News
“Boring” EQC fails to provide Mercedes-Benz with EV momentum
The Mercedes-Benz EQC was supposed to be the German automaker’s answer to Tesla’s emergence as the dominant force in electric transportation. After an introduction that could only be described as a disappointment, Mercedes’ parent company Daimler’s Shareholder meeting on Wednesday revealed how some investors felt about the EQC’s underwhelming performance.
“Too late, too expensive, and too boring,” Speich said about the EQC, which has had less-than-desirable sales figures, according to the German Federal Motor Transport Authority.
In 2019, only 397 units of the EQC were sold, and as of May 28, 2020, an additional 276 have been sold. The combination of these two figures is indicative of less than 700 units sold since the vehicle’s launch in late 2019.
2019 was a rough year for Daimler, and the EQC undoubtedly contributed to the struggles the automaker felt over the previous twelve months. Deka Investment, which holds about 5.4 million shares of Daimler stock, was vocal when the EQC came to light during the Shareholder meeting.
The all-electric EQC was released last year, and Deka’s Head of Sustainability and Corporate Governance Ingo Speich had prepared remarks that broke down the disappointing performance of the car, Yahoo reported.
Not all is bad for Mercedes-Benz, though. The company’s deliveries in China climbed to a record in Q2 2020, and truck and global car sales rose in June compared to the same month in 2019. The company did state that it will not turn a profit in the quarter due to the coronavirus, which halted the automaker’s momentum that included a plan to implement “thousands” of efficiency measures, according to Daimler CEO Ola Kallenius.
“Our previous efficiency goals covered the upcoming transformation, but not a global recession,” Kallenius said. “Daimler can do better, and we are determined to deliver.”
Mercedes will unveil the compact EQA electric car later this year, Kallenius said. The luxury car company will also offer five electric models and more than 20 plug-in hybrids by the end of the year. The push toward electrification is geared toward meeting strict European emissions rules in 2020 and 2021. Kallenius stated that reaching the CO2 limits will be “challenging.”
Daimler shares have declined by 24% so far in 2020, giving the company a market cap of €40 billion, or $45.3 billion. This figure is less than 20% of Tesla’s $257.26 billion market cap.
Daimler also announced a restructuring plan in November that foresaw the elimination of more than 10,000 jobs worldwide. The move will save the company €1.4 billion, or $1.58 billion in personnel spending by 2022.
Although the EQC did not live up to the hype that Mercedes-Benz expected, there is still hope. With the German automaker planning to produce several more fully-electric models and a broad spectrum of hybrid vehicles in the future, the push toward a sustainable fleet is still within reason. Mercedes has a long history of manufacturing luxury automobiles, and shifting to electric transportation presents a variety of exciting challenges that have stumped some of the biggest car companies in the world, like Volkswagen.
There is room for improvement, but the EQC is not necessarily an indicator of what Mercedes-Benz has to offer. The company must learn from the underwhelming performance of the EQC and push for the development of more advanced EV technologies for its future models.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
