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!
-
Elon Musk
Space finally faced the people living next to its next Terafab mega-project
SpaceX confirmed Terafab’s Grimes County site is locked in, with construction starting within months.
SpaceX and Terafab representatives sat across from Grimes County residents for the first time on Wednesday, telling a packed Commissioners Court room that the $55 billion chip manufacturing project is now a done deal at the Gibbons Creek Reservoir site.
The meeting followed a $10 million check SpaceX sent the county earlier this week, satisfying a payment deadline built into the tax abatement agreement both sides signed in June. Elon Musk shared a post on X confirming the payment, and County Judge Joe Fauth told the San Antonio Express-News his office deposited the check after it beat its deadline.
Wednesday’s session, first reported by KBTX, moved the project from paperwork to construction. Terafab representative Riley Trennell told residents the JETI tax break agreements with Iola ISD and Anderson-Shiro CISD are signed and active, and that civil work and foundation prep are starting almost immediately. Renderings of the facility could be released within days, he said, with construction beginning within months.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
Musk first announced Terafab in March as a joint venture between Tesla, SpaceX and xAI aimed at producing over a terawatt of AI compute annually, an amount that dwarfs the roughly 20 gigawatts the entire global chip industry produces today. Intel joined as a manufacturing partner in April. Musk has said the project needed its own day in the spotlight rather than being squeezed into an earnings call, and for months the Grimes County site remained unconfirmed even as reporting pointed there.
SpaceX attorney Buck Brannon used Wednesday’s meeting to note that the company’s abatement is roughly 78 percent, not the 100 percent some earlier reports suggested. In exchange, SpaceX will pay Grimes County a fixed $20 million a year for 35 years, a total of $710 million, which Brannon said exceeds the $14 million Tesla paid Travis County in 2025.
SpaceX also addressed environmental concerns that have followed the project since Musk’s Terafab partnership with Intel was announced. Representatives said Terafab will not raise electric bills for other ratepayers, will not deplete local water supplies and will not draw down the Navasota River. SpaceX confirmed it owns the Navasota River pumping station, which it plans to use to divert stormwater into the Gibbons Creek Reservoir, and said it will build its own natural gas plants to power the facility rather than pulling from the ERCOT grid.
-
Grimes County commissioners also approved an addendum letting county employees use ten approved AI chatbots for work, including Grok.
Elon Musk has declared that SpaceX has effectively solved one of Starship’s most persistent engineering challenges: the reliability of its heat shield tiles.
During the company’s first-ever Earnings Call, the SpaceX CEO stated:
“I don’t want to jinx it or anything, but I think I would call the heat shield problem solved at this point. All indications from data and visual inspection is we have solved it. That doesn’t mean we won’t make improvements, but we do not see any technical obstacles to achieving rapid reusability at this point.”
Starship’s heat shield consists of roughly 18,000 hexagonal ceramic tiles covering the windward side of the upper stage. These tiles form the thermal protection system that shields the vehicle’s stainless-steel structure from the extreme heat of atmospheric reentry.
Elon says he believes the heat shield problem with Starship is currently solved.
He called it “arguably the single biggest problem” pic.twitter.com/eEE9vM5zlz
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 4, 2026
-
During descent, atmospheric friction generates temperatures exceeding several thousand degrees Celsius and creates plasma flows capable of melting unprotected metal. The tiles absorb, radiate, and insulate against this energy, allowing the vehicle to survive and potentially fly again. Without a durable heat shield, full and rapid reusability, the cornerstone of Starship’s design for frequent launches, satellite deployments, and deep-space missions, would remain impossible.
The tiles have long been a source of difficulty. On earlier test flights, a significant number of tiles detached during ascent due to vibration, aerodynamic loads, and imperfect attachment methods using pins and adhesives. Gaps between tiles allowed hot plasma to infiltrate, causing secondary damage and hot spots on the underlying structure.
These issues echoed challenges faced by NASA’s Space Shuttle, whose ceramic tiles required extensive, labor-intensive inspections and replacements between missions, preventing rapid turnaround. SpaceX has iteratively improved materials, standardized tile shapes, refined attachment techniques, added secondary ablative layers, and tested sealing methods such as “crunch wrap” felt to close gaps.
