News
Tesla Motors Service Centers Make a Pit Stop
Before I mention the pit crew like experience, I do want to mention that one of the most awesome parts of the Tesla service experience is the offer to valet your car at home.
Tesla Motor service center. (Source: Tesla Motors)
During the earnings conference call with Elon Musk and team in early August, Musk mentioned that Tesla Motors service centers are implementing a Formula One pit crew approach for Model S owners here in the U.S and in China.
In August, Musk said:
“So we actually bring the car and we kind of hit with a pit crew, like a Formula One pit crew. So instead of having one person per bay, the car gets slowly worked on over several days, it actually comes in and a team attacks it, and we’re constantly improving the tools and the metrics to say, how can we get the car perfect as fast as possible. We actually bring in people from Formula One to help with the training on this. And I think there’s a real opportunity to revolutionize the way service works.”
So how is Tesla Motors new Formula One approach working and what has the service center experience been, in general, for the young automaker?
Recently, I interviewed Model S 85 owner, David Zygmont, about his trips to Tesla Motors service centers over the last two years, the Model S service package and has he seen this Formula One approach in action. The slightly edited interview is below:
Grant Gerke: What actually made you decide to buy the service package, which includes 4 service visits in four years or 50,000 miles?
David Zygmont: So being an early adopter, being a really early product for a really young company, I think it was pretty realistic that there would be some need for service and I had hoped like, ‘Wouldn’t it be great if this all electric car would be really maintenance free, free of some real critical headaches.’ However, I should really expect some software glitches, right? I mean this car runs software for everything and I was expecting there to be quite a number of those initially.
So, I feel like there is still a bunch of inconsistencies regarding when to bring in the car. Some service centers report that you really only need to come every 12 months and some say you still need to do it every 12,500 miles. My service center in Highland Park, Ill., says it’s every 12,500 miles.
And, there’s no ambiguity in the contract as it ends at 50,000 miles or four years, whichever you reach soonest. So, I’m going to get maximum value because I’m almost at 20,000 to 25,000 miles a year, somewhere in that range. I need to do it every 12,500 to get maximum value of this, I’ve already been three times for a service checkup.
Grant Gerke: What’s your service center experience been like, so far?
David Zygmont: I’ve had a pretty long relationship, a number of visits with Tesla service and for the most part, the people are really great. I really like working with people, especially the group that I worked with over the last nine to twelve months.
However, they don’t really share a lot in terms of documentation with these annual checkups. When you look at the paperwork, it says: We did an annual service and the parts used are batteries for the fobs and wipers for your windshield.
And I was like, “Okay, great.” That’s my $600?
Some of those visits have also included a number of other line items that I feel like some would happen whether I have the annual service or not because some of them were kind of classified as these service bulletins, which I think is very standard industry practice to say: hey, when your car is in, if we see this as a concern, because your VIN is labeled as… it may have this concern. So they look and if they see the concern, they fix it, and I’ve been very appreciative.
Other non-scheduled service center visits have included parts replaced and they’ve all been driven by some sort of failure and/or observation on my part that says this doesn’t feel right, and Tesla Motors has said either: We agree and made the repairs or they’ve said no to and I totally think that’s reasonable. An example would be Tesla considers it a wear issue, but some would also consider a design issue about why the wear is happening.
Also, I think the service center communication systems and behaviors that’s been implemented as a team have greatly evolved. Early on, I had services where I didn’t hear for three days and I’m like: what’s happened to my car?
But now it’s just amazing service as I receive multiple text message updates per day when they have my car. All my recent service has been same-day stuff and they’ve done it really quickly, maybe that’s reflective of their Formula 1 approach.
David Zygmont’s Model S at Crater Lake last summer. (Source: David Zygmont)
Grant Gerke: Speaking of Formula One, what about this pit crew approach? Any signs of it in recent visits?
David Zygmont: Before I mention the pit crew like experience, I do want to mention that one of the most awesome parts of the Tesla service experience is the offer to valet your car at home. So, it entails the service center coming to your house and bringing a Model S loaner and leaving it with you. Then they bring it back all fixed, serviced and whatever that’s been done with it. No one else does that. So, I just want to quickly make mention of that.
But sometimes it actually works better in my day if I could just exchange with (a car) the service center on my way to work. Recently, I was waiting to pick up my car after some service and a car had just come off of a flatbed in front of the Highland Park shop. I watched as a pit crew went to work on that car immediately. It was four service guys–four technicians–and someone was in the driver seat with their laptop in front of them, plugged in on the side port of the Model S. Other team members had covers off, under the hood and they pulled some covers to access some different parts in the front area.
It was really clear that this was like all hands on deck, let’s triage this real fast. I thought that was pretty cool.
What about everyone else? What were some of your expectations for Tesla Motors service centers?
I want to thank Dave for his time and be sure to check out my podcast with Dave Zygmont’s road warrior adventures in his Model S 85 across the supercharger network, “Podcast | Dial-in a Model S Road Trip with These Tips.“
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
