Tesla: Weekly Summary (September 22-28, 2025)

This week’s Tesla talk felt like two radio stations playing at the same time. One is hype and money, turned all the way up. The other is safety and reality, kind of crackly but persistent. I would describe them as two sides of the same coin you find under the couch—shiny on one face, scuffed on the other, and you keep flipping it because you’re not sure which side is heads.

The pump before the vote: money moves, big promises, and an old-fashioned stall

Motorhead frames the week like a warm-up act before a big box-office opening. To me, it feels like Tesla is doing a pep rally ahead of that November 6th shareholders meeting. The notes are loud: a fresh $1 billion share buy by Musk, a push to float a $1 trillion pay package, and this striking idea of Tesla investing in Musk’s separate AI startup. I’d say those three together are like bright neon over a small diner—eye-catching, but you’re still guessing about the menu.

The post digs into the DMV lawsuit over Autopilot and Full Self-Driving advertising. The way it’s sketched, the DMV is questioning Tesla’s claims—saying the marketing doesn’t match the tech. That’s not a small scuffle. If the DMV rules against Tesla, the consequences could spread past California. The author hints at tactics to delay the outcome, which, hey, it’s a familiar rhythm. Delay today, adjust tomorrow. That dance has its limits though.

What pulled me in was the sequencing. Turn up the stock before big votes. Frame a narrative. Keep the faithful warm, keep the fence-sitters squinting, keep the critics arguing among themselves. It’s like shuffling your playlist before guests arrive, making sure the bangers hit early. Motorhead doesn’t waste words, and the later bit about the DMV’s potential implications has that quiet alarm bell feeling. Not panic. More like the seatbelt warning that won’t go away.

If you want the full recipe—the ingredients, the timeline, the governance angle—go read the piece. It’s more layered than it sounds in one breath.

The crash that deflated a road-trip fantasy

On a different frequency, Davi Ottenheimer writes about a Tesla Model Y attempt to drive “cross country” on FSD, which ended up crashing in the first 60 miles. Two shareholders were doing the trip. The vibe is less about schadenfreude and more about pattern recognition. I’d describe it as someone tapping the brakes on a downhill grade.

The critique is straight. The author doesn’t buy the idea that FSD is ready for what it says it’s ready for. The blind faith line hits. It’s rough to read if you’re a believer, but the point stands: if the tech can’t handle early real-world miles without human save after human save, then there’s a big gap between demo reels and the street. This isn’t doom-saying. It’s like noticing your smoke alarm chirps on batteries that were supposed to last a year. Chirp once, shrug. Chirp twice, you start doing math.

There’s also something here about language. Words like “Full Self-Driving” promise a lot. Promise more than it’s delivering on days like that one. I’d say names matter. They set expectations. And when expectations meet a ditch on the side of the road—yeah, folks get loud.

The piece is short but spicy. If that kind of tech skepticism sparks your brain, it’s worth a click. The author doesn’t meander, and it lands.

Can cars be fully self-driving? Or are we chasing a magic trick?

Dan Bulwinkle goes bigger. Less about one crash, more about the math and the mess of autonomy in the wild. The main idea: the world is too unpredictable for “full” autonomy without something close to sentience. The post leans hard into redundancy—cameras plus Lidar, not cameras only. And it calls out how verification in software becomes a monster at scale, because edge cases multiply like rabbits.

To me, it feels like this piece is the kitchen table version of a grad seminar. But clear. Not fancy. The line about needing redundant sensors for high-stakes situations resonates. Pilots use multiple instruments. Nuclear plants use layers and layers. Cars moving at highway speeds through construction zones and sun glare and weird human behavior might want more than one type of “eye.”

The author suggests we aim for something less grand but actually useful: a system of partially self-driving cars that talk to each other and improve safety. I like that framing. It’s like saying, don’t build a robot that can cook Thanksgiving dinner and wash the dishes while cracking jokes—just build a tool that chops onions without cutting fingers, every time. No ego. Just help.