Progress was visible across Flights 10–12, with steadily better tile retention, yet questions remained about whether the system could support the minimal-refurbishment goal of rapid reuse.
Flight 13 on July 24 provided the decisive evidence. Ship 40 flew a deliberately more demanding profile with higher dynamic pressure to stress the heat shield beyond typical operational loads. It successfully deployed 20 operational Starlink V3 satellites, the first such payload on a Starship mission, performed an in-space Raptor engine relight, and executed a controlled reentry.
Elon Musk sheds two new bits of detail on Starship after 13th test launch
Cameras on six of the satellites and onboard sensors captured extensive imagery and data of the shield throughout the flight. The ship then achieved its softest splashdown to date in the Indian Ocean, remaining intact and floating rather than breaking apart or exploding as on prior missions. This allowed drone inspections and continuous telemetry of the heat shield in near-real time.
-
Post-flight analysis showed the majority of tiles remaining attached with only minor damage and limited plasma streaking at seams. Musk noted that the mission delivered “all the heat shield data we needed and then some.” Combined with visual inspections, these results underpinned his subsequent assessment that the core technical barriers to rapid reusability have been cleared. While refinements will continue, Flight 13 marked a pivotal step toward Starship’s operational future.
SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell outlined ambitious plans for Starlink Mobile during the company’s August 4 Earnings call, signaling a direct challenge to U.S. wireless giants like AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.
Shotwell noted that the three companies generate roughly $600 billion in combined annual revenue. “I anticipate us to be able to acquire quite a few of their customers because I think our service will be better,” she said. “We will eliminate dead zones leveraging the satellites in orbit. It will be better during any natural disaster… I’m quite excited about Starlink Mobile.”
SpaceX President & COO Gwynne Shotwell on @Starlink Mobile and its impact on Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile:
“Roughly, between them, $600 billion a year. I anticipate us to be able to acquire quite a few of their customers. Our service will be better. We will eliminate dead zones… pic.twitter.com/UYZUkrGc0L
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) August 4, 2026
SpaceX intends to combine its satellite constellation with terrestrial infrastructure. The company has acquired about 65 MHz of spectrum from EchoStar and plans to deploy next-generation Starlink Mobile satellites in 2027, with upgraded service targeted for the end of that year.
Shotwell described the enhanced network, leveraging more satellites and spectrum, as potentially “100 times better” than the current direct-to-cell offering, which already supports basic texting and app-based voice/video in coverage gaps through partnerships. She also indicated plans for low-cost cellular base stations that could integrate with existing Starlink dishes, creating a hybrid system for broader capacity in urban, suburban, and rural areas.
-
For the general public, Starlink Mobile promises significant advantages. Satellite connectivity can fill gaps where traditional cell towers fail, delivering service in remote locations, mountains, or during outages caused by storms, wildfires, or infrastructure damage—conditions in which ground networks often collapse.
Users could enjoy more consistent coverage without relying solely on dense tower builds, potentially at competitive prices as SpaceX scales. The hybrid approach aims to support full mobile services, including higher-speed data, while working with unmodified smartphones over time.
These developments revive long-standing but unfounded rumors of a Musk-developed “Tesla phone.” Speculative claims of a “Pi Phone” or similar device with built-in Starlink connectivity have circulated for years on social media, often featuring fabricated images and details. Elon Musk has repeatedly denied any such plans, stating Tesla has no intention of entering the smartphone market unless forced by extreme circumstances with app stores.
No official product, filings, or development announcements have ever materialized; the rumors remain hoaxes.
The announcement quickly pressured telecom stocks. Shares of AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile fell between roughly 2 and 4 percent in after-hours and premarket trading as investors weighed the competitive threat from a hybrid satellite-terrestrial network.
While execution challenges remain—spectrum deployment, infrastructure rollout, and regulatory hurdles—Shotwell’s remarks mark SpaceX’s clearest signal yet of entering the consumer mobile market as a full competitor.
-
Space finally faced the people living next to its next Terafab mega-project
SpaceX has solved Starship’s biggest challenge, Elon Musk says
