News
The Tesla Cybertruck’s looks are not as big of a deal as critics think
Just recently, Elon Musk acknowledged on Twitter that the Tesla Cybertruck might be a flop simply because it is so unlike anything else on the market. This has resulted in numerous Tesla skeptics predicting that the all-electric pickup truck’s design is so out there that the vehicle would be the company’s first true failure. Such sentiments, however, may be overblown, as the Cybertruck’s looks may not be as big of a deal as critics think.
Numbers Don’t Lie, and Specs Matter
The Cybertruck is a pickup truck, even if it does not look like a traditional truck. This means that it is designed to be capable enough to handle tasks that are typically expected of pickups. This is the reason why the Cybertruck has a large 6.5-foot bed, 100 cubic feet of exterior lockable storage, up to 3,500 lbs of payload capacity, and a towing capacity of up to 14,000 pounds. These matter, especially among buyers who actually use their pickup trucks for work.
These specs are pretty hard to beat. Even the Ford F-150 Lightning, which seems to be on track to become one of the most popular all-electric pickup trucks in the market, does not match up to the Cybertruck’s specs. Even if rumors are true and the Ford F-150 Lightning really has a range above 400 miles per charge, the Cybertruck’s tri-motor variant is listed with a range of over 500 miles. Tesla has so far not disappointed when it comes to its vehicles’ EPA-rated miles.
A Reliable, Rapid Charging Network Matters
During Car and Driver‘s recent “EV 1000” test, it was revealed that the US’ best electric vehicle rapid charging infrastructure is still the Tesla Supercharger Network. There are other networks that provide rapid charging services, but few if any could match the Supercharger Network’s ease of use, reliability, and sheer size. This matters a lot for all-electric pickup trucks, many of which would likely not achieve their rated range due to the cargo they carry or the items they tow anyway.
What is rarely mentioned is that Teslas are not only compatible with the Supercharger Network. Teslas can also charge at EVgo and Electrify America stations, to name a few. This means that the Cybertruck could charge at the same rapid charging stations as rivals like the F-150 Lightning on top of the Supercharger Network. This is a notable advantage, and one that would likely be appreciated by those who drive the all-electric truck.
Looks May Not Matter As Much
One has to get this point out of the way. Trucks are tough vehicles that are widely expected to handle the worst that the elements can offer. The Cybertruck could definitely be described as ugly, but it’s just like other pickups in the market in the way that it’s not necessarily competing with exotic supercars in the looks department. Elon Musk may have a point when he noted that pickups have generally looked the same over the decades, and it might be time for something new.
The Cybertruck is designed to weather the worst that the elements can offer, and with its thick stainless steel exoskeleton and tank-like appearance, it definitely ticks off the boxes in the toughness department. With this in mind, reasons like “but it looks so weird” and “I’m not comfortable with its looks” almost sound pretty lame. Even businesses that operate fleets of pickup trucks would probably prefer a vehicle that’s superior in specs and price, after all, even if its looks leave some to be desired.
Besides, different does not necessarily mean that something will be a flop. Just look at the Nissan Juke. No one can deny that it looks extremely weird, but it has sold over 1 million units in the first decade of its production. Why was this so? Because it’s a dang fun car and it’s quirky, and it does crossover things in a very good crossover way. It’s fairly reliable, sturdy, and cheap to maintain. Other drivers on the road would be hard-pressed to ignore it too, for better or for worse.
An iPhone Lesson
A pretty popular anecdote in the mobile phone industry involves the first-generation iPhone and how it was received by critics. Back then, the term “smartphone” generally referred to a fairly large handheld device with a full physical keyboard and some email capabilities. Then came a block of glass with an onscreen keyboard that offers no tactile feedback when typing. This attracted its own fair share of skeptics, many of whom felt like the device was just too strange to be a serious threat to the mobile phone giants at the time, such as Nokia and Blackberry.
Just check out this section from a 2007 review from TechCrunch, which was skeptical of the iPhone’s keyboard. “That virtual keyboard will be about as useful for tapping out emails and text messages as a rotary phone. Don’t be surprised if a sizable contingent of iPhone buyers express some remorse at ditching their BlackBerry when they spend an extra hour each day pumping out emails on the road,” the publication wrote.
So can the Cybertruck be a flop? It may, though unofficial trackers estimate that over 1 million reservations for the vehicle have been filed to date. But even if the vehicle does turn off many buyers such as die-hard truck guys who swear by their F-150s’ looks, the fact remains that the Cybertruck does not need the support of avid truck aficionados to be successful. It just has to show the world that it is a viable product with superior specs and durability at a reasonable price point. If it accomplishes this, then the Cybertruck would likely be fine.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@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
