Back when the Model 3 was unveiled, Tesla immediately attracted a good amount of criticism over the vehicle’s design. Arguments against the all-electric sedan were many, with arguments being presented against its utilization of a single 15” center display and its hyper-minimalistic interior. The vehicle’s glovebox, which could only be opened through the touchscreen, also attracted its own fair share of eyebrows.
‘Crazy’ and ‘Impractical’ Ideas
To a good number of car enthusiasts, the idea of a glovebox that can’t even be opened manually was insane. Practically all vehicles in the market, from affordable econoboxes from Japan to luxury cars from Germany employ a manual latch for the glovebox, after all. It was something that was so simple, so traditional, and here Tesla was stubbornly refusing to follow along.
It would be pretty easy to put a manual latch on the glovebox, so Tesla’s insistence on an electronically-operated mechanism seemed almost like hubris on the EV maker’s part. Tesla did roll out changes to the Model 3’s glovebox, such as a feature that automatically opens the storage area in the event of a crash. This was rolled out following an incident where a Model 3 was involved in an accident that shattered the 15” display, giving the driver a very difficult time accessing the vehicle’s title and insurance papers.
Over the years, Tesla has added numerous features to the Model 3. These include Sentry Mode, which actively monitors a vehicle’s surroundings, and TeslaCam, which acts as a built-in dashcam for the all-electric sedan on the road. The videos were saved on a flash drive that drivers would need to insert into the front USB port of the Model 3. The feature is incredibly useful, though it requires some work on the part of Tesla’s customers. This was perhaps the reason why the use of features like Sentry Mode and TeslCam are not universally used by drivers. This may change soon with the introduction of the 2021 Model 3.
Pieces of a Puzzle
For the Model 3 “refresh,” Tesla introduced a number of key updates, from a new center console and new Aero Wheels to new headlights. Minor updates were also introduced, such as a USB port inside the glovebox. A video from Hong Kong featuring a 2021 Model 3 further revealed that the USB port inside the glovebox already has a 64 GB flash disk in it. This incredibly minor change, which almost feels like an afterthought considering the Model 3’s major updates, makes features like Sentry Mode and TeslaCam much easier to use.
This makes the Model 3 more secure as well, as even thieves that are familiar with Teslas will no longer have any way to access the flash drive that contains the vehicle’s video recordings. Prior to the “refresh,” thieves could simply rip out the flash drive that holds Sentry Mode’s recordings, which is quite unlikely but still plausible. This will no longer be true with the 2021 Model 3, especially as Tesla has already added an extra layer of security in the form of “Glovebox PIN,” which was previously released through an over-the-air software update.
What is quite remarkable is that these improvements would not work as well as they do now if Tesla had included a manual latch for the Model 3’s glovebox. It was difficult to see the point behind Tesla’s stubborn refusal to include something as simple as a physical glovebox latch during the vehicle’s initial launch and release, but it appears that the feature, or lack thereof, was something that would be useful years into the vehicle’s release.
The Long Game
This is something that has become much of a theme in the Tesla story. The company or its CEO does something, and critics pounce on the opportunity to squeeze in a few shots. Products are rolled out and improved through over-the-air updates, and before the dust settles, Tesla and Elon Musk’s once-controversial strategies end up making sense. This was the case with the Model 3’s glovebox, and it would likely be true for other controversial aspects of Tesla’s vehicles as well, such as the Cybertruck’s design and novel features.
Ultimately, this tendency could very well be explained by the fact that Tesla simply looks farther ahead than any of its critics. Tesla skeptics may focus on what the company is doing now, or the state of its products today, but Elon Musk and his team are always looking into the future. This may very well be the reason why even Wall Street analysts seem to have a difficulty understanding Tesla’s business. Just recently, for example, Morgan Stanley upgraded TSLA stock to an “Overweight” rating. According to the financial firm, this is due to Tesla’s business expanding from carmaking to other segments such as software. This is something that longtime TSLA bulls have been highlighting for years.
What is rather interesting is that Tesla may continue to confound skeptics for years to come. Just like the Model 3’s glovebox, the company is still rolling out strategies and products that don’t make sense for skeptics, such as the FSD beta and features like Smart Summon. A look at Autopilot’s subpar scores in tests from organizations such as Consumer Reports highlight this point. Yet just like the humble Model 3 glovebox, perhaps features like Summon could serve a higher purpose years down the road.
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
