News
Stop worrying about Tesla Supercharger congestion, it will be alright
If you’ve ever heard the phrase “a solution looking for a problem” then you’ll completely understand what I’m about to say. While I’m at it with catchphrases, Tesla seems to be a living, breathing double-edged sword. When it comes to giving us details, they are “damned if they do, damned if they don’t.”
By now, we all know the Model 3 is going to be huge. We also know that Model S and X vehicles with Supercharging enabled can enjoy “free long distance travel,” which we understand to mean “free for life.” The not so subtle elephant in the room is that free could lead to abuse, which could lead to lines and waiting for Supercharger use. I’ve already discussed what I think is step 1, which is educating folks on some Supercharging best practices they can do to be mindful of our shared asset. I’ve also discussed things Tesla themselves could do to alleviate potential congestion at Supercharger locations.
Here’s my disclaimer: This is a solution looking for a problem! Model 3 is more than a year away and despite what you may hear, MOST superchargers have one or more stalls available MOST of the time. Long waits and lines only plague select locations, and even then, only occur on very few occasions. While I’m no record-holding Supercharger pro I’ve only ever seen an 8-stall location full once. It was Hamilton, NJ and it was before the addition of two Superchargers on the nearby New Jersey Turnpike. I’ve also only ever known of one location to be constantly busy. It was the Newark, DE location, which has recently been upgraded from 4 to 12 stalls. So again, I don’t think this is a problem right now. I don’t even think it will be much a problem when Model 3 hits the streets. Tesla builds new chargers all the time and has committed to both distance and density. They know, more than anyone, which locations are busy and which aren’t. I trust they will plan accordingly.
You will be OK
But since folks love to debate every word – or lack thereof – that Tesla says, let’s have at it. Let’s pretend that the big bad wolf will come to the charger and blow it down just because it’s free and unrestricted once you incur an up-front cost. Let’s further pretend that Tesla considers the idea of a pay per use model of charging. I’ll repeat this later but for the record, I don’t think they’ll do anything like this. Not now, not ever.
- Pay Per Use – kWh. This is a common and seemingly simple idea. You don’t need $2,000 worth of electricity, you only need a few bucks worth a few times a year. You don’t want to pay up front for all the phantom local moochers that you suspect will abuse an unrestricted system. The cars are smart, they can tell how much you’ve used per charging session so it appears they can charge you for it on the basis of that. Maybe you don’t even care if there is a huge markup on the electricity. It’s a win for everyone in that case, because it’s still cheaper than gas. Even if it wasn’t, it’s worth it to take a car as great as a Tesla on a road trip. Plus almost all of your charging is done at home where it’s way cheaper than gas. Fine, points taken. Except, there’s a “but.” But selling electricity is complicated. The United States is complicated! Here, we have 50 states and plenty of lines between them. They get to set their own laws and rules and tax rates. Cities and towns do too. If you thought that gaining approval to build a supercharger was a challenge, imagine trying to become an energy supplier in every municipality as well. This alone is enough to rule out the idea of charging per kWh. Add that in with having to handle point of sale transactions and you’ve completely changed how Tesla must operate. It already takes quite a bit of effort to build out this network, and there is no reason to make it harder. (Let’s pretend that’s why no other automakers have done it.)
Tesla builds new chargers all the time and has committed to both distance and density
- Pay Per Use – Time. There’s a pretty clear precedent for selling time at almost any major municipality on earth: paid parking. In theory, it would result in very few people charging past 90%; that point where your electrons slow drastically and you’d get a lot less bang for your buck. This speaks perfectly to the concept of battling lines with quick turnover. Except, nope. Tesla, in my opinion, won’t be willing or interested in the hassle of point of sale purchases. They’d have to figure out an appropriate price, which I imagine would vary by location. They’d have to employ people to figure out the tax rules and rates for each country, state and city. They’ve have to work with various credit card companies and be able to accept multiple forms of payment. They may even need to carry certain types of liability insurance for providing paid parking. Tesla is in the business of advancing sustainable transport by, primarily, making compelling electric vehicles. Anything else is just noise and takes away brainpower from doing other great things.
- Pay Per Use – Day. Tesla is amazing and has done plenty of things no other company has done before. They continue to surprise us and have stayed alive despite many assumptions that they’d never make it this far. So I’ll humor you, dear reader, and assume they are willing and able to take on the challenges of point of sales purchases. Game on! Rather than selling time or electricity, Tesla can simply sell access to software. Most Teslas on the road, and all that will soon be on the road, will have the hardware required for supercharging. They can undoubtedly figure out how to program an option in your touchscreen (or simpler still, an automated telephone line) that allows you to opt into supercharging access for a day, at a price. They’ve already given away free trials of Autopilot, so we already know opening up software for a limited time is possible. Shoot, maybe they can even get some PR out of it. “Free supercharging on your birthday!” or “Merry Christmas, here’s a free day!” These things sound great, but I still have an objection. Tesla needs money to build more chargers. End of story.
