Lucid’s unveiling of the Air was impressive; there is no doubt about that. It has all the ingredients for a great electric car: Speed, power, capability, luxuriousness, range, quality engineering, and a team of highly-dedicated engineers who are working to improve upon the already solid foundation that the company has laid down.
Immediately, what thought came to my mind while watching the presentation was, “They’re legit.” It is evident that Lucid was taking things seriously and was not using a bunch of fancy B-roll and suspenseful music to sell a product that wasn’t in production. No way. Lucid was dead serious about their car, and they recognize that until production begins and the Air starts being delivered to consumers, they haven’t accomplished a damn thing.
That’s a refreshing mindset in today’s day and age. To be honest, I understand a lot of companies are coming out and saying that they’re the next big thing. They’re the next Tesla, and their EV platform is the one that is going to solve all the problems.
These claims have come up empty time and time again. But Lucid definitely took a different approach. While describing and laying out the Air piece by piece for viewers to gauge thoughts on, the company’s CEO Peter Rawlinson was vocally supportive of Lucid’s efforts this far. However, he knows that the hard work is far from over. Just ask Elon Musk, who called Model 3 manufacturing “production hell” a few years ago.
That is what is super respectable about Lucid. They know that production is the real test, and it is one that never ends. After manufacturing begins and cars are delivered, there will be room for celebration, and there will be time to look at the accomplishments over the last five years. Until then, it’s hard work and grinding it out.
But it begs the question, can Lucid catch up to Tesla? Is this possible?
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.
Tesla has a considerably-sized head start by a few years over Lucid, and Tesla has already been given the nod that it has a multi-year advantage over some of the biggest companies in the world. Volkswagen and Audi have both admitted it in the past, but their focus has not primarily been on EVs. Gas cars have filled the minds of VW CEOs for years.
Ever since VW has started manufacturing the ID.3 and ID.4, they have been plagued with a variety of issues that have been software related. Volkswagen has fantastic engineering, and the problems they have faced have been hindering the company’s ability to release a quality EV promptly.
Now, VW has an extensive and successful history in automotive manufacturing. While they have only a few years of experience with developing electric cars, they have still stumbled from time to time, and this is after having so many years of manufacturing experience.
Lucid could experience some of those problems when the production of the Air begins. These issues could be a big problem because they may delay the ultimate delivery date of the Dream Edition, which is Spring 2021.
However, there is a chance that Lucid has worked out all of the kinks. Let’s not forget that Lucid didn’t spring up overnight. It was originally Atieva and was founded in 2007. It seems that a lot of the significant work was done when Peter Rawlinson came on, who worked for Tesla and helped with the Model S.
Rawlinson is a seasoned and experienced veteran, and he has done some awe-inspiring things with Lucid thus far. But is there a chance that Lucid can catch up to Tesla? Sure, but what proof is there that they have a chance?
First off, it is the range. 517 miles of range in the Air, which is impressive considering it is only a 113 kWh battery pack. This is an unheard-of amount of traveling distance in an EV and is considerably more than the Model S’ 402-mile rating. Next, the performance of the Air is critical to the company’s competition with Tesla. The Air is faster than the Model S Performance, but will it be faster than the Plaid Mode Model S? It is unknown, but many seem to think that the newly-engineered flagship sedan from Tesla will be the perfect answer to the Air. Whether that becomes a reality or not remains to be seen.
What is ultimately essential with the development of the Air is we can see that real EV manufacturers are coming to light with competitive products. For so long, legacy automakers have pumped out half-hearted attempts at producing an electric car. They throw a low kWh battery pack into a sedan, give it 100 miles of range and call it “the next big thing.” News flash: it isn’t. If you want to compete in this sector, you have to give consumers a reason to want your vehicle over a Tesla, which is really the benchmark at this point, especially since the Model 3 is widely affordable.
Lucid answered a lot of those questions on Wednesday night. They proved that their car is worth it, and they have plenty of things that could be “better” than what Tesla has to offer. But, it might not be for long, because Elon Musk is the master at taking the wind from a competitor’s sails when a new product is launched.
In reality, anything can happen. But the good news is the fact that Tesla now has a real competitor who seems to be serious about EV manufacturing. There is no goal way down the road for production, and their car works and is tested. With the competition, Tesla could see its best days yet, and Lucid could ultimately be another driving force behind widespread EV adoption.
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
