News
How Tesla Challenges Other Car Makers
Tesla challenges other car makers to build better cars says Diarmuid O’Connell, Telsa’s vice president of business development at an industry conference.
Tesla Motor service center. (Source: Tesla Motors)
Diarmuid O’Connell, Tesla’s VP of business development, had harsh words for competitors last week at the CAR management briefing seminars in Michigan. He told the group that Tesla challenges other car makers to build better cars.
“You can split the market of EVs into two programs,” he said. “Many are compliance programs. Exceptions are Nissan, ourselves and BMW. Most are focused on minimum compliance, lowest common denominator behavior, and the vehicles reflect that. In some respect, they are appliances, in terms of the way they look.”
CARB And The EPA
His remarks come at a time when two important regulatory programs are up for review. The California Air Resources Board is taking a look at its zero emissions vehicle policies and the Environmental Protection Agency is considering changes to its CAFE standards.
Traditional car makers are trying to get both agencies to relax those standards, but O’Connell says they should stop trying to “slow walk” the rate of progress toward a emissions free future and get busy building better cars. He says his company wants California and the EPA to raise their standards, not relax them.
“From an empirical standpoint, the [regulations] are very weak, eminently achievable and the only thing missing is the will to put compelling products on the road,” he said, according to The Wall Street Journal.
This week, Mary Nichols, CARB chairwoman since 2007, announced that she isn’t satisfied with having just a few electric cars on California roads. The current standard calls for 2.7% of all cars sold in California to be electric. Nichols wants to set the bar higher. In fact, she would like it if all the cars sold in California were electric by 2030.
For its part, the automotive industry is busy telling the EPA that the current CAFE standards are too high. Any further tightening would be bad for business. “We need consumers to buy them in high volumes to meet the steep climb in fuel economy standards ahead,” the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry lobbying group, told the conference. The implication is that higher standards will kill the automotive business, cause massive layoffs, and have a negative impact on the economy.
This is precisely the same argument the automobile industry made about safety related changes in the ’50’s, seat belts in the 60’s, exhaust emission in the 70’s, airbags in the 90’s and better crash test performance at the beginning of the 21st century. Its complaints today are just more of the same.
CAFE Olay
The furor over EPA standards is actually a tempest in a teapot. On the surface of it, the 54.5 mpg requirement by 2025 seems like a huge increase above present day performance. But in reality, that standard is based on the old EPA mileage testing protocol, which was amended several years ago because it resulted in numbers that were wildly optimistic.
When the EPA adopted a new standard designed to better reflect real world expectations, it did not apply the new standard to the computation of the 2025 goal. If it did, that 54.5 mpg number would convert to around 37 mpg — which many of today’s cars are already capable of achieving.
To suggest that car companies cannot achieve a CAFE of 37 mpg using the current EPA protocol is patently absurd. In fact, a representative of Johnson Controls, one of the largest suppliers of components to the automobile manufacturing , said last year that car makers can easily meet the new standard and, in fact, many are already doing so today with internal combustion cars.
Charging Technology
One area where other manufacturers need to step up involves recharging technology for EVs and plug-in cars. At present, the best any of those other cars can handle is 50 kW. Tesla already has Superchargers with more than double that capacity. It’s new liquid cooled charging cables indicate the company has even higher power chargers in mind for the future.
O’Connell told the conference that drivers of competitors’ cars would be welcome to use the Supercharger network if only their cars were capable of handling the higher current. Tesla made its Supercharger patents public last year, but no other manufacturer has expressed any interest in them. Instead, the industry seems content to live with 50 kW “fast chargers” that really aren’t all that fast.
The Week In Review
Tesla has had a rough week. The stock market was disappointed with what Elon Musk had to say during the 2nd quarter conference call and punished the company’s stock, which closed down nearly 9% for the week.
The real question on people’s minds is whether Tesla will bring electric cars to the masses the way the Model T put the world on wheels almost a century ago, or whether it is a company that caters only to the wealthy and will flame out the way the Concorde SST did? If you are reading this, chances are we know how you would answer that question.
Tesla has started to perform earthworks engineering on the roughly 3,000-acre site in Fort Bend County, Texas, advancing the massive $10 billion Project Crystal Sun plan to build a vertically integrated solar manufacturing complex.
