Robotaxi rides without any safety monitors are now publicly available in Austin.

**I am a bot. This is a friendly reminder that unwelcoming toxic/griefing/pessimistic sniping comments that are not on topic and don’t move the discussion forward will be removed. A ban will be issued if necessary. Consider this before commenting. Report posts or comments that violate the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/mod/teslamotors/rules/). Thank you.** If you are unable to find it, use the link to it. We are not a support sub, please make sure to use the proper resources if you have questions: [Official Tesla Support](https://www.tesla.com/support), [r/TeslaLounge](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/) personal content | [Discord Live Chat](https://discord.gg/tesla) for anything. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/teslamotors) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Pretty wild to see unsupervised FSD for real! I wonder what the differences are between what these Robotaxis are running and the publicly available FSD (Supervised) on Tesla vehicles. Is it better mapping of the local area? Is there new hardware (cameras, compute, etc.) in the Robotaxis?

[deleted]

Hardware is the same. They are stock refreshed Model Ys.

It’s 100% the mapping

\*in the car

Probably why it's strictly geo fenced at the moment

But but but ... r/selfdrivingcars said it would never happen, that they *nEeD LiDAr*!!11!!!

WeMo has teleoperators too. It would be insane and unsafe for *any* company to operate a AV fleet without that in-place.

Exactly so saying "any safety monitors" is false.

It’s probably on 15. Even the video of the model y self delivering to the customer was on a different version. They downgraded it after delivery.

It probably is, but not necessarily. It could just be that they have only VALIDATED it to a robust enough safety standard within this strict geofence area. It doesn't mean that if it went outside the area it would be significantly less safe. Whereas with Waymo for instance, if it went outside a mapped area, its functionality WOULD be significantly reduced. The presence of a geofence for both does not mean equal reliance on mapping.

The mapping is the same also. The inference model weights are different.

It was obvious 5 years ago that Tesla was going to win the SDCF race. It’s only become more obvious. Uber self driving shut down. Cruise shuttered. (Buddy who was high up at cruise says they didn’t even follow Tesla autonomous because they did not consider Tesla serious competition) Waymo is next. Frankly I’m surprised they are still devoting resources to it. Probably trying to time the inevitable write down. And it has always been obvious this was going to happen.

I would take this taxi over any others for the sole reason of having no tips.

Or maybe Tesla just did it better.... Hmmmmm. It was specifically stated that the agent will operate without any external connectivity needed during multiple Tesla AI-day events.

It does suck, so much hesitation

Yeah pretty weird that /u/Recoil42 permabanned me from there for no reason. Not a good moderator.

Hard to see this as my FSD on my Model Y still isn't as smooth as I hope. I guess it's only specific areas like waymo what their doing.

Why would you assume it's a different model?

lmao the delusion is strong with this one

No, v15 (assuming the 10x parameter model will be called v15) is coming later, possibly next month. This is the smaller model.

/r/SelfDrivingCars is a shit show. I've been banned on that sub and haven't even done anything. I haven't even made a comment or post. So many mods hate me because I'll call them out for the stupid shit they do.

lol

I really doubt Waymo is vanishing anytime soon considering how rapidly they’re expanding and *where* they’re expanding. They’re not just in the US anymore.

That sub is so fucking annoying. They just believe whatever they want to believe

Because it was mentioned in one of the interview. They run a model that is trained extensively in the area of Robotaxi services.

The remote assistant to vehicle ratio for Waymo is on the order of 1 human for several hundred vehicles, if not higher. That’s not really the same as having a safety monitor watch everything the vehicle does. If Tesla has. Similar ratio I think saying it is autonomous without a safety monitor is a fair claim.

Now they're claiming there's a "chase car." Which, maybe there is? And maybe that's a good idea? But there certainly isn't good evidence for it. [https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/1qk204h/comment/o13iq0c/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/1qk204h/comment/o13iq0c/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)

Pretty sure they never said they're using a different model, outside of the period of time when public FSD hadn't been updated in several months.

