News
Tesla’s goal of producing 1 million cars per year is closer than everyone thinks
In classic Tesla fashion, Elon Musk shared an almost insane goal back in 2016. While speaking with analysts in a conference call, Musk remarked that he believes Tesla has a shot at achieving a production rate of 1 million cars a year. This statement was met with much criticism, considering that just the year prior, Tesla delivered just over 50,500 vehicles.
As the US auto industry is starting what could very well be a long road to recovery from a pandemic, it is starting to become evident that Musk’s goal may end up being feasible after all.
The year has been cruel to the automotive industry. Back in April, North American car factories that are known to produce about a million vehicles a month ended up producing fewer than 5,000 units. But while the year has been painful for the car industry, some recovery started becoming evident in recent months. Just last month, some large automakers reported sales that beat their 2019 numbers, hinting that an upswing may be on the way.
Amidst this trend is the one outlier in the US auto industry: Tesla. The electric car maker has felt the full brunt of the pandemic, as shown in the extended closure of its Fremont Factory from mid-March to mid-May. Despite this, the company was able to show a profitable second quarter, and this past Q3, it delivered a record 139,300 vehicles, up 50% from Q2 2020. The company also produced 145,036 cars in the third quarter, up 76% from the second quarter.
What is rather remarkable is that Tesla has decided to stand by its initial goal of delivering half a million cars this 2020. This target was already ambitious without the pandemic. With the pandemic, the company’s refusal to adjust its delivery targets seems downright insane. Yet if the company’s Q3 and potential Q4 results are any indication, Tesla may actually be closer to its 1-million-car-per-year goal than expected.
Tesla has delivered about 318,000 vehicles so far this year. For Tesla to meet its goal of delivering 500,000 vehicles in 2020, the company would have to deliver over 180,000 cars in the fourth quarter. This is yet another record for the company, and it is one that would likely be challenging. RBC Capital Markets analyst Joseph Spak, in a statement to The New York Times, noted that while 500,000 cars is “not an unattainable goal,” achieving it now “seems increasingly difficult.”
Yet despite these challenges, the fact that Tesla seems to be in striking distance of its pre-pandemic 2020 delivery goal represents an incredibly notable shift for the company. Just a little over a year ago, after all, Tesla was a much different automaker. It was still an embattled EV company, seemingly scrambling to raise money while TSLA short-sellers circled like sharks smelling blood in the water. Tesla ultimately proved its critics wrong, posting four profitable quarters as of Q2 2020.
If Tesla could come close or achieve its goal of producing and delivering over 180,000 vehicles in Q4 2020, the company would only be 70,000 cars short of a 250,000-vehicle-per-quarter run-rate. Once that is achieved, hitting 1 million cars per year in both production and deliveries will only be a matter of time. Granted, this is a rather ambitious step, but one must note that Tesla is pretty much taking on 2020 with just one and a half factories.
Today, Tesla only produces cars in two sites: the Fremont Factory and Gigafactory Shanghai. And even then, Giga Shanghai is not yet fully ramped, with the facility yet to start Model Y production and the Model 3 line has only started operating with 3 shifts. This means that this year, Tesla has pursued its ambitious goals with a main factory in the US that was closed for over a month and a Chinese plant whose Phase 1 is now just hitting its stride.
These circumstances will likely change by next year. Tesla is in the process of building two new vehicle production facilities: Gigafactory Berlin and Gigafactory Texas. Both facilities are designed to produce high-volume vehicles, with the German plant manufacturing the Model Y and Texas building the Cybertruck, a vehicle that has received well over half a million orders, as per remarks from CEO Elon Musk.
Of course, Tesla’s production and deliveries still only comprise a small part of the auto market. Yet despite this, the company’s rapid rise and the equally quick emergence of the electric vehicle sector means that Tesla is poised to dominate an industry that is still forming. Michelle Krebs, an executive editor at Cox Automotive, a market research firm, said it best in a statement to the NYT.
“Tesla is the EV market right now. It’s still a tiny part of the market, and they are going to face more competition, but they are now well established,” she said.
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
