News
Porsche Taycan win against Tesla Model S is suspicious, says veteran drag racer
Just recently, motoring publication Top Gear posted a video comparing the Porsche Taycan Turbo S to the Tesla Model S Performance. The publication featured a drag race between the two vehicles which ended with the Taycan taking the win from the Model S. The quarter-mile race seemed to be a clean win for the Porsche, but according to a veteran drag racer, there are some aspects of the race that were, to say the least, suspicious.
Brooks of DragTimes has extensive experience on the drag strip, being the owner of vehicles like the McLaren 720S and the new Ford GT. With a garage filled with high-performance cars and innumerable straight-line races under his belt, Brooks knows a thing or two about drag racing. His experiences with his Model S P100D also make him a veteran Tesla owner who knows all the quirks of the all-electric sedan inside out when launching from a straight line.
With this in mind, the veteran drag racer noted that there seems to be several things that are wrong about the results of Top Gear‘s quarter-mile race between the Porsche Taycan Turbo S and the Tesla Model S Performance. The motoring publication listed the Model S’ 0-60 mph time at 2.68 seconds, its 0-100 mph at 6.46 seconds, and its quarter-mile time at 11.08 seconds at 124.0 mph. The DragTimes host noted that this immediately rings some alarm bells, as the Model S Performance is known to clock 10.6-second quarter-mile times regularly.
But it gets stranger. Looking at the figures listed by Top Gear after the two vehicles’ drag race, it appears that the publication basically copy-pasted the exact same performance figures of the Model S from a race against a Mercedes AMG E63S from 2017. This, according to Brooks, is highly suspicious, since the chances of a vehicle having the exact same 0-60 mph, 0-100 mph, quarter-mile time, and trap speed in two different drag races are incredibly thin.
Apart from this, the DragTimes host argued that the Model S which raced against the Taycan Turbo S did not seem to be in Launch Mode. This is because the Model S squats when Launch Mode is engaged, something that did not seem to happen in Top Gear‘s video. The motoring publication did not seem to engage the full capabilities of Ludicrous Plus Mode as well, as the graphics on the vehicle’s MCU and instrument cluster do not feature the same settings as a Model S with its maximum performance enabled.
Top Gear noted that the Porsche Taycan Turbo S completed the quarter-mile in 10.69 seconds, which is 0.39 seconds faster than the Model S’ 11.08-second quarter-mile time. Brooks noted that in drag races, a 0.39-second gap would usually correspond to about four car lengths. This is pretty odd since in the Top Gear video, the Taycan Turbo S was only one car length ahead of the Model S Performance when it crossed the quarter-mile mark.
If the DragTimes host’s observations are correct, then it means that Top Gear misrepresented the Tesla Model S in its recent comparative video against the Porsche Taycan Turbo S. This is unfortunate, as the two vehicles are actually neck-in-neck, and they do feature quarter-mile performance that can make an exciting drag race. The Porsche Taycan Turbo S is a great vehicle too, and its two-speed gearbox will likely give it an advantage over the Tesla Model S Performance at high speeds.
Simply put, the Porsche Taycan Turbo S is a worthy competitor that has the potential to win against a Raven Tesla Model S Performance with Launch Mode and Ludicrous Plus fair and square. Misrepresentations, whether intentional or not, only do Porsche an injustice. The Model S deserves better, and the Taycan Turbo S does too.
Watch Brook’s breakdown of Top Gear‘s Porsche Taycan Turbo S vs Tesla Model S Performance drag race in the video below.
Elon Musk
xAI’s Grok approved for Pentagon classified systems: report
Under the agreement, Grok can be deployed in systems handling classified intelligence analysis, weapons development, and battlefield operations.
Elon Musk’s xAI has signed an agreement with the United States Department of Defense (DoD) to allow Grok to be used in classified military systems.
Previously, Anthropic’s Claude had been the only AI system approved for the most sensitive military work, but a dispute over usage safeguards has reportedly prompted the Pentagon to broaden its options, as noted in a report from Axios.
Under the agreement, Grok can be deployed in systems handling classified intelligence analysis, weapons development, and battlefield operations.
The publication reported that xAI agreed to the Pentagon’s requirement that its technology be usable for “all lawful purposes,” a standard Anthropic has reportedly resisted due to alleged ethical restrictions tied to mass surveillance and autonomous weapons use.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is scheduled to meet with Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei in what sources expect to be a tense meeting, with the publication hinting that the Pentagon could designate Anthropic a “supply chain risk” if the company does not lift its safeguards.
