Towing has become the battle cry against electric trucks, but is this issue as pertinent as it sounds?
With the release of electric trucks to the market (Rivian R1T, Hummer EV, F-150 Lighting), towing, in particular, has become the albatross around the necks of EV truck manufacturers. Is the issue accurately portrayed by angry Facebook commenters, journalists, and YouTubers alike? I’ll give you one guess.
To start, electric trucks offer an amazing set of benefits to recreational and commercial consumers alike. They offer supercar-like specifications, they offer new use cases to a utilitarian and active market segment, and they do both of these things while remaining cheap to operate. Yet, despite these advantages, there is no denying that EVs face a set of new and daunting challenges regarding towing.
First of all, towing is very energy intensive. There is a reason an MPG estimate isn’t placed on the window tag of a new F250, RAM2500, or Silverado 2500. Not only is the vehicle tasked with overcoming an added thousand pounds or more, but it must do so while also battling increased air resistance. EVs are not unique in this aspect, but they must also deal with both limited charging infrastructure in many rural areas, as well as decreased range compared to gas and diesel alternatives. Compounding this issue, available chargers are often not designed for trailer-mounted vehicles, sometimes forcing the driver to detach the trailer, charge, and reattach, a task not required for ICE-powered counterparts. This combined set of problems can mean that some areas of the country are unreachable by electric towing vehicles.
Rivian R1T’s first real-world towing test shows 62% range loss
Even electric truck manufacturers are acknowledging these issues. On Ford’s most recent earnings call, the company stated that they would continue to sell and develop new gas and diesel Super Duty vehicles; the vehicles often tasked with towing the largest trailers, boats, and the like.
The Fast Lane Truck did a fantastic video covering these exact issues with an F-150 Lightning, a test where they were only able to achieve a range of close to 100 miles and were not able to reach their intended destination due to lack of charging infrastructure.
However, and this is an important question, how important is this problem? This is not to say that people should not have the ability to tow, but perhaps towing can be more accurately placed on their list of needs/wants when deciding on a vehicle to own.
To start, according to a poll of 250,000 full-size truck owners conducted by Strategic Vision, only 75% of owners towed between 0 and 1 time per year, with only the remaining 25% towing more frequently than once per year. And while mileage and towing weight were not included in the poll, it seems as though there may be a vast contingent of truck owners who don’t tow at all.
Furthermore, there are many use cases of towing that would involve traveling less than 100miles; local carpenters and construction workers moving within city limits, a truck towing an incapacitated vehicle to the closest repair shop, or even people towing their boats to the local lake or waterway. These use cases would not only fit even the limited range of 100 miles, but each could find many benefits from unique features such as onboard generators offered on many electric trucks, running power tools, running appliances, etc.
Overall, consumers should be more mindful of their actual needs and more carefully weigh the countless benefits offered by new electric offerings. For many, the conclusion may be that they still need the range and capability of an ICE truck to best suit their leisure activities and/or their livelihoods, but to say that this group is more than a minority is, at least somewhat, a fallacy. For manufacturers and infrastructure planners, this should be a wake-up call; there is a contingent of people who, despite the amazing advances of EV technology, are unable to use them to achieve certain tasks. These should be some of the first things addressed in efforts to expand EV adoption.
What do you think of the article? Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns? Shoot me an email at william@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @WilliamWritin. If you have news tips, email us at tips@teslarati.com!
News
Tesla Cybertruck explosion probe ends with federal involvement and new questions
The 78-page document detailed a planned attack by former Green Beret Matthew Livelsberger, who died by suicide before the blast that injured six people.
														The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) has released its final investigative report into the New Year’s Day Cybertruck explosion outside the Trump International Hotel. But instead of bringing clarity, the findings have only raised more questions.
The 78-page document detailed a planned attack by former Green Beret Matthew Livelsberger, who died by suicide before the blast that injured six people.
The perpetrator’s manifesto
According to a Fox News report, Livelsberger rented the all-electric pickup through Turo while on leave from his Special Forces unit. He filled the rented Cybertruck with fireworks, gas cans, and camping fuel before driving it to the hotel shortly after 8:40 a.m. on January 1. Surveillance footage showed him pouring accelerant into the truck bed moments before detonation, confirming premeditation.
Authorities have stated that Livelsberger left a manifesto on his phone, later classified by the Department of War, prompting the case’s handover to federal authorities. The report described the incident as a “vehicle-borne improvised explosive device” (VBIED) attack “with the potential to cause mass casualties and extensive structural damage,” though officials stopped short of labeling it terrorism.
In digital notes, Livelsberger wrote that his act was not terror-related but intended as “a wake-up call,” criticizing what he called America’s “feckless leadership.” He wrote, “Americans only pay attention to spectacles and violence. What better way to get my point across than a stunt with fireworks and explosives.”
The incident ironically showcased the Cybertruck’s durability
Tesla CEO Elon Musk was among the first to respond publicly after the blast, confirming through X that the company’s senior team was investigating the incident. He later stated that vehicle telemetry showed no malfunction and that the explosion was caused by “very large fireworks and/or a bomb” placed in the Cybertruck’s bed.
Ironically, footage of the incident in the Cybertruck’s bed showed that the vehicle’s durable construction actually helped contain the explosion by directing the blast upwards. The bed remained largely intact after the explosion as well. Even more surprisingly, the Cybertruck’s battery did not catch fire despite the blast.
Months later, the same Cybertruck appeared on the online auction platform IAA, marked as “not ready for sale.” The listing has stirred debate among Tesla fans about why the historic vehicle wasn’t reclaimed by the company. The vehicle, after all, could serve as a symbol of the Cybertruck’s resilience, even in extreme circumstances.
Elon Musk
Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund votes against Elon Musk’s 2025 performance award
The fund is managed by Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), and it holds a 1.14% stake in Tesla valued at about $11.6 billion.
														Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund has voted against Elon Musk’s 2025 performance award, which will be ultimately decided at Tesla’s upcoming annual shareholder meeting.
The fund is managed by Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), and it holds a 1.14% stake in Tesla valued at about $11.6 billion.
NBIM’s opposition
NBIM confirmed it had already cast its vote against Musk’s pay package, citing concerns over its total size, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk, as noted in a CNBC report. The fund acknowledged Musk’s leadership of the EV maker, and it stated that it will continue to seek dialogue with Tesla about its concerns.
“While we appreciate the significant value created under Mr. Musk’s visionary role, we are concerned about the total size of the award, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk- consistent with our views on executive compensation. We will continue to seek constructive dialogue with Tesla on this and other topics,” NBIM noted.
The upcoming Tesla annual shareholder meeting will decide whether Musk should receive his proposed 2025 performance award, which would grant him large stock options over the next decade if Tesla hits several ambitious milestones, such as a market cap of $8.5 trillion. The 2025 performance award will also increase Musk’s stake in Tesla to 25%.
Elon Musk and NBIM
Elon Musk’s proposed 2025 CEO performance award has proven polarizing, with large investors split on whether the executive should be given a pay package that, if fully completed, would make him a trillionaire.
Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis have recommended that shareholders vote against the deal, and initiatives such as the “Take Back Tesla” campaign have rallied investors to oppose the proposed performance award. On the other hand, other large investors such as ARK Invest and the State Board of Administration of Florida (SBA) have urged shareholders to approve the compensation plan.
Interestingly enough, this is not the first time that Musk and NBIM have found themselves on opposing sides. Last year, NBIM voted against reinstating Musk’s 2018 performance award, which had already been fully accomplished but was rescinded by a Delaware judge.
Later reports shared text messages between Musk and NBIM Chief Executive Nicolai Tangen, who was inviting the CEO to a dinner in Oslo. Musk declined the invitation, writing, “When I ask you for a favor, which I very rarely do, and you decline, then you should not ask me for one until you’ve done something to make amends. Friends are as friends do.”
Elon Musk
Tesla begins production of new Model Y trim at Giga Berlin
Tesla announced on Monday that its Model Y Standard configuration was officially being built at Giga Berlin, less than one month after the company officially announced the configuration early last month.
														Tesla has begun production of the new Model Y trim at Gigafactory Berlin, the company’s production plant in Germany.
Tesla announced on Monday that its Model Y Standard configuration was officially being built at Giga Berlin, less than one month after the company officially announced the configuration early last month.
On October 7, Tesla announced the launch of the Model 3 and Model Y Standard trim levels, its answer to the call for affordable EVs within its lineup and its response to the loss of the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit.
On October 3, Tesla started production of the vehicles in Germany:
Model Y Standard says „Hello World“ – Production at Giga Berlin has started today! pic.twitter.com/p37JIfJDIB
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) November 3, 2025
The Standard iteration of the Model Y is void of many of the more premium features that are available in the Rear-Wheel-Drive, All-Wheel-Drive, and Performance trims of the vehicle are equipped with.
A few of the features of the Model Y Standard are:
- Single Motor configuration
 - No rear touchscreen
 - Textile seats with vegan leather, instead of all vegan leather
 - 320-mile range
 - No glass roof
 
