News
Elon Musk spoke with Consumer Reports following Tesla Model 3 test results
In a recent episode of Consumer Reports’ Talking Cars, Auto Test Director Jake Fisher recounted a conversation he had with Tesla CEO Elon Musk following the release of CR’s test results for the Model 3.
While the magazine stated that there was “plenty to like” about the electric car, such as its excellent range and handling, there were several aspects of the vehicle that left much to be desired. The most prominent of the Model 3’s shortcomings were the car’s brakes, which had an average stopping distance of 152 feet from 60-0 mph — longer than any vehicle in its class. Due to its shortcomings, Consumer Reports opted not to give the Model 3 a “Recommended” rating.
Musk promptly responded to the magazine’s findings on Twitter, stating that Tesla would address the Model 3’s braking issues in an over-the-air firmware update. Musk also pledged to continuously improve the Model 3’s brakes, saying that “Tesla won’t stop until Model 3 has better braking than any remotely comparable car.”
As revealed in Consumer Reports’ recent Talking Cars episode, Musk also reached out to Auto Test Director Jake Fisher after the magazine’s test results were published. During their conversation, Musk and Fisher discussed the Model 3 and possible improvements to the vehicle.
“He was remarkably candid about things. Honestly, he actually thanked us for bringing these things to attention, and said that we’re helping him make the car better,” Fisher said.
Fisher noted that he and Musk talked about several of the Model 3’s deficiencies, such as its controls, brakes, wind noise, rear seats, and its suspension. According to the CR Auto Test Director, Musk stated that Tesla has implemented improvements to the Model 3’s design over the past few months.
During the March-April timeframe, for one, Tesla rolled out changes to the Model 3’s glass to adjust wind noise in the cabin. Around the same time, Tesla also made modifications to the suspension, such as its shock absorbers, to make the ride more comfortable.
Musk discussed the controls of the Model 3 as well, a particular aspect of the vehicle that was considered as a weakness in Consumer Reports’ evaluation. According to Fisher, Musk threw out some ideas to make the car’s controls better.
“We talked about the vents, and he talked about ideas of, well, maybe as you move the seat, (the Model 3) would automatically adjust the vents and the mirrors to suit you,” Fisher said.
Consumer Reports recently published the results of its tests for the Model 3. [Credit: Consumer Reports/YouTube]
Musk also discussed another one of Consumer Reports’ complaints about the Model 3 — the car’s keycard. During its testing, the magazine noted that the phone key worked very well with the Model 3, but using the keycard proved cumbersome. Musk addressed this issue during his phone conversation with Fisher as well.
“He (Musk) admitted that yeah, this isn’t working too well, and we really should do something better. Again, I don’t know if they’re gonna do it or not, but he said we really need to provide a normal key to the customers of this car,” Fisher said.
The Model 3’s keycard stands as one of its differences with its larger siblings, the Model S and the Model X, both of which use Tesla’s ubiquitous electric car-shaped key fobs. The keycard, which is credit card-sized for easy storing in a wallet, is embedded with a small chip that acts as a digital signature for the vehicle.
Since the Model 3 keycard uses near field communication (NFC) technology, the card has a limited transmission range of about 4 inches, requiring owners to tap the electric car’s B-pillar to unlock the door. The card is also placed between the front seats of the vehicle to start the car.
Consumer Reports has been mixed with Tesla’s vehicles so far. The magazine dubbed the Model S as the best car it ever tested. The Model X, on the other hand, was dubbed by CR “fast and flawed,” citing the overcomplicated Falcon Wing Doors of the all-electric luxury SUV. Despite its reservations with the Model X, however, Consumer Reports nevertheless ranked Tesla as the sole American automaker in its Top 10 list for 2018.
Watch Consumer Reports’ recent episode on the Tesla Model 3 in the video below.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