But if they need to manually validate every place in the world for unsupervised, how is it functionally any different than Waymo? They’d still need to drive through every road, every city…

[They've got chase cars, currently.](https://xcancel.com/JoeTegtmeyer/status/2014424041147310233#m) Was hoping this would be a bigger step forward. This is just moving the safety monitor from the passenger seat to behind the car with a killswitch.

It's worth noting for now they have a chaperone vehicle that follows behind. https://x.com/JoeTegtmeyer/status/2014410572226322794

Evidence or bust

You are my new favorite mod! I needed one since Nakatomi left the lounge. (You probably are nakatomi lol)

Tesla is just slowly realizing that they need to do what competitors are doing. Like how Elon claimed that if an autonomous car needs geofencing (Waymo’s rolling out by city/area), it’s not truly autonomous… and that’s what they’re doing now. They’ll eventually realize they need more sensors and LiDar, but they problem is that they would then need to retrofit all sold Tesla with that new hardware, since their promise to customers at the time of sale was that all Teslas have the hardware needed for self-driving capability 😆.

The larger model isn't out yet?!? Very awesome if true. Our cars will only get better. My other experiences with increasing model params have been surprisingly good. This could be special.

[removed]

Homogeneous model, but newer weight configurations, more parameters, and reasoning logic. Basically, it's just a newer version of the software.

No, it's not out yet. Elon said in December that it would likely be released in February.

You just made all that up. Also, the model largely *is* the weights. A model with different weights is basically an entirely different model.

Believe what you want. It's simple. When inference training is done, the inference model weights are configured. This happens in every version.

Not even close, I had to put that exmod on a time out for a week and that user couldn't handle it well. Ended up leaving the mod team after three days. I did this for that users own health. When a mod has more mod actions then the bots on the Tesla sub/s. I needed to investigate what's going on. I found that the sub/s had way too much stuff being removed and things were not adding up. The subs were being killed from within. I've said it before and I know a lot of users might not have seen it but I will be changing the way the sub/s are modding this year and going forward. There will no longer be any pandering for the small percent of users that just bitch and cry. [Here is a link to when i said it 10 days ago.](https://old.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/comments/1qahc9l/websites_and_wraps/nz3b89m/) I normally sit back and I'm the guy behind the curtain controlling the bots and making sure mods are doing the right thing. This year and I hope going forward I will be seen in the subs more. I will for sure be outspoken and people will hate what I will have to say and or do. Should be a fun year. Side note if you want me to be more frank join the discord. I'll show you how the sausage is made. I've got nothing to hide.

I have no idea what Tesla’s is currently. I’m merely stating that generally the existence of remote monitors doesn’t mean the car isn’t driving autonomously, as it’s basically a customer support position for the vehicles. Before Cruise went bust in 2023 it had a ratio of about 20:1 vehicles to remote operators. Waymo certainly has an even better ratio, and with headcount growth compared to fleet size growth you can estimate that it is at least a 100:1 ratio, but is likely much higher than that.

The question I have is when will this be available for Intercity travel? I want to be able to use robotaxi to travel from Austin to Waco/Dallas.

https://preview.redd.it/nbzneaoawyeg1.png?width=674&format=png&auto=webp&s=5ff8068f074ad9749dd55c116daa287a9061e73b Nope. Just cherry picked, simple routes and plenty of pressure from Elon to show something to the public.

Do the ones in San Fran have safety monitors?

\> But if they need to manually validate every place in the world for unsupervised, how is it functionally any different than Waymo? They’d still need to drive through every road, every city… Tesla has million users who can do 99% of the validation work for them for free. They can automatically enable streets when user supervised FSD goes well, and avoid those with interventions.

Cherry picked routes and a chaperone vehicle following. Nice try Elon.

Watch out Waymo! You’ve had your turn, now make room for unsupervised Robotaxis. + our dependency of traffic lights isn’t necessary. 😏

Chase cars are a huge step forward imo. It would be extremely negligent to not have a chase car. They’d get hella shit for it. This is a good way to roll out the new patch.

It's been confirmed. Joe Teygmayer on X posted a video and you can see the chase car the whole time.

