It is tough being Tesla. In a world where cars are becoming electric, just as the company initially intended when its mission began 18 years ago, Tesla is the top dog at the moment. Every car company in the world is nipping at its heels in an attempt to catch up to Elon Musk’s car company. However, recent developments have inspired me to look at a different kind of competition that Tesla is facing, something that feels somewhat unjust in the grand scheme of things. Unfortunately, it’s not from another car company, it’s from federal investigators and Tesla skeptics who continue to magnify the company’s accidents, all because there is the possibility that a car involved in an accident may have been operating on Autopilot.
Earlier this week, a Model Y was involved in a crash in Michigan. What turned out to be a case of reckless driving was initially blamed on the possibility of Autopilot by mainstream media sources. Unfortunately for them, their credibility regarding Tesla vehicles continues to be chipped away as they sacrifice long-term trustworthiness in the field of electric vehicles for short-term viewership. A Tesla was in fact in an accident in Detroit, and yes, the NHTSA was investigating it. There’s no reason to go any more broad than that.
Unfortunately, Tesla’s rollout of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving has put the company at risk for these types of stories. Anytime a Tesla crashes, the first thing that is planted in people’s minds is the possibility that the car may have been using the semi-autonomous driving functionalities. Why? Human beings are still responsible for operating the car even when the vehicle is utilizing the state-of-the-art technology. It is in no way the car’s fault when the driver is still responsible for the ultimate operation of the vehicle. It’s like blaming a fork for obesity, in my eyes.
While it is unfortunate that there have been deaths due to Autopilot, there are instances where gross negligence from the driver is truly the cause of an accident. For example, in a case where speed and reckless driving is truly the factor, there needs to be an immediate clarification by investigating officers. Perhaps Tesla could provide some clarification to authorities in some kind of system where officers could give the VIN of a vehicle involved, and Tesla could determine immediately whether the car was operating using its driver assistance features. Obviously, there may be a better way. But in the short-term, especially in the early days of the FSD Beta, the credibility of the vehicle’s systems is extremely important for future rollouts.
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
Statistically, Tesla vehicles are much safer than human drivers, to begin with. Recent Q4 2020 Safety Report statistics from Tesla show that one accident occurred with Autopilot every 3.45 million miles. The national average is 484,000 miles. Isn’t that enough to prove Autopilot is a better option than human driving? By the way, it only gets more accurate and precise with every mile driven thanks to its Neural Networks that attain new data.
The exposure Tesla receives after one of these tragic accidents is likely what is the most frustrating. Immediately, people jump to conclusions and assume the car was responsible for the issues. It’s interesting though because I can’t ever recall a single instance of media jumping all over an issue with SuperCruise or any of the other numerous driver assistance systems that are out on the market today. I am sure there has been coverage, I just can’t recall any instance where it has been a national headline like Tesla seems to be included in on a regular basis.
In all honesty, it is just extremely frustrating to know that there is so much focus on Tesla’s shortcomings instead of its broad successes. I am a TSLA investor, but I am also extremely critical of the company at times, and I believe it is because of my holdings. There are times I would do things differently. I was vocal about my distaste for not telling any Model Y LR RWD reservation holders that their cars weren’t going to be made. I am upset that there is relatively no communication with Model S Plaid reservation holders regarding their steering wheels. I am not a fan that we’ve been told Semi/Roadster production is imminent on numerous occasions but we are still sitting here with neither of those vehicles. I get the bottlenecks, but I think those things have just frustrated me personally.
I’m glad Tesla spends $0 on advertising. The news outlets & media don’t deserve Teslas money. It’s better used growing the company & for things like building next-gen factories. Ford and GM alone will spend over $5B this year on US advertising. The bias is clear and money talks.
— Sawyer Merritt ?? (@SawyerMerritt) March 17, 2021
However, I am also going to admit when things are just plain unfair, and Tesla is a victim of that on so many occasions. I don’t know if that has to do with oil money lining the pockets of MSM, or it is just an attempt to derail a company that has really disrupted the automotive industry. I won’t speculate. There is, of course, a reason for the investigations that could be beneficial. It could just be an attempt to learn from the mistakes of Tesla and pass them along for future instances. Unfortunately, there will be more accidents with self-driving software, and it will go far beyond Tesla. However, Tesla is the only company with a robust self-driving program, so the microscope almost needs to be on them at times, but that’s where this whole situation really gets sticky.
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!
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
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.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
