News
OPINION: Tesla’s ‘Safety Score’ Beta needs broader terms for factoring your score
Tesla’s “Safety Score” Beta is one of the most impressive ideas to improve driving safety, in my opinion. An article from Model 3 owner and Tesla enthusiast Nick Howard explained that Tesla is essentially gamifying the act of driving, encouraging owners to drive in a manner that would allow their scores to be higher. If you know anything about the Tesla community, you know that it is filled with die-hard fans who are satirically battling it out for the elusive 100 scores. While Tesla has outlined the ways that driving behaviors could affect the score for better or for worse, I believe that other instances may need to be outlined so owners are perfectly clear on how their score could be affected based on their hobbies or driving style. While I disagree with Consumer Reports’ assumption that the Safety Score is a bad idea (which, in reality, makes no real sense to me), I do believe that some owners are confused on what makes their score higher or lower, especially as many owners are attempting to enter the elusive Full Self-Driving Beta program.
If you’ve taken a peek at Tesla’s Support page that outlines the numerous factors that can affect a driver’s Safety Score, it seems pretty straightforward. There are cut and dry behaviors that tend to be recognized universally as “aggressive,” including tailgating, hard braking, and aggressive turning. Additionally, Forward Collision Warnings per 1,000 miles and forced Autopilot disengagements are also included in the behaviors that could affect your score, but these are exclusive to Tesla, of course, due to their use of Forward Collision Warnings and Autopilot disengagements.
Tesla introduces Safety Score (Beta) system that incentivizes safe driving
It’s very self-explanatory: Drive safely and receive a higher score. But are there not instances where things could get a tad confusing for some drivers, especially those with scores just below the perfect 100 threshold?
One example that I saw over the weekend was from Richard Marrero, a Tesla owner who was curious about taking his vehicle to the local racetrack. While Tesla owners are occasionally hitting the accelerator when a stoplight turns green, it may be understandable for Safety Scores to be affected. However, what if the nature of the driving occurs on a closed circuit? Marrero may drive like a saint on the road but might want to push his vehicle to the limit at a local dragstrip or raceway. After all, why have a high-performance car with face-melting acceleration if you can’t test it from time to time?
Does anyone know if taking my Tesla to a racetrack will hurt my safety score? @elonmusk @SawyerMerritt @DirtyTesla @tesla_raj @Teslarati
— Richard Marrero (@The_Richard_M) October 2, 2021
There are other examples that could affect a Safety Score that are technically out of the driver’s control. In some instances, it may be an action taken by the driver that is technically safer than other options, yet it could reduce the Safety Score. Tesla Joy, a Model 3 owner, encountered this predicament on October 1, according to a Tweet. Her Safety Score was reduced due to hard braking at a “quick changing yellow light.” I believe nearly everyone who has a driver’s license can attest that some stoplights are slightly more accelerated than others. Quick changing yellow lights are one of the most polarizing events in a daily drive. Some will tell you just to run through it, others will argue that the safer thing to do is just slow down and stop. Whichever way you choose to handle this scenario, you are likely to encounter someone who shares a point of view on how to handle the premature yellow light in a different manner.
Today I hard braked for 2 quick changing yellow lights & got dinged. I also sped up at another yellow light and didn’t get dinged but I felt more dangerous that way. Since Tesla car can see?, can hard braking at yellow light be exempt from penalty cuz it’s safer? ? @elonmusk
— Tesla Joy (@TeslaJoy) October 2, 2021
However, I don’t necessarily believe that there is a “wrong” way to handle it. While the right way to do it, according to my knowledge as a driver of over 11 years, would require you to slow down and come to a stop, especially since the yellow light is a key indicator of “slow down.” Tesla Joy did it as most Learner’s Permit booklets would describe, yet she was still docked points.
There are undoubtedly more examples of how Tesla could do a better job of explaining what actions are not favorable for the Safety Score system, and I would love to hear your thoughts or examples on things that have occurred that affected your score. Tesla did a wonderful job of outlining the most face-value actions that Safety Scores will be affected by, but there are other questions that need to be confronted so drivers are clear on what other things could hurt their scores. After all, the wider the FSD Beta testing group is, the more data Tesla will obtain through its Neural Network.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with tips! Email us at tips@teslarati.com, or you can email me directly at joey@teslarati.com.
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
