News
Tesla Fandom: Terrific or Toxic?
Tesla fans are passionate people, and it does not take a very vast amount of time to realize that. The brand itself has a certain appeal to it, and those who own the company’s most elusive products, like the 2008 Roadster, have about as much passion as those who own the $35,000 Model 3 variant. People love their Tesla products forward and backward. Usually, enthusiasm for a car company lies within the diehards that “supe” their cars up or are lifelong purchasers of the same manufacturer for a lifetime. For example, some people swear by Ford trucks, so much so that they will put a sticker on their rear windshield of a cartoon urinating on a Chevrolet logo.
The toxicity of brand loyalty lies in every camp. There is a point where loving a company you openly support comes to be too much, and your passions get in the way of being a responsible human being and considering other points of view. This is something I have noticed with some Tesla fans who are willing to attack other automakers and enthusiasts of different brands, and it seems to be based on the fact that there is a disagreement on which car company is superior.
To be clear, I think that there are a lot of amazing people in this community. I, personally, have learned a lot about Tesla vehicles in my year (so far) at Teslarati. When I came into this role as a transportation writer, I had very limited knowledge, and I considered myself to be a novice in terms of what was going on in the Tesla world. I was right.
Now, I consider myself to be an expert on the topic, but I am certainly not all-knowing, and that is okay. I continue to learn a lot from the people who have surrounded me throughout my journey as a writer, and a lot of the time, it is because many influencers in this sector are supportive, smart, and genuinely nice people.
However, there is a small selection of people in the EV community that are vicious and have let their passion for an electric car company overtake their humility. I feel that a disagreement or argument every once in a while is okay. However, having these ugly communications back and forth, on what seems to be a daily basis, is what is making a bad name for the Tesla community.
Earlier this week, Complex, a popular media and lifestyle outlet, shared the news that CEO Elon Musk had become the fourth richest man in the world. When scrolling through the replies on the Tweet that was shared, I noticed someone stating that Elon “doesn’t care about anyone but himself,” and “hasn’t done anything to help humans.”
This is where I got involved, merely stating that Elon’s mission, as described in the Tesla Master Plan, was to help humans.
This person and I traded several Tweets back and forth, and it got to the point where we both realized that minds were not going to be changed. I talked about Tesla Solar, and how it is three-times less expensive than the U.S. average, Elon’s mission as a philanthropist and entrepreneur, and I also debunked a few EV myths, like Teslas are not capable of towing or hauling.
My adversary, on the other hand, never made a relevant point. It was a discussion full of red herrings, and I decided that it was likely a waste of my time to continue. It never went past 4-5 messages to each other. The conversation simply ended, nobody was blocked, nobody was called a name, communication just halted.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
This is not something that I see very often when writing articles about other car companies. Nor do I see it when someone with a sizeable following Tweets a supportive message about an up-and-coming car company. For example, when Lucid had stated it had achieved a 517-mile EPA estimated range rating, the comments were “Make a car first,” and “Who cares.” Things of that nature.
I understand the frustration with car companies always gunning for Tesla, but how is competition a bad thing? How is the fact that all of these other car companies vocally admitting that Tesla is the benchmark a bad thing? I can’t find the answer.
Yes, Lucid needs to produce a car for the public. Yes, 517 miles is a lot of range, but we do need to see it on a production vehicle that will be delivered to a customer. Those are all reasonable assessments, but why does Lucid need to be attacked? They’re making electric cars, not gas ones. Isn’t that what this whole thing is all about?
At one point, Tesla was the “new kid on the block.” It was a little known, scrappy company looking to make a name for itself. It had its fair share of problems, and it worked through them. Other car companies are experiencing the same things Tesla did years ago. But when Tesla was new and fresh, gas car enthusiasts were saying, “Who cares,” and “They should make a car that works first.” Here we are today, over a million vehicles later, and ramping up to a yearly production rate that far exceeded anyone’s wildest imagination.
It is almost ironic to me that the same things that came out of ICE enthusiast mouths are coming out of Tesla fan’s mouths now. The Tesla loyalty is a good thing, to an extent, but it should never outshine the fact that competition is good. It should never outshine the fact that other car companies are working on getting rid of gas-powered engines. It should never outshine the fact that the global fight against toxic carbon emissions is slowly but surely turning in our favor.
There is an old saying that goes, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say it at all.” I think many of us should remember this from time to time. If there is a disagreement with someone that occurs online, understand that points of view are rarely going to line up identically. Understand that people are going to think your opinions are ridiculous. Lastly, realize that someone disagreeing with you is an opportunity for you to expand your mind and learn something new. A conversation with someone who holds opposite opinions or points of view is sometimes the healthiest thing for the human spirit. There is a lot of evidence that suggests being around “Yes men/women” is a bad thing. Humans grow on adversity, and there is nothing worse than being around a bunch of people who you have everything in common with. Sometimes, it is helpful to mix it up and hear things that you don’t necessarily agree with.
So next time you catch someone online, and they’re saying something that seems to challenge your beliefs, take a minute and think about what they are saying. Does it make sense, or is their idea full of misleading and incorrect information? In the case of the short conversation I had earlier this week, I recognized that what this person was saying was false based on Elon’s merit and what he has done for the world thus far in his career.
Don’t block or put someone on blast because they said something controversial to you. I would imagine a healthier way to end the conversation is to simply say, “I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion.” Calling someone names is childish, and stooping to the level they are taking if they begin calling you names makes you no better than they are. There’s a reason that it is called “taking the high road.”
