News
Tesla’s Q1 ’21 Deliveries prove Elon Musk was right about the Model S and X in 2019
Tesla released its Production and Delivery figures for the first quarter of 2021 earlier today, and it proved that CEO Elon Musk was right about the Model S and Model X not being crucial to the company’s ultimate long-term growth. During Tesla’s Q3 2019 Earnings Call, New Street Research analyst Pierre Ferragu asked what Musk thought about the S and X moving forward and how Tesla planned to deal with the cannibalizing effects of the Model 3, the car that overtook the popularity of the company’s flagship vehicles.
Referring to the Model S and Model X as “niche products,” Musk always seemed to know that Tesla’s flagship vehicles wouldn’t take the company into “mass-market” growth. “I mean, they’re very expensive, made in low volume. To be totally frank, we’re continuing to make them more for sentimental reasons than anything else. They’re really of minor importance to the future,” Musk said.
He was right. Looking at Tesla’s Q1 2021 delivery figures, there is a simple dash under the Model S and X category. Symbolic of the shutdown S and X production lines that are being retooled at the Fremont factory in preparation for the production of the refreshed vehicles, Tesla only delivered S and X vehicles in the company’s inventory. Despite the absence of 50% of the company’s all-electric models, Tesla reported nearly 100,000 more vehicles in Q1 2021 than it did in Q1 2020, moving from 88,400 to 184,800.
This is where Musk’s outlook becomes incredibly accurate, proving that his 2019 quotation regarding the Model S and Model X’s importance to the future is relatively minuscule. Tesla doesn’t need its two flagship vehicles to grow or sustain demand. The Model 3 and the Model Y do that.
It’s evident that Musk holds high regard for his two flagship vehicles. “They’re great cars. I mean, the Model S literally won MotorTrend’s best car ever in history, by the way. It’s incredible, especially the new one with variable damping suspension, hospital operating room, HEPA filter for air purification, the raven powertrain. It’s the fastest car in the world, and it’s just so easy to drive. It makes you feel like Superman driving that car. It’s incredibly safe. It’s just an amazing vehicle,” Musk said. However, he also realizes that the Model 3 and Model Y are just better vehicles, while the Model S and Model X are “art pieces, basically.”
Tesla has never been about making fancy, amazing, eye-catching vehicles, at least not in the long term. The Model S and Model X were both head-turners: the S, with its sporty look, was not the stereotypical electric car. Musk once said that driving an electric car didn’t have to be a boring, slow, or golf cart-like experience. It was supposed to be fun, fast, exhilarating, and it was (and still is). The X, with its falcon-wing doors and comparable performance to the Model S, only solidified this. But they were ultimately just the bait for the average car buyer. In the mid-2010s, if people saw a Tesla, you can bet their heads gravitated toward it. They were rare, and in some areas, it was probably pretty close to seeing a Lamborghini or a Ferrari for some people.
This was all a part of Musk’s Master Plan. While it describes the capital-raising efforts of the S and X to welcome in a line of affordable vehicles like the 3 and the Y, the Master Plan also involved catching consumers’ attention by offering unbelievable cars that were not powered by gas. The S and X simply opened the doors for the 3 and the Y, eventually opening the doors for another line of even more affordable models.
Musk was always right about the Model S and Model X. They were never going to take Tesla into the stratosphere. They were only going to be the first two steps in the plan that made Tesla the most valuable car company in the world. Without the Model S and Model X, Tesla would be just fine. The company’s Q1 2021 delivery and production figures only solidified the fact that the two flagship vehicles that brought Tesla to its initial popularity were never going to be the vehicles that expanded the movement of electrification, nor made Tesla the household name that it has become in a period of three short years.
News
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile want 290 MHz cut from an FCC satellite plan before Thursday.
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are asking the Federal Communications Commission to pull nearly 300 MHz of spectrum out of a proposal that would let satellite companies like SpaceX offer cell service directly to ordinary phones. The request lands one day before the agency votes on it.
The FCC will vote Thursday, October 29, on a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make an additional 482 MHz available for direct to device service, expanding the number of eligible bands from five to 13, according to the FCC fact sheet. It would also scrap the rule requiring a satellite operator to lease spectrum from carriers, replacing it with a certification that the operator has coexistence agreements in place or holds the terrestrial license itself.
That second path matters for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, SpaceX agreed to buy Grain Management’s nationwide 800 MHz portfolio to turn Starlink Mobile into a full US carrier, adding to the spectrum it already bought from EchoStar.
The carriers want two bands removed, 2.5 GHz and 3.45 GHz, which make up 290 MHz of the 482 MHz on the table. Through industry group CTIA, they argued that about 300 million users depend on those bands and that satellite operations in them are not technically feasible. T-Mobile, which calls 2.5 GHz the foundation of its Ultra Capacity 5G network, said in its own filing that satellite interference could wipe out up to 96% of a cell site’s uplink coverage area and cut uplink speeds by 88% to 99%.
Executives from all three carriers met with FCC staff on October 20, and T-Mobile CEO Srini Gopalan met separately with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. T-Mobile’s role stands out because it is still SpaceX’s US launch partner for Starlink Mobile. The three carriers have also teamed up on their own satellite joint venture to pool spectrum, a move widely seen as a response to Starlink.
SpaceX is asking for the opposite. In an October 23 filing after meetings with FCC staff and commissioners’ offices, the company asked regulators to add the 902 to 928 MHz band to the proposal. “Doing so now saves time later,” SpaceX wrote. The company also asked the FCC to modernize interference rules and align satellite deployment requirements with those for terrestrial cell networks, saying the goal is to let satellite and ground networks work together so Americans stay connected wherever they are.
The carriers have not been shy about how they view SpaceX as a competitor. On Verizon’s third quarter earnings call Monday, its chief executive said Starlink Mobile “just can’t compete with a terrestrial network” and estimated SpaceX would need four to six years and $300 billion to $500 billion to build a full US carrier network.
Thursday’s vote will not settle which bands survive. Adopting the notice opens a public comment period, with final rules to come later in the proceeding. The FCC already considered and rejected 2.5 GHz for satellite coverage once, in 2024. SpaceX also is not the only satellite player watching: the FCC approved Amazon’s $11.6 billion acquisition of Globalstar on October 27, giving its planned direct to device fleet its own mobile satellite spectrum.
A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.
The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.
There were no injuries reported.
🚨 A Tesla Semi reportedly caught fire, with California Highway Patrol confirming. The Semi was on I-880 SB
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.
However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.
@Tslachan From on of the videos looks like it’s an old Semi (not the refresh version that recently started production) https://t.co/KzwmR2kXow
— Area Under The Curve 🎗️ (@AreaUnderCurve) October 28, 2026
At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.
The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.
The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.
Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.
A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.
“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”
🚨 Here’s the first look at Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away function in action:
Apparently this driver accidentally enabled it and drove forward; you can see the Supercharger pull with the car.
Tesla said previously this would cost up to $25k if not used properly. https://t.co/B4qQRrsO6B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.
Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.
Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:
- You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
- You must leave the area immediately.
- Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
- Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.
After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
