Connect with us

News

No, Elon Musk did not “launch new attack” GM or President Biden.

Credit: Tesla/YouTube

Published

on

No, Elon Musk did not “launch new attack” on General Motors (GM) or President Biden yesterday, as The Street recently reported. I thought I would clear this up here since it was my own tweet and Elon Musk’s response to my tweet might have somehow gotten misinterpreted.

According to the article, “Tesla’s CEO is resentful and never misses an opportunity to attack Detroit auto giant GM.”

The article also said that Elon Musk doesn’t want to promote the brands of his rivals and that GM is his favorite target. It, in my opinion, painted GM as the victim and Elon Musk as a bully. So I’d like to clear up some things and share what actually happened.

Elon Musk Didn’t “Launch New Attack” On Anyone

Yesterday, I shared a tweet by Sawyer Merrit with my own comment. I tagged both President Biden and Elon Musk. You can see the tweet below. This was and still is my opinion on GM’s decision to invest $1 billion into Mexico for an EV factory instead of investing those funds into American jobs.

Advertisement
-

As you can see for yourself, Elon Musk did not mention GM or President Biden. He mentioned Tesla and his reference was to Tesla being named the most American-made car by Cars.com.

GM’s Commitment To Mexico

I shared my thoughts about GM’s move to invest $1 billion in Mexico for an EV plant in this article. And there’s more. GM shared a statement on its Mexico media site where the company’s President and CEO, Francisco Garza said (translated by Google into English):

“We are very proud to contribute to the materialization of GM’s Vision of Zero Collisions, Zero Emissions, Zero Congestion, contributing to the manufacture of electric vehicles.”

“We trust that the necessary economic conditions will be met so that eventually the Complex can increase the workforce for one more shift in some operations. We are grateful to the Federal Government and the Government of Coahuila for promoting this investment. This is great news to continue celebrating GM’s more than 85 years in Mexico and show our commitment to the country.”

American Jobs Vs Mexican Jobs

It seems that my theory in the tweet that Elon Musk responded to could be correct. I saw this earlier this morning.:

@WholeMarsBlog shared screenshots of the salaries at the GM plant in Mexico where the new Chevy Blazer EV will be made. The starting pay for Operations is MX$91,950 per year which translates to $4,475.78  per year. There are other salaries with similarly low numbers.

In comparison, GlassDoor shows that technician salaries at GM average out at $63,166 annually. So,  it seems that GM will be saving some serious money by outsourcing some of these jobs to Mexico.

My 2.5¢

Clearly, GM is trying to save money. And GM CEO, Mary Barra,  recently expressed her confidence that GM can beat Tesla. You can draw your own conclusions from these two scenarios.

I do think that using Elon Musk to paint GM as a victim while downplaying its decision to make its Chevy Blazer EV in Mexico instead of the U.S. is really shady. And using my own tweet to do so as well. No, Elon Musk didn’t “launch new attack” on President Biden or GM. No one attacked them.

I just shared my own opinion on the matter and he pointed out which brand was the most American-made car.

Advertisement
-

Johnna Crider is a Baton Rouge writer covering Tesla, Elon Musk, EVs, and clean energy & supports Tesla's mission. Johnna also interviewed Elon Musk and you can listen here

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know

Published

on

Credit: KTVU

A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.

The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.

There were no injuries reported.

Advertisement
-

The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.

However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.

At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.

The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.

Advertisement
-

The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.

An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s ‘Emergency Drive Away’ function gets its first use in the real world

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.

A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.

“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”

Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.

Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.

Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:

  • You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
  • You must leave the area immediately.
  • Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
  • Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.

After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s Cybercab battery design could make robotaxis even cheaper

Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with spare room for a future switch to LFP.

Published

on

By

Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with empty space inside it on purpose, and the reason points to a cheaper robotaxi down the road.

Robert Sumpf, Tesla’s director of mechanical design engineering for battery modules and packs, said the extra room beside and beneath the Cybercab’s modules was left there so the company can move to lithium iron phosphate cells later. “So, we protected this pack to go to an even lower energy dense chemistry as we scale and need to bring LFP into the platform,” Sumpf said in a Cybercab deep dive with Munro Live.

The Cybercab runs on Tesla’s own 4680 cells with a nickel chemistry today. LFP cells store less energy for their size, so a straight swap would cut range. The reserved space lets Tesla add more LFP cells to make up the difference. In return, Tesla would get cells that cost less, run cooler and survive more charge cycles. LFP became the most used EV battery chemistry in the world last year.

Not all of that room was planned for a chemistry change. Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, said part of it exists because “we didn’t need as many batteries as we thought we did.” Tesla told Sandy Munro in early 2025 that it was targeting a Cybercab pack under 50 kWh with close to 300 miles of range.

The pack also breaks from the structural design Tesla used in some Model Y and Cybertruck builds. Instead of potting hundreds of cells into one block, the Cybercab uses four separate, individually sealed modules, so a bad module can be replaced without scrapping the whole pack. Sumpf was blunt about the older approach, giving the Model Y structural battery “a grade D” because it was hard to build and nearly impossible to repair. He estimated a fully structural pack gains about 10% more cell volume, but said “the issue is the service cost.”

Advertisement
-

That cost matters more for a car that rarely sits parked. Cybercab chief engineer Eric Earley said replacing an entire pack “before half a million miles is a killer on cost,” which is why remanufacturing and serviceability were built into the design from the start.

The same Munro Live tour produced Moravy’s admission that the Cybercab line at Giga Texas is now outpacing Robotaxi deployments, along with a look at the robotaxi’s unorthodox paint process. Tesla is aiming to deliver the first Cybercabs to outside customers by the end of 2026, though Elon Musk has said the vast majority will stay owned by Tesla and run as a transport service.

Sumpf did not give a date for an LFP version, name a cell supplier or say how a chemistry change would affect range. For now, the 4680 cars keep piling up: Texas DMV records from Tuesday list 544 Cybercabs authorized for Tesla’s Robotaxi fleet, more than the 507 Model Ys on the same roster for the first time.

Continue Reading