The critique of Tesla’s camera-heavy approach isn’t a cheap shot. It’s a view grounded in how safety systems work outside of Silicon Valley marketing decks. I’d call it practical. And it connects back to Davi Ottenheimer in a straight line. If the naming overpromises, and the sensor stack underdelivers, then software verification becomes a house cat trying to fight a mountain lion.

The post also hints at something we keep avoiding: if full autonomy needs something close to sentience, then we probably need to stop acting like it’s just one more point release away. That’s not quitting. That’s changing the frame so drivers and regulators and neighbors aren’t guinea pigs. The piece is a nice slow read. You’ll walk away nodding a little.

Hardware gets a protein shake: V4 Supercharging finally looks like a real step

Now the other track: infrastructure flexing. Tom Moloughney reports the first “true” V4 Supercharger site going up in Campbell, California. Sixteen stalls. Peak power 500 kW. A power electronics cabinet at 1.2 megawatts. Dynamic power sharing across up to eight stalls.

I’d say that sounds like bigger pipes and a better valve. When fast charging turns into a waiting game, those numbers hit like relief. It even feels like a bit of catch-up with other networks in sheer voltage and power. There’s also a note about these being available for third-party businesses. That’s a telling detail. Feels like a pivot from “Tesla-only clubhouse” to “we built the interstate, come drive on it.”

What stands out is the pairing: on one side, headlines about FSD fumbles; on the other, hardware that just gets beefier. Simple story: the charging is getting taller, stronger, faster. You plug in, numbers go up, you leave. The nuance—thermal management, cable thickness, load balancing—makes a difference, but you don’t need to read a manual to feel the upside.

If you’ve ever stood at a 150 kW charger watching someone else hog the good bay, this dynamic allocation note hits a nerve. It’s like walking into a BBQ line that actually moves briskly, no pun intended. The piece is practical and upbeat without overselling. Worth a look if infrastructure makes you geek out a little.

A roadside wink: Tesla appears on a highway sign, right next to gas

Tom Moloughney doubles back later in the week with a different slice: Tesla’s first highway sign showing Supercharging alongside the usual fuel logos. It’s at Exit 155 on I-10 in Tempe, Arizona. Small thing? Not really. I would describe it as a nudge aimed at people who never open charging apps, never read EV blogs, and still say “what if I run out?” like it’s the boogeyman.

Tesla’s charging network is now open to all EVs. That’s a quiet but huge point. With a simple sign, the network steps out of the app and into regular life. You see it from the interstate the same way you see Shell or Chevron. Suddenly the question isn’t “where do I charge?” It’s “do we stop at Exit 155 or 157?” That’s regular car talk. That matters.

Max de Zegher, who runs charging for Tesla in North America, says the sign helps with range anxiety. Yep. Sometimes the simplest fix is a sign. Leave the glossy ads. Put the logo where grandma and tia and your neighbor from the softball league can see it at 70 miles per hour. It shifts EVs from tech news to road-trip culture, from Silicon Valley to the Sunday drive.

I’d say this also echoes the V4 story. Infrastructure further into the mainstream. Charging you can find without an app crash. That’s how you reach the folks who say, “I don’t mind the idea, I just don’t want to guess.” Not fancy, just helpful.

The quiet business line that’s suddenly loud: Tesla Energy vs BYD’s shadow

Will Lockett goes to the other ledger. Tesla’s car business stumbling—sales down, stock feeling wobbly—but the energy storage unit is having a moment. Grid-scale batteries up over 67% in 2025. The Megapack 3 gets praise: LFP chemistry, cost efficiency, longevity. It reads like the part of a high school team that doesn’t get cheerleaders but wins the game anyway.

Here’s the rub. BYD’s HaoHan system is moving into the same space. I’d describe it as a train coming down the parallel track. You can hear it, even if you don’t see it yet. If BYD undercuts on price or matches performance or both, Tesla’s only growth engine risks getting crowded.

