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’
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
