News
Solving the Tesla Semi truck conundrum: here’s what it might take
With the release of Tesla’s updated vision for the future, CEO Elon Musk included plenty of information that was both intriguing and light on details. From that, we will try to make a guess as to what Tesla’s plans are in reference to trucks and shed light on the many obstacles that the company will need to overcome before making its plans a reality.
The light details of Musk’s announcement is par for the course from Tesla and Co, which operates its marketing as much on hype and viral sharing as anything else. This is not a knock against the company, as most other firms would sacrifice virgins every Friday to see the same kind of unsolicited viral marketing that Tesla generates. One thing Elon has mastered is walking the fine line between being informative and forthcoming and being vague enough to cause rampant speculation.
In the company’s “Part Deux” plans for the future, a brief and almost passing mention of semi-trucks was made as a part of Tesla’s developments. Specifically, Must referred to “heavy-duty trucks” and called the idea a “Tesla Semi.” This can imply two things, but probably implies both. It could imply that Tesla plans to make a heavy-duty truck – which could mean a three-quarter ton pickup truck, a Class B heavy truck, or a large Class A freight-hauling truck. Or it can imply that Tesla plans to make a semi-truck only (aka “18 wheeler”). We believe it’s likely that they plan to do all of the above.
Currently, about 70 percent of the freight being moved around the United States is moved on semi-trucks in which a large tractor is attached to a separate trailer. These trucks typically operate at weights up to 80,000 pounds in vehicle, freight, and fuel. They are referred to as “Class A” trucks because the weight class requires an operator’s license of that type. Yet that is only one class of truck. And the typical over-the-road (OTR) truck we usually think of when talking about semi-trucks are just one slice of a large trucking pie.
Nearly 12,000 million tons of freight are hauled by trucks every year in the United States. A significant portion of that hauling is done by smaller trucks rather than large semi-trucks. Package carrying (van) trucks, dump trucks, refuse (garbage) trucks, and other specialized trucks are also common and actually make up a larger portion of the miles driven by heavy-duty trucking. Most of these vehicles have a gross weight of 26,000 pounds or more, by definition, so for our purposes here we will be excluding passenger-style heavy-duty pickups and the like. We are assuming that Musk is referring to freight hauling, given his statements.
With the plan to “cover the major forms of terrestrial transport” that Tesla put forth, we can assume that the company plans to design and potentially build heavy-duty trucks of all stripes. This is realistic given that major truck builders such as Paccar (Kenworth, Peterbilt), Volvo, Mack, etc. already do this. One basic design can be modified to match several needs, thus a single model Mack truck can be both an OTR freight puller and a dump truck with just a few changes to the drivetrain and chassis. Medium-duty trucks, such as package delivery (ala UPS, FedEx) box trucks can also be of a single design with multiple body options. Although the reality is a bit more complicated than this, the gist is that it is possible to design only a couple of vehicles and have them workable in most major truck markets. Knowing this, we will concentrate on the most difficult to achieve, over-the-road heavy-duty semi-trucks.
Knowing that, there are obstacles to overcome. The challenges of a Tesla pickup truck are a beginning, but with a heavy freight hauler, they become exponential. Here are some basic requirements for the biggest of these HD trucks:
- Power output similar to a large diesel engine, equalling roughly 450-550 horsepower and 800-1,200 pound-feet of torque. The amount of output depends heavily on the work to be done. A typical OTR truck, for example, falls in the lower end of this spectrum to maximize fuel efficiency while a typical off-road construction or heavy-load truck (logging and the like) will be at the higher end.
- An operating range of 600 miles per charge for OTR and about half that for more local use (construction, large trailer/freight delivery). Smaller trucks doing package deliveries could operate in the 150-mile range easily.
- The capability to haul as much or more freight than the current diesel-powered offerings do.
That last point is important. Getting a 600-mile range for a truck that can weigh up to 80,000 pounds, freight included, is pretty simple. Getting a 600-mile range for a truck and trailer weighing under 35,000 pounds is not as easy. It’s the old problem of more batteries equals more range, but also equals more weight.
There have been and are current attempts at electrifying semi-trucks, of course. Mostly in the medium-duty package delivery and trailer moving (non-transport) sectors. Solutions involving hydrogen fuel cells, battery-electrics, hydraulic hybrids, and more have been produced. Some did not do well (see Smith Transport) and some are going places (see Parker-Hannifin’s hydraulic hybrids). For the most part, battery-electric over-the-road trucks are seen as a pipe dream by most in the industry. There are good reasons for this. Not the least of which are the battery weight and range expectations of the trucks. Nevermind the likely long charging times required.
Walmart’s WAVE concept truck features an electric powertrain and lightweight carbon fiber trailer
Without getting too detailed, most OTR drivers expect to put in 600 or more miles per day in a solo run (one driver) and about 1,000 or so when team driving. Most fuel stops are 15-20 minutes and most trucks have a range of 700-1,000 miles when fitted with dual tanks (one on either side). Having enough lithium-ion batteries on board to do that is daunting. Especially given the high power outputs required to move 80,000 pounds worth of rig and freight.
There are solutions for this, of course. Since Musk devoted so much of his announcement to autonomous driving, we can assume the plan is to include that with trucking. Three possible ideas are:
Relaying. A truck takes a trailer 300-400 miles, swaps it with a trailer going back where it came from, and returns. The trailer swapped continues on with on another truck for another 300-400 miles, then another, and another.. Until its final destination and delivery. This is currently done with certain types of freight and these trucks often have shorter trailers and run them as doubles (one attached to another). Automating this might be a solution. At least for some types of freight.
Battery swapping. The truck drives for a certain range of miles, stops somewhere to have its emptied battery swapped with a full one, and continues. If done in 10-15 minutes and not more than twice a day, this would be realistic under the current trucking paradigm with a driver on board. When automated, the swaps could be as often as you’d like, though each stop means delays in shipment.
Partial electrification. This would be a truck which runs on electricity but has an on-board combustion generator. This is a potential solution, but is not likely to be on Tesla’s agenda.
Another option that should be considered, though it might not be what Tesla fans will want to hear: Musk may be planning on taking a standard semi-truck and automating it. In other words, the Tesla Semi could actually be an automation system, not an actual truck. At least in the beginning. Given the huge amount of technical obstacles, some of which may not be surmountable without combustion, this is a viable guess. At least for OTR trucks.
Any of these ideas or a combination are realistic for a Tesla Semi strategy in regards to OTR trucks. There are no shortage of plans (grandiose and otherwise) for transforming the trucking industry via electrification. Seeing Teslas will at least be interesting.
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.
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.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“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.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
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.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
