A chairman from China-based battery giant Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Limited (CATL) recently cast doubt on Tesla’s 4680 battery cell, saying that he didn’t think it would be successful in the long run.
In a conversation earlier this year, CATL Chairman Robin Zeng told Elon Musk that the cylindrical 4680 battery “is going to fail and never be successful,” according to a report from Reuters this week. Zeng made the statements to Musk in a meeting with the Tesla CEO on his Beijing visit in April, and the chairman also said that the Tesla CEO was better equipped to handle other technologies than battery cells.
“We had a very big debate, and I showed him,” Zeng said. “He was silent. He doesn’t know how to make a battery. It’s about electrochemistry. He’s good for the chips, the software, the hardware, the mechanical things.”
Tesla working on four dry cathode 4680 battery variants: The Information
Tesla’s 4680 battery cell and CATL licensing
In September, Tesla announced that it had produced its 100 millionth 4680 battery cell at Gigafactory Texas, after reaching 50 million units in June. The company is also in the process of expanding its Gigafactory Nevada to add a dedicated 4680 cell production facility, expected to ramp up to 500 GWh in the long term.
The report also highlights a licensing deal Tesla has with CATL for technology related to producing batteries in Nevada, expected to officially launch in 2025, according to a person with knowledge of the matter who spoke to Reuters under the condition of anonymity.
Zeng on FSD Supervised and Musk’s promise timelines
In addition to discussing battery technology, the chairman said that he and Musk talked about the company’s focus on autonomy, adding that he agrees with Tesla’s overall approach to the topic. Unlike other companies that are developing self-driving systems, Tesla’s Supervised Full Self-Driving (FSD) only utilizes cameras as sensors, rather than using multiple layers of different redundant technologies.
“He’s all in,” Zeng told Reuters regarding Musk and Tesla’s FSD strategy in a statement earlier this month. “I think it’s a good direction.”
Despite his support for the company’s approach to FSD Supervised, Zeng also noted that he thinks Musk tends to set unrealistic timelines for new vehicle technologies, and he even asked the Tesla CEO during the April conversation, saying two-year timelines may as well be “infinity.”
“His problem is overpromising. I talked to him,” the chairman added. “Maybe something needs five years. But he says two years. I definitely asked him why. He told me he wanted to push people.”
Musk has addressed criticisms of his timelines before, pointing to his optimism as a necessary part of his accomplishments.
While certainly not perfect, my batting average for most predictions is quite good.
My schedule optimism, without which I probably wouldn’t even have tried to do many endeavors, gets the best of me sometimes, but I always deliver in the end.— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 30, 2023
“Now, admittedly I’m a little optimistic sometimes,” Musk said during this year’s Annual Shareholders Meeting. “You know, I don’t have a complete lack of self awareness. But if I wasn’t optimistic, this wouldn’t exist this factory wouldn’t exist.”
The CEO later went on to add that he believes he’s been “pathologically optimistic from birth.”
CATL hopes for U.S. factory under Trump
CATL also told Reuters that it would build a U.S. production facility if President-elect Donald Trump would allow it.
“Originally, when we wanted to invest in the U.S., the U.S. government said no,” Zeng said. “For me, I’m really open-minded.”
“I do hope that in the future they are open to investments,” the chairman added.
In August, Trump expressed that he would be open to Chinese companies building factories in the U.S., despite the country’s recent passage of a 100-percent tariff on electric vehicle (EV) imports.
“We’re going to give incentives, and if China and other countries want to come here and sell the cars, they’re going to build plants here, and they’re going to hire our workers,” Trump said in a statement to the publication in August.
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.
CATL’s new LFP cell has 620+ miles of range and ultra-fast charging
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
