News
Should I Buy the Tesla Model S P85 or Standard 85kWh?
It is, perhaps, the biggest question many prospective hand-wringing owners of the Model S wrestle with – should I get the Tesla Model S P85 or stick to the Standard version?
After all, once you’ve talked yourself up the first $10k from a 60kwh to an 85kwh battery, what’s another $12K or so for the Performance version?
And if you don’t pay for the upgrade to the more powerful drivetrain, WILL YOU REGRET IT LATER?! Want to know the bottom line? My journey to owning the Model S led me to ask the following questions: Will you regularly drive over 180 miles/day? Will you use the Tesla for a road trip car? If the answer to both those questions is “No”, get the 60 kWh. Period. Done.
The 60 has comparable real world performance to the 85 and reportedly feels even more spirited because of less battery weight (though ballasted to match an 85, the ballast is apparently located differently somehow, according to reports from people who have driven both). The 60 is a superb in-town commuter car or medium distance tourer (with destination charging). If either those questions are answered with a “Yes”, get the 85kWh. By the time you pay the extra $2k to enable the Supercharging option on a 60 you’ve already started toward an 85 anyway.  Like the evil dojo master in Karate Kid said, “Finish him!”  Get an 85. Now don’t go crazy right to the P85+, let’s look at the upper extreme first.
The P85+ is apparently designed solely for the purpose of destroying tires – rear tires – every 5,000 miles or less. Unless you’re coming from a high performance car or plan to enjoy track days, fuggeddaboutit. It’s basically an even more expensive version of the P85 with staggered tires and other suspension tricks. Real world, this is overkill and more about badge ego than useful value (for the vast majority of non-professional racing drivers).
Speaking of real world, the performance difference for the P85 and the S85 exists primarily in one place: 0-30mph. That’s it. From 30mph and up they are virtually identical and both will silently roar around slower traffic with equal capability. Originally the Tesla Model S P85 upgrade only came with some other standard features that are a mixed bag (to me). Thankfully Tesla has decided to allow buyers the option of upgrading only the drivetrain. Still, that presents some problems. A P85 with the 19″ wheels just overwhelms them. Remember the only performance advantage it has is 0-30mph and that requires grip to actually enjoy it.  For a variety of reasons (but chief among them rolling resistance and wind resistance) Tesla’s tires are taller rather than wider to increase their contact patch. A traditional sports sedan would get wider tires to increase grip but the Model S gets taller tires… ergo, a P85 on 19s just bounces off the traction control constantly.  In a sunny climate that might not happen as often but here in pothole country you’ll get clunks and shudders from way back there at the wheels all the time as the traction control tries to reign in your lunacy. My friend Jake and I had several days with a silver loaner (read more about it here) and it was fun but also frustrating.
Unfortunately, if you’re living anywhere with four seasons you are NOT going to want to alleviate the traction problem by getting 21″ wheels. We have potholes. LOTS of them. BIG ones. And bridges with expansion joints that will turn those wheels into ovals. You know how when you go to the grocery store you always get a cart with that annoying wobbly wheel? Would you like to buy one for $90-100K? I didn’t think so. Speaking of expenses, many P85 owners report higher than average tire wear (regardless of wheel size).
I don’t know of a true head-to-head drag race video of all THREE versions of the Model S (60/85/P85)– amazed no one has done it yet– but the video above is very recent and posts a time faster than the Tesla website does. You can read more opinions on that video HERE.
Another recent video does offer a head-to-head of a standard Tesla Model SÂ P85 vs S85 and you can see that after the first 30 feet or so, the S85 and the P85 match stride-for-stride. In fact, at the end of the 1/4 the trap speed on the standard 85 is actually higher. Skip ahead 26 seconds to catch the Tesla family feud.
One long-time P85 owner asserts the difference in launch speed really only exists at higher states of charge. As a result, maintaining that performance edge over the S85 requires more frequent and fuller charges of the main pack, potentially increasing long-term degradation. Ironically, the only times you really should charge the pack up to higher levels (for distance), you wouldn’t want to enjoy the harder launches because it would adversely affect your range.
So the S85 is a tad slower off the line. No one but a P85 owner is ever going to know that. And, frankly, the power delivery at launch is a lot smoother. The P85 is pretty brutal. Oh, it’s damn impressive– but it’s also jarring. I like the slightly tapered building on of WHOOSH that I get from the S85. I think it keeps my wife from realizing how often I’m toying with the other cars around us. James Bond, after all, wears a suit… not a karategi.  <— brought that back to Karate Kid nicely, didn’t I? I have no idea why either.
