Tesla owners are no stranger to aftermarket modifications. Whether they are performance-based or cosmetic, owners of the electric vehicles are always looking for ways to set their cars apart from the others. While the cosmetic modifications are usually pretty simple because they only change the appearance of a vehicle, the performance adjustments are a bit more complicated because they completely revise the way the system operates. Tesla decided to put a stop to the performance revisions altogether by releasing a software update that would inhibit the simple plug-in systems from functioning correctly.
Thinking about it, it reminded me of a previous newsletter that I wrote a few months ago. I talked about how Tesla was blocking salvaged vehicles from Supercharging in an attempt to make them less appealing to those who were interested in buying them and fixing them up for a discounted price. While it was a great project for some people, Tesla had to realize that salvaged vehicles are rarely fixed “perfectly” and that they usually have some small issues even after they are deemed to be functional. Tesla had to think about themselves first, and for a good reason. If someone were to crash a salvaged Tesla that was not wholly “fixed,” it would be blamed on them and not on the person who attempted to repair the vehicle. The headlines would blame the company, and it would add to a long list of misunderstandings with Tesla’s cars. It was merely smarter for them to try and make the vehicles less appealing through no Supercharging.
Tesla, when you think about it, really had to do the same thing with these aftermarket upgrades. While the company released a $2,000 Acceleration Boost for the Model 3 a few months back, they have ultimate control over what the vehicle’s new capabilities are. They decide how much extra horsepower to give the car, and how much speed the car should be capable of. This puts the risk into the company’s hands as much as the driver’s hands.
If a third-party company comes along and decides to manufacture a simple plug-in that will take the performance of a Tesla to new heights, it is sure to attract some buyers. Owners of the Performance variants of the car are surely going to be more interested in upping the already lightning-fast speeds the vehicle is capable of. While this is all good and fun for the owners, Tesla, as a company, assumes a lot of risks, and it is only reasonable to think that stopping it is the best strategy.
Think about a scenario here: Imagine a Tesla Model 3 Performance owner deciding that what their car is capable of is not enough anymore. They decide to go online and purchase a plug-in for their Model 3 that will increase acceleration and top speed, and they choose to put it to the test one evening. While traveling at speeds over 130 MPH, the driver loses control of the car and crashes into another vehicle, hurting someone in the car.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
The first thing that is synonymous with Teslas and car accidents is the overwhelming flood of people who immediately think the car was on Autopilot. Mainstream media outlets will talk about how the car could have been traveling on Autopilot and TSLAQ will immediately eat it up without any confirmation. The NHTSA would be the only agency that would be able to tell if the car was traveling on Autopilot through an investigation. However, that could take days, weeks, or even months to happen.
Then, you’d have some people complaining about Tesla’s performance standards, and why some of their cars equip unnecessary amounts of speed and acceleration. Not that it is anyone’s business, but when someone buys a car because it is fast, they more than likely know that they are putting themselves at risk, especially if they chose to drive it quickly. This argument would more than likely be small and not based off of much logic, to begin with, because fast cars exist everywhere and every car company makes them in some form or another.
However, Tesla would have to deal with the issues and speculation that would suggest that their cars are too fast for the owner’s good. The company is already under a microscope because every time a Tesla is in an accident, it seems like someone somewhere is talking about it.
These aftermarket plug-ins are also tricky because while the company that makes them probably knows what they are capable of, they are not entirely “compatible” with a Tesla powertrain to begin with. Only Tesla knows everything that goes into their cars and the software that helps them function. There really isn’t much of a reason to gamble on ruining the powertrain of a Tesla all for a few extra miles per hour, but that is just me. I would think that it is too much of a risk, and I wouldn’t want my hard-earned money going to waste, especially if a plug-in can compromise the way my vehicle works.
I think the update to keep these plug-ins from functioning is entirely understandable. Tesla is playing damage control. Ultimately, anything that happens to malfunction on the plug-in, or if the driver were to make an error and it would result in an accident, the blame would go onto Tesla.
Please consider Subscribing and joining me next week as I go ‘Beyond the News’
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) is set to hold its Earnings Call for the first quarter of 2026 on Wednesday, and there are a lot of interesting things that are swirling around in terms of speculation from investors.
With the company’s executives, including CEO Elon Musk, answering a handful of questions that investors submit through the Say platform, fans want to know a lot of things about a lot of things.
These five questions come from Retail Investors, who are normal, everyday shareholders:
- When will we have the Optimus v3 reveal? When will Optimus production start, since we ended the Model S and Model X production earlier than mid-year? What’s the expected Optimus production rate exiting this year? What are the initial targeted skills?
- What milestones are you targeting for unsupervised FSD and Robotaxi expansion beyond Austin this year, and how will that drive recurring revenue?
- How will Hardware 3 cars reach Unsupervised Full Self-Driving?
- When do you expect Unsupervised Full Self-Driving to reach customer cars?
- When will Robotaxi expand past its current limited rollout?
Additionally, these are currently the three questions that are slated to be answered by Institutional Firms, which also answer a handful of questions during the call:
- Now that FSD has been approved in the Netherlands and is expected to launch across Europe this summer, can you discuss your Robotaxi strategy for the region?
- What enabled you to finish the AI5 tapeout early and were there any changes to the original vision? Last week, Elon said AI5 will go into Optimus and the Supercomputer, but one month ago said it would go into the Robotaxi. Has AI5 been dropped from the vehicle roadmap?
- Given the recent NHTSA incident filings, can you update us on the Robotaxi safety data? If safety validation remains the primary bottleneck, why not deploy thousands of vehicles to accelerate the removal of the safety driver?
The questions range through every current Tesla project, including FSD expansion and Optimus. However, many of the answers we will get will likely be repetitive answers we’ve heard in the past.
This is especially pertinent when the questions about when Unsupervised FSD will reach customer cars: we know Musk will say that it will happen this year. Is Tesla capable of that? Maybe. But a more transparent answer that is more revealing of a true timeline would be appreciated.
Hardware 3 owners are anxiously awaiting the arrival of FSD v14 Lite, which was promised to them last year for a release sometime this year.
The Earnings Call is set to take place on Wednesday at market close.
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
