News
Tesla Model 3 Performance endures 31 hard launches with no throttling
The Tesla Model 3 could be considered as the electric car maker’s endurance champion in its current lineup. Not quite as quick as a Model S or Model X Performance in Ludicrous Plus Mode but capable of being driven hard for extended periods in a racetrack, the Model 3 Performance is a vehicle that has charmed even the staunchest gearheads of motoring media. Top Gear host Chris Harris, for one, described the Model 3 Performance as an “AK-47 disguised as a butter knife” during his review of the vehicle, which he found to be too plain in design compared to comparable ICE cars like the BMW M3. It should be noted that after his review, Harris noted on Twitter that he will be buying a Model 3 Performance for himself soon.
The Model 3’s endurance, both on the track and the highway, has been tested and proven by professionals and enthusiasts alike. Tesla and electric vehicle veteran Bjorn Nyland tested the Model 3 in the Autobahn last June, going flat at full speed in an attempt to overheat the car. He failed. The same is true for other reviewers such as Harris, who pitted the Model 3 Performance against the BMW M3-beating Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio in a time attack battle. True to Elon Musk’s statements on Twitter, the Model 3 Performance, thanks to its instant torque that allows the vehicle to launch from 0-60 mph in 3.2 seconds, soundly beat the Giulia Q4 in a closed circuit.
Last week, Porsche made headlines when the company allowed Fifth Gear and Fully Charged host Jonny Smith to take one of its Taycan Turbo pre-production vehicles for a launch mode repeatability test. Conducted on an empty airfield, the test involved the EV veteran launching the Taycan Turbo at max power 26 times with no power throttling. The exhibition was impressive, and it invoked just how much work Porsche has put into the Taycan and its development. The Taycan’s feat also brought comparisons to Tesla’s Model S P100D, which was quicker off the line with its 0-60 mph time of 2.4 seconds, but is prone to limiting its power after multiple max power launches.
After watching the Taycan’s demonstration, Tesla owner Patrick Lawson opted to see if his vehicle, a Tesla Model 3 Performance, could accomplish multiple max power launches without losing power as well. Accompanied by his son, Lawson headed to a (mostly) empty stretch of road to test the endurance of his Model 3. In a message to Teslarati, the Tesla owner noted that with Track Mode on, he figured that his vehicle should be able to perform comparably to the Taycan.
By the 10th 0-60 mph test, Lawson noted that he was already feeling the effects of the Model 3’s multiple hard launches. The father and son duo continued over the next 30 minutes, hitting 31 consecutive launches in the Model 3. At that point, Lawson noted that his son was probably good for about 10 more launches, but that was about all he could handle. Interestingly, the Model 3 Performance, just like the Porsche Taycan Turbo, did not throttle its power at all. The 31st launch registered a 0-60 mph time of 3.11 seconds, which is in the same territory as the Taycan Turbo.
Granted, Lawson’s test did not involve the same parameters as Fully Charged’s test of Porsche’s all-electric car. The Taycan Turbo, for one, performed 26 runs that topped up at speeds of 200 kph (124 mph), while Lawson’s Model 3 Performance test only involved 31 0-60/0-70 mph runs. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the Tesla owner’s tests were conducted on a public road in the United States, which usually have speed limits of around 60-70 mph.
The Tesla Model 3 could be considered, in more ways than one, as a Trojan Horse of sorts. While the vehicle is considered as the “cheaper” Tesla (and this is accurate, of course), and while the vehicle experienced a notable period of anti-selling by the company, the electric car has been showing signs that there is more to it than meets the eye. With track capability and a price point that is notably more affordable than other premium EVs in the market, the Model 3 will likely be the vehicle that ultimately brings electric cars into the mainstream.
Watch Partick Lawson and his son’s Tesla Model 3 Performance 31-launch endurance test in the video below.
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