The launch of the Model Y Standard was truly a move to help Tesla get vehicles into the sub-$40,000 price point, and although many consumers were hoping to see the company get closer to $30,000 with these cars, this is a great starting point.
Deliveries in the United States have already started, and it seems it will be a vehicle that will do one of two things: either push some consumers to finally make the jump to Tesla, or it will give car buyers another reason to buy the Premium trims, as they may feel the lack of features is not a good enough deal.
This is something we saw with the Cybertruck’s Rear-Wheel-Drive configuration, which launched last year and ended up being more of the latter option listed above.
The Tesla Model Y Standard is actually a great deal in Europe
It was only a $10,000 discount from the All-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck, but it also did not have adaptive air suspension, premium interiors, or the powered tonneau cover, which many people felt was too much of a sacrifice.
The Rear-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck was discontinued only a few months later.
It does not seem as if this is the case with the Model Y Standard, which already seems to be an attractive option to some buyers.
- 
																	
										
																			News2 weeks agoTesla updates fans on its plans for the Roadster
 - 
																	
										
																			News2 weeks agoTesla rolled out a new feature with FSD v14 to fix a major complaint
 - 
																	
										
																			Elon Musk2 weeks agoElon Musk hits back at former Tesla employee who disagrees with pay package
 - 
																	
										
																			News2 weeks agoTesla just made Service even easier and more convenient
 - 
																	
										
																			News2 weeks agoTesla Full Self-Driving’s new version officially gets a wider rollout
 - 
																	
										
																			News2 weeks agoTesla makes crazy move to spur short-term demand in the U.S.
 - 
																	
										
																			News2 weeks agoTesla rivals are lagging behind alarmingly in this crucial EV necessity
 - 
																	
										
																			News2 weeks agoTesla Sweden faced with fresh strike from elevator company
 

									
																		
									
									
								