Investor's Corner
Tesla guides EV industry’s shift from niche production to mass market
As Tesla continues to push the boundaries on automation in its factory production line, 2018 could be the year when the company and the electric vehicle (EVs) industry shifts from being seen as niche production to the mass market. Noting that roughly 1.3 million EVs were sold around the world in 2017, a 57 percent increase over 2016 sales, global consultancy McKinsey predicts that EVs’ share of total passenger vehicle sales could reach 30 to 35 percent in major markets like China, Europe, and the US by 2030. In partnership with automotive benchmarking specialist A2Mac1, McKinsey took a deep dive into EV technology, and identified four strategies that automakers should follow to remain relevant as the industry transforms itself.
EVs reached a major milestone in 2017. The main obstacles to mass market adoption have been driving range and price. With the launch of Tesla’s Model 3 and GM’s Chevy Bolt, both of which offer a range of over 250 miles, McKinsey believes that the range issue has basically been solved, and that automakers can now focus on reducing price points, either by increasing design efficiency or reducing manufacturing costs. To be successful at this, McKinsey believes they will need to follow four technical strategies.
1 – Build native electric vehicles
Native EVs – cars built on a custom electric platform, rather than adapted from legacy fossil-fuel vehicles – cost automakers more to develop, but offer multiple advantages. A native EV doesn’t have to be designed around bulky components that are no longer needed, such as drive shaft tunnels and exhaust systems, so it can accommodate a bigger battery pack. The pack can also be placed where it makes the most sense – at the bottom of the vehicle. This “skateboard” design, made famous by Model S designer Franz von Holzhausen, has since been copied by other automakers. Not only does it improve handling by giving the vehicle a lower center of gravity, it also opens up much more space for passengers and cargo.
2 – Push the boundaries of powertrain integration
McKinsey’s benchmarking revealed a continuing trend toward EV powertrain integration: EV-makers are integrating components such as inverters, motor controllers, etc, into fewer modules. One indicator of the increased level of integration is the design of the electric cables connecting the main electric powertrain components (battery, motor, power electronics and thermal management). McKinsey observed a decrease in both cable weight and the number of parts in the latest electric models compared with earlier vehicles.
EV powertrains are inherently more flexible, as the components are smaller, and designers have more freedom to place them in the best positions to optimize space. McKinsey found that the Chevy Bolt seems to use an ICE-like positioning of its powertrain electronics, whereas the Tesla Model 3 integrates most components directly on the rear of its battery pack and rear axle.
3 – Stay ahead in the technology game
Electric vehicle customers tend to be tech-savvy – they expect to have the latest driver-assistance systems, connectivity features and infotainment goodies. This almost obligates EV manufacturers to equip their vehicles with the highest levels of technology available. However, McKinsey sees this as an opportunity, as it creates a great testing field for the new technologies that OEMs and third-party providers are developing.
Vehicle controls are steadily migrating from physical knobs and switches to a more central, smartphone-like user interface. Of course, Tesla’s Model 3 is the ultimate example of this, but most EVs are following the trend of clearing the clutter. “We observed EVs in our benchmark that have as few as seven physical buttons in the interior, compared with 50 to 60 in many standard ICEs,” says McKinsey.
Rimac Concept_One digital controls being demonstrated at Monterey Carweek
Behind the scenes in vehicles’ electronic control units (ECUs), the trend is also toward more consolidation. Legacy autos are controlled by a jumble of different computer systems, often from different suppliers, that talk to each other in limited ways or not at all. Once again, Tesla led the way. In a 2014 interview, Tesla founder Ian Wright told me that his 2008 Volkswagen probably had “sixty or seventy electronic black boxes, 300 pounds of wiring harness, and software from 20 different companies in it.” Tesla’s vehicles use one central computer system. “The major reliability problem with those cars is the electronics and software,” said Wright. “I think Tesla did take a real Silicon Valley systems architecture perspective in designing all the electronics in the Model S.”
In an EV, electronics and software are the heart of the vehicle, and Wright predicted that, as the majors began to produce EVs, they would eventually be forced to adopt a more systems-oriented approach. McKinsey found that this prediction is coming true. Automakers are finding that a centralized approach gives them the chance to own a key control point in the vehicle, helps to save on weight and costs, and may improve reliability. Central, high-power ECUs “could also be the backbone for developing fully autonomous driving.”
