Since Tesla delivered the first units of its all-electric Semi to Frito-Lay facilities in Modesto, California, in December 2022, any instance of one breaking down on the side of the road has been photographed and highly publicized. However, Teslarati has been told that at least some of the “breakdowns” are caused by a glitch within a software switch, and drivers are pulling over voluntarily as a precaution because the dash screens will flicker and sometimes shut off.
Since December, there have been at least eight instances of Tesla Semi vehicles breaking down. Some attributed it to a loss of range from carrying a load of products, as weight and hauling affect how far an EV can go.
Others suspected it was a mechanical issue, as the Semi is still a relatively young product that has been in development for some time but has only been used in real-world applications by a company that is not Tesla for a few months.
Tesla Semi developers reflect on first deliveries: ‘Out the door. For the world.’
While these are a possibility, they would be expected. Vehicles break down all the time for various reasons, including mechanical failures, and people often run out of gas in combustion engine vehicles and/or range in EVs.
Tesla Semi drivers are experiencing dash issues
At least some of the Semi breakdowns can be attributed to a glitch with a software switch, Teslarati has learned. How many of the breakdowns can be attributed to this issue is unknown, but more than one has been described as having this problem.
According to a source close to the operation in Modesto, drivers are pulling over their Semis as a precaution, as the glitch is causing the dash screens and lights on those screens to flicker and sometimes shut off. “They don’t know what to do,” said the person who did not want to be identified. “So they just pull over, and then they are towed.”
Drivers and others involved in the logistics portion of the operation at Frito-Lay that use the Tesla Semi have stated that the screens will not operate properly. Drivers are pulling over as the screens hold valuable information, such as speed, range, camera views surrounding the truck, suspension information, trailer hitch controls, and more.
Tesla Semi interior (Credit: Tesla)
Without the screens being operational, drivers run into issues that can affect how their jobs are performed, including important safety metrics like speed.
The vehicles are then towed to what we were told is a “secret location” in Lathrop, California, for inspection and repair.
A tow truck driver that has been responsible for transporting the Semis to Lathrop said they had towed at least four units to that location thus far.
Why This Isn’t So Bad
The Semi has only been in Frito-Lay’s hands for about four months, and it is an extremely early project that is still a very limited operation. Frito-Lay expects to have only fifteen Tesla Semis in Modesto this year, so the vehicle is not taking over the entire fleet. In fact, Frito-Lay has adopted various sustainable technologies from several companies to make the Modesto plant more environmentally friendly.
The issues, if completely software-related, can be fixed by Tesla engineers. While the Semi is much different than its passenger vehicles, Tesla has a reputation for having some of the best software in the EV industry. There would likely be much more concern if these breakdowns could be attributed to a part failure or range depletion.
Tesla already displayed the Semi’s capabilities with a full load during the unveiling event in December, showing the all-electric class 8 truck traveling 500 miles on a single charge. We were not told about or made aware of any hardware failures or breakdowns that were caused by parts failures.
Tesla Semi completes 500-mile journey weighing in at 81,000 pounds
The problems with the Semi are likely expected by both Tesla and Frito-Lay as it is still an early-stage vehicle that is being rolled out in a very limited fashion.
Frito-Lay/PepsiCo. did not immediately respond to our request for comment.
What’s Next
Tesla is still moving forward with its plans to expand Semi production in Nevada, as earlier this year, it announced it would build a $3.5 billion expansion to Giga Nevada.
As for Frito-Lay and PepsiCo’s facility in Modesto, there is no indication that they will let a few early issues with the Semi ruin their fleet. In fact, the facility is set to have Megachargers installed at its plant in Fresno, California.
As far as we know, the Semi is still operating daily. Yesterday, it was spotted in Sacramento.
The big picture is that vehicles break down, and new vehicles sometimes have issues that need to be ironed out. It doesn’t mean the project is a failure or that the Semi is doomed to be a dud. It’s the growing pains of the Semi operation.
Disclosure: Joey Klender is a TSLA Shareholder.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@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
