News
Tesla and EVs’ popularity pushes car carrier companies to seek higher weight limits
With the transition to electric vehicles now inevitable, car carrier companies are urging politicians and the Biden administration to raise the truck weight limitations on the United States’ highways. By doing so, car carrier companies could transport more electric vehicles. But inasmuch as the proposal seems sound, the rail sector and safety activists strongly oppose the idea, with critics arguing that heavier trucks mean more dangerous roads.
It should be noted that even before electric vehicles like the Tesla Model 3 and Model Y became mainstream, American vehicles were already getting heavier. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the average weight of automobiles and trucks on US highways has grown from 3,200 pounds to 4,200 pounds during the last 40 years. That was far before vehicles like the Tesla Model S surged in popularity.
For now, electric vehicles comprise less than 1% of the cars on US roads, but US President Joe Biden and his administration have pushed for half of vehicle sales by 2030 to be comprised of EVs. This is great for the environment, but pushing more EVs has an aftereffect of sorts. Since electric cars are heavier than their combustion-powered counterparts due to their large batteries, car carrier companies simply cannot transport as many of them as quickly under the current weight limits for car carrier trucks on the road, according to an Autoblog report.
Sarah Amico, executive chairman of Jack Cooper, one of the largest car carrier companies in North America, outlined some risks that come if the US government’s road weight limits maintain the status quo. “The truth is we will not be able move as many electric vehicles under the current weight limit. That could mean more trucks on the road, delays in orders, and increased costs,” Amico said.
Trailers in the United States today are restricted by federal highway safety standards to 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. And with the growing prevalence of EVs, the car hauling industry has pushed its lobbying efforts in an attempt to update the restrictions. The effort has some supporters, such as Illinois Republican lawmaker Rodney Davis, who serves on the House Transportation Committee. Davis noted that the auto transporter industry is looking to raise the weight limit on roads by about 5-10%.
“The auto transporter industry needs a modest 5% to 10% weight variance. Otherwise, an already-challenged supply chain will require more tractor-trailer rigs on the nation’s highways to deliver the same number of finished vehicles. That means more miles driven, more wear and tear on our roads, more fuel used, and more emissions,” he said.
While an extra 8,000 pounds may not sound like much, it could be the difference maker that could allow transporters to carry the same number of EVs as their ICE-powered counterparts. The Ford F-150 Lightning is about 1,600 pounds heavier than its gas-powered sibling, for example, and the Volvo XC40 Recharge SUV weighs about 1,000 pounds more than the combustion-powered Volvo XC40.
The efforts of car carrier companies, however, have met strong opposition from critics. Among these critics are the companies’ rivals in the freight rail industry, as well as safety experts who argue that heavier trucks are more difficult to stop, easier to roll, and cause more wear and tear on roads. Cathy Chase, President of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, mentioned some of these reservations. “With any incremental change comes incremental danger, and that results in more fatalities,” Chase said.
But while the concerns of skeptics are reasonable, the use of all-electric trucks like the Tesla Semi should address a number of safety concerns about heavier vehicles on the road. Electric trucks, after all, utilize systems such as regenerative braking to help the vehicles stop safely. The rollout of systems like Autopilot and FSD could also be a difference-maker in the safety of trucks, as they could ensure that pedestrians and other commuters are as safe as possible on the road.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@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