4 – Design to cost
Legacy automakers are still struggling to make a profit on their EVs, mainly because of high battery costs (not Tesla, which claims to be earning margins of over 20% on Model S and X sales). Now that the range issue has been more or less solved, McKinsey believes OEMs will need to apply design-to-cost (DTC) strategies to produce EVs at attractive price points while earning decent margins. Fortunately, this something that established OEMs and suppliers are good at, so they may be able to quickly catch up. For example, improvements in battery technology may allow automakers to switch from lightweight but costly aluminum to more cost-efficient steel (a shift Tesla has already made with Model 3).
Can the traditional automakers make money in the volume EV market? Many industry observers are skeptical – one reason for the companies’ reluctance to embrace EVs may be that they see them as a lower-profit proposition. In the first public acknowledgment of this dynamic, Daimler recently announced that it foresees an end to profit growth this year, partly due to the high costs of making the shift to EVs. Certainly, it’s difficult to imagine that any EV will ever yield the prodigious profits of a vehicle like Ford’s F-150 pickup, which has been called the most profitable consumer product in history.
However, McKinsey believes that, if automakers heed its sage advice and take the aforementioned four EV design steps into consideration, they should be able to reduce the higher manufacturing costs of EVs and find their way to a positive mass-market business case. An era of profitable mass-market EVs could be on the horizon, and that would be good news for consumers, the environment – and forward-looking automakers that are willing to take some risks and embrace change.
===
Note: Article originally published on evannex.com by Charles Morris; Source: McKinsey / A2Mac1
Elon Musk
Tesla eyes supply partners for Optimus mass production
Tesla certified three Chinese suppliers for Optimus mass production, signaling its robot timeline is accelerating.
Tesla’s robotics team traveled to Ningbo, in China’s Zhejiang province, on September 16 and spent the following day auditing component suppliers for Optimus, according to a Bloomberg report cited by RobotAIGeek. The visit moved three manufacturers from provisional status to certified mass production partners: Tuopu Group, which handles actuators and chassis components, Ningbo Joyson Electronic, a sensor supplier, and Zhejiang Sanhua Intelligent Controls, which builds thermal management systems. All three already supply parts to Tesla’s electric vehicles, and the audit reportedly came with fresh orders that supply chain reports put at an initial batch of roughly 5,000 units.
Tuopu, Joyson, and Sanhua built their manufacturing base serving the automotive industry, where tolerances and volume requirements are already close to what a mass produced humanoid robot demands. Sanhua in particular has history here. Teslarati reported last October that the company had received a roughly $685 million order for linear actuators tied to Optimus, a volume industry watchers estimated could cover around 180,000 robots once production ramped.
Supply chain reports tied to this week’s audit put Tesla’s near term production goal at about 1,000 Optimus units a week by late September, rising to 2,000 to 2,500 units a week by the end of the year. That pace would put real weight behind the timeline Tesla has been building toward since May, when it wound down Model S and Model X production at Fremont to convert that floor space into a dedicated Optimus line targeting one million units annually. JPMorgan analysts who toured the factory in August confirmed the conversion took roughly four months, a pace Musk has called unprecedented for a facility that size.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Fremont is only the first phase. A second, larger Optimus plant is rising at Gigafactory Texas, where drone footage shared by Joe Tegtmeyer last week showed the structural steel nearing completion on the north end of the building. Tesla has said that facility is meant to eventually support production of up to 10 million units a year, though volume output there is not expected before 2027.
Commercial sales of Optimus are still targeted for the second half of 2027, but production is expected to start well before then. JPMorgan analyst Rajat Gupta has said Tesla’s “Optimus Academy” program, which uses early units to collect real world training data inside Tesla’s own facilities, is expected to be running later this year. Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Ian Ma described the Ningbo audits as “a positive commercialization signal for China’s humanoid supply chain,” noting that sentiment could improve further if the visit leads to confirmed supplier nominations and larger orders. The Solactive China Humanoid Robotics Index rose about 1.4% on the news, though it remains down roughly 30% for the year.
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.
Elon Musk drops a surprise update on Boring Company’s next big dig
Tesla eyes supply partners for Optimus mass production
