News
Tesla is ending the era of half-hearted, compliance electric cars
Carried forward by the momentum of electric vehicles like the Tesla Model 3, upcoming EVs from experienced carmakers such as Porsche and Volvo are showing a trend in the auto industry — from this point on, the automotive market will be fought with electric cars, and there will be no turning back.
It might be difficult to imagine today considering the success of the Model 3 and the influx of electric vehicles from veteran carmakers, but there was once a time when EVs were mostly half-hearted attempts whose primary purpose was to meet the mandates set by the California Air Resource Board (CARB). The EVs produced during this period even earned a very appropriate moniker — compliance cars. Among these were the Ford Focus EV, GM’s Spark EV, the Fiat 500e, the RAV4 EV, and the Honda Fit EV, all of which were adequate vehicles, but are costly and compromised in range and cargo compared to their gas-powered counterparts.
During the height of the compliance car era, some companies opted to pursue a different path. Among these is Nissan, whose all-electric vehicle, the Leaf, was sold across the United States. The Leaf would go on to be one of the best-selling EVs in the market. Tesla also saw a lot of growth in but a few years, bringing to market the Model X SUV and the Model 3 midsize sedan. Just like the Leaf, Tesla’s electric cars sold well, finding a strong following among consumers for who prefer the company’s no-compromises approach when it comes to the safety, performance, tech, and features of its vehicles. Tesla’s momentum never really stopped, as seen in the earlier-than-expected launch of the $35,000 Standard Model 3 recently.
It could be said that Elon Musk’s tenacity and his stubborn refusal to give up when faced with large challenges is a reason behind Tesla’s success. With Tesla all but proving that there is a demand for well-designed electric vehicles, other carmakers followed suit. In 2018 alone, several electric cars from established manufacturers were released, headlined by the Jaguar I-PACE, the Audi e-tron SUV, and the Mercedes-Benz EQC. Unlike compliance cars of years past, these vehicles were hyped as essential entries into their respective companies’ shift towards electric mobility. Nevertheless, some of these vehicles, such as the EQC, still carried over much of its gas-powered siblings’ characteristics, such as a front trunk full of components.
More recent electric vehicles from experienced carmakers seem to be better-designed. The Polestar 2 from Volvo, for one, proved impressive during its launch. With its dual motors that produce 408 hp, its deep integration of Google’s Android software, and a starting price of $45,000, the Polestar 2 can serve as an alternative for buyers who do not wish to purchase a Model 3. The Porsche Taycan, which is expected to be unveiled later this year, was also carefully designed from the ground-up as a high-performance electric car. Porsche has fully committed to electrification, with the company retiring its diesel lineup in favor of greener options. In the same way that the Polestar 2 can be an alternative to the Model 3, the Taycan can also be the perfect vehicle for buyers who wish to purchase a large sedan that is not a Tesla Model S.
-
- Porsche Taycan rendering via TaycanForum.com
The Polestar 2 and the Porsche Taycan. (Photo: Polestar, TaycanForum.com)
If there is anything more that experienced automakers can do, it is to produce their premium electric vehicles in large quantities. Porsche, despite being a low-volume carmaker, is adopting this strategy, with the Taycan’s initial 20,000 a year output being changed to 40,000 per year. Volvo is planning to produce a decent number of Polestar 2 every year as well, with the company planning on an output “north of” 50,000 units per year. This is something highlighted by Elon Musk in a tweet earlier this year, when he noted that Tesla’s competition is “not the small trickle of non-Tesla electric cars being produced, but rather the enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world’s factories every day.”
Elon Musk will be the first person to remind anyone that Tesla’s primary goal has always been to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. Considering the influx of electric vehicles from veteran carmakers, as well as seemingly solid entries from younger companies like Rivian, it appears that finally, after years of swimming against the current, the auto industry is finally getting on board with Tesla’s mission. For Elon Musk, at least, it appears that his Master Plan, which outlines his vision for sustainable transportation, is coming together.
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
