News
Tesla’s Cybertruck is not a bet-the-company vehicle, and it should scare TSLA critics
The Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) Cybertruck’s unveiling event could have easily gone better, with the vehicle’s disruptive specs and pricing pretty much getting pushed to the background by media coverage of the pickup’s less-than-stellar Armor Glass demonstration. Cracked windows aside, the fact remains that the Cybertruck starts at $39,990, a price that’s as aggressive as the vehicle’s almost brutalist design. It’s also a price that shows that Tesla is at a point where it actually can experiment and be bolder than usual. This should scare TSLA critics.
The Cybertruck is a massive vehicle, as long as a Ford F-150 and far more powerful as teased by the company’s tug-of-war demo that it briefly showed during the pickup’s unveiling. It’s also unapologetically futuristic, with a 17″ landscape infotainment screen that’s not found in any of Tesla’s other vehicles. It has pop-out door handles that are directly inspired by the premium-priced Model S as well. And these are just the tip of the iceberg, as the Cybertruck has a ton of other features and capabilities that make it a great vehicle for work and play.
Yet, the monster of a truck that Tesla unveiled starts at a price that’s just slightly above the base price of the Model 3 sedan. There was a reason why gasps could be heard at the vehicle’s unveiling when the Cybertruck’s pricing was revealed. Elon Musk has noted during his interview with Tesla owner-enthusiast Ryan McCaffrey last June that the Cybertruck will start at $49,000 at the most. Absolutely no warning was given that Tesla was going for a far more aggressive starting price, especially considering the vehicle’s built-in tech such as its adaptive suspension and basic Autopilot capabilities.
The fact that the Cybertuck is designed in such a polarizing manner suggests that Tesla has some funding to spare. By releasing such a vehicle, the electric car maker has shown the auto market that it is at a point where it can be bold and take ridiculous risks such as releasing a truck that looks nothing like a conventional pickup. Elon Musk has admitted as much, noting during an appearance at veteran tech journalist Kara Swisher’s Recode Decode podcast that if the Cybertruck were to fail, Tesla will make a more conventional truck. Musk’s words then, spoken over a year ago, rings true today.
“I’m personally super-excited by this pickup truck. It’s something I’ve been wanting to make for a long time. And I’ve been iterating sort of designs with Franz. If there’s only a small number of people that like that truck, I guess we’ll make a more conventional truck in the future. I think this is the kinda thing the consumer would want to buy, even if they don’t normally buy a pickup truck. So, anyway, that’s personally I’m most excited about. But like I said, it could be just like, okay, I weirdly like it and other people don’t. That’s possible. But we’re gonna make it anyway, and then we will just have a niche audience, I don’t know. But if it does, then we’ll make a more conventional pickup truck,” Musk said.
Tesla has, for the most part over the years, operated with limited resources. Elon Musk is a risk-taker, and some of these were so notable that they were considered as “bet-the-company” situations. The Model 3 was one of these, with Musk noting that if the all-electric sedan were had failed, it would have likely ruined Tesla for good. Considering the bold direction that the company took with the Cybertruck, as well as Elon Musk’s statements last year, it definitely appears that the all-electric monster pickup that Tesla just unveiled is not a bet-the-company vehicle. It is a truck that would be great if it succeeded, but it is also a vehicle that could be replaced if it were to fail.
This should be a chilling thought for Tesla critics, particularly those who feverishly wait for the next quarter’s numbers in their excitement to see TSLA stock drop. After all, if the Cybertruck were to fail and if Tesla were to make a conventional pickup truck, there is a good chance that the company’s more traditional truck would be even more aggressively priced. Such a pickup would likely outperform diesel-powered rivals as well in classic Tesla fashion as well. Such a truck, combined with Tesla’s ever-growing charging infrastructure and its ever-evolving Autopilot system, would have the potential to clean house in a manner that is not as kind as the Cybertruck, which will always be polarizing.
Tesla is a resilient company, one that weathered one of the worst financial crises in recent history, and it’s led by a man that’s hell-bent on pushing sustainable transportation by proving that electric cars are better in every way than fossil fuel-powered vehicles. It’s best to note that a Tesla with limited resources has proven that it can still disrupt established industries with well-designed, safe, and feature-rich electric cars. A Tesla with resources to spare? That’s a downright frightening idea if one is a TSLA critic.
Disclosure: I have no ownership in shares of TSLA and have no plans to initiate any positions within 72 hours.
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
