News
Tesla can solve an annoying part of its cars’ ownership experience with Maxwell’s supercapacitors
When Tesla acquired Maxwell technologies, the electric vehicle community was appropriately excited. Maxwell, after all, works on projects such as dry battery electrode tech and supercapacitors, both of which are believed to hold a lot of potential in the emerging electric vehicle sector. But as the countdown to the highly-anticipated Battery Day draws near, speculations suggest that Tesla acquired Maxwell mainly due to the company’s dry battery electrode tech, not its supercapacitors. Yet according to Andrey Shigaev, CEO of Geyser Batteries, supercapacitors still hold some potential uses for Tesla’s electric cars.
In a brief interview with Teslarati, Shigaev, whose company is developing batteries that use aqueous (water-based) electrolytes, noted that while supercapacitors will likely not be involved in Tesla’s million-mile battery project, there are already a lot of local tasks in an electric vehicle that could benefit from the use of supercapacitors. Among these is smart air suspension, a feature that is currently used in the Model S and X and is expected for upcoming vehicles like the Cybertruck. But beyond this, the Geyser Batteries CEO mentioned that supercapacitors could also be utilized as a superior alternative to the 12V battery that Tesla uses for its vehicles today.
“The more stuff gets electrified, the more power you need to perform tasks. The most classical thing (that could benefit from supercapacitors) and the number one item for Tesla is the 12V battery. Supercapacitors can handle this task. If you have a high energy battery onboard, then this secondary circuit could be powered by a supercapacitor that is very efficient. It will even have an extremely long life cycle. Supercapacitors are lighter too, saving weight. And they tend to be smaller than a lead-acid battery,” Shigaev said.
Interestingly enough, the earliest versions of the original Tesla Roadster didn’t use a 12V battery. Instead, the company used a portion of the Roadster’s main lithium-ion battery pack to supply 12V for the vehicles’ accessories and lights. This did not prove ideal, however, and in 2010, Tesla switched to using a 12V battery for the Roadster 2.0. It should be noted that the 12V battery, which has been adopted in every vehicle since the Roadster 2.0, is used to keep systems such as emergency blinkers, airbags, seatbelt pre-tensioners, the MCU, and other functions operational even when a car’s main battery pack is compromised.
Being one of the few parts of the car that is still based on conventional automotive tech, the 12V battery in a Tesla tends to last only a few years. As noted by Tesla Tap, the 12V battery in a brand new Tesla could last about 3-4 years, but this could be reduced to as little as 1-2 years if the vehicle is driven frequently. This could cause annoyances among Tesla owners, especially since the 12V battery’s health could not be actively observed in the vehicle’s systems yet. Social media posts about 12V batteries in Teslas giving out are numerous, with some owners noting that it is the one aspect of the Tesla ownership experience that is still mildly infuriating.
With this in mind, the use of supercapacitors in place of the 12V battery could be pretty in-character for Tesla. Nevertheless, the Geyser CEO explained that using supercapacitors in place of the 12V battery would present some challenges as well. Among these is cost, since supercapacitors are notably more expensive than standard 12V lead-acid batteries. Yet despite this, the advantages they bring could justify their use, especially among flagship vehicles like the next-generation Roadster and the Plaid Model S and Model X.
“Supercapacitors have a main caveat. There are three drawbacks. First and foremost is energy density, which is ten times lower than lead-acid battery. Second is their price since currently, their price is astronomically larger. The third is discharge. If you leave it alone for almost one month, it would discharge completely. However, if you have an electric car and there’s a high energy battery in the car like a lithium-ion battery, that would be the power source for the vehicle,” Shigaev noted.
Other industry experts have suggested uses for Maxwell’s supercapacitors in Tesla’s electric cars in the past. Auto veteran and Munro & Associates Sr. Associate Mark Ellis previously noted that apart from dry electrode tech, Tesla could tap into Maxwell’s supercapacitors to improve its vehicles’ battery management systems.
“One of the issues with the battery is, when I step on the throttle hard, I’m pulling a lot of energy from the battery. And then, when I brake hard, I’m pulling a lot of energy out of the regen, but the batteries can’t take it fast enough. The batteries get really stressed when you try to pull it up too much, so if I had supercapacitors that I could use as a cushion; so when I need energy quickly, (I can) pull it from the supercapacitors and then fill the supercapacitors back up with the battery slowly; and then when I brake, I can capture more of that regen energy and do the supercapacitors faster. I think that just makes logical sense, because now all of a sudden I’ve got a sponge in front of my main energy source and I’m not stressing (the battery) so much,” Ellis said.
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.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