Clearly I could go on and on about my configuration thought processes– and how they’ve evolved since taking delivery– but that’s a topic for another time. If you haven’t already read about my “Journey to Tesla” then check it out for some insights into how I got this car in my driveway and how you can too. It starts by clicking RIGHT HERE.
Read more at www.TeslaPittsburgh.com and check out the videos on our YouTube channel at www.YouTube.com/NZCUTR.
SpaceX confirmed today that it has officially signed its third massive compute deal, providing compute at its Colossus data center in Southaven, Tennessee.
Reflection AI will gain immediate access to NVIDIA GB300 chips at SpaceX’s Colossus 2 data center. In return, Reflection will pay SpaceX $150 million per month starting on July 1, with total payments reaching approximately $6.3 billion if the contract runs through its duration, which is until 2029. Either party can terminate the agreement with 90 days’ notice after the initial three-month period.
CNBC first reported the deal.
🚨 SpaceXAI has agreed to a new compute deal with Reflection AI.
Reflection gets access to NIVIDIA GB300s, and will pay $150M per month to SpaceXAI for the compute. pic.twitter.com/bNPare8U5u
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 22, 2026
This latest partnership highlights SpaceX’s strategy of commercializing its massive Colossus supercomputing infrastructure, originally developed to power Elon Musk’s Grok AI models. The company has rapidly expanded its customer base in the AI sector following its February 2026 merger with xAI, a transaction that valued the combined entity at $1.25 trillion.
SpaceX has previously signed significant compute deals with other major players.
It granted Anthropic exclusive access to the full capacity of its Colossus 1 data center, which exceeds 300 megawatts and includes over 220,000 NVIDIA GPUs. Details from SpaceX’s IPO filings indicate Anthropic will pay $1.25 billion per month through May 2029, potentially generating around $45 billion over the term of the deal.
Additionally, Google agreed to pay SpaceX $920 million per month for compute capacity from October 2026 through June 2029. This 32-month period will provide Google access to roughly 110,000 NVIDIA GPUs, along with supporting processors and memory. Capacity ramps up through September at a reduced fee, with termination options after the first year.
SpaceXA also established arrangements for computing power with Cursor, an AI coding startup. SpaceX acquired them in a $60 billion all-stock deal.
These arrangements position SpaceX’s collective position as an AI infrastructure powerhouse with high-margin revenue potential. The Google deal alone could generate nearly $29.5 billion over its term, while the Reflection contract adds another $6.3 billion.
Combined with the Anthropic arrangement, SpaceX stands to realize tens of billions in revenue from compute leasing in the coming years, which diversifies beyond SpaceX’s traditional rocket launches and Starlink operation.
The deals underscore growing demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity amid chip shortages and surging model development needs. Reflection, valued at $25 billion and focused on “American open intelligence” with government and national security ties, cited recent restrictions on closed models as validation for open-source approaches.
For SpaceX, the partnerships transform capital-intensive data centers into flexible revenue sources while supporting its broader AI ambitions after the company has gone public.
It is safe to say SpaceX won’t be going for electric rockets anytime soon.
In a characteristically blunt reply on X, SpaceX frontman Elon Musk stated, “Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible,” following reports that MSCI had assigned SpaceX its lowest possible ESG rating of CCC.
The assessment, issued just this past week, coinciding closely with SpaceX’s public market debut, placed the company on par with nations like Russia in sustainability scoring and cited significant risks in environmental, social, and governance areas.
MSCI flagged SpaceX’s exposure to rocket emissions and other operational impacts, alongside governance concerns such as concentrated control by Musk and limited shareholder protections. Musk’s terse comment directly addressed the environmental pillar, underscoring a core physical constraint that ESG frameworks often overlook when evaluating high-thrust industries.
Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 21, 2026
Electric propulsion systems do exist and are widely used in space. Ion thrusters and Hall-effect thrusters accelerate ionized propellant, typically xenon or krypton, using electric fields, achieving very high specific impulse, often exceeding 3,000 seconds compared to roughly 300–450 seconds for chemical rockets.
This efficiency makes them ideal for satellite station-keeping, orbit raising, and deep-space missions where low thrust over long durations is sufficient. SpaceX’s own Starlink satellites employ electric propulsion for these purposes.
However, launching from Earth’s surface demands something entirely different: enormous thrust delivered rapidly to overcome gravity and atmospheric drag. A typical orbital-class booster must generate thrust far exceeding its weight, often in the millions of Newtons within seconds.
Chemical rockets achieve this through exothermic combustion of dense propellants, producing high-mass-flow, high-velocity exhaust. Electric systems, by contrast, expel very small amounts of mass at extremely high speeds. Generating equivalent thrust would require impractical onboard power levels, massive energy storage or generation systems, and prohibitive added mass, rendering the approach infeasible with current or near-term technology.
