News
‘Tesla Killers’ are struggling to live up to their names
Given the struggles faced by most new electric vehicle (EV) releases over the last few years, it may be time to put away the phrase ‘Tesla Killer’ in favor of a more realistic label like ‘Tesla Kind-of Competitor.’ With brands like Faraday Future and Fisker Inc. already come and (almost) gone in the same EV arena that Tesla continues to thrive in, each new entrant looks to be the next at-risk for being an ‘also-ran’ in the quest for success in the consumer market.
As more tech knowledge is gained, supply deals are made, and Tesla continues educating potential buyers about the positive realities of electric car ownership, perhaps the ‘Tesla Killer’ label will be bandied about again. In the meantime, however, competitors like the Jaguar I-PACE and the Audi e-tron are left with the cold, hard reality: They’re just not Tesla, and that’s not yet a good thing for shoppers to be thinking about their product right now.
“If a customer is choosing the I-PACE over the comparable Tesla, they are making the conscious decision: I don’t want the Tesla,” said Ed Kim, an analyst at the car-market research and consulting firm AutoPacific, as quoted in an article on Bloomberg about Tesla’s struggling competition. “You really have to be someone who doesn’t like Tesla, who doesn’t want the Tesla product, in order to go for this.”
The e-tron and the I-PACE might actually stand a good chance at breaking into a market dominated by Tesla given their brands’ experience and financial resources in the automotive world already. As Bloomberg’s article pointed out, their sales numbers are going to have to perk up soon, though, and given some advertising tactics taken up by both brands, they’re aware of this need. Jaguar is currently offering a $3,000 ‘Tesla Conquest’ incentive, meaning current Tesla owners buying an I-PACE will receive an additional $3,000 credit towards their purchase as part of a combined $15,000 savings package program. Last month, Audi infamously decided to block Superchargers in order to spark marketing-driven conversations with Tesla owners there to ‘fill’ up.
There are a variety of reasons why ‘Tesla Killers’ aren’t living up to their name – some are speculation and some have pretty solid facts to support their case. Getting a late start in the EV game is probably the most glaring shortcoming of Tesla’s competitors, but that’s not always the determining factor. Although Tesla is lauded as a technology company that also makes cars, a sentiment expressed to applaud their achievements, there’s no rule saying they will keep that crown forever. (My source: Pirates of Silicon Valley meets Tesla Goes to China). With the kind of deep pockets legacy auto still has, they could throw their money around and make some magic happen there, if you will.
Education of the sales force seems to be a serious shortcoming as well, especially according to owners who’ve experienced it directly. In early July this year, one Jaguar I-PACE owner shared a very frustrating tale with Teslarati which involved his car failing to meet its stated battery range by a significant amount, a lack of working charge stations, and delays in servicing due to limited know-how when it came to the company’s new electric vehicle. Tesla is often chided for its growing pains in service, but legacy auto doesn’t always have a pristine record, and Tesla is always working to improve and can move at an incredible speed to do so.
Then there are theories put forth by people like Sandy Munro, a teardown specialist who has made waves in the Tesla community for his comments about the Model 3 manufacturing process. Commenting on the underwhelming battery range from Tesla competitors such as the Audi e-tron and the Jaguar I-PACE in an interview with Sean Mitchell of AllThingsEV, Munro noted that this is simply because of their lack of vertical integration. “(It’s) because they’re buying them from somebody else,” he mused. Other comments made in the interview involved the long-term nature of any battery development outside of Tesla and the major battery manufacturers thanks to patents and licensing requirements. In other words, Jaguar and Audi might not be victims of ‘you snooze, you loose,’ per se, but rather ‘you don’t stay awake, you pay.’
To the extent that it’s amusing watching Tesla move so far ahead in the EV race, it’s not a terrible thing if they end of sharing the stage a bit with others down the road. Elon Musk has noted on several occasions that Tesla alone can’t achieve the total transformation that’s needed to achieve his sustainability goals. It’s good that others are trying, and a handful of actual ‘Tesla Killers’ that keep the brand on its toes is good for everyone, even those just in it for the cool factor. Better competition for Tesla means Tesla just gets better. Then they get better to keep up. And so it goes.
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
