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!
Renowned investor Ron Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital, has once again demonstrated his unwavering faith in Elon Musk’s ventures.
Just after SpaceX’s record-breaking IPO, Baron announced he purchased an additional $1 billion in SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) shares. This move pushes Baron Capital’s total holdings in the company to a staggering $25 billion in market value, underscoring one of the most successful private-to-public investment stories in recent history.
Baron’s relationship with SpaceX dates back to 2017, when his firm began investing approximately $1.75–2 billion through secondary markets and employee tender offers at valuations around $20–22 billion.
By the time of the IPO, which valued SpaceX at over $2 trillion with shares closing near $161, those early stakes had generated more than $13 billion in unrealized gains. Post-IPO, Baron’s position ballooned further, reflecting the company’s meteoric rise driven by reusable rocketry, Starlink’s global satellite internet constellation, Starshield defense applications, and ambitious plans for orbital infrastructure.
In a recent interview, Baron articulated his bullish outlook with characteristic enthusiasm.
Ron Baron said today that he bought $1 billion of @SpaceX IPO shares last Friday, and said that all of Baron Capital’s $SPCX holdings are now worth $25 billion.
“I think we’re going to make hundreds of billions of dollars; If you read the prospectus, you realize what they… pic.twitter.com/U8F471KtJS
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 15, 2026
“I think we’re going to make hundreds of billions of dollars,” he stated, emphasizing that SpaceX’s achievements in rocketry and satellite technology are “not possible for anyone else to accomplish.” He envisions the company as a cornerstone of humanity’s multi-planetary future, potentially reaching valuations of $10–30 trillion within 10–15 years.
Baron has repeatedly affirmed he has no plans to sell, viewing SpaceX as a “lifetime investment” alongside Tesla.
Tesla bull Ron Baron reveals $100M SpaceX investment, sees 3-5x return on TSLA
This conviction stems from SpaceX’s unparalleled execution. The company has revolutionized access to space with Falcon 9 reusability, deployed thousands of Starlink satellites, and is advancing Starship for Mars missions and point-to-point Earth transport.
Baron highlights emerging opportunities like space-based AI data centers and direct-to-cell satellite connectivity, positioning SpaceX at the forefront of a new space economy projected to generate trillions in value.
Critics may question the lofty projections amid high valuations and execution risks, but Baron’s track record speaks volumes. His Tesla holdings, initiated in the mid-2010s, have also delivered outsized returns. As one of the largest institutional holders of SpaceX pre-IPO, Baron Capital’s funds, such as Baron Partners, benefited immensely from valuation markups.
Baron’s $1 billion IPO purchase signals deep confidence in SpaceX’s post-IPO trajectory. In an era of short-term market noise, his strategy exemplifies patient capital: backing visionary leadership and transformative technology.
For investors watching the space sector, it serves as a powerful endorsement that the final frontier may indeed yield the next great wealth-creation engine. As Baron puts it, SpaceX isn’t just building rockets—it’s trying to “save humanity” by expanding our horizons beyond Earth.
SpaceX and Tesla, the two flagship companies under Elon Musk’s leadership, share a commitment to groundbreaking technology yet pursue dramatically different paths in how they connect with customers.
Tesla has built its brand through a philosophy of minimal traditional advertising, trusting that exceptional products will generate their own momentum.
SpaceX, by contrast, has embraced high-visibility paid advertising for its Starlink satellite internet service, placing prominent spots during major live sporting events such as the Super Bowl and the recent UFC Freedom 250. This divergence highlights how each company tailors its marketing to the unique demands of its products and target markets.
Tesla’s approach stems directly from Musk’s long-held conviction that superior engineering sells itself. Musk has repeatedly explained that the company redirects resources into research and development rather than endorsements or television commercials.
Tesla’s growth has relied instead on organic channels: enthusiastic owner referrals, viral product reveals like the Cybertruck, extensive media coverage of launches and achievements, and the sheer visibility of its vehicles on roads everywhere.
Even as the company has tested more social media promotions in response to fluctuating demand, its overall strategy remains restrained and digital-focused compared to legacy automakers that pour hundreds of millions into marketing annually.
SpaceX has taken a more assertive route with Starlink to drive widespread consumer awareness. In February of this year, SpaceX aired its first-ever Super Bowl advertisement, marking the initial time any Musk-led enterprise invested in the massive event.
