News
Tesla Semi faces new wave of skepticism from diesel veterans
There is very little doubt that the Model S, Model X, and Model 3 have disrupted their respective segments since they were released. Tesla aims to accomplish the same thing with its all-electric Semi truck, but the vehicle’s target is a lot more ambitious — it aims to disrupt the trucking industry.
The trucking industry is vast, and it is still growing. Long-haul trucking stands is the lifeblood of the US economy, handling the transportation of up to 71% of food, retail goods, construction supplies, and other cargo delivered every day. The American Trucking Associations’ American Trucking Trends 2018 report revealed that the US trucking industry generated $700.3 billion in economic activity in 2017, representing a 3.5% increase compared to 2016 when the trucking market generated $676.6 billion. This is the market that Tesla is aiming to tap into with the Semi.
One of the Tesla Semi’s main selling points is that it’s an environmentally-friendly vehicle. Being all-electric, the Semi is a zero-emissions truck. This is an advantage over conventional diesel trucks, which are a significant source of air pollution in the United States. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, greenhouse gases from medium and heavy-duty trucks were found to have increased by 85% between 1990 to 2016, accounting for about 23% of carbon emissions from transportation in 2016. This is despite the fact that diesel engines are getting steadily cleaner. The EPA estimates that emissions from current engines are about 85% lower than before 2007 when the US rolled out new standards.
The Tesla Semi has several features that make it a viable alternative to diesel-powered long-haulers, from its four Model 3-derived electric motors, its comparable Class 8 hauling capacity, and its superior speed. That said, it appears that America’s diesel veterans would not give up without a fight. In a statement to Bloomberg, Jon Mills, a spokesman for engine maker Cummins Inc. noted that electric trucks have a long way to go before they could be considered competition for diesel trucks.
“Right now, we don’t think it’s viable. Electric trucks are more viable where you have shorter routes, less loads and you’re able to recharge,” he said.
Cummins Inc. is one of America’s premier engine-makers, supplying engines for consumer trucks, fire engines, and heavy-duty long-haulers. Most of the company’s engines run on diesel, though they are also making some that operate on natural gas. Mills noted that Cummins is developing electric motors as well, but the company does not expect a lot of demand for them anytime soon.
Mills did admit that electric trucks would contribute to reducing pollution. Nevertheless, the Cummins Inc. spokesman noted that the trucking industry is likely not ready to switch to electric, mainly since vehicles like the Tesla Semi have limited range. Considering that some truck drivers are paid by the mile, they would likely lose money while waiting for their vehicles’ batteries to recharge.
“Diesel will be the primary option for heavy duty trucking markets, long haul especially, for a decade or more,” Mills said.
Elon Musk wants to initiate the transition sooner. When unveiling the Tesla Semi’s specs, Musk noted that the electric long-hauler would be cheaper to operate than comparable diesel-powered trucks. Musk noted that the Semi could cost operators $1.26 per mile to run, less than the standard $1.51 per mile that diesel-powered vehicles cost. That said, Allen Schaeffer, executive director of the Diesel Technology Forum trade group, is skeptical of Musk’s claims, noting that there is little need for a new entrant in the shipping industry.
“It’s easy if you’re just coming into this market to say ‘they’re $1.50 per mile and we can do it for $1.20. But where’s the proof? I haven’t seen it. Diesel is the benchmark for energy efficiency. Diesel dominates the entire sector,” he said.
Amidst continued reservations from veterans in the trucking industry, Tesla is nonetheless pushing through with further development of the Semi. The company has been conducting real-world tests of the Semi since the vehicle was unveiled, and during the Q2 2018 earnings call, Elon Musk noted that improvements to the truck are being made. Thus, when the Tesla Semi enters production, the long-hauler would be an even more viable alternative to diesel-powered trucks.
“We’ve made significant improvements to the design since the unveiling that we had, and it’s really even better than what we talked about,” Musk said.
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
