News
Ford’s top brass sit down with Sandy Munro to discuss the F-150 Lightning
Ford CEO Jim Farley and other company executives were interviewed by Sandy Munro earlier this week, highlighting the work done on the F-150 Lightning, its defining features, as well as Ford’s future more generally.
Sandy Munro of Munro Associates runs a YouTube channel where he and his team dive into different models of vehicles and analyze their dependability, durability, and overall engineering design work. However, Sandy and fellow Munro associate Cory Steuben got to sit down with top leaders from Ford, which included Farley, Linda Zhang, who was the Chief Engineer of the all-electric pickup, and Doug Field, the automaker’s Chief Officer of EVs. Mainly focusing on the F-150 Lightning but also talking about the brand’s future and competitors, the interview culminated as Sandy asked the executive team about possible vertical integration within their manufacturing process, possible partnerships with Tesla, and a possible switch to the Tesla connector as the US default.
The video starts with Sandy getting the keys to his new F-150 Lightning, kindly delivered in person by Jim Farley and the team. However, Sandy quickly moves to ask about the truck and its design.
While Sandy was quick to praise the EV drivetrain and the durability of design, foremost thought the interview; the executive team focused on accessory features instead. Doug Field specifically sees the onboard generator, the large frunk, and the bi-directional power (the feature that allows the truck to power the home during a blackout) as the top reasons consumers have flocked to the new truck. Farley continues by noting that, while he didn’t expect the vehicle’s features to be such a crowd pleaser, he believes that they are the reason consumers aren’t asking “why an EV,” but “why not!”
The rest of the interview generally focuses on the market and the Ford brand. The biggest question is the thought of exponential growth in the EV market. Sandy notes explicitly that the US market had recently reached a 5% market share of EVs, what he calls a “tipping point” in the market. Jim responds positively, noting that he is excited about the chance to expand so quickly, expanding older plants such as “The Rouge” and constructing new plants like their new facility in Tennessee to meet demand. Further, he notes he isn’t worried about the brand’s ability to meet demand.
Another big question on the mind of Sandy (and many others who are interested in EVs) is the question of a partnership with Tesla, as well as the executives’ thoughts on the recent proposal to make the Tesla connector the new US standard. “We consider everything,” Doug responds tritely. The team responds to a Tesla partnership, saying that Ford would need a powerful motivating idea to consider abandoning their independence and partnering with another maker, Tesla or otherwise. However, none of the team concretely answered Sandy’s question about standardizing the Tesla Connector.
The group next addresses the possibility of increased verticle integration within their manufacturing. Software, batteries, and powertrain parts were essential parts where they stated the brand would likely continue to pursue verticle integration, going as far as to call other battery makers such as CATL “competitors.” However, Farley notes that he would not compromise the user experience in efforts of verticle integration.
Sandy concludes by lamenting the lack of the $20-$25,000 EV. He mentions that the in-demand Maverick is an excellent example of a vehicle that shows affordable vehicles can still do well and prove profitable for brands like Ford. Doug responds conservatively that, while they see the segment as “very important for global competitiveness,” difficulties remain in acquiring affordable powertrain parts and batteries. And while LFP batteries may offer an avenue into that market, Ford is still in the process of “considering other options.”
Sandy’s interview shows that Ford remains quite dedicated to pursuing EV tech and why they remain ahead of previous rivals such as GM and the Chrysler family of brands. Farley is thinking ahead of many of these other legacy brands, and despite the hurdles that come with that status (cough cough dealerships cough cough), they are positioning themselves well to succeed. Ford’s sales and stock price seem to reflect this.
What do you think of the article? Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns? Shoot me an email at william@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @WilliamWritin. If you have news tips, email us at tips@teslarati.com!
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.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
