News
The Model Y and Gigafactory 3 heralds a faster, more profitable Tesla
Tesla’s second-quarter report and its succeeding earnings call provided updates on what could very well be two of the electric car maker’s most pertinent projects to date: the Model Y ramp and Gigafactory 3 in Shanghai, China. Based on Tesla’s recent reports, it appears that both initiatives are moving along at an impressive pace, perhaps even faster than initially expected.
Model Y
When Elon Musk unveiled the Model Y last March, he provided a rough timeline for the upcoming vehicle. During his presentation, Musk mentioned that the all-electric midsize SUV would start deliveries starting Fall 2020 for the Long Range, Dual Motor AWD, and Performance versions, and Spring 2021 for the Standard variant. This was quite conservative, considering that Musk has a reputation for setting extremely aggressive targets for the production of the company’s vehicles.
Since then, several reports have emerged which hinted at Model Y production being far less volatile and challenging than the Model 3’s manufacturing ramp, a task so difficult that Elon Musk candidly called the period as “production hell.” In the Q2 Update Letter, Tesla confirmed that preparations for Model Y production have begun in the Fremont factory. The company also mentioned that due to the overlap in the components of the Model Y and the Model 3, the company was able to “leverage existing manufacturing designs in the development of the Model Y production facilities.” This bodes well for the midsize SUV, considering that Tesla had rolled out several improvements to Model 3 production process over the years.
Several other hints have also emerged suggesting that Tesla will be ramping the Model Y with its best technologies available. Recent patent applications, for example, have revealed that Tesla is working on a new wiring architecture that will reduce the wires used in the Model Y to just 100 m per vehicle, a significant reduction from the 1.5 km currently being used for the Model 3. Another patent has also emerged showing the design for a mammoth casting machine, which was hinted at by Elon Musk during an appearance at the Ride the Lightning podcast last month. “When we get the big casting machine, it’ll go from 70 parts to 1 with a significant reduction in capital expenditure on all the robots to put those parts together,” Musk said.
Considering all the innovation that is being implemented for the Model Y, it appears that Tesla is doing all it can to ensure that the vehicle does not encounter delays with its rollout. In fact, with Fremont already being prepared for the Model Y, and with giant casting machines being designed specifically for the vehicle, it almost seems like Tesla is trying to start the manufacturing of the SUV earlier than expected. There’s a long time between today and Fall 2020, and that seems to be more than enough to work out the manufacturing of a vehicle that is, in essence, a taller, more spacious Model 3.
Gigafactory 3
Over in China, another understated Tesla project is taking shape. When Elon Musk attended Gigafactory 3’s groundbreaking ceremony back in January, he stated that initial production of the Model 3 in the facility would begin by the end of the year. This target timeframe was met with disdain and skepticism from critics, many of whom have noted that no car factory has ever been built in the speed that Musk wanted. Six months later, Gigafactory 3’s general assembly building is practically complete, and its interior is already being tooled. Footage from drone flyovers showed the rise of the factory, and images from Tesla’s Q2 Update Letter showed that some sections of the facility already have robots installed in them.
Quite interestingly, it is not Elon Musk that is providing ambitious timeframes for Gigafactory 3 anymore. Instead, it is Chinese government officials. Local reports, for example, have suggested that China is looking to start initial Model 3 production as early as September, with the facility ramping to an output of 150,000 vehicles per year early next year. Compared to Wall Street’s estimates, which currently suggest that Gigafactory 3 will produce around 35,000 to 40,000 vehicles in 2020, China’s goals for the facility are far more optimistic.
Gigafactory 3 has pretty much exceeded expectations since work in the facility entered overdrive. Just like the Model Y ramp, the key to Gigafactory 3 lies in the company’s innovations with Model 3 production. Tesla mentioned this in its Q2 Update Letter. “Gigafactory Shanghai continues to take shape, and in Q2 we started to move machinery into the facility for the first phase of production there. This will be a simplified, more cost-effective version of our Model 3 line with capacity of 150,000 units per year – the second generation of the Model 3 production process,” Tesla wrote.
There is no doubt that 2019 is turning out to be an incredibly challenging year for Tesla. Following the first quarter, which saw lower-than-expected vehicle deliveries, Tesla set new delivery records in the second quarter, only to end once more at a loss. Yet, together with this, the company also ended the quarter in more stable footing, as shown by its $5 billion in cash, the largest in its history. This was recently addressed by Baird analyst Ben Kallo, who noted that “back to the cash flow they generated during the quarter, there’s a couple of hundred million dollars, so this idea that they don’t make money is completely wrong, and the headline needs to change. There’s $5 billion in the balance sheet. They’re not going out of business.” Ultimately, the Model Y and Gigafactory 3 seem to be two projects that are heralding a new era for Tesla: one that is more mature, precise, and poised to disrupt at a scale that’s never seen before.
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