They said no safety monitors, they didn't say no one is watching and controlling the vehicles remotely

Yes, in the drivers seat.

It's the correct move. Inevitability Robotaxis will be under gov scrutiny. Tesla will show that they took every reasonable precaution in terms of safety.

This feels more optics than anything. The safety driver in the passenger seat had very limited controls of the car to begin with. All they had was a stop in lane button or opening the door. The chase car probably has similar controls.  I don’t understand why there’s a step between “limited control” safety driver and “limited control” chase car other than optics. The true jump is when Tesla moves away from the hawkish monitoring of each individual vehicle.  Elon also said he needed a few more billion miles for safe Unsupervised, so there’s a contradiction here too.

Are they gonna be driving over the weekend?! Wanna see how they do with sheets of ice on the ground

In good weather / visibility, sure. Try that up north. Good luck.

Now let's see the Goalposts moving again from the doubters. We're making huge technological leaps here and the haters are too dumb to realize it in their Tesla Hate

They are now only 5 years behind

That’s too bad google doesn’t have a comparable service, with millions of miles being mapped. Maybe if they did, they could call it Google Maps, and maybe with street level they could call it Street View. And maybe they could have people all around the world driving in cars mapping with cameras and lidar where they drive for Street View. Maybe one day! 🙄

Technological leaps? Waymo has existed for years.

Are they still driving or has Tesla finally gotten the permits?

>Whereas with Waymo for instance, if it went outside a mapped area, its functionality WOULD be significantly reduced. What are you basing this on?

You know Teslas use Google Maps for navigation, right?

Not really. I’ve seen Waymos completely stunlocked in the middle of intersections in SF for months, causing insane traffic problems.

They've never been driving. The car does the driving; they are there to intervene if necessary.

Sooooo can we get our hardware upgrade now?

From what I recall, they're driving like standard taxis with the drivers maybe using FSD like normal people do. No different than an Uber who drives a Tesla. They don't have the permits to operate autonomously at least not since last October.

Safety first.

i mean what is the downside of having chase cars besides scale? they're attempting a vision only robotaxi, which nobody has ever done before. it makes sense to have these intermediate steps.

yeah and i'm sure that ratio has changed over time. they were probably super cautious in the beginning. they've already hired people from Cruise, they probably have ex Waymo people working there advising them.

Is this on hw4?

Obvious how? There is literally 0 things to suggest Tesla will be the leader in self driving cars other than Elon just making things up and saying they’ll happen in 6 months.

How's it any different than waymo remote operators?

waymo does not have a path to beating Tesla. Self driving fleets are winner take all In order to win that race, Waymo needs to build approximately 1 million cars ($200B), and hire enough staff and build enough facilities to maintain a 1 million car fleet. Call it 175,000 people, based on 1 hr cleaning and maint per car per day. And maybe 100-200 facilities. Conversely- In order for Tesla to win that race, Tesla needs to roll out an over the air update. So for Waymo to have a realistic chance of winning, Google needs to essentially bet the entire company on Waymo. And It will be a multi year project to hire that many people, build that many facilities, and build at least 1 million cars. And at any time Tesla could roll out an OTA update and take the crown. Google is not going to bet everything on that. Google knows they would do much better putting that capital investment into regular software AI development, which has much higher returns and much lower risk. And it is their core competency. Building and operating a fleet of millions of cars is not a Google core competency. Google will eventually bow out, say that all of the AI research from Waymo is getting folded into their normal AI work, and that while it was ultimately unsuccessful it was worth it for the AI progress. I would bet a million dollars on it.

https://old.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/1qk1vak/robotaxi_rides_without_any_safety_monitors_are/o16bv89/ Just to avoid re hashing the same statements.. Basically Tesla is too close and Waymo is too far. Waymo won’t risk the capital needed to stay in the race. And Google doesn’t want to own and operate a fleet of millions of cars. Google is making shit tons of money in software.

I literally live in SF and have ridden in robotaxis a dozen times, lol. The monitors are not driving.

What version are you on

You must of not got the memo, reddit changed the goal post 😂

Give me the actual X link.

it's a juniper so yes all robotaxis are hw4

OK, so why are the usual suspects downvoting \*this\* post?

