News
Why Tesla can’t ditch the Cybertruck for a traditional pickup design
The Tesla Cybertruck is so “Tesla,” it’s not even debatable. To me, at least. The truck is the true embodiment of everything the electric automaker had stood for during the last seventeen years when it was established in 2003. It breaks all the rules; it goes against the look and feel of “traditional” automotive manufacturing. It is a rebellious statement against the normal boundaries of what a truck is “supposed” to be. Making a traditional, typical, and standard pickup truck would break all of Tesla’s rules, and if the company ends up designing it, it would mean that the legacy automakers have won.
Earlier this week, CEO Elon Musk said that if the Cybertruck happens to tank in sales, Tesla will end up designing a more traditional pickup for the market to consider. Even though I openly said I don’t think that Tesla will have to worry about designing and manufacturing a Cybertruck alternative, the possibility still worries me.
I know what many of you are probably thinking. “Joey, that’s really extreme.” Or, maybe, “Joey, that’s ridiculous, Tesla is just doing what it can to stay competitive in a popular market in case the Cybertruck tanks.”
Sure, I can agree with the second one from an economic standpoint for the company, but I certainly don’t see my point of view as extreme.
Tesla’s Cybertruck, when it was unveiled, shocked the world. It made everyone question what the company was doing. I’ll admit, when I saw that beast roll out onto the stage in Hawthorne, California, I was skeptical. I think I said something along the lines of, “What the hell is that thing?”
But as the presentation went on, I found myself increasingly interested in what Tesla was doing. I realized it was meant to be ridiculous, different, and “polarizing,” as so many people like to call it. It made the entire automotive industry look at the company, and it has worked thus far because it is arguably the most talked-about vehicle in recent memory.
Let’s be honest: Tesla has always broken the rules. Skeptics said the Model S would fail. It didn’t. They said Tesla couldn’t attain a considerable or acceptable range for its EVs. The company did and has scrapped vehicle models that aren’t capable of “acceptable range” of over 250 miles. They said the company couldn’t make an affordable vehicle. The Model 3 and Model Y are both mass-market cars geared toward affordability. They said Tesla couldn’t turn a profit. It just did, for the fourth consecutive quarter.
Tesla has always done what people said wasn’t possible. The Cybertruck is just one of the latest examples.
When the Cybertruck was unveiled, people said, “Nobody will buy that.” “It’s ugly.” “Even if people buy it, it won’t perform well against petrol-powered pickups.”
It has a substantial amount of pre-orders. According to CybertruckOwnersClub’s reservation number decoder, it has over 750,000 pre-orders.
It may be ugly to some, but that’s an opinion and subjective. I find the truck unique and beautiful in its own way.
The Cybertruck won a Tug-of-War against an F-150.
There are those three theories debunked.
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.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
But more significant than that, the Cybertruck is really an embodiment of Tesla’s mission as a whole. It has always been to prove the doubters wrong, to change the way people look at cars. Before Tesla, people saw their everyday drivers as a way to get from Point A to Point B. Some were faster than others, some were louder than others, and some had better stereos than others. The point is, when Tesla’s came out, their vehicles became more than a daily transportation outlet. They became entertainment machines, and they changed the way the world looked at a car.
The Cybertruck did the same thing. It changed the way people looked at trucks, even though nobody has one yet. It is a summarization of what Tesla has always meant and tried to convey to people. Change the way people look at something, and the possibilities become limitless. Before the Cybertruck, people thought that the “truck” had to have a cab, a bed, and look nearly the same as every other pickup on the market. But that’s the thing. Tesla has never used the rules or the “typical” idea for anything. That’s what makes Tesla, Tesla.
People knew battery-powered cars were possible, but nobody was good at it. The other car companies in the world were too focused on making their petrol engines more advanced at the time. After all, nobody was anxious about climate change at the time. At least, it wasn’t widely accepted by people until the mid-2000s from what I remember.
Tesla changed all of that. They proved electric cars didn’t have to be slow, or boring “like a golf cart,” as Elon Musk once said.
In my opinion, we won’t see a traditional Tesla truck. I don’t think the Cybertruck will tank in terms of sales, and I don’t believe that Tesla will be interested in being just another car company that makes a truck that looks like everyone else’s.
The Cybertruck goes against all the rules, and that’s more “Tesla” than anything.
Please consider Subscribing and joining me next week as I go ‘Beyond the News’
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
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.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
