The Tesla community is one of the more polarizing groups that exists in the world of cars. It appears that it is almost 50/50 in terms of whether supporters of Tesla are willing to lend their support to other manufacturers. Some aren’t willing to hear other companies out.
While there isn’t an overwhelming push in one way or another, one thing is for certain: Tesla supporters love Tesla. But whether they’re willing to commend another automaker for developments that they may have made or cars they plan to build is a different story.
For years, Tesla was always considered a car company that didn’t have much potential. It didn’t have much money. It didn’t have many proven automotive industry veterans behind the engineering or supply chain of their cars, and it was trying to convince people that gas was inferior to electric. In 2008, this wasn’t a simple task. It was closer to impossible at the time.
Only a few people could afford Tesla’s Roadster, which was all apart of the plan so the company could pile up some funding for future projects. But on top of that, even if it was affordable, would people have bought it? Who knows.
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
But after Tesla started manufacturing the Model S, people began to really listen. People had invested their money into the company’s IPO just two years earlier, and the Model S was the sleek, fast, and pretty car that everyone wanted. But it was still an uphill climb. After the Model X came out, it wasn’t much of a difference; it was just the SUV version of an electric car. But the Model 3 came around and convinced many people around the world that Tesla was for real. It had built a car that people could afford. It had great range, it had performance. Most of all, Tesla proved that it could mass-produce a vehicle, even if it was hell.
Slowly but surely, the doubters switched sides. They realized they had been all wrong about Tesla, but the early investors and the people who have believed in the company since the beginning weren’t having it. Who could blame them?
-
They had believed in Tesla from the start. They were the ones who knew that Elon Musk could lead the company to a new era, and they were right. Now that others are coming on board, there is a spot in that where many of us can feel a bit of sympathy for them. If you weren’t with us then, don’t be with us now. Hints of a bandwagon feel come to mind when explaining this situation. It’s almost reminiscent of how I see a lot of Chiefs hats and jackets at the store now. I don’t for a second believe there are this many Kansas City fans in York County, PA.
I don’t necessarily disagree with what the Tesla loyal fans are doing. They have believed in Tesla since day 1, and now that it’s the most valuable car company in the world and is successful, many people are on board, and that can be not very pleasant.
However, more fans means more sales, which means the stock price goes up. It means there are more EVs on the road instead of gas cars, and it means Tesla’s mission is coming true. While the fandom is something that can be chalked up to a “bandwagon feel,” maybe some people just wanted proof that Tesla was for real, and I can understand that too.
Tesla’s Day 1’s also have had to deal with other car companies casting stones in Tesla’s direction for years. GM, Ford, all of these companies didn’t care about making EVs. They would roll out one or two models, some of them never even making it to production lines. Then they would say Tesla’s business model was ridiculous or unsustainable. Now, they’re drawing inspiration from that “unsustainable” company. Interesting how that works, isn’t it?
Now that other car companies are all about the electric mission, they’re claiming their car is the “Tesla Killer” (a term I have come to hate in my time as an automotive journalist). They’re claiming their batteries will be better, and their cars will be cheaper. Blah blah blah, we’ve all heard it before. The problem is these companies continue to talk the talk but not walk the walk. They’re always saying how they will be the next big thing, but it rarely comes to fruition considering car companies constantly delay releases or do away with projects completely.
On the other hand, Elon has always been an open supporter of more car companies making more EVs. It all contributes, and I don’t think he’s ever taken any criticism very personally; I would imagine he’s used it as motivation based on the way things have turned out. I personally commend him for always taking the high road and never being petty or ugly toward a car company that hasn’t supported him. I think it only added fuel to the fire for him and made him want to accomplish the Master Plan that much more.
But if we all love Elon and support him and are thankful for what he’s done for the EV community, should we take his guidance and support other car companies for what they’re trying to do? Is it just a lost cause? What do you make of other car companies trying to release effective modes of electric transport?
-
Personally, I support any EV. I will never say that any EV is better than Tesla’s because I truly believe they are the best EVs out there. I think there are always things to work on, but if you want something that will be dependable and deliver great range, Tesla is the best option currently.
I do like other car companies, too. Rivian and Lucid are both showing tremendous potential, and I think they have a great chance to be right there in a few years. Volkswagen will always have a little place in my heart since the first car I ever had was a 1998 Jetta K2, but I think they have a lot of work to do. It will get done, I’m sure, but if I am going to support an EV company that once produced ICE, it will be VW.
I would love to hear what your thoughts are on this. I want to know if you support other car companies that are producing EVs, or are you Tesla-loyal? Let’s keep it respectful as always. Please do not openly attack any company or attack anyone else’s beliefs. Try and be as respectful as you can and consider everyone’s opinions.
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!
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
-
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
-
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
-
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Elon Musk
Another Tesla SpaceX merger prediction by ARK Invest has Elon Musk talking
Elon Musk again denies a Tesla China split as new SpaceX merger speculation resurfaces quickly.
Elon Musk restated that Tesla has no plans to separate its China business from the rest of the company, responding to a new round of merger speculation from ARK Invest.
On the firm’s “Brainstorm” podcast, Cathie Wood’s team, including chief futurist Brett Winton and research director Nick Grous, argued a Tesla and SpaceX combination remains likely, with an announcement possible before the end of the year even if the deal itself would not close that quickly. Winton called Tesla’s Shanghai operations a “small ish wrinkle” for a merger rather than a real obstacle, since SpaceX’s national security work with the U.S. government sits uneasily next to Tesla’s manufacturing base in China.
Musk pushed back on the framing directly. “China is awesome. I strongly encourage people to visit,” he wrote on X. He also repeated language he first used in late July, when the Wall Street Journal reported that Tesla executives had been told to prepare for a possible spinoff, sale, or closure of the China business ahead of a SpaceX tie up. Musk called that report “absurdly fake news” at the time, adding that a separation had “never even come up in a discussion ever,” a line he echoed again this week.
The repeated denial has not settled the underlying question, because Shanghai’s role in Tesla’s business is exactly what makes a merger complicated. Gigafactory Shanghai still ships more than half of Tesla’s global deliveries and functions as the company’s main export hub for Europe and Asia. Teslarati previously reported on Musk’s initial denial, and the merger conversation itself has been building since SpaceX’s IPO gave it public shares to use as acquisition currency.
Wedbush’s Dan Ives has pegged the odds of a Tesla SpaceX merger at 80 to 90 percent by early 2027, and ARK’s prediction of a year end announcement adds another data point to that timeline, even as Musk keeps rejecting the specific mechanics reporters have described. Neither position rules out the other. Musk can deny a China spinoff was ever discussed while analysts still expect some form of combination to move forward, since ARK and Ives are both describing convergence at the corporate level, not necessarily the internal restructuring the Journal described in July.
For now, Tesla’s China business remains intact, and Musk’s comments this week make clear he has no interest in publicly walking that position back, no matter how often the merger question resurfaces.
-
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
Tesla headlights cause recall of over 20,000 Model 3 and Model Y