Tesla’s mission is about sustaining life as we know it on Earth, or perhaps, on Mars. However, if we do not learn to cherish and respect views that differ from our own, our civilization will never make it. Breaking through boundaries and listening to points of view that are not necessarily on par with what we believe is sometimes the best thing for us. Even if you leave a conversation thinking, “That person has no clue what they’re talking about,” there are a series of benefits. You walked away respectfully. You learned that you and that person aren’t compatible. Lastly, you realized that there are people in the world that are the polar opposite to you. Those are just a few that come to mind.
I find it extremely important, especially at such a trying time in our world, that we respect one another as best as we can. Whether you’re a Tesla fan, Rivian fan, or a Lucid fan, be kind to one another. We are all in this together, and the push toward sustainable transportation is growing due to the efforts of each and every one of the companies that decided to manufacture EVs.
Please consider Subscribing and joining me next week as I go ‘Beyond the News’
News
SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit
SpaceX filed with the FCC for Starship Flight 14, its first true orbital launch attempt.
SpaceX has asked the Federal Communications Commission for permission to fly Starlink terminals during Starship’s fourteenth flight test, and the filing lays out a genuine trip to orbit, something the program has never attempted.
Every Starship flight so far, including Flight 13’s successful splashdown in the Indian Ocean on July 24, has flown a suborbital arc that ends with the ship reentering the atmosphere within the same hour it launches. The FCC paperwork describes a mission profile built around an actual orbital insertion instead.
The payload is the other half of the story. Flight 13 carried 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, but because that mission never reached orbit, the satellites reentered along with the ship rather than joining the constellation, something Teslarati covered in detail after SpaceX released footage shot from one of those satellites as it drifted away from Starship in space. Flight 14 is designed to close that gap. If the orbital insertion holds, the roughly 20 V3 satellites onboard would separate into an operational orbit and could eventually go into service, each one rated for about 1 terabit per second of downlink capacity by SpaceX’s own account.
SpaceX announces new Starbase for ‘thousands of Starship launches annually’
Elon Musk first flagged the orbital attempt during SpaceX’s August 4 earnings call, the company’s first as a public entity following its June IPO under the ticker SPCX. He also floated catching the ship with the Starbase tower on the same flight, an idea he walked back on August 20, saying the catch attempt would more likely come “in a few months,” as Teslarati reported at the time. Flight 14 will instead target a splashdown for the ship in the Indian Ocean, the same recovery method used since Flight 12.
Hardware has been catching up to the ambition. Booster 21 completed a full 33-engine static fire on August 28, and Ship 41 finished its own six-engine test the week before. An airspace briefing circulated to pilots on August 20 listed September 15 as the target date, later than the end of August window Musk mentioned on the earnings call, though SpaceX has not confirmed a launch date publicly and Starship schedules routinely slip while hardware and FAA paperwork line up.
The FCC filing itself does not guarantee a launch date. It covers communications authority, and not flight readiness, considering SpaceX still needs Ship 41 fully stacked and cleared by the FAA before Flight 14 can fly. But the filing is a real marker of intent and it puts a specific regulatory process behind what had so far only been Musk’s word on the earnings call.
Tesla is set to launch Cybercab on Thursday at an event in Austin, Texas, which will officially bring the company’s first steering wheel-less and pedal-less vehicle to a limited number of consumers for the first time.
The event, which is invite-only, is still thin on details: we’ll be there, and it seems the event will be held at Gigafactory Texas, but the launch of this vehicle truly relies on it being operational outside of the factory and on public roads.
🚨 Close-Up look at Tesla Cybercab without steering wheel: pic.twitter.com/9TXCDeDCz7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 3, 2026
Nevertheless, there are some big things to expect, and other things to temper expectations on. For what it’s worth, we believe this event could be perhaps the biggest indication that Tesla is ready to truly enter a new phase and chapter in its historic story.
Tesla Cybercab’s First Foray into the Public with Real-World Riders
Cybercab will likely hit the streets of Austin and the surrounding areas, likely in the established geofence that Tesla has expanded on for the past 14 months. Just yesterday, Tesla expanded it once again by 9 percent.
Tesla will put, for the first time, a vehicle without any manual controls on public roads, likely without any help from teleoperators. This is a truly groundbreaking development if it comes through in this fashion: it would be groundbreaking for Tesla to roll out a truly driverless ride-hailing vehicle.
Cybercab Has Already Been Unveiled
This is not an unveiling event. Cybercab has been released for nearly two years, as Tesla first showed it to the public on October 10, 2024.
FIRST LOOK: Tesla ‘Cybercab’ Robotaxi makes its global debut
While there is some small speculation that Tesla could release the Roadster at the event as a surprise, it seems more likely the focus will be on the Cybercab and the huge accomplishment that will come with releasing a vehicle with no manual controls.
There Will Be a Lot of Hype
What’s important to remember about the Cybercab event is that Tesla will continue to prioritize safety and the rollout will likely be slow, just as it has been with Robotaxi.
One of the biggest complaints about Robotaxi is vehicle population, and the fact that the wait for a ride, at least in some instances, has been longer than most want to admit.
It will take time for this project to truly scale. It will take time for Tesla to roll this out in a large fashion. The important thing to note is that they are doing it, and they’re doing it with a vehicle that is completely engineered and built internally. That’s something no other ride-hailing service can say.
Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.
On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”
Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”
If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 30, 2026
In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.
The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.
Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.
That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.
Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”
SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success
That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.
Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.
One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.
SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit
Tesla Cybercab Event: what to expect from Austin
