News
Tesla Effect: Expert dives into EV adoption and the internal combustion engine’s death
When Elon Musk took the helm as CEO of Tesla, he aimed to disrupt the transportation industry to such a degree that electric mobility becomes the preferred, primary form of transportation. It was a lofty goal, near-impossible at the time. Yet, more than a decade and several all-electric vehicles later, Musk’s dream and his all-too-familiar Master Plan are actually happening.
Spurred by the success and the demand generated by vehicles like the Tesla Model S and Model 3, the auto industry is shifting towards electric transportation. Coupled with the ongoing climate emergency, several regions across the globe are also looking to drastically reduce their emissions, and one of the ways they are doing that is by phasing out the internal combustion engine. Paul Eichenberg, managing director of Paul Eichenberg Strategic Consulting and a longtime veteran in the auto industry, discussed these shifts in a recent appearance at Autoline After Hours.
During his discussions, Eichenberg noted that the auto industry, including the companies comprising its large supply chain, is already undergoing a steady departure from ICE technology. Aggressive emissions targets in regions such as Europe and China will eventually make it impossible for gas and diesel-powered vehicles to comply unless they become electric. Technological advancements such as autonomous driving solutions are also becoming a priority. This could be seen in how massive companies such as Volkswagen and Ford are currently partnering in a push towards EVs and full self-driving technology. Eichenberg noted that there would likely be more high-profile collaborations in the near future.
It is at this point that Tesla’s disruption, the “Tesla Effect,” if you may, becomes incredibly evident. Tesla might still be learning the ropes when it comes to running a car business, but it is becoming undeniable that the company has created an objectively superior product. Sandy Munro, who has torn down the Tesla Model 3 and other EVs like the Chevy Bolt and the BMW i3, remarked that Tesla’s electric sedan is at least a generation ahead of what other companies have put on the road in terms of the architecture, the electronic systems, and the software surrounding the vehicle. Tesla still needs to figure out a consistent way to make money, but in terms of the electric cars themselves, the company seems to have everything figured out.
With traditional auto catching up to upstart companies like Tesla, large carmakers are now looking to leverage the innovations from younger, smaller companies. This could be seen in how Ford willingly invested in Rivian, which has developed its own skateboard platform that features much of the same concepts as Tesla’s skateboard chassis. Eichenberg, citing an OEM he spoke with prior to the announcement of Ford’s Rivian investment, stated that building a skateboard similar to Rivian’s and Tesla’s will likely result in a seven-year lead in the marketplace.
With electric cars being far more straightforward in terms of parts and components, a significant number of companies whose businesses rely on the internal combustion engine are currently being faced with a dilemma. Eichenberg gave an example of this in a brief discussion about forgings. “If you look at the forgings, a typical vehicle like the Pacifica — you know, V6, 8-speed — that has 107 forgings in it, in just that traditional ICE engine ecosystem. When you go to an electric vehicle, whether it’s the (BMW) i3, the Teslas, the (Chevy) Bolt, whatever it is, there’s eight or nine. So you have a 90% over-capacitation of an industry. And here’s an industry that’s only 90 billion globally, and half of everything it does is in the engine-transmission ecosystem,” he said.
Elaborating further, Eichenberg mentioned that big-tier corporations such as Honeywell and Delphi, whose businesses are tied to the internal combustion engine, are now positioning themselves through spinoffs as a way to shed their ICE-centered assets. Unfortunately, smaller companies don’t have it as easy, particularly as private equities and investors do not seem interested in ICE innovations anymore. Eichenberg shared the story of Dayco, a private equity-owned business which experienced multiple failed sale processes. Eventually, the company ended up taking the deal to China, where it failed to receive a single bid. Among the key reasons behind these failures was Dayco’s line of business.
“Why is Dayco an indication of what private equities are going to do? It’s because Dayco makes pulley systems that go in front of the internal combustion engine. And of course, what’s been the first element to be electrified? All the pumps and all these systems that run off this pulley system. So, the market has already recognized, ‘Hey you know what, we’re not interested in these types of assets,’” he said.
