News
(Op-ed) A neutral look at Tesla’s upcoming Q1 2025 vehicle deliveries
Elon Musk affects Tesla, but his impact on the company’s raw vehicle sales may not be as notable as critics would suggest.
Tesla is such a volatile topic for many that it’s difficult to get a neutral image of the company and its fundamentals today. A look at Tesla news coverage shows this, as even dedicated electric vehicle blogs and tech publications seem to find it difficult to separate Tesla from Elon Musk, who is more polarizing than ever.
This is what I aim to cover in this op-ed. I will be exploring Tesla’s first quarter vehicle deliveries, why they might be underwhelming, the reasons behind them, and why I believe the sky is not necessarily falling.
A likely miss
Analyst consensus for Tesla’s Q1 2025 deliveries currently stands at 418,000 vehicles. That would suggest a year-over-year improvement of 8.06% from the 386,810 vehicles that Tesla was able to deliver in the first quarter of 2024. Considering Tesla’s sales in China and Europe over January and February, 418,000 deliveries seem to be a long shot for the first quarter of 2025.
It would not be surprising at all if Tesla ends up missing Wall Street’s consensus estimates, and by a pretty wide margin. Such is expected considering Tesla’s focus in the first quarter. But what is this focus, really? Elon Musk’s politics? Not necessarily.
A Model Y-shaped hole
Critics and negative Tesla news coverage would argue that the company’s steep drop in sales in several European markets and China is a sign that the company is finished, or that Elon Musk is doing global damage to the Tesla brand. However, Tesla’s sales decline this Q1 may actually be affected in no small part by the company’s transition from the Model Y classic to the new Model Y, which was launched across the United States, China, and Germany.
The Model Y is Tesla’s strongest seller, and it comprises a huge portion of the company’s deliveries every quarter. Considering that the Model Y classic quite literally became the world’s best-selling vehicle by volume in 2023 and 2024, it would not be an exaggeration to state that Tesla’s deliveries have been greatly carried by the all-electric crossover. What would happen then if Tesla implements a transition to the Model Y’s new version across its factories worldwide? Raw Model Y deliveries will go down, at least until Tesla starts deliveries of the revamped all-electric crossover. This is exactly what seems to be happening in China.
A look at Tesla China’s numbers from January and February will show that the company saw fewer registrations this year compared to last year. However, vehicle registrations have since picked up with the start of the new Model Y’s domestic deliveries. Similar trends may emerge in the United States and Europe, as well as territories supplied by Giga Shanghai, Giga Texas, the Fremont Factory, and Giga Berlin.
The Elon Musk factor
There is no doubt that Elon Musk is at his most polarizing today, but to credit Tesla’s low deliveries to the CEO’s political antics is very shortsighted. Yes, Elon Musk affects Tesla, but his impact on the company’s raw vehicle sales may not be as notable as critics would suggest. This could be seen in the results of a poll from German publication t-online, which initially concluded that 94% of Germans won’t buy a Tesla anymore. As it turned out, the survey would end up painting the complete opposite picture once more respondents took the poll. With more than 467,000 respondents on the survey, over 70% stated that they would buy a Tesla.
To state that Elon Musk’s political actions are not adversely affecting Tesla’s appeal to some consumers would not be accurate. There are evidently people who will not be purchasing a Tesla due to Elon Musk and his work with the Trump administration. The impact of the Musk factor, however, may not be as drastic as Tesla critics would suggest. It would not, for example, result in 94% of car buyers suddenly swearing off Tesla. The vast majority of consumers, after all, generally gravitate to the best products in the market, period. Assuming that this is true for most consumers today, Tesla’s vehicles definitely still have a fighting chance this year.
In conclusion
Considering Wall Street’s 418,000 vehicle delivery consensus, it almost seems certain that Tesla will miss this estimate by a notable margin. This would likely result in a wave of reports alleging that demand is drying up worldwide or Musk has completely tanked the brand’s appeal to consumers. With the new Model Y now starting its deliveries across the globe, however, Tesla’s real performance and a clearer view of Musk’s effect on the company’s demand, would likely become more evident in the coming quarters.
News
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile want 290 MHz cut from an FCC satellite plan before Thursday.
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are asking the Federal Communications Commission to pull nearly 300 MHz of spectrum out of a proposal that would let satellite companies like SpaceX offer cell service directly to ordinary phones. The request lands one day before the agency votes on it.
The FCC will vote Thursday, October 29, on a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make an additional 482 MHz available for direct to device service, expanding the number of eligible bands from five to 13, according to the FCC fact sheet. It would also scrap the rule requiring a satellite operator to lease spectrum from carriers, replacing it with a certification that the operator has coexistence agreements in place or holds the terrestrial license itself.
That second path matters for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, SpaceX agreed to buy Grain Management’s nationwide 800 MHz portfolio to turn Starlink Mobile into a full US carrier, adding to the spectrum it already bought from EchoStar.
The carriers want two bands removed, 2.5 GHz and 3.45 GHz, which make up 290 MHz of the 482 MHz on the table. Through industry group CTIA, they argued that about 300 million users depend on those bands and that satellite operations in them are not technically feasible. T-Mobile, which calls 2.5 GHz the foundation of its Ultra Capacity 5G network, said in its own filing that satellite interference could wipe out up to 96% of a cell site’s uplink coverage area and cut uplink speeds by 88% to 99%.
Executives from all three carriers met with FCC staff on October 20, and T-Mobile CEO Srini Gopalan met separately with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. T-Mobile’s role stands out because it is still SpaceX’s US launch partner for Starlink Mobile. The three carriers have also teamed up on their own satellite joint venture to pool spectrum, a move widely seen as a response to Starlink.
SpaceX is asking for the opposite. In an October 23 filing after meetings with FCC staff and commissioners’ offices, the company asked regulators to add the 902 to 928 MHz band to the proposal. “Doing so now saves time later,” SpaceX wrote. The company also asked the FCC to modernize interference rules and align satellite deployment requirements with those for terrestrial cell networks, saying the goal is to let satellite and ground networks work together so Americans stay connected wherever they are.
The carriers have not been shy about how they view SpaceX as a competitor. On Verizon’s third quarter earnings call Monday, its chief executive said Starlink Mobile “just can’t compete with a terrestrial network” and estimated SpaceX would need four to six years and $300 billion to $500 billion to build a full US carrier network.
Thursday’s vote will not settle which bands survive. Adopting the notice opens a public comment period, with final rules to come later in the proceeding. The FCC already considered and rejected 2.5 GHz for satellite coverage once, in 2024. SpaceX also is not the only satellite player watching: the FCC approved Amazon’s $11.6 billion acquisition of Globalstar on October 27, giving its planned direct to device fleet its own mobile satellite spectrum.
A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.
The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.
There were no injuries reported.
🚨 A Tesla Semi reportedly caught fire, with California Highway Patrol confirming. The Semi was on I-880 SB
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.
However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.
@Tslachan From on of the videos looks like it’s an old Semi (not the refresh version that recently started production) https://t.co/KzwmR2kXow
— Area Under The Curve 🎗️ (@AreaUnderCurve) October 28, 2026
At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.
The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.
The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.
Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.
A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.
“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”
🚨 Here’s the first look at Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away function in action:
Apparently this driver accidentally enabled it and drove forward; you can see the Supercharger pull with the car.
Tesla said previously this would cost up to $25k if not used properly. https://t.co/B4qQRrsO6B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.
Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.
Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:
- You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
- You must leave the area immediately.
- Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
- Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.
After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
