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’
In a sudden and closely watched milestone, Tesla Robotaxi has edged past Waymo on the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles automated vehicle registry. As of November 10, Tesla lists 1,302 registered vehicles under Tesla Robotaxi, LLC, compared with Waymo’s 1,297.
The flip is narrow, but real, according to the State’s books. Tesla’s Texas fleet, following an expansion on November 10, now consists of 729 Model Ys and 573 purpose-built Cybercab vehicles. Waymo’s roster is dominated by the Jaguar I-PACE and a growing number of Zeekr-based Ojai minivans.
NEW: Tesla Robotaxi just added 20 Tesla Model Ys to its fleet. The Texas fleet now stands at 1302 vehicles.
Live tracker: https://t.co/ri0WMLRhCQ
Tracker powered by @EVject
— Texas Autonomous Vehicle Tracker (@texasavtracker) November 10, 2026
Those figures come from the same public TxDMV automated vehicle listings that independent trackers have monitored since a Texas law required operators to disclose fleet sizes.
The scale of Tesla’s climb is pretty interesting and shows how much the company has grown its autonomous ride-hailing fleet over the past months. When the registry first became public in late May 2026, Tesla listed just 42 vehicles on it. Meanwhile, Waymo had several hundred vehicles registered to it.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk shades Waymo: ‘Never really had a chance’
Since then, Tesla has multiplied its authorized Texas fleet more than thirty times, driven by repeated Model Y additions and a steady build of Cybercabs. Waymo has also expanded, but at a slower pace than Tesla.
It is also important to note that registrations are not necessarily equal to operational fleet. The TxDMV list shows the number of vehicles each company is permitted to run, but it does not report how many are actively carrying riders, which cities they serve, or trip volume. Both companies stage vehicles and run mixed fleets that can include units in testing or temporarily offline.
A lead on the registry therefore signals capacity and regulatory positioning more than immediate ride volume.
Tesla has use the growing authorized fleet to expand its unsupervised service beyond the original Austin geofence area, as now it is flowing into cities like San Antonio and Dallas. The company has highlighted plans for a broader Cybercab deployment, eventually into new states and territories.
Waymo is operating across multiple Texas markets and in other areas of the United States.
Right now, the five-vehicle margin is thin and could reverse with the next large registration from either side. For the moment, however, the public Texas record shows Tesla holding the larger authorized Robotaxi fleet in the state.
Elon Musk
SpaceX just cleared a key FCC hurdle in its fight with Verizon and AT&T
The FCC accepted SpaceX’s bid for Grain’s 800 MHz spectrum, opening review for Starlink Mobile.
The Federal Communications Commission has formally opened its review of SpaceX’s plan to buy a nationwide block of 800 MHz spectrum from Grain Management, moving Starlink Mobile one step closer to operating as a full U.S. wireless carrier.
In a public notice issued Tuesday, the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau said it accepted for filing the applications to transfer control of two Grain license companies, Prism License Co. 1 and Prism License Co. 2, to Starlink Spectrum Holdings, a wholly owned SpaceX subsidiary. The deal covers 546 paired licenses across 3,224 counties, reaching roughly 100% of the U.S. population in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The proceeding sits under WT Docket No. 26-313.
Acceptance is not approval. It means the applications cleared an initial review and the public comment window is now open. Comments and petitions to deny are due December 1, and oppositions are due December 8. The bureau also said the conditions attached to Grain’s July purchase of the licenses from T-Mobile, which require rapid buildout for terrestrial and direct to device service, would carry over to SpaceX if the transfer is approved.
SpaceX announced the agreement on October 8, saying the new airwaves would let Starlink Mobile’s signal reach phones inside buildings, something its 2 GHz spectrum from EchoStar cannot do as well. The portfolio includes up to 14 MHz of paired spectrum in the 817 to 824 MHz and 862 to 869 MHz bands, which most existing phones already support. Elon Musk called it “the last critical piece of the spectrum puzzle needed for SpaceX to provide complete phone coverage in America.”
