News
Tesla Model Y mishap shows urgent need for aggressively better quality control
Tesla currently stands at the top of the auto market, and for good reason. Its vehicles provide an experience unlike any other, their performance is incredible for their price, and their tech is top-notch. Yet as the company pursues its target of delivering 500,000 cars this year, something is becoming evident: Tesla needs to aggressively emphasize its quality control, especially with regards to the Model Y.
Just recently, EV enthusiast u/Indescribables shared a verified anecdote at the r/TeslaMotors subreddit, stating that their new all-electric crossover lost its glass roof while they were driving in California’s 238 highway. According to the Tesla owner, he and his dad started noticing some wind noise inside the cabin while they were driving. They initially thought that a window had been open, but before they could check, the Model Y’s entire glass roof reportedly got blown off.
After overcoming the initial shock of the incident, the pair drove back to the Tesla delivery center. Upon inspection, the manager at the Tesla location reportedly noted that the incident was caused by either a faulty seal on the glass roof, or someone from the factory forgot to seal the roof on. The new Tesla owners were then given a loaner as well as the option to repair or replace the Model Y. The pair declined a repair, instead opting to have the vehicle replaced.
So Tesla’s quality control is really bad. Our brand new model y’s entire roof just fell off from r/teslamotors
Granted, such an account is strictly anecdotal, but it does highlight a notable point of improvement for Tesla. As the company grows, after all, the electric car maker must make it a point to ensure that its quality control matches its pace of innovation. This ensures that every new Tesla owner gets to experience the same type of experience that has inspired such a strong and dedicated following for the company and its CEO, Elon Musk. This becomes challenging if some vehicles end up leaving the factory without being properly checked for potential build issues.
This is especially notable with this recent Model Y mishap, since Elon Musk himself has proven in the past that he is not content with Tesla making cars that have subpar build quality. During the middle of the Model 3’s “production hell” in 2018, reports were abounding that some vehicles being delivered to customers were not up to par in quality compared to the company’s previous cars like the Model S. Musk then sent a letter to Tesla employees calling for vast improvements in build quality. Musk’s intent was clear.
“We will keep going until the Model 3 build precision is a factor of ten better than any other car in the world. I am not kidding… Our car needs to be designed and built with such accuracy and precision that, if an owner measures dimensions, panel gaps, and flushness, and their measurements don’t match the Model 3 specs, it just means that their measuring tape is wrong,” Musk wrote.
Tesla Convertible???
The improvements in the Model 3’s build quality did not happen overnight, but once the company was able to get better, even legacy auto veterans could not deny that the all-electric sedan was being built with world-class standards. Longtime GM executive Bob Lutz, who is typically critical of Tesla, pretty much threw in the towel when he encountered a Model 3 in the wild. The following excerpt from a post Lutz shared on Road and Track explains his observations best.
“When I spied a metallic-red Model 3 in an Ann Arbor parking lot, I felt compelled to check it out. I was eager to see the oft-reported sloppy assembly work, the poor-fitting doors, blotchy paint, and other manifestations of Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s ‘production hell’ with my own eyes.”
“But, when next to the car, I was stunned. Not only was the paint without any discernible flaw, but the various panels formed a body of precision that was beyond reproach. Gaps from hood to fenders, doors to frame, and all the others appeared to be perfectly even, equal side-to-side, and completely parallel. Gaps of 3.5 to 4.5mm are considered word-class. This Model 3 measured up,” Lutz wrote.
What is rather interesting is that Tesla, especially the Model 3, enjoys widespread support from its consumer base. A thorough study from Bloomberg which polled 5,000 Model 3 owners found that buyers of the all-electric sedan were extremely happy about their cars despite the occasional cosmetic issue. Almost 99% of Model 3 owners remarked that they would recommend the car to friends and family. These are remarkable results, and it speaks volumes about the disruption that Tesla is really bringing to the auto market.
But the company could do better. Adopting a more aggressive quality control system is one way to do this.
Tesla has grown at a pace that is almost unprecedented, transitioning from a maker of premium cars like the Model S and Model X to a mass-market automaker that produces the Model 3 and Model Y in but a few years. With this transition came challenges, as evidenced in the well-documented “production hell” that Tesla experienced during the initial Model 3 ramp. The company has since overcome its quality issues with the Model 3, but it appears that the same pattern is somewhat happening with the Model Y’s ramp. This has to improve.
Considering the company’s goals, from its 1-million-vehicle-per-year target and more importantly, its mission, Tesla must simply not tolerate errors such as releasing a vehicle without proper glass roof sealant to delivery centers. These errors must be beneath Tesla’s Fremont plant at this point, especially since cars from the company’s China factory, Giga Shanghai, have been heavily praised for their build quality, as per data from Chinese quality complaint company CheZhiWang.
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.
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.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“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.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
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.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