Musk has previously expressed a similar sentiment, noting a desire for electric orbital rockets while acknowledging the inescapable requirements of Newton’s third law and energy delivery. The distinction is clear: electric propulsion excels once a vehicle is already in space; it cannot replace the high-thrust chemical phase required to reach orbit from the ground.
The episode illustrates broader critiques of ESG ratings. Proponents argue they incentivize better risk management and long-term sustainability. Detractors, including Musk—who has previously called ESG a “scam”—contend that such metrics can penalize essential activities when no practical alternative exists, potentially discouraging innovation in sectors like space access.
Elon Musk dubs the S&P 500 ESG as “outrageous scam” after Tesla gets booted from index
SpaceX has sought to mitigate launch-related impacts through reusability: Falcon 9 boosters have flown more than 30 times in some cases, dramatically lowering the manufacturing and emissions burden per kilogram delivered to orbit. Starship’s design further emphasizes rapid reusability and methane propellant, which can theoretically be produced via sustainable pathways.
Ultimately, Musk’s remark serves as a reminder that certain engineering realities persist regardless of scoring systems. As humanity expands its presence in space for communications, science, and exploration, balancing genuine environmental progress with technological necessity remains a central challenge.
ESG frameworks may evolve, but the fundamental limits of electric launch propulsion are unlikely to change soon.
Tesla just trademarked ‘MEGAPOD’ with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), its latest move in what seems to be a hint that the company is incredibly focused on its AI efforts and storage needs as compute increases.
The application carries serial number 99893717 and lists the applicant as Tesla, Inc., located at 1 Tesla Road, Austin, Texas 78725.
The filing remains in ‘live pending’ status, and it is a new application waiting for assignment to an examining attorney. It has not yet been published or registered.
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD
Summary:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and… pic.twitter.com/3l85DsKadl— Robin (@xdNiBoR) June 19, 2026
According to the official goods and services description in the application, Tesla describes ‘MEGAPOD’ as:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and cooling systems, sold as a unit; self-contained modular computing hardware systems for artificial intelligence workloads; integrated computer hardware platforms for artificial intelligence computing, namely, enclosures containing computer hardware, power distribution hardware, and cooling hardware, sold as a unit; downloadable software for monitoring, managing, optimizing, and regulating modular artificial intelligence computing hardware systems.”
This description specifies complete, self-contained modular units that integrate servers and specialized AI processing hardware with networking components, power distribution, and cooling systems. It also includes associated downloadable software for oversight and optimization of these systems. The language emphasizes hardware sold “as a unit” and enclosures that combine the necessary elements for AI computing workloads.
Tesla has an established history of developing and commercializing modular hardware systems. Its Megapack product line, for example, consists of utility-scale battery energy storage systems designed as containerized units for grid applications. The MEGAPOD filing follows a similar pattern of protecting a name for modular, integrated hardware platforms, this time focused on artificial intelligence computing infrastructure.
This could be an early move, especially as Tesla did not have trademark rights to the word ‘Cybercab,’ the name of its self-driving, ride-hailing-focused vehicle.
Trademark applications of this type allow companies to secure priority rights to a name for defined categories of goods and services. The USPTO examines applications for compliance with legal requirements, including distinctiveness and absence of conflicts with prior marks. If the application proceeds successfully through examination, publication, and any opposition period, it could result in a federal trademark registration providing nationwide protection. This is what Tesla’s obvious intention is with ‘MEGAPOD.’
Public reports and analysis suggest MEGAPOD could represent modular, container-style AI computing pods designed for easy deployment. These would bundle servers, AI accelerators, power systems, and cooling into self-contained units suitable for distributed AI workloads. This approach aligns with Tesla’s announced AI compute strategy.
In March 2026, Elon Musk outlined plans for “Digital Optimus” (also referred to as Macrohard), a joint Tesla-xAI project for AI agents capable of handling complex digital tasks. The plans include running these agents on Tesla’s AI4 hardware in parked vehicles as well as dedicated compute units installed at Supercharger stations, which collectively offer substantial unused electrical capacity.
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
A modular hardware platform like the one described in the ‘MEGAPOD’ filing would support scalable, rapid deployment of such distributed compute resources. It could complement Tesla’s other AI infrastructure efforts, including the Dojo supercomputer used for training models and the development of AI systems for autonomous driving and robotics, by enabling edge or regional AI inference without reliance on traditional centralized data centers.
SpaceX confirms third massive compute deal at Colossus data center
Elon Musk responds to SpaceX’s ESG rating and says its rockets won’t go electric
