News
Tesla is primed for Formula E while its rivals are working in reverse
Tesla and Formula E: Will it ever happen? Probably not. At least, that’s what Elon Musk says, and he believes that production and scalability are more important. For the global EV scene, they certainly are, while professional motorsports are really just a trivial part of what Tesla does. While the company does build and create some of the fastest and highest-performing cars on Earth, it has no intentions of bringing them to a track or becoming a car company dedicated to winning shiny trophies. However, this didn’t stop other car companies from adopting different strategies.
Some companies, like BMW and Audi, for example, did their work in reverse. Years ago, when the Formula E Series became a real thing, these two companies were among the first to build a single-seat, all-electric powertrain that was extremely similar to the blazing fast F1 circuit. The only difference was that these new, sustainable racecars weren’t blaring loud motors for everyone to hear.
Instead of developing mass-market vehicles that would benefit the company in a multitude of ways, these automakers chose to work in reverse. Not focusing on building a reliable EV software infrastructure or production facilities to manufacture them in, German car companies went to their roots and focused o a few fast cars that would compete on the weekends at some of the toughest circuits in the world. But the problem is, they could have killed two birds with one stone by doing things in the correct order, which brings me to my next point: Tesla is already primed for Formula E, and it never had any intentions of competing.
A recent article from Bloomberg shows that BMW has decided to officially scrap its Formula E team at the end of this season, shifting its focus from racing and toward an intensifying EV market. The money it will save from not focusing on turning out fast laps at world-famous circuits will now be dedicated to developing EVs for consumers.
In the time that BMW has been racing in Formula E, it has only released one car: the i3, a boxy, widely unpopular car aesthetically. With plans to launch the iX, which it unveiled just last month, there are plenty of opportunities to establish a competitive lineup of all-electric cars in the future. But the focus has been all wrong from the start.
BMW didn’t have an overwhelmingly successful time in Formula E. Since it started racing in the series, which held its first race seasons ago, it has won only four races. But the company stated that it has “exhausted the opportunities to transfer Formula E’s pioneering racing technologies into passenger models.”
This is where the order of development may have been more advantageous for BMW. Now that their Formula E run is over, they have nothing to base passenger models off of, which pretty much puts them at square 1 if you take into account the i3 is not a widely popular or successful EV, to begin with.
This is where Tesla gains a real advantage in a hypothetical scenario where it would build cars for a racing series. Tesla has passenger vehicles now that could compete in several racing series, and other cars that actually have competed in racing forums like the Pikes Peak Hill Climb.
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!
For example, the Roadster is 0-60 in 1.9 seconds, has a quarter-mile acceleration of 8.8 seconds, and seats four people. The powertrain is already powerful enough to compete in some racing circuits, but if Tesla were to refine it slightly and build a new, more reliable chassis that would benefit racing scenarios, there is no reason that the Next-Gen Roadster wouldn’t be extremely competitive in some racing series.
The Model S Plaid is another example. It has broken multiple records, including one at the Nürburgring in Germany (which is unconfirmed) and the Laguna Seca Raceway in California. It already has the handling, speed, and downforce to take on tough tracks that are windy and difficult to maneuver. It would just take some minor refinements to make it a “racecar.”
This is where Tesla gains a significant advantage in its structure. It is irrelevant whether the company will actually race some of its cars or not, but it would be ready today if it chose to. Meanwhile, other car companies decided to build racecars first, and after seven years of R&D, they have nothing that would contribute to a highly-effective passenger car. It is like baking a cake before putting any of the ingredients together.
It doesn’t bode well for these foreign automakers, either. Unfortunately for them, Tesla is pulling away. Every day, it seems like the company is improving in range or performance or battery tech that makes its lead in the EV sector a little bit bigger than before. Now, it has four passenger cars on the road: Two sedans, a crossover, and an SUV. It has a Supercar on the way, a truck coming in the next year, a Semi that will be launched shortly. The list goes on and on, it seems, and if Tesla wanted to race a car this weekend and be competitive, it could.
It almost sounds like the priorities of these highly-complex German car companies were simply out of line. They chose to do the fun stuff first instead of focusing on the real task at hand: Getting gas cars off the road and putting electric ones on it. Instead of worrying about the issues surrounding the manufacturing processes of EVs, which took Tesla several years to figure out (and it is still a work in progress), BMW will be forced to make a full-scale commitment if it wants to be competitive within the next ten years. The decision it made could be detrimental to the future development of the company’s EV fleet. It certainly has its work cut out for it.
And if you’re wondering, Musk said Tesla would not get into racing. The big picture deals with manufacturing and scalability, and racing is really the last of the CEO’s concerns.
On behalf of the entire Teslarati team, we’re working hard behind the scenes on bringing you more personalized members benefits, and can’t thank you enough for your continued support!
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
