News
Tesla’s 400-mile Model S is a subtle update, but it’s a chilling reminder to rival carmakers
There is a particularly interesting trend happening in the electric vehicle sector. While it is undeniable that Tesla is leading the industry’s shift to EVs, veteran carmakers are prone to claim that they have or are developing technology that is at par or superior to the electric car maker’s innovations. The Tesla Model S’ 402-mile EPA rating subtly sends a message that this is not necessarily the case.
For some time now, there has been a lot of talk surrounding Tesla and its upcoming Battery Day event. The company has been pretty thin on the specifics of the event, but speculations are abounding that discussions will be held surrounding the company’s next-generation batteries. Tesla has not formally hinted at the details of these batteries, though all signs point to cells that would be able to last a million miles. Discussions about other innovations such as cobalt-free cells for China-made Model 3s are also expected to be held at the event.
Similar to how vehicles like the Porsche Taycan and the Audi e-tron were dubbed as “Tesla Killers” in previous years, veteran automakers such as GM appear to be keen on establishing the idea that it is not being left behind in the EV race. Just last month, for example, GM Executive Vice President Doug Parks stated that the automaker’s own “million-mile” battery is “almost there.” Parks stated that there are multiple teams within GM that are working on zero cobalt batteries as well.
Such statements from GM only validate Tesla’s points about electric vehicles. The fact that the veteran automaker’s battery plans seem to be inspired, at least in some way, by the younger EV maker means that the auto industry has now reached a point where electric powered transportation is a given. That being said, there is very little doubt that the Model S’ updated EPA ratings, which show that the 100 kWh flagship sedan could go 402 miles on a single charge, is likely sending some chills down the spine of Tesla’s rivals.
As noted by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, every Model S that has been produced since January has been equipped with a 402 mile range. This feat, as stated by the company in an announcement on its official website, was accomplished through a variety of means, including significant mass reduction, new aero wheels that optimize efficiency, increased drive unit efficiencies, and optimized regenerative braking.
What this means is that Tesla was able to draw out 400 miles of EPA range from a 100 kWh battery pack using its current battery technology. The 400-mile Model S today is just a hyper-optimized version of the Raven series that came out last year. Unless Tesla states otherwise on Battery Day, it appears that the current generation Raven Model S is not yet equipped with the company’s next-generation million-mile batteries.
It should be noted that other companies have pledged to release vehicles with a range of 400 miles as well. Electric pickup maker Rivian’s flagship R1T pickup truck goes 400 miles too, but that vehicle is equipped with a 180 kWh battery pack. The GMC Hummer EV, widely speculated to be a legitimate competitor to the Tesla Cybertruck, is also poised to be released with a 400-mile range. But just like the Rivian R1T, there’s a good chance that its battery pack will be substantially bigger than the 100 kWh pack used in Tesla’s flagship sedan.
Of course, it would be easy to argue that larger vehicles like the Rivian R1T and the GMC Hummer EV would obviously need more batteries due to their size, but it should be noted that Tesla’s Cybertruck, which will likely have a battery that’s far larger than the Model S’ 100 kWh pack, has some impressive range as well. During its unveiling, Elon Musk noted that the all-electric pickup’s tri-motor variant will have over 500 miles of range. The specifics of the Cybertruck’s battery have not been disclosed by Tesla yet, though it is almost certain that it will be utilizing the company’s million mile battery cells.
So what does this mean for the Model S? With a million-mile battery and a 100 kWh pack, the flagship sedan’s succeeding generations will most likely achieve a range estimate that’s even more impressive than its current 402-mile EPA rating. And this, ultimately, is something that will be very hard to meet or compete with, especially among veteran automakers that have not dedicated the same amount of time and effort into developing battery technology from the ground up.
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
