News
Opinion: Where would Herbert Diess fit best (hypothetically)?
Herbert Diess is officially no longer a Volkswagen employee, effective Wednesday. The seven-year reign as CEO and Chairman of the Board of Management came to somewhat of an abrupt end after Diess and VW decided to part ways at the end of August.
“These were the most rewarding seven years of my career. The future of our industry can be brilliant, but we have to change fast. Volkswagen has already changed tremendously and is well underway,” Diess said. “We have transformed the company that was seen as an autocratic cheat into a global thought leader in clean mobility.”
Herbert Diess bids farewell to Volkswagen on his final day as CEO
Diess’s future remains in question, and while retirement is the likely option, there are several routes that he could potentially go, barring any stipulation in his contract that would eliminate the possibility of working for a competitor. While it is a long shot, Diess has three main automakers he would likely benefit from almost immediately, making an impact on several companies as his proven track record speaks for itself.
Tesla
(Credit: Herbert Diess/LinkedIn)
While I have already been in numerous discussions with various people about this possibility, and even though it seems unlikely, the first company that Diess would benefit is Tesla. Not only does Diess share a friendship with Elon Musk, but he could also benefit Tesla’s European business with additional expertise on the market. VW has performed very well in Europe in terms of EVs, and helping Tesla expand its operations throughout the continent would likely be a huge advantage for the company.
Tesla undoubtedly has a bright future in Europe, but Volkswagen currently holds the EV title there. The AG owned 1/4 of the European plug-in market in 2021, according to CleanTechnica data.
Toyota
I believe Diess has the track record to be a considerable ally to Toyota. Why? Toyota and VW have a lot of parallels, and Diess would likely navigate through them with considerable success.
Toyota is the world’s largest automotive manufacturer by volume, and it has been for some time. The last time a major automotive manufacturer outproduced Toyota was when GM built nearly 1M cars more than the Japanese company in 2011. Even VW finished ahead of Toyota in terms of production that year, but it has been a masterclass in production ever since.
Credit: Toyota
Volume is not the only way the two companies are somewhat similar. EV development is also somewhat of a parallel. VW has coming out of the Dieselgate crisis and had to make major waves to regain consumer trust. Diess knew this, and pushed incredibly hard for several years to help VW reinvent its reputation as a sustainable company. Toyota really needs the same thing.
Although it isn’t going thru an emissions scandal, Toyota has basically half-committed to EVs, aiming to go toward hydrogen and hybrid vehicles instead. It is not to say that the company hasn’t contributed to sustainability in other ways: the Toyota Prius was a huge step forward in sustainable transport. Evolution needs to continue, however, and it is time for Toyota to really begin developing some high-tech EVs. They’re falling behind, and Diess, with his experience in high-volume companies and sluggish EV plans, is a good fit.
General Motors
GM would also be a good fit for Diess simply because of his push and determination to transition a company quickly. GM is honestly a company that has so much potential, but it feels like they’re falling just short of the mark in so many areas. The Bolt has plagued GM with bad advertising for several years, the HUMMER EV is having more issues than what were anticipated, and the company’s plans for electrification seem to be one drastic announcement followed by silence and promises that they’ll one day overtake Tesla.
While Tesla dominates the industry now, it will eventually take a few decades for others to catch up, and they likely will. However, Tesla is establishing itself as the leader and it is no secret. It is going to take a long time to figure out the tech and the manufacturing and the supply chain.
The first 2022 GMC HUMMER EV Pickup Edition 1 exits Factory ZERO in Detroit and Hamtramck, Michigan. VIN 001 was auctioned in March 2021 at the Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale auction for $2.5 million to benefit the Tunnel to Towers Foundation. (Photo by Jeffrey Sauger for General Motors)
GM will likely catch up to Tesla, but it won’t be in the 2020s or 2030s. They’ll all even out, just as the market is now. A lot of car companies do a lot of business, and it’s only a matter of time before other companies begin to figure things out.
GM will absolutely be a true player in the EV industry, and it’s just going to take some time. This is where I feel Diess would be a considerable asset to GM, simply because he emphasized on accelerating VW’s transition to sustainable energy. The goals of 2035 or more were simply not going to work. Things needed to be figured out now, and the goal is to establish yourself as an early player in the disruption of a sector. VW has done that thanks to Diess, GM has announced more (at least to me) but accomplished considerably less.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