Overall, it appears that traditional automakers’ decision to “wait and see” if Tesla survives and succeeds was a miscalculation at best. As it turned out, well-designed, long-range electric cars caught on, and with the advent of the Tesla Model 3 Standard Plus, which currently starts below $40,000 with Autopilot as standard, it is now becoming quite evident just how much catching up is needed for traditional auto to thrive (or even survive) in the age of the electric car. Yet, as more large automakers collaborate on technology that companies like Tesla have developed on their own, and as investments flow into young, innovative companies like Rivian, it is becoming a certainty that the internal combustion engine is indeed on its twilight years.
Watch Paul Eichenberg’s segment in Autoline After Hours in the video below.
Investor's Corner
Tesla has a Cybercab problem nobody saw coming
Tesla’s Cybercab line now builds robotaxis faster than Tesla can deploy them, Lars Moravy says.
Tesla’s Cybercab line in Texas can now build the two seat robotaxi faster than the company can put it into service, according to Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering. “We don’t run every day because the line can run so fast. It’s currently outpacing our deployments,” Moravy said in a new Cybercab deep dive from Munro Live. “So, it’s a bit of a race right now. Who’s going to go faster? Right now the manufacturing line’s ahead.”
Tesla’s official Robotaxi account shared a Cybercab analysis video on X on Monday, calling it a “Cybercab engineering deep dive.” Moravy’s comments go further than what he told analysts on the Q3 earnings call last week, when he said the Cybercab line’s listed capacity of more than 125,000 units a year undersells what it can actually run.
The tour shows where that speed comes from. Tesla’s unboxed process splits the Cybercab into front, rear, side and center modules that are built and tested on their own before they meet on a short final line. That final line has just 25 fully automated stations, which Tesla’s team estimated is a fifth to a tenth of what a Model Y needs. The full line is about 78% automated, the framing line is already at 100%, and the layout uses roughly 50% less floor space per vehicle. The stated goal is “100% automation in 10 second cycle time,” or one finished Cybercab every 10 seconds.
Tesla also deleted the paint shop. Only the side modules are coated, and the exterior panels get their color inside the molding machine. Engineers said the car is designed to run at least 500,000 miles, which matters for a vehicle that will spend most of its day carrying riders.
The battery got the same treatment. The Cybercab uses an 88S6P pack of 4680 cells in a steel enclosure, a first for Tesla, with each module potted separately so a single failed module can be swapped instead of the whole pack. Wireless battery management boards replace a wiring harness, and new contactors are fast enough to drop the pyro fuse entirely. Tesla’s battery director graded the pack an A minus, compared with a D for the Model Y structural pack and a B minus for Cybertruck. Up front, the drive unit runs an 11:1 gear ratio versus roughly 9:1 on most Teslas, since the Cybercab does not need a high top speed.
Cybercab engineering deep dive — Robotaxi (@robotaxi) October 26, 2026
The deployment side is now the bottleneck Moravy described. Tesla had more than 50 Cybercabs working the Formula 1 weekend in Austin, and Texas records show 463 Cybercabs registered. Tesla said on its earnings call that Cybercab service will launch in Dallas next month, and Moravy said the company is aiming to get Cybercabs to customers by the end of 2026. Every unit built so far has gone into Tesla’s own fleet since the line moved into volume production in April.
Munro Live also asked when it could get a Cybercab to tear down. Tesla’s answer: “Not yet.”
SpaceX’s Raptor engine family has steadily increased sea-level thrust while simultaneously reducing mass, turning iterative engineering gains into substantially higher performance for the Super Heavy booster. CEO Elon Musk shed more light on how powerful Raptor 4 will be, and it’s pretty crazy.
Raptor 1 delivered 185 metric tons of thrust at roughly 2,080 kilograms, while Raptor 2 raised that to 230 tons while cutting mass to about 1,630 kilograms. SpaceX data for Raptor 3 lists a target of 280 tons at 1,525 kilograms (with further reductions in associated vehicle hardware), while operational flight ratings have been cited near 250 tons.
This morning, Elon Musk stated that Raptor 4 is expected to reach 300 tons of sea-level thrust at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3. Across these versions, thrust has risen by more than 60 percent from the first engines while engine mass has fallen, producing a sharp improvement in thrust-to-weight ratio. This is a true testament to how great SpaceX engineering has been:
🚀 Elon says Raptor 4 will make 300 tons of thrust at sea level at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3.