Ok, very serious question: is Waymo still losing billions per quarter? Have they found any path that remotely leads to profitability?

The critics and shorts have used the "he's just making it up" line for over a decade. This line of argumentation has not worked out for them. But I guess you feel like you are different.

If you think Waymo and Tesla are playing the same game, I don't even know why you are bothering to comment.

If you tell me something is coming in 6 months and it takes 8 months, you were just wrong. If you tell me something is something is going to take 6 months and I still don’t have it after 10 years, you were lying. It’s funny you’re responding with such smugness when you haven’t provided even a shred of evidence to support your thesis, and all Tesla has done is fail to deliver thus far.

Google maps helps nothing in self driving validation. It's not about mapping, it's about validating how your self driving car handle this street. There is no other way than just do a test drive with self driving on this street. Tesla has users that do it for free, others have to perform all testing on their own.

HW4 14,2.2.3

Tesla doesn’t own a single one of those cars that you’re claiming will be active in an over the air update. You do realize if Tesla wants a fleet of actual robotaxis they will need produce a fleet as well, for the tune of tens of billions as well..

Correct. That’s why teslas robotaxi model is brilliant. The customers pay Tesla for the car, and Tesla gets a cut of the rideshare. And Tesla has the option to divert excess factory capacity to building their own fleet, over time. Waymo has neither of those options. Waymo could contract manufacture cars and then resell them to “franchisees”. But they really can’t. Waymo cars with the tech package are too expensive ($180k ish) to generate a meaningful profit when financed and with Waymo taking a cut. Basically the Waymo model is obscenely capital intensive. The Tesla model is capital flowing. Every additional Waymo costs Google say $250k in hardware and overhead with a long payback period, every additional Tesla on the road generates Tesla $50k on day one. Only one of those situations is infinitely scalable.

In this instance, yes.

I feel like it would be more effective to have a remote video feed to a human. anyone who has followed another car knows the million ways you can lose them.

Would not be safer if the safety driver was behind the wheel?

The case car probably has camera feed access, which at this point signals that it's not reliable over the internet connection. A small step forward, for a company that promises to leapfrog the competition they sure are taking baby steps.

Well, they are not. One has chosen a path that requires intense mapping of the area in order to reduce the load on the model, which is necessarily weaker because it has too much data to optimize when training. They are hoping that they can partner with car companies and somehow match up the hardware needs with the model needs The other has chosen to use the most flexible of the input streams -- vision -- and create a model that is strong enough to not need previous mappings to work well. They are using vertical integration and have full control over the model and the hardware at the same time. These are not the same games. Yes, they achieve the same goals, but saying they are the same is like comparing a locomotive manufacturer with a bicycle manufacturer and saying they are the same because people can ride them to go places. It is a very limited way of looking at it and therefore, It is of very limited use.

>One has chosen a path that requires intense mapping of the area in order to reduce the load on the model Tesla taxis are geofenced as well. You have no idea what Waymo are capable of outside the geofence. >The other has chosen to use the most flexible of the input streams -- vision Waymo also uses cameras and vision with lidar as a backup for safety. More importantly Waymo has been out much longer in more cities.

Hmm. I can't tell if you genuinely did not understand what I wrote or if this is a tactical attempt to pretend you don't understand. Yes, the Teslas are geofenced, but not because they must be. They do not depend on extensive mapping. Do you honestly not understand that or the implication? Do you understand the difference between fencing something in during testing and geofencing as part of the business plan? Next point: I never claimed that Waymo does not use vision. Of course they do. They have to. It would not be possible to build any system like this that did not use vision. In fact, vision is so important that Tesla has made the claim that it is all you need. The problem is that Waymo has multiple input streams. That sounds great until you realize that you need to build a model on those streams. The more data you have, the exponentially more difficult training a model becomes. Vision only is only \*just\* doable, and I could respect a position that said it is not yet possible (even though I think that position will fail in the next 12 months) Throw on one or two additional data streams that need to be included in the model, and it is simply way beyond any training center we yet have to be able to handle it. This is why Waymo \*must\* carefully scan the entire geofenced area. It is the only way. Their model is going to be necessarily weaker, and the scanning helps mitigate that. And your last point is ironically exactly what shows the problem here. Waymo has been doing this \*a lot\* longer than Tesla, and yet they barely have any advantage in the area being served with Tesla's expansions coming faster than Waymo can properly react. If there was a way to make this particular idea work, Waymo would have found it by now. We are not talking about a problem with computer on this particular point. This is a fundamental problem with the entire business plan. They are not only operating at a massive loss (up to $1.4 billion per quarter) but that loss is \*increasing\* not decreasing. I see no possible business plan that will lead them to profit. They are losing money while growing too slowly. Somewhere there is a ticking clock and when it finally gongs, Waymo will be shut down.

