Earlier this week, Tesla reduced the price of the Model S by $3,000. When a price change is applied to any of Tesla’s vehicles, it is usually a race between media outlets to report it first. I believe that many news sites look at it as an opportunity to have a post with high views, and being the first to report it could lead to that. Also, with human beings remaining relatively misinformed about EVs and Teslas’ prices in specific, whenever a price drop is applied, it is a huge deal.
But the reason for misinformation spreads to journalists as well. I found myself shocked at the Fox Business article that implied that Tesla was undergoing some sort of “sales slide.” At least, that’s what they put in their headline.
Baffled at what I had read, I felt compelled to post it on Twitter and LinkedIn (the only two forms of social media I have) and set the record straight. While it is true that the percentage of the Model S sales has gone down, it is untrue that Tesla, or the flagship sedan, is seeing record low numbers because of a “sales slide.”
https://twitter.com/KlenderJoey/status/1316017793070850053
First, Tesla just had its most successful quarter in terms of production and deliveries in Q3. 139,300 cars were delivered, and 145,036 cars were produced at Fremont and Giga Shanghai. Nothing about that indicates a sales slide, especially considering the massive growth during the quarter in both deliveries and production.
The Model S and Model X were delivered 15,200 times during the quarter. Yes, this is a relatively small percentage, just a tad more than 10% of the total deliveries that Tesla performed over the course of the quarter. It is a 33% growth from the last quarter, where the company only delivered around 10,000 of the two vehicles.
In my opinion, it isn’t that Tesla’s flagship sedan is “less popular” or even “slumping” in terms of sales. I think that the Model Y and Model 3 are simply better options for most car buyers. I’ll tell you why.
First, we have their price. The Model 3 and Model Y have better price points, and they are Tesla’s first two mass-market vehicles. This means that the prices will fit more budgets, and it will be a more popular vehicle because of that.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
Secondly, the Model 3 and Model Y technology is significantly better than the Model S and Model X. Of course, the Model S has a lot of power, and the Model X has those awesome falcon-wing doors that everyone freaks out about. But in terms of sheer technology, the Model 3 and Model Y are just better options. They are minimalistic, they are newer designs, and they are also operating with better batteries than the Model S and Model X.
The Model 3 is, as far as we know, still utilizing the 2170 cells, while some speculation suggests that Tesla could already be putting the 4680 cells in the Model Y. These cells are not only more affordable, but they’re also more efficient, offer better power, and their energy capacity is greater.
The Model S and the Model X are still using the 18650 battery cells, which are still great batteries. The Model S has an EPA record 402 miles of range, and they both have 100 kWh battery packs in their performance models, which makes them a better option for the speed demons out there. Nevertheless, battery tech has gotten better since the Model S and Model X have been built, and neither of these cars has undergone a refresh, which brings me to my next point.
Buying a Model 3 or a Model Y ensures that a car buyer has the most up-to-date Tesla technology available. In addition to the already more minimalist design that the 3 and the Y offer, these two cars’ look is fresh in people’s minds. The Model 3 literally just underwent a refresh last night, and the Model Y is only seven months old as of right now.
Meanwhile, the Model S and Model X have relatively the same design as they did when they were released. The only things that have really changed are the available colors and the grille, which are minor cosmetic modifications. I love the look of the S and the X, but some people out there need the most updated versions of things. That is why we see so many people waiting for Apple to release a new phone, even though theirs works perfectly fine.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting something new. I get it. Believe me, I will be one of the first people in Pennsylvania to have a PS5, but that’s a $500 purchase. A car is $35,000 at the least if you want a Tesla.
All of this brings me to my point: These large-scale media networks reporting price cuts should just report the price cuts. Nothing more, and nothing less. There is no reason for these media outlets who have no idea what they’re talking about to sit there and suggest that the Model S is having a sales slide when they are still selling a healthy amount of vehicles.
Even Tesla knows that the Model S and Model X are not going to be big factors in the company’s future growth. That’s why the company has confined production to Fremont and hasn’t expanded it to Shanghai or even mentioned it with Giga, Texas. There is no need to. Remember, Tesla’s ultimate mission is to accelerate sustainable energy and transportation, not turn a massive profit with really fast cars. If that were the case, I’m sure the Roadster would already be built and roaming around the streets of California being driven by celebrities and Tesla referral code masters.
There is a real danger here with the way media outlets are angling their headlines. Ultimately, Tesla is doing a great job of expanding its presence in the automotive market. If mainstream media was more responsible with its reporting, could Tesla’s popularity be even more widespread at this point?
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!
On behalf of the entire Teslarati team, we’re working hard behind the scenes on bringing you more personalized members benefits, and can’t thank you enough for your continued support!
News
Tesla Robotaxi-only Superchargers are starting to appear
For Tesla, these Robotaxi-only Superchargers represent more than convenient parking spots. They are the first bricks in a vertically integrated autonomy platform—vehicles, energy, and software working in seamless concert.
Tesla is starting to build out Robotaxi-only Superchargers as the company is truly leaning on its Full Self-Driving and autonomy efforts to solve passenger travel.
Last week, the company filed pre-permits in Arizona’s East Valley for two dedicated, non-public charging sites stocked with next-generation V4 Superchargers. The filings mark the first visible evidence of purpose-built infrastructure exclusively for autonomous Tesla vehicles, as they state they are not for public use.
In Chandler, Tesla plans to install 56 V4 stalls on an industrial parcel along South Roosevelt Avenue. Site documents describe a high-capacity setup supported by new SRP transformers, switching cabinets, and upgrades to existing underground lines.
A second site in Mesa, located at 5349 E Main Street in another industrial zone, carries the same private-use designation. Both locations sit well away from public roads and customer traffic, ensuring the chargers serve only Tesla’s internal fleet.
The sites were spotted by Supercharger observer MarcoRP.
On the same day, Tesla also submitted a draft for another proposed location in the city of Mesa, also listed as private use.
This site is located in an industrial area on the east side of the city. pic.twitter.com/jCC1IsKKKw
— MarcoRP (@MarcoRPi1) April 17, 2026
Phoenix’s East Valley offers an ideal launchpad for Robotaxi Supercharging: the location has a clean, grid-like street layout and year-round mild weather that minimizes camera degradation. Additionally, Arizona has welcomed self-driving pilots since Waymo’s early days.
By securing private depots now, Tesla can optimize charging cycles, reduce downtime, and maintain full control over vehicle hygiene and security, critical factors for high-utilization Robotaxi operations.
The type of Supercharger is telling as well, as they are V4, Tesla’s fastest and most efficient buildout.
V4 stalls deliver faster power and support bidirectional charging, features that will let idle Robotaxis feed energy back to the grid during off-peak hours. Because the sites are closed to the public, Tesla avoids congestion, vandalism risks, and the scheduling conflicts that plague shared stations.
The timing is telling. With unsupervised Full Self-Driving hardware already rolling out across the lineup and Cybercab production targets looming, Tesla is shifting from vehicle development to ecosystem readiness.
Charging infrastructure has historically been the gating factor for ride-hailing scale; building it ahead of the vehicles signals confidence that regulatory and technical hurdles are nearing resolution.
Tesla has been spotted testing Cybercab units in Arizona over the past few months, as well.
Interestingly, the permits show V4 Superchargers in the plans, although Cybercab will likely utilize wireless charging:
Tesla Cybercab spotted with interesting charging solution, stimulating discussion
For Tesla, these Robotaxi-only Superchargers represent more than convenient parking spots. They are the first bricks in a vertically integrated autonomy platform—vehicles, energy, and software working in seamless concert.
It appears Tesla is preparing to begin building out Robotaxi-only Superchargers to avoid the congestion and keep its autonomous fleet charged up to get ride-hailers to their destinations.
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Tesla Robotaxi-only Superchargers are starting to appear
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
