A chairman from China-based battery giant Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Limited (CATL) recently cast doubt on Tesla’s 4680 battery cell, saying that he didn’t think it would be successful in the long run.
In a conversation earlier this year, CATL Chairman Robin Zeng told Elon Musk that the cylindrical 4680 battery “is going to fail and never be successful,” according to a report from Reuters this week. Zeng made the statements to Musk in a meeting with the Tesla CEO on his Beijing visit in April, and the chairman also said that the Tesla CEO was better equipped to handle other technologies than battery cells.
“We had a very big debate, and I showed him,” Zeng said. “He was silent. He doesn’t know how to make a battery. It’s about electrochemistry. He’s good for the chips, the software, the hardware, the mechanical things.”
Tesla working on four dry cathode 4680 battery variants: The Information
Tesla’s 4680 battery cell and CATL licensing
In September, Tesla announced that it had produced its 100 millionth 4680 battery cell at Gigafactory Texas, after reaching 50 million units in June. The company is also in the process of expanding its Gigafactory Nevada to add a dedicated 4680 cell production facility, expected to ramp up to 500 GWh in the long term.
The report also highlights a licensing deal Tesla has with CATL for technology related to producing batteries in Nevada, expected to officially launch in 2025, according to a person with knowledge of the matter who spoke to Reuters under the condition of anonymity.
Zeng on FSD Supervised and Musk’s promise timelines
In addition to discussing battery technology, the chairman said that he and Musk talked about the company’s focus on autonomy, adding that he agrees with Tesla’s overall approach to the topic. Unlike other companies that are developing self-driving systems, Tesla’s Supervised Full Self-Driving (FSD) only utilizes cameras as sensors, rather than using multiple layers of different redundant technologies.
“He’s all in,” Zeng told Reuters regarding Musk and Tesla’s FSD strategy in a statement earlier this month. “I think it’s a good direction.”
Despite his support for the company’s approach to FSD Supervised, Zeng also noted that he thinks Musk tends to set unrealistic timelines for new vehicle technologies, and he even asked the Tesla CEO during the April conversation, saying two-year timelines may as well be “infinity.”
“His problem is overpromising. I talked to him,” the chairman added. “Maybe something needs five years. But he says two years. I definitely asked him why. He told me he wanted to push people.”
Musk has addressed criticisms of his timelines before, pointing to his optimism as a necessary part of his accomplishments.
While certainly not perfect, my batting average for most predictions is quite good.
My schedule optimism, without which I probably wouldn’t even have tried to do many endeavors, gets the best of me sometimes, but I always deliver in the end.— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 30, 2023
“Now, admittedly I’m a little optimistic sometimes,” Musk said during this year’s Annual Shareholders Meeting. “You know, I don’t have a complete lack of self awareness. But if I wasn’t optimistic, this wouldn’t exist this factory wouldn’t exist.”
The CEO later went on to add that he believes he’s been “pathologically optimistic from birth.”
CATL hopes for U.S. factory under Trump
CATL also told Reuters that it would build a U.S. production facility if President-elect Donald Trump would allow it.
“Originally, when we wanted to invest in the U.S., the U.S. government said no,” Zeng said. “For me, I’m really open-minded.”
“I do hope that in the future they are open to investments,” the chairman added.
In August, Trump expressed that he would be open to Chinese companies building factories in the U.S., despite the country’s recent passage of a 100-percent tariff on electric vehicle (EV) imports.
“We’re going to give incentives, and if China and other countries want to come here and sell the cars, they’re going to build plants here, and they’re going to hire our workers,” Trump said in a statement to the publication in August.
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.
CATL’s new LFP cell has 620+ miles of range and ultra-fast charging
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