The thirty-second spot emphasized fast and affordable internet available nearly anywhere on the planet, blending inspiring footage of Falcon 9 and Starship landings with narration drawn from science fiction visionary Arthur C. Clarke. United Airlines complemented this with its own Super Bowl commercial showcasing Starlink-enabled high-speed Wi-Fi on flights.
🚨 Starlink Super Bowl ad! https://t.co/pEdH1KevBj pic.twitter.com/01onakkoqX
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 9, 2026
But that is not all SpaceX has done to get word out about its internet service.
Just last night, Starlink branding appeared prominently on the octagon and during the broadcast of UFC Freedom 250, the high-profile event staged on the White House South Lawn. These placements represent a strategic investment in reaching massive, engaged audiences.
🚨 Starlink ads have appeared on the UFC Freedom 250 broadcast on Paramount+ pic.twitter.com/VPAAhDR6LI
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 15, 2026
The rationale behind SpaceX’s advertising push lies in Starlink’s distinct position as a consumer broadband service. Unlike Tesla’s visually striking cars that act as mobile billboards for early-adopter enthusiasts, Starlink must overcome awareness gaps in rural, remote, and mobile markets where traditional internet infrastructure falls short.
Starlink now serves as SpaceX’s leading revenue generator, with ambitions tied to future growth and potential public offerings. Targeted advertising during sports broadcasts efficiently demonstrates real-world reliability for applications ranging from home connectivity to aviation and live event broadcasting.
Partnerships with airlines and mobile providers further extend its reach, while high-profile placements help convert curiosity into subscriptions amid competition and regulatory considerations.
Ultimately, these contrasting strategies reflect the different maturity levels and competitive landscapes each business navigates. Tesla benefits from built-in visibility and a passionate community that amplifies its message at little cost.
Starlink, operating in the more fragmented broadband sector, requires deliberate efforts to educate and attract mainstream users. By leveraging the spectacle of major sporting events where Tesla once declined to participate, SpaceX is accelerating Starlink toward global ubiquity.
This flexibility underscores a key lesson: even the most innovative companies must adapt their tactics to the practical realities of their markets and customer acquisition challenges.
Elon Musk
SpaceX (SPCX) IPO is live today at $135: Here’s exactly what you need to know
SpaceX priced its historic IPO at $135 per share today, raising a record $75 billion.
SpaceX officially priced its initial public offering at $135 per share, offering 555,555,555 shares of Class A common stock and raising $75 billion in what is the largest IPO in stock market history. Shares are set to begin trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on Friday, June 12, under the ticker symbol SPCX. The previous record holder was Saudi Aramco’s 2019 offering at $29 billion, followed by Alibaba’s $22 billion offering in 2014.
At $135 per share and roughly 555.6 million shares, the implied valuation sits near $1.75 trillion, which would make SpaceX roughly the seventh largest company in the United States, just above Tesla’s current market cap. Regular investors can request shares at the IPO price through Robinhood, Fidelity, Charles Schwab, SoFi, and E*TRADE, though the deal is heavily oversubscribed and most retail allocations will be partial or unfilled. Once trading opens June 12, anyone with a brokerage account can buy SPCX on the open market.
SpaceX’s amended S-1 is sparking a major Tesla merger conversation
The valuation is anchored primarily by Starlink. Starlink crossed 10 million subscribers as of February 2026 and is adding 750,000 to 1.5 million new users per month, with the connectivity segment already posting a $1.19 billion profit last quarter. The offering also bundles in xAI following SpaceX’s all-stock merger earlier this year, adding Grok and the Colossus supercomputer to the investment thesis. As Teslarati reported, Starlink ended 2025 with $10 billion in revenue, a figure analysts project could reach $24 billion by end of 2026.
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives has been vocal in his support. “I think the time is right,” Ives said, adding that the offering expands the Elon Musk ecosystem rather than competing with Tesla. An average 12-month price target of $165 per share represents roughly 22% upside from the IPO price. Not everyone agrees – Motley Fool noted xAI is spending $1 billion per month playing catch-up to OpenAI and Anthropic.
Musk founded SpaceX in 2002 with a single stated purpose. “Elon founded SpaceX with a goal to change humanity, to make us a multi-planet species,” CFO Bret Johnsen said in the company’s retail roadshow video this week. Musk himself has been more direct: “We are building the systems and technologies necessary to provide global connectivity on Earth and beyond, to understand the true nature of the universe, and to extend the light of consciousness to the stars.”
Musk’s biggest bettor Ron Baron reveals massive SpaceX IPO bet
SpaceX maintains bold advertising push for Starlink, contrasting Tesla’s minimalistic approach
