Connect with us

Investor's Corner

Tesla shorts drive Pulitzer-winning journalist off Twitter after glowing review of Model 3 Performance

Published

on

The Tesla Model 3 recently got its first professional review from a veteran auto journalist. In an article published in the Wall Street Journal, Pulitzer-winning journalist Dan Neil gave the Model 3 performance a glowing review, stating that the car is a “magnificent” piece of automotive engineering that is “representative of the next step in the history of autos.”

Tesla is currently offering test drives for the Model 3 Performance in selected showrooms across the United States. Key publications such as CNET‘s Roadshow also posted teasers about an upcoming review of the vehicle. Based on Neil’s report, the Model 3 Performance is being touted as one of the electric car company’s best vehicles as of date — one that can push Tesla to new heights.

Dan Neil’s review of the Model 3 Performance was largely positive. Though he stated that the car would have performed better had it been equipped with better tires, and he likened the vehicle’s 15-inch touchscreen as the “broken flower pot on Mona Lisa’s head,” Neil was nonetheless impressed by the electric sedan. Neil noted in his WSJ article that while Tesla as a company has its own fair share of issues, including those fueled by CEO Elon Musk’s actions on Twitter, the Model 3 Performance is a star, considering its speed, raw power, and handling. Neil’s observations about the car’s performance mirrored some of the conclusions of Sandy Munro, who conducted a teardown of the Long Range RWD Model 3. Just like Neil, Munro gave a positive review of the vehicle’s capabilities, even stating that whoever designed and tuned the Model 3’s suspension could easily be an “F1 Prince.”

Neil’s positive review did not sit well with Tesla’s staunchest critics. His Twitter feed, for one, was quickly filled with vitriol. The comments section of his Model 3 Performance review in the Wall Street Journal were filled with much of the same criticism as well. Neil defended himself on both places, and on Twitter, he ended up crossing tweets with some notable Tesla short-sellers, including Mark Spiegel and the vocal MontanaSkeptic1, who recently debated Tesla bull Galileo Russell on the Quoth the Raven podcast. Over the weekend, and amidst what appeared to be an overwhelming amount of negativity from Tesla shorts, Neil opted to delete his Twitter account. Fellow automotive reporter Urvaksh Karkaria posted a tweet later on claiming that Neil decided to let his Twitter account go because of the responses to his Model 3 Performance review.

Advertisement
-

Screenshots of Neil’s final hours on Twitter were captured by members of the Tesla Motors Club, and from what could be seen in the images, the Pulitzer-winning journalist was engaging Spiegel and the MontanaSkeptic1 before he deleted his account. Both Tesla shorts seemed to have taken issue about why Neil has not reviewed the Jaguar I-PACE yet, as well as the $35,000 Standard Range RWD Model 3. One of Neil’s responses to Spiegel also gave the impression that the Tesla short was suggesting the vehicle given to the journalist was “prepped” especially for him (a notion that Neil described as having “no possibility”).

Dan Neil’s Twitter feed, filled with responses to Tesla shorts, before he deleted his account. [Source: Twitter]

Overall, it is unfortunate to see journalists of Dan Neil’s caliber be subjected to criticism simply because he wrote down his opinions about the Tesla Model 3 Performance. Neil, after all, might be friendly with Musk, but he is never one to shy away from questioning the CEO’s statements. Back in 2011 alone, Neil made a bet with Musk about when the company could start producing the Model S. In an article in the Los Angeles Times, Neil described Musk’s timetable for the all-electric sedan as an “audacious timeline that makes many in the car industry roll their eyes.”

Tesla might be controversial amidst Elon Musk’s occasional Twitter outbursts and the company’s tendency to meet its target timelines later than expected, but at the end of the day, the vehicles it produces ultimately speak for themselves. After all, professional reviewers like Neil, who are veterans of the auto industry, are praising the Model 3 Performance not because of Elon Musk’s rockstar status, but because of its own merits. And that, ultimately bodes well for Tesla.

Advertisement
-

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

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.

Published

on

By

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.

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.

Advertisement
-

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Published

on

By

SpaceX Terafab rendering

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.

Advertisement
-

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.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla uber bull Ron Baron says ‘the time to buy the stock is now’

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

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.

Advertisement
-

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.

Advertisement
-
Continue Reading