Connect with us

News

Tesla and its Supercharger Network dominate 11-way 1,000-mile EV test

Credit: Car and Driver/YouTube

Published

on

An 11-way, 1,000-mile endurance test has proven that long trips with an electric vehicle in the United States are now possible, though those who are not driving Teslas may find themselves a bit challenged. These were the findings of motoring publication Car and Driver, which held a long-distance race between 11 EVs that are currently sold in the United States. 

The vehicles that participated in the test were the Tesla Model S Long Range Plus, Tesla Model Y Performance, Tesla Model 3 Performance, Ford Mustang Mach-E, Porsche Taycan 4S, Kia Niro EV, Audi e-tron, Volkswagen ID.4, Volvo XC40 Recharge, Polestar 2, and Nissan Leaf Plus. Participants in the event, which were comprised of two-person teams, were given free rein to select their own route, provided that they hit checkpoints in Cincinnati; Athens, Ohio; Morgantown, West Virginia; Erie, Pennsylvania; and Ann Arbor. 

Despite using apps like A Better Route Planner (ABRP), some teams immediately started hitting some challenges just a couple of dozen miles into the race. The team in the Nissan Leaf Plus, for example, made its first stop at a charging station just 23 miles into the race, reportedly as suggested by the ABRP app, but this resulted in them being the last group to arrive at a single ChargePoint DC fast charger in Lima, Ohio, behind three other teams. The team in the Audi e-tron eventually gave up their spot in the queue to look for another charging station, but they eventually returned after the other charger they were hoping to use turned out to be offline. 

The non-Tesla EVs with longer range such as the Ford Mustang Mach-E and the Volkswagen ID.4 fared slightly better, driving longer distances before needing a charge. When the vehicles did need a charge, however, the teams ended up experiencing similar issues as their competitors. From single ChargePoint DC fast chargers in some locations to areas with only Level 2 chargers available, some of the teams in the race ended up wasting valuable time. This was especially true for the Ford Mustang Mach-E team, whose lead against its non-Tesla peers tricked down as slowly as the Level 2 stations it ended up using north of Morgan­town. 

In comparison, the Tesla Model S, Model 3, and Model Y teams went through the race without much issues, and a good reason for this was the Supercharger Network. With the rapid charging station being as robust as it is today, the trifecta of Teslas dominated the 1,000-mile race. The Model S Long Range completed the race in commanding fashion, and it was followed by the Model Y team, who beat the Model 3 team through some extra assertiveness. This all but proved that if drivers wish to conduct long road trips in an electric vehicle today, Teslas are still the way to go. The Supercharger Network is just that good. 

Ultimately, the Tesla Model S completed the 1,000-mile run in 16:14, followed by the Tesla Model Y, which finished the race in 17:50. The Tesla Model 3 took third place with a 17:55 time. The rest of the competition arrived over the following hours. The Ford Mustang Mach-E, the electric vehicle hailed by Car and Driver as its 2021 EV of the Year, came in at fourth place with a total time of 20:31, followed by the Porsche Taycan 4S, which had a total time of 21:00. The Kia Niro EV, the Audi e-tron, and the Volkswagen ID.4 all took over 23 hours to complete the 1,000-mile run, and the Volvo XC40 Recharge needed 25:47 to finish the race. The Polestar 2 took a surprisingly long 26:52 to complete its run, while the Nissan Leaf Plus took a whopping 32:57 before it crossed the finish line. 

Advertisement
-

Watch Car and Driver’s 11-way 1,000-mile EV test in the video below. 

Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

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.

Published

on

By

SpaceX Terafab rendering

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Published

on

By

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.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla uber bull Ron Baron says ‘the time to buy the stock is now’

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.

Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:

“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”

The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.

Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.

His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.

Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.

That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.

Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.

Continue Reading