News
Thoughts About the Model X from a Model S Owner
Here’s a little story about my journey to becoming a Model X owner. I started my search for a new car roughly two years ago to replace my aging Acura MDX SUV. Gas prices were at an all time high back then and having a monthly expenditure of $600 for transportation was something I could surely do away with. I did my fair share of research on hybrids in hopes I would eventually choose one as a replacement car, but ultimately dismissed them as an alternative due to the complexities of the powertrain. That was until I ran into Tesla and its Model X. The rest was history.
The Model X Promise
I finally narrowed my search among hybrids and EVs to Tesla’s Model X. The Model S was already available for order at the time and the Model X was still coming soon. I’d driven SUVs for the last 14 years and had an affinity towards them. Needing to survive through the New England winters, while living on a farm with an expanding family, naturally skewed my pursuits for a SUV as it seemed to be the right fit for my lifestyle. Although I had already fallen in love with the Model S, I managed to curb any desires to purchase one and waited patiently on the Model X through much of the second half of 2013 and early 2014.
That was until the Model X delivery estimate began to slip from “early 2014” to “late 2014”, and then again to “second quarter 2015” (it would be postponed yet again later on). I eventually got the hint that the Model X wasn’t going to roll off the production line anytime soon. To make matters worse, my aging SUV was surpassing 200K miles and my kid was becoming of driving age and was to receive the hand-me-down SUV.
Full-size bike stored in the back of a Model S
I really wanted the Model X but inevitably I started to think about whether the Model S could satisfy my criteria for a new car, as follows:
- Must have plenty of room for carrying around luggage, sports gear, bikes, farm stuff, etc.
- Something I could drive all year round and has maximum safety
- Must have enough room for seven people
I left off the need to have a towing package on my must-have list because in my seven years and 200k miles of ownership on the Acura MDX, I never used its built-in towing capabilities once. The MDX had more than ample space for bikes, which I would place inside the car, and roof mounted equipment using the roof rack.
I watched countless Bjorn Nyland videos and ones from Tesla, so much that I was thoroughly convinced that the Model S (real wheel drive was the only option at the time) could be driven in the harshest of winter environments.
My thoughts around owning a seven seater started to dissipate. When my daughter was young, I would haul her and a pack of her friends around in a seven passenger vehicle. But as she grew up and no longer needed rides other than for a few close friends and her boyfriend (sigh), having a vehicle to seat seven became less of a requirement.
And for that reason, I forewent my Model X and ordered the Model S instead during March of 2014. That turned out to be one of the best decisions I’ve ever made in life.
Longing for the Model X
Despite being happily committed to my Model S as a relatively new owner, I still couldn’t stop myself from thinking about the Model X and ultimately ended up putting down a reservation for one once the Design Studio became available. I had convinced myself that a SUV is what I really wanted from the get go. Perhaps I’d trade my Model S in for the X but I still had time to figure that out.
I had also justified placing a deposit on the Model X because my wife’s SUV, a ML 350 diesel, was starting to experience a lot of mechanical and maintenance issues despite being only 20K miles old (we bought it used). I figured that the X would serve as a great replacement vehicle because frankly I was sick of maintaining her SUV.
Finally, Hello Model X
Nearly two years after I was introduced to the Model X online, I finally witnessed its unveiling, along with the rest of the world, via the Model X online test drive videos. The reactions to it seem generally mixed according to friends that attended the Model X launch event. Don’t get me wrong, the Model X is an amazing and transformative vehicle, but to me I felt that I could not obtain much utility from it over what my Model S is already capable of providing.
Sure I’d love to have all wheel drive, autopilot, and being able to open falcon wing doors in tight parking spaces, but even those features aren’t radically different than newer versions of the Model S, less the falcon wing doors.
Model X panoramic windshield
The Model X panoramic windshield is cool although I’m not sure I’d welcome that much sunlight on me while driving. The ‘bio weapon defense mode‘ seems gimmicky to me and a feature that feels cooler to talk about than it would live out in the real world.
The falcon wing doors are amazing and unique but I can’t help but think that its complexity will lead to long term maintenance problems for Tesla. And after all the challenges faced with creating the rad falcon wing doors, they compounded difficulties by creating auto opening front doors. And what about the active rear spoiler? Why is it deployed in all pictures? Will it ever retract?
What surprised me the most during Elon’s 30 minute presentation on the Model X was the amount of time he spent describing the vehicle’s safety rating and air filtration capabilities. Compare this presentation to an Apple product launch event that’s typically packed with detailed specifications and you’re left feeling a bit underwhelmed. Does anyone know the cargo room for the Model X? How wide is it? How tall? How long? What is the max height of the falcon wing doors? Do all the seats fold flat? A car that costs over $132,000 shouldn’t have details as vague as they are.
We caught glimpses of Firmware 7.0 features on the Model X, but there’s still no official word from Tesla that a new interface will be launched with the Model X.
My Future with the Model X
Electric vehicles are the future and Tesla is clearly leading the way in this new vertical. From the Roadster, to the Model S, and to the Model X, Tesla continues to innovate and redefine what an automobile should be like.
While I still have my Model X reservation, I want to know a lot more about it, touch it and maybe even drive it before I decide on the fate of my reservation. Fortunately, my wife’s SUV started behaving as of late, and I’m also very happy with my Model S. Now is probably not the best time for me to pick up a new Model X, but I can easily see a day when all my cars will be electric powered — and made by Tesla.
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
