News
European EV market expected to slow as buyers await affordable models
Several parties are echoing concerns about the European electric vehicle (EV) market as some buyers await new, more affordable models that are just a few years out — and as significant economic uncertainty remains.
Sales of battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) jumped 47 percent in Europe throughout the first nine months of this year, according to Reuters. However, automakers including Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen and Tesla have aired concerns about high interest rates putting off consumers and slowing EV growth.
According to AutoTrader, EVs in Britain are still roughly 33 percent more costly than their fossil fuel alternatives. Last week, Tesla announced plans to produce its next model, a €25,000/$25,000 EV, at its Gigafactory outside of Berlin, Germany. With the long-anticipated “affordable EV” on its way, some customers may be inclined to wait to buy, along with holding out for what they expect to be better products.
Volkswagen’s EV orders, as one example, were just half of what they were in 2022 during the same nine-month period. On Thursday, Volkswagen announced hopes to build a sub-$35,000 EV in the U.S. within the next three to four years.
Like many automakers, Tesla reported a slight delivery miss in Q3 compared to analyst expectations. However, the company had warned about sales slowing during the third quarter in its Q2 earnings call, and the company has still maintained its lofty delivery goal for Q4, which seems like a good sign.
Even beyond the economic environment and hopes for an affordable EV, data analysis firms and dealerships warn that buyers are holding off until they feel convinced that the technology meets their needs. Thomas Niedermayer, owner of a Bavarian dealership that has been in business for 45 years, notes that the fast-moving technology advancements may have some holding out for more future-proof EV options.
Credit: Reuters
“The main problem is uncertainty,” Niedermayer said. “Many assume that the technology will improve and would rather wait three years for the next model than buy a vehicle now that will quickly lose value.”
Flavia Garcia and Tom Carvell in Edinburgh, Scotland, are in the market for a new vehicle as their 15-year-old Toyota Auris requires replacement. Ahead of gas car sales bans, the couple says they would consider purchasing an EV if it weren’t for fears of charging infrastructure deficiency, battery life and sticker price.
“You want to do the right thing for the environment, but it feels like you’re setting yourself up for a very expensive investment that will make your life that bit more complicated,” Garcia told Reuters. “We’ll probably get a hybrid first.”
EV sales also slowed in September, and Felipe Munoz of JATO Dynamics says the slowdown will remain until affordable EVs are released.
Meanwhile, Tesla’s Model Y was the top-selling vehicle across Europe in September, and the company last month announced it had delivered one million vehicles across the continent. The U.S. EV maker is also rolling out its Model 3 Highland in Europe, set to continue over the next couple of quarters.
Other U.S. automakers, including Ford and General Motors (GM), have recently announced plans to delay the launch of more affordable EVs and to cut back on EV spending as they cite low demand. Over the weekend, it was reported that Ford will no longer build a plant with LG in Turkey, with the slowed pace of EV adoption being the main reason for the canceled plans.
“From a regulatory standpoint, they don’t have to push product out right now – they can afford to focus on profitability,” says Alistair Bedwell, GlobalData’s head of powertrain forecasting. “But they need to have an eye on Tesla and the Chinese brands, because they don’t want to get too far behind.”
Credit: Reuters
According to a poll from the consumer research firm The Langston Co, hopes to buy an EV in Germany have remained steady in the past year, though rising sales suggest that some automakers have finally caught up to supply chain bottlenecks, according to Insights Manager Ben DuCharme.
Philip Nothard, insight director at dealer services firm Cox Automotive, says that concerns around low residual values have also lowered customer sentiment, with many choosing vehicle purchases based on what they think they can resell in a few years.
“We call it the valley of death, which we will be going through in 2024 to 2027: low residual values, high supply, and low demand,” Nothard said.
Tesla Model 3 and Y still dominating U.S. EV market, shows data
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send your tips to us at tips@teslarati.com.
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