What’s interesting is how different this thread sounds. No charisma talk. No viral clips. Just utility-scale projects, purchase orders, and spreadsheets. Energy storage is boring in the best way. You stack big boxes, wire them right, and stabilize the grid. It’s like pantry staples—beans, rice, olive oil. Unsexy, essential.

Will Lockett frames it as “this could wipe out the only growth” if competition bites. That’s strong language but it feels earned. Energy storage doesn’t get a lot of margin for error. If your competitor shows up with similar specs and a lower quote, the spreadsheet wins. And when the spreadsheet wins, the stock market usually finds out later, not sooner.

If this angle is new to you—if Tesla to you means cars and memes—go read it. The post spells out why Megapack 3 is compelling and why BYD is an actual rival, not just a headline from far away.

A pattern you can’t ignore: regulatory heat vs brand heat

This week repeats an odd rhythm. You get the big-ticket news tied to a shareholder vote and patrol cars of legal issues circling the block. Then you also get road-level stories where the brand jumps from app screens to asphalt—charging yards getting stronger, signage going up at a normal interstate exit where folks grab burritos.

The DMV case Motorhead flagged isn’t some shrug. If marketing meets a legal wall, you can’t out-influence that with tweets or a stock surge. You need proof in the drive logs and the crash reports. And that circles back to Davi Ottenheimer and the early crash. Sticky naming, slippery performance—that gap invites regulators to write in thick pens.

But there’s a twist. The charging network moves the opposite direction. It doesn’t need a perfect slogan. It just needs to be open, fast, and where people already look. Tom Moloughney shows the physical world getting friendlier to EVs. It’s a blue-collar kind of progress. Bolts turned, signs mounted, cabinets humming.

So the vibe is split-screen: software autonomy overpromising vs. hardware infrastructure overdelivering. I’d say it’s like having a flashy quarterback who keeps throwing picks while the offensive line gets stronger and stronger. Fans yell at the QB. The line keeps blocking anyway.

Sensor arguments and investor arguments, same kitchen different stovetop

Dan Bulwinkle underlines the sensor redundancy debate. Even if you don’t love Lidar, the point is redundancy. Two sets of eyes will save you when one gets blinded by glare. It’s common sense. And when the author says real-world environments are unpredictable, it connects to those investor conversations Motorhead points to. Investors don’t like unpredictability either. That’s why the stock gets “pumped” before a vote—try to massage the uncertainty.

In both arenas, the cheat code is the same: lower variance. In driving, you add sensors, better maps, better QA. In money land, you add steady financials, fewer legal curveballs, clear governance. The week showed the opposite. Risky marketing language creates variance on the road. Bold pay packages and cross-company proposals create variance in the boardroom. Folks can squint their way through one kind of variance, maybe. Both together? That’s a lot of squinting.

The ground game is where EV adoption really moves

One thing the charging posts made clear is the “normie” factor. The sign on I-10 in Tempe puts EV charging in the same mental bucket as burgers, gas, and restrooms. I’d say that’s how you win the suburbs. You don’t argue threads online about kilowatts. You put a sign up where the Little League parents are already driving.

And the V4 station plans in Campbell have that “first of many” vibe. 500 kW peak per stall is big talk, sure, but what matters for regular drivers is how dynamic power sharing reduces weird bottlenecks. Think of it like a bank with more tellers, but also smarter tellers who move you to the quick window when you only need cash. People feel that improvement in their bones, not in a spec sheet.

This is where Tesla has always had a hand up: the network. If it’s open to all EVs and if it grows with this kind of power and signage, that shifts adoption faster than fancy commercials. And it also softens the blow if car sales sputter. The charging network starts to look like a business line of its own, even if that’s not how Tesla pitches it day to day.

Energy storage isn’t a side quest, it’s the other main quest

The energy story Will Lockett tells is almost old-school Buffett. Sell boring, make money, repeat. LFP batteries with good longevity and cost curves sound like a farmer’s recipe, not a tech guru’s. That’s fine by me. Utilities and grid operators want predictable performance. They also want competition so they can bid down prices.

BYD walking into the ring makes that second part very real. You don’t need brand sizzle to beat a quote. You need a supply chain that hits every checkpoint. The question that hangs in the air is whether Tesla’s energy unit is set up to compete on that boring turf day after day, or whether it gets overshadowed by the social-media thunder from the car side.

I’d say the week hints at a bigger pivot point. If the cars stumble and the grid boxes fly, which identity does the company choose to show first? The public face? Or the profitable face? Those two don’t always sit together nicely.

Language around autonomy still trips people up

Reading Davi Ottenheimer next to Dan Bulwinkle underlines a straightforward idea: stop saying “full” if it ain’t full. People take words seriously when it’s their kids in the back seat. The stories about cross-country dreams keep colliding with real-world miles and construction cones. The car can be amazing on a clear day and still not ready for the dark-snowstorm-weird-turn lane.

You see this in the regulatory angle Motorhead lays out too. If regulators hear “full” and see “partial,” they sharpen pencils. It’s normal. It’s not anti-innovation. It’s plain sense. And the fastest path through that thicket isn’t a court move or a PR gloss. It’s renaming things to match what they do, then improving them, then renaming them again when they grow up. Like how “assisted cruise” turned into “adaptive cruise control.” Simple and boring. And accurate.

Threads to pull if you’re watching the next few weeks

• The November 6th vote is a big calendar block. The stock story, the pay package story, the AI-startup tie-in—all of it funnels there. If you like governance puzzles, Motorhead is the one to follow.
• The DMV case matters because language matters. If the ruling lands in a sharp way, marketing and labeling could change day to day. It won’t stop development. It will change how it’s sold. Keep a tab on that thread.
• Any more road-trip attempts using FSD become litmus tests, fair or not. Crashes shake belief. Clean runs build it. Davi Ottenheimer will likely keep flagging the misses.
• On the hardware side, more V4 construction reports will tell you how quickly the ground is moving. Tom Moloughney has an eye for the practical stuff—stalls, cabinets, power sharing, availability to non-Tesla drivers.
• Energy storage will draw out more BYD comparisons. Specs vs cost. Delivery times vs scale. Will Lockett is watching that scoreboard.

I’d say this week felt like a midwestern fall game day. The wind’s up. The band’s loud. The quarterback made a goofy decision. But the O-line looked strong and the defense got a pick. Folks in the stands argue whether the team is “back” or “done,” but the scoreboard’s not final. You can like parts and not like parts. That’s okay.

If your lean is toward governance and strategy, Motorhead has the sharper knives out. If you’re tired of big claims and want the receipts, Davi Ottenheimer keeps the receipts. If you want to understand why “full autonomy” might be a mirage worth replacing with safer, smaller steps, Dan Bulwinkle walks you through that. And if you enjoy the nuts and bolts—the chargers you can actually use, the signs you can actually see—then Tom Moloughney gives you the useful bits. For the quiet money-maker with a looming rival, Will Lockett sketches the field in plain terms.

Some weeks in Tesla-land are memes and moonshots. This one felt more like plumbing. Where do the wires go? Who’s paying whom? Which words on the box match what’s inside? Less fireworks, more fuse box. I’d take that trade, to be honest. The fuse box is what keeps the lights on.

The part that stuck with me, weirdly, is that highway sign in Tempe. You’re driving, it’s hot, the AC’s doing its best, and there it is: Tesla right next to gas, like it’s no big deal. You pick the exit. You stretch your legs. You don’t have to prove a point to anyone. That’s where adoption lives. Not in speeches, not in courtrooms, and not in showy demos. Just easy decisions in the middle of a drive.

So yeah, this week I’d describe as a tug-of-war between promise and practice. The practice won a few rounds. The promise burned bright anyway. If that tension makes you curious, the linked authors dig deeper and sharper than I can in a single pass. Grab a coffee, click through, and see which arguments stick to your ribs like good chili.