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!
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
