News
The ‘Elon Musk Method’ explains Tesla’s runaway success in the EV sector
Over his 16-year tenure at Tesla, Elon Musk went from knowing very little about the automotive business to being the CEO of the world’s most valuable carmaker by market cap. The journey towards Tesla’s current place in the electric vehicle sector, together with the numerous small milestones that the company has achieved over the years, is partly due to Musk’s style. Without the “Elon Musk Method,” Tesla’s successes would likely have been not as notable, and most certainly not as radical.
As noted in a Reuters article, Elon Musk’s record has shown that beyond the rockstar bravado that he displays on social media platforms like Twitter at times, the Tesla CEO is a quick learner who is smart and strategic enough to forge alliances with companies that had tech that Tesla lacked. Musk would then follow this up by hiring the smartest people available in the industry, before powering through boundaries that limited companies that are more risk-averse.
Under Musk’s leadership, Tesla flourished as a vertically-integrated electric car maker. From computers to car seats and now to battery cells, Musk is intent on making Tesla more and more independent. Speaking with the news agency, a former senior executive at Tesla noted that Musk is consistently set on pursuing improvements that would make something better, faster, and cheaper. “Elon doesn’t want any part of his business to be dependent on someone else. And for better or worse – sometimes better, sometimes worse – he thinks he can do it better, faster and cheaper,” the executive said.
According to people familiar with Tesla’s strategy in its early days, Musk has always been looking to learn more about the auto industry. He accomplishes this through several means such as strategic partnerships and aggressive talent recruitment. Back then, the goal of Tesla was reportedly to create a digital version of Ford’s iron-ore-to-Model-A production system, which was developed in the late 1920s. Former Tesla supply chain executive Tom Wessner noted that during these times, “Elon thought he could improve on everything the suppliers did – everything. He wanted to make everything.”
Among these components, of course, were the battery cells that are used for Tesla’s electric cars. Musk’s subordinates have reportedly argued against the idea of developing proprietary battery cells, but the CEO has been adamant about his goal. A former Tesla veteran who spoke to Reuters added that such a reaction from Musk is well within character. “Tell him ‘No’ and then he really wants to do it,” the veteran said. This is something that has happened in the past, as Musk was reportedly looking into battery cell manufacturing since 2011, well before going into a close partnership with Panasonic in 2013.
Tesla’s relationship with Panasonic could be described as a roller coaster ride. Tesla’s demands during the Model 3 ramp appeared to have strained the capabilities of its Japanese partner, and last year, reports emerged alleging that the two companies were growing apart. Yet even with the upcoming debut of Tesla’s Roadrunner cells, Panasonic maintains that it has a strong relationship with Tesla. “There has been no change in our relationship with Tesla. Our relationship, both past and present has been sound. Panasonic is not a supplier to Tesla; we are partners. There’s no doubt our partnership will continue to innovate and contribute to the betterment of society,” a Panasonic spokesperson stated.
It appears that Tesla’s long partnership with Panasonic is part of the building blocks of the Roadrunner project. True to form, Musk likely used the knowledge he learned from the veteran Japanese firm to help create an in-house battery cell production line that could be perfectly designed for Tesla’s electric vehicles and energy products. This, in a way, echoes much of Tesla’s development alliance with Daimler in the past. Daimler was an early investor in Tesla, and during the time, Musk reportedly became very interested in sensors that could help keep cars within lane lines. As noted by a senior Daimler engineer, the Tesla Model S lacked the necessary cameras and driver-assistance sensors to match the flagship features of the Mercedes-Benz S-Class then. Musk and the Tesla team then went to work, and the result was history.
“He learned about that and took it a step further. We asked our engineers to shoot for the moon. He went straight for Mars,” the Daimler executive said.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