This isn’t about paying for what you use, this is about paying for the building of a network. There will always be owners who use far less electricity from Superchargers than their initial cost would have bought in kilowatt hours. There will also always be some owners who use more. Where I live, property taxes are required whether you send kids to public school or not. We’re all paying for a system.
Which is why – and here’s my promised repeat – I don’t think Tesla will ever adopt a pay per use model for Supercharging. They’ll continue their commitment to density and distance, they’ll continue to monitor busy locations and they’ll continue to keep their eye on the prize. Because remember, the hopefully inevitable adoption of sustainable transport means someone, somewhere, will start building a whole lot more electric car charging stations.
Feature photo of the Tesla Supercharger in Antwerp-Aartselaar, Belgium courtesy of ldubois_BE
Tesla Cybercab skips the traditional paint shop entirely, marking an unorthodox process for coloring the fully autonomous vehicle. However, the decision was a smart one, as it slashed factory costs, floor space utilization, and complexity, since Tesla relied on specialized alloys and in-mold coloring.
Munro Live was given the opportunity to do a factory walkthrough with Tesla Vice President of Vehicle Engineering Lars Moravy, who explained and detailed how Cybercab production at Giga Texas eliminates one of the automotive manufacturing industry’s most expensive and space-hungry elements.
A conventional paint line can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and require a million man-hours to build. Moravy framed the choice around Tesla’s core rule: “Question the requirements: why do you need paint?”
🚨 Super cool quote from the Cybercab breakdown on the decision to avoid traditional paint:
“One of the most expensive parts of the factory is a paint line… a few hundred million dollars, a million man hours to build one… rule number one at Tesla, question the requirements. Why do you need paint?… the alloys we use in the castings… don’t oxidize and reduce strength over time.” -@larsmoravy
Model Y and Cybertruck bodies are fully coated and painted. On Cybercab, only the side pieces get the anti-corrosion dip coat, and there’s no paint shop at all, which helps cut factory floor space per car by about 50%.
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
The structural answer lies in material selection. The aluminum alloys used in Cybercab’s front and rear castings do not oxidize and lose strength over time, the way many common automotive aluminum alloys do. Only the side modules, built around hot-stamped boron-steel door rings, receive an anti-corrosion e-coat, or dip coat. Front and rear modules skip coating altogether.
Model Y and Model 3 bodies, by contrast, are fully coated and painted.
Exterior colors come from the plastics shop, which Tesla engineers described as “our paint shop” for the Cybercab. Body panels are produced via reaction injection molding, referred to as RIM. Color is then mixed into a polyurethane resin at the mix head immediately before injection, so the panel emerges already colored with a Class-A surface.
Robots trim overflow to control sink marks and flow lines. The process avoids conventional spray-paint defects like orange peel and paint bleed. Scratches can still be repaired with compatible coatings that behave “basically like paint.” Because color is integral rather than a surface layer, shallow scratches do not expose a contrasting undercoat.
The secret behind Tesla’s Cybercab Gold goes well beyond just the color
Tesla has also explored related approaches, including in-mold lamination and painted films on stamped panels.
The manufacturing payoff is substantial because removing the paint shop, combined with the “unboxed” modular process that builds and tests front, rear, side, and center modules in parallel before a short final assembly, cuts factory floor space per vehicle by about 50 percent.
Final assembly itself uses only about 25 automated stations, far fewer than the typical Model Y line, and the overall line runs at about 78 percent automation, Moravy said. The approach also eliminates volatile organic compound emissions associated with traditional spray painting for these panels and shortens the coloring cycle from hours to minutes.
Cybercab’s paint strategy is clearly less about aesthetics than about systematically deleting capital-intensive, energy-heavy, and space-consuming steps once material science and process design make them unnecessary. It is a concrete example of Tesla applying first-principles questioning to one of the auto industry’s most entrenched factory requirements.
Investor's Corner
Tesla has a Cybercab problem nobody saw coming
Tesla’s Cybercab line now builds robotaxis faster than Tesla can deploy them, Lars Moravy says.
Tesla’s Cybercab line in Texas can now build the two seat robotaxi faster than the company can put it into service, according to Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering. “We don’t run every day because the line can run so fast. It’s currently outpacing our deployments,” Moravy said in a new Cybercab deep dive from Munro Live. “So, it’s a bit of a race right now. Who’s going to go faster? Right now the manufacturing line’s ahead.”
Tesla’s official Robotaxi account shared a Cybercab analysis video on X on Monday, calling it a “Cybercab engineering deep dive.” Moravy’s comments go further than what he told analysts on the Q3 earnings call last week, when he said the Cybercab line’s listed capacity of more than 125,000 units a year undersells what it can actually run.
The tour shows where that speed comes from. Tesla’s unboxed process splits the Cybercab into front, rear, side and center modules that are built and tested on their own before they meet on a short final line. That final line has just 25 fully automated stations, which Tesla’s team estimated is a fifth to a tenth of what a Model Y needs. The full line is about 78% automated, the framing line is already at 100%, and the layout uses roughly 50% less floor space per vehicle. The stated goal is “100% automation in 10 second cycle time,” or one finished Cybercab every 10 seconds.