Flyover drone footage from S.E. Robinson, Jr. released this morning shows the location under development. Tesla has crews on site performing large clearings, but you can also see equipment staging areas, the use of an existing homestead, and active leveling across a substantial portion of the property.
Tesla has started construction on Project Crystal Sun, its $10B vertically integrated solar factory near Houston, Texas.
The plant will make everything from silicon ingots and wafers to finished cells and panels, with operations targeted for Q1 2029.
@SERobinsonJr with a great flyover of the facility:
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 9, 2026
Public filings first submitted in July under Texas’s Jobs, Energy, Technology and Innovation Act describe a plant that would manufacture the full solar chain: everything from silicon ingots, wafers, coated cells, and finished modules.
Tesla projects 9,712 permanent jobs by 2033, ramping from roughly 1,900 positions in the first year of operations, plus a peak of about 1,147 construction jobs. Construction is targeted for 2026–2028, with commercial production beginning in the first quarter of 2029. An accompanying economic analysis estimates the project could add roughly $107 billion to Texas GDP over several decades.
Local incentives have cleared major hurdles. Lamar Consolidated Independent School District unanimously approved school-tax limitations in September, and Fort Bend County commissioners approved a package of abatements and related agreements in late October that could extend equipment tax breaks for as long as 35 years.
Tesla had previously indicated it was evaluating a competing out-of-state location.
The effort fits broader statements by Musk that Tesla and SpaceX are each working toward 100 gigawatts of annual U.S. solar manufacturing capacity. If built as described, Project Crystal Sun would stand as one of the largest domestic attempts to create a fully integrated solar supply chain on American soil.
While Tesla has not issued a formal groundbreaking announcement, the visible site preparation and high-profile social media activity represent a concrete step forward for a project that has moved from confidential filings to active earthworks in a matter of months.
Elon Musk continues to shed more reasons that justify the cancelation of the Tesla Cybertruck, but some of the reasons for the sunset, as well as the process the company is choosing, do not make a lot of sense.
Musk announced last week on X that Tesla would wind down Cybertruck production in mid-2027, a decision that aims to prioritize Cybercab and its importance to the company’s future and passenger transportation as a whole.
But some of what Tesla and Musk are saying does not seem to make much sense. From the process the company is taking with orders to some of the reasoning for the cancelation, the whole situation seems strange.
With that being said: I totally see the merit in prioritizing Cybercab, but I also believe there is room for Cybertruck, a vehicle that has traditionally had low volumes, especially now at its current price point. If it were not for the cancelation, Cybertruck would sell very few units with the recent price adjustments.
Musk Talks Order Rate vs. Production Rate
The first thing that does not make a lot of sense here is the fact that this morning, Musk said that “The Cybertruck order rate far exceeds our production rate. We will try to make as any as possible before shutting down the line in about 8 months, but will have to return deposits for a lot of people.”
The Cybertruck order rate far exceeds our production rate. We will try to make as many as possible before shutting down the line in about 8 months, but will have to return deposits for a lot of people.
This is not a case of Cybertruck being unprofitable, as has been misreported by legacy media, but rather that the opportunity cost of the complexity of Cybertruck is vastly outweighed by the value of incremental Cybercab production.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 9, 2026
Then why is Tesla STILL accepting orders for the Cybertruck if it already cannot fulfill its order log by mid-2027?
There are so many people ordering Cybertruck that will not receive it. If Tesla already is having trouble seeing how it will build its current orders, why would it allow additional ones?
There are going to be a lot of people who are very upset next June or July, all because they placed an order for a truck that Tesla knew it would not have the time to build. At this point, it seems like a better idea from a customer service standpoint to simply stop accepting orders on a certain date, build those trucks, fulfill those orders, and then close production.
Continuing to accept orders at this point seems wildly strange. If anything, it feels like the $59k Cybertruck orderers will be the ones who get the short end of the stick here, but that’s speculation and just a hunch on my end.
If not Cybertruck, then what?
With only the Model 3 and Model Y available for consumers, meaning the general public, to buy, there is now no utility vehicle in the Tesla lineup, and that is definitely a disappointment.
