortescue.
The $350 million AUD (approx. $225 million US) deal will see Epiroc AB supply its customer, Fortescue, with a number of blast hole drill rigs powered by either a cable connection to grid energy or, for more remote sites, batteries.
Fortescue will put the rigs to work at its iron ore mines in the Pilbara region in Western Australia. The driverless machines will eventually be operated fully autonomously, overseen by remote operators at Fortescue’s Integrated Operations Centre in Perth – more than 1,500 km away!
Epiroc says the machines will eliminate around 35 million liters of diesel consumption annually, according to Fortescue.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
“Fortescue is at the forefront of the mining industry in reducing emissions from operations, and in using automation to strengthen safety and productivity, and we are proud to support them on this important effort,” says Epiroc President Helena Hedblom. “Not only is this the largest contract we have ever received, but it is also a major step forward for our electric-powered surface equipment. We look forward to contributing to Fortescue’s continued success now and in the future.”
The Pit Viper 271 E rotary blast hole drill rig that offers the same levels of performance that the diesel Pit Viper line is acclaimed for. Its patented cable feed system that prolongs component longevity and reduces operational costs. The SmartROC D65 BE is a new, battery-electric version of the proven SmartROC D65 drill rig. They’re manufactured in Texas and Sweden, respectively.
Pit Viper 271E cable electric drill rig; via Epiroc AB.
From drilling and rigging to heavy haul solutions, companies like Fortescue and Epiroc are proving that electric equipment is more than up to the task of moving dirt and pulling stuff out of the ground. At the same time, rising demand for nickel, lithium, and phosphates combined with the natural benefits of electrification are driving the adoption of electric mining machines while a persistent operator shortage is boosting demand for autonomous tech in those machines.