News
Hey, Toyota: Tesla may not have a ‘Chef,’ but at least their food doesn’t suck
At some point or another, most of us have cooked a meal for others. If you did a reasonably good job making a meal, someone may say: “You should have been a Chef.” Whether it is a hobby in your spare time or you spent multiple years at a culinary institute, cooking is one of the few things in life that everyone has to experience at some point or another. It could be stovetop ramen or a fine piece of beef with a slice of foie gras. Whatever it is, you do it to your liking, and you usually think you did it well.
However, having the title of “Chef” does not insinuate that someone is good at cooking. Some people study things for several years, and they unfortunately just do not have a knack for it. Most of us have gone to fine dining restaurants at some point or another in our lives, and we prepare ourselves to fully commit and make ourselves vulnerable to the culinary works of whoever is commanding the kitchen that evening. But sometimes, the food simply isn’t to our liking, and you say to yourself, “How could this person ever be considered a Chef?”
Toyota seems to forget that “Chef” doesn’t mean you can cook. In this case, being the head of an automotive company doesn’t mean you’re innovative, good for the job, or even right for the job.
Yet, Akio Toyoda, the President of Toyota, runs his grandfather’s business and was bold enough to cast some stones at Tesla and Elon Musk.
Toyota CEO attempts Tesla analogy and fails: ‘They aren’t really making something that’s real’
“We are losing when it comes to the share price. But when it comes to products, we have a full menu that will be chosen by customers,” Toyoda said. “They aren’t really making something that’s real, people are just buying the recipe. We have the kitchen and chef, and we make real food.”
As if comparing cooking to automotive wasn’t confusing enough, Toyoda actually thinks that Tesla is inferior to his company, even though they don’t have a pure EV in their lineup. They do have a Plug-In Hybrid EV with the Prius PHEV. Still, the company didn’t make any pure EVs because it believes hybrids are “a better bridge between ICE vehicles and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles,” according to a 2019 article from Car and Driver.
Even still, Toyoda’s apparent attempt to derail and discredit Tesla’s automotive domination through 2020 was weak.
Your meal this evening will be prepared by Chef Elon Musk
Elon Musk probably doesn’t cook very often for the family. He’s spending his many waking hours trying to figure out what moves will take Tesla to the next level. He likely doesn’t have time to whip up a full dinner for his kids or his partner, Grimes.
Instead, Musk’s full focus is on Tesla. Because of his full-fledged obsession with “accelerating the world’s transition to sustainable energy,” Musk has often said that Tesla’s real competitors are those who refuse to adapt to electrification, and not entities who are embracing the EV revolution, like Volkswagen, for example. Even still, Musk hasn’t gone out of his way to attack CEOs or Presidents of automotive companies that are not willing to build an EV, or a lineup of them, for that matter. Instead, his efforts are solving manufacturing, making cars more affordable, and ensuring the company’s customers that his products are fun to operate.
The Appetizer
Toyota once had an electric car: The RAV4 EV, but it was discontinued in 2014, according to its website. However, the brand has stated that it will produce six new EV models that will launch over the next five years, citing “global demand” as the reason for the embrace of sustainable transportation. However, unveiling three vehicles that are eerily similar to the Smart Car wasn’t exactly what consumers had planned. Therefore, the company will begin to go after the U.S., Europe, and China: three locations with an unquenchable thirst for electric transportation. They will likely enter China before any other market.
The thing is, Toyota doesn’t seem to have a plan, as of now, to transition to a fully electric lineup. Perhaps this is what Toyoda meant by “we have a full menu.”
Like the fiery and passionate Gordon Ramsay, some chefs would say having a “full menu” is not necessarily a good thing. Having a concentration and focusing on one style of food is advantageous for not only the chefs but also for the customers.
Cars are no different. Trying to build a lineup of ICE cars, PHEVs, Hybrids, EVs, and Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles will have Toyota in a scenario where they are trying to balance so many different power sources. If Toyota plans to attack each subsection of a vehicle with 5-7 models, there is going to be a lot of different strategies going on, and it could spell confusion. Floyd Mayweather once used this to insult SportsCenter anchor Brian Kenny, stating he was “a Man of many traits, but a Master of Nothing.”
It might be easier to focus on one style of car, maybe two. Not five, Toyota.
The Main Course
Tesla and Toyota both have a track record of success. While Toyota’s is longer and more reputable than Tesla’s, just because of a longer existence, Tesla has influenced an entire industry to transition from what they are familiar with. Many car companies focused on creating fast, efficient, and affordable passenger cars powered by fossil fuels. Now that Tesla has come along and proven that EVs are fun, affordable, and good for the environment, massive brands like Ford and Volkswagen are committing themselves to electrification in the future. While some have more ambitious plans than others, there is nothing wrong with taking your time. As long as a company plans to transition away from gas and diesel and into EVs, it will have some backing from sustainability supporters.
The Dessert
Unlike most desserts, this one isn’t going to be very sweet.
Listening to the head of one of the largest car companies in the world cast stones at Tesla and Elon Musk is quite shocking. “They wanna see you do good, but never better than them” comes to mind here. At one point, Toyoda may have been hoping Tesla could introduce an EV that would give the company some inspiration. In fact, as a company, Toyota may have wanted someone else to dive into EVs so that it could learn from someone else’s mistakes. However, Tesla has had plenty of those mistakes, but its resiliency, which was highlighted by Elon Musk in a series of Tweets earlier this week, has made it the most valuable car company in the world.
Who is Number 2? Toyota.
Check, please.
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