According to the filing, SpaceX would hold up to 89 MHz of total spectrum in any given market after the deal closes, including up to 14 MHz below 1 GHz. That is far under the 385 MHz threshold the FCC uses to flag a transaction for closer competitive scrutiny, and well short of the roughly 300 MHz each of AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile holds.
Tuesday’s notice does not decide how SpaceX can use the spectrum from orbit. A separate application SpaceX filed on October 27 seeking authority to provide supplemental coverage from space on the same frequencies, along with related waiver requests, is still pending before the commission.
The ground network is already taking shape. Last week, SpaceX picked Qualcomm to supply radios, baseband units and software for a nationwide 5G build, with deployment across tens of thousands of U.S. cell sites starting in 2027. The FCC also voted on October 29 to advance a proposal opening another 482 MHz to direct to device service, though AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile hacritive pushed to strip nearly 300 MHz from it. SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell has said service on SpaceX’s own airwaves is targeted for early 2028.
A Tesla upfitter has offered to take over Cybertruck lines from the company in a last-ditch effort to save the all-electric pickup from being completely canceled in the middle of 2027.
Unplugged Performance, the Hawthorne, California-based Tesla aftermarket specialist, has publicly offered to take over Cybertruck production from Tesla, funding the effort “through a consortium of investors.”
An open offer to Tesla: We fully support putting Cybercab first, and we’d be glad to take the Cybertruck line off your hands.
We’d fund it with a consortium of investors and run it at no cost to Tesla’s floor space, headcount, or focus. All of that goes to Cybercab. Cybercab gets first call on battery cells too. We’ll wait our turn.
Tesla gains incremental profit: a license fee, plus FSD and Robotaxi network revenues on every vehicle built.
We’d build the Cybertruck, a three-row CyberSUV, and an unmanned CyberCargo hauler. More autonomous miles, across every surface of this planet and beyond.
Worth a conversation?— UP (@UnpluggedTesla) November 10, 2026
The proposal comes as Tesla prioritizes its Cybercab Robotaxi program and prepares to wind down Cybertruck assembly at Gigafactory Texas around mid-2027.
Founded in 2013 by Ben Schaffer and located adjacent to Tesla’s Design Studio and SpaceX, Unplugged Performance has become a leading provider of premium upgrades for Tesla vehicles, including extensive Cybertruck packages under its UP INVINCIBLE line.
Through its UP.FIT division, the company has also developed purpose-built police and fleet versions of the Cybertruck, including deliveries to agencies such as the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
In an X post on Tuesday, Unplugged said:
“An open offer to Tesla: We fully support putting Cybercab first, and we’d be glad to take the Cybertruck line off your hands. We’d fund it with a consortium of investors and run it at no cost to Tesla’s floor space, headcount, or focus. All of that goes to Cybercab. Cybercab gets first call on battery cells too. We’ll wait our turn. Tesla gains incremental profit: a license fee, plus FSD and Robotaxi network revenues on every vehicle built. We’d build the Cybertruck, a three-row CyberSUV, and an unmanned CyberCargo hauler. More autonomous miles, across every surface of this planet and beyond. Worth a conversation?”
The arrangement would free Tesla resources and manufacturing capacity for Cybercab while allowing continued production of the stainless-steel pickup and expanded variants. Unplugged Performance indicated it would wait for battery cells after Cybercab needs are met and would generate ongoing revenue for Tesla through licensing and software/network services on the vehicles it produces.
Following strong initial interest, Unplugged Performance posted a follow-up inviting potential investors and strategic partners to email cyber@unpluggedperformance.com. The company clarified that the outreach is solely to gauge interest and does not constitute an offer to sell securities or acceptance of funds at this stage.
The proposal arrives shortly after Elon Musk indicated that Cybertruck production in Texas would be phased out by roughly the middle of 2027 to expand Cybercab output.
Whether Tesla engages with the offer remains to be seen, but the public overture highlights both the aftermarket specialist’s deep experience with the Cybertruck platform and the growing focus on autonomy within Tesla’s manufacturing plans.
Tesla overtakes Waymo in Texas as Robotaxi fleet performs shock flip
SpaceX just cleared a key FCC hurdle in its fight with Verizon and AT&T
