News
Tesla Cybertruck lead engineer shares insights on deep integration and vehicle development
Tesla Cybertruck Lead Engineer Wes Morrill recently shared some insights on the electric vehicle maker’s deep integration and unique approach to car design in a recent post on social media platform X. As could be seen in the engineer’s post, it is Tesla’s intense attention to detail that ultimately makes the company’s vehicles as disruptive as they are today.
Anyone informed who looks at the Tesla Cybertruck would know that the vehicle is a symphony of automotive engineering. Tesla, however, took some time before it reached this point. As per Morrill in his post, Tesla in its early days utilized different teams with collaborative goals in vehicle design. Adopting this system allowed the company to make great cars, but the designs of the vehicles themselves were not optimal.
“A well known example – early days of Tesla there was a battery team and separately a vehicle structures team. Structures team designed their vehicle body to meet given requirements of strength, crashworthiness, torsional stiffness, etc. Likewise, the battery team designed their part to be self contained, it could survive durability, accidentally being dropped, being hit in a crash, etc.
Good analysis – this is what happens when teams work together to make the best product. https://t.co/XAXf70k3jc— Wes (@wmorrill3) September 14, 2024
“As a result, we ended up with was a super dense battery in a strong box like structure, which was then Installed into the vehicle which had a nice space for it to mate into. There were no issues with integration, everything fit together perfectly and met all product goals. It achieved one of the highest crash safety ratings measured at the time.
“But we had a box full of battery cells that was installed into another empty box shaped receptacle on the body. A box in a box. When you simplify it down that far it sounds obviously wrong. The two organizations had achieved their goals, worked together without friction, and the product met its overall goals. Yet the product ended up with a clear lack of optimization as a result of the organizational boundaries of the two teams working in isolation. Nothing was wrong, but it wasn’t optimal,” Morrill wrote.
The Cybertruck Lead Engineer noted that Tesla learned from these experiences, and the company adapted. This is how innovations such as the structural battery pack—which is now being simulated by electric car makers in China—came about. Morrill stated, however, that such changes may require large organizational changes, and there has to be a drive to make the best product regardless of ego.
Have you heard of Conway's Law? It's an interesting observation about the root cause of why large organizations usually make products worse.
In 1967 Melvin Conway wrote "Organizations which design systems are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication… pic.twitter.com/SetWd6OfTe— Wes (@wmorrill3) September 14, 2024
“Before the next product was designed, the battery team gave responsibility of the battery structures also to the vehicle structures team. On this iteration, we ended up with the structural battery, which is an integral part of the body and crash structure. Without it, the vehicle body will not work. It’s the literal floor for the vehicle. But the redundancy is gone and the design is more efficient as a result. This vehicle also achieved one of the highest crash safety ratings measured at the time.
“This is a super obvious example (in retrospect) and solved with a fairly large organizational change but you can also see this happen in small technical decisions and doesn’t require structural change to fix. Someone just needs to question if there is a better solution in a team open to criticism. This mindset to work together to make the best product regardless of ego is where you end up with the most innovative products.
“Some smaller examples have been seen when inspecting Cybertruck design. The chassis air suspension which is used to pressurize the battery pack to prevent water ingress. The subwoofer which utilizes the air volume of the body side instead of making the enclosure larger. Centralized zonal vehicle controllers instead of many small distributed controllers. Doors which use the exterior surface as a crash intrusion beam. The pedestrian warning system used as a horn. The list goes on. The excitement and motivation by everyone involved to work across boundaries and actively break down Conway’s Law is one of the many reasons I love working at Tesla,” Morrill wrote.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