Ford already washed its hands of the Lightning, which means the Rivian R1T will likely be the best-selling EV pickup on the market, dueling with the GMC Hummer Pickup, Chevy Silverado EV, and the GMC Sierra EV. There are several pickups that are set to hit the market soon, like the Slate EV Truck, and Ford’s new EV pickup, the Fathom.
Tesla could provide some some transparency on what it is planning to do with a future pickup or utility design. Musk said in the past that something much cooler than a minivan will be built. Cries for a full-size SUV have been heard by Tesla, but the company seems to adamant on prioritizing ridesharing vehicles instead of vehicles people want for work, climate, or hobbies.
Some clarity here, past the point of “Tesla is still going to build cars” would be nice. Even a simple, “Yes” response from all the people asking if Tesla will build something larger would be more than enough. We don’t need all the details now, but something would be nice.
Closing Thoughts
More than anything, it is important to note that I do believe Tesla is making a tough decision and one that, from a business standpoint, does make sense. However, I also believe that there is room for the Cybertruck in Tesla’s lineup.
One thing I think it’s worth mentioning is Tesla is not that much different from many companies. They do things that are better for the business that will surely upset consumers. The difference is very few companies have a following like Tesla, so when these things happen, they feel very personal.
Add in the fact that Cybertruck has truly become a symbol of Tesla, and people are even more upset about it.
It will all get figured out, but it’s still very confusing when we step back and take a look at the bigger picture.
Elon Musk
SpaceX’s Anthropic deal has a catch, and Elon Musk just addressed it
Elon Musk says SpaceX’s Anthropic compute deal cuts both ways after Chamath floats higher prices.
Elon Musk pushed back on Sunday against the idea that SpaceX’s compute contract with Anthropic is a one way bet, after venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya argued the company could use a termination clause to charge the AI lab far more.
“It works both ways, of course. If compute becomes plentiful and cheap, SpaceX revenue will drop. No crying in the casino for either party,” Musk wrote on X Sunday evening, replying to a clip of Palihapitiya’s comments shared by AI commentator Rohan Paul.
On the All-In podcast released Sunday, Palihapitiya said either side can walk away from the agreement on 90 days’ notice. If data center supply tightens, he argued, SpaceX could exercise that option and bring the contract back at two to three times the current price, and Anthropic would have little choice but to accept. He called it “the kingmaking move,” according to BigGo Finance.
The clause itself is not new. SpaceX disclosed in its IPO filings in May that Anthropic would pay $1.25 billion per month for dedicated capacity at its Colossus clusters through May 2029, nearly $45 billion in total, with both companies able to terminate on 90 days’ notice, as Teslarati reported at the time. SpaceX’s later compute deals with Google and Reflection AI carry similar exit terms.
What has changed is the political backdrop. Palihapitiya’s thesis rests on incoming Democratic governors pulling tax incentives for data centers and slowing new construction. In Texas, Gov.-elect Gina Hinojosa campaigned on a moratorium on new data center approvals, and Deutsche Bank analysts warned last week that SpaceX’s Texas compute capacity could face delays. SpaceX and Tesla shares both fell after the midterm results.
A slowdown would favor companies that already own capacity. SpaceX acquired xAI in February and has been renting data centers to outside AI labs before the space is needed for Grok. At the Baron Investment Conference on Friday, Musk said SpaceX was “getting 50 billion a year for 35 billion dollar investments” and that it can bring a data center online in eight or nine months, compared to two and a half years for competitors. He also said SpaceX is tracking toward an annualized revenue rate above $100 billion in December, with a “best guess” of $500 billion by December 2027.
Musk’s reply points to the other side of the clause. Anthropic has signed large compute agreements with Amazon, Google and Microsoft, and if that capacity comes online faster than new construction slows, the AI lab would have its own leverage to renegotiate or leave. Musk has called Anthropic “obviously currently the leader in AI,” and it remains one of SpaceX’s largest compute customers.
SpaceX shares rose more than 2 percent in overnight trading late Sunday after closing Friday at $134.27, according to Stocktwits.
Tesla begins groundworks on $10B ‘Project Crystal Sun’ in Texas
Elon Musk keeps justifying Tesla Cybertruck’s cancelation, but it’s confusing