Tesla also deleted the paint shop. Only the side modules are coated, and the exterior panels get their color inside the molding machine. Engineers said the car is designed to run at least 500,000 miles, which matters for a vehicle that will spend most of its day carrying riders.
The battery got the same treatment. The Cybercab uses an 88S6P pack of 4680 cells in a steel enclosure, a first for Tesla, with each module potted separately so a single failed module can be swapped instead of the whole pack. Wireless battery management boards replace a wiring harness, and new contactors are fast enough to drop the pyro fuse entirely. Tesla’s battery director graded the pack an A minus, compared with a D for the Model Y structural pack and a B minus for Cybertruck. Up front, the drive unit runs an 11:1 gear ratio versus roughly 9:1 on most Teslas, since the Cybercab does not need a high top speed.
Cybercab engineering deep dive — Robotaxi (@robotaxi) October 26, 2026
The deployment side is now the bottleneck Moravy described. Tesla had more than 50 Cybercabs working the Formula 1 weekend in Austin, and Texas records show 463 Cybercabs registered. Tesla said on its earnings call that Cybercab service will launch in Dallas next month, and Moravy said the company is aiming to get Cybercabs to customers by the end of 2026. Every unit built so far has gone into Tesla’s own fleet since the line moved into volume production in April.
Munro Live also asked when it could get a Cybercab to tear down. Tesla’s answer: “Not yet.”
SpaceX’s Raptor engine family has steadily increased sea-level thrust while simultaneously reducing mass, turning iterative engineering gains into substantially higher performance for the Super Heavy booster. CEO Elon Musk shed more light on how powerful Raptor 4 will be, and it’s pretty crazy.
Raptor 1 delivered 185 metric tons of thrust at roughly 2,080 kilograms, while Raptor 2 raised that to 230 tons while cutting mass to about 1,630 kilograms. SpaceX data for Raptor 3 lists a target of 280 tons at 1,525 kilograms (with further reductions in associated vehicle hardware), while operational flight ratings have been cited near 250 tons.
This morning, Elon Musk stated that Raptor 4 is expected to reach 300 tons of sea-level thrust at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3. Across these versions, thrust has risen by more than 60 percent from the first engines while engine mass has fallen, producing a sharp improvement in thrust-to-weight ratio. This is a true testament to how great SpaceX engineering has been:
🚀 Elon says Raptor 4 will make 300 tons of thrust at sea level at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3.
How far Raptor has come:
Raptor 1: 185 tf, 2,080 kg
Raptor 2: 230 tf, 1,630 kg
Raptor 3: 250 tf, 1,525 kg
Raptor 4: 300 tf33 on Super Heavy = ~9,900 tf, nearly 3x Saturn V https://t.co/HQDswZhyvL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
With 33 engines on SuperHeavy, the jump from earlier versions to a 300-ton Raptor 4 would produce roughly 9,900 metric tons of total liftoff thrust, nearly three times the Saturn V’s approximately 3,400 metric tons from its five F-1 engines.
This is not just a larger number on a data sheet, either, as sea-level thrust is the force available the moment the vehicle leaves the pad. This is when it is heaviest and still deep in Earth’s gravity well and dense atmosphere.
Higher levels of sea-level thrust directly improves the initial thrust-to-weight ratio of the full stack. A higher ratio produces faster acceleration off the pad, which shortens the time the rocket has to spend fighting gravity, and gravity losses during the first minute or two of the flight are a major drain on total available delta-v. Every second shaved off of that early climb preserves more propellant energy for reaching orbital velocity or for carrying extra payload.
Because Super Heavy’s engine count is constrained by vehicle diameter and packing density, increasing thrust per engine is the most straightforward way to raise total liftoff performance without redesigning the booster structure or design.
The same-mass target for Raptor 4 is equally important. Holding engine mass roughly constant while raising thrust improves the engine’s own thrust-to-weight ratio and reduces the structural and propellant mass fraction that must be carried solely to support the engines.
Earlier Raptor iterations also simplified or eliminated extensive vehicle-side hardware such as heat shields. These gains compound: more force for less installed mass leaves additional capacity for propellant, payload, or operational margins such as engine-out capability.
For Starship’s architecture, the practical effects are large. Greater liftoff thrust supports heavier vehicles, larger propellant loads, and higher payloads to low Earth orbit, figures SpaceX has targeted in the 100-plus-ton reusable range. That capacity underpins orbital refueling, lunar missions, and eventual Mars cargo and crew flights.
Continued growth in sea-level thrust therefore tightens the gap between theoretical rocket performance and the high flight rates and reusability needed to make large-scale space transport practical.
Tesla Cybercab’s unorthodox paint process explained
Tesla has a Cybercab problem nobody saw coming