>Yes, the Teslas are geofenced, but not because they must be. For Taxi's they are which is all that matters. You can't summon a Tesla Robotaxi and take it anywhere. Same with Waymo. > The more data you have, the exponentially more difficult training a model becomes. You are completely talking out of your ass. There is no evidence to back this up. >This is why Waymo *must* carefully scan the entire geofenced area. And Tesla is likely doing the exact same thing for the areas it rolls out to. >yet they barely have any advantage in the area being served with Tesla's expansions coming faster than Waymo can properly react What are you talking about? They are in Austin and have limited availability in SF. >They are not only operating at a massive loss (up to $1.4 billion per quarter) but that loss is *increasing* not decreasing. I see no possible business plan that will lead them to profit. They are losing money while growing too slowly. Somewhere there is a ticking clock and when it finally gongs, Waymo will be shut down. You have access to Tesla's financials on Robotaxis?

Given that the evidence is right in your face, I really doubt anything I can say will reach you. What you are interpreting as "smugness" is just experience effectively countering slogans. What I love is that you think you are the first person in the world to have cracked "Elon-Time". Well thanks. But we already know about his tendency to underestimate timelines.

The evidence of what? That Tesla has literally been making things up for years?

I’m not talking about optimistic timelines, delayed products, or prices changing between announcement and delivery. Every manufacturer does that, and none of it is “making things up.” If you’re alleging fraud or fabricated data, say so and point to evidence. Otherwise this is just hindsight criticism of product roadmaps. Although I just suspect you are going to throw out some more "Tesla Shorts Greatest Hits". But hey, maybe your previous posts do not reflect your actual thought process.

Feature complete full self driving by the end of 2016. Paint it black video released same year. Proven in court to be fabricated. It was a lie, it was literal fraud.

This is not exactly rocket science. Obviously Tesla has safety standards, which they are trying to meet while gradually relaxing oversight. If you owned a company, how would you do it? You seem to be great at criticizing.

You’re conflating three different things and calling it “literal fraud,” which is not what any court found. The 2016 “feature complete” claim and the demo video fall under marketing and product roadmap claims. Courts that looked at this did not rule that Tesla fabricated capabilities or falsified data. They ruled that a promotional video could mislead viewers and that disclaimers mattered. That is a consumer protection issue, not a finding of fraud. Fraud has a specific legal meaning. It requires knowingly false statements of fact made to induce reliance. Missed timelines, optimistic projections, or a staged demo do not meet that standard, and no judgment says they do. If you are claiming Tesla committed fraud, point to the specific ruling where a court found Tesla knowingly falsified capabilities or data. Otherwise this is criticism of marketing being mislabeled as fabrication.