Axios stated that replacing Claude fully might be technically challenging even if xAI or other alternative AI systems take its place. That being said, other AI systems are already in use by the DoD.
Grok already operates in the Pentagon’s unclassified systems alongside Google’s Gemini and OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Google is reportedly close to an agreement that will result in Gemini being used for classified use, while OpenAI’s progress toward classified deployment is described as slower but still feasible.
The publication noted that the Pentagon continues talks with several AI companies as it prepares for potential changes in classified AI sourcing.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk denies Starlink’s price cuts are due to Amazon Kuiper
“This has nothing to do with Kuiper, we’re just trying to make Starlink more affordable to a broader audience,” Musk wrote in a post on X.
Elon Musk has pushed back on claims that Starlink’s recent price reductions are tied to Amazon’s Kuiper project.
In a post on X, Musk responded directly to a report suggesting that Starlink was cutting prices and offering free hardware to partners ahead of a planned IPO and increased competition from Kuiper.
“This has nothing to do with Kuiper, we’re just trying to make Starlink more affordable to a broader audience,” Musk wrote in a post on X. “The lower the cost, the more Starlink can be used by people who don’t have much money, especially in the developing world.”
The speculation originated from a post summarizing a report from The Information, which ran with the headline “SpaceX’s Starlink Makes Land Grab as Amazon Threat Looms.” The report stated that SpaceX is aggressively cutting prices and giving free hardware to distribution partners, which was interpreted as a reaction to Amazon’s Kuiper’s upcoming rollout and possible IPO.
In a way, Musk’s comments could be quite accurate considering Starlink’s current scale. The constellation currently has more than 9,700 satellites in operation today, making it by far the largest satellite broadband network in operation. It has also managed to grow its user base to 10 million active customers across more than 150 countries worldwide.
Amazon’s Kuiper, by comparison, has launched approximately 211 satellites to date, as per data from SatelliteMap.Space, some of which were launched by SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket. Starlink surpassed that number in early January 2020, during the early buildout of its first-generation network.
Lower pricing also aligns with Starlink’s broader expansion strategy. SpaceX continues to deploy satellites at a rapid pace using Falcon 9, and future launches aboard Starship are expected to significantly accelerate the constellation’s growth. A larger network improves capacity and global coverage, which can support a broader customer base.
In that context, price reductions can be viewed as a way to match expanding supply with growing demand. Musk’s companies have historically used aggressive pricing strategies to drive adoption at scale, particularly when vertical integration allows costs to decline over time.
News
Tesla Giga Berlin makes a statement of solidarity amid IG Metall conflict
The display comes as tensions between Tesla and IG Metall continue to escalate.
Tesla Giga Berlin is sending a strong message of solidarity amid its ongoing legal dispute with German union IG Metall.
In a post on social media platform X, Giga Berlin plant manager André Thierig shared an image of the facility’s lobby covered with a large banner that reads: “Progress. Innovation. Success.” He added that the slogan reflects what the facility has stood for since Day One.
“Our lobby at Giga Berlin covered in a huge banner these days. Progress. Innovation. Success – this is what we stand for since we started production in 2022 and how we will go into our future!” Thierig wrote in his post on X.
The display comes as tensions between Tesla and IG Metall continue to escalate.
The dispute began after Tesla accused a union representative of secretly recording a works council meeting at Giga Berlin. Tesla stated that it filed a criminal complaint after the alleged incident. Police later confirmed they had seized a computer belonging to an IG Metall member as part of their investigation.
“What has happened today at Giga Berlin is truly beyond words! An external union representative from IG Metall attended a works council meeting. For unknown reasons he recorded the internal meeting and was caught in action! We obviously called police and filed a criminal complaint!” Thierig wrote on X at the time.
IG Metall denied the accusation and characterized Tesla’s move as an election tactic ahead of upcoming works council elections. The union subsequently filed a defamation complaint against Thierig. Authorities later confirmed that an investigation had been opened in connection with the matter.
Giga Berlin began production in 2022 and has since become one of Tesla’s key European manufacturing hubs, producing the Model Y, the company’s best-selling vehicle. The facility has expanded capacity over the past years despite environmental protests, labor disputes, and regulatory scrutiny.