News
Tesla vehicle reviews are pointless…Here’s why
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
Tesla vehicle reviews are probably one of the most worthless things to read, in my own opinion, especially if they’re coming from a large group or entity with interests that anyone can trace through the money. Earlier this week, Edmunds put up a scathing review of the Model S Plaid, calling it “a waste of money” and saying it was nothing more than a marketing tool to make an aging vehicle relevant once again. Despite these words, which caught the attention of many readers within the first 48 hours, the Edmunds driver couldn’t wipe the large, shining smile from his face as he felt the instant torque of the vehicle take off like a rollercoaster.
For something that is such a waste, it sure provided a lot of enjoyment to the Edmunds staff. Of course, vehicle performance is not necessarily a baseline for whether an automobile is “good” or not. If a car is fast, people will like it because fast cars are just fun to be in, whether you’re a driver or a passenger. However, reviews on electric cars, Teslas in specific, do not get a fair shake, and it’s not necessarily anyone’s fault, per se. Instead, I see it as an opportunity for people to put their opinions out there without speaking in generalities or thinking their point of view is a fact. Of course, you could say the same about this newsletter.
For me, the comprehension of electric cars, Teslas in specific, needs to be examined by someone seasoned and completely understanding what is going on under the hood (I use that term loosely, now) because without the basic comprehension of what you’re driving, you really are not qualified to speak on it. Additionally, whether something is a “waste of money” really comes down to the consumer. If you’re buying a Model S Plaid for the performance statistics, you’re getting the fastest car in the world for millions of dollars less than its competitors. Sure, if you’re buying it for range and a daily driver, it could be considered a “waste” as the Long Range variant is likely a better option. However, some people realize they won’t have their money forever, and the additional $40,000 cost is simply arbitrary in their point of view.
For me, there are just too many factors as to why reviews are pointless when it comes to certain cars, especially with fast ones. I will discuss a few of them here, and I look forward to hearing your point of view with the others.
Credit: Tesla
Internal Interests
Tesla fans are quick to point out when a product gets a negative review or any sort of pushback. Many of them claim inside interests without really doing their own due diligence, claiming that some entities have their pockets lined with oil money or anything else the mind can grasp. Sometimes, however, they’re not far off. CarMax purchased Edmunds back in April, which means that the company is no longer independent and is owned by a large company with ties with Chrysler, Mitsubishi, Toyota, and Nissan.
It is always important to see what interests some entities have when they speak about a car or any product, for that matter. Simply enough, people with the ability to put their name on an article or a video and put it out there for millions of people to digest have a responsibility to remain partial. It doesn’t always work that way.
Opinionated Points on Features
This is one of my biggest points. Edmunds was quick to dismiss the usefulness of the Yoke, claiming that “the Yoke was a Joke.” Yes, they really wrote that on Twitter.
The Tesla Model S Plaid is nothing more than a marketing exercise designed to draw attention to an aging car. Also, the yoke is a joke. Our full review of the fastest car we’ve ever tested: https://t.co/f1SkdDmRhI pic.twitter.com/A1UUKWODEV
— Edmunds (@edmunds) September 7, 2021
The thing is, I have monitored the Yoke since it was going to be included in the Model S, and while I have spoken to numerous government agencies and Tesla employees about the Yoke, the wheel is really personal preference. The car is obviously built for performance, and performance vehicles, especially open-wheeled cars, like F1 series vehicles, use a Yoke for complete control at high speeds. It is likely Tesla didn’t go with the Yoke for this reason, but it may have included it as a hint toward a steering wheel-less cockpit in the future. That’s my idea, anyway, especially as the company surges toward autonomy.
I have NEVER come across a single person who has disliked driving the Yoke for what it’s worth.
Of course, a review does include some personal preference, and that’s expected. However, to slash a vehicle in this way that is likely the most advanced car on the market in terms of software, performance, and technology in this way smells of too much opinion, for me. Stick to the facts, is it a good car? Is it functional? Does it do what the automaker said it would do?
Cars are made to be tested individually
The most logical way to know if a car is for you is to drive it yourself. You should never go off of someone else’s opinion completely. It makes no sense to do this. If cars were meant to be bought off of the basis of someone else’s experience, nobody would drive PT Cruisers (they’re horribly ugly), and everyone would drive what someone else wanted them to drive. Let’s not forget: Cars, while a meaningful portion of life because they get us to work, events, and anywhere we need to go, are supposed to be enjoyable and fun. Not one person on this Earth wants to drive a car they hate if they don’t have to. Hell, when my Dad bought me a 2003 Taurus in college because my Jetta died, I hated it. It was like driving a boat. I was embarrassed by the putrid blue color. I hated the seats, the stereo, and in the winter, I had to keep one hand on the driver’s door because the latch wouldn’t work, and the part was on backorder. There is nothing like driving on the interstate to get to class on time and holding the door shut for dear life, hoping you don’t roll out. I had no other choice, I was a broke college kid, and it was a car that got me from Point A to Point B. But I will never again drive a car I hate.
The thing is, someone I went to high school with loved their 2003 Taurus. They talked about its powerful V6 engine and its fine leather interior. It was a car they enjoyed. I am sure it was a nice car, I didn’t like it.
This goes to my point: Just because someone else hates it and thinks it is a pile of junk doesn’t mean it actually is. It’s just an opinion. Do you want to know if a car is good or not? Drive it yourself and tell your friends what you thought of it. Your opinion of the car won’t change theirs.
I will say this: It is important to have these pieces of literature to show us the negative portions of a car. Like if the software isn’t great, or the touchscreen is not very responsive, or if the center console doesn’t move properly. Those are understandable pieces of criticism, but none of them are opinionated. If the software isn’t great, people will see that. It might keep them from buying a car prematurely.
With all of that being said, there is plenty of evidence to suggest the Plaid Model S is a great vehicle, and there is other evidence that suggests Tesla has things to work on. Whichever side of the ball you’re on, believe in your opinion, but be open to other’s points as well. Additionally, make the final decision about a car on your own time, don’t go off of someone else’s words. That’s how you end up with something that you really do not enjoy driving.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
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