>For Taxi's they are which is all that matters. Incorrect, and I am sure you know it. A bird might not fly because it is tired. A fish does not fly because it can't. You cannot say they both are not flying and that is all that counts. Tesla is limiting the area for testing purposes and as part of a rollout process. Waymo limits the area because their technology does not allow them any other choice. >You are completely talking out of your ass. There is no evidence to back this up. I was sloppy, but mostly because I don't think you understand what the term "superlinear growth" is. In practice, larger datasets require larger models to extract additional value, which drives superlinear growth in compute, infrastructure, and engineering complexity. On top of that, returns from additional data diminish, so achieving the same marginal improvement becomes progressively more expensive. That’s the sense in which training becomes significantly harder at scale. None of this is controversial or hard to understand intuitively. >And Tesla is likely doing the exact same thing for the areas it rolls out to. Tesla FSD does not use pre-built HD maps or anything similar like Waymo does. Are you not aware of this? >What are you talking about? They are in Austin and have limited availability in SF. I already established the premise that Tesla has limited areas, but for different reasons than Waymo. There is no point in shouting "aha!" when we both agree on that. In Austin, Waymo expanded from about 37 to 90 square miles over roughly 4.5 months in 2025, which works out to around 12 square miles per month. Tesla’s robotaxi geofence grew from roughly 20 square miles at launch to over 170 square miles in about two months, and to around 240 square miles within four to five months, or roughly 50 to 70 square miles per month based on third party estimates. By area alone, Tesla expanded several times faster. And that was all my point said. >You have access to Tesla's financials on Robotaxis? I am not claiming insight into Tesla’s robotaxi financials. The point is that Waymo’s losses are known, large, and rising while its expansion rate is slow and capital intensive. Tesla’s approach relies on existing vehicles and infrastructure, which implies a very different cost curve, regardless of when or if robotaxi revenue materializes. I understand the attempt to shift the focus, but the facts are straightforward. Waymo has been operating at very large losses for many years, and those losses are increasing rather than decreasing. At the same time, its geographic and operational expansion is slow. That combination makes the business case hard to defend. This is not comparable to something like Amazon in its early years, where sustained losses were paired with extremely rapid expansion and clear market capture.

>Tesla is limiting the area for testing purposes and as part of a rollout process. Waymo limits the area because their technology does not allow them any other choice. This is complete bullshit. For any robotaxi, there needs to be regulatory approval. Tesla will have to do the exact same type of rollout as Waymo in order to get a license to operate. That includes all the same safety measures, geofencing, pre-mapping, etc etc. >I was sloppy, but mostly because I don't think you understand what the term "superlinear growth" is. No, it's because you're talking of your ass and making shit up to suit your preconceived notions. >Tesla FSD does not use pre-built HD maps or anything similar like Waymo does. We're not talking about FSD, we are talking about Robotaxi's. Since Robotaxi's operate under a geofence, they are obviously using pre-built maps. You're making an assumption that Waymo couldn't do the same if they had an FSD product, which is dumb and incorrect. >By area alone, Tesla expanded several times faster. And that was all my point said. Where's the data on this? I know Elon put up a phallic map, but where's the data on the miles driven and the amount of cars available. >I am not claiming insight into Tesla’s robotaxi financials. But you are making blind and quite frankly stupid assumptions on their financials. Your long-ass explanation doesn't come off any less ignorant. ----

The definition of fraud: “wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain” “a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities” Elon knew the paint it black video was fake, it was not what they were advertising, it was not full self driving. They edited the video and cut out a crash at the direction of the CEO of the company. The same guy who released this on stage to support his increasing valuation and show progress of FSD. That is literally fraud, or at the least material misrepresentation to investors. A known deception. That is Theranos level stuff, so is the fake solar roof demo, arguably the roadster that never came out.

I think the issue (at least for me) is the transparency. If indeed they are concerned like you say, then say "we have a chase car" but instead they leave that part out. Report when remote monitoring and control is going on... don't make it look more than it is. This, along with lofty promises that never hit time lines, makes people question everything.

Do you have a source for “Waymo cars w tech pkg are… $180k ish”?

You can watch it live here (though it’s crowd-sourced): https://robotaxitracker.com Currently, it looks like both Tesla and Waymo robotaxis have 0 deployed in Austin over last 24 hours.

Google search for “how much does a Waymo car cost” A Waymo car's total hardware cost, including the vehicle and advanced self-driving tech (sensors, computers), is estimated to be around $150,000 to $200,000 for current models.

Got it. So today’s cost is closer to $70k … and dropping significantly going forward with scale. So basically, your argument and cost projections are completely wrong.

Todays cost is $180k, until it goes down. So basically, your argument and cost projections are completely wrong.