News
‘Tesla Killers’ are like Bigfoot: They don’t exist and they never will
The term “Tesla Killer” should be retired for the rest of time. For years, automakers across the world have released their introductory electric cars into the quickly growing EV sector. With plans written out and cool, sporty photographs and renders of the “next big thing” in the EV sector being released by some of the world’s largest and oldest car company’s, many media outlets, including this one, have referred to some cars as “Tesla Killers” because that is what automakers are trying to do: knock Tesla off of its pedestal and try to derail some of the momentum that Elon Musk’s company has gained through the past several years.
The problem is this: These cars that are always coined as “Tesla Killers” never pan out to what they’re supposed to be. They’re all hype and relatively no real threat to Tesla or any of its vehicles. In all honesty, “Tesla Killers” are like Bigfoot. You always hear about them, but you never see them, and in the back of your mind, you think that it could be real, but more than likely, it isn’t.
I will admit, there are cars out there that have legitimate potential to derail some of Tesla’s momentum. I think the Lucid Air could be a great competitor to the Model S, and I think Rivian’s R1T could be a great option for potential Cybertruck owners. Some great cars are coming to the market, but none of them are worthy of being deemed a “Tesla Killer.”
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.
The fact is, the word “killer,” when attributed to everything, means it is a complete ending to any chance of success when used in the comparison of two things. A “Tesla Killer” would have to make a competing car model obsolete, killing it off from the market, and this simply doesn’t happen in the automotive world, at least in my opinion. Even if cars have slumpy sales records or slow months, someone will still buy that car eventually, no matter how crappy, inadequate, or ineffective that vehicle is.
The truth is that all of the cars labeled as “Tesla Killers” have always fallen short. I can remember the Mercedes-Benz EQC donning the label, only to sell barely any units and have the German automaker reconsidering its stance on EVs. The same thing was said about the EQS unveiling. While it is a beautiful car, does anyone really think it’s going to make Tesla reconsider its plans for future models or make it redesign any of its current ones?
Once-deemed ‘Tesla killer’ Mercedes EQC flops with 55 units sold in Germany to date
No, it won’t. It’s not an “it likely won’t” or “there’s a small chance.” It won’t happen. Period.
Tesla is on the top of the EV sector. Like it or not, nobody can really compete with them currently, and vaporware is the only real threat to Tesla’s current momentum. For years, these car companies have said they will build these incredible EVs with all of these great features. Towing capabilities, wading depth, 0-60 MPH times that are more than impressive, astronomical range ratings. You name it, one of these car companies has said it. But how many times, honestly, has a car company kept its word with an EV that it plans to release? How many times have these car companies with decades or even a century of experience come up short? How many times have EV enthusiasts been promised “the next big thing in the EV sector,” only to come up short and revise their plans?
The truth is, it happens more often than not. Car companies need to start getting honest about their issues when developing EVs. I believe transparency, not hopeless promises, is the key to winning over the incredibly loyal EV enthusiasts that make up the community. It is no secret that Tesla owners and fans are quite dismissive toward competitors. Can you really blame them? Can you see how for years, these other car companies have made all of these promises, only for their entire plan to crumble apart like an extra dry cookie?
This isn’t to say that Tesla is perfect, and it isn’t to say that they won’t eventually fall off of their pedestal. Tesla has plenty of issues. They’re dealing with supply constraints, timing inaccuracies, production bottlenecks, and delays in permissions (especially in Berlin). The company also has major issues with customer service and communication, something that has been a complaint in more recent memory. However, Tesla rarely misses when it comes to its cars. Yes, some come later than the company says, but there’s no denying that many of the specs it releases for its vehicles are accurate. No matter how astronomical or outlandish some specs may seem, Tesla usually makes good on its promises.
This is something that other automakers that have been deemed “Tesla Killers” simply haven’t done. They may put fancy names, specs, and features on their cars, but they either fall short and aren’t as effective as they say the car will be, or the car just gets delayed for several years until the companies have put in the correct infrastructure for adequate production.
“Tesla Killers” do not exist. They never have, and they never will. There will never be a car that comes along and makes a Tesla completely obsolete in the EV market. Besides, all of these companies producing “Tesla Killers” wouldn’t even plan to manufacture EVs if it wasn’t for Tesla. Let’s face it; these cars are really “Saviors” to whatever manufacturer they belong to because if they weren’t being planned or produced, these companies would be obsolete in a few years, especially as the EV sector continues to gain momentum and take market share away from petrol-powered machines.
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!
-Joey
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
