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’
Investor's Corner
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.
Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.
The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.
Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.
Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.
There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.
The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.
The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.
Elon Musk
Ukraine says Starlink is cutting out its military drones as Poland calls out Elon Musk
Ukrainian officials allege SpaceX limited military Starlink speeds, disrupting drone missions; SpaceX has not commented.
Ukrainian officials are accusing SpaceX of placing a speed limit on the military version of Starlink that their forces use to fly drones, but SpaceX has not confirmed that any change was made. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said in a Telegram post on Wednesday that Starshield terminals have begun losing service when they move faster than about 100 miles per hour, according to a Reuters report. “Our defense forces did not receive a warning about this limitation, and this led to the disruption of several missions,” he wrote.
Ukraine’s 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters that connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at just 68 to 75 mph, which made the drones harder to control. Volunteer Serhiy Sternenko, citing military reports, said the dropouts are now starting at 37 to 43 mph. These accounts come from Ukrainian officials and military sources and have not been independently verified. Regular civilian terminals were reportedly not affected, according to EUalive.
.@POTUS: We told Zelensky, ‘You can do whatever you want to Russia, but don’t hit the refineries because that’s a world problem.’ And what does he do? He goes and hits the diesel fuel. He better damn well stop. https://t.co/CdRlMcPlKr
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) October 10, 2026
SpaceX has not publicly commented or explained what, if anything, changed. Beskrestnov and other Ukrainian officials believe the issue is intentional and point to the timing. Washington has been pressing Kyiv to stop long range strikes on Russian oil refineries after President Trump called for an “energy ceasefire,” and Musk posted on Saturday that “Zelensky has gone too far.” EUalive noted that neither Ukrainian nor Polish officials have presented evidence that the limit was ordered by Washington or by SpaceX, so the link to politics remains an allegation. Other explanations, such as a technical or policy change affecting fast moving terminals, have not been ruled out.
Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, responded on X by quote tweeting a Kyiv Independent report and writing: “Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again? As your European customers, we are watching you.” Poland is the largest funder of Ukraine’s Starlink service, having supplied more than 29,000 terminals and covering operating costs Sikorski has put at roughly $50 million a year. The wording echoes their 2025 clash, when Musk told Sikorski to “be quiet, small man.” At the time of writing, neither Musk nor SpaceX had responded to the claims.
Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again?
As your European customers, we are watching you.— Radosław Sikorski 🇵🇱🇪🇺 (@sikorskiradek) October 14, 2026
The dispute sits on top of a long history. Musk confirmed in February 2022 that Starlink was active in Ukraine after a request from a Ukrainian minister. That October, SpaceX asked the Pentagon to share the bill and Musk said the cost was approaching $20 million a month, before he reversed course and said SpaceX would keep paying. In December 2024 the Pentagon moved some of those terminals onto the Starshield service, the government version now at the center of the complaints.
SpaceX has also changed how its network treats certain terminals in Ukraine before, and that time it was with Kyiv’s cooperation. In February, Ukrainian officials confirmed that terminals believed to be used by Russian troops were disabled after coordination with SpaceX, a step that Ukrainian commanders later said hurt Russian assaults. Whether anything similar is behind the latest reports is unclear, which is why Kyiv is asking for answers.
Ukraine is already looking at backups. Defense tech company Stetman is developing its own satellite system, UASAT-NANO, and officials in Europe have discussed alternatives to Starlink since early 2025, though none match its scale yet.
Elon Musk
FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day
FAA is reviewing SpaceX’s plan for 456 Starship launches a year, up from 25 today.
The FAA said Tuesday that it will prepare an environmental impact statement on SpaceX’s proposal to run as many as 456 Starship launches and 912 landings a year from Starbase, Texas. SpaceX is currently authorized for 25 launches and 50 landings annually, which makes the request roughly 18 times the existing ceiling. The notice of intent is set to publish in the Federal Register on Wednesday.
The plan comes in two phases. Phase 1 would allow up to 100 launches and 200 landings a year, on any day and at any hour. Phase 2, which the FAA says could arrive within several years, would raise the limit to the full 456 launches, still at any hour but only on weekdays. The agency noted that 912 landings is the upper limit for the Texas facility no matter where a given mission begins, and that Starship and Super Heavy could come down at the launch site or in the Gulf and open ocean.
A draft statement will be released for public comment at a later date, and the FAA has not said when. According to the Federal Registar, written comments are due November 30 on regulations.gov under docket FAA-2026-12808, with in person scoping meetings on November 17 in Brownsville and November 19 in Port Isabel, plus a virtual session on November 18. The review will weigh air quality, wildlife, coastal resources, water, noise, and aviation, and the FAA said any increase beyond this proposal would need its own separate review.
The numbers look large next to what Starbase has actually done. Starship has flown three times from Texas this year, including Flight 14 on September 28, the first orbital flight, which deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites. Bloomberg reported that Starbase has never launched more than five times in a calendar year. The current cap of 25 comes from an FAA approval in May 2025. In February, the agency also approved up to 44 Starship launches a year from Launch Complex 39A in Florida, so Phase 1 in Texas alone would more than double that allowance.
Musk has said Starship could eventually fly more than once per hour within less than a decade, per Bloomberg. The nearer term target is Flight 15. Musk said on October 10 that it is hopefully four to six weeks away and will try to catch the ship with the tower, as Teslarati covered. That flight still runs under the existing 25 launch limit, and so would every Starbase launch for as long as the new review takes.
As of mid morning Pacific time on Tuesday, SpaceX had not posted about the filing on its own account.
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Ukraine says Starlink is cutting out its military drones as Poland calls out Elon Musk
FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day
The Pentagon taps Elon Musk to design the battlefield of the future
SpaceX reveals how its 1 Million AI satellite network will work and prevent space collisions
