News
Tesla’s manufacturing advantage lies in legacy auto’s stranded assets
Tesla’s focus on manufacturing has solved a vast number of issues that the electric automaker has encountered in its first few years of mass-scale vehicle production. With only two operational vehicle production facilities and several more on the way, Tesla’s biggest advantage in production doesn’t necessarily come down to efficiencies and solving bottlenecks. Instead, it has to do with something completely out of its control: Legacy Auto’s stranded assets.
Large vehicle manufacturers have pumped out millions of vehicles per year in sometimes between 50 and 100, sometimes more, global facilities. Volkswagen, for example, has 136 production plants across the world. This massive production operation lead to 9.3 million VW cars being delivered in 2020, a slight decrease from the nearly 11 million in 2019. However, the COVID-19 pandemic surely wiped away some of its productivity and sales.
But Volkswagen is also in limbo, much like many other automakers. Despite being one of the world’s top brands, a decline is on the way if the German company can’t figure out its electric car software issues. Even if it does, it still has 136 production plants and only a few of them build electric cars. However, all of the company’s plants will need to be transitioned into EV production facilities, a far cry away from the current gas-powered powertrains it currently builds at 98% of its properties.
It’s not just Volkswagen
Mercedes-Benz has 93 locations in 17 countries. BMW has 31 facilities in 15 countries. Ford has 65 plants all across the world.
These plants have been everything to the world’s largest car brands for decades. While the automotive industry has been powered on petrol for 99% of the auto industry’s history, EVs are slowly but surely making their way into the picture. Eventually, with so many plants for the legacy automakers, they will all build electric powertrains. But unfortunately, what has been a strength for so many car companies in the past will soon become a burden as EVs take over market share, become more appealing and more sought after by consumers, and gas cars are few and far between because electrification has taken over. The biggest, most successful, most popular badges on vehicles worldwide will soon have a serious problem on their hands if they do not think about a plan to transition these facilities into EV manufacturing plants.
Time is of the essence
Volkswagen did complete ICE production at its Zwickau plant in Mosel, Germany, in June 2020. After the company announced that the final gas-powered engine had rolled off production lines at the plant, it then came down to training all technicians, assembly workers, and production engineers on how to deal with electric powertrains.
The company stated that 20,500 total days of training time would be given to those who hold jobs at Zwickau, giving the employees no reservations about the direction the German automaker was headed toward. The entire process of transitioning the plant took six to eight months.
This is great, but when a company has 136 plants, that’s a lot of time, many people to train, and a lot of money to spend. Eventually, the plants that have pumped out billions of dollars worth of ICE cars will be rendered useless unless companies begin to update their hardware, train the employees, and prepare for an electric future.
Is delaying EV projects a result of stranded assets?
Companies are smart; there are plenty of reasons why these car companies have long been at the top of the industry. Knowing that the trillions of dollars that they have pumped into building a global powerhouse of production facilities could all be a waste as ICE cars are slowly being phased out is alarming, but perhaps this is why so many companies have avoided focusing on EVs: the thought of modifying so many plants is terrifying.
Nevertheless, it will need to be done eventually. But right now, especially in such a trying economic time, manufacturers are trying to save their faces and their balance sheets by keeping this narrative that EVs are not that important, that gas cars will still dominate, and that consumers should continue to buy petrol-powered machines. Manufacturers continue to push consumers in a direction, even if they know it doesn’t align with climate issues or sustainability because they know that their plants will need major updating. This takes time and money, and car companies don’t have a lot of that.
Tesla Model Y loses another rival after BMW cancels iX3’s US launch
For these legacy automakers, it makes more sense to push gas cars onto consumers and set aside any notions of an EV being a better option, simply because they haven’t made one that is worth a damn…yet.
How is this Tesla’s Advantage?
Tesla is sitting in a prime position to dominate the EV sector for years to come. It is no secret that the company’s vehicles are the highest quality electric cars on the planet; range and performance and contributed to this for several years. However, EVs are the way of the future, and while Tesla has to build new plants to build EVs, it isn’t building them at the massive scale that ICE manufacturers are building their cars. EVs are still a relatively small portion of the worldwide automotive market, and Tesla’s growth is on par with the industry as a whole, mostly because they are controlling it for the time being.
Tesla won’t have to build 136 plants. It won’t have to transition old factories that are pumping out useless powertrains. It will have to build more, but that won’t halt production altogether, especially considering the two factories it has now are handling demand without much of an issue.
Tesla’s plants are going to be assets for centuries to come. Meanwhile, other automakers have focused on the global scaling of their vehicle fleets, only realizing that their strategically placed production plants will all be useless in a few years unless companies begin transitioning their once high-powered manufacturing facilities to EV-based production lines.
What do you think? Leave a comment down below. Got a tip? Email us at tips@teslarati.com or reach out to me at joey@teslarati.com.
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
