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.
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
