News
Follow the Leader: Tesla’s Influence on Other Manufacturers
As enthusiasts of Tesla’s automobiles and what comes with them in terms of technology, we all know that their cars offer things that no other manufacturer can offer. This is not only because of Tesla’s sizeable lead in battery technology and entertainment features but simply because the cars provide a design and aesthetic that is just different than others. We all know Tesla seems to handle themselves in a more “fun” way than any other large company that builds vehicles; one would only have to see Fart Mode to know that this company is a lot different than others.
However, we see carmakers adapt more and more to Tesla’s style, technology, look, and demeanor. Every day, it seems like another company is doing something that is geared toward taking a chunk out of Tesla’s market. This idea does not only have to do with the company’s increasing performance and technology standards, but even entertainment features offered by Tesla are influencing other carmakers to do the same thing.
Earlier this week, it was announced that BMW would be offering a Tri-Motor performance electric car that would be released in 2023 or 2024. The M5 EV from the German automaker is poised to outperform Tesla’s highest-performing vehicles, like the Model S P100D or the yet-to-be-released Model S outfitted with Plaid Mode.
Speaking of Plaid Mode, when comparing the M5 to Tesla’s revised Model S Powertrain, it is a pretty similar idea. Both cars offer Tri-Motor setups with massive amounts of Horsepower: the BMW having 1,000+ and the Plaid Mode Model S, while unconfirmed, will likely have around 800 ponies. Both cars are obviously geared toward fast, high-performance driving with crazy acceleration points for 0-60 MPH.
BMW had to realize that when the Plaid Model S does release, it will likely be the only car that real speed enthusiasts will buy if they want an EV. While some may choose to spend an extra 100 grand on the Tesla Roadster, some will want a more versatile vehicle that they can use for everyday driving. Nobody has really even challenged Tesla in this portion of the industry except for Porsche, whose Taycan offers excellent performance capabilities but has fallen short of what people expect in terms of range.
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.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
In terms of battery performance, GM has been the automaker that comes to mind when thinking of those who want to challenge Tesla. A few weeks ago, I wrote an interesting op-ed on GM’s 180 degree perspective of Tesla. Nine years ago, GM executives claimed Tesla would be “in the graveyard” due to money management and lacking vehicle technology. But just a few weeks ago, GM came out and said, “We’re close to a million-mile battery, too!” Directly acknowledging Tesla’s lead in battery tech, GM realized even to begin to compete with Tesla down the road, things better change, and developments better start happening…and they better start happening fast.
Now, I am sure many, if not all, of the newsletter readers, have heard of Xpeng in some capacity. Whether it is Tesla’s current lawsuit with the Chinese automaker or the striking similarities in the company’s website, the brand has become a pretty popular name within the EV industry. I am going to focus on the latter portion, with the website comparison, along with another example of Tesla’s influence on Xpeng.
The website: Woah. Talk about similarities. Not only does Xpeng’s general website look just like Tesla’s, but their ordering page for the P7 holds striking similarities compared to the ordering page for the Model S, Model 3, Model X, and Model Y. It is basically a carbon copy, see for yourself.
Not only did Xpeng use Tesla’s website design, but their cars can also dance as an Easter Egg. Boy, that sure does sound familiar too…*cough cough* Model X.
In terms of disrupting Tesla’s sector, two examples come to mind: GM’s Electric Van and Nikola’s series of Electric Semis.
Now, Tesla obviously does not have a van, but they may make a twelve-seater for Boring Company tunnels. But interestingly enough, GM’s most significant concern for making a van was to beat Tesla to the punch. That’s what a UPS Fleet Director said because he realizes that a battery-powered van could disrupt the commercial industry as a whole. He actually compared it to the Model 3’s disruption of consumer sedans.
Nikola is sort of a different story compared to what I’ve talked about thus far. This is a company that is planning to offer a pickup and several Semi-trucks that will use sustainable energy (depending on what your ideas about hydrogen are). But we know the Tesla Semi is going to do some real damage in the Semi market because of its impressive performance standards. A lot of pre-orders from a lot of big companies, and it will surely disrupt a sizeable industry, especially when companies with environmental concerns have it available to them and see what the Semi is capable of.
More interesting to me, though, is the company name. Really original. We should call them Edison at this point.
So what does all of this mean? What’s the big idea?
Tesla is not the company in the EV sector. Tesla is THE company in the automotive industry altogether.
Forget about batteries or entertainment or vehicle design. Tesla is the company right now in the entire industry. There is no comparison. We have EV companies gunning for them, gas-powered legacy automakers after them; there are no limits. Everyone wants a slice of the Tesla pie. And who can blame them?
—————————————————–
Please consider Subscribing and joining me next week as I go ‘Beyond the News’
—————————————————-
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
