News
Tesla Semi and Roadster could be relying on a “battery breakthrough”
Elon Musk and Tesla have made some bold claims for the new Tesla Semi and Roadster. Those who understand batteries have been scratching their heads trying to figure out how the company can deliver the specs it’s promising – and concluding that the only possible way is some as-yet-unannounced advancement in battery technology.
Musk says the Tesla Semi will be able to haul 80,000 pounds for 500 miles, and recharge to 400 miles in 30 minutes, which would revolutionize the trucking industry. As for the Roadster, its promised 0-60 acceleration of 1.9 seconds effectively shuts down every one of the world’s baddest supercars, and its touted 620-mile range would be double that of any EV produced to date.
However, industry experts are questioning Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s touted range and charging capabilities, saying the specifications defy current physics and battery economics.
According to Bloomberg, analysts at Bloomberg New Energy Finance point out that Tesla Semi’s announced specs would require a battery capacity of between 600 and 1,000 kilowatt hours (6-10 times the size of the largest Model S battery). Using current technology, an 800 kWh battery pack would weigh over 10,000 pounds and cost more than $100,000. That’s just for the battery – Tesla has said its entire truck will start at $150,000. It seems plain that Tesla is counting on falling battery prices to square the circle. “The first Tesla Semis won’t hit the road until late 2019,” Bloomberg points out. “Even then, production would probably start slowly. Most fleet operators will want to test the trucks before considering going all-in. By the time Tesla gets large orders, batteries should cost considerably less.”
It isn’t just the capacity of the battery that’s causing analysts to wear out their calculators – Musk’s claim that the Tesla Semi will be able to add 400 miles of charge in 30 minutes would require a charging system 10 times more powerful than Tesla’s current Supercharger – which is already by far the most powerful in the industry.
Tesla Semi Megacharger port could support 1 MW of power.
“I don’t understand how that works,” said Bloomberg New Energy Finance EV Analyst Salim Morsy. “I really don’t.” Tesla’s current generation of Superchargers have a power output of 120 kilowatts and can add about 180 miles of range to a Model S battery in 30 minutes. To meet Tesla’s charging claim for the Semi would require the promised Megacharger to deliver an output of at least 1,200 kW.
Perhaps Tesla’s biggest bombshell is the promise that it will guarantee truckers electricity rates of 7 cents per kilowatt hour, which Bloomberg estimates could translate to fuel savings of up to $30,000 a year. Musk says that adding solar panels and battery packs at the charging stations will account for at least part of the cost reduction. However, BNEF’s Salim Morsy insists that Tesla will have to heavily subsidize those electricity rates – he estimates that Tesla will pay a minimum of 40 cents per kWh. “There’s no way you can reconcile 7 cents a kilowatt hour with anything on the grid that puts a megawatt hour of energy into a battery,” Morsy said. “That simply does not exist.”
Of course, that’s no different from what Tesla does for its current Supercharger network, offering free electricity to many customers, while paying almost $1 per kWh to produce it, according to Morsy’s estimate.
And how about that Roadster? To deliver its promised range of 620 miles, it will need a 200 kWh battery pack, twice the size of Tesla’s largest currently available pack. Mr. Morsy predicts that Tesla will stack two battery packs, one on top of the other, beneath the Roadster’s floor.
Even with a double-decker pack however, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that Tesla is counting on improving battery tech to make the Roadster, like the Semi, feasible. Battery density has been improving at a rate of about 7.5 percent a year, and that’s without any major breakthrough in battery chemistry.
“The trend in battery density is, I think, central to any claim Tesla made about both the Roadster and the Semi,” Morsy said. “That’s totally fair. The assumptions on a pack in 2020 shouldn’t be the same ones you use today.”
A massive battery pack not only enables greater range – it’s also a key element in the Roadster’s world-beating 0-60 acceleration. Jalopnik’s David Tracy spoke with battery expert Venkat Viswanathan, a Mechanical Engineering Assistant Professor at Carnegie Mellon, who says that the 1.9-second figure actually seems reasonable.
Viswanathan explains that the power output of a motor is limited by the power draw from each battery cell. Because the Roadster’s pack is double the size, the power draw may not be that much more than that of a Ludicrous Model S.
Viswanathan told Jalopnik that the most modern battery cells offer specific energy of about 240 watt-hours per kilogram. Using that assumption, the Roadster’s 200 kWh battery pack should weigh roughly 1,800 pounds, a huge advance over the previous-generation Roadster. With clever use of lightweight materials, the Roadster could still come out under the nearly two-ton curb weight of the Nissan GT-R, an acceleration benchmark among sports cars.
Viswanathan concludes that a 0-60 time of 1.9 seconds and a range of 620 miles are quite feasible, although there are several other factors that will come into play – much depends on the vehicle’s tires and aerodynamics.
Meanwhile, at least one analyst thinks Tesla’s latest revelations (or claims, or fantasies, depending on your point of view) have implications that go far beyond the Semi and the Roadster. Michael Kramer, a Fund Manager with Mott Capital Management, told Marketwatch that he suspects improved battery capacities and charging times could make their way into all future Tesla vehicles.
“I’d have to imagine that Tesla has figured out how to put this technology on all of their cars, which means every car could get a full charge in under 30 minutes,” Kramer wrote. Once the Model S “is equipped with the 200 kWh battery pack in the new Roadster, which I can’t imagine is too far down the road, the range issue for the Tesla is officially dead.” (Elon Musk has said that Models S and X will not get physically larger packs, but improved energy density could increase capacity while keeping the size of the pack the same.) Someday soon, Kramer says, “The Model S would likely be able to drive further on one charge than a car on a full tank of gasoline.”
===
Note: Article originally published on evannex.com, by Charles Morris
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