How far Raptor has come:
Raptor 1: 185 tf, 2,080 kg
Raptor 2: 230 tf, 1,630 kg
Raptor 3: 250 tf, 1,525 kg
Raptor 4: 300 tf33 on Super Heavy = ~9,900 tf, nearly 3x Saturn V https://t.co/HQDswZhyvL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
With 33 engines on SuperHeavy, the jump from earlier versions to a 300-ton Raptor 4 would produce roughly 9,900 metric tons of total liftoff thrust, nearly three times the Saturn V’s approximately 3,400 metric tons from its five F-1 engines.
This is not just a larger number on a data sheet, either, as sea-level thrust is the force available the moment the vehicle leaves the pad. This is when it is heaviest and still deep in Earth’s gravity well and dense atmosphere.
Higher levels of sea-level thrust directly improves the initial thrust-to-weight ratio of the full stack. A higher ratio produces faster acceleration off the pad, which shortens the time the rocket has to spend fighting gravity, and gravity losses during the first minute or two of the flight are a major drain on total available delta-v. Every second shaved off of that early climb preserves more propellant energy for reaching orbital velocity or for carrying extra payload.
Because Super Heavy’s engine count is constrained by vehicle diameter and packing density, increasing thrust per engine is the most straightforward way to raise total liftoff performance without redesigning the booster structure or design.
The same-mass target for Raptor 4 is equally important. Holding engine mass roughly constant while raising thrust improves the engine’s own thrust-to-weight ratio and reduces the structural and propellant mass fraction that must be carried solely to support the engines.
Earlier Raptor iterations also simplified or eliminated extensive vehicle-side hardware such as heat shields. These gains compound: more force for less installed mass leaves additional capacity for propellant, payload, or operational margins such as engine-out capability.
For Starship’s architecture, the practical effects are large. Greater liftoff thrust supports heavier vehicles, larger propellant loads, and higher payloads to low Earth orbit, figures SpaceX has targeted in the 100-plus-ton reusable range. That capacity underpins orbital refueling, lunar missions, and eventual Mars cargo and crew flights.
Continued growth in sea-level thrust therefore tightens the gap between theoretical rocket performance and the high flight rates and reusability needed to make large-scale space transport practical.
Tesla has expanded its Tesla Assisted Driving (TAD) suite to its tenth European country, as Latvia joined a growing list of European Union member states authorizing the company’s advanced driver assistance technology.
Tesla Europe announced this morning that the system is now approved in Latvia, with a software rollout to begin soon.
The approval and rollout follow recognition of a provisional European type approval originally granted by the Netherlands’ RDW authority on April 10.
🚨 Latvia has just received approval for Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised)
This is the 10th country in the EU to gain approval:
1. Netherlands — 10 April 2026 (original RDW approval)
2. Lithuania — 20 May 2026
3. Estonia — 29 May 2026
4. Denmark — 9 June 2026
5. Belgium — 10 June 2026
6. Slovenia — 7 September 2026
7. Czechia — 21 September 2026
8. Croatia — 29 September 2026
9. Slovakia — 16 October 2026— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
Latvia’s Road Traffic Safety Directorate (CSDD) evaluated the Dutch documentation, coordinated with the other national authorities, and reviewed updates from Tesla. These included tightened limits on speed offsets, automatic resets of any manual speed adjustments after each trip, and stronger driver monitoring.
In Europe, the feature is marketed as Tesla Assisted Driving after a recent rule change that labeled the name “Full Self-Driving” as misleading.
The system remains an SAE Level 2 driver assistance tool, not unsupervised autonomy. It can control speed, steering, braking, lane changes, and intersections while following a navigation route. Drivers need not keep their hands on the wheel at all times, yet they must continuously monitor the road and be prepared to intervene immediately.
The sequence of EU recognitions began with the Netherlands in April and continued through Lithuania, Estonia, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia, Czechia, Croatia, and Slovakia. Most have relied on mutual recognition of the single Dutch provisional approval rather than independent national testing.
These national clearances do not yet constitute bloc-wide authorization. An EU-wide decision requires a qualified majority in the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles: at least 15 of 27 member states representing 65 percent of the EU population. Larger markets, like Germany, France, and Italy, remain under review, and a vote is expected this December.
However, for Latvian Tesla owners with compatible vehicles and software, the imminent rollout expands access to the supervised system while underscoring that attentive human oversight remains essential.
Tesla has a Cybercab problem nobody saw coming
How SpaceX Is raising Raptor’s sea-level thrust while holding engine mass steady